91 réponses à ce sujet

[FrancisKitt]

He has a husk as his avatar... Telling, no?

[megatron999]

JaegerBane wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...
However, the ecological niche of diseases in every environment is to reduce the population size of animals, preventing overpopulation that would deplete the ecosystem's natural resources.

Unless you're one of those Gaia tree-hugger nutters, no disease on earth exists for the purposes of holding populations in check. They have that effect, yes, but that's not why they're there. They're there because they evolved in an environment favourable to them.

Ultimately, there is no built-in trigger that ensures the Earth's carrying capacity is never exceeded. A sobering thought...

Actually yes there is WAR!!! and natural disaster both of these are commonly caused by over-population of regions and using too much resources.

WW1-2 killed roughly 120,000,000 people
Wars in aFrica/asia killed thousands more

The Asian Tsunami killed 300,000 people
Earthquake in china killed 50,000 people

It would be better for everyone if governments limited people to having no more than three children and just taxed/fined heavily those who refused to obey. At the end of the day the government has to educate/feed/find a job for everyone and this would be an ideal solution.

Or ruthless and evil people might decide it would best to unleashe viruses and commit genocide against undesirable groups e.g the poor and ethnic minorities.

[LordMandalore]

DreamerOfMakeBelieve wrote...

This option came up when speaking to Anderson about Saren. I have to say it makes a good point....if you have to sacrifice a thousand to save a million. Would you?

Or another example is from a movie I saw. The mafia leader asked "if you found out that in order to cure all the diseases there is you had to kill a child, would you kill that child? Saving billions of lives in the process(From future diseases and present ones).

For both scenario's I would. I wouldn't be able to live with myself but i would.

For both scenarios. What would you do?

The real question is: Would you spread all the diseases in the world to save one child?
Or would you sacrifice a thousand orphaned choir children to save one million crack addicted hobos.
The decisions are massive.

[C9316]

LordMandalore wrote...

DreamerOfMakeBelieve wrote...

This option came up when speaking to Anderson about Saren. I have to say it makes a good point....if you have to sacrifice a thousand to save a million. Would you?

Or another example is from a movie I saw. The mafia leader asked "if you found out that in order to cure all the diseases there is you had to kill a child, would you kill that child? Saving billions of lives in the process(From future diseases and present ones).

For both scenario's I would. I wouldn't be able to live with myself but i would.

For both scenarios. What would you do?

The real question is: Would you spread all the diseases in the world to save one child?
Or would you sacrifice a thousand orphaned choir children to save one million crack addicted hobos.
The decisions are massive.

Or would you sacrifice a thousand smart, forward thinking men and women to save a million incompentent wastes of space?

[FuturePasTimeCE]

C9316 wrote...

LordMandalore wrote...

DreamerOfMakeBelieve wrote...

This option came up when speaking to Anderson about Saren. I have to say it makes a good point....if you have to sacrifice a thousand to save a million. Would you?

Or another example is from a movie I saw. The mafia leader asked "if you found out that in order to cure all the diseases there is you had to kill a child, would you kill that child? Saving billions of lives in the process(From future diseases and present ones).

For both scenario's I would. I wouldn't be able to live with myself but i would.

For both scenarios. What would you do?

The real question is: Would you spread all the diseases in the world to save one child?
Or would you sacrifice a thousand orphaned choir children to save one million crack addicted hobos.
The decisions are massive.

Or would you sacrifice a thousand smart, forward thinking men and women to save a million incompentent wastes of space?

I could see if it was a 1000 and more competent worthy crew members on the starship enterprise (who work and each everyday to save humanity in the real world, earth included... ), who're likely more valuable to save (I definitely wouldn't sacrifice any of their lives in that sense)... but a thousand N A Z I's on earth than to save millions and or billions who're not in a starship called the enterprise... my notion is then simple, ***k that immediate pointless non-valuable thousand...

that's like saying would I rather save one ghetto criminal who pretends he's more valuable and that it's okay sacrifice the planet in the process trying not to sacrifice that criminal versus favoring the majority of earth's population instead of sparing that pathetic lowly worthless piece of **** criminal/or a 1000 worthless rats

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 07 juillet 2010 - 08:24 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Could you believe a person who's all about lies and constant bad deals? that's like darth vader saying in order for him to not invade and destroy planets, you must kill luke skywalker, the only person who can stop and kill vader... could you believe or buy into that? that's like darth vader then saying he must kill everyone else onboard spacestations and starships in the future to not invade stuff aswell, to then likely invade **** anyways because he's ****ing darth vader and does what the **** he wants... even lie

[Roninraver]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Could you believe a person who's all about lies and constant bad deals? that's like darth vader saying in order for him to not invade and destroy planets, you must kill luke skywalker, the only person who can stop and kill vader... could you believe or buy into that? that's like darth vader then saying he must kill everyone else onboard spacestations and starships in the future to not invade stuff aswell, to then likely invade **** anyways because he's ****ing darth vader and does what the **** he wants... even lie

This is very similar to something I said on the last page, except your intergalactic badass has an inappropriate first name instead of middle.

That and the video that, while amusing, has approximately not-a-damned-thing to do with the topic at hand.

[kalpain]

The short answer is no.  An immoral act doesn't justify the possibility that maybe something might be better in the future for some random group who may or may not deserve said future.

When it comes to the question of sacrificing a child, Torchwood Children of Earth raised a similar question and handled it brilliantly.

In the ME2 mission where you have to save the population or the spaceport it actually says if you saved the people that you saved thousands (the choice is presented as though you will only save hundreds).

These scenarios always remind me of that scene in Pitch Black where Johns and Riddick are leading the group in the dark to the skiff.  It went something like this...
JOHNS - Six of us left. If we could get through that canyon and lose just one, that'd be quite a ****ing feat, huh? A good thing, right?

RIDDICK - Not if I'm the one.

[Spornicus]

If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs.

[rabidhanar]

Spornicus wrote...

If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs.

most aliens and some krogan do not understand our ways, I believe this human does.

Every military leader knows that any war has casualties, they have to base their decisions on which option will save the most lives. Killing a thosand to save a million is perfectly acceptable, however killing a million to save a thosand is not.

[megatron999]

Your logic is fatally flawed, no one single individual would have to make that decision anyway. Even in the case of nuclear war then the president and his aides must all agree.



War is war and all decisions can have both positive and negative outcomes, In WW1 the allies lost hundreds of thousands of poorly equipped and ill-disciplined troops against the Germans in the battle of the Somme and still won.

[biomag]

If there isn't any reasonable other way to achieve the same result than yes.



Would I change my decision if my family & friends are those who had to die? No. Never demand from others to do things you aren't willing to do yourself.

[The Big Nothing]

I would sacrifice a million to save a thousand.

[inCHAINS]

Depends on who is in the group of thousand and who is in the group of millions.

[Falcon509]

This is something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. You look at the probability of loss of life compared to the known loss of life. For instance:

Take out Balak and lose the hostages or save the hostages and lose Balak. The best choice in my opinion would be to save the hostages. They're the known quantity. It's possible yes that Balak could go off and kill more, but it isn't known for sure. He may get caught next time. Lord knows as well that terrorism is a risky occupation. He'd just as likely get shot in the face next time he tries something.

Killing 1,000 to save 1,000,000... That would be a harder choice. It depends on the situation really. I might risk lives to save people but I wouldn't kill them outright, especially if they're innocent.