Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 05:36:00 -
[31]
Well, fine then, "X years of peace" (where you get to pick how much X is) then all bets are off. _
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 05:46:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 14/11/2010 05:46:03
Originally by: Akita T Well, fine then, "X years of peace" (where you get to pick how much X is) then all bets are off.
lol, ok.
Still go with "a". Less involved the super entity idiot is with humanity, the sooner we'll over take it, hunt it down, and kill it. (yeah, not a sure thing, but its where I place the best odds).
The choice itself warrents as much respect as an act of rrrp.
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 06:00:00 -
[33]
How can you hunt down something humans are not aware even exists, and have no memories of ever interacting with, so no reason to try hunting it anyway even if they did become aware of its existence at some point ? _
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 06:05:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Akita T How can you hunt down something humans are not aware even exists, and have no memories of ever interacting with, so no reason to try hunting it anyway even if they did become aware of its existence at some point ?
Bull****. There is no perfect being; and anything with that amount of power has alot of imperfections to account for. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout Been there. Done that. Need antibiotics.
|
ceaon
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 06:08:00 -
[35]
the options are stupid there are only 2 things that matter in this world "me and myself"
Originally by: CCP Adida The male thread was locked because the discussion turned into transsexuals and man boobs.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 06:43:00 -
[36]
Assuming the person making the choice is secular, then:
The first question a person in this situation would ask themselves would likely be how their choice affects themselves. Obviously in choice a), they along with their extended family would be killed. In choice b), however, 90% of all humans would be murdered, and this 90% includes the person making the choice and the extended family of this person. Probabilistically speaking, this 90% is a very large fraction, so the person making the choice (along with their extended family) is effectively guaranteed to be killed as a result of either choice. One important conclusion can be drawn from this:
The person who is making the choice can remove any consideration of themselves and their family from the decision making process because, regardless of the decision, they are effectively guaranteed to be killed.
The next task at hand would be to consider which decision is the best for humanity. The determination of what is ôbestö must be classified objectively, with comparisons of post-decision outcomes (for example: species-survival-odds, growth potential, populous behavioral impacts, etcà). It would be unlikely that the decision-maker would have the knowledge required to make these decisions, and so it would be necessary for them to get input from outside sources. The ability of the god-like deity to provide ôproofö that this decision process is real could be used to immediately get the assistance of all of the major governments in the world. With collective input, a decision might be reached. There is one caveat to this approach, however, in that those providing the assistance do not risk being murdered if the decision-maker chooses choice a). If truly objective assistance is desired, then the decision-maker would need to lie about the consequences of choice b. Perhaps the decision-maker could lie and say that ôthose who help me make this decision will be sparedö or something to that effect while still maintaining the consequence of 90% of the population being murderedà etc...
Clearly this would not be an easy decision.
My personal 30 minute decision:
I ruled myself and my family out of the decision process.
I viewed option a) as leaving the world as it is, and option b) as changing the world to absolute perfection. Choice a) risks the entire population dying as a result of war, resource deprevation, etcà Choice b) risks turning life for all humans into complete dull existence.
In my personal view, for there to be things to be happy about, there must be things to be sad about. For there to be good, there must be evil. For there to be peace, there must be conflict. etcà In choice b), there would be nothing happy/good/peaceful because there would be nothing sad/evil/conflicting. In my opinion, this is hell; complete dull existence.
I see choosing choice b) as condemning humanity to boredom.
I see choosing choice a) as letting humanity continue to be alive.
MY CHOICE: I chose choice a), because I view life on Earth as heaven in a way. That's my opinion of course.
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 07:09:00 -
[37]
I see no reason why you are calling this killing - for all intents and purposes, they have never existed. Thus, I see no reason not to choose b.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 07:25:00 -
[38]
I'd take option B, with the realisation that within 100 years those that are left will end up being in exactly the same position we are today.
Population growth is not sustainable - eventually the only remaining source of food will be other humans.
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 07:37:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Mara Rinn eventually the only remaining source of food will be other humans
Soylent green is... yummy ? _
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 07:45:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Mara Rinn I'd take option B, with the realisation that within 100 years those that are left will end up being in exactly the same position we are today.
I disagree, on the basis of technological progress. assuming those cherrypicked for the ordeal would have knowledge of genetics etc, crops could be made to sustain a significantly larger population.. Or perhaps expeditions will be sent in giant self sustaining colonyships to other parts of the galaxy. FTL might have been invented, so we could farm other planets. (or terraforming, for the harsher parts of Earth/moon/mars/space)
the OP was left fairly vague on the subject of what can be expected, but im willing to assume great things >.>
|
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 07:46:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Akita T Soylent green is... yummy ?
Soylent green is ... inevitable -- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 07:47:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Lance Fighter the OP was left fairly vague on the subject of what can be expected, but im willing to assume great things >.>
Well, I did include instant upgrades to technology and infrastructure and guaranteed fast technological progress in "option b"...
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 07:48:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Blane Xero on 14/11/2010 07:49:02
Originally by: Lance Fighter the OP was left fairly vague on the subject of what can be expected, but im willing to assume great things >.>
Assuming perfect health, and only dying of old age, we would overpopulate again, far too fast for technology to keep up.
We need war, sickness, grief. It makes us human. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout Been there. Done that. Need antibiotics.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 07:55:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Akita T on 14/11/2010 07:57:32
Originally by: Blane Xero We need war, sickness, grief. It makes us human.
I would certainly hope not, but meh... you might be right.
Originally by: Blane Xero Assuming perfect health, and only dying of old age, we would overpopulate again, far too fast for technology to keep up.
I wouldn't bet on that being a certainty. A lot of people in "first world countries" intentionally keep their family rather small. In fact, quite a few "first world" countries nowadays (most of Europe, actually) have been shrinking in population numbers, and others are only keeping relatively stable due to immigration, in spite of increased life expectancy. It would not be too outrageous to presume that given a state of worldwide prosperity, the human population could actually fluctuate around a relatively stable total instead of increasing exponentially.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 08:07:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Blane Xero Assuming perfect health, and only dying of old age, we would overpopulate again, far too fast for technology to keep up.
I wouldn't bet on that being a certainty. A lot of people in "first world countries" intentionally keep their family rather small. In fact, quite a few "first world" countries nowadays (most of Europe, actually) have been shrinking in population numbers, and others are only keeping relatively stable due to immigration, in spite of increased life expectancy. It would not be too outrageous to presume that given a state of worldwide prosperity, the human population could actually fluctuate around a relatively stable total instead of increasing exponentially.
Remove part of the incentive for a stable population and people will be less inclined to stay small. Give us room and we will fill it. Fueled by the sudden expanse of a planet by "90%", it will spiral out of control.
Technology and Population should always stay at a relative parallel. If either is influenced, and the other remained unchanged, the only thing that can result is bad. Just to varying degrees.
And no, i'm not ripping off Mass Effect 2
_____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout Been there. Done that. Need antibiotics.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 08:10:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Akita T It would not be too outrageous to presume that given a state of worldwide prosperity, the human population could actually fluctuate around a relatively stable total instead of increasing exponentially.
There is a very narrow band between excessive breeding to overcome a high mortality rate, and insufficient breeding due to being distracted by creature comforts and shiny things. On one side of that band we will continue increasing population exponentially, on the other side of the band we have about 90 years left of polluting the Earth with human detritus.
In rich countries we still have poor people who breed simply because they don't know better.
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 08:14:00 -
[47]
alternatively, the random allpowerful entity could impress the need to stay in a relatively stable population count.
*shrug*
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar The Python Cartel. The Jerk Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 08:18:00 -
[48]
Kill 90% of the world! Hell, let's make it 99% because I hate them
Originally by: Xen Gin
Originally by: FOl2TY8
I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence.
Yeah, I use that excuse too.
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 08:33:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Lance Fighter alternatively, the random allpowerful entity could impress the need to stay in a relatively stable population count.
*shrug*
You cannot force so much on us and still say we keep our humanity. If you need to hand-hold us so much in order to keep order in an alternated lifestyle/state, we ARE losing free choice. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout Been there. Done that. Need antibiotics.
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 08:38:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: Lance Fighter alternatively, the random allpowerful entity could impress the need to stay in a relatively stable population count.
*shrug*
You cannot force so much on us and still say we keep our humanity. If you need to hand-hold us so much in order to keep order in an alternated lifestyle/state, we ARE losing free choice.
I disagree. I am of the opinion that any choice we make is backed by memories we have of other things happening.. If it is such influenced that large families/overpopulation/whatever is negative, then people will choose to not have large families etc.
It might be heavily influenced choice, perhaps, but is it far from the truth? overpopulation IS bad, its just not as evident in the short term.
|
|
Florio
Miniature Giant Space Hamsters
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 08:48:00 -
[51]
Option B provides peace, prosperity, health, scientific progress and fecundity. It also provides for the mass murder of 90% of the world's humans.
Do the positive factors listed of Option B really define who we are to the extent that it is worth billions of deaths? Humans don't progress in a straight line, they zig zag forwards, sometimes backwards, fighting and squabbling and learning things the hard way. It's the way we are, the way we become stronger and wiser, and if we leapfrog the journey then at our destination we really won't have arrived anywhere new. So to my mind the positives of Option B are actually negatives without the hard-won journey to achieve them.
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 08:51:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Blane Xero on 14/11/2010 08:51:19
Originally by: Lance Fighter
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: Lance Fighter alternatively, the random allpowerful entity could impress the need to stay in a relatively stable population count.
*shrug*
You cannot force so much on us and still say we keep our humanity. If you need to hand-hold us so much in order to keep order in an alternated lifestyle/state, we ARE losing free choice.
I disagree. I am of the opinion that any choice we make is backed by memories we have of other things happening.. If it is such influenced that large families/overpopulation/whatever is negative, then people will choose to not have large families etc.
It might be heavily influenced choice, perhaps, but is it far from the truth? overpopulation IS bad, its just not as evident in the short term.
It is not making the right choice that is important; but the ability to make the choice.
If it is "imprinted" that we won't do it, there is only illusion of choice. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout Been there. Done that. Need antibiotics.
|
Betty Boom
Caldari SPECTRE Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 09:07:00 -
[53]
I would choise A). I would never put my own existance higher then 6 trillion other humans. More then 6 trillions would be the kill count on this and I doesnt see, that the world would be a better place by killing them.
|
Sazkyen
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 09:37:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Sazkyen on 14/11/2010 09:46:34
An easy "B". At least I'd have some chance to survive. I think it's obvious that I'd like to go on living. I could add some bull**** that the remaining 10% would live happily and in prosperity but that's only secondary to be honest. Okay, it's a good thing and all but it's really about me and my relatives.
Since Akita stated that the entity would do nearly anything to prove its omnipotence I'd ask the guy to reveal the exact amount of time remaining until the universe ends (or transitions or whatnot) and then say that I wanted peace to last for that exact amount of time. I'd choose this because I believe that humans will one day colonize other planets so overpopulation due to lack of war is not an issue.
I wouldn't ask anyone's opinion because the choice seems obvious.
"and the entity will provide you with any proof you might want that it really is within its power to make your choice a reality, or prove to anybody else everything true that you say is actually so (if you want honest opinions)"
Obviously, I'd also try to pry out various favours from the entity while testing its omnipotence.
I'd use up all the time granted before I'm required to make the choice. The fact that the memories would be removed after the time is past has no importance. Every living being tries to live in happiness and prosperity despite the fact that they will not remember their lifetimes after they die.
Ship comparison | Razer Giveaway
|
Sader Rykane
Amarr Midnight Sentinels Midnight Space Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 10:33:00 -
[55]
B
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 12:28:00 -
[56]
Sazkyen, don't think of that "god-like entity" as truly omnipotent and omniscient (i.e. an actual deity), but more like "incredibly technologically advanced aliens". As in, with huge computing power (enough to accurately model how humans would behave on a species level for a long enough period of time with a very high degree of certainty, but not on an individual level with absolute certainty), incredible energy generation capabilities and very fine matter manipulation (so basically able to disassemble and reassemble the entire planet if need be), and so on and so forth... so, NOT omnipotent nor omniscient in the strictest sense of the words. Bottom line, very powerful and advanced compared to mankind today to the point of being indistinguishable (from our point of view) from a deity, but certainly not supernatural in nature. There would be things it could just not do (like break the laws of physics), and things it does not know for sure in advance (like, for instance, what choice will you make - if it would already know with absolute certainty, it wouldn't ask you).
It's a "moral choices" question, not a test of who can trick the alien entity into giving away secrets and favours.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Vogue
Skynet Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 13:25:00 -
[57]
Straight from the get go people think aliens are exclusive from humans and so like the OP's argument create these binary arguments based around 'them and us'.
I think it's more complex, and for humans more sinister. I believe aliens have had a hand in this planets development from the beginning of one cell life. And have meddled in human history. Sometimes for good. Sometimes for bad.
Are aliens benevolent or hostile? The best logic I can derive for this Is how humans treat dogs and cats. The humans like dogs and cats but they are domesticated in some respects.
As a species humans from an anthropology angle are predatory mammals with tribal, pack behaviour. With sexual libedo being a major part of social culture and power relations. They fight amongst themselves. Often violently to death. But also there are civilising tendencies. The broad arc of history has shown a capacity of being able to make new allegiances that complement differing tribal groups needs.
I am watching Babylon 5 at the moment. It's brilliant as an expose of mankind's nature - bold, adventurous, accommodating yet at the same time greedy, intolerant and scared of that which is different.
If humans don't kill themselves off with war or global warming they could find a place amongst the stars. I just want to be there for the f*** y** moment between humans and the aloof Vorlon like aliens who meddled in the history of the human race
..................................................
|
Cpt Placeholder
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 15:44:00 -
[58]
Odd question. I don't see the point. I could justify both options as moral or immoral. B.
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 16:05:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Akita T They also inform you that you can do whatever you want before making the choice, but you have to make the choice in AT MOST exactly one year, or he'll destroy each and every last human being on the planet
I'd inform the public of this monstrous plot and have everyone spend the year developing anti-godlike entity weapons and tactics.
My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 19:43:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Blane Xero Edited by: Blane Xero on 14/11/2010 08:51:19
Originally by: Lance Fighter
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: Lance Fighter alternatively, the random allpowerful entity could impress the need to stay in a relatively stable population count.
*shrug*
You cannot force so much on us and still say we keep our humanity. If you need to hand-hold us so much in order to keep order in an alternated lifestyle/state, we ARE losing free choice.
I disagree. I am of the opinion that any choice we make is backed by memories we have of other things happening.. If it is such influenced that large families/overpopulation/whatever is negative, then people will choose to not have large families etc.
It might be heavily influenced choice, perhaps, but is it far from the truth? overpopulation IS bad, its just not as evident in the short term.
It is not making the right choice that is important; but the ability to make the choice.
If it is "imprinted" that we won't do it, there is only illusion of choice.
well, for all you or I know, we are only acting on the illusion of choice anyway. arent philosophical discussions great?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |