First of all, it's casualties, not causalities. More importantly, 5 million vs. 100 million is not the question. Who did the killing and why they did it are the issues at hand.
That's subjective. It can easily be argued that apathetically allowing 6 billion people to die when they could have been saved is just as bad, if not worse, than killing 5 million directly.
Yeah, pretty much. I don't think that Hitler's oratorical gifts or Stalin's bureaucratic skills or Mao's popular nonfiction really matter much when you look at their track records, do you? The fact that they thought they were doing good when they were actually doing evil is something to think about it in "ends justify the means" situations, I think.
Hitler's Holocaust or Stalin's massacre of the Soviet people did not have any goals that would be viewed as worthy of the sacrifice. Hitler's actions were based on flawed scientific methodology at best and many of Stalin's kills were to preserve his own sense of paranoia-ridden security. In this hypothetical scenario the goal is the preservation of not only the human race but of the entire planet. "The ends justify the means" becomes a lot more persuasive when the stakes are so absurdly high.
If you are trying to be completely utilitarian and maintain that 5 million dead is better than 100 million dead, and it does not matter why or by whose hand, fine, but that that line of argument really has no consideration for the value of individual human lives outside of statistics.
Sure it does. 95 million more people dead means 95 million more individual lives ripped, torn, and sundered apart. Each of those 95 million people represents an individual human life (your neighbor, your children, your dog) and that's a fact that most people can't seem to grasp. It seems that the phrase "1 million men, women, and children" died in the Rwanda massacre doesn't really hit people until they see the pictures. But the suffering is just as real.
Ala "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."
S functioning is essential. But nobody remembers the construction workers who built the great building, they remember the architect. The S pump out the babies and keep society running, but the N's are more visionary. What I am trying to say is, if ever there was an Übermensch who created an enlightened Despotism, that person would be an N.
True, but keep in mind that the vast majority of Ns never accomplish such great feats as designing the Taj Mahal. The ones that do are geniuses and sociogenetic freaks and the fact that they are N is merely secondary.
I am however sincerely happy that s types especially the sj are the majority. I mean seriously if there is any truth to this typology stuff could you think of a better type to be the pillars of society. I don't think most n types really give enough of a shit to keep society as we know it functioning over the long haul.
I'd imagine that it'd be an absolute disaster. If it was a majority of xNTPs very little would actually get done and the "not giving a shit" attitude would prevail. If there was an increase of xNTJs you'd have a collection of idealistic, overconfident people attempting to push their vision of the world, constantly squabbling for power.