• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Which one is worst and why?

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
is it worse to kill 100,000,000 people out of a population of 10 billion or kill 70,000,000 but also by doing so killing off a whole culture

What do you think? And why
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Those are very specific numbers. 100,000,000 people. Cultures are only adaptations in the service of survival.
 

five sounds

MyPeeSmellsLikeCoffee247
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
5,393
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
729
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Conflicted.

Ok I'm not into killing people, but I'm suspending that for the sake of pondering this.

I'm gonna say 70,000,000 (shit that's so many people!) is preferred. As much as I believe in the preservation and protection of cultures, 30,000 human lives trumps it.

I have faith in the people who remain to keep humanity and all the life that breeds a living, growing culture to keep evolving into new cultures and languages, and valuing old cultures over new ones is more nostalgic than anything.
 

Rampant

New member
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
44
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I would keep the culture, assuming we're withholding judgment on the culture's value. Myself and I'm sure quite a few anthropologists would trade 30 million western souls for a couple of Egyptians.
 

Flâneuse

don't ask me
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
947
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
For me there's no question about it: killing 100 million is worse than killing 70 million and a whole culture. As much as I value different cultures, I value individual human beings even more.
 

Hive

hypersane
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
1,233
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
70,000,000, simply because that's less people.

Is there anything inherent in culture which makes it worth the lives of 30 million?
 
G

garbage

Guest
From the information provided, the 70mil sounds like the better bet. But my answer would depend upon the culture.
 

Hive

hypersane
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
1,233
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
From the information provided, the 70mil sounds like the better bet. But my answer would depend upon the culture.

It depends on the type of culture that would be eliminated.

Is it a question of what they contribute to the rest of humanity? Or you personal like or dislike?

If the former, what could be so unique and valuable that it can only be preserved, and deserves to be preserved, by saving this culture?
 
L

LadyLazarus

Guest
I think the second one is worse as you are basically exterminating an entire race(culture?), whereas with the first one you are only severely lowering their numbers, yet that race remains and therefore may replenish itself in the future. However, it's obvious both are pretty horrible.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It depends on your ethical approach.

  • Utilitarian/Consequentialist? Then we're gonna try to max the positive outcome for the most people.
  • Deontological? Then typically neither answer is ethical. They're both crimes and should not be indulged in.
  • Virtue ethics? Then we focus on how the act of killing more people versus eradicating an entire culture properly reflects who we are or might change us to become less than who we are.

Personally, I'm more postmodern ethically in that I need to know context. On the surface, it looks better to eradicate a particular culture and save 30 million random lives; on the other hand, depending on what benefits from that culture could be accrued by a BILLION people, maybe it would be better in the long run to sacrifice 30 million in order to benefit a billion. Depending on the specifics, consequential ethics would try to maximize [something] resulting in the greatest good.

Ironically, these kinds of decisions are made all the time. Examine transportation, for example. It is projected that, in the United States, 3.5 million people have died from 1899 - 2012 in traffic accidents. Yet we would say it was worth it for those 3.5 million people to die, considering the benefits that all of us survivors have accrued.

Also look at the interesting dilemma we've discussed on this forum before -- a train is out of control, and you are stuck with it either hitting five people in its way or you can divert it and kill one (usually cast as a relative or child). Many people will try to maximize the saving of human life by diverting the train to kill one person and save the five. YET.... let's say we have one healthy human being and five people who need organ transplants to avoid death; almost no one will suggest we should kill the healthy human being to harvest his organs to save the other five. It's interesting to see how situation and context can change our response.
 

fghw

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
118
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
70,000,000 obviously. I can learn about that culture from any number of sources. The ability to observe it firsthand is not worth 30,000,000 lives.
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Insufficient data as to why and how they are being killed.
 

Hive

hypersane
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
1,233
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
To you who ask for details about the culture: What would the culture have to offer to make you spare their lives?


I guess the latter would be better since there would be noone left to mourn..

70,000,000 obviously. I can learn about that culture from any number of sources. The ability to observe it firsthand is not worth 30,000,000 lives.

I considered these things as well. The culture would't be totally eradicated but preserved in some way, be it only in history books, and if you kill all people of a certain group there would be a significantly less amount of people affected with sorrow than if a greater number of a certain population should die.

Insufficient data as to why and how they are being killed.

I imagine the "why" is for no other reason than that you have to choose, and the "how" is instant death at the snap of your fingers.
 

Opal

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
1,391
MBTI Type
ENTP
Both are good because population control.

Just kidding. 70,000,000, I guess. All things are transient.
...on second thought, if the culture of 70,000,000 could overthrow the dominant culture calling for genocide, I guess their survival would be preferable.
 

ancalagon

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
57
MBTI Type
INTP
30 million people dying is far worse than 1 culture being destroyed with 0 people dying.

However, the question is unrealistic: any group of people powerful and evil enough to actually slaughter on a scale that makes the Holocaust seem small would not ask my opinion (or listen if I gave it) and would not be considering anything that could be identified as morality.
 

Avocado

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
3,794
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I would keep the culture, assuming we're withholding judgment on the culture's value. Myself and I'm sure quite a few anthropologists would trade 30 million western souls for a couple of Egyptians.

Dark...
 
G

garbage

Guest
Is it a question of what they contribute to the rest of humanity? Or you personal like or dislike?

If the former, what could be so unique and valuable that it can only be preserved, and deserves to be preserved, by saving this culture?
It's about their contribution, really. I can't pinpoint any particular culture that exists today that I'd outright eradicate. Some hypothetical (and maybe some historical) cultures, sure.

The decision for me would be less about whether it's unique, valuable, and treasurable; but about whether or not it's detrimental. Seems like two sides of the same coin, but how it's couched matters. A culture would have to be.. well.. uniquely detrimental. "Depends on the culture" leaves room for an approach that's not just about an action's immediate consequences.

Essentially,
Personally, I'm more postmodern ethically in that I need to know context. On the surface, it looks better to eradicate a particular culture and save 30 million random lives; on the other hand, depending on what benefits from that culture could be accrued by a BILLION people, maybe it would be better in the long run to sacrifice 30 million in order to benefit a billion. Depending on the specifics, consequential ethics would try to maximize [something] resulting in the greatest good.
this.
 
Top