Poll: Which would you rather have?
- Thread starter darkfire613
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Since option 1 is still putting humans in the position of authority, and since any number of totalitarian regimes have proven themselves incapable of acting purely in the common good, I say option 2. It takes just enough time for the ink to dry on the new government's manifesto for them to go from "All men are created equal" to "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others"
If option 1 were run by our inevitable robot overlords, incorruptible beings driven only by logic and completely absent of the selfish nature of humanity, then I'd probably go with option 1. At least I'd know the system was fair.
If option 1 were run by our inevitable robot overlords, incorruptible beings driven only by logic and completely absent of the selfish nature of humanity, then I'd probably go with option 1. At least I'd know the system was fair.
Your friend sounds like a straw man.
I didn't think people could legitimately have that view.
Yeah, I like my humanity, thanks. What's the fucking point of preserving the human race if there's nothing left worth keeping?
I didn't think people could legitimately have that view.
Yeah, I like my humanity, thanks. What's the fucking point of preserving the human race if there's nothing left worth keeping?
Option 2 for sure. Option 1 sound like it is void of emotion (since where is the feeling for killing the least intelligent one? )and fun. Without the proper emotion and fun (live out and enjoying life) I would question the 5% of the most intelligent people (sound like a evil ruler waiting to happen since they will only run on logic).
Ok granted option 1 would of been better if it benefit everyone (no killing) but it sound it's for survival and not embrasing life to its fullest.
Ok granted option 1 would of been better if it benefit everyone (no killing) but it sound it's for survival and not embrasing life to its fullest.
Option one is stupid. Logic is pretty useless in situations like this without morals. You just end up being an evil bastard.
Option 1 reminds me of communism...sound freaking great on paper, but throw in humans and it fucks everything up.
Edit: And I hate people that say the world is overpopulated and crowded. It's not, we have A LOT of room left. It's just that people tend to bunch up. Some cities are extremely crowded, but where I live...I don't even know my neighbors. This world is not overpopulated.
Edit: And I hate people that say the world is overpopulated and crowded. It's not, we have A LOT of room left. It's just that people tend to bunch up. Some cities are extremely crowded, but where I live...I don't even know my neighbors. This world is not overpopulated.
There is a third option world war III, not very nice but its a good way of drasticly reducing the worlds population.
I think a combination of the two. Firebomb the worthless, because we're seriously overpopulating the planet and those who are just a drain on world resources need to go. Then move some people into the newly vacant spaces to ease up on population density, and let the world continue as it is.
I am going to go with option 1. I do have a few problems with it, but it still is pretty good. Society now clearly is not working. If people aren't struggling to survive then there is no motivation for anything.
How many people really have humanity anyway(what is humanity to begin with?).darkfire613 said:
I'd rather have 1 but only because I don't like Option 2.
To be honest, I don't like both (getting executed for not creating more brilliant inventions? Pressure much) so I'll have to say neither. Deterioration of society because we let the idiots amok is unpreferable and one where your 'value' and contribution to the world keeps you alive is just wrong.
To be honest, I don't like both (getting executed for not creating more brilliant inventions? Pressure much) so I'll have to say neither. Deterioration of society because we let the idiots amok is unpreferable and one where your 'value' and contribution to the world keeps you alive is just wrong.
we're moving into some serious "ends justify the means" territory, and i think history has shown as much idealization you can derive from that, it's NEVER worth it. people arent as stupid as you think. a basic thread uniting a medium body of people is enough, let them screw themselves over and learn from their mistakes. at least they will only have themselves to blame.
If anything their both the same option, or at least they lead to the same result
Option 1 involves a dictatorship, how long until they are taken down by resistance from lower classes? Thus creating Anarchy again
Option 2 is just anarchy, also we're idiots so we'd kill each other in a week.
Option 1 involves a dictatorship, how long until they are taken down by resistance from lower classes? Thus creating Anarchy again
Option 2 is just anarchy, also we're idiots so we'd kill each other in a week.
pretty much this, we could never practically get to option 1, but hypothetically speaking... *tl;dr at the bottom*Ahlycks said:
remember the badguy from firefly? if it was possible, i would be him. yes, option 1 is incredibly harsh and downright montrous, and the generation of humanity that would go through it would live in misery and have every reason to hate me, but in the long run, its for the good of humanity as a whole. overpopulation is probably the worst problem humanity faces; a great deal of societies problems stem from there just being too god damn many people. while option 1 is unnecessarily harsh (really, i would just rather devise a way to stabilize earth's population, so that we could DECREASE it over the years instead of keep increasing), option 2 is what we are already doing: following human nature, and by nature humans are still just cavemen; that isnt evolving, thats stagnating, and sooner or later we're gonna start devolving if nothing changes. option 1 is a ridiculously extreme change, but option 2 changes nothing.
i think its important to note that, at least in my opinion, option 1 would just be transitory; no police state like that could ever last, but it wouldnt matter, because as population decreased and political/ social/ economic reforms took effect, there would be less need for control. your friend seems to be describing this as a sudden change, but that would never work; obviously a business regulation here and a 'parental qualification test' there would be accepted by people much less violently than just shoving a totalitarian regime down their throats all at once.
in practice though, option 1; if it didnt suck and die for the obvious reason of being in direct opposition to human nature; would fail anyway. a society built on pure logic is just as bad as the anarchy of pure instinct. even a society of AIs would need some emotional input to their society. an intelligent creature with no emotion is the failed ubermensh; imagine a computer with no one to operate it, we would become nihilists, with no reason to even bother maintaining our society, and it would break down.
that is the beauty of the american system (what is supposed to be anyway, try as they might the founding fathers just couldnt find a solution for the problem of them dying and idiots eventually taking over). it is built on the struggle of government and its people, putting just one aspect in power will fail, and every attempt to find a balance has failed, so the driving principle is to lock both sides in a war of control forever; teetering back and forth to maintain balance on the tightrope, not leaning on one side or trying to have perfect balance continuously. in principle, this would be all the substitute natural selection we need; government gets big brother-ish, we let em know who's letting them stay in power. the people get a bit too rowdy, the government lays the law down. but of course, this still requires some degree of mutual cooperation amongst humanity that does not exist, some common understanding of the system and the balance of power, and if we had that, we wouldnt be discussing this right now, because we would be too busy living in our impossible socialist utopia.
....really, the point where option 1 would work is the point where we no longer need it. its an incredibly restrictive control mechanism trying to work on something that refuses above life and function to be controlled. the entire purpose of government is to compensate for the flaws of human nature to establish some kind of order, but if human nature could be controlled, we wouldnt need to do that.
well, congratulations OP, i think youve just convinced me of the utter futility of government as a concept, and i dont think i need to list the problems of an anarchistic society in the age of nuclear missiles. i guess right where we're at is as good as is gets, depressing as that is. i rescind my earlier comment that overpopulation is our main problem; technology is our main problem; we have power far beyond our ability to responsibly use it. it progresses several orders of magnitude faster than it should; lack of control isnt our issue, our power to control is.
...i think this question is better left unanswered, because im pretty sure im one of those nihilistic computer-men now.
tl;dr
lets chalk it up to 'humans are stupid and therefore any society we make, anarchistic or police state or anywhere inbetween, will also be stupid'.