Poll: You must choose

[Giantpanda602]

Honestly, it depends which people will be dying. That sounds awful, but some civilizations are more important than others.

 

[deshorty]

Risk it because if, on the off chance I do kill everyone, I die as well, therefore, I wouldn't live with the guilt. However, if I just kill off half, then it is a monstrous act.

 

[SD-Fiend]

option 2. option 1 might include someone important like the worlds greatest minds or a whole country or even worse... everyone in the video games industry!

 

[starkiller212]

Quite a few posters are surprisingly willing to kill billions of people just so the rest (naturally including themselves and their own monkeyspheres) don't have to deal with any "population problems". The whole point of solving societal problems like overpopulation is to improve the quality of life for as many people as possible; killing off a couple continents' worth of people seems like one of the worst imaginable ways to accomplish that goal.

Now I'll go to sleep disappointed in humanity once again.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

risk everyone and if all goes belly up I'll just take whatever backlash that comes my way before we all get wiped out

 

[doggie135]

Hmmm, Flandre? What would you do?

"Pick the first option twice tee-hee-hee!!!"
.....what she said

That'd still leave 25%

 

[BlessedPaper]

I would choose option 2, purely for the fact that i could be the 50% to live and i don't want to have to clean all those dead people up =P

 

[Bryce De La Guardia]

Option 1 is the safe answer.

 

[Louzon]

So...7% chance that everyone dies, or ONE HUNDRED PERCENT chance that 3.5 BILLION die? Option 2, please.

 

[jakeblues1295]

Either way I choose, knowing my luck ill either die or kill everyone (including me)

 

[PancakesSUCKTHEYDO]

Kill half.

Makes living life for the other half much easier.

 

[MarcBRO]

Im a gambler. So i'll risk it.

 

[FalloutJack]

First choice.

Oh, and I get to chose WHO dies and HOW excruciating it will be.

 

[SD-Fiend]

Kill half.

Makes living life for the other half much easier.

because you certainly didn't kill anyone important.

 

[goldendriger]

Which ever one will net me the hot chick.
If shes in the first 50% then option 2

 

[Vrex360]

I'm going to go with option number 2.
But only because as the Mighty Vrex, I would actually be hoping that it fails and the entire human race goes extinct.

Alternatively, I could just do option number 1 but do it twice.

 

[vxicepickxv]

There's really no such thing as a global population problem. Scientists have explained this already.

What nonsense is this? And who are these crackpot scientists?

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2011/07/20/the_world_is_not_overpopulated_106247.html


http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/shout-box/19818-overpopulation-myth.html

Wait a minute here.

First link - Well, he brings up a couple of possible points, however, he's only providing specialized data for specific areas, which kind of makes sense as a microbiologist. He's not looking for entire worldwide trends. No data on Central and South America, no data on Australia. It looks like a lot of dumbed down opinion pieces hiding as science articles.

I wasn't aware that having a doctorate in economics made you a scientist, especially when you bring up specific points that sound good, but if acted upon would be false. Of course, it's worth even less trust when you link to a forum, with a large pair of topic posts that in turn links to WND, which isn't exactly the most impartial or trustworthy source of anything other than American right wing hate.




OT:I picked option 1, I think I know where I'd start.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

The first one. We are vastly overpopulated and, while I have no right to choose who lives or dies, we could stand to lose at least some people until we figure out how to sustain these kinds of numbers.

We figured it decades ago, pills and condoms work wonders. Lack of education and stone age religious believes keep them from being used worldwide.
Still we are doing better than first thought. We reached 6 billions in the mid 80s and projections said by then we would reach 7 billions by the end of the 90s. We probably "just" will reach it next year. But after Europe, North America and Japan, over the last two decades many other areas slowed down or halted population growth (China, most of Latina America and even some muslim countries). But you have other still growing too fast like Sub saharan Africa and India (India, just 3 decades ago had just half of the population of China, now has almost the same and is ready to overtake it in 4 or 5 years).

 

[crop52]

Option 2. I will not let anyone call me a murderer.

 

[Richardplex]

unless the chance was 25% or higher for option B, probability wise it's not worth it. Less people is good anyway.