Riddle me this...

[Rhade]

So you've got two groups of people, one in each hand. Put your two hands one over the other like you're holding a ball between them, then shake it up a whole ton and open them back up. Assume the groups are completely randomly mixed now.

Also assume that none of these 10,100 people can tell which class anyone else is, or have any bond or connection to any other person in the group. Take away their ability to communicate and tell them that the last 1000 people standing (an average from your two numbers) get to survive.

Work with what you've got from there.

 

[nicholaxxx]

100, it's be fun to see what'd happen to the world afterwards (granted, it probably wouldn't be much, it's removing 100 from a few thousand)

 

[Tsuillo]

Reminds me of the famous psychological test of the Trolly problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

A famous question, in a far different light.

I think circumstance aside, I would choose the lesser death count, if not only for the toll of blood, but for the frivolity of the situation. These high ranking officials would pass their wealth off to next of kin, new workers equally qualified would fill their positions, and the economy would naturally improve.

 

[Berethond]

That's what it said in the OP. That we're powerful beings.

Luckily I built a spare factory.

If we're already powerful beings, why haven't we destroyed all humans, or made our dream planets yet?
That seems like the logical thing to do. This thread is flawed.

Yeah, that's right!
I'm going to go build my new dystopia.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

Kill the leaders. Because I don't think I would enjoy their company very much.

 

[Callate]

Do I get to choose the specific 100? Or for that matter, the specific 10,000? I don't usually like to make "judge, jury, and executioner" type decisions because most of the people who do turn out to be awful at them at best (no matter their good intentions or supposed qualifications), but heck, if I gotta, I might as well enjoy it...

 

[Blackdoom]

I would clap my hands together killing both groups.

 

[Pegghead]

If I absolutely HAVE to kill one of the groups it would have to be the one hundred leaders. I don't have a murderous prejudice for politics it's just that it boils down to killing 100 or killing ten thousand.

 

[ffxfriek]

I'll wait for the offers for their live before I kill anyone. The highest bidder wins.

you have the perfect answer

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Kill them all and kick another species in the evolutionary butt to see if they can do a better job.

 

[thom_cat_]

I'd kill em both. i am a powerful being. I WILL RULE OVER MY KINGDOM ALONE.

 

[Ben Jamin]

Can I just kill Michael Atkinson?

 

[Xeros]

I'd kill them all.

 

[internetzealot1]

Kill the average joes. They're not important.

 

[zauxz]

The leaders, duh.

Sounds like a chance to create perfect anarchy.

 

[ShawnRiles]

I'd kill the 100, turn the world into a slight communism state with my power through fear, then slowly turn the place into a democracy.

 

[thePyro_13]

Kill the 100 world leaders. In the 10,000 survivors their are probably enough bright enough people to replace them.

10,000 > 100, easy as that.

 

[akiata]

Hmmm, well since the 100 aren't necessarily all politicians, the chance of global disturbance is quite low and all systems of govt. have a safety net if the leader dies, then there wouldn't be as much chaos as people think. On the other hand, 10k isn't enough to make a big difference in the...what are we at 7billion people? So as futile as both are, I'd have to go with the 100 in a hope that the leaders, new and old, would think it an opportune time to attack whatever enemy they have. A slim chance though, considering the world will most likely be looking at the companies to see who the new CEOs will be.
If you kill 10k people that opens like what 5 jobs per country?
Long story short(too late), 100.

 

[Levitas1234]

I would probably kill the 100 so humanity could start a new political order that isn't ran by the rich few and instead the people.

The weak instinctively follow the strong. If you kill the 100, a new 100 will eventually be put into power by "the people." That's what the majority want. They want to be led and taken care of.

Even saying that, I would go ahead and kill the 100. You need to clean house every once in a while, but it wont take long for things to go back to the way they where.

The people may elect a new "100" but i don't believe the world would revert back to what it is now. The political system would become much less money based and we would be able to have equality. Things would be created for the better of the people and not just for profit that is why i would kill the "100".

 

[Mcupobob]

Both, yeah I know you said I can't choose both but if I have the power end 100 lives of the most powerfull people in the world instancely and the power to kill 10,000 average joes. Then I think I could pull off both, why though? not sure just evil I guess.