Why destroy the world? This question is both an ethical and moral nightmare. I like what @FishPreferred said, and I am adding my personal view.
Why destroy the world/kill all the bad parts of humanity? Only about 5,000,000 (0.14%) of us deserve to die, terrorists, murderers, the like. But does this not bring us back to Constantine discipline? Does that not bring us back to life for a life, in what could be called a Nazi regime?
Lets face it, however good your intentions are, humanity cannot be cleaned. The Nazis tried this, in a rather sinister way, but as with any future attempt, some people with not be happy with being walked up to a brick wall and shot, just because they are a bad person. Would this not be a breach of their rights? I know people who say criminals should lose their rights, and that what would save the electric chair business. Yeah, lets torch someone for speeding on a highway. Yeah, lets torch 50,000 of those people.
@Jacen96 I actually meant, will the surviving 5% be spread globally or put all together? (The US population was given as an example of a similar population size)
I actually meant, will the surviving 5% be spread globally or put all together? (The US population was given as an example of a similar population size
Good point because reproduction wouldn't be best if only 5% of the world's population were spread out across the world. Would take a lot longer to repopulate the world.
Not to mention it's nonsense anyways because 95% of the population doesn't deserve to die, as it's probably vice-versa with 95% being decent and 5% deserving to die.
It obviously depends what you classify as a decent human being.
No, but about 95% of the people in the world are pigs and should be "destroyed",
Only about 5,000,000 (0.14%) of us deserve to die,
Where Oh Where do you people get those numbers? Seriously?!
Anyway the OP argued for destroying everything, not a big purge. And I still have not seen a single argument in favour of it.
Good point because reproduction wouldn't be best if only 5% of the world's population were spread out across the world. Would take a lot longer to repopulate the world.
Not to mention that another radical bottle-neck will be detrimental to humanity genetically speaking..
I like what @FishPreferred said, and I am adding my personal view.
But, no part of your personal view even relates to what I said there. I was only referring to the fact that you can't actually "urge" humanity without eradicating the species altogether.
Where Oh Where do you people get those numbers? Seriously?!
78.3% of all statistical data is made up on the spot. Everyone knows that.
No, but about 95% of the people in the world are pigs and should be "destroyed", not the earth itself.
I'm going to ignore the "95% of people in the world are pigs" bit and how the judgement of a person being a "ig" is subjective to social group acceptance and skip to the even greater issue in this sentence. Those statistics are off incredibly.
Who decides what people are worth saving?
^
Obviously the 5% had some special undefined qualities
Social groups. This can be broken down to the characteristics a person thinks are acceptable and not acceptable qualities - which is all perspective and opinion based.
Only about 5,000,000 (0.14%) of us deserve to die
0% of humanity deserves to die. Am I the only person here who sees that human beings cannot come up with justifiable reason for the death of another human being just because they picture them as "igs"? Only law and self defense justifies a persons death, and that is a personal matter. On a grand scale of destruction (i.e 1,000,000 +), no. There is no justification.
Speaking of such, maybe this will help a few of you all decide whether or not the world should be destroyed: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66OEZ3KFRII&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CjvfLEh2R-Svx6SksznXFV&index=4[/url]
My reason the world should be destroyed is that our moral status as a species has been reduced to an undesirable level. I largely blame our liberal idealisms as the reason our morality is dwindling.
1) If a species' moral status reaches an undesirable level, that species should be destroyed. 2) Homo sapiens sapiens (i.e. modern humans) have a moral status that has reached an undesirable level. 3) Therefore, humans should be destroyed.
Now, I see some support here for (2) from you - in that liberal ideologies degrade our moral standing. It's unclear whether holding these ideas have moral disvalue or whether they are causally linked to some other factor that does. But let's put this aside.
What I'd really like to see is a defence of (1), and it's more abstract and potentially interesting to talk about. Is there a threshold at which an entire species should be eradicated? This would also presumably involve destroying members of that species who are well above this poor moral standing - perhaps even having very high moral standing.
So 2 questions you need to address to even get your point off the ground:
1: What factor(s) contribute to the moral standing of a species. 2: Why should morally upstanding members of that species also be destroyed?
I dont think World or bad people day because theyre "igs " like you said if we all start a project to clean up the world its better to let bad guys out and follow their on way and we will follow our way , violence is not the solution if we are better than that "igs" then we should forgive them and go and make our life .
My reason the world should be destroyed is that our moral status as a species has been reduced to an undesirable level.
How immoral? Enough to...say, destroy the entire world for some petty and irrational reason?
1) If a species' moral status reaches an undesirable level, that species should be destroyed. 2) Homo sapiens sapiens (i.e. modern humans) have a moral status that has reached an undesirable level. 3) Therefore, humans should be destroyed.
This makes sense, but it doesn't match up with his statements. Humans â The World.
Well think about this, when people say the world is going to end they usually just mean the human race is going to end.( which is very selfish) we have caused so must destruction not only for us but the ecosystem. so in that case we should be eliminated. But we have created domesticated animals, that couldn't survive without us, so therefore we cant die. Also if we were to escape the actually end of our planet, we would have to bring along all of our food and animals, or else the planet that we are traveling to will not be habitable with the ability to grow earth plants.
