Play Nice Lives Matter - The hypothetical game of ethics

[RobbieK]

What if your selection criteria disproportionately impacts that group as a result of them not having as much access to educational advancements? I'm thinking more of the poor people of China, India and Africa here.

Do we need token selections? Or does humanity look at it entirely without prejudice and choose it's best and brightest regardless of colour?

If humanity was judging whether or not another human being had a right to be one of the 2 billion who can continue live "without prejudice" then it would not chose to save only the "best and brightest". The "best and brightest" human has as much of a right to life as the "worst and dullest", whatever metric you use to define those terms.

 

[EDFL follower]

Get rid of the old, the unhealthy including everyone who claims to have mental health issues, all criminals, all junkies, and anyone who can’t or won’t contribute to society. If there are still too many get rid of all the green voters and the protestors!

 

[Taylor]

What line can you draw below you that another can't draw above?


In this hypothetical the environment is healed and people live in their current areas in lower numbers

 

[iBeng]

What if your selection criteria disproportionately impacts that group as a result of them not having as much access to educational advancements? I'm thinking more of the poor people of China, India and Africa here.

Do we need token selections? Or does humanity look at it entirely without prejudice and choose it's best and brightest regardless of colour?

As per my second post, lottery system is the only non biased way to fairly pick everyone.

 

[Taylor]

As per my second post, lottery system is the only non biased way to fairly pick everyone.

Does humanity need a fair sample of people to get the best result for our species coming out the other side a disaster where we lose so many?

I'd argue that humanity losing some of our best minds under the guise of being more fair doesn't achieve a worthwhile result when Taylor the stay at home gold digging mother is there at the expense of a surgeon.

 

[iBeng]

Does humanity need a fair sample of people to get the best result for our species coming out the other side a disaster where we lose so many?

I'd argue that humanity losing some of our best minds under the guise of being more fair doesn't achieve a worthwhile result when Taylor the stay at home gold digging mother is there at the expense of a surgeon.

Would you then not willingly give up your position to someone you deem a "better mind"?

 

[Taylor]

Would you then not willingly give up your position to someone you deem a "better mind"?

It's not a better mind, it's more utility to humanity.

I'd want to survive just like everyone else, which is why there is a discussion

 

[iBeng]

It's not a better mind, it's more utility to humanity.

I'd want to survive just like everyone else, which is why there is a discussion

Sure, but if say you got the ticket to life and your friend was a brain surgeon and DIDNT get the ticket...But say your child also got a ticket...Would it be best for your friend to be there if your daughter needed life saving brain surgery? Or would you not regret your decision to keep your ticket when your child passes away from lack of surgery that your friend could have provided?

Its a literal moral minefield and has no real answer outside random chance and then people making a moral choice if their life is worth more than someone who could save, say, 100s of lives.

 

[Taylor]

Sure, but if say you got the ticket to life and your friend was a brain surgeon and DIDNT get the ticket...But say your child also got a ticket...Would it be best for your friend to be there if your daughter needed life saving brain surgery? Or would you not regret your decision to keep your ticket when your child passes away from lack of surgery that your friend could have provided?

Its a literal moral minefield and has no real answer outside random chance and then people making a moral choice if their life is worth more than someone who could save, say, 100s of lives.

It's the exact sort of discussion that would need to be had on a space ship that had a irreparable damage event to their life support that reduced the total supportable people significantly.

They'd need to decide who is essential.

 

[iBeng]

It's the exact sort of discussion that would need to be had on a space ship that had a irreparable damage event to their life support that reduced the total supportable people significantly.

They'd need to decide who is essential.

And sometimes people need to realise their life isnt worth the survival chances of everyone but not everyone is willing to face that reality.

If I won a ticket but my wife and daughter didnt I would give that ticket to my daughter and make sure she had someone for her in the vault or whatever its called.

Unfortunately we are a species of individuals who dont often think of the whole. We are not a hive. Nor a hivemind, although echo chambers are doing a good job of trying to change that.

 

[HairyO]

Kill off the conservatives and liberals and we socialists survive. Not sure what's hard about this.

Who would do the actual work? And who would do the inventing?

I think no-one over 50, then a lottery but China, Africa and South America dont get any.

Should be about a 50 / 50 chance.

 

[RobbieK]

Does humanity need a fair sample of people to get the best result for our species coming out the other side a disaster where we lose so many?

I'd argue that humanity losing some of our best minds under the guise of being more fair doesn't achieve a worthwhile result when Taylor the stay at home gold digging mother is there at the expense of a surgeon.

The idea that we could engineer a cull of the majority of the globe's population in order to maximise the "best results" for the species, as if this was something that was actually definable or predictable, is the kind of thinking behind some of the worst atrocities humans have inflicted on each other.

 

[RobbieK]

Who would do the actual work? And who would do the inventing?

I think no-one over 50, then a lottery but China, Africa and South America dont get any.

Should be about a 50 / 50 chance.

Why don't China, Africa and South America get any?

 

[HairyO]

Why don't China, Africa and South America get any?

Dead weight.

 

[Taylor]

The idea that we could engineer a cull of the majority of the globe's population in order to maximise the "best results" for the species, as if this was something that was actually definable or predictable, is the kind of thinking behind some of the worst atrocities humans have inflicted on each other.

I agree.

It doesn't change hypothetical where the outcome is unavoidable

 

[RobbieK]

I agree.

It doesn't change hypothetical where the outcome is unavoidable

In your hypothetical all the death in unavoidable, yes. That doesn't mean we should follow a misguided solution to the unavoidable problem.

All human life has value. Randomly select those who survive, it is the only fair way to do it. Those survivers can then decide for themselves how they want their new world to function rather than having a particular idea of what the "best results" would be for their lives and the lives of those that come after them imposed upon them.

 

[RobbieK]

Dead weight.

Unlike you, I suppose?

 

[HairyO]

Unlike you, I suppose?

Taking this hypothetical rather personally.

How do you select 2 billion?

Just China? That would just be pandering to your team's sponsor and owner.

 

[RobbieK]

Taking this hypothetical rather personally.

How do you select 2 billion?

Just China? That would just be pandering to your team's sponsor and owner.

I already gave my answer quite clearly, an answer that didn't prejudge the worth of billions of people simply because of where they happened to be born.

 

[Connoisseur]

I already gave my answer quite clearly, an answer that didn't prejudge the worth of billions of people simply because of where they happened to be born.

It's odd to single those regions out and leave out the Middle East, India, the Asian subcontinent, South East Asia as the vast majority of the world could be considered expendable if not being a 'burden' is part of the criteria. Regardless of how big of a campaigner the CCP are, China over its history has made significant contributions to the sciences and the arts that were then exported to Europe. While countries such as Mexico (technically North American), Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay to name a few have stronger and/or reliable economies and better living standards than several European countries mainly those from the East that are propped up (some anyway) by Germany and France via the European Union. Just an overall bizarre uninformed view of the world to have.

 

[Yeti]

I'll have a crack at this. I would set up an opt in kottery system with each of the world's government responsible for ensuring the entry criteria was communicated effectivley to it's citizens with a central database set up for the lottery.

Each continent would be guaranteed a number of selections in relation to their current population size (North America for example may have 20% of the worlds population and would be assigned a guaranteed 10%).

Once people "win" their place in the lottery they would have to pass the following criteria:
- Under 65 years of age (experience still required even if they can't reproduce)
- Not obese
- IQ of 80 or above
- No terminal diseases

Other than that make it is as random as possible and take people from as many varied backgrounds as we are able to.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The world is visited by an overwhelming and impossible to counter power that has grown angry with humanity, it says our planet can only sustain 2 billion people and it will give us one year to choose which 2 billion are saved as it wipes out the rest and resets the globe to factory settings.

If we do not choose, everyone dies.

How do you select the 2 billion to survive?

Genetics

 

[Seeds]

As per my second post, lottery system is the only non biased way to fairly pick everyone.

Not true. Some people have already lived 80 years of life whilst others are 3 years old. To treat them all equally is unfair. It would need to be a severly weighted lottery so that 3 years olds have 100 more beans in the game than a eighty year old.

 

[Seeds]

Genetics

And what genetic traits do we view as superior? Strength, intelligence, empathy, happiness? Is a dumb happy person more superior than a depressed intelligent person?

 

[Seeds]

Can the survivors breed so the population starts growing again afterwards?