I agree that seeing things in the context of the whole planet, where a lot of people die from all kinds of reasons without any side benefit whatsoever, does make it more difficult.
To look closer at the Omelas story: What if I went there and rescued the sacrifical child, and the society there changed to a normal (but peaceful and prosperous) Earth society – with a normal amount of criminality, including child abuse. The end result would be more suffering. I still feel, strongly, that to knowingly sacrifice someone for someone elses gain is wrong, but it’s not an easy dilemma.
Returing to the OP dilemma: It’s relevant that we don’t really need aliens to dramatically improve life on earth for those who suffer now. Cures to diseases? I don’t remember how many people who die daily from easily preventable diseases – it’s one of those depressing numbers that just imprint themselves in your brain as “too large” when you see them. Inexhaustible clean energy supplies? Well, that one’s more difficult, but if we in the wealthy part of the world didn’t waste so much we need a lot less energy and might get by with what we have. US national debt? I hope you’ll forgive me for not seeing the national debt of a foreign country as a problem worth even a single human life. Whatever I can think of to make life better? If we rich countries didn’t hog all the wealth, and if we managed to stop the large scale mass-murders (war), torture and the worst excessess in oppression, life for human beings would improve drastically. We don’t need any alien technology for that, we could do it ourselves if we chose to.
We don’t.
[bold]heldea[/bold] has an interesting point. Unlike the classic lifeboat or throwing-children-to-the-wolves ethics problems, where only a limited number of people can be saved, and the circumstances prevent other choices, this exercise poses a presumed sacrifice of a minority to allow the majority to avoid making hard decisions or sacrifice comfort.
Being forced to make choices on who can survive is difficult; agreeing to the presumed zapping of 12% of the population for the creature comfort of the remaining is reprehensible, all the more so by selecting it by race. (Completely selfish interests here. If the aliens get the US to make the deal, they’ll come to Japan next and will offer to solve Japan’s problems by getting rid of us foreigners.) I’m not sure if I would volunteer to let others get on the lifeboat, I sure as hell wouldn’t down myself to give someone else more leg room.
Not to get all captain Kirk or anything: We (the world) need our hardships. It’s part of what keeps us going. It motivates us.
I’d much rather us make it on our own steam than have it handed to us.
Besides Alliens have never been great negotiators. They usually just take what ever the hell they want.
I agree. Say that the US agrees, then the aliens will say you suck; you are willing to sacrifice a whole race. On the other hand, if the US does not take the deal then the aliens will say “we were just fucking with you”, here is all the energy you want.
Hell, we already do that, just on a smaller scale. (Which I’m guessing was your point.) On our roads and highways, we annually sacrifice one American out of every 7000, in the name of more convenient transportation for the rest of us.
Are you saying people killed in accidents are the same as people who are intentionally sacrificed for someone else’s convenience? Unless I’m missing something, that sounds like a really bad comparison.
We already do this - it’s the progressive tax system. Those who are rich are taxed proportionally more so that the remainder of the population can pay less tax.
If you’re looking for endless clean energy, cures to diseases, and so on, I can provide that. All I need is for every white person in America to send me $1,000.
I’ll get back to you all with the answers to all your questions once the checks clear.
Thanks, but I intentionally didn’t specify “the rich” because we were talking about random parts of the population. Also, progressive taxes are not quite the same as confiscating all the property and ownings of the rich, and the money taken in taxes isn’t given to everyone else to make them richer. So I don’t think this is quite on point.
Were I leading the country and some aliens made such a proposal, I would reject it for reasons basically the same as those stated by most others in this thread. However, I think the correct answer to this question is quite complicated. Furthermore, it depends on particular details of the situation. Primarily it depends on what we know about the aliens. I would suspect that any aliens who make such an offer would do so because they don’t understand human consciousness and our society’s view of individual rights. Most likely the aliens would have a hive mind of sorts. From their perspective the removal of 38 million people would from thier perspective look like an inconvenience rather than a moral crime. Thus, were I President when this situation unfolded, and assuming I had some way of communicating with the aliens, I would send them this message:
Yes, but I would recommend that I go as well. The idea of sacraficing other people for my own gain isn’t something I’m comfortable with, I’d only do it on the condition that a certan percentage of those who voted yes had to go too (maybe 10-20%, a large enough number so people knew it could affect them too if it happened). And I’d only vote yes if these were life/death or avoiding major suffering benefits. If it was minor stuff like clearing the national debt, getting clean energy (we can get clean energy now via nuclear, wind and solar power), raising the standard of living so poor people can afford plasma TVs or ending diseases that are largely painless or minor I wouldn’t vote for it. Those things are just monetary in value and pretty minor.
Its hard for me to get all uppity about this issue or take a moral stance when millions of people a year die worldwide from poverty related diseases like malaria or bacterial infected water.
I think that the question, as proposed, clearly is one that must be answered with “no”. But I think the “sacrificing even one innocent life is never worth it” stance is, quite frankly, silly and naive. The decisions that governments make every day weigh resource vs. resource and life vs. life. Are you spending money on prenatal care aid vs roads? Then fewer infants will die but more motorists will die.
It’s easy to dismiss “wiping out the national debt” as piddling compared to even a single human life, but what if we took all that money and used it to build hospitals, schools, medical research facilities, etc.
If you’re president and the aliens (let’s assume that we have some reason to trust that they are 100% honest if utterly incomprehensible in what motivates them) say they will use their alien nanite technology to overnight rebuild, refresh and restock every hospital, school, park and road in America to 100% sparkling modernity. They won’t give us this nanite technology, or advanced hospital technology, they’ll just make every one of those that we have as good as the best one that we have. In exchange, they want to kill and dissect 100 random innocent Americans.
Now if you said yes, it would sure as hell be hard to talk to the mothers of those 100 innocent Americans and explain why their children were killed and dissected. But if you said “no”, then every time for the rest of your life you read a story about someone dying in a hospital, or children joining gangs because they had no parks, or a pothole causing an accident, you’d know that you could have fixed it. One could certainly make an argument that (a) far more lives will be saved in the long run, and (b) 100 dead right now is painful, but it’s also over, cauterized, done. People dying on an ongoing basis is a much worse ongoing wound to our psyche.
So if I were the president and I received that modified offer, I’d be very tempted to take it. And then I’d kill myself.
When Blacks are mentioned in the equation, so many additional variables would be utilized in decision making IMO…same true when aliens are mentioned…whether the contract would be guaranteed and so on.
How about this interpretation: If it was guaranteed beyond a shadow of a doubt that cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and criminal activity of any kind would cease to exist and we all helped each other, would you be willing to give up 38 million people in the world picked by random selection?
38 million unlucky people vs 6-7 billion?? If you voted yes, more concerns as overpopulation would exist and so on and so on and so on…
There is a qualitative distinction here, however, between the optimum distribution of limited resources (which may condemn some people to poverty, illness, or death in preference to others) and the deliberate sacrifice of a group of people as payment for others to enjoy greater prosperity and health. It is one thing to do the best with what you have and accept that there are limits to your ability to serve everyone in an eglitarian and just manner; it is quite another to willingly hand over a selection of the population in an arbitrary offering to the gods (be they mythical or merely indistinguishable from the divine) in appeasement.
The lessons of history–the most recent and bloody history of the last European land war–have aptly demonstrated that there are no small atrocities; offering up a people, an ethnic group, a nation, in exchange for “peace in our time”–gives us neither peace nor justice. Today we hand over [insert ethnic group here]. Tomorrow we hand over [insert other ethnic group here]. Pretty soon, we’re trying to decide which of the children we’d miss the least. That particular slippery slope is made even perilous with the blood of the innocent.
This is disingenous to the extreme. Any decision you’d make that would compell you to suicide can hardly be said to be a just and wise option. You’d be escaping the consequences of your decision, while the survivors would have to cope with your injudicious and pusillanimous decision. If you can’t live with it, why should anyone else be expected to?
The question still stands; what are these aliens up to that they want to remove (and presumably excruciate/eliminate/gormandize this selection of people? I wouldn’t place much trust in them or their promises; nor, if I were them, would I offer up any technology that would permit these backstabbing apes to turn around and swipe at us. As a moral poser, this reeks like a week-dead skunk.
If the alien civilization is so advanced that they are able to solve all our energy problems and cure all diseases, wouldn’t the 87% of the population want to be taken. These aliens obviously have a higher civilization than we would even after they gave us unlimited energy and cures for all diseases.
If you were someone from the 87% of the population to be left behind, would you attempt to convince a member of the 12% of the population to switch places with you, knowing that there is just as likely a chance that you will be tortured as there is a chance that you will ulimately be more happier than you could ever be on earth.
I’m glad the OP said it would take 2/3rds. I’m afraid that if it was only 50% that the vote just might go for it.
What a disgusting question.
Being that its aliens and this is in the Sci-Fi Realm. It is probably a test by a group of aliens and everyone that voted for it would be hauled off for some nefarious reason instead. At Least that is what Rod Sterling would’ve done.
Nah, Rod would have the aliens take away the sacrifical population and fail to mention to the rest, smug in their hubris and satisfaction with their new toys, that a massive black hole was on a collision course with the Sun.
“And so, those who would sacrifice their fellow men become the sacrificed…in the Twilight Zone.”