Like Batman, we’re prepared.
Sure thing if the killing excluded my family members. If the question meant that the U.S. remained intact, I don’t really understand the problem in the question. It seems obvious that you would it.
Ditto.
You have no way of knowing that. The only person for certain exempted is yourself. 1/3 will be removed in equal distribution across the globe. The contiguous part merely means that portions of places will not be removed. So, for instance, Brooklyn wouldn’t disappear from NYC, but NYC in it’s entirety could. Or it might remain intact, and a bunch of little cities might poof away, or any combination possible.
If inaction means the death of all, then I’d sacrifice 99.99 percent of the the world’s population. It’s the only choice that makes sense, if one’s goal is to save the most amount of people.
This is kind of like that episode of Doctor Who with the Sycorax.
Total extinction of the species within 500 years or random removal of 1/3rd population? I’d let it ride - either our descendants can handle the problems or not, but its their choice. If the 1/3rd included researchers, labs, and national governments the upheaval would probably “end” the world a lot faster than 500 years.
If you could choose the 1/3rd who would die, on the other hand, I’d choose that option almost instantly.
I’d tell him to go fuck himself, and murder a billion-something people on his own conscience instead of trying to put it on mine.
Given the assurance that our species would survive for at least 5000 years with a near 100% success rate, it becomes an extremely simple choice for me.
Condemn 1/3 of the population now, or condemn the entire population 5,000 years from now.
Because you said that they’d “disappear instantly,” I’d choose option A - condemn 1/3 now.
If that 1/3 was instead condemned to live out the next 5 years suffering a horrible, painful, slow death… I’d feel a lot worse about the decision, but I’d probably still choose it.
Yes. Without a qualm, and not for the sole benefit of what remained of mankind – I’d do it to save the elephants, and apes, and wolves, and frogs and kakapo parrots and tigers and other lifeforms whose continued existence is endangered by pressures from human overpopulation.
I’ll second that.
While I have no problems with sacrificing 1/3 of population for survival of whole humanity, in that scenario I would say ‘pass’. Or, actually, I would say something akin to Terrifel response. I have no way of verifying truth in claims about supposed future extinction and idea of all that test stinks up to the orbit and back to the ground. It’s more like a cruel and childish prank than action that I would expect from super-being. Therefore, it’s more reasonable to choose to solve our own problems ourselves than let him execute huge number of fellow humans, including possibly those that I know, like and even possibly love. Nu-uh Mister God or whoever you are (probably just imagination of my coma-sunken brain swelled after car accident), go fuck with other aliens and leave us alone. If we decide to kill ourselves, we can kill any percentage of us as we like it without your help. Now, get me home and scram.
Wait a minute here… Can I have their stuff?
Given the question as asked, assuming the entire elimination of humans will not happen in my lifetime, but 5000 years in the future, no I would not kill off 1/3 of humans.
If we go extinct in 5000 years, oh well. I won’t be around. I’m not going on a genocidal mission to save some crap-ass dna 5k years in the future. That’s just stupid. If we go extinct 80 generations or so down the line, whatever, I won’t be around. Let the dolphins have a crack at it.
Can the 1/3 be the oldest 1/3 of the population?
Think of all the problems that would solve!
I’d say no. Not unless I got to choose them (I guess in an immeasurably long freeze-frame period), and base those decisions on full disclosure on the lives and inner workings of the person. This requires omniscience, so basically, I’d have to be God myself. Otherwise, they can get themselves out of their own mess.
Well, as I understand it, there’s an interesting side-effect in the way the problem was laid out. Considering you would remove entire sections and not at complete random, that completely changes how this weights against the decider. In essence, for most of us, most of our friends and/or family are probably located in a a single “town” or “area” or however it’s defined. IOW, you wouldn’t lose 1/3 of the people you know and love, you’d have either a 2/3 chance to lose a small percentage (about 1/3 of those living outside of the area of the majority of them) or a 1/3 chance to lose a large percentage (all those in the main area and 1/3 of those outside the area). How much would it suck to not only be exempted yourself, but also lose most of the people that matter to you? For many people, they’d probably disappear or stay with most of the people they care about, but how much would it suck for those who moved away from their family and friends and they survive, but everyone they love disappears?
I MAY consider it IF there were a more equitable way to distribute those who disappear. That is, find a way to minimize immediate suffering. OTOH, we’re also talking about predictions here. If he can provide some sort of prediction, he also ought to provide some much more concrete evidence than science can now, that we need to change our trends. IOW, I would tend to find the morally correct decision to be NOT to take those lives and instead request whatever information he can provide, and use that as a basis to try to start a movement to prevent whatever would end us, be it war, disease, natural disaster, or whatnot.
Sounds like a book I just re-read recently- Nature’s End by Whitley Strieber (yes, that Whitley Strieber).
Interesting stuff. I bought Warday at the same used book store but now I can’t find it… 
“Can’t leave orphans… must kill entire families…”
Yeah, and not just my share of their stuff, but ALL of their stuff goes to me, personally. And then I would start by killing the 5% wealthiest part of the population than owns 90% of everything.
Is there a hot chick filter I can switch on to keep them?