A jaunt into the Twilight Zone:The Button

[TSGames]

I have a hypothetical question of a philosophical nature. After reading these boards for a while, I have seen both noble naive optimism, and terribly depraved pessimism about the human condition. There are many views held by hundreds of playgrounders, and there is no shortage of diversity in opinion. So I think it would be fun to discuss this question:

Let's say that you are given absolute power of a sort. Bear with me now, because, like a Twilight Zone episode, there's more than a few conditions to this scenario... This power comes in the form of a button.

You awake in a featureless room. Having no memory of how you got there, and no knowledge of where you are, you take a look around the room. The only two fixtures of the room are a door and a console with a single button. Walking over to the console, you take a look at the button. It is a small black button which, under any other circumstances, would be considered nondescript. As you turn from the button you realize two things: Once you leave the room, you can never return, a realization made important only by virtue of your second revelation: if you push the button all human life will end.

This is the complete scenario. All facts included and omitted as necessary.

What do you do?

[reorith]

i push the button. for great justice!

[Don Julio Anejo]

One of two - I either push and poke the button from different angles until I get completely bored with it and then shift my focus to the apples hanging on a nearby tree, or I completely ignore it because in the movies it never ends well.

The first one is more likely.

[chiasaur11]

Walk out, locking the door behind me.

Finding everyone dead wouldn't be fun, exactly, but if it wasn't my fault I could enjoy some upsides for the week or two before I run out of supplies and die of something.

In this scenario? No way, no how. Not my call to make.

Unless I get a hunch that my other hunch ain't on the up and up, in which case I hit the button repeatedly while laughing maniacally. Ought to mess with whoever set up the experiment.

[Sucrose]

I like humans. I also happen to be one. I don't want to die, at least not before living a full life. Therefore, I would not push the button. I would step out, and barricade the door as best I could. I admit that I'd be tempted, though, by the sheer power of Schmuck Bait.

[Extra_Crispy]

Not even hesitate. I would find a way to destroy the mechanism of the button thus not allowing it to EVER be pushed. I would then walk out of the room and if at all possible destroy anyway of anyone ever being able to get into that room.

Then just walk away and forget about the whole thing. There are alot of bad people in the world that deserve to die, but there are many more that deserve to live, or at least deserve to decided their own fate. I have no right to kill everyone. Now if the button came with a selector that allowed me to smite certain people, I would use it.

[The Duke]

Not even hesitate. I would find a way to destroy the mechanism of the button thus not allowing it to EVER be pushed. I would then walk out of the room and if at all possible destroy anyway of anyone ever being able to get into that room.

Then just walk away and forget about the whole thing. There are alot of bad people in the world that deserve to die, but there are many more that deserve to live, or at least deserve to decided their own fate. I have no right to kill everyone. Now if the button came with a selector that allowed me to smite certain people, I would use it.


Eww, so you have a problem deciding the fate of the entire human race because you feel people have the right to choose there fate. Yet you have no problem with getting to end peoples lives who you feel don't deserve to live. :smallmad:

Yeah, I'm sure there are people who deserve to die, still investing the power to choose that in a single person. Just eww.

As for myself, honestly I probably wouldn't push the button. I would let it rest, humanity can destroy itself without any outside help.

However in many ways I've often felt the human race as a whole is more of a parasite then anything, so perhaps, just perhaps I might push the button.As well I'm very curious as to if the button does what I "feel" it does

Thus the problem with leaving it up to a single person. A bad day anything could effect a person or an entire species fate.

Edit: at below. Yeah I'm pretty odd I certainly have considered the idea of ending the human race more then once. It would be something I would have to ponder for a while before making the decision and it's hard to say what I'd decide. Perhaps I should look into therapy, but honestly I'm pretty happy the way I am now. :smallwink::smalltongue:

[Gorgondantess]

Emmm... yeah...
Don't push the button. Kill everyone on earth? Who has the right to do that? Who's crazy enough to do that? Honestly, I think anyone who actually considered that should check into therapy... >.>
Besides, if all human life ended, then we wouldn't have this wonderful forum!:smalltongue:

[SurlySeraph]

I leave immediately to make sure I won't be tempted for even a moment.

[Partof1]

My first thought would be that I have no right to make that decision. My second thought would be that I have been given that decision to make.

I would most certainly not push the button. Nothing is perfect, but life itself has so much to offer.

Humanity may harm the world in some ways, but we are also part of the world. We are natural, and eliminating us is like eliminating pine trees, in my interpretation of actuality.

We have our flaws, but merits to accompany them.

[The Glyphstone]

Is there a sign on the button labeled "DO NOT PUSH"? If so, the human race is doomed.

[Devils_Advocate]

Well, if I destroy humanity, then civilization just has to evolve all over again, and I see no reason to believe that it'll work out better the next time around. On the other hand, our successors would get to develop in an environment with all sorts of artifacts from a mysteriously vanished precursor race, which is wicked cool.

So, first of all, I try pulling the button out. Maybe not the best of ideas, but I'm curious. :smalltongue:

In the likely event that that doesn't do anything, I stay in the room until I die of starvation, paralyzed by indecision. At least that's what I'm guessing, based on my life history up to this point.

"Maybe it's a trick? Maybe it doesn't do anything, because all human life is destined to end eventually anyway? I guess the only way to find out would be to push it."

How shiny a button are we talkin' here?

[Banderbear]

How quickly are we talking about human life ending? Because if it's going to take millions of years then the human race is going to die out anyway and pushing the button would have had no more effect on the end of the human race than say eating bacon, and I will not be denied my bacon!

But if it's insta-kill then yeah I'd probably leave the button alone...

However, I point you to XKCD. http://xkcd.com/242/

[PJ the Epic]

I push the button. But, since I have ultimate power...infinite pie drops from the ceiling and no human life ends. I am happy.:smallsmile:

If you're nice I will share.

[Makensha]

I'm not sure whether you mean I can't get out until I press the button, therefore making a "my life or all of their's dilemma," or just the capability to wipe out humanity with the touch of a button. In either case, I couldn't morally justify to myself killing the world off.

[Dogmantra]

I would probably toy with the idea, but eventually I would just force myself out of the room, even if I later changed my mind. I probably couldn't bear causing the death of a single person I like, let alone all of them.

[Xzeno]

I don't get it... What is the advantage of pushing the button? With so much to lose and nothing to gain, any rational agent would not push the button.

[arguskos]

I don't get it... What is the advantage of pushing the button? With so much to lose and nothing to gain, any rational agent would not push the button.
It's a test of philosophy. As the OP notes, there are a number of folks who are practically nihilists on these boards. The OP wishes to see if that philosophy would hold up to the ultimate test.

[Trog]

Is it a shiny, candy-like button? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jjN-H62U64) >_>

All the more room for the troglodytes. *push* :smalltongue:

[CurlyKitGirl]

Wouldn't even think about it; I'd try to destroy the console and the whole room; or at least try to make sure noone could ever enter the room after I leave.
Who am I to say we all deserve to die? Who am I to say that we're all doomed and kill everyone? Sure, there are evil people, but everyone deserves at least a chance at redemption.

I don't want that knd of power, nobody does.

[Mathis]

I think I'd laugh at the situation, I mean really. The thought is hilareous. Ending every single human life, that including my own is such an insane thought that I wouldn't even shrug, or have doubts, about leaving that room with the button unpushed.

I honestly doubt there is a single person here who would be able to make the choice to kill every humanbeing in the world. You can act tough and say that you would definately push that button. But until you're actually in that situation you won't know for sure.

[Istari]

Immediately walk out and do my best to make sure the room cannot be entered by anyone else

[golentan]

I sit and ponder until I find a way to disable the button forever.

[reorith]

I sit and ponder until I find a way to disable the button forever.

why? also wouldn't killing everyone be a surefire way to prevent anyone from ever pressing the button?

[golentan]

why? also wouldn't killing everyone be a surefire way to prevent anyone from ever pressing the button?

Person A: Hey, my hand hurts when I bite it.
Person B: Well why are you biting it?
A: I wouldn't normally, but I'm trying to chew it off.
B: Why?
A: So it won't hurt when I bite it anymore.

I don't know.

Maybe because as little as I like human beings I feel it's wrong to commit xenocide.

Maybe I'm trying to atone for my past actions.

Maybe I'm sticking to promises and principles out of sheer bloodymindedness.

Maybe because all of my living friends are human. Maybe I don't trust nihilistic morons not to wipe out the good work that's been done.

Maybe I feel for every human being stupid, nihilistic, and jerkish enough to ask that question there's at least one person worth saving.

Maybe because I want to put up a big "Up Yours" sign to the people nasty enough to make that button.

Maybe I like the children I work with, and want to see how they'll improve themselves and society given the opportunity.

Maybe I have empathy.

[PhoeKun]

I wouldn't push the button, because... well... come on.

I would, however, hang around in that room for a couple of minutes. I'm never going to hold the fate of humanity in my hands again, I might as well take the time to savor the moment before I lock the door behind me.

[Krade]

If I were to have any kind of ultimate power, it would have to actually be ultimate. If my only power was to kill everyone it would kinda suck, not to mention that it wouldn't really be ultimate.

I'd probably stay in the room for a while. Perhaps even guard it. I would accept this responsibility and deal with it the only way I know how: Make sure, absolutely sure, that no one, ever, gets near that button. If I have to stay there for the rest of my life then so be it. Maybe I can train a disciple to carry on my legacy.

[Green Bean]

Leave the button alone. Passing judgement like that is too big for one person. Not only would it be saying humankind is not worthy of being saved, it'd be saying humankind will never be worthy of being saved.

[FoE]

I walk out and leave a rather nasty note in the comment box about how immensely disappointed I was in Disneyland's newest attraction.


As the OP notes, there are a number of folks who are practically nihilists on these boards.

Nihilists! **** me. I mean, say what you will about the tenents of National Socialism, but at least it's an ethos.

[Generic Archer]

I really have no idea.

I do feel that this planet would be a lot better without us as a race.
and within the race I feel there are a lot of problems, almost all of which are probably unsolveable.
That said, in the last little while I have found more people who's company I enjoy...

It would certainly take some thought, probably a piece of paper and about a week. The main thing is that we destroy far more than we help, if this button could give me a guarantee that no human would survive it would make me lean t'wards destruction a little more. If there are ways to survive then why bother.

even 2 survivors would make it an exercise in futility.

bit pessimistic I agree, but seriously, how do humans improve the world? at all?
Dane

[Raistlin1040]

If it killed all Humans (including or excluding myself, either way), and that was all it did, I wouldn't press the button. There'd be times where I was tempted, but overall, I wouldn't ever go through with it. If the button instead destroyed humanity but also created a new type of intelligent being on Earth, I might consider it.

[Green Bean]

I really have no idea.

I do feel that this planet would be a lot better without us as a race.
and within the race I feel there are a lot of problems, almost all of which are probably unsolveable.
That said, in the last little while I have found more people who's company I enjoy...

It would certainly take some thought, probably a piece of paper and about a week. The main thing is that we destroy far more than we help, if this button could give me a guarantee that no human would survive it would make me lean t'wards destruction a little more. If there are ways to survive then why bother.

even 2 survivors would make it an exercise in futility.

bit pessimistic I agree, but seriously, how do humans improve the world? at all?
Dane

So not only do you believe that humans harm more than they help, but you believe that humans will always harm more than they help? That we have absolutely no hope of ever improving, ever?

Also, on a pedantic genetics note, you'd need a lot more than 2 survivors to repopulate a species. Genetic diversity and all that.

[golentan]

If I may, as I see it there are a finite number of reasons to push the button.

1st: Humans are bad. They must be punished/neutralized for the greater good. Well, here we must determine what makes them bad. Is it that they kill things? That they disrupt nature? That they are unkind? In the first case, if killing is wrong, pushing the button is in and of itself a more immoral action than anything done by any previous individual. In the second case, the present ecosystem is so dependent on human changes by now that the eradication of humanity would have further devastating consequences, and would fail to reverse existing damage (which would likely continue to propagate). In the final case, great strides have been made in past years, and not giving the credit that people will continue to improve is again an act of uncharity.

2nd: Existence is Cruel, I am sparing humanity the pain of existing. Here's the thing. With this one, every human being has the power to make this decision themselves. There is no force on earth that can make a truly determined human being continue to live, short of tying them down and vein feeding them for the rest of their days. Even then it's possible to swallow your tongue. The people, by their continued existence, categorically reject your position of "charity." Further, if you truly hold this position why are you debating such matters online rather than choosing annihilation? Your continued existence argues against true faith in this idea. Inaction for 80 years will almost certainly have the same result for everyone you're considering murdering anyway. The only difference is whether you dirty your hands.

3rd: I hate people/myself, and want to kill them. All of them. Congratulations on recognizing yourself as a grade A psychopath. Can you really not think of anyone who you'd be willing to spare? Friends? Family? Infants? If not, I can bet that this fact is related to why you don't have any friends you'd be willing to save. If you can, think honestly. You are about to kill not only those people, but the people those people care about as much, and those they care about as much. 7 billion times over.

Any major reasons I missed?

[Green Bean]

4th: I am lol internet evil, and this makes me seem far more interesting than I am in real life.

:smalltongue:

[golentan]

4th: I am lol internet evil, and this makes me seem far more interesting than I am in real life.

:smalltongue:

Thank you. To such people: Go through puberty, and get a life. You know, with people, and sunlight.

[PhoeKun]

bit pessimistic I agree, but seriously, how do humans improve the world? at all?
Dane

You've fallen a step shy of Dr. Manhattan, I see. He looked at Mars, and wondered how Earth was improved by the presence of any life at all. So in that vein, I ask you: how do rabbits, bees, birds, or plants improve the world? At all?

On another topic entirely, what exactly we did that's so bad we're worth destroying? I don't think we're looking at the same species. I've seen people bare their souls to me, though a variety of media, in ways so beautiful that they made me cry. I look around and I see a society that has developed ways to take advantage of even some of the most disadvantageous parts of nature. We've erected some rather awe-inspiring buildings, moved rivers, raised entire islands from nothing to build homes over the water. We've left this planet, been to the moon, and figured out what's among the stars. We think we've got a chance at turning Mars into another Earth-like planet. We set up a system with which we can communicate instantaneously across unfathomable distances.

...Humanity is pretty amazing, if you want my opinion. You can demean and mock all of our accomplishments if you really want to, but I don't really see the point. And I will grant you, that at times during our history we've been careless with the environment, and some individuals have been unspeakably cruel. But, has there really been nothing in our entire history that has made you think, "Wow, this is incredible"?

If that's really true, I pity you.

[TSGames]

Any major reasons I missed?
What if someone were to push the button for this reason:
Humans are inherently evil. They must be ended not for any greater good, but rather for their own good.

It's hard to describe what is meant by that statement, for English is a very unfriendly language to complex ideas. Perhaps I should put it this way instead: If a man is insane, it is better for him to be restrained so that he cannot harm himself or others. If the human race has proven to be unbearably evil, and we are incapable of restraining evil action within the race as a whole, is it not better to end humanity, rather than to let it continue to do evil?

I digress, we probably cannot agree as to why humans are evil. However, if one is to assume your first scenario, that we are evil because we murder unjustly, wouldn't pushing the button be the only possible recourse? In one push of a button, will not said individual have committed the ultimate self sacrifice: to die and take on the evil of killing all of humanity so that no other humans may ever have to bear such evil again?

I feel that I have become lost in the opinions displayed so far, for there are many viewpoints that allude to subtler reasoning with which I am neither familiar, nor comprehending.

I suppose I do not understand why it is an act of 'uncharity' to assume that humanity may not improve. Given the global history of our last 100 years, the outlook seems very bleak: we have seen more and possibly irreparable damage to the environment than in all of previous history, we have taken thousands of lives and destroyed a whole city with a single weapon, we have perfected torture and poisonous gases, we have cheered as tyrants rose to power, and we rejoiced in eugenics and endorsed the genocides of millions of people of various races.

Perhaps I do not understand why it matters if someone believes that humanity has the potential to improve or not. If I am given only one opportunity, would it not make sense to judge humanity as it is, and not as it may be? Do I need to consider possible futures of humanity; search for every light of hope amid a dark reality, or am I merely searching for a reason not to press the button?

There's a lot of views that are clearly more developed than my own...I have seen many people claim that they do not have the right to push the button. Try as I might to understand it, this logic escapes me. Is it merely because others would disagree with the decision? I doubt that is the reason, for it seems such a childish perspective. As I understand it to be, with every major decision ever made, there will always be dissenting opinions. The fact that people disagree is not enough to invalidate a course of action. But, we are dealing with people's lives here, so this is different, yes? People should have a right to chose their fate, their own destiny. And yet... up until the point at which they die, isn't that exactly what they've been doing their whole lives? Certainly, many would not wish to die, just as many would not want to stop doing heroine, going to KKK rallies, or drinking. And still, many would desire death, and many would want to live to find the cure to Cancer, to give time to the Red Cross, or just to be good to one another. By what right do those who desire life, come before those who desire death? Is it merely because they are greater in number? Is the future of humanity to be held in democratic fashion? Has the will of the majority ever made a decision right for any reason other than the 'Common Good'? Even if we are to hold that an individual has no right or say over the species as a whole, and that we must instead look to the future of the species in a true, democratic fashion, it is only by the will of the evil amongst us that humanity's future will be decided, for the evil so greatly outnumber the good.

There are many perspectives here that I do not understand. I know that the views of others on this subject are far more defined than my own. However, little explanation has been given, and since I am not adept with subtle logic I have been left adrift a sea of confusion.

[golentan]

What if someone were to push the button for this reason:
Humans are inherently evil. They must be ended not for any greater good, but rather for their own good.

It's hard to describe what is meant by that statement, for English is a very unfriendly language to complex ideas. Perhaps I should put it this way instead: If a man is insane, it is better for him to be restrained so that he cannot harm himself or others.

I'm going to stop it right there. If a man is insane, he is no better or worse than any other man. If a man is criminally insane (I.E. a threat to himself or others), he is restrained so that he may not inflict harm until he can be treated. You don't put a bullet in his brain.


If the human race has proven to be unbearably evil, and we are incapable of restraining evil action within the race as a whole, is it not better to end humanity, rather than to let it continue to do evil?

I digress, we probably cannot agree as to why humans are evil. However, if one is to assume your first scenario, that we are evil because we murder unjustly, wouldn't pushing the button be the only possible recourse? In one push of a button, will not said individual have committed the ultimate self sacrifice: to die and take on the evil of killing all of humanity so that no other humans may ever have to bear such evil again?

Of course not. Simply by refusing to murder you (as a human) demonstrate the ability of people to rise above their circumstances and make the choice not to kill or do evil. As to humans proving themselves irrevocably evil, I have a simple challenge to that statement. Watch people merging on the freeway. I know that sounds foolish, but people voluntarily limit themselves in circumstances where they could gain concrete advantage at the expense of others, but this almost never happens.

We live in an era where any person could, within days, produce enough explosive or toxic gases to destroy a significantly sized building. Where firearms are cheap and plentiful. Society continues to function, and such attacks as occur are newsworthy events on a national and international scale.


I feel that I have become lost in the opinions displayed so far, for there are many viewpoints that allude to subtler reasoning with which I am neither familiar, nor comprehending.

I suppose I do not understand why it is an act of 'uncharity' to assume that humanity may not improve. Given the global history of our last 100 years, the outlook seems very bleak: we have seen more and possibly irreparable damage to the environment than in all of previous history, we have taken thousands of lives and destroyed a whole city with a single weapon, we have perfected torture and poisonous gases, we have cheered as tyrants rose to power, and we rejoiced in eugenics and endorsed the genocides of millions of people of various races.

In the last hundred years, we have seen the first true litany of the rights of man. We've seen hundreds of oppressed peoples gain self determination. We've seen a lessening of starvation, the curing of diseases, the end of many forms of discrimination, and despite more than half a century of weapons capable of destroying millions of lives in a second, none of them have been employed save 2 of them, which were prioritized to limit the effects. The tortures used today, while heinous, are decried as such, and are much more limited than those of previous centuries. Genocide has been present for millennia, but now is recognized for the vast evil it is and has been fought since that recognition. Humans have also now turned their ingenuity to repairing the unwitting damage they did to the environment before they understood the effects of their actions. We have seen the toppling of tyrants (who were once the sole option) and the establishment of freedoms and a wide range of systems.


Perhaps I do not understand why it matters if someone believes that humanity has the potential to improve or not. If I am given only one opportunity, would it not make sense to judge humanity as it is, and not as it may be? Do I need to consider possible futures of humanity; search for every light of hope amid a dark reality, or am I merely searching for a reason not to press the button?

If a teenager takes a joyride, do you assume he will be a car thief and decide to kill him to prevent it? If you need to judge humanity, doesn't it make the most sense to track how they have progressed, and what they have risen from? Life in the wild is cruel and uncaring, as Hobbes said it is Nasty, Brutish, and Short. Despite that fact, people strive to care and be good. They try to make a better future for their children.


There's a lot of views that are clearly more developed than my own...I have seen many people claim that they do not have the right to push the button. Try as I might to understand it, this logic escapes me. Is it merely because others would disagree with the decision? I doubt that is the reason, for it seems such a childish perspective. As I understand it to be, with every major decision ever made, there will always be dissenting opinions. The fact that people disagree is not enough to invalidate a course of action. But, we are dealing with people's lives here, so this is different, yes? People should have a right to chose their fate, their own destiny. And yet... up until the point at which they die, isn't that exactly what they've been doing their whole lives? Certainly, many would not wish to die, just as many would not want to stop doing heroine, going to KKK rallies, or drinking. And still, many would desire death, and many would want to live to find the cure to Cancer, to give time to the Red Cross, or just to be good to one another. By what right do those who desire life, come before those who desire death? Is it merely because they are greater in number? Is the future of humanity to be held in democratic fashion? Has the will of the majority ever made a decision right for any reason other than the 'Common Good'? Even if we are to hold that an individual has no right or say over the species as a whole, and that we must instead look to the future of the species in a true, democratic fashion, it is only by the will of the evil amongst us that humanity's future will be decided, for the evil so greatly outnumber the good.

There are many perspectives here that I do not understand. I know that the views of others on this subject are far more defined than my own. However, little explanation has been given, and since I am not adept with subtle logic I have been left adrift a sea of confusion.

I disagree. The good greatly outnumber the evil, it is simply that evil has greater power to be destructive. If you have a thousand people trying to feed each other, and one trying to starve the others for whatever reason, a single torch to the field will make them go hungry. This question is the ultimate version of that: the power to kill all possibility of change, all potential for growth and hope and improvement. Because you choose not to view your fellows as having anything worth saving. Those who truly desire death, as I have said, can have it. There is nothing stopping them. You're not siding with one side over another, you're siding against a united front with a group that clearly does not believe that which they preach, by virtue of the fact that the group is able to claim it exists.

It's not a question of democracy. Death is the only absolute in life, and you have been granted absolute power over it for every man, woman, and child for the purposes of this question. As the old saying goes, power corrupts. The test here, is whether you truly believe in your heart of hearts, that you or anyone else can exercise that power as it deserves to be exercised. That your view of what is right is absolute, and pure. And that there is not enough goodness in the world to justify saving those who are righteous in order to punish those who are not. If you think you know the answer to that, I will say this flat out. You. Are. Wrong.

I don't know the answer. You don't. Nobody does. That's why humans have spent so long fighting over what is good, with both pens and swords. That is why the people who say they "Don't have the right" say as much. Such power cannot and should not be wielded by an individual, or a group, or by the whims of the masses. It should not be wielded at all.

I will add that for you this is a hypothetical. For me, if I wished, I could judge humanity and find it wanting. I do not like humanity. I don't like how it has chosen to organize itself, or the way it focuses on the world. I do, however, admit that the things I dislike are minor, save for the ones which have undergone steady improvement. And I have never met a human I didn't like. In my experience, those who tout evil do so thinking that it is for good, and they are well intentioned and loving when not misled. I think that choosing to exterminate them for having just dragged themselves up from the mud and having not yet washed it all from themselves is a perfect example of this sort of misled evil, which tends to focus on purging the impure rather than accentuating that which is wholly good.

[TSGames]

Simply by refusing to murder you (as a human) demonstrate the ability of people to rise above their circumstances and make the choice not to kill or do evil.
And if I (as a human) choose to push the button, what then do I demonstrate? By pushing the button do I affirm the evil of humanity, and by not pushing it do affirm the positive aspects of humanity? Is not each scenario then inherently and recursively justified?

That aside, I feel there's still much that deserves clarification... I understand that on an individual level I may be able to (arguably) exemplify some human goodness by not pushing the button, but what I do not understand is how that goodness is greater than saving all of humanity from future evil. Does one not-evil deed(not killing all of humanity), hold more weight than the prevention of all future evil that humanity could possibly commit?


As to humans proving themselves irrevocably evil, I have a simple challenge to that statement. Watch people merging on the freeway. I know that sounds foolish, but people voluntarily limit themselves in circumstances where they could gain concrete advantage at the expense of others, but this almost never happens.
Hmmm.... This is interesting. I am not sure what to say... Having driven in L.A. Dallas, Houston, and New York, I am forced to disagree with the example. In each of these places I learned that there is fine art to forcing one's way onto a highway without being involved in an accident. Then again, I have also driven in my small hometown where people are generally very nice(but not very good) drivers. It has always seemed to me that most people are willing to take the gain of a few seconds, as long as they do not believe that there is a high likelihood of a collision. Perhaps we have simply had rather drastically different experiences with driving...


We live in an era where any person could, within days, produce enough explosive or toxic gases to destroy a significantly sized building. Where firearms are cheap and plentiful. Society continues to function, and such attacks as occur are newsworthy events on a national and international scale.
I am at a loss for comprehending this logic... Are humans good or capable of improvement because not all humans are as overtly evil as they could potentially be? Is it the fact that society continues to function despite infrequent massive attacks that prove a resilience or goodness in humanity? And why does any of that dissuade me pushing the button? I simply do not understand this logic. The majority of humans will go through life and never kill another human being, and yet many that do kill others will still be better people than many who do not. A hard-working FBI agent will almost assuredly be a better person than a crooked car dealer or a Wall Street broker. Is killing another(or many others) the requirement for being evil? Does a human need to be a terrorist or axe-murderer to be evil? It seems to me that the majority of human evil is done in ways that invite little retribution and are almost never as overt as as setting off bombs or weapons. Should humans be determined as good or evil based only on the extremes of our kind, or do we deserve to be judged for the good and evil that each human being commits?

There is still much that escapes me within this discussion....In the last hundred years humans have finally began to address some of the problems that we have created ourselves. Meanwhile, all of the problems persist, most are worse than ever, and we have created whole new problems that could not even have been imagined a century ago. Even then, genocide, world hunger, irreparable environmental damage, none of these needed ever to occur, but occurred only through the evil of man. Should I have hope for humanity's future that we have begun ineffectively, and half-heartedly addressing a few of the problems we have created for ourselves? Should I look only to the good, even as we continue to create new evils for us to address at later dates?


If a teenager takes a joyride, do you assume he will be a car thief and decide to kill him to prevent it? If you need to judge humanity, doesn't it make the most sense to track how they have progressed, and what they have risen from? Life in the wild is cruel and uncaring, as Hobbes said it is Nasty, Brutish, and Short. Despite that fact, people strive to care and be good. They try to make a better future for their children.
Surely your heart is not in this analogy? Is all the evil that mankind has ever committed to be likened to a 'joyride'? Is humanity after thousands of years of history to be likened only to a teenager that cannot be held fully accountable? I cannot address this analogy because I feel it does not do the human condition justice, and that it does not draw an appropriate correlation.

Very much kudos for the Hobbes reference ;) However, I cannot see how humanity not living in the state of nature(an impossible state) is any proof of man's goodness. But I have digressed, I have known many more people who act without caring for the quality of life of their children than those that do care about the fate of their children. Perhaps we have simply had very different lives.... That aside, is wanting a better world for one's children a virtue? If it is, is the intention to make the world better enough to redeem the evil that humanity ceaselessly inflicts upon itself? This perspective is so alien to me, I do not understand it at all.

It would seem that we have two opposite experiences with humanity. I cannot understand why one would think the good outnumber the evil. Is it because so few of us set fire to fields, detonate bombs, and murder others? What about the crooked car dealer that washes titles and buys stolen auto-parts, the hospital staff that violate health regulations in order to cut storage costs, the person who runs up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt with no concern for paying it back, the drug dealer, the human-trafficker, the lobyist-puppet politician, the corrupt official? I have seen more varied and creative works of evil than I would care to or could discuss, but what has amazed me the most, is the acceptance and denial of evil that deeply permeates humanity. The debtor is protected, the child molester is merely sick, the alcoholic is merely diseased. Have we made any progress against our problems, or have we simply become better at renaming them and hiding our hands in the dark? I feel we may have seen two drastically different sides of the same coin.



This question is the ultimate version of that: the power to kill all possibility of change, all potential for growth and hope and improvement. Because you choose not to view your fellows as having anything worth saving. Those who truly desire death, as I have said, can have it. There is nothing stopping them. You're not siding with one side over another, you're siding against a united front with a group that clearly does not believe that which they preach, by virtue of the fact that the group is able to claim it exists.

It's not a question of democracy. Death is the only absolute in life, and you have been granted absolute power over it for every man, woman, and child for the purposes of this question. As the old saying goes, power corrupts. The test here, is whether you truly believe in your heart of hearts, that you or anyone else can exercise that power as it deserves to be exercised. That your view of what is right is absolute, and pure. And that there is not enough goodness in the world to justify saving those who are righteous in order to punish those who are not. If you think you know the answer to that, I will say this flat out. You. Are. Wrong.
I understand that it is the power to end all hope of improvement, but it is also the power to end all likelihood of degradation. Many people drift through life simply because they lack the courage, or perhaps resolve, to die. If everyone were to die, would not many be glad for the lifting of their Earthly burdens? It seems to me that there are many who are not in love with life, and most who are, cling to it simply because it is life and for no other reason. I do not believe the front is as united as you make it sound; even if it is, since when has a majority will ever made an action right or wrong for any reason other than the Greater Good? Hardly does any of it seem to disqualify pushing the button as a potential course of action.

Perhaps we have merely incompatible experiences...
I am fundamentally, in every way, absolutely incapable of accepting the assumption that death is an absolute end. Sadly, religion(and thusly all matters of the soul) are forbidden topics on these boards, so I will mention this no further.

Lastly, for I am so very tired of typing, I find your question interesting: is it possible that 'you or anyone else can exercise that power as it deserves to be exercised'? If no one has the absolute morality necessary to exercise this power justly, than truly humanity is doomed to evil, for we will never posses the sense of good needed to dispel our evil. With imperfect views of morality humanity can never achieve any real good, unless our corrupted morality merely happens to intersect with an objective good that may or may not exist. If there is no one that can exercise the power correctly, than the future misguided evil of humanity is assured, and the button should be pressed.

Despite all we have discussed, I think any disagreement we may have comes only from difference of experience, and I am never saddened to hear the perspectives of those that have seen goodness in humanity.

[Gan The Grey]

You are not the first person on this forum to ask this very question. Arguing the side of pushing the button this time around is just as incomprehensible and deliberately argumentative as it was the last go around. We know, without having to ask, the choice that any SANE person living in this world will commit to, and do we really care what the INSANE people will say? Again, argument otherwise is done so just to be deliberately contrary for the sake of continuing a discussion that should have never been posed in the first place. Outside of trying to be silly.

My 2 cents, as worthless as they may seem.

[golentan]

The thing is, most of the "evils" you mention are minor at best. I always judge evil by first asking "Who does it hurt," "Was it done in malice," and "Was it the least evil available?"

I have seen true evil. The car salesman who sells stolen parts? Not only relatively minor, but rare. Cheating on your taxes? Definitely not honest, but evil? I sincerely doubt it. Debtors? Really? The stuff that is evil, the child molesters, the murderers, and such? Really, REALLY rare.

I am one of the people who would not choose life if there weren't people who'd miss me. If someone offered a "You will all go together?" option? I would strike them down before they could reach for the button. If possible, I wouldn't kill. But I wouldn't hesitate if it were the only way. What is one life weighed against the world?

And above all, it doesn't matter what you believe about oblivion or something else. You don't have incontrovertible proof. Can you really make that gamble for 6 billion people? You aren't responsible for how people choose to live. You can try to influence them, yes, and you should never stop trying to make people better. This isn't that. This is making the choice to remove that choice from them, forever, because you believe it to be wrong. There is a reason people have free will.

If you still can't accept this argument, there is nothing I can say to sway you. Know though, that you are the perfect example of what I fear in the human spirit, and why I would work so hard to destroy the button before it could be used. Good intentions, gone awry, devoted entirely to evil by mistake.

[reorith]

the thing about the button is how do i know my "realization" is accurate? i'm wrong in a most routine nature. plus my life has been a series of poor judgment calls and misguided acts ever since i was seven. what other way can i gain empirical data if not by experimentation?

also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_button)

[golentan]

the thing about the button is how do i know my "realization" is accurate? i'm wrong in a most routine nature. plus my life has been a series of poor judgment calls and misguided acts ever since i was seven. what other way can i gain empirical data if not by experimentation?

also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_button)

The thing about that line of reasoning is that if the button is successful it teaches you nothing useful, because YOU'RE DEAD! And if it's unsuccessful it teaches you nothing you could not learn by leaving the room and walking back in.

Again, worth the risk?

[Generic Archer]

So not only do you believe that humans harm more than they help, but you believe that humans will always harm more than they help? That we have absolutely no hope of ever improving, ever?

Also, on a pedantic genetics note, you'd need a lot more than 2 survivors to repopulate a species. Genetic diversity and all that.

Yes I do, as a species we are massively destructive, our population is growing, as are our fuel needs. Yes we are taking steps to reduce it, but this will only slow the damage, until we return to a population size similar to that of a thousand years ago, maybe more, and again become subsistence farmers our impact will not lessen. The only way to allow this planet a recovery would be to completely remove ourselves. Preferably with all our learning as well. The last thing we need are new Neanderthals with chainsaws, bulldozers and crop dusters.

And I am aware that you'd need more... but without a guarantee of total annihilation it would not be worth it, the risk of a survivor group would make the entire act a meaningless loss of life.



You've fallen a step shy of Dr. Manhattan, I see. He looked at Mars, and wondered how Earth was improved by the presence of any life at all. So in that vein, I ask you: how do rabbits, bees, birds, or plants improve the world? At all?

I've fallen a long step short of Dr Manhatten... the reason I would consider ridding the world of humanity is to restore life to some vague semblance of equilibrium.
As an australian I have to say that rabbits don't and that would be a button I would press with even less thought
bees, birds and plants... It's not so much that they improve the world, but that they don't destroy it.
If we look at it from the oft used argument here that you can't judge 6 billion lives... we do that all the time, mass murder of invertebrates, not to mention bacterium, algaes... I just wish to at least consider applying the same theory to a species that is, by it's nature destructive.



On another topic entirely, what exactly we did that's so bad we're worth destroying? I don't think we're looking at the same species. I've seen people bare their souls to me, though a variety of media, in ways so beautiful that they made me cry. I look around and I see a society that has developed ways to take advantage of even some of the most disadvantageous parts of nature. We've erected some rather awe-inspiring buildings, moved rivers, raised entire islands from nothing to build homes over the water. We've left this planet, been to the moon, and figured out what's among the stars. We think we've got a chance at turning Mars into another Earth-like planet. We set up a system with which we can communicate instantaneously across unfathomable distances.

I have yet to see anything that humanity has created that compares to a bird of prey in flight, a wren flitting between wattles, Rock Island Bend (http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an6631500), the very structure of a roo or mammal... The mountains in any part of the world, glacial lakes, coral reefs...

Most of you're achievements created destruction of scenes like this...



...Humanity is pretty amazing, if you want my opinion. You can demean and mock all of our accomplishments if you really want to, but I don't really see the point. And I will grant you, that at times during our history we've been careless with the environment, and some individuals have been unspeakably cruel. But, has there really been nothing in our entire history that has made you think, "Wow, this is incredible"?

If that's really true, I pity you.

At times???? when have we ever not been careless?? even today we continue the same trends, we may be trying to change, but we're not trying all that hard
I can think of things we've done which have been incredible, but I am not sure that they outway the negatives of our continual survival.

@Gan The Grey, I think I'm sane...and I feel that the arguments placed by Skami Pilno show that he is too.
I think I just have a different view of the world to you, I was brought up in the bush and I love it there, I have seen so many places destroyed for the sake of more human breeding and I really can't see the reason.
My position is reasoned, I can't come down on a conclusion but I can definitely see merit in the removal of humanity, I am only arguing that side of the case as the other side is already well covered =p

And to those arguing both sides, lets keep it up, I am reading your points and will try to address those that I can, and I will try to poke holes in your arguments as I hope you will mine

Dane

[Gan The Grey]

So, really then, you ARE just arguing for the sake of arguing. :smallsmile:

Generic, you say that humans are destroying the world, and claim that birds and bees and wrens and whatever don't. You say that you might destroy humanity in order to restore the planet to 'some vague sort of equilibrium'. Problem is, you fail to take into account the fact that life IS destruction, just as much as life is creation. Continuing with the logic of your argument, our world was SCREWED long before the evolution of man, as the inclusion of life on earth COMPLETELY changed the face of the planet in irreparable ways.

You are right. Man's presence has changed the planet. Are those changes bad? Are they good? You could say that man's destructive tendencies threaten ALL life on the planet, so it must be bad, but you forget that the greatest act of genocide on our planet occurred long before man came on the scene. At one point in Earth's history, over 90% of life on this planet suddenly died, murdered by the careless evolution of oxygen-producing organisms. This simple change in evolution replotted the course of life on earth. Should we push a button that destroys all of this oxygen-plant life before it could do its harm?

Nature has plenty of ways of destroying itself without the help of man, and that's because LIFE is CHANGE. You think we are so bad, yet in the great scheme of things, we have done far less to this planet as a species than the majority of our predecessors. Oh, and random acts of fate too. Just ask the dinosaurs.

Wanna kill off humanity because we aren't perfect? Well, you should probably go ahead and kill off rabbits while you're at it, and that island full of reindeer that are destroying their natural habitat, and killer bees while you're at it, jellyfish too cuz there are WAY too many on them, white-tailed deer in the US, and any other species that has been accidentally or intentionally introduced to a foreign ecosystem. You can keep going from there until you realize that all life must be destroyed in order to return the planet to some vague since of equilibrium, as life has always and will always compete with each other and the world in order to survive, and in doing so, will most likely affect changes on the face of the earth. The NATURAL state of Earth is as a featureless rock.

But killing off all life is just absurd, and you can't argue for the elimination of human life without also wanting to right the greater evils of non-sentient life in general. No matter how hard you argue it, we are not the worst thing to happen to this planet. You also can't argue that our changes to the earth are unnatural, as life in general and the results stemming from it are, in the greater view of the universe, unnatural. Truth be told, there are only two viewpoints one could take on the presence of human life on earth:

1 - Random act of fate. If our presence, and all the rest of life for that matter, was a random chance occurrence, them all life is unnatural, not just us, simply because in such a vast universe, life seems to be the minority, and could appear to be a chance screw up in the great weave of fate. Therefore, all change stemming from life's presence is unnatural, and could be construed as evil. The changes brought upon the earth by man are no different than the changes brought by the rest of life, and it has no more right to live than we do. Survival of the fittest is the only rule that applies here, so there is no good reason to kill off man, as man is the only creature on Earth capable of choosing his own destiny, be that one of goodness or evil. Furthermore, there would be no objective way of measuring good and evil in this universe, as life itself is an aberration without compare. We would literally write the book on what is right and wrong.

2 - Preordained. Not to delve too far into religion, but if man was INTENTIONALLY placed on the planet, then our actions are the MOST important thing going on on Earth, and we should be given the chance to succeed or fail on our own. EACH of us, on our own. In this situation, we can take on whatever role we want, be it custodians of the myriad wonders of our world, or as heralds ushering in the permanent destruction of life as we know it. BUT, this is a choice to be made over time, and as a group, and we will never be able to know the outcome until we reach it. In this situation, it is not within the rights of any single person to destroy all other humans, as we were placed here by something greater than ourselves for a purpose we cannot hope to fathom. The only course of action is to see everything through.

I understand the role of devil's advocate. There are a great many things that can be learned about one's own beliefs simply by having them challenged.

BUT

This can only go on so long before it becomes an act of foolish pride to continue championing a stance as ludicrous as 'ending all human life.' There is no real defense for such a stance, save from the invention of unknowable and unprovable philosophies that act contrary to human logic.

EDIT Forgive the harsh tone at times. I am in no way trying to demean or belittle anyone reading this. Just trying to put down the truth as I see it in the most crystal-clear manner possible. :smallbiggrin: But I will call you out just a little Generic. You say you are sane, but if you were to consciously choose to end all human life for no more reason than 'you think it's best', I think that would probably prove otherwise. Either way, you and I both know that you wouldn't choose that action, no matter how fervently you argue on internet forums. :smallsmile:

[Generic Archer]

Life is about destruction, and change, but the example here of oxygen producing organisms did so slowly, over thousands of years, change and development like this allows other species to adapt, to mutate and to survive, how does the removal of a rediculous portion of forest (40%, 50%? I don't know) in less than 100 years possibly allow other organisms the same chances?



Nature has plenty of ways of destroying itself without the help of man, and that's because LIFE is CHANGE. You think we are so bad, yet in the great scheme of things, we have done far less to this planet as a species than the majority of our predecessors. Oh, and random acts of fate too. Just ask the dinosaurs.

find me a predecessor that destroyed the entire world, every single eco system, and did so rapidly... random acts of fate I'll concede, but in terms of animals and plants, it doesn't happen.
The primary reason for this is that all other creatures have a limited system, they can't spread rapidly, if they eat all the food available then they will start to starve, this occurs quickly, and before the grass starts to reshoot. Whilst pigs, rabbits and foxes do large scale damage here, it is limited in size to the lower areas not the mountains.
On the other hand, the human wave of influence affects everything.
If we run out of food somewhere, we just take it from somewhere else, the same goes for fuel


The changes brought upon the earth by man are no different than the changes brought by the rest of life, and it has no more right to live than we do. Survival of the fittest is the only rule that applies here, so there is no good reason to kill off man, as man is the only creature on Earth capable of choosing his own destiny, be that one of goodness or evil

I've addressed the top point above. As far as survival of the fittest goes, humans have all but wiped out the process, the only thing that gets considered 'unfit' in today's society is stupidity, and that only rarely.
We save the elderly, the paralysed, those in comas, the stupid... the only real mechanism for natural selection at the moment is motor vehicles... drive aggressively --> death...
The fact that we have the power to choose our own destiny is even more damning, we actively choose what we do, from increasing our population sizes, to strip mining, to weapons testing.


The main reason at the moment as to why I would consider it, is that despite already being over populated, we are still adding to our ranks. While we are able to sustain these numbers for a short period of time, the increases in technology that we have will allow us to completely destroy a lot of places in a short time in order survive... what happens then? well we then die off, or die altogether... this would be a way to skip immediately to that conclusion without having to destroy anything else in the process.
Yes I think we're screwed, I don't know exactly when, but this way of thinking will eventually lead us to ruin, and should there be survivors, the odds of them learning from their mistakes are not high, so the cycle will repeat until a meteor or similar does the job properly.

Dane


But I will call you out just a little Generic. You say you are sane, but if you were to consciously choose to end all human life for no more reason than 'you think it's best', I think that would probably prove otherwise. Either way, you and I both know that you wouldn't choose that action, no matter how fervently you argue on internet forums.

yeah, should I take the action I would probably not be considered sane, given that sanity is given to you by others not an inherent thing. I know I won't take that action solely because I will never be in a position to do so... but I do believe all my points and feel that the matter requires at least some consideration

[V for Victory]

I push the button, then I clone myself until me and my clones have replaced the earths population.

[Generic Archer]

@v thats the worst of all options, at least I can hope that the clones are incapable of reproduction and that the memory stick/whatever corrupts quickly.


Dane

[Kallisti]

*Pushes button.*

"Wait, that does WHAT now?!"

"...oh, God..."

And this is why people currently playing through Riven should not be handed buttons that should not be pushed.

Assuming for the moment the button is clearly labeled and I have no reason to test it, however, no. No I would not push the button.

...God, it'd be tempting, though.

[Shas aia Toriia]

There is no way I would ever push that button.
Those that would push it, and not just for internet lulz, should seriously be mentally examined.

[_Zoot_]

Even though I consider my self a much better judge of who should live and who should die than many, many people. I do not think that ALL of humanity deserves to die, there are some people that should at least be re-educated but we are no were near deserving to all die!

And might I add that a combination of some of the peoples posts, the LotR music that I am now lessening to and chocolate milk has put me in a really good mood, for this I thank you!

[reorith]

There is no way I would ever push that button.
Those that would push it, and not just for internet lulz, should seriously be mentally examined.

what if they pushed it out of love? love for the world and love for humanity. the 1.02 billion starving people on the planet would no longer face famine. for once there would be true equality among all peoples race, creed, class, gender and all of the other things that are used to create divisions would be insignificant in the face of complete annihilation. to not press the button would make an individual responsible for the continued suffering of all people in all places.

[Grey Paladin]

It's a test of philosophy. As the OP notes, there are a number of folks who are practically nihilists on these boards. The OP wishes to see if that philosophy would hold up to the ultimate test.

As an ex-nihilist, I'd like to say it doesn't works that way. Nihilism states all is without meaning - the destruction of the world would thus be just as meaningless as its continued existence. There's absolutely no reason to push the button without outside motivation (like 'prevent all suffering forever' etc etc) because the nihilist just doesn't cares.

They are not cackling mustache-twirling supervillains plotting how to end humanity, you know.

[V for Victory]

The ethics go out the window when I see a world populated soley by me

[golentan]

what if they pushed it out of love? love for the world and love for humanity. the 1.02 billion starving people on the planet would no longer face famine. for once there would be true equality among all peoples race, creed, class, gender and all of the other things that are used to create divisions would be insignificant in the face of complete annihilation. to not press the button would make an individual responsible for the continued suffering of all people in all places.

As I've said, those who wish to stop existing have the power to do so. Suffering is a part of life, but life is over all worth it according to the vast majority. So, how about you take your "Charity" and shove it, and find some way to actually be charitable. Donate food to hungry people instead of bemoaning their fate for them. Get at the long term source of the problem, inequality in distribution?

[Worira]

Allow me to answer with a song. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b32gxFkgzCc)

[Yarram]

It's not a question of, "Should Humans survive." But a question of, "Am I important enough to judge the entire Human race?"

F*** yes I am, and if I leave that button unpushed, no-one will know how awesome I've become. I've been given the opportunity to 1-up the entire world, and there is no way I'm not taking it, because after a situation like that, I KNOW that the world would freeze around me, and a big button would come up saying, "GAME OVER: YOU WIN! Would you like to play again?"

[Player_Zero]

I think it would be more enjoyable to question why someone would ask such a question.

[chiasaur11]

It's not a question of, "Should Humans survive." But a question of, "Am I important enough to judge the entire Human race?"

F*** yes I am, and if I leave that button unpushed, no-one will know how awesome I've become. I've been given the opportunity to 1-up the entire world, and there is no way I'm not taking it, because after a situation like that, I KNOW that the world would freeze around me, and a big button would come up saying, "GAME OVER: YOU WIN! Would you like to play again?"

More likely, given that any game with that button is probably a descendant of Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy:
"As you lean forward to press the button, you seem to be forgetting something. Deciding it's nothing important, you continue on in your present course. Unfortunately, the thing you forgot was that you are, in fact, human.

Death

You are dead.

Blood pressure 0/0. Your score is 2 out of a possible seven hundred, making you, well, dead and humiliated."

[TSGames]

I think it would be more enjoyable to question why someone would ask such a question.
You might be right....

But that conversation would be much darker and much more boring.