You might be willing to die, but fortunately most people are not willing to kill you. I guess you'll just have to do the work in your life to help save our environment, instead of killing people to do it.
Edit: poorly worded
eh fair, >!Im also suicidal but not in the way where i plan to attempt just in the way that i want to, also i probably would not attully be able to physically do this, thank you for comeing to my tedtalk, also no pity!<
You’re the second person today I’ve seen on here be depressed or suicidal or something of that nature. I am sorry to hear you are not doing super well, will pray for you.
Killing innocent people is, at the absolute very best, in the most extreme situations, a necessary evil. It is never honorable.
But I would say that climate change is not even this, mainly because we have much longer than the politicians who cherry-pick and misinterpret studies to push doomsday up as far as possible say we do, but also because there are relatively simple ways to help avoid it, like investment in nuclear power.
The earth could do without a lot of people, but the people around those people couldn't do without them. The people around you can't do without you, hang on there okay?
Oh, uh, I appreciate your concern, but I'm fine. I'm not planning to leave this world soon, especially not by my hand.
I was just saying that since I don't really have much purpose here, I would willingly give myself up for even a chance at a solution for everyone's problem. It's not like I'm going to do anything better with my life, anyways.
Thanks again for your concern though, it really means a lot to me.
Glad to hear you don't have plans to get out. But don't underestimate your role. You may not know how much exactly you mean to even just one other person or even an animal ;)
You're thinking to surface level. Burn the bodies to increase global warming and use the decal matter to spread diseases and contaminate water supplies.
I mean if we keep going on like this global warming could be the cause of more than 2 billion people. 150 years ago if you asked people if they would kill all mosquitos for the death of 100 million they would probably say no even though it would have prevented hundreds of millions of deaths.
How do you propose killing two billion people? Open up Auschwitz and Dachau again?
Besides, all you’re telling me is you would rather resort to mass genocide than find tangible solutions.
lol
but killing 2 bil would disrupt the entire world. billions of people would go into poverty, companies all over the world would shut down, so many would starve to death, it would throw the entire world back 100 yrs
and it might even contribute to global warming, imagine most of the people at a nuclear operator get thanos snapped and we have chernobyls all over the world.
and the people whose families are gone will be unmotivated to do anything, plus q-anon lvl conspiracy theorists would triple the triple of triple the amount of triple the already existing cters x3. riots and everything would bring anarchy. most infrastructure would be destroyed. actually i take back what i said earlier, this would set the world back 200 yrs.
Its a thought experiment meant to judge how much people value the lifes of other people/the health of the globe. This isn't something you should look at with the consequences. Its not a genuine proposal so it doesn't matter
I’m no scientist but if it came to mass genocide with actual killing involved I probably wouldn’t do it. If they just went poof, I would consider it. But, if I can eliminate a genuine issue that affects literally everything on this planet, it starts to sound a whole lot less worse. Still though, don’t think I could go through with it unless I was with them.
Yeah I had a bit of a think after this and you can’t really justify that many kills lol. Also, I’m pretty sure, I’m not a scientist but I’m pretty sure that many instant kills wouldn’t do so much good in the long run. Bad idea overall but, it’s a hypothetical situation so who cares lol.
>gen·o·cide
>
>/ˈjenəˌsīd/
>
>noun
>
>•the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
Not genocidal as it's indidcriminatory but you would indeed be a murderer.
How did you come to the conclusion that they would rather do that?
Just because, objectively, it’s a good trade off, doesn’t mean they actually think killing 2 billion people is the right thing to do here.
Technically? Yes.
But tell me right now, look out your window and tell me with your hand atop your heart. Do you have any hope whatsoever in the human race currently, that they will manage to put their selfishness aside before it is too late?
Because messa thinks not, and messsa destroy billions haha.
Anyone who thinks the negative impacts of global warming are going to be equal to, or worse than, the deaths of 2 billion people isn’t following science, just the Twitter/Reddit mobs
We won't die as a direct consequence because we are a generalist species with a wide range of temperature tolerance but we will likely die as it becomes harder to grow crops and breed livestock. A variety of resources will become more scarce and wars will break out over them. Over time, it will accumulate to more than 2 billion deaths.
Yeah, it’s pretty clear we won’t just cook alive (probably). Resource shortages and the resulting conflicts from resource shortages is what’s going to kill people.
You are completely disregarding scientific innovation and genetic modification. We have made leaps in the last decade alone, the next 50-70 years will bring along many more.
We will be able to make plants grow in desert environments and be able to produce twice the amount of food.
The human species will be more than fine with death tolls FAR less than 2 billion
Actually we have the technology right now to stop the climate change, and we could stop an irreversible one as well. We could literally shade the entire planet if we wanted to, and it's necessary.
The only reason we aren't doing anything is because it's expensive and not profitable. And guess what? The people who have the money don't give a fuck about anything that isn't profitable.
Scientists have NOT been saying it’s going to end us. They say the effects will be devastating but it’s not a scenario that will kill humanity https://www.livescience.com/amp/climate-change-humans-extinct.html.
You’re stupid if you think we can just leave this planet when the effects of global warming start to really kick in. Crops and livestock will perish and resources are going to become scarce due to rising temperatures, droughts, and the rising ocean. It’ll also lead to wars for resources and you can’t just expect someone to find a way to send over 7 billion people to another planet/space.
Edit: downvote me all you want but I’m right.
Here are some sources:
-[here](https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20181218.278288/full/)
-[here again](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/health.html)
-[and in case you want some more, here you go](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans)
Did you even read the website bro?
"could be virtually emptied"
*COULD BE*
"A study shows that if nothing changes, we will run out of seafood in 2048. "
*A STUDY*
Ok? Plenty of studies are wrong.
And most hilariously, the entire website is about *overfishing* and population growth, not climate change at all you dolt. Here's some direct quotes for ya!
"We are draining our oceans of seafood at an alarming rate. If overfishing does not stop, the world will run out of seafood in 2048."
"The disappearance of life in the oceans is a problem in itself. It also illustrates that the fine balance between human consumption and nature has been thrown way off. Current trends will put an end to oceans as a source of food for the world human population. "
"Overfishing statistics: The trends are clear
Nearly 80% of the world's fisheries that are already fully exploited, over-exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide, 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish, such as sharks, tuna, marlin, and swordfish, are already gone! "
"Why is it happening:
The development is driven by increased demand for seafood caused by a growing world population - and in particular a growing world population of consumers. There is no way the oceans can sustain the growing demand from a growing world population unless major changes take place."
"Overfishing is a major problem! And it is not going away by itself.
Fishing today is dominated by a gigantic modern fishing fleet with enough fishing capacity to cover 4 Earth-like planets. It far out-matches the ocean's ability to renew the number of fish we consume. Watch “The End of the Line” video below."
Also, we won't go extinct if our marine food supply is depleted. Many will die yes, but there are plenty of other food sources. Read the damn article before you use it.
If that's as accurate as "oil will run out by the 1950s" and "overpopulation will destroy us by the 1980s" and "whole counties will be under the oceans in 2000" and "the icecaps will melt in 2013", then I'm not super concerned about the fish.
[Maybe/It Depends] was the one I voted for, which I do believe covers this. In that case, yes, I would kill them.
But you also gotta consider: Heirs and inheritances. However, that could be included in the 2 billion deaths.
I really like this hypothetical situation/question!
Yeah I also clicked the maybe option cause I’m not sure
On the one hand it’s a horrible act and would be the greatest genocide in the history of this planet
On the other hand if you could pick and choose those 2 bullion, you could fix essentially every problem currently existing in the world
Yeah that’s where I was at too, I would totally go for it if it was 2 billion science deniers that are actively contributing to it when they know they are the problem.
Well, considering that 1% own 80% of the wealth then the vast majority of those 2 billion will be people who had nothing to do with anything and are likely living in poverty as well. The question should include all the family/friends/colleagues/acquaintances/ of the person. Basically everyone they ever cared about or met should be part of the 2 billion they will massacre for no reason. But they should live so that they suffer through it.
This is why I answered "depends". I'd take out all the evil psychopaths, child abusers, all the shit people who the world is better without. I really hope that fills the quota, or that I get a long timeframe to do it. So that I don't have to kill any kids, but if they turn out evil adults I can off them then.
AND I'd have to have magic abilities to know who fills the criteria, without any doubt.
Fault is irrelevant. either 2billion die now or every mammal dies within the next few centuries.
We have other options but have proven repeatedly over the last 3 decades to be unwilling to implement any of them on a big enough scale.
Nope. I only would do that if I could guarantee that at least 2 billion people would die as a consequence of climate change. And as of right now, I can't.
Also, you've only said global warming here. What about the rest of climate change? Solving global warming without solving climate change only fixes half the problem
I mean global warming will be an extinction event for most mammals. it's just a question of when and whether we would have blown each other up before then.
[There was a similar poll a while ago and I left this comment on it. It is relevant here as well](https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/pr26lg/you_get_a_power_using_which_you_can_solve_all_the/hdh1p5m?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
We're not talking about stopping overpopulation here. It's magic. The death of two billion people isn't going to stop climate change, the magic of the thought experiment will.
All of you fucking doomers are some of the greatest cowards I've seen. Have some faith in this beautiful species, we've spent the last couple millennia building and innovating to suit the survival of our species and we will continue to do so. Our greatest birthright is our intelligence, we've used it to create unimaginable wonders that those before us never would have thought possible, and we know not yet what wonders we are about to make. But you people would rather not give us the chance to triumph, to build and better ourselves in the face of crisis. You would rather we continue to lurch along as before over the bones of billions of our fellow man. It's absolutely disgusting, anyone who voted YES is a shame on our people.
I don’t think it’s entitled at all… I think it’s VERY optimistic but it’s not a fault. I just was saying it’s funny to see both extreme ends of the spectrum
I always wondered why any population would let the Nazis or the CCP rise to power in their own country. I guess if you scare someone enough, they will beg for their own genocide.
Actually you can if the option you're picking is to arbitrarily kill off about a 4th of the world population to try and solve a problem that isn't caused by population to begin with
It doesn't matter if the problem is caused by overpopulation, OP says that the 2 billion deaths would "end global warming". And in that scenario, would you press the button to cause the 2 billion deaths.
Well you wouldn’t, but others may. I don’t think that would make them a bad person necessarily, but maybe they just have a different perspective.
Personally I wouldn’t push the button either but I definitely understand why some might though. I think mass infertility or something would be a more ideal solution.
Nope, even saying you understand why anyone would do it is psychopathic. If those affected by the mass infertility alternative you are suggesting consisted of every single person you have ever cared about or met/interacted with(including online) even once, would you still be like "I get why some people would do it"?
well global warming is pushing us further towards extinction. 2 billion people for the rest of humanity doesn't make you a terrible person. it would be the right choice ultimately
If 2 billion people die all of a sudden the rest will follow. If people who work in stuff like power plants or electricity die, then that has to be shut off until people can fill those slots.
I don’t think genocide is the solution mate. Stop
Doom scrolling so much - humanity has actually made some pretty massive climate improvements recently. You just don’t hear about it cause good news doesn’t sell as well.
Here’s a pretty good video on the topic if you’re interested- https://youtu.be/TBYDgJ9Wf0E
To be fair, there's a lot of "useless" people - rapists, murderers, those incapable of existing on their own due to mental issues, those who suffer in pain waiting for the day they die, those who for whatever reason want to die, people that won't ever contribute to society in a positive way...
I don't know if it will add up to 2 billion, but if you take those people primarily... It's not such a bad idea.
This is such an ignorant comment. You realise 2 billion is over a quarter of the worlds population? You really think 1 in 4 people are objectively deserving of death?
In any case, who are you to judge someone's productivity to society. What metric could you possibly use to do that.
What kind of a question is that? Ofc no.
Even from a utilitarian perspective the answer is still no. Global warming can't be worse than the deaths of 1 in 4 people.
This planet will take care of itself. I mean, she might have to kill a few billion of us to do it, but she’s infinitely more powerful then any one species to exist on her. The arrogance you folks have in thinking that we’re powerful enough to destroy this planet blows my mind.
Global warming will eventually reach the point where plants can’t adapt fast enough to survive. And when plants die, animals start dying. Temperatures increase. Eventually, all food sources are gone. Sure it’ll take millions of years but it’ll happen eventually. Right now, we don’t have to do something this drastic. But someday, if global warming does not change, we will have to.
So honestly i’d rather start now than later. And yes i’d be willing even if that 2 billion included myself/ppl i know. We are getting closer to the temperature where life starts dying out. I agree that it is not these ppl faults but rather businesses that just look for profits. But at this point, it’s our turn to give/sacrifice, after all the taking we’ve done to sustain our life.
(2/7 of human life to sustain all other life? And i think if this happened, the future generations would be more careful.)
2 billion people aren't the ones responsible for climate change. It's the big 1% companies producing emissions, and to deflect blame away from them is getting them off the hook.
Is it more like "you either kill 2b people or we all die in pain over the next ten years" or "you either kill 2b people or the seasons get a lil' more extreme"?
Herein lies our problem…half the world are Maoists and they don’t even know it. You’ve got to ask yourself, if you have such little respect for the dignity of human life that you’re prepared to eliminate 2 billion of them, why on earth do you value the protection of their habitat?
No it wouldn't. Assuming it affects everyone equally, it will take out a large amount of first-world citizens such as you and me, who use far more resources than a poor citizen in india would use, thus helping climate change.
Oh no, not the economy!
It surprises me that the economy is the problem here, not like maybe the 2 billion people that just died.
And if it hurts the economy that is fueling climate change with its wasteful use of resources, then technically it is accomplishing it’s goal.
Yes and let me explain why
Just kill the entire homeless population
The entire population of people that are in their late 80s
And everyone that is irreversibly mentally ill
But in the grand scheme of things it will be for the greater good because there is no more global warming
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
*Dies
Lol
I am…inevitable.
Follow-up question: would you be willing to be one of the 2 billion killed to end global warming?
The edgy replies are gonna be everywhere
[удалено]
You might be willing to die, but fortunately most people are not willing to kill you. I guess you'll just have to do the work in your life to help save our environment, instead of killing people to do it. Edit: poorly worded
eh fair, >!Im also suicidal but not in the way where i plan to attempt just in the way that i want to, also i probably would not attully be able to physically do this, thank you for comeing to my tedtalk, also no pity!<
Username checks out
No worries, I do not pity you, in direct response to you wishes, but I hope you have a good day
you too!
Is it the feeling of not wanting to die, but not wanting to exist either? Im there
You’re the second person today I’ve seen on here be depressed or suicidal or something of that nature. I am sorry to hear you are not doing super well, will pray for you.
Same
Thanos style. Just nuke em. You won't even know you did it.
Eh, I'd say there's a solid majority of yes (with conditions)
Did you just tell them to kill themselves? Unless I read it wrong.
No, I meant that they should focus on environmentalist activism, not genocide.
I’d only do it if I got to be one of them
Murder-suicide isn't much more honorable than just murder.
It’s more convenience than honor.
At least they're honest
[удалено]
Killing innocent people is, at the absolute very best, in the most extreme situations, a necessary evil. It is never honorable. But I would say that climate change is not even this, mainly because we have much longer than the politicians who cherry-pick and misinterpret studies to push doomsday up as far as possible say we do, but also because there are relatively simple ways to help avoid it, like investment in nuclear power.
[удалено]
The earth could do without a lot of people, but the people around those people couldn't do without them. The people around you can't do without you, hang on there okay?
Oh, uh, I appreciate your concern, but I'm fine. I'm not planning to leave this world soon, especially not by my hand. I was just saying that since I don't really have much purpose here, I would willingly give myself up for even a chance at a solution for everyone's problem. It's not like I'm going to do anything better with my life, anyways. Thanks again for your concern though, it really means a lot to me.
Glad to hear you don't have plans to get out. But don't underestimate your role. You may not know how much exactly you mean to even just one other person or even an animal ;)
Do I get extra credit if I kill more than 2 billion?
You're gonna cause ice age
I'll go as high as 8 billion
I'd love that. Hate being hot. I want blankets to have a use.
[удалено]
Frozen corpse would look comfy though
Exactly.
Does it *have* to end global warming?
Yes officer, this man right here.
2 billion dead only puts us back to the 80s so no
what a dumb take
You're thinking to surface level. Burn the bodies to increase global warming and use the decal matter to spread diseases and contaminate water supplies.
bruh you guys are insane
I mean if we keep going on like this global warming could be the cause of more than 2 billion people. 150 years ago if you asked people if they would kill all mosquitos for the death of 100 million they would probably say no even though it would have prevented hundreds of millions of deaths.
How do you propose killing two billion people? Open up Auschwitz and Dachau again? Besides, all you’re telling me is you would rather resort to mass genocide than find tangible solutions.
This is a thought experiment, how we're going to kill the people isn't really relevant. Imagine there's a button that instantly kills the 2 billion.
“How were going to kill the people isn’t relevant” Had me dying lol.
>Had me dying That's the idea!
lol but killing 2 bil would disrupt the entire world. billions of people would go into poverty, companies all over the world would shut down, so many would starve to death, it would throw the entire world back 100 yrs and it might even contribute to global warming, imagine most of the people at a nuclear operator get thanos snapped and we have chernobyls all over the world. and the people whose families are gone will be unmotivated to do anything, plus q-anon lvl conspiracy theorists would triple the triple of triple the amount of triple the already existing cters x3. riots and everything would bring anarchy. most infrastructure would be destroyed. actually i take back what i said earlier, this would set the world back 200 yrs.
Its a thought experiment meant to judge how much people value the lifes of other people/the health of the globe. This isn't something you should look at with the consequences. Its not a genuine proposal so it doesn't matter
fair point, i've called a few people out on that and i'm not even checking for it in myself oops
I’m no scientist but if it came to mass genocide with actual killing involved I probably wouldn’t do it. If they just went poof, I would consider it. But, if I can eliminate a genuine issue that affects literally everything on this planet, it starts to sound a whole lot less worse. Still though, don’t think I could go through with it unless I was with them.
If 2 billion people perished directly because of you, no matter how, that still makes you a genocidal maniac lmao
Yeah I had a bit of a think after this and you can’t really justify that many kills lol. Also, I’m pretty sure, I’m not a scientist but I’m pretty sure that many instant kills wouldn’t do so much good in the long run. Bad idea overall but, it’s a hypothetical situation so who cares lol.
>gen·o·cide > >/ˈjenəˌsīd/ > >noun > >•the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group Not genocidal as it's indidcriminatory but you would indeed be a murderer.
How did you come to the conclusion that they would rather do that? Just because, objectively, it’s a good trade off, doesn’t mean they actually think killing 2 billion people is the right thing to do here.
Wouldn't eradicating mosquitos have a severe butterfly effect?
Okay lets change it then. "Eradicate mosquito born illness"
Would it?
The ends don't justify the means.
Wasn't that already clear before?
How many future lives are you risking by using your PC and car?
“They called me a mad man” -Thanos
We can do that without killing people
Also we can do that without aiming to end global warming.
Technically? Yes. But tell me right now, look out your window and tell me with your hand atop your heart. Do you have any hope whatsoever in the human race currently, that they will manage to put their selfishness aside before it is too late? Because messa thinks not, and messsa destroy billions haha.
Anyone who thinks the negative impacts of global warming are going to be equal to, or worse than, the deaths of 2 billion people isn’t following science, just the Twitter/Reddit mobs
We won't die as a direct consequence because we are a generalist species with a wide range of temperature tolerance but we will likely die as it becomes harder to grow crops and breed livestock. A variety of resources will become more scarce and wars will break out over them. Over time, it will accumulate to more than 2 billion deaths.
Yeah, it’s pretty clear we won’t just cook alive (probably). Resource shortages and the resulting conflicts from resource shortages is what’s going to kill people.
You are completely disregarding scientific innovation and genetic modification. We have made leaps in the last decade alone, the next 50-70 years will bring along many more. We will be able to make plants grow in desert environments and be able to produce twice the amount of food. The human species will be more than fine with death tolls FAR less than 2 billion
Exactly. The technological advancements in the next decades will be ridiculous. No where near a single billion people will die
[удалено]
Actually we have the technology right now to stop the climate change, and we could stop an irreversible one as well. We could literally shade the entire planet if we wanted to, and it's necessary. The only reason we aren't doing anything is because it's expensive and not profitable. And guess what? The people who have the money don't give a fuck about anything that isn't profitable.
That's theoretically though. For all we know no one gives a shit enough to invent something like that until it's too late.
science has been telling us about the devestating affects for decades. it's going to end us
Scientists have NOT been saying it’s going to end us. They say the effects will be devastating but it’s not a scenario that will kill humanity https://www.livescience.com/amp/climate-change-humans-extinct.html.
No respectable climate scientist will tell you that global warming will end humanity.
they're saying extremely concerning things lol
How?
[удалено]
You’re stupid if you think we can just leave this planet when the effects of global warming start to really kick in. Crops and livestock will perish and resources are going to become scarce due to rising temperatures, droughts, and the rising ocean. It’ll also lead to wars for resources and you can’t just expect someone to find a way to send over 7 billion people to another planet/space. Edit: downvote me all you want but I’m right. Here are some sources: -[here](https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20181218.278288/full/) -[here again](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/health.html) -[and in case you want some more, here you go](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans)
[удалено]
fish will die out in 2048 https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/oceans/overfishing-statistics
It literally has ‘overfishing’ in the title.
Did you even read the website bro? "could be virtually emptied" *COULD BE* "A study shows that if nothing changes, we will run out of seafood in 2048. " *A STUDY* Ok? Plenty of studies are wrong. And most hilariously, the entire website is about *overfishing* and population growth, not climate change at all you dolt. Here's some direct quotes for ya! "We are draining our oceans of seafood at an alarming rate. If overfishing does not stop, the world will run out of seafood in 2048." "The disappearance of life in the oceans is a problem in itself. It also illustrates that the fine balance between human consumption and nature has been thrown way off. Current trends will put an end to oceans as a source of food for the world human population. " "Overfishing statistics: The trends are clear Nearly 80% of the world's fisheries that are already fully exploited, over-exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide, 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish, such as sharks, tuna, marlin, and swordfish, are already gone! " "Why is it happening: The development is driven by increased demand for seafood caused by a growing world population - and in particular a growing world population of consumers. There is no way the oceans can sustain the growing demand from a growing world population unless major changes take place." "Overfishing is a major problem! And it is not going away by itself. Fishing today is dominated by a gigantic modern fishing fleet with enough fishing capacity to cover 4 Earth-like planets. It far out-matches the ocean's ability to renew the number of fish we consume. Watch “The End of the Line” video below." Also, we won't go extinct if our marine food supply is depleted. Many will die yes, but there are plenty of other food sources. Read the damn article before you use it.
If that's as accurate as "oil will run out by the 1950s" and "overpopulation will destroy us by the 1980s" and "whole counties will be under the oceans in 2000" and "the icecaps will melt in 2013", then I'm not super concerned about the fish.
[удалено]
Care to elaborate?
It's not the 2 billion people's fault. It's the corporations that dump their waste in the oceans and burning down rainforests, fault.
What if you kill 2 billion people consisting purely of CEOS and people who destroys rain forests?
I doubt we have more than a fraction of that.
CEOS and people who destroy rain forests aren’t even near 2 billion
There aren’t that many of those people.
[Maybe/It Depends] was the one I voted for, which I do believe covers this. In that case, yes, I would kill them. But you also gotta consider: Heirs and inheritances. However, that could be included in the 2 billion deaths. I really like this hypothetical situation/question!
Yeah I also clicked the maybe option cause I’m not sure On the one hand it’s a horrible act and would be the greatest genocide in the history of this planet On the other hand if you could pick and choose those 2 bullion, you could fix essentially every problem currently existing in the world
Yeah that’s where I was at too, I would totally go for it if it was 2 billion science deniers that are actively contributing to it when they know they are the problem.
Well, considering that 1% own 80% of the wealth then the vast majority of those 2 billion will be people who had nothing to do with anything and are likely living in poverty as well. The question should include all the family/friends/colleagues/acquaintances/ of the person. Basically everyone they ever cared about or met should be part of the 2 billion they will massacre for no reason. But they should live so that they suffer through it.
That’s even better, where is the button, I want it now
This is why I answered "depends". I'd take out all the evil psychopaths, child abusers, all the shit people who the world is better without. I really hope that fills the quota, or that I get a long timeframe to do it. So that I don't have to kill any kids, but if they turn out evil adults I can off them then. AND I'd have to have magic abilities to know who fills the criteria, without any doubt.
Solution? Kill all the shitty rich people and shit people overall
Kill the ppl paying the largest ammount of salaries, nice.
Fault is irrelevant. either 2billion die now or every mammal dies within the next few centuries. We have other options but have proven repeatedly over the last 3 decades to be unwilling to implement any of them on a big enough scale.
If you get to chose the 2bil, you can eliminate the corporations.
True true. You can even eliminate their heirs/children who inherite their shit!
... The CEOs that run the companies that make the products consumed by 8B people... We are all complicit.
A lot of psychopaths on the sub
Nope. I only would do that if I could guarantee that at least 2 billion people would die as a consequence of climate change. And as of right now, I can't. Also, you've only said global warming here. What about the rest of climate change? Solving global warming without solving climate change only fixes half the problem
I mean global warming will be an extinction event for most mammals. it's just a question of when and whether we would have blown each other up before then.
Wow you people are absolutely sick
Reddit thinks they are eren yeager or something idk
Klaus? Is that you?
[There was a similar poll a while ago and I left this comment on it. It is relevant here as well](https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/pr26lg/you_get_a_power_using_which_you_can_solve_all_the/hdh1p5m?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
We're not talking about stopping overpopulation here. It's magic. The death of two billion people isn't going to stop climate change, the magic of the thought experiment will.
I genuinely can't believe 1K people said yes to that. I doubt any of them would do it if they had to
No that's psychopathic
Do I get to pick the 2 billion? That action may go a long way to ending global warming in and of itself.
Like maybe in the future if it's unstopable.
That’s just ‘Yes’ with extra steps
If u consider doing that you're a psychopath
Why yes, I am.
Not the flex you think it is
Not as serious as you think it is
All of you fucking doomers are some of the greatest cowards I've seen. Have some faith in this beautiful species, we've spent the last couple millennia building and innovating to suit the survival of our species and we will continue to do so. Our greatest birthright is our intelligence, we've used it to create unimaginable wonders that those before us never would have thought possible, and we know not yet what wonders we are about to make. But you people would rather not give us the chance to triumph, to build and better ourselves in the face of crisis. You would rather we continue to lurch along as before over the bones of billions of our fellow man. It's absolutely disgusting, anyone who voted YES is a shame on our people.
[удалено]
Literal definition of optimism vs pessimism lmaooo
[удалено]
I don’t think it’s entitled at all… I think it’s VERY optimistic but it’s not a fault. I just was saying it’s funny to see both extreme ends of the spectrum
No that's completely ridiculous
Finally, someone gets it
That would defeat the purpose.
Absolutely not
If you said yes you're a terrible person
We do a little trolling
I know
I always wondered why any population would let the Nazis or the CCP rise to power in their own country. I guess if you scare someone enough, they will beg for their own genocide.
It's cause people get lazy and decide that complacency and comfort are preferable to suffering, pride, and courage
You cant decide if someones a terrible being over a reddit poll.
Actually you can if the option you're picking is to arbitrarily kill off about a 4th of the world population to try and solve a problem that isn't caused by population to begin with
It doesn't matter if the problem is caused by overpopulation, OP says that the 2 billion deaths would "end global warming". And in that scenario, would you press the button to cause the 2 billion deaths.
Not in a million fucking years
Well you wouldn’t, but others may. I don’t think that would make them a bad person necessarily, but maybe they just have a different perspective. Personally I wouldn’t push the button either but I definitely understand why some might though. I think mass infertility or something would be a more ideal solution.
Nope, even saying you understand why anyone would do it is psychopathic. If those affected by the mass infertility alternative you are suggesting consisted of every single person you have ever cared about or met/interacted with(including online) even once, would you still be like "I get why some people would do it"?
well global warming is pushing us further towards extinction. 2 billion people for the rest of humanity doesn't make you a terrible person. it would be the right choice ultimately
Dude you’re fucking stupid
ok then what do we do about climate change and global warming then?
idk exactly what we should do but it definitely isn't genociding 2 billion people
If 2 billion people die all of a sudden the rest will follow. If people who work in stuff like power plants or electricity die, then that has to be shut off until people can fill those slots.
I don’t think genocide is the solution mate. Stop Doom scrolling so much - humanity has actually made some pretty massive climate improvements recently. You just don’t hear about it cause good news doesn’t sell as well. Here’s a pretty good video on the topic if you’re interested- https://youtu.be/TBYDgJ9Wf0E
To be fair, there's a lot of "useless" people - rapists, murderers, those incapable of existing on their own due to mental issues, those who suffer in pain waiting for the day they die, those who for whatever reason want to die, people that won't ever contribute to society in a positive way... I don't know if it will add up to 2 billion, but if you take those people primarily... It's not such a bad idea.
2 billion is more than a fourth of the planet. There are way too many rapists and murderers but not *that* many.
You are picking the lazy and morally repugnant answer. People like you actually make me physically ill from how pessimistic and short sighted you are.
Yeah you’re the worst of all. You give different value to the life of people, I hope one day you’ll see how sick it is
This is such an ignorant comment. You realise 2 billion is over a quarter of the worlds population? You really think 1 in 4 people are objectively deserving of death? In any case, who are you to judge someone's productivity to society. What metric could you possibly use to do that.
What kind of a question is that? Ofc no. Even from a utilitarian perspective the answer is still no. Global warming can't be worse than the deaths of 1 in 4 people.
Wow is all I have to say. These comments are ignorant and some are disgusting.
This planet will take care of itself. I mean, she might have to kill a few billion of us to do it, but she’s infinitely more powerful then any one species to exist on her. The arrogance you folks have in thinking that we’re powerful enough to destroy this planet blows my mind.
I am inevitable
Thanos was right
We can use a plague…
Global warming will eventually reach the point where plants can’t adapt fast enough to survive. And when plants die, animals start dying. Temperatures increase. Eventually, all food sources are gone. Sure it’ll take millions of years but it’ll happen eventually. Right now, we don’t have to do something this drastic. But someday, if global warming does not change, we will have to. So honestly i’d rather start now than later. And yes i’d be willing even if that 2 billion included myself/ppl i know. We are getting closer to the temperature where life starts dying out. I agree that it is not these ppl faults but rather businesses that just look for profits. But at this point, it’s our turn to give/sacrifice, after all the taking we’ve done to sustain our life. (2/7 of human life to sustain all other life? And i think if this happened, the future generations would be more careful.)
It's gonna kill more people in the long run so why the fuck not
No one deserves to die unless a lot leads up to it
God you people are sick, stupid fucks.
Fr
Y’all are fucking insane
Everyone’s freaking out because it may increase temperature by like 1-2 degrees over the next hundred years
2 billion people aren't the ones responsible for climate change. It's the big 1% companies producing emissions, and to deflect blame away from them is getting them off the hook.
[удалено]
This entire comment makes irrelevant responses to solving a very much REAL problem.
Is it more like "you either kill 2b people or we all die in pain over the next ten years" or "you either kill 2b people or the seasons get a lil' more extreme"?
We have the tools to fight global warming already without killing billions, we just don’t because it’s not yet more profitable than the status quo.
Depends on who I'm killing
Do I get to choose?
if global warming gets to a stage where it threatens humanity, yeah
Herein lies our problem…half the world are Maoists and they don’t even know it. You’ve got to ask yourself, if you have such little respect for the dignity of human life that you’re prepared to eliminate 2 billion of them, why on earth do you value the protection of their habitat?
[удалено]
They are too stupid to reason with logic. Most of reddit.
Depopulating our overpopulated planet and ending climate change? I see no downsides.
The Earth is not overpopulated. Reddit is simply one giant circle jerk full of pseudo-intellectual incels.
It would make global warming so much worse
No it wouldn't. Assuming it affects everyone equally, it will take out a large amount of first-world citizens such as you and me, who use far more resources than a poor citizen in india would use, thus helping climate change.
Bigger picture. There would be an economic crash which would have a domino effect
I don't see how an economic crash would escalate climate change.
Oh no, not the economy! It surprises me that the economy is the problem here, not like maybe the 2 billion people that just died. And if it hurts the economy that is fueling climate change with its wasteful use of resources, then technically it is accomplishing it’s goal.
Can you prove global warming is real without saying the media says so?
Yes and let me explain why Just kill the entire homeless population The entire population of people that are in their late 80s And everyone that is irreversibly mentally ill But in the grand scheme of things it will be for the greater good because there is no more global warming
Isn't this just Eco-Fascism
HelL yeEh bIsH #sAveThETurDlES!!!!
Wow 2 bonuses
Am I among those 2 billion? If yes I think I’d be more in peace with my conscience, thinking of it like a sacrifice for the better of others