Life vs Life

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

There is a problem that I have been thinking lately that I would like to hear your opinion and the reasons for it.

Without distorting much of the world we live in here today, (imagine that for whatever excuse of a reason you like) that there is a iminent global catastrophe and you are faced with a choice that is prety much going to decide the fate of the earth:
1. On one hand you have the choice to erradicate the entirety of the human species saving every other living being on the planet
2. On the other hand you can erradicate every other living thing on earth (completly sterelizing it) with the exception of 100 people who will be able to live the rest of their entire without issues of health or food, but everyone kid they will ever have will be sterile and is it not possible to bring about another generation (basicaly the earth would be dead and gone on the next generation).

What would you chose and why?


Edit:

Now what if in option number 2. you have 2% chance of being able to restore part of the fauna and flora and solve the problem of human sterelity.
If option 2 is still not appealling, how much would the odds need to be in order for you to chose it (this if you are willing to choose number 2 in the odds are 100%)?

 

[WarK]

I'd save life. i.e. I'd choose 1. Choosing 2 seems like ending all life on Earth. And I don't think those 100 people would live in peace either

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I have a question regarding the first choice. Would all of the remaining species be able to reproduce?

If the answer to that question was yes, then I would opt for the first choice. As through evolution there might be the slimest of chances that a species could become move advanced than modern day humans and as WARK says we should choose life. It might not happen but the possibility would be there.

Option #2 is too anthropocentric for my liking.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I have a question regarding the first choice. Would all of the remaining species be able to reproduce?

If the answer to that question was yes, then I would opt for the first choice. As through evolution there might be the slimest of chances that a species could become move advanced than modern day humans. It might not happen but the possibility would be there.

Option #2 is too anthropocentric for my liking.

To clarify, they could still reproduce, just not to much of a chance to develop to a technological level (i.e. that the most technologicaly able species on earth isn't likely to surpass that of monkeys).

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I have a question regarding the first choice. Would all of the remaining species be able to reproduce?

If the answer to that question was yes, then I would opt for the first choice. As through evolution there might be the slimest of chances that a species could become move advanced than modern day humans. It might not happen but the possibility would be there.

Option #2 is too anthropocentric for my liking.

To clarify, they could still reproduce, just not to much of a chance to develop to a technological level (i.e. that the most technologicaly able species on earth isn't likely to surpass that of monkeys). But that they might or may not become technologicaly able as we are is up to you to decide if you want to put that into the context or not.

I would still choose #1 because life would still have the capability to advance and flourish. Although, if option #2 was selected and genetically reproducing other species was a viable option (also cloning human beings), I would reconsider my original post. Of course this is dependent on knowing more variables than are given in your original post.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Ok so let's try and spice thing a litle bit.
Now what if in option number 2. you have 2% chance of being able to restore part of the fauna and flora and solve the problem of human sterelity.
If option 2 is still not appealling, how much would the odds need to be in order for you to chose it (this if you are willing to choose number 2 in the odds are 100%)?

 

[WarK]

Even if the odds of recreating life were 100% I think I'd still go with 1. because choosing 2 would effectively mean killing off most of the life on Earth.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

If the odds of recreating everything were 100%, I would go with option #2. In the long run more species (including humans) would be saved.

Anything less than 100%, I would go with option #1.

Given this specific scenario, of course.

This is starting to sound a little Noah's arkish.

 

[kenandkids]

Option 1.

Eventually another species would gain both a tool using capacity and intellectual capacity to be "a way for the cosmos to know itself," as Sagan put it.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Option 1.

Eventually another species would gain both a tool using capacity and intellectual capacity to be "a way for the cosmos to know itself," as Sagan put it.

What if it didn't?

 

[WarK]

Option 1.

Eventually another species would gain both a tool using capacity and intellectual capacity to be "a way for the cosmos to know itself," as Sagan put it.

What if it didn't?

I think option 1 is still preferable, it doesn't involve killing almost all life on earth. Option 2 seems to be kill'em all and start from scratch.

 

[kenandkids]

Option 1.

Eventually another species would gain both a tool using capacity and intellectual capacity to be "a way for the cosmos to know itself," as Sagan put it.

What if it didn't?

Then so what. I'm not some abrahamic tantrum thrower, worldwide destruction is never okay. Besides, many species are likely at the cusp now, it would be their turn to try.

 

[Nemesiah]

Option 1

Also, to those who worry about no intelligent life on the planet; there is.

Intelligence is not an on / off thing, there are very smart animals, some with abilities that we can only dream of (sensory ones) it is very arogant to feel that our way of intelligence is the only one. Is a wolf not smart in hunting with it's pack? Are tool using primates not smart when using sticks to collect insects?

Also IF intelligence such as ours never again rises on the planet, Would that be a big loss to the universe? I mean what would be the galactic repercutions of mankind's extition? very small I suppose.

Are we so important that the entire planet should suffer our depredations just because we can kill most other species?

Does might really make right?

 

[Yfelsung]

As long as I personally could survive option 1, then option 1.

If not, then option 2.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

As long as I personally could survive option 1, then option 1.

If not, then option 2.

It is implied that you can survive option 2 but not option 1.


Anyways, I haven't heard of a why that would satisfy me.

We very often can kill any other animal on earth without blinking to save a fellow human being. Altough this dilema is a bit different it is not that far different.
Even though grim that one or the other got to go, if everything else but us were to go, the savage and painfull strugle for the daily survival would have been gone. And as the flame burns its last air, we would silent but peacefully wither away and while that lasted we would still exist for a litle longer. On the otherhand, if were we to be gone the only species we know to be able to see the true face of the universe would be gone, nothing else would have been able to achieve what we did, and in a cosmic prespective they might just as well never have existed at all. But isn't other life life all the same? How much should be sacrificed to maintain our vantage point even if only for a litle longer? Is life better than the absense of it? Is it worth to sacrifice the rare event of life for a rarer event such as sentient life? How much of other life forms is ok to kill before letting a human being die?

For some reason I can't see an answer to that. I am neither particularly convinced either way with the answers so far.

 

[Leçi]

Option 1, I have to die at one point so I might as well take everyone with me.

 

[kenandkids]

Option 1, I have to die at one point so I might as well take everyone with me.

Oblivion loves company?

 

[Leçi]

No but the world is healthier without humans and I want to be cause of it.

 

[televator]

Option 2 seems like a total dead end eventually, and I can't fathom how you'd eradicate ALL other life and NOT have a food shortage.... there's a serious contradiction there. Close to all of the human diet consists of things that were alive at some point.

Option 1 sounds like a shining beacon of hope by comparison.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

and I can't fathom how you'd eradicate ALL other life and NOT have a food shortage.... there's a serious contradiction there.

The point is not to find out what would you do in that situation so I can make a more informed decision when that thing happens to me. This made up situation toped with a dilema is an extreme example designed to see how you think, in particular how much does human life take precedence over other forms of life. A more soften version of this taught experiemnt would have been "you neighbors house is on fire, you can only save your neighbor or your dog", for most this would be easy the neighbors life would take precedence over that of the dog, and who says dog can also say any other non human specie on the planet. But to what extent should you keep the rule that a human life takes precedence over anyother? (ofcourse there are people would save their own dog, but the go by a totaly difrent criteria which I am not interested right now).

The example itself does ot have to make sense in a real world context.