Alien experiment - eliminate half the population

[DAPUNISHER]

The person that picked oldest has a point. Their lives are about over, and government subsidized medical expenses and living benefits would fall dramatically (U.S.centric POV). It could be Logan's Run with a cut off of say 70? Traffic would run better too.

The poll also demonstrates thus far, that you cannot be too rich, or too good looking.

 

[dan4patriots]

the least intelligent people- so that means anyone who watches crap like jersey shore, anything with Kardashian in it, real housewives of anything

 

[WelshBloke]

If we can assume "Poorest" loosely defines those who work the least then easily the poorest. They represent the group holding back the species the most.

I would imagine that, globally, the poorest probably work the hardest.

 

[TecHNooB]

Just ask each person if they believe that there is intelligent life anywhere besides Earth. Those that say yes are allowed to live, the rest will have to be eliminated.

if I think there's a planet full of pink elephants, do I get to stay?

 

[Pheran]

Anyway, I'd still get rid of the bad half. ()

Moral character would be the best choice IMHO, see Zeze's post above for why.

The other problem with this is that we are talking half. Sure, it's easy to point to 5% that are murderers, criminals, etc, but when you are talking half there's going to be a huge range in the middle who haven't done anything particularly bad/good.

 

[Pheran]

The person that picked oldest has a point. Their lives are about over, and government subsidized medical expenses and living benefits would fall dramatically (U.S.centric POV). It could be Logan's Run with a cut off of say 70? Traffic would run better too.

Except in this scenario, oldest means approximately 29 and up, which is going to wreak some havoc, as well as create huge numbers of orphans. Of course, losing 50% of the population is going to wreak some havoc no matter which way you slice it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I like how a few people from P&N have posted in this thread, and the results just reinforce stereotypes; the loony left wants to kill stupid people and the rightwing nutjobs want to kill the poor. See kids, stereotyping works.

 

[PottedMeat]

eliminate all women uglier than claudia bassols

this.

i saw her on some weird mario batali eats his way through spain thing and was like 'who the hell is that?!?'



least healthy would be most practical i guess

or just to be an asshole and wipe out competition, the most intelligent

 

[slayer202]

I like how a few people from P&N have posted in this thread, and the results just reinforce stereotypes; the loony left wants to kill stupid people and the rightwing nutjobs want to kill the poor. See kids, stereotyping works.

at least stupidity is consistent

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Except in this scenario, oldest means approximately 29 and up, which is going to wreak some havoc, as well as create huge numbers of orphans. Of course, losing 50% of the population is going to wreak some havoc no matter which way you slice it.

You read again! It say cut off 70, not 29!

 

[WelshBloke]

You read again! It say cut off 70, not 29!

50% of the global population isnt over 70 though.

 

[chowderhead]

I would ask them to eliminate the strongest/healthiest or the most intelligent. If an alien race has the power/plan to vanquish large segments of the human population, you know they are probably going to take over or enslave everyone. Screw them with the worst of us. Thanks.

 

[torpid]

I guess oldest. Least intelligent and poor are traps; by eliminating them you'd have no one willing to do lower-pay jobs or things people who crave intellectual stimulation wouldn't be willing to do. Least attractive and most attractive have no significant value. Least healthy is a possibility but it seems like there'd be too much overlap with poor/less intelligent. Oldest would seemingly have a small economic benefit...??

 

[digiram]

This is a good poll. Went with least intelligent, however now I am wondering how intelligence would be determined.

I voted the same and thought the same thing. I am guessing someone that has no knowledge of anything.. can't read, can't write, do math, no valuable skill. I mean, someone in the rural area that can't read and write, but knows how to raise cattle, keep farmland running, etc.. can still be pretty valuable.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Least intelligent. That way we could get rid of idiots like Rick Perry and most of the religious nutballs.

 

[Red Storm]

The other problem with this is that we are talking half. Sure, it's easy to point to 5% that are murderers, criminals, etc, but when you are talking half there's going to be a huge range in the middle who haven't done anything particularly bad/good.

That's a problem that every choice in the poll would have though, it's not unique to morality.

 

[WelshBloke]

I guess oldest. Least intelligent and poor are traps; by eliminating them you'd have no one willing to do lower-pay jobs or things people who crave intellectual stimulation wouldn't be willing to do. Least attractive and most attractive have no significant value. Least healthy is a possibility but it seems like there'd be too much overlap with poor/less intelligent. Oldest would seemingly have a small economic benefit...??

Global life expectancy is 66, so thats getting rid of everyone over 33.

 

[Zedtom]

if I think there's a planet full of pink elephants, do I get to stay?

Only if you promise to share what you are drinking.

 

[Pheran]

I voted the same and thought the same thing. I am guessing someone that has no knowledge of anything.. can't read, can't write, do math, no valuable skill. I mean, someone in the rural area that can't read and write, but knows how to raise cattle, keep farmland running, etc.. can still be pretty valuable.

Just as ignorance does not equal stupidity, intelligence does not necessarily equal knowledge. Not to mention that understanding how to raise cattle and farm well is valuable knowledge.

 

[DougK62]

"Least healthy" seems the obvious answer to me. "Least intelligent" people are still very useful to society, the sick are not.

 

[ElFenix]

I do wonder if choosing this would eliminate so much of the world's farming base that mass starvation ensues, but I have not spent any effort trying to figure this out.

probably not as nearly half of the world population still survives on subsistence farming.

 

[Pheran]

That's a problem that every choice in the poll would have though, it's not unique to morality.

Not really. If I'm omniscient, I can easily point out the oldest half of the population and there can be no debate about it. Sure, the youngest person in the oldest half may only be 1 ms older than the oldest person in the youngest half, but it's clear cut. Now, as I've already admitted, things like intelligence and attractive are somewhat more subjective/problematic. But trying to define "morality" for that giant middle gray area seems nearly impossible.

Still, it's only a contrived thought experiment so delving too deeply into the parameters isn't likely to be useful.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

50% of the global population isnt over 70 though.

The Op was fail. Many of his selections are too silly, when considered in the 50 percentile. I therefore shifted the goal post to my liking. :sneaky: Hell, I even went U.S. only. " The rest of the world will have to solve its own problems."

 

[Joseph F]

I came in here expecting a proposal to exterminate half of our illegal alien population. I am glad that I was wrong, there's enough trolling on here.

 

[Pheran]

"Least healthy" seems the obvious answer to me. "Least intelligent" people are still very useful to society, the sick are not.

I'm just playing a little devil's advocate here, but "least healthy" is going to include people like Stephen Hawking and Rogert Ebert. Of course it's also going to include meth addicts, people with Down's sydrome or any number of other maladies, and the very elderly.