If you could eliminate (like literally make disappear) the worst 1% of the human population would you do it?

[Anonymous]

There is an estimated little over 8 billion people on the planet. So this be around 80 million people. And the elimination percent would have to be 1%. No more no less.

There are some people the vast majority of us would agree it would be better if they weren’t breathing. This includes (but is not limited to) the following:

• Mass murderers
• Child traffickers
• Serial rapists
• Legitimate terrorists (who have no problem intentionally killing innocent civilians)
• Traffickers of the worst kind of drugs (fentanyl, heroine, etc)
• Large scale fraudsters and scam artists (Bernie Madoff types)

However this is where it gets dicey. There are certain political leaders and influencers who are sociopathic and their IDEAS lead to destruction.

For example Karl Marx may have not personally killed anyone personally. Neither did Adolf Hitler believe it or not. But their ideas led to the oppression and deaths of 10s of millions of people. While I believe in free speech I also believe the pen can be deadlier then the sword with some ideas (given what history has taught us)

But if you really had the power to make 80+ million of the scum of humanity disappear would you do it?

Updates

+1 y

Just a few other bullet points here:

- you have the omniscient God like power of knowing these people are beyond a doubt the worst of the worst.
- there would be no formal execution. They just disappear down to the molecule level. Cease to exist period.
- you also know the future damage the negative influencers would create.

1 percent is actually a lot of bad guys. A lot.

Updates

+1 y

I also choose 1% to avoid any slippery slope ideas. But this more for people who cause harm on a wide scale and encourage/enable others to do so.

I also think it’s possible for some people to commit a one time horrible crime and never do it again for the rest of their lives (regardless if they get caught or not). Doesn’t make it “okay” of course. Hell no. But as for the psychopaths who actually enjoy cruelty and do it over and over again: they need to be vaporized.

[BadApple69]

Yes, I would do it in a heart beat. The only thing is… once I make that decision I would also have to add my name to that list. Regardless who these 80 million people are or what they did , I murdered them. That would make me the worst mass murder in history

[Asker]

Delivering justice isn’t murder. But I see what you are saying.

[jshm2]

No. Not my call to make. Plus each person requires a fair judgement instead of a nuke thrown on them like some sort of fucking American bombing campaign, anyway.

Also, they may be scum but they will have purpose. The Nazi's did nothing to be proud of. But it's because of them that we have a lot of the technology and medical advances that we do today.

[DarkLegacy]

To be fair it is the same with the Romans as well

[Asker]

Remember this is if you had complete omniscient knowledge of exactly what each person is guilty of and what their judgment capacity is.

It’s one thing if people get brainwashed to do horrible deeds. Quite another if they know exactly what they are doing but don’t care because they are literal psychopaths or sociopaths.

[petitedollbabee]

I would like to say yes, but realistically it’s a no. Someone will always replace them. Even if they were all wiped out, in a years time, other people would be them and the cycle would restart. You can wipe evil people from the world, but you can’t wipe away the evil.

[Girlsontop]

Yes I would do it, but that isn't going to help the problem decrease in any way really considering there are way more bad people than 1% and new people will take their spot in the world of cruelty.

[eterna1drag0n]

As a former LEO, I can say 100% without hesitation, yes. Put the button in front of me and I would press it immediately. It has to include insane, perverted, and corrupted public officials and celebrities as well though.

[Asker]

Former LEO?

[eterna1drag0n]

My Lieutenant at the time wanted me to lie on a report and get a guy in more trouble then he would have been so he could get more time in prison. He was a repeat offender and they were tired of dealing with him. I refused and he told me I wasn't a team player and I didn't have what it took to do the job. I told him I guess I didn't and quit right there. I have integrity. I won't compromise my morals and values to punish another human unjustly, no matter the circumstance.

[Asker]

That must of been a very difficult decision. Good for you with sticking to your principles.

I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime. No more no less. Also if this 1% elimination was possible it could only be done if you had omniscient knowledge knowing the guilty are truly guilty.

Impossible but it was just some food thought.

[richardcory]

But who is deciding who those people are? I can't learn the entire life histories of 80 million people. Murderers? I"m sure some convicted murders are factually innocent. Then what about cases like a woman who murders her abusive husband - murder, but only sort of.

Besides if I kill 80 million people I'm one of those murderers.

No. I"m not a fan of the bible, but "thou shalt not kill" still seems like a pretty good rule to me

[BCA6010]

1% wouldn't even scratch the surface of the problem, but let's assume that it would- what exactly do you think would happen if you just did that? Do you think that more than 99.1% of the world would cheer in approval, or do you think you would create a bigger problem as greater than 1% retaliate, and huge chunks of the otherwise passive population are suddenly thrust into a world of perpetual, neurotic fear that they could be zapped away for even a minor offense?

[LiamJHayden]

I think if we add in child molesters, spouse beaters, con artists who rip off the most vulnerable, and other garbage people who never get reported we could hit 80 million.

[goaded]

Apparently, you don't see a difference between expressing ideas and giving orders: "Karl Marx may have not personally killed anyone personally. Neither did Adolf Hitler".

[Asker]

Well I do I know that communism has killed more people than capitalism.

[Asker]

And Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin gave orders too.

[goaded]

So, not Marx. Marx was talking about developed nations, like Britain, not China and Russia.

[Asker]

I guess you got a point about writing ideas (bad ones) vs. giving orders.

Interestingly enough Vladimir Lenin was completely revolutionized from reading Marx’s works. Marx would of faded into obscurity if it wasn’t for Lenin.

But again Lenin put it in action. Stalin REALLY put it in action (purges, Holodomor, etc.)

[goaded]

The funny thing is that communism needs democracy to work. The power is meant to be in the hands of the people, and how can that be, if the people aren't allowed to change the people in power?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" doesn't even necessarily mean that the able shouldn't be allowed to keep the fruits of their labour, as long as the needy are satisfied. (Full disclosure, I have two copies of Marx's works, in German and English, but I've not read either!)

[Asker]

Yes but it is easy for elitists to gain power and use it for their own conceited objectives by promising people “to each according to his needs”.

So if communism is supposed to be run by a democracy then why are the communist nations currently run by dictators?

Even if you have noble objectives to such a society you need to put your unflagging support and trust in the state. The state is run by people and people easily become corrupt when given too much power.

[goaded]

You just described why you still need democracy; to peacefully remove corrupt leaders.

[Meropatrick]

Only sex offenders they are scums of the earth. I believe any person can be reformed but them. They are rotten and damaged and indignified bunch.

[Asker]

Can serial killers be reformed? Can mass traffickers of fentanyl be reformed?

[Meropatrick]

I see hope in any person but a sex offender. I would not elimenate a person and end their life just because they traffic fentanyl (your question was about elemination right?)
So my answer only eleminate sex offenders the rest are redeemable one way or another.

[Asker]

I hate those people too. But let’s be real. Is a (one time) rapist less redeemable then a psychotic serial killer?

Sex crimes are heinous. But how are they more heinous than actually taking someone’s life?

[Asker]

My hypothetical example is if you had omniscient power to know the exact crime someone committed, what their motives were, what state of mind they were in and whether or not they feel any remorse.

If you had that power to know if someone is a child trafficker or directly engaged in repeat pedophilia then absolutely: vaporize them.

But more generally speaking what is and what is not a sex offense in modern culture seems to always be a moving line. It’s also a very dangerous one given all the unproven accusations that went on during #metoo.

[Meropatrick]

Ok so you are talking about knowing motives behind the crime.
I think for a rapist i dont see any excuse or a justified motive. Its the only crime you can live without. You dont need to rape to defend ur life. But u can kill to defend your life.

To me murder or taking someones life is less severe than rape. Because when you rape someone you actually took their life away and ruined it but they are forced still to exist. Its really evil and Some people do it as a way to hurt a person but get away with it because many rape cases gets dropped. Even One rape case on a person makes them instantly a monster to me.

Moving to the metoo thing, me too is motivated politically to threaten men in power they used it against trump and against the Clinton's. I believe that we all know what is considered rape and whats not we dont need the metoo people to tell us. And we know Some guys get falsly accused of it.

[Asker]

Well the definitions of what is rape and what isn’t should be clearly defined (and woman straight up says “no” or “stop” yet the guy continues) but modern feminism really confused and blurred the lines on all of that. To make matters worse women often admit to so called “rape fantasies” and other crap.

Now a hypothetical omniscient person would know exactly the motives, thought patterns, etc. going on in both people’s heads. But obviously nobody is omniscient and this is all fantasy just to provoke thought.

Also I still murder is worse then rape. That sure as hell doesn’t make rape a peccadillo. Hell no. It’s extremely serious. But if I was forced to make a choice to be murdered or raped I think I know what I would go with.

[AviatorTom]

No, it would be too arbitrary and capricious to determine who goes, and who stays.

[Asker]

This decision would come with full God like knowledge of having true insight into the evil person’s exact actions, motivations for their actions and whether or not they feel remorse or lack thereof.

[OddBeMe]

No. One, I would be frightfully afraid of anyone else having this power and hating people like me…say liberals. But two, no one has the omnipotence to categorize the WORST 1%.

[Asker]

Yeah I was just saying if you theoretically had omniscient power to know who is who and which is which. It’s impossible of course. But just curious from a dystopian fantasy perspective would you do it if you could do it? If I was confronted with that decision, knowledge and power it would be a tough choice.

[OddBeMe]

Yeah I look at it as I do with capital punishment. We can’t be sure one innocent will be killed we shouldn’t kill anyone.

[Asker]

Right. But just saying in this fantasy scenario you DO know the truth, the persons motivations and lack of remorse.

That’s why I reserved this for the worst of the worst.

[OddBeMe]

Well, I guess if I had some sight that could target all the Ted bundy wanna be’s. Columbine worshipping incels, etc… Id give ‘em massive coronaries. Sure.

[Asker]

Well I would want the insight to truly know what is just and what is not. Even if it challenges my preconceived notions of who the worst of the worst are. I would definitely require godlike insight prior to making a godlike decision.

There can be a philosophical argument that the presence of evil challenges the righteous to take action. But still there are some people whose existence has certainly brought greater pain and suffering then any silver lining possible (either presently or or in the future).

[exitseven]

in a heartbeat. Most cops will tell you that 90% of the crime in their communities are caused by the same ten assholes.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I have a harder time choosing dressings for my salad. Yes. Add a zero. Still yes.

[Anonymous]

You do not clear the poisoned well by ignoring the poison.

[Asker]

Some people really are born evil though. Pluralism and environmental influences only go so far.

[Meropatrick]

@asker i agree with that Some people r born evil

[Anonymous]

I mean it sounds good in theory. But then I remember God created them. So there had to be a purpose.

[Lliam]

Happily, and without a shred of remorse.

[Dargil]

Nope. There's such a thing as due process.

[Asker]

I believe in due process. But I am talking about if you had to the omniscient power to know FOR SURE these people are guilty as the day as long the most heinous crimes I mentioned. Also if you knew their radical (unique) ideas would directly contribute to the early violent deaths of a large numbers of people.

[Dargil]

I would not.

[Asker]

Yeah it would be a difficult decision for me as well given the spiritual beliefs I was raised with. Also the presence of evil in this world is supposed to be part of God’s plan. It tests righteous men and tough times/situations can bring out the best in people.

Still though there is real evil in this world that can NOT be reasoned with. You can not morally change violent psychopaths.

[Fireguy17]

no, I do not have the right to make that decision.

[DextroShade]

Yes, definitely and without hesitation.