We can easily design psych tests to eliminate the sorts of people who would respond that way.

Basically, anyone who takes life seriously is out.

That guy is why libertarianism can't work.

He is also most guys.

It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills.

I think there ought to be a world-wide brainwashing campaign to indoctrinate people with one idea and one idea only:

Expect less of others and more of yourself.

That way we can arrive at the paradoxical intersection between fascism and libertarianism.

That sentence works ok as-is, except you might accept 'expect'.

Edited, my bad. Your humorous sentence here is appreciated too.

Anything I can do can be programmed.

I disagree with the traits you think are necessary to get on the P Funk Mothership.

Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.

With the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

.

This is not a philosophy exam.

cat skull,



and I noticed the first time, but I had to answer Brian.

We tried that with that Jesus guy. Not sure it worked out.

(sorry for RGT content but how can I resist)

I understand he is the son of a omnipresent super being so I guess he can take that criticism in stride.

Who says it didnt work out (although he didnt say expect less of others and more from yourself, he suggested essentially to be forgiving and understanding if others cannot offer as much as they should and you nevertheless to continue to do your own best). Any sensible guy recognizes that Jesus improved ancient Greek philosophical positions and Jewish Religious positions (and any higher civilization would endorse as highly rational and noble his position on love and forgiveness) even if the followers later completely screwed up Greek culture for centuries. We can thank Christians and Muslims for a lot of historical/cultural bs even if a lot of what they both believed is decent and the culture/science/arts etc both systems gave to the world in the best of their times (where they were official religions) were material to the resurrection of rational analytical thinking many centuries later.

Jesus by the way would want us to save mankind with effort.

To be clear, I'm Christian. I was being somewhat facetious. I think your re-statement as "be forgiving of others and do your best" is fairly close to "expect less of others and more from yourself", especially in light of other injunctions in the sermon on the mount. They are quite strict! But internally focused. The motivation is similar to VeeDDzz

That was Kennedy. The only thing we have to fear about a thread entitled 'Society if the earth was going to be destroyed in 20 years' is a fear of a thread entitled 'Society if the earth was going to be destroyed in 20 years' itself.

It comes natural for people to help others, to quite great extent. Religion is a (old fashioned) way to underline that. On the other side everybody has to take care of her/himself.

I don't.

Are you using a ventilator? Do you get your food through a tube? Let's start there.

Those are both available options, but I don't partake.

I think the truly interesting question in the OP is the concept that was overlooked in order to simplify the hypothetical and receive a more streamlined response... which I think is unnecessary, as posters like masque de Z, VeeDDzz', etc. have shown great interest in the overarching hypothetical proposed.

The truly great question (in my opinion) is a question of worker efficiency, economies of scale, resource thresholds, and a question of economics (cost/benefit, opportunity cost): What would life on earth be like if the calamity '100% certain to happen' (Which I read in the OP to be taken as impending), had a prevention rate of 20%? 50%? 80%? How would allocations of labor, resources, capital, etc. be handled in order to mitigate unrest and maximize efficiency in all endeavors (or the one endeavor, if society decides to take a 100% fight or 100% flight response, I suppose).

masque your posts itt have gone from bad to worse, i'm afraid

This is a compliment apparently when coming from someone like you Wazz that thinks the worse of human nature in this thread.

Do you agree or not agree that in a crisis of such magnitude we face 2 problems/realities;

1) That there is a risk that instead of witnessing the end in 20 years we witness it much earlier and end in complete chaos as in a jungle with famine and anarchy and the worse violence ever because our population is impossible to sustain in a collapsed system without experiencing an amazing kind of quick unraveling of basic things.

2) If a civilization anywhere in the universe respects the process of life and the rise of complexity it represents as something nontrivial, the source of all wisdom and joy imaginable with no end in sight, doing the best you can to protect it from ending is imperative logical choice. Any living being that has experienced life and doesnt see it as torture or a failed miserable experience but recognizes in it the potential for greatness and the rise of the quality of the experience from ancient to modern times (not to mention the rise from bacterium to a mammal) would value greatly an attempt to extend it if a logical route to do so existed and if it didnt it would still try to create one until the very end. It is property of life to want to survive. So how does giving up then compute with this?


A rational response by our civilization therefore tries to solve these 2 things at the same time and quickly comes to the realization that they both succeed only when coupled within a single united strategy. It is a conclusion similar to not using the bomb (nuclear weapons) again on human targets for the past ~70 years (it has effectively prevented so far ww3) . It is a game theoretical rational conclusion needed to survive in modern realities.


I will give you more reasons to dislike my posts now.

Time to recognize this;

If society fails to take the rational choice here scientists will make sure it does and eliminate all the idiots that oppose the sensible solution, selecting instead a chaotic march to oblivion. I will invite you to think how a group of thousands of united "mad" scientists can effectively change the game for all the idiots that do not want to do what they have to in order for logic to prevail.

We can do it the easy way or the hard way. But we will not go down without trying.

Masque you're killing me, not responding to my post but the one below it -.- I posted that because I was looking forward to an answer from you very much. I threw your name in there and everything!