Who would you kill?

Question

Picture this hypothetical situation.

You're the leader of the Earth Government. You answer to NO ONE. During your reign, it has come to your attention by Earth's leading scientists that the Earth is being choked by the human race, and the only hope for the future for the planet depends on a mass genocide. There is absolutely NO WAY to avoid this grim action.

Who would you have killed and why?


(Don't waste your time if you plan to answer with something like "stupid @ssholes like you".)

"I hope I didn't sound cruel and if I did I am very sorry."

Oh no, that's fine. There's no way of answering this question seriously without sounding cruel. :P

Answer 1

Just to play along, I would simply have some of these same scientists (who are obviously sworn to secrecy) create an extremely powerful virus for me. They will have also developed a cure for it as well.

I would then introduce this virus into the water supply of several of the world's largest cities. Once the population reached a number that the planet could accomodate for another 200 or so years, I would introduce the cure with much fanfare.

The result - my people would love me for finding a cure, and the population issue would be resolved.

Answer 2

As the Supreme Leader of Earth, an unfortunate crisis has come to my attention. Overpopulation has now reached crisis levels, and I have been assured by my staff of consultants that the situation has deteriorated to the point where there is only one solution: elimination of a significant segment of humanity.

Of these conclusions, there can be little question. My consultants know that if such a grave recommendation were to be proven wrong, they would be summarily executed for their incompetance, as I have already executed my predecessors for failing to avoid this crisis with measures that would have been far less Draconian.

It perhaps goes without saying that in this time of crisis we cannot afford to sacrifice any of our productivity if at all possible. To lose the producers of food or the scientists who may yet alleviate our troubles would only put us further behind. But it bears mention that just as we cannot afford to lose production, so too can we no longer afford to waste it. Or even to be so generous as we have been in the past.

Thus I have already had experts move among you and draw up two lists.

One is the list of people who are productive citizens. Those who work and produce those things that aid us all. Weight has been given to those who perform tasks that others can not or will not; potential is included as well, at a more limited rate - potential is of much less utility to us than the actual. This list has been ranked from most to least productive.

The second list is the list of people who consume resources in our society. Some people, whether from genetics, inclination, age, or disease do consume significantly more than others. This list has also been ranked from least to greatest consumption.

My consultants have given me a number of people which must be eliminated, so we will proceed from the bottom of each list upward. Any time the boundary passes a person's name on both lists, he or she will be eliminated. The boundary will rise until we have the requisite number of eliminations.

Thus the highly productive will be given some allowance for wastefulness, and the highly conservative will be given some allowance for unproductiveness. Ultimately, our population will consist of only the most productive and conservative members. The human race will persevere, and perhaps even be made better by this culling. May the Divine forgive us.

Answer 3

Even if I do not answer to anyone (I would include God or any other supreme being here) as you said, there is still the matter of answering to something - my own conscience. So the question I would ask is what gives me the right to judge who shall live and who shall die? On the other hand one of the answers here was to stop people form having to many children. As I see it is if every two people had only one child the population would decrease... In one generation's time it will be almost half of what it used to be. Now just as in the present there are people donating blood to help others (or any other type of selfless people) I expect that there would also exist people willing to not have children in order to "save the world".

On the other hand if I choose to kill criminals, what makes me better than them? And if you think the answer is my reasons (aka - saving the world) then I ask you what gives me the right to say: "My reasons are just, but his (the criminal's) reasons were not". If the answer would be rapists then I will give you this situation I saw in a movie: this guy raped someone. He then went to jail but for a different reason (lets say theft). While he was in jail he was himself raped and, through an unfortunate accident, he broke his back making it impossible for him to feel or move anything from the waist down. After getting out of jail he became a better person trying to help others and living a religious life. Now would you kill a man like this? Did he not pay (at least in part) for his crime and is he not still trying to make up for what he did? And the examples could go on. (for those of you who like these kind of topic, read "Les miserables" by Victor Hugo) So in the end, even if I do have the power and even if i will not answer to anybody, what gives me the moral right to take this decision?

Answer 4

It doesn't matter, because eventually, the earth will again become overpopulated.

So, the only way to avoid the demise is to stop people from having children. Not altogether...just once in a while when the population is getting out of hand.

In the interim, assist the people who are suffering terribly and want assisted suicide, then get rid of everyone on death row and all the child molesters.

Answer 5

I had to think long and hard because as the ruler of the Earth Government I alone have the power to decide. All you sick puppies must suffer the wrath and demise of the NEW EARTH ORDER. Now bow down and kiss my feet and we shall see who lives and who dies. Who's first.?
Criminals would be first. Vagrants might as well go too. If you are not a contributing part of society then off to the shredders for you. Pull your weight or everyone sinks. Then after that guess its gotta be anyone who defies me.

Answer 6

That choking idea was given by scientists . So there are scientists . I will ask them to find the means for immigrate a part of people to some other planet and if they don't find the ways , I will threaten them that they will be killed . Surely they will find the means .
So why should I kill any one ?

Answer 7

Some weird scientists,
I would have killed all the prisinors, and homeless people and the people that dont care about earth.
I would kill everyone besides the people that cared about earth so that they (survivors) could fully appreciate earth.
I hope I didn't sound cruel and if I did I am very sorry.

Answer 8

Well if ur talking about ordinary everyday ppl then I could name a few. Like my husbands ex-bi*ch that literally ruined my life. She definitely deserves to die for everything she did to me and my family. Or should I say, "would of been family". She's the fu*king reason I had a miscarriage and ruined alot of sh*t that went along with our perfect relationship. Um and all those dumb b*tches that think they are better than everybody else. They should die cuz they have their head stuck so far up their own *** that there would really be no reason for them to be alive.

Answer 9

Most rappers because their useless, Oprah, Nelly, John Madden, rapists, child molesters, all stupid people, and anyone that has 8 kids just so they can get a check from the government, rednecks, Kim Jon Ill, and all of Al-Kada

Answer 10

Child and Animal abusers. Pretty much ever evil person on earth, the ones who are selfish and don't care about hurting others as long as they get what they want.