Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ythn 2955 days ago
> You know what's worse than the instant obliteration of millions of people? The slow obliteration and starving of millions of people

Yeah, I'm going to have to sort of disagree with you there. Once you are dead, you are dead. If you are starving, things can still change and you can still have free agency.
3 comments
steego 2955 days ago
To be clear, I'm not comparing death to starvation.

I'm comparing death by obliteration to death by starvation.

link
vertexFarm 2955 days ago
Well it's about statistics rather than what an individual might possibly be able to accomplish.

Sure, maybe you'll find a way to survive a famine, but on average most will die because the math just doesn't add up. Not enough food for everyone. And it ends up killing far more than bombs and bullets, even nukes. Disease and famine are far worse than WMD when the numbers are in.

link
fahdelm 2955 days ago
Well I don't think my dead self would mind being dead with it being dead and all. So I don't really see how any kind of suffering is better than death. In a way death doesn't really hurt you, since you stop living.
link
ythn 2955 days ago
> So I don't really see how any kind of suffering is better than death.

So maybe we should round up all the poor people and gas them to put them out of their misery?

link
spurcell93 2955 days ago
You joke, but from a certain perspective and within certain parameters, there are people who would find this acceptable, and even preferred. I recall the movie Solace (which wasn't great, but I digress) where the premise is that a serial killer has psychic powers that allow him to see others' futures. When he detects a future that is particularly horrible (disease, injury, etc) with no hope of survival, he makes sure their last moments are wildly happy and kills them painlessly with no warning.

If we were to regard the life of the average poverty stricken human as being _terrible_, then killing them painlessly and suddenly becomes less abhorrent. Of course, then we need to define criteria for whose lives are of sufficiently bad quality where sudden death is a superior option.

Some nihilists might say all humans satisfy that criteria. Even if you're a wealthy and generally happy person, you will become old and die. If you were suddenly dead at this second with no warning, you would not care - the only downside would be those who remained alive, who presumably would care. Let's recurse until no one cares.

And the universe moves along just the same.

I am not advocating for this at all, but I felt your comment justified some sort of explanation. And I have been thinking about these existential questions quite a bit recently.

link