#1 Edited by SgtSphynx (1266 posts) -

While out drinking with some friends we got to talking about villains in popular culture and it ultimately devolved into this discussion again; the question is as follows:

You have the chance to ensure the continuation of the human species for next 10000 years, but in order to do so you would be labeled as the worst monster in human history for all time. Would you do it?

In this case you would have to do something that would cause you to be labeled as the most vile human to ever have lived. And assume there are no outside threats for those 10k years.

#2 Posted by egg (1450 posts) -

Arguably, simply continuing the human species for another 10,000 years with no strings attached would make you a monster. Jut think of all the atrocities that will be committed and tragedies that will during that span of time.

#3 Posted by Rahkas (36 posts) -

Is humanity going to be in a state that they're glad to be around for the next 10,000 years? If so, then yes, as that seems to be for the greater good, and your reputation won't make any difference to you when you're dead. If what you have to do is something that would drastically harm humanity perhaps changing society for the negative over those next 10k years (which it sounds like it would have to be, if you were labeled the vilest human ever), then I wouldn't say it's worth it.

#4 Edited by SgtSphynx (1266 posts) -

@rahkas: Think of it more as the outcome of your vile act causes humanity to live in peace for the next 10k years.

#5 Posted by HurricaneIvan29 (556 posts) -

No, because your scenario has no mention of any signs of threat to humanities current state; there's no reason to "ensure" humanity the next 10k years when there's no threat.

#6 Posted by Novis (102 posts) -

No. We've had our chance. Let the light of humanity be snuff out!

#7 Posted by 1337W422102 (1005 posts) -

I wouldn't want to ensure humanity's continued existence for ten thousand years. That's just a dick move to the planet.

#8 Posted by Video_Game_King (36000 posts) -

なぜ人類を続けるのだか?

#9 Posted by animathias (1170 posts) -

If it means true peace and harmony, then absolutely. Heck, even if it means that people are more peaceful and harmonious than they are today, I'd probably do it.

I'd imagine the caveat would be that your act doesn't kill you, and you get to live the rest of your lifetime being spat on and proclaimed to be worse than Hitler. That'd be one hell of a trade-off that would probably drive you into your own personal hell inside your mind. But for me, it'd be worth it.

#10 Posted by Rahkas (36 posts) -

@sgtsphynx: Then yes, I think it would definitely be worth it. Easy little sacrifice there.

#11 Posted by DoctorDonkey (183 posts) -

Assuming I die, of course! I could eat a bullet right now and the only people that would remember me would be my family and a few friends. I get to let humanity survive, AND leave my mark! I mean, that mark would be more of a shit stain than a mark, but it's still a mark.

Assuming I live, yes. It would definitely be interesting, being on the run constantly, but I could take up a persona of a crime-fighting vigilante, maybe save some face.

#12 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5806 posts) -

I really don't care what happens to the planet after I'm dead, so if rather live the rest of my life without everyone hating me.

#13 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4594 posts) -

I don't think humanity "living in peace" for the next 10,000 years is necessarily a good thing. To get as far as we've gotten as a species, it's been borne of conflict, violence, suffering, and our inability to conquer our own mortality. Utter peace is stillness. I think if anything, we as a species would grow more restless in peace. Conflict is in our nature, and it is ultimately what drives us to strive for something better.

If we attained peace for 10,000 years, we'd stagnate. We'd never evolve. To me there's nothing worse than that. So no, as the current exercise is phrased I don't think I'd commit to it.

#14 Posted by Clonedzero (4091 posts) -

Well that certainly depends if i DONT do it does that doom the human race? Or is that just up to fate? If its just up to fate then watever i dont care. Thats how life is.

However if i gotta do something that labels me as some sort of horrible person for the survival of the human race? Whatever, i'd do it. If i do something good, i know i did good, i dont need to be remembered or anything. If im remembered as a monster, well at least i'd like to think i'd be an interesting one that'd become the meme of jokes like hitler.

#15 Posted by themangalist (1717 posts) -

Is this like Xmen Days of Future Past?

#16 Posted by HatKing (5817 posts) -

Is this like Xmen Days of Future Past?

Sounds like The Watchmen to me, but the idea there was humanity mislabeling the threat, uniting them in fear of a perceived enemy (I think, it's been years since I read it).

#17 Posted by ch3burashka (5009 posts) -

I just watched Serenity a few days ago. The Operative was right; he's a monster, and he's working to create a world he has not claim to. Sounds like an excellent way to go out.

#18 Posted by ajamafalous (11848 posts) -

If I'm dead, what do I care?

#19 Edited by Itwongo (1123 posts) -

Won't do it. The way you phrase it, my actions would severely cripple humanity. Fuck that.

#20 Posted by ch3burashka (5009 posts) -

@itwongo said:

Won't do it. The way you phrase it, my actions would severely cripple humanity. Fuck that.

I fail to see the logic. The conditions are that, if you do something truly horrific, you ensure humanity's safety and peace for the next hundred centuries. Where's the crippled humanity coming from?

#21 Posted by TobbRobb (4579 posts) -

I probably couldn't pull the trigger on a large scale atrocity, even if everyone gets free ice cream and eternal life for the rest of time. So no, reputation or not, I don't want to do something horrible like that.

Though this is also a little informed in that I don't think the long lasting continuation of our species matters much... If I could see the end in the next 200~ years we might make an argument to save the generations that will spawn during my life, but looking further than that just sounds crazy to me. Too much responsibility for one person. Not enough clear results.

#22 Posted by audioBusting (1477 posts) -

I guess the trick to the question is that it makes it sound like humanity won't survive for another 10,000 year. I think there's a pretty good chance of that happening even if I don't take such a chance. Just a chance for that insurance in exchange for doing something that would be worst than genocide (assuming we agree that Hitler holds that label) doesn't sound like a good trade off. Unless it's an imminent-destruction-of-humanity sort of situation, I wouldn't take it.

#23 Edited by ShaggE (6331 posts) -

I'd look to see which option is highlighted in blue, and which is highlighted in red, then decide which alignment perks are more fun to use.

But really, no. Not for my own reputation, which doesn't matter for shit next to the big picture, but for the fact that ensured survival isn't necessarily a good thing. What even *is* humanity in 10k years?

#24 Posted by CABBAGES (520 posts) -

humanity will continue for more than the next 10k years anyway and after you die in the next 30 40 50 years how would you even know that humanity is still continuing.

#25 Edited by alwaysbebombing (1538 posts) -

This seems like a really dumb question

#26 Posted by forkboy (1115 posts) -

Nope. I imagine homo sapiens will still be hanging around in some form or other in 10,000 years. Now if it was be the biggest piece of shit for a utopia, sure, that's a sacrifice worth making. But only with the impossible guarantee that the utopia is actually a utopia.

#27 Posted by Zevvion (1830 posts) -

No. There is never a single solution to anything, not to mention you never know for sure if the human race in its entirety will die out. Call me crazy, but in the end it's not worth starting a world war and gas killing 6 million Jews because you had a hunch the human race would otherwise face a dark time.

It's people who consider that stuff that are actually evil. Ends don't justify means. They never have, never will and in every single case I can think of that history taught us, there appeared to be another way to reach the same goal.

If you ask me, one of the definitions of 'evil' is to be swayed by a shortcut and believing you are right.

#28 Posted by ZolRoyce (630 posts) -

If we were talking that everyone was nice to each other, we treated each other and the environment with respect, weren't abusive to ourselves or people around us or the animals and all in all everyone was just nice and happy and gave a shit.
Then that sounds nice, but no, if you put the label of 'infinity' on it, then perhaps I would, but if everyone just sort of reverts back to their natural state of dickery after 10,000 years then what would have been the point? 10,000 years is a long time for us, but a small drop in the bucket for the universe and in the grand scheme of things if all I was doing was causing people to be super nice for a little while at the behest of being hated for the rest of my life, it's not really worth it.
But having everyone be good and nice for forever would at least be something to think about.

#29 Posted by SgtSphynx (1266 posts) -

This question pops up sometimes when my friends and I are drinking, so if it sounds a little vague or illogical, that's probably why.

I think the question originally stemmed from a pessimistic view that the human race probably won't make it out of the century if we keep going as we are. So the first time this question popped up I think it was a little better formed, though it's a bit fuzzy, we were drinking after all.

Also one of my friends said that the situation was similar to Code Geass, though I wouldn't know since I've never seen it. Watchmen is a somewhat close fit, though not an exact one.

#30 Edited by Itwongo (1123 posts) -

@itwongo said:

Won't do it. The way you phrase it, my actions would severely cripple humanity. Fuck that.

I fail to see the logic. The conditions are that, if you do something truly horrific, you ensure humanity's safety and peace for the next hundred centuries. Where's the crippled humanity coming from?

"Worst monster in human history for all time." Meaning I have to do something horrifically awful that would be at least difficult to top by anyone else in the future, without completely snuffing out humanity. I thought about wiping out a continent, but that can be topped, so I tried to go an order of magnitude higher. The conclusion I came to is that in order to become the worst monster of all time, I can't do anything short of sending us back to the stone age and killing off 99% (give or take) of the human population, ensuring a 10,000 year dark age.

#31 Posted by ch3burashka (5009 posts) -

@itwongo said:

@ch3burashka said:

@itwongo said:

Won't do it. The way you phrase it, my actions would severely cripple humanity. Fuck that.

I fail to see the logic. The conditions are that, if you do something truly horrific, you ensure humanity's safety and peace for the next hundred centuries. Where's the crippled humanity coming from?

"Worst monster in human history for all time." Meaning I have to do something horrifically awful that would be at least difficult to top by anyone else in the future, without completely snuffing out humanity. I thought about wiping out a continent, but that can be topped, so I tried to go an order of magnitude higher. The conclusion I came to is that in order to become the worst monster of all time, I can't do anything short of sending us back to the stone age and killing off 99% (give or take) of the human population, ensuring a 10,000 year dark age.

I guess he didn't specify what the 10K would be like, but that's fucking dark, man.

#32 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5229 posts) -
#33 Posted by SgtSphynx (1266 posts) -

@itwongo: I feel you are applying far too much logic to a question from a drunken conversation.

#34 Edited by HerbieBug (4212 posts) -

No. Would not. Could not. Will not. Humanity die in a fire. Also, the villain thing has no bearing on my answer. Even if that wasn't part of it, still no.

I think our species is counter productive to the rest of creation. We torture and kill and destroy and we often do it for no other reason than funsies, boredom, and schadenfreude.

#35 Posted by notdavid (821 posts) -

No. I never got the fascination with the propagation of the human species. Is there anything wrong with a Children of Men scenario if everyone could just keep their shit together and not riot?

Online
#36 Posted by Dixego (381 posts) -

Nah. Why would I want to keep these suckers around? They're no good, and if they're going to remember me as a monster after I saved their asses they have no place in my heart.

#37 Edited by Jeust (10473 posts) -

Probably not, as what would entail being called the worst monster that ever lived would most likely have to do with sacrificing innocents. Why should innocent people be sacrificed to guarantee the survival of the rest for 10,000 years? Would they deserve the sacrifice?

#38 Posted by Dark_Lord_Spam (3156 posts) -

Those two circumstances seem entirely disconnected from one another, so I couldn't really say beyond that a humanity bound to atrocity is a humanity that's fundamentally broken. It would carry the type of internal and interpersonal turmoil that stands at odds with any notion of peace.

I understand this is an abstraction, but it's a fundamentally flawed one.