Should we humanely kill the starving in third world Countries?

EmeryPearson

@Dee

I am unconvinced that Genocide could cost less than feeding people. 

Economically, it's a lose lose. Inaction results in suffering, but no direct spending, action results in feed people at the expense of resources. There's nothing to suggest that genocide is more economically viable than feeding people. Feeding people is far less expensive that warfare or organized genocide.

Fredsnephew

Dee said:

@Fredsnephew ;

“Why don’t  we humanely feed the people of third world countries “

I take it you include yourself in the “ we “ so tell me are you feeding them as we speak ? 

Indirectly yes.

The U.K. spends approximately £13billion annually on foreign aid.


You either have a very jaundiced view of the world and your fellow beings.

Or you are just enjoy being an antagonist.


By the way.

Who are the "we" that you refer to?

Dee

@someone234

Really , you may use it I’ve no doubt but why you’re telling me when you’ve been hostile to me since joining here is beyond me 

Dee

@Fredsnephew

“indirectly yes.

The U.K. spends approximately £13billion annually on foreign aid.


You either have a very jaundiced view of the world and your fellow beings.

Or you are just enjoy being an antagonist.


By the way.

Who are the "we" that you refer to?”


Yes you help “lndirectly “

I’m a humanist I love life and people , I merely want to alleviate suffering , 

You must have a very jaundiced view of the world and your fellow beings if you think watching them die slowly is preferable to eliminating them quickly 



I’m not being an “Antagonist “ when I joined this site my presumption was it was a debate site where one could debate topics no matter how “ controversial, obviously I didn’t factor in “ sensitive souls “ like yourself 

The we I thought was obvious as in collectively those who can help 

Not one person has answered the question I actually asked and instead all just come out with the usual garbage uttered by their favourite politician on celebrity , the question I asked has deep philosophical implications regarding us and society and had been widely debated elsewhere , obviously it’s a little to “ controversial “ for here 

Debra AI Analytics  

 

   +   

Fredsnephew

Dee said:

@Fredsnephew

“indirectly yes.

The U.K. spends approximately £13billion annually on foreign aid.


You either have a very jaundiced view of the world and your fellow beings.

Or you are just enjoy being an antagonist.


By the way.

Who are the "we" that you refer to?”


Yes you help “lndirectly “

I’m a humanist I love life and people , I merely want to alleviate suffering , 

You must have a very jaundiced view of the world and your fellow beings if you think watching them die slowly is preferable to eliminating them quickly 



I’m not being an “Antagonist “ when I joined this site my presumption was it was a debate site where one could debate topics no matter how “ controversial, obviously I didn’t factor in “ sensitive souls “ like yourself 

The we I thought was obvious as in collectively those who can help 

Not one person has answered the question I actually asked and instead all just come out with the usual garbage uttered by their favourite politician on celebrity , the question I asked has deep philosophical implications regarding us and society and had been widely debated elsewhere , obviously it’s a little to “ controversial “ for here 

Debra AI Analytics  

 

   +   

Ok. I will answer your question.

No.

Dee

@EmeryPearson


“I am unconvinced that Genocide could cost less than feeding people. 

Economically, it's a lose lose. Inaction results in suffering, but no direct spending, action results in feed people at the expense of resources. There's nothing to suggest that genocide is more economically viable than feeding people. Feeding people is far less expensive that warfare or organized genocide.”


I think it could be done cheaply and effectively and I would be open to viable cost effective plans , feeding people is best but it’s never going to happen we had hundreds of years trying and we’re still where we were 

ale5

@Dee, I acknowledge your point regarding not letting people starve and a quick death being more humane.  However, the minute we cross that line and start making judgements when it's okay to end someone's life, that's the minute we lose our humanity. Being passive in letting people die of starvation without doing anything about arguably make us bad people, but proactively doing dr Kavorkian approach make us animals.

Dee

@ale5
I acknowledge your point regarding not letting people starve and a quick death being more humane.  However, the minute we cross that line and start making judgements when it's okay to end someone's life, that's the minute we lose our humanity. Being passive in letting people die of starvation without doing anything about arguably make us bad people, but proactively doing dr Kavorkian approach make us animals.


Thanks for that . I think we do have to make judgements in these issues as in we know for a fact there are certain people we cannot save they know it also , it seems society finds it somehow more palatable to let them die slowly as at least we are acting like civilized beings , I would argue the opposite and claim it’s a cruelty to let people die slowly and knowingly think we are acting like decent humans when in fact I think this makes us uncaring beasts 

ale5

@Dee, there is merit to what you are saying at high level, but don't you think that it will result in potential abuse to start killing people? Who is to determine if they will die from starvation or not? Who will determine if their suffering is worth dying for? What legal and ethical framework are you proposing for this decision making?

Dee

@ale5

“There  is merit to what you are saying at high level, but don't you think that it will result in potential abuse to start killing people? Who is to determine if they will die from starvation or not? Who will determine if their suffering is worth dying for? What legal and ethical framework are you proposing for this decision making?”

Abuses of any system always take place , look at how aid money is distributed and the corruption in high places regards funding of aid projects and then how aid as in only a portion of actual food goes to the needy as it’s auctioned of or given away to high ranking officials , I know of what I speak I have two relatives working for foreign aid charities 

My solution is simple those in the know as in those working in the field can forecast accurately who they can aid and who they cannot , so why not inform the unfortunates through a flier drop that they cannot be helped and let them decide by dropping cyanide pills with each flier whether they wish to suffer a slow death or end it now ?

There are better ways of doing it I’m sure it’s only a “ work in progress “ 


The other solution is do nothing like we did hundreds of years ago and let nature take its course 

ale5

Thanks @Dee

1) does dropping "cyanide pills" technically qualify as "humane kill" in your definition. It maybe more of an assisted suicide.
2) what if a child takes that without knowing - they won't know what these are and many can't read?  It's just way too risky.

Dee

@ale5

Hi ale ,

“1) does dropping "cyanide pills" technically qualify as "humane kill" in your definition. It maybe more of an assisted suicide.
2) what if a child takes that without knowing - they won't know what these are and many can't read?  It's just way too risky. “

1) assisted suicide is still preferable to a slow agonising death 

2) the child is doomed anyway if it’s in an area decimated by famine I would hope all would thank the pill 

EmeryPearson

This is still entirely unrealistic. genocide takes military force, you would need troops on the ground to actually get it done, this would then likely result in WWIII, furthering the costs. Simply cheaper to feed them.

Dee

@EmeryPearson

You say .....This is still entirely unrealistic.

Air drop and cynanide pills , it’s workable and cost effective 

genocide takes military force,

I prefer to call it mercy elimination 

you would need troops on the ground to actually get it done,

You wouldn’t 

this would then likely result in WWIII,

How so ?

furthering the costs. Simply cheaper to feed them

Its not cheaper and we are still not doing it 

someone234

Dee said:

@EmeryPearson

You say .....This is still entirely unrealistic.

Air drop and cynanide pills , it’s workable and cost effective 

genocide takes military force,

I prefer to call it mercy elimination 

you would need troops on the ground to actually get it done,

You wouldn’t 

this would then likely result in WWIII,

How so ?

furthering the costs. Simply cheaper to feed them

Its not cheaper and we are still not doing it 

You are a psychopath who should never ever be put in any position of power in any workplace.

Dee

@someone234

you say ....You are a psychopath who should never ever be put in any position of power in any workplace


I’m a humanist and should get a Nobel for my endeavors 

someone234

@Dee You'd better hope the judge has never known anyone who was poor, because I have and my own father was dirt-poor growing up.

Dee

@someone234

You say .......You'd better hope the judge has never known anyone who was poor, because I have and my own father was dirt-poor growing up. 

Are you on a separate debate because I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about 

someone234

@Dee I hope one day you are poor, begging on the street and someone comes by, covers your mouth, slices you up and whispers ' mercy killing you ###ing hobo' and walks away as you bleed and writhe.

Every single second you bleed out, you'd imagine the work you could have put in to get wealthier, the potential reality of all you could have become had you not died there and then.

This is not a debate about being kind to the suffering, this is about murder on an unfathomable scale. You are a vile human being who I want nothing to do with.

EmeryPearson

"Air drop and cynanide pills , it’s workable and cost effective "

There is no system to administer it. Unrealistic.

"I prefer to call it mercy elimination "

It would still be genocide, as it would focus almost exclusively on the African and Asian populations which experience food shortages.

"You wouldn’t "

Name a single genocide which didn't take military force. Closest example you can get is America's and Germany's sterilization projects, which didn't directly kill people as you suggest.

"How so ?"

You would need to commit Genocide on Africa and Asia, there's no way China and Russia wouldn't intervene with us committing genocide in Asia. Western countries would intervene in a genocide in either continent, resulting in WWIII.

"Its not cheaper and we are still not doing it "

Still cheaper.


You're simply wrong bud.

Dee

@EmeryPearson

You say .......There is no system to administer it. Unrealistic.

No system ?  A plane that’s it , very realistic 



It would still be genocide, as it would focus almost exclusively on the African and Asian populations which experience food shortages.

Well let’s include all populations that famine , sounds so much better when it’s re x branded as “ food shortages “



Name a single genocide which didn't take military force. Closest example you can get is America's and Germany's sterilization projects, which didn't directly kill people as you suggest.

As I said a plane or two and an air drop 

You would need to commit Genocide on Africa and Asia, there's no way China and Russia wouldn't intervene with us committing genocide in Asia. Western countries would intervene in a genocide in either continent, resulting in WWIII.

Not if they were convinced it was for the best , I’m before my time in 50 or 100 years  time I will be deemed a visionary 

"Its not cheaper and we are still not doing it "

Its a lot cheaper by  a stretch 

Still cheaper.
 
Still not 

You're simply wrong bud.

I’m simply right , to alleviate a suffering you and others wish to drag out is barbarity 

someone234

@Dee I seriously hope this debate gets sent to the FBI and you get put in a psych ward.

It's easy to say vile things like mass genocide behind a screen name. You wouldn't dare argue this horrific ISIS mentality putrid sh** irl.
I have family and old friends who reside in those nations.

Dee

@someone234

You say ...  ..I seriously hope this debate gets sent to the FBI and you get put in a psych ward.

For saying I want victims of famine finished of humanely instead of watching them die slowly over the course of a month or longer , I think it’s you needs the psych ward 

It's easy to say vile things like mass genocide behind a screen name

I never mentioned mass genocide so stop wailing like a Victorian melodrama 

. You wouldn't dare argue this horrific ISIS mentality putrid sh** irl.

Whats ISIS got to do with this ?


I have family and old friends who reside in those nations. 

What nations I never mentioned a particular one ?  Are your “ family /friends “ dying of famine ?

Your all over the place are you on drugs or something? 

someone234

I've said what needs to be said. I'm not gonna let you troll me kid, bye-bye.

Dee

@someone234  

you say ....

I've said what needs to be said. I'm not gonna let you troll me kid, bye


so answering your question is now “ trolling “,  oh dear 

EmeryPearson

"No system ?  A plane that’s it , very realistic "

Planes cannot introduce cyanide pills into the human body last a checked. If you have evidence of the contrary, feel free to provide it.

"Well let’s include all populations that famine , sounds so much better when it’s re x branded as “ food shortages “"

You would still need Troops on the Ground, just like with Holomdor or with Mao. If you can name a deliberate famine that did not require military intervention, I am all ears. But you would be using hunger, to eliminate hunger at that point, so either way, it's pretty illogical.

"As I said a plane or two and an air drop "

Irrelevant, you are unable to name a single genocide which did not require military force.

"Not if they were convinced it was for the best , I’m before my time in 50 or 100 years  time I will be deemed a visionary"

Irrelevant, as it stands now, this would cause global war.



Its okay to admit when your argument is illogical. You won't starve or anything.

Dee

@EmeryPearson

Planes cannot introduce cyanide pills into the human body last a checked. If you have evidence of the contrary, feel free to provide it.

I did say the cyanide pill would be attachéd to a flier explaining what to do and that no aid was coming to them but just ignore that part why don’t you ? 



You would still need Troops on the Ground, just like with Holomdor or with Mao.

Nonsense 

If you can name a deliberate famine that did not require military intervention,

Military intervention in what way ? 

I am all ears

Thats  a medical complaint you really should see someone 

. But you would be using hunger, to eliminate hunger at that point, so either way, it's pretty illogical.

So is what you’re trying to say as it makes no sense 



Irrelevant, you are unable to name a single genocide which did not require military force.

Relevant . My humanitarian solution is a first and only requires a plane 



Irrelevant, as it stands now, this would cause global war.

Nonsense , you base this on assumption 



Its okay to admit when your argument is illogical

So maybe you should do it ?

. You starve or anything. 

Again youre+making no sense 

EmeryPearson

"I did say the cyanide pill would be attachéd to a flier explaining what to do and that no aid was coming to them but just ignore that part why don’t you ? "

This still does not administer the pill to someone. Irrelevant. No delivery system.

"Nonsense"

Yet, true. You are unable to provide any example of any genocides which did not use military action. 

"Thats  a medical complaint you really should see someone "

This is a lack of comprehension on your part.

"So is what you’re trying to say as it makes no sense "

Yes. Using famine to commit genocide to prevent famine is pretty nonsensical. 

"Relevant . My humanitarian solution is a first and only requires a plane "

Irrelevant. This is a proposed opinion, not evidence of anything.

"Nonsense , you base this on assumption "

History*


By now, I can tell you're trolling. But I am better at trolling, and am willing to keep replying so long as it keeps making you look foolish.

Dee

@EmeryPearson


By now, I can tell you're trolling. But I am better at trolling, and am willing to keep replying so long as it keeps making you look idiotic

EmeryPearson

@Dee

Sorry, there was no counter-point in that statement. Is this an admission of defeat?

MayCaesar

One could make such an argument based on the ideal of minimizing the starving people's suffering - but the implications of this argument if applied consistently to all related situations can truly be dramatic. If we decide that it is okay to put people out of their misery based on the insufficiency of nutrition they are getting - wouldn't it also be okay to put people out of their misery based on their alcohol addiction? On the excessive weight? On having cancer? Where do we draw the line.

In general, the most effective view on this when used in state-making has been that it is only okay to kill people to prevent them from killing/severely hurting other people. Killing people based solely on your state believing they are better off dead not only violates those people's freedom to make their own choice (if they believed they were better off dead, they would commit suicide, instead of needing others to take their lives away), but also opens Pandora's box of other applications of this mentality.