I found this survey question on ****** and it got me interested, so I thought it would be fun to see what responses I would get from posting it here. It's a pretty messed up decision to have to make, but let's see what you make of it! You can only choose one of these, A or B. You don't have to explain your reason if you don't want, but I will judge you for your lack of reasoning ability if you do that.:eusa_naug If you could be born into this world with the following choice, which would you choose? Choice A You live for only a few minutes. During these few minutes you will experience a high of pleasure similar to cocaine or some other drug. This pleasure will be reserved and experienced only by you, and after it ends you will die. You will impact nothing with this choice. You will come and go just like that. Choice B You live for only a few minutes. During these few minutes you will experience pain similar to childbirth. With this pain, several new lives will come into the world that never would have existed unless you experienced this pain, although you will have no knowledge of this in your brief painful life. In this way you will have an impact on the world through these people. When the pain ends, you die.
Well if I had no knowledge that new lives would arise out of my pain, I'd pick pleasure. I doubt anyone would intentionally put themselves through agony if they didn't know why. Still, either "life" would basically be meaningless to the person living it, as it's equally as fleeting. Only if you somehow figured there was a greater purpose to plan B, or if you were just a masochist, could that be picked. But it's an interesting question, particularly if you draw on potential philosophical meanings. Think about if you extended that question to a normal human lifespan and said~ Spoiler Would you like to live a life of bliss, where you alone experience pleasure and happiness, while making no lasting impact on the world whatsoever and remaining oblivious and/or apathetic to other people? OR Would you rather live a sacrificial pain-filled life where for all you know there is no meaning to your suffering, yet you creat or touch others' lives in a meaningful way... Leaving a lasting legacy to which you were oblivious? Much like an author who becomes adored worldwide only after their death.
Well if I didn't know, what motivation would I have to pick B? Or am I missing the point of the question or something? I'm a little confused. I guess A if I wouldn't know, because I wouldn't have a reason not to.
Since the thought of giving birth/life makes shudder for unknown reasons, I will go with A. Besides, you never said if the impact was good or bad. Hitler had an impact on the world, didn't mean it was a good one.
This reminds me of the plot to a disappointing horror film lol Are we going to live those few fleeting moments as babies or adults? Option A seems like they'd be guaranteed to be a nobody. However, I think it's the least 'evil' option because you don't care what is going on if you're feeling high enough Would we be aware (before picking option B) that we'd impact the world, despite being unaware of it during the miserable life? I think I would only consider option B if I knew the descendants of those people would bring me back from death and we conquer the universe or something awesome like that And as for Kodo's version of the question, I'd still pick option A
I take this to be a question about having perfect knowledge where, if I hit a "Reset" button right now, I could be reborn into either situation A or situation B. I don't need to have any knowledge of my circumstances, because I my choice is already made by the time I hit the reset button. Given the perfect knowledge, I would choose A. The choice is not really difficult. I could experience a lot of pain and bring new life into the world. But I don't know whether that's a good thing. Let's suppose that Fate plays some sick joke where I usher in another Ted Bundy, three mediocre dudes who go on to work for state government, and another Hillary Clinton. The pain certainly would not be worth it. (I wouldn't take Ted Bundy even with three more Nelson Mandelas or Reverend Kings each!) Now, if on the other hand you told me that the lives I would enable in the world were themselves going to make substantial net positive impact, then I could be moved to make the difficult choice and go for B. This despite the fact that dying in pain is the single thing that terrifies me the most! As a meta thing, I find the question interesting, because it's basically talking about real life, right? Imagine you could be totally complacent, escapist, and not help anyone? Or, you could suffer grievously, and maybe have some positive impact you don't know about? Which do you choose? Well obviously, most people are going for the first option. There's a reason that heroes are so prevalent in our stories. We aspire to be more selfless, brave, strong, and more calculated as risk-takers, for the benefit of the common good. But most of us aren't going to do it. Most don't participate in the armed forces, first response, public safety, or grassroots community organizing. We just try to get by. The interesting part is the phrasing of the dilemma sort of invites us to admit that, at the core, that's what we're really doing: choosing complacency and pleasure over solidarity and pain. That's a stark choice. But to get people to make an educated choice, they need to feel some certainty about their actions.
I'd go with A. It sounds beautiful. If I've only got a few minutes to live I might as well enjoy myself. Pain isn't worth it just for a few more of me.
I'd pick any. for me, there's not much difference. this was all seen through an overrated lens. the idea of legacy and happiness.. Maybe people use it to validate their lives Idk, I've always wanted to live with meaning and be meaning myself, I want things to be short-lived and time-like; all meaningless in the end. I also like sadness, it's still a feeling anyway. I like that concept more, frees me from the pressure of life. I don't need to worry about being down, don't need to worry about leaving an impression. hello darkness my old friend.
I think it's more basic. My read is that it is looking into one's psychological nature, and whether they are more focused on their own needs or on the needs of others. The person focused on self will, naturally, want to experience something that feels immensely good, while the person focused on others will want to make things better for others. This isn't a good/bad thing; people that are too focused on the needs of others at the expense of self are typically insecure, unhappy, and don't fundamentally believe they are entitled to their own worthiness, while people who are overly focused on their own needs can, at worst, be narcissistic. So the ideal is a balance. If this question is part of a survey intended to determine compatibility, then likely there are a bunch more questions similar to it testing different variations so that the evaluation process gets a balanced picture of the person and where s/he lies on the spectrum. Somewhere toward the middle is ideal in terms of emotional health and well being.
why bring more people into the world to suffer...this is hell on heaven it seems...im personally childless by choice, not becuz im lesbian (typical stereotype since im not too fem) but becuz look at the world around us, everybody "feels" sumthing is going to happen or is going on..regardless, theres only so much good that human species or human beings can possess...say that i picked option B and those people were good people who changed the world for the better: developed a government that everybody agreed with as to where there was peace, where what u worked for was yours (all your wages, property (to where its your land and u do what u please on it without having to consult some other source of power) where every individual was their own sort of power to the extent of respect for others and giving your word meant more than money...reality is, a life like that among humans is mearly fantasy, greed and power would take over like it has throughout all times of history... so, option B is really almost like a selfish thing to do in my opinion: bring others into the world to experience the suffering we all go thru at one point or another becuz see, we all, whether we realize it or not are looking forward to death...death is the ultimate release from the uglyness of this world...thats not to say that beauty does not exist here its just in my opinion, beauty lies in the hope and thoughts and feelings of sumthing or for sumthing greater...like memories, holding onto ideas as such is pointless in the physical aspect of humanity but those memories brought us joy and happiness, remembering we experience the feeling of love...but what is love in reality (reality meaning the world that we live in where everything is concrete and whats not is dismissed..if it cant be proven, it doesnt exist...)...love would fall under the catagory of fantasy along with hope and faith...sadly, me loving everybody and helping as many people as i can would still get me killed in the end if there was a bounty on my head for.......fuk even 100$ i bet depending on who was desperate enough for a high...so....unless it wasnt in this world but sum other, better world, not involving the human species that we are.......yeeeea...option A all the way....
Bringing *more* lives into an overcrowded world is supposed to provide inducement to suffer pain in my last few minutes? This question may have had some relevance in the 1950's or earlier, but I'd say it's a bit dated now. I think Chip has nailed the intent of the question. But I think it needs to be updated. If my last few moments of pain could bring peace, could bring healing, could *lower* the population, or provide resources, I could consider that.
I'd love to put B but in all honesty I would totally take option A. (plus, like everyone here's been saying, the world's already overpopulated)
I would choose B even without creating new lives.. I don't want to die in a blur of confused happiness.. I want to die feeling something real if the makes sense...
Life A. The world already has so many people living on it and we live in a really messedup world and I wouldnt want more people experience that
