Would you kill children to become smarter?

[Utceforp]

No, they wouldn't, because YOU KNOW EVERYTHING, AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID WAS WRONG AND EVIL. (If in fact it was evil) How isn't this getting through to you?

Have you ever known that something is wrong and did it anyway? Yeah, me too.

You would know how to suppress the urge that made you do something wrong even if you knew it was wrong.

[Timothia]

Have you ever known that something is wrong and did it anyway? Yeah, me too.

You would know how to suppress the urge that made you do something wrong even if you knew it was wrong.

Have you gained that ability as you've gotten smarter? Have you been gradually growing into a person who is able to "suppress your natural urges" as you've gotten older? To a point, yes, but only to a point. There still reaches a point where you aren't perfect. You killing a child would prove that you are imperfect. If you were perfect, you wouldn't have had to kill that child. After you became all-knowing, you would regret your decision. If you don't regret it, then you aren't perfect!

Besides, "the total of human understanding" (which is what you are being granted) does not include the ability to permanently suppress primal urges.

[Bacony]

One thing I think people are forgetting is imagine this: you are wiping the blood of a child off your hands and disposing of the evidence and are now feeling the rush of new knowledge in your head, now what? How do you convince people that you have increased your intelligence beyond the norm? Do you tell them how you did it? If not then how do you explain it? If you do explain it then what would stop them from doing it themselves? How do you get people to listen to you if you were originally, for lack of a better term dumb? This raises a lot of questions.

[United Marxist Nations]

If they are the child versions of major dictators then probably. Otherwise, fuck no.

You'd probably be surprised how sympathetic you would be to their childhoods, many of which were very traumatic.

[Liriena]

What? No! Fuck no!

Agreed. Abso-fucking-lutely no.

[Estado Paulista]

Implying I don't do it already.

[United Marxist Nations]

What? No! Fuck no!

Agreed. Abso-fucking-lutely no.

What if it made you smart enough to bring them back to life with some new medical technology that you've invented? Which you could then use to save many more lives around the world? Since we're doing oddly specific hypotheticals, this doesn't seem too far-fetched.

[The USOT]

It depends. Are they tasty children?

[Bacony]

Agreed. Abso-fucking-lutely no.

What if it made you smart enough to bring them back to life with some new medical technology that you've invented? Which you could then use to save many more lives around the world? Since we're doing oddly specific hypotheticals, this doesn't seem too far-fetched.

This is an oddly specific hypothetical, weird for NSG.

[United Marxist Nations]

It depends. Are they tasty children?

Soylent Veal.

[Utceforp]

You would know how to suppress the urge that made you do something wrong even if you knew it was wrong.

Have you gained that ability as you've gotten smarter? Have you been gradually growing into a person who is able to "suppress your natural urges" as you've gotten older? To a point, yes, but only to a point. There still reaches a point where you aren't perfect. You killing a child would prove that you are imperfect. If you were perfect, you wouldn't have had to kill that child. After you became all-knowing, you would regret your decision. If you don't regret it, then you aren't perfect!

Besides, "the total of human understanding" (which is what you are being granted) does not include the ability to permanently suppress primal urges.

You're implying that killing is inherently wrong. Killing one person to gain the ability to know everything is a net gain.

Besides, you would know how to suppress those primal urges. Invent a special meditation (or medication) that prevents you from acting on instinct instead of rationality. Create nanobots to install in your head. Whatever. You now know how to do it.

[Timothia]

Have you gained that ability as you've gotten smarter? Have you been gradually growing into a person who is able to "suppress your natural urges" as you've gotten older? To a point, yes, but only to a point. There still reaches a point where you aren't perfect. You killing a child would prove that you are imperfect. If you were perfect, you wouldn't have had to kill that child. After you became all-knowing, you would regret your decision. If you don't regret it, then you aren't perfect!

Besides, "the total of human understanding" (which is what you are being granted) does not include the ability to permanently suppress primal urges.

You're implying that killing is inherently wrong. Killing one person to gain the ability to know everything is a net gain.

Besides, you would know how to suppress those primal urges. Invent a special meditation (or medication) that prevents you from acting on instinct instead of rationality. Create nanobots to install in your head. Whatever. You now know how to do it.

So establish a robot mind that is designed to know what's best? An excellent idea, by definition. What could go wrong there!

If you are implying that killing is NOT inherently wrong, then you will never be convinced that this is wrong either. I'm working with the assumption that killing is inherently wrong (and can only be excused under specific criteria that society in general have dictated). If you disagree with that, let me know now so that I can delete my NS account in disgust try to convince you otherwise bash my head into a wall.

[Utceforp]

You're implying that killing is inherently wrong. Killing one person to gain the ability to know everything is a net gain.

Besides, you would know how to suppress those primal urges. Invent a special meditation (or medication) that prevents you from acting on instinct instead of rationality. Create nanobots to install in your head. Whatever. You now know how to do it.

So establish a robot mind that is designed to know what's best? An excellent idea, by definition. What could go wrong there!

If you are implying that killing is NOT inherently wrong, then you will never be convinced that this is wrong either. I'm working with the assumption that killing is inherently wrong (and can only be excused under specific criteria that society in general have dictated). If you disagree with that, let me know now so that I can delete my NS account in disgust try to convince you otherwise bash my head into a wall.

We fight and kill in wars all the time. While a large chunk of those wars are unjustified, some of them are, and I don't see how this is any different. And yes, a robot mind that is designed to know what's best is an excellent idea, because it knows what's best. It's kind of the point. You're the one who argued that a flawed human with unlimited knowledge is a huge danger, you can't argue that taking away those flaws is a bad idea.

[United Marxist Nations]

So establish a robot mind that is designed to know what's best? An excellent idea, by definition. What could go wrong there!

If you are implying that killing is NOT inherently wrong, then you will never be convinced that this is wrong either. I'm working with the assumption that killing is inherently wrong (and can only be excused under specific criteria that society in general have dictated). If you disagree with that, let me know now so that I can delete my NS account in disgust try to convince you otherwise bash my head into a wall.

We fight and kill in wars all the time. While a large chunk of those wars are unjustified, some of them are, and I don't see how this is any different. And yes, a robot mind that is designed to know what's best is an excellent idea, because it knows what's best. It's kind of the point. You're the one who argued that a flawed human with unlimited knowledge is a huge danger, you can't argue that taking away those flaws is a bad idea.

If you have unlimited knowledge, would you really be flawed?

[Utceforp]

We fight and kill in wars all the time. While a large chunk of those wars are unjustified, some of them are, and I don't see how this is any different. And yes, a robot mind that is designed to know what's best is an excellent idea, because it knows what's best. It's kind of the point. You're the one who argued that a flawed human with unlimited knowledge is a huge danger, you can't argue that taking away those flaws is a bad idea.

If you have unlimited knowledge, would you really be flawed?

That's exactly the point I've been trying to argue with this guy. If you have ultimate knowledge, your system of morality would be updated based on your knowledge, and your decision-making skills would not be flawed. You just said it better than me.

[Timothia]

So establish a robot mind that is designed to know what's best? An excellent idea, by definition. What could go wrong there!

If you are implying that killing is NOT inherently wrong, then you will never be convinced that this is wrong either. I'm working with the assumption that killing is inherently wrong (and can only be excused under specific criteria that society in general have dictated). If you disagree with that, let me know now so that I can delete my NS account in disgust try to convince you otherwise bash my head into a wall.

We fight and kill in wars all the time. While a large chunk of those wars are unjustified, some of them are, and I don't see how this is any different. And yes, a robot mind that is designed to know what's best is an excellent idea, because it knows what's best. It's kind of the point. You're the one who argued that a flawed human with unlimited knowledge is a huge danger, you can't argue that taking away those flaws is a bad idea.

Hate to bail on you, but I think I'm done with this thread for a little while. Sorry. Nothing against you in particular, I just can't stand the borderline-laughable propositions being made. A robot brain? Really? Sorry pal, maybe we can finish this debate tomorrow when I've had a chance to get away from it all.

[Luveria]

Absolutely. I don't want to remain dumb.

[Sociobiology]

We fight and kill in wars all the time. While a large chunk of those wars are unjustified, some of them are, and I don't see how this is any different. And yes, a robot mind that is designed to know what's best is an excellent idea, because it knows what's best. It's kind of the point. You're the one who argued that a flawed human with unlimited knowledge is a huge danger, you can't argue that taking away those flaws is a bad idea.

If you have unlimited knowledge, would you really be flawed?

yes because you still have limited processing power and instincts.

[Luepola]

Never. Besides, I don't need to kill children to gain knowledge.

[United Marxist Nations]

If you have unlimited knowledge, would you really be flawed?

yes because you still have limited processing power and instincts.

I suppose so.

[God Kefka]

You're implying that killing is inherently wrong. Killing one person to gain the ability to know everything is a net gain.

Besides, you would know how to suppress those primal urges. Invent a special meditation (or medication) that prevents you from acting on instinct instead of rationality. Create nanobots to install in your head. Whatever. You now know how to do it.

So establish a robot mind that is designed to know what's best? An excellent idea, by definition. What could go wrong there!

If you are implying that killing is NOT inherently wrong, then you will never be convinced that this is wrong either. I'm working with the assumption that killing is inherently wrong (and can only be excused under specific criteria that society in general have dictated). If you disagree with that, let me know now so that I can delete my NS account in disgust try to convince you otherwise bash my head into a wall.

killing is not inherently wrong...

where it is done for the greater good.

Otherwise the Axis would rule the world...

[God Kefka]

This problem really boils down to what I said earlier...

When you keep X and not get Y... or get Y and lose X, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis.

You have to look at it objectively and consider what each group can bring to the table of human progress.

One random child's life vs not having that child but getting 1 new individual who is the SMARTEST in EVERY field of human achievement?

I think it's hard to argue in this case that keeping X and not getting Y is really what's best for the interests of humanity as a whole. It's in the interest of the child... but not for the world as a whole (keep in mind also that the odds that the child being killed has intellectual capabilities that are higher than the newly-empowered individual in this hypothetical is virtually non-existent... I think no one contends that at the moment no single person can be the smartest in EVERY field of human achievement).

It's always a matter of cost-benefit analysis.

If you're looking at sacrificing maybe, a billion people for the benefit of one person getting top-tier mental capabilities in every field of human achievement, then maybe you are starting to cross a line.

Maybe the combined mental faculties of those billion people (unlike with the case of a single child) COULD surpass that of the newly-empowered individual. Maybe the world NEEDS the combined labor of those billion people and can't survive without it... and so on.

You see the sort of logical test that you should apply? You can't just stop at ''It's Always Wrong To Kill a Kid.'' Society would get nowhere with that kind of dogma...

You need to calculate.

[Dracoria]

Here's a question. Would strangling a few babies or whatever, make one smart enough instantaneously to know how to resuscitate them all successfully?

[Luveria]

What is the maximum age range we are using for the purposes of deciding who is or isn't a child? It would be helpful knowing how wide the selection of possible targets would be, otherwise one would have to find out the age limits through a process of trial and error.

[Luveria]

Whoever is saying "yes" ("seriously", not satirically) is either is fully aware they have no conscience whatsoever - and are, ergo, a total psychopath - or is not aware of how the look of a strangled child slowly dying by their hands will haunt them at night for years to come.

I certainly hope no one is saying yes seriously. I expect those would be the type of people to not have a problem with torturing animals.