a question about the value of human life

if a man has the power to kill off 99% of the human population and place himself as supreme emperor of the remaining - and devote the majority of the remaining workforce to ensuring the colonization of space

and the majority of the rest of his personal time to having as many children as posibble, does science offer any reason that he should NOT do it?

Limiting the gene pool is very limiting for an organism. Diversity is a big component to survival

one percent of the worlds current population is still a lot of genes

perhaps the number could be raised to five percent

perhaps we could add the criteria that the man collect from a wide range of attributes or that he use whatever criteria could best be suggested as having the greatest chance for survival

also
it is likely that if there is a single thing which can be done to ensure the continuation of the species that it is to effectively migrate off planet with as many different individual units as possible

i dont know what estimates i could use as example because i dont have the knowledge to judge accurately

but i would guess randomly that if a hundred thousand individual colonies could be launched
each one as capable of living indefinitely as it is possible to make them
and as capable of colonizing another planet as they could be made to be

these two capabilities require the ability to manufacture goods and equipment and to further their own sciences and technologies

i mean there would be a lot of work put into the colonizaton project

but if it were done so,then the criteria of species continuation would be much more logically met than anything which can be done but does not leave the earth, since we know that the earth is vulnerable and will not be hospitable eventually

provided these conditions are met

i believe my question still stands

Uh no. Now you just drastically changed the question. I'm not going to entertain this anymore just for you keep changing things to try and make some point.

as the one who asked the question i can tell you that the fundamental question i am attempting to present did not change at all

if some specific parameters adjust in the course of exploring the question is it does not mean that the essential question changes

im sorry if you feel offended, its not my intent

the question is still valid

within my presentation is the condition that the man make whatever arrangements needed to give the bestpossibility to the overall long term survival of the species

that is why i included space colonization into the question itself

and the majority of the rest of his personal time to having as many children as posibble, does science offer any reason that he should NOT do it?

Ok... so, science doesn't offer a reason for anything... What are you asking here? Is it ethical?
Do you mean in Darwinian terms? Like, ensuring the survival of the species?

Your question is incomplete. I need more information.

i am asking this question as an extension of the conversation in the "evidence for creationism" thread

my assertion there was that science offers us the abilityto destroy our species - all or nearly all life in earth really, and also fails to give us a reason why we shoudnt

this thread is an explorationof that idea

truth be told we could probably remove all qualifications and simply ask

"does science give any compelling reason NOT to eradicate all life on earth?

other than that it would be inconvenient?"

but i thought maybe the qualifications of survival of personal genetics and of species might be included into the question as well

im interested in whatever good answer anyone has to either framing of the question

Lol I am far from offended. I just will not waste my time with this. The question is not still valid when you ask a different question. It's obvious you're trying to prove something and so you're changing your question to make that point. You're not "adjusting parameters", you're changing the scenario entirely lol

No.. Science does not offer a good reason why life shouldn't be eradicated.

In fact, Mother Earth might be happier if we all ended up in the maw of a volcano. hahaha. We've been so horrible to her.

Science is completely apathetic to everything. It simply does.

Wu wei, my man.

Kamizu wrote: Lol I am far from offended. I just will not waste my time with this. The question is not still valid when you ask a different question. It's obvious you're trying to prove something and so you're changing your question to make that point. You're not "adjusting parameters", you're changing the scenario entirely lol

Kamizu, the only thing that actually changed was the percentage of population killed, and that by only four percent

i elaborated on its selection process

i explained why space colonozation was a condition

these are not funamental changes to the essential question

they are adjustments of parameters

what is so wrong about having a point?

---

EDIT

ah i see

i said "five percent" when i meant to say "ninety five percent"

im.sorry -im typing on a tiny cell phone that i have a lot of difficulty with

i meant to say "change the number from 99 to 95%"
i hope that clears things up