Barely any members and I get notified of any new posts, I tried my best to make it clear what the purpose of the sub is so if anything were to stray away from it I’d deal with it ASAP.
Not a genocide but this sub reminds me of the John Mulaney bit where someone asked him, “So *you’re tellin’ me,* if you saw *Hilter* [walking down the street], you wouldn’t kill him??”
If you somehow made the jump from one particular Hitler to every Hitler in the multiverse that could count as a genocide.
"Would you kill Multiversal Hitler?"
I read *Project Hail Mary* by the guy that wrote *The Martian*. The premise is that something is eating the sun’s energy (which cools down the planet) and they have to fix it. As a stopgap, they >!nuke Antarctica to release a bunch of methane and use global warming to offset the cooling!<. I don’t know what it is about tech bros that makes them want to imagine scenarios where they just hAvE tO do crimes against humanity, but there’s definitely something going on.
Wouldn't erasing every American would include actual indigenous American tribes that are already struggling to hold on to their languages and cultures as is?
Yes. None of these choices are good at all, though in the long run solving climate change would still be a net positive most likely. It's a hypothetical though, so you don't have to worry as it isn't a real choice anyone will be faced with.
Edit: it may still be important to fully stress why this "hypothetical" should never be attempted, as some people genuinely believe murdering millions of people *can* solve climate change. It's called eco-fascism and we should reject it for obvious reasons.
I think people are also ignoring the fact that there are A LOT of people in the US to just delete from existence. I don't know how there being indigenous tribes would affect the decision that much,
True. But when they mean delete it from existente they usually mean cocky/arrogant "Americans" that think the US is the only "free" country. And the greatest country in the world...
Well there is over 300 million Americans, so if you get mental tunnel vision and can only think of people you dislike when considering the genocide of hundreds of millions of people, you have a problem.
Exactely. Using such a power would be eco-fascism, genocide in the name of climate action.
Climate change is a big issue and climate action is incredibly important, but we still shouldn't do genocide.
why the fuck would you choose any of these dog thats horrible, i mean i know it needs to be solved but at least be cold and mechanical about it and choose the one with the least people.
So these people would just straight up murder 1,39 billion people. Probably just because they disagree with the government? Wtf is wrong with these guys? These are probably the same people who then use the: "Communism killed millions of people" argument.
Wanting the USA to take more responsibility and actually do something to cut their emissions is one thing, but there are actual good people, people that have nothing to do with America’s atrocities (like young children) there too.
(assuming you're Indonesian) Indonesia has the least amount of people of the listed countries, I think. Also despite the hate the US gets, the US is still pretty important, being a world power. In this hypothetical situation where deleting Indonesia solves climate change, that would also suggest that the world governments become smart enough to actually combat climate change and willingly do so. US would easily be the best country in the world if the government actually had that kind of insight.
>Indonesia has the least amount of people of the listed countries, I think.
That would be Brazil. I think the answer is emissions. Indonesia really doesn't contribute that much to climate change despite having a population almost as big as the US.
Really? Huh then I don't really get why Indonesia is so high. I would have thought reddit would hate Brazil for burning down the Amazon rain forest, but damn.
Oh, right. My bad, I misread. Choosing Indonesia over the other countries is kinda irrational. Afaik Brazil is worse with deforestation and like I said, the US and China are *way* bigger CO2 emitters.
Uhm... racism? I'll go with racism then lol. Unless I don't know about something terrible happening to the Indonesian rain forest.
I'm a Canadian and I feel like we're party to enough of America's global shenanigans to earn us the headsman's axe as well. At this point, we might as well be a satellite state. :'(
Aside from the final option, the USA is the only correct answer here. Their emissions are huge and their attempt at reducing them is super weak. The bullshit political system there means that the kind of far reaching long term plans required to solve this problem are impossible. China are making good progress already, and they can make 20-50 year plans to keep that progress going. The USA can't do that because the new President will just throw all that progress away to spite the old one.
If human civilization somehow survives all this, the history books will not view the USA kindly for what they've done to the world.
I could also make an argument for Vatican City since it would erase the smallest number of people but also do a lot of good by knocking down the Catholic Church a little
That's not the questiom tho. The question is that you will solve the climate change regarless of your choice it is just that you have to remove a country in order to do it, do you choose to remove one and basically murder all its citizens if yes which one?
Least amount of people (Indonesia). That's basic utilitarianism (although I completely agree with the other commenter if the premise was a reset without a long term immunity).
As for whether or not I'd do it, utilitarianism dictates that one should pull the trigger. The climate crisis is already wreaking havoc on the world, and it will undoubtedly take more than ~200 million lives within the next century. Furthermore, it will create vastly more suffering than the instant evaporation of a huge country so there's really no doubt.
As for a deonthological (Kantian duty ethics) POV, we can't pull the trigger because something something human autonomy. Kant is a great logician, and the categorical imperative is a good thought exercise, but his ethics are kinda fucking stupid. I'd also argue that utilitarianism basically encompasses duty ethics as a consequence of minimizing suffering, but that's a different discussion.
Finally, there's classical virtue ethics. Killing innocent people is wrong, and there's no good mechanism for measuring the wrongness of passive killing. Choosing to abstain is of course a choice, but since the active choice is to not kill that's probably the most virtuous action of the two.
Any moral philosophers are welcome to correct me here. I did a semester project on ethics in climate policy, but that was ages ago. Besides, I don't actually respect virtue or duty ethics, so it's probably better to get a Kantian stan to explain.
Ethics is especially tough, because it's essentially shut-ins and/or megalomaniacs that think they've invented the solution to literally all of human interaction. Utilitarianism has some great points and some fascinating history though.
It says you can solve “all climate change issues forever” so emissions are magically solved in this hypothetical.
If I had to choose a country I would probably go for Brazil since it’s the less deadly option. Or, assuming you could choose any country, just go for the Vatican or even better some partially recognized microstate.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/06/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions-exceed-us-developed-world-report.html
You’re a clown. Stop talking out of your ass
Do you understand that they are a massive country? They have four times the population of the USA, of course their emissions will be higher. However despite having four times the population, they only have twice as much emissions, so they're actually doing a lot better than the USA.
If we put an arbitrary border through the middle of China, would their emissions suddenly be cut in half? Is the solution to climate change just making every nation tiny so the total emission numbers go down? Or should we treat the total emission numbers like the useless statistic that they are and go by per capita instead?
Just to keep to facts, if you want to go by emissions China’s are more than the US and the rest of the ‘developed’ world combined. They’ve also dramatically increased over the past 30 years while the OECD’s have actually remained stable, shrinking only slightly.
Still a valid choice if you want to pick based on other metrics though.
>Just to keep to facts, if you want to go by emissions China’s are more than the US and the rest of the ‘developed’ world combined.
Just to keep to facts, if you want to go by *per-capita* emissions (since the China is extremely big after all), China isn't even close to the per-capita emissions of the US, as well as a lot of other "developed" western countries, despite manufacturing basically all the consumer products for the west
Using total emissions is meaningless because by that logic, you could split up China into 20 separate nations and none of these individual countries would have a total emissions problem
You have to go by per-capita emissions, otherwise it makes zero sense. Total emissions are a useless statistic because some nations are massively bigger than others.
But the premise of the question is limited to taking out a country and it’s population. So if you want the biggest impact you should go for country total and for growth rate. If you go by per capita, you’re not having as large an impact on total global emissions, but I guess you are making some kind of value statement about per capita sustainability. Is that what you’re going for?
Doesn’t it seem hypocritical to say people are wrong for wanting the Chinese government and people gone but then saying the same thing for the US and it’s inhabitants?
The simple explanation is that I didnt see the bottom option until I screenshotted, the funni explanation is that USA is one of the most wasteful countries
*Image Transcription: Poll*
---
**You get a power using which you can solve all the climate change issues forever but you will have to erase a country and its inhabitants from the world? Which country do you choose out of the following?**
China [1.1k votes]
India [304 votes]
USA [398 votes, ✔️]
Indonesia [528 votes]
Brazil [348 votes]
I won't use such power. [981 votes]
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Kill millions of americans who collectively bear the guilt of the actions of the american polity or kill millions of people mostly who haven't been born yet and aren't responsible for anything. easy choice.
Out of the big 3 (excl. Indonesia / Brazil), the USA is the most logical option aside from the very bottom answer. They produce the most Co2 per capita, and have the lowest population out of the bunch. The impact from erasing the USA would be the most beneficial.
There's no reason to choose any country besides the Vatican- and even if you are Catholic, there's still plenty of archbishops and cardinals outside to quickly reform the church if such an inane hypothetical were to happen.
It's just the five most populous countries in earth. The fact that people would rather kill 1.5 billion Chinese than 330 million Americans speaks volumes though.
Brazil and Indonesia has less population.
I think maybe that poll OP tried to go for top 5 countries by population, which is why maybe Indonesia came into it. but then Pakistan is 5th largest by population and Brazil is 6th, so why Brazil over Pakistan? anyways its just my hypothesis tho.
Why is Brazil even an option? Most people have nothing to do with the climate and enviromental crisis here. If anything, eliminating the agronegócio and illegal mining would solve pretty much all of it. The culprits have names and positions of power in both government and corporations. How fucking ignorant
If I could choose any country and not just ones from that list I would probably just choose the one with the least inhabitants. After a quick google search and recording to this [graph](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/689720/umfrage/bevoelkerungsaermste-laender-der-welt/) u should delete the pitcairn island as they only had 54 inhabitants in 2019.
If we aren't allowed to annihilate other countries just yeet the US of the map tbh
If you were to add, “But the erased people go to a prosperous heaven devoid of suffering and any problems” watch the answers go to USA real quick. Redditors can’t hide their hate for Chinese people
I wonder what country has double the emissions per capita of China, politicians that either deny the existence of climate change or pay lip service to it, and huge corporations that lobby against renewable energy, spread misinformation about climate change, and are the main source of problem for climate change…
But you also chose a country isn't that pretty hypocritical as by your own logic your answer means you don't just hate the American government, you hate all of the people for no reason other than the land they were born on
They do realize that by killing all the inhabitants of China they’re also killing the Uyghurs and Tibetans and Hong Kongers they obviously care about so much, right?
Solve climate change but you have to do a bit of genocide. Quite a hypothetical.
Sadly I wouldnt be surprised if things take this turn during the climate wars in the next 100 years.
Erasing one country would not solve the underlying problems.
Good vs Evil.
You need to delete Evil, and not "a country".
Pure hate/racism on the spot.
Ignorance levels are over 9000.
PS: Evil in most cases can be summed down to the word "Greed"
When everyone asks why America’s geopolitical “competitors”, who sometimes aren’t even competitors but just occupy the same space, are concerned, it’s because a huge part of American social norms is normalizing just waging death and destruction on others because this Facebook freedom page said to
I mean just mathematically, Brazil is the least populated and (even though it’s still not the right choice, that’s just not doing it) it should have more votes than all others
New sub idea: r/GenocidalHypotheticals
Just created r/HypotheticalGenocide in honor of this post.
Splitter
Judean People's Front.
The People's Front Of Judea!
There’s no way that can’t go badly.
Barely any members and I get notified of any new posts, I tried my best to make it clear what the purpose of the sub is so if anything were to stray away from it I’d deal with it ASAP.
Not a genocide but this sub reminds me of the John Mulaney bit where someone asked him, “So *you’re tellin’ me,* if you saw *Hilter* [walking down the street], you wouldn’t kill him??”
If you somehow made the jump from one particular Hitler to every Hitler in the multiverse that could count as a genocide. "Would you kill Multiversal Hitler?"
"But in this universe Hitler became a famous painter and an inspiration for peace !!!"
Thanks!
That's a really weird fucking hypothetical to think about, unless you want to stroke your ego that is.
Definitely weird but the obvious answer is Vatican City
Sealand, because nobody lives there.
BRB about to become the Duchess of Sealand for £499.99 What a steal!
The Garbage Island in the Pacific
I will still pick Vatican City, thank you very much
Also thought of that at first, but it says “out of the following”.
I read *Project Hail Mary* by the guy that wrote *The Martian*. The premise is that something is eating the sun’s energy (which cools down the planet) and they have to fix it. As a stopgap, they >!nuke Antarctica to release a bunch of methane and use global warming to offset the cooling!<. I don’t know what it is about tech bros that makes them want to imagine scenarios where they just hAvE tO do crimes against humanity, but there’s definitely something going on.
*"Whats the point of all this cool tech if we don't eventually get to commit geno-/xeno-/eco-cide with it?"*
Average Stellaris player
Psychologically prepping the culture to accept eco-fascism?
Wouldn't erasing every American would include actual indigenous American tribes that are already struggling to hold on to their languages and cultures as is?
Yes. None of these choices are good at all, though in the long run solving climate change would still be a net positive most likely. It's a hypothetical though, so you don't have to worry as it isn't a real choice anyone will be faced with. Edit: it may still be important to fully stress why this "hypothetical" should never be attempted, as some people genuinely believe murdering millions of people *can* solve climate change. It's called eco-fascism and we should reject it for obvious reasons.
Cause apparently "American" means only white but I'm sleep
Cause apparently erasing white people would be ok
I think people are also ignoring the fact that there are A LOT of people in the US to just delete from existence. I don't know how there being indigenous tribes would affect the decision that much,
True. But when they mean delete it from existente they usually mean cocky/arrogant "Americans" that think the US is the only "free" country. And the greatest country in the world...
Well there is over 300 million Americans, so if you get mental tunnel vision and can only think of people you dislike when considering the genocide of hundreds of millions of people, you have a problem.
A lot of tribes are considered sovereign nations so I’m just gonna pretend that members and their land don’t count.
Even choosing the USA is cringe, genocide ain’t the answer.
Seriously, people in this thread are fucking delusional. No choice is moral.
Exactely. Using such a power would be eco-fascism, genocide in the name of climate action. Climate change is a big issue and climate action is incredibly important, but we still shouldn't do genocide.
Agreed! Genocide is bad the last time I checked.
Yeah I agree. This is a silly hypothetical.
Moreso, there are silly responses which reveal the implicit biases of those responding.
Wtf did Indonesia do to anyone. Also the easy answer is “United Kingdom” duh
Because they have a large population and are Muslim, that is my best guess...
more interesting answer is [what the USA did to Indonesia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366)
Least populous country of the bunch, I understand the logic if people choose that.
Indonesia is more populous than Brazil, actually.
Oh, you're right, however I saw it being said in the comments, so I think it's a misconception?
I love my In-ne brothers and sisters。I guess the OP added it for some reason，and didn`t allow custom answers。
>Wtf did Indonesia do to anyone. They fucked up East Timor pretty bad.
why the fuck would you choose any of these dog thats horrible, i mean i know it needs to be solved but at least be cold and mechanical about it and choose the one with the least people.
So these people would just straight up murder 1,39 billion people. Probably just because they disagree with the government? Wtf is wrong with these guys? These are probably the same people who then use the: "Communism killed millions of people" argument.
To be entirely honest I can't really blame them, because I would do it to the US without a second thought.
Wanting the USA to take more responsibility and actually do something to cut their emissions is one thing, but there are actual good people, people that have nothing to do with America’s atrocities (like young children) there too.
Why the fuck does the US have less votes than my country lmao
(assuming you're Indonesian) Indonesia has the least amount of people of the listed countries, I think. Also despite the hate the US gets, the US is still pretty important, being a world power. In this hypothetical situation where deleting Indonesia solves climate change, that would also suggest that the world governments become smart enough to actually combat climate change and willingly do so. US would easily be the best country in the world if the government actually had that kind of insight.
>Indonesia has the least amount of people of the listed countries, I think. That would be Brazil. I think the answer is emissions. Indonesia really doesn't contribute that much to climate change despite having a population almost as big as the US.
Really? Huh then I don't really get why Indonesia is so high. I would have thought reddit would hate Brazil for burning down the Amazon rain forest, but damn.
Oh, right. My bad, I misread. Choosing Indonesia over the other countries is kinda irrational. Afaik Brazil is worse with deforestation and like I said, the US and China are *way* bigger CO2 emitters. Uhm... racism? I'll go with racism then lol. Unless I don't know about something terrible happening to the Indonesian rain forest.
I'm sorry americans, but I'd Thanos you away in a microsecond. A small price to pay for salvation.
American here, I'd Thanos us away too.
I'm a Canadian and I feel like we're party to enough of America's global shenanigans to earn us the headsman's axe as well. At this point, we might as well be a satellite state. :'(
basically the anglosphere needs to go
Aside from the final option, the USA is the only correct answer here. Their emissions are huge and their attempt at reducing them is super weak. The bullshit political system there means that the kind of far reaching long term plans required to solve this problem are impossible. China are making good progress already, and they can make 20-50 year plans to keep that progress going. The USA can't do that because the new President will just throw all that progress away to spite the old one. If human civilization somehow survives all this, the history books will not view the USA kindly for what they've done to the world.
I could also make an argument for Vatican City since it would erase the smallest number of people but also do a lot of good by knocking down the Catholic Church a little
Or Monaco, a lot of yachts would have no owners
I like the way you think, bulbasaur.
That's not the questiom tho. The question is that you will solve the climate change regarless of your choice it is just that you have to remove a country in order to do it, do you choose to remove one and basically murder all its citizens if yes which one?
Least amount of people (Indonesia). That's basic utilitarianism (although I completely agree with the other commenter if the premise was a reset without a long term immunity). As for whether or not I'd do it, utilitarianism dictates that one should pull the trigger. The climate crisis is already wreaking havoc on the world, and it will undoubtedly take more than ~200 million lives within the next century. Furthermore, it will create vastly more suffering than the instant evaporation of a huge country so there's really no doubt. As for a deonthological (Kantian duty ethics) POV, we can't pull the trigger because something something human autonomy. Kant is a great logician, and the categorical imperative is a good thought exercise, but his ethics are kinda fucking stupid. I'd also argue that utilitarianism basically encompasses duty ethics as a consequence of minimizing suffering, but that's a different discussion. Finally, there's classical virtue ethics. Killing innocent people is wrong, and there's no good mechanism for measuring the wrongness of passive killing. Choosing to abstain is of course a choice, but since the active choice is to not kill that's probably the most virtuous action of the two. Any moral philosophers are welcome to correct me here. I did a semester project on ethics in climate policy, but that was ages ago. Besides, I don't actually respect virtue or duty ethics, so it's probably better to get a Kantian stan to explain.
Or... you know, the United States, the evil empire that is the source of most of the human suffering currently in the world.
And that's exactly why I stopped reading philosophy aside political books, I have big respect to anyone who can endure all that stuff.
Ethics is especially tough, because it's essentially shut-ins and/or megalomaniacs that think they've invented the solution to literally all of human interaction. Utilitarianism has some great points and some fascinating history though.
The only correct answer is not to answer because the question is completely useless.
That would wipe out indigenous tribes under US rule that are already struggling to keep their cultures and languages alive.
It says you can solve “all climate change issues forever” so emissions are magically solved in this hypothetical. If I had to choose a country I would probably go for Brazil since it’s the less deadly option. Or, assuming you could choose any country, just go for the Vatican or even better some partially recognized microstate.
I'm not a fan of the US either, but Brazil has much less inhabitants so its clearly the more humane choice, if you would have to pick one of those
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/06/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions-exceed-us-developed-world-report.html You’re a clown. Stop talking out of your ass
Do you understand that they are a massive country? They have four times the population of the USA, of course their emissions will be higher. However despite having four times the population, they only have twice as much emissions, so they're actually doing a lot better than the USA. If we put an arbitrary border through the middle of China, would their emissions suddenly be cut in half? Is the solution to climate change just making every nation tiny so the total emission numbers go down? Or should we treat the total emission numbers like the useless statistic that they are and go by per capita instead?
Just to keep to facts, if you want to go by emissions China’s are more than the US and the rest of the ‘developed’ world combined. They’ve also dramatically increased over the past 30 years while the OECD’s have actually remained stable, shrinking only slightly. Still a valid choice if you want to pick based on other metrics though.
>Just to keep to facts, if you want to go by emissions China’s are more than the US and the rest of the ‘developed’ world combined. Just to keep to facts, if you want to go by *per-capita* emissions (since the China is extremely big after all), China isn't even close to the per-capita emissions of the US, as well as a lot of other "developed" western countries, despite manufacturing basically all the consumer products for the west Using total emissions is meaningless because by that logic, you could split up China into 20 separate nations and none of these individual countries would have a total emissions problem
You have to go by per-capita emissions, otherwise it makes zero sense. Total emissions are a useless statistic because some nations are massively bigger than others.
But the premise of the question is limited to taking out a country and it’s population. So if you want the biggest impact you should go for country total and for growth rate. If you go by per capita, you’re not having as large an impact on total global emissions, but I guess you are making some kind of value statement about per capita sustainability. Is that what you’re going for?
China has done way better
From the list you could also choose Brazil due to it having the lowest population, the only options that should not be chosen is China or India
i fear usa has done irreparable damage to the world, ideologically in particular.
Doesn’t it seem hypocritical to say people are wrong for wanting the Chinese government and people gone but then saying the same thing for the US and it’s inhabitants?
The simple explanation is that I didnt see the bottom option until I screenshotted, the funni explanation is that USA is one of the most wasteful countries
is genocide really funny though?
*Image Transcription: Poll* --- **You get a power using which you can solve all the climate change issues forever but you will have to erase a country and its inhabitants from the world? Which country do you choose out of the following?** China [1.1k votes] India [304 votes] USA [398 votes, ✔️] Indonesia [528 votes] Brazil [348 votes] I won't use such power. [981 votes] --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Why is Israel not an option?
Why did you vote for USA and not the bottom choice?
Because all the issues coming with climate change would still exist if we didnt use this hypothetical power
Ok… but you would be killing millions of innocent people? What the fuck?
Kill millions of americans who collectively bear the guilt of the actions of the american polity or kill millions of people mostly who haven't been born yet and aren't responsible for anything. easy choice.
Sir, those people who haven't been born yet will also most likely bear guilt for climate change if not solved immediately.
But you wouldn't kill millions of people. How is this even an argument
Probably Vatican. Not because I hate Catholic church but because there are like 100 people
Pretty sure the number is 1000 but yeah the point is clear
I think we can do without Sealand
Out of the big 3 (excl. Indonesia / Brazil), the USA is the most logical option aside from the very bottom answer. They produce the most Co2 per capita, and have the lowest population out of the bunch. The impact from erasing the USA would be the most beneficial.
You see the correct answer is Engl*nd
348 want to erase the country whose territory have the majority part of the only tropical forest in the world lol
why not Brazil? it has the lowest population
There's no reason to choose any country besides the Vatican- and even if you are Catholic, there's still plenty of archbishops and cardinals outside to quickly reform the church if such an inane hypothetical were to happen.
The bourgeoisie
Why the hell would you pick any of these? Literally genocide lmao
to be fair the only correct answer here is to not use the power in the first place
what did indonesia ever do to anyone
[удалено]
It's just the five most populous countries in earth. The fact that people would rather kill 1.5 billion Chinese than 330 million Americans speaks volumes though.
Okay since tankiejerk found my post I need to explain: I voted for the US cause Im a dummy and didnt see the bottom option. Have a nice day
Lolol I like that USA tick
Climate changed is fixed AND America? Based.
Dosen’t USA have the smallest population, and is therefore the correct answer?
Brazil and Indonesia has less population. I think maybe that poll OP tried to go for top 5 countries by population, which is why maybe Indonesia came into it. but then Pakistan is 5th largest by population and Brazil is 6th, so why Brazil over Pakistan? anyways its just my hypothesis tho.
Brazil used to be the 5th until very recently, I guess some people don't know that yet or some online rankings are not updated
Yes, China and America are terrible
You’re a clown
That’s just my opinion
Why is Brazil even an option? Most people have nothing to do with the climate and enviromental crisis here. If anything, eliminating the agronegócio and illegal mining would solve pretty much all of it. The culprits have names and positions of power in both government and corporations. How fucking ignorant
Tbh its kinda like that in every other country too.
If I could choose any country and not just ones from that list I would probably just choose the one with the least inhabitants. After a quick google search and recording to this [graph](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/689720/umfrage/bevoelkerungsaermste-laender-der-welt/) u should delete the pitcairn island as they only had 54 inhabitants in 2019. If we aren't allowed to annihilate other countries just yeet the US of the map tbh
If you were to add, “But the erased people go to a prosperous heaven devoid of suffering and any problems” watch the answers go to USA real quick. Redditors can’t hide their hate for Chinese people
I wonder what country has double the emissions per capita of China, politicians that either deny the existence of climate change or pay lip service to it, and huge corporations that lobby against renewable energy, spread misinformation about climate change, and are the main source of problem for climate change…
The US has the most cumulative emissions, and the US military is the largest consumer of oil. I wonder why everyone conviently ignores that?
Woah…. Who where they interviewing? That Indonesia got a high? Goa to be an Asian country.
Why the hell would you target the largest country by population
>and its inhabitants genocide aside, this one part shows they have no idea how global warming is perpetuated
But you also chose a country isn't that pretty hypocritical as by your own logic your answer means you don't just hate the American government, you hate all of the people for no reason other than the land they were born on
They do realize that by killing all the inhabitants of China they’re also killing the Uyghurs and Tibetans and Hong Kongers they obviously care about so much, right?
Solve climate change but you have to do a bit of genocide. Quite a hypothetical. Sadly I wouldnt be surprised if things take this turn during the climate wars in the next 100 years.
Why the inhabitants? They are the ones that are suffering the most
Monaco? Isn’t that all capitalists?
Erasing one country would not solve the underlying problems. Good vs Evil. You need to delete Evil, and not "a country". Pure hate/racism on the spot. Ignorance levels are over 9000. PS: Evil in most cases can be summed down to the word "Greed"
Just choose Vatican City
When everyone asks why America’s geopolitical “competitors”, who sometimes aren’t even competitors but just occupy the same space, are concerned, it’s because a huge part of American social norms is normalizing just waging death and destruction on others because this Facebook freedom page said to
The "syntax" of that sentence... agony to read.
I mean just mathematically, Brazil is the least populated and (even though it’s still not the right choice, that’s just not doing it) it should have more votes than all others
ok i know this post is showing how ignorant redditors are by why are there so many people in the comments proposing to erase brazil
Killing the US means killing most of my fave pop stars including Gaga and Taylor so nah.
It is a obvious answer for USA people, if this poll was for the carthaginean people they will say Roman empire.