The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

If you hold the power to foreshadow future events and could see that in present and continuously behavior of our human condition lead us to the end of our race, would you design a strategic agenda to save human existence? would you destroy perhaps a billion to save 5 billions to flourish/shift the tainted ideals imprinted in a impending extinction of a global civilization? So you would go against almost everyones morals, beliefs, rights, independence and life(regardless of innocence, age, sex, group, etc..) to save the future of human race? And no; not for money, power, or vanity... this time for the survival of the race.

And for those who share their views, please elaborate on your judgment, their is no right or wrong here, the debate will determinate the veracity of reasoning behind any given outcome, for all we know it would be cruel/selfish in either case>I just did an absolutist claim now feel free to counter it with open postures..

I believe this discussion could be seen as a referance to what the Compte de St. Germaine was doing all along.

I am sorry. I must admit I have no clue who Compte de St. Germaine is. And to be completely honest could give two rats asses about the rest of the "human race." I personally feel that the planet would be better off with about two thrids of the worlds "human population" wiped clean from existance. The planet was not designed for such large scale habitation. Infact any other creature you see living thousands of in a small chunck of land are as small as ants and bees and termites. "human beings" were not ment to live hundreds of thousands into relatively a few square miles. So starting a war, causing a plague, what ever, to eliminate atleast half the population and save the planet on whole does not bother Me one bit.

This website describes St. Germain in a nutshell:

Germain

I know there is a saying: the need of the many outweight the need of the one.

But I think that if there was a way to save everyone, I would,I must appoliogies but I disagree, if the Earth's inclination moved so that original climat came back, the planet would be suitable for ALL humans and more, it casn sustain over 15 billions of humans and that its with an average of 1.5 km square of space for each and everyone.

Still, lets say there has to be sacrifice. I would go with the logical law of an eye for an eye a life for a life

I would simply execute those who have taken a life, then take my own as too I would have taken lives after doing so. So the law would apply to me.

That was the most contradicting catch 22 I have ever heard Serenity...

So you would rather kill, then die by your own brand of justice? Just wow!

On another note, aside from Germain, the movie: Next, with Nicolas Cage had the right idea and concept of the "Quantum Advantage" theory on what Revenous seems to be alluding to.

Althought serenity's post has an insightful ideal in regards of her philosophy of life, I recall I said random extermination which mean innocents regardless of age,sex,group, etc.. Which mean you would also be killing kids, old and mid adult in the agenda. As for the reasoning yeah sounds debatable on terms of judgment on those individuals convition. Just remember those who killed are there because we socially agreed is detrimental for our society not because they are inhuman by deeds. So in other words you would be killing using your perception of justice for the one who "abides" to your standard. What about for those who are loyal to your standards and inclination, perhaps "love ones"? Same inclination Hitler use his perspective of better humans if it was made by his belief system, or the goverments in the "war against terrorism ".

WOW.. LOl well I am sure that we all are familiar with it is best to lose some lives than all life. So if it meant to rid our planet of x amount of the human race to survive and keep our planet, then there should be a random pick of individuals to be executed for the survival of the majority of the planet.


I think that every country would have to do their own share of this particular suggestion, and that the people should be aware of such a thing so that they may prepare for the chance that it could be them that is chosen.

This would indeed be a very hard decision to make yet, we would have to do it even if I was one of the people selected for execution so be it.

Yet I feel that all revenues should be explored before killing anyone to be sure that was the only way to save the planet and its inhabitants. I mean like how long and how hard would it be for us to save everyone and survive till our planet could replemish itself with help from us.

To me this would be the worst scenerio for any official to have to carry out, so I would not want to be in their shoes, yet sometimes we have to do things that help many.

Yes, one would have to have logic over "heart" to commit such action, yet must be free of judgment, idealization, power thirst, de-attached from what is known as ethics and morals of the "civilized world", to pursue the justice "this world needs?". I guest as for the person who said that he wouldn't care doing it, brings another case in the sense, this "greater good" we spoke of in only relevant to the eye of the beholder, What is a generic structure of a "greater good" expectations for every human in the world, this wouldn't bring peace at all, just more time to disagree with each other as time in connection of technology slowly mature our critical outlook of existence. So if this search for the generic "greater good" of ones perception is impossible for adherence of others, then we have to accept that we do not have freedom? we are slave to the founding ethics of the old worlds perception of "truth" and will remain as such until technology free us from natural behaviors of human condition, then how is this attainable if we are getting the tools yet let corruption/doctrinal inclination taint positive resolution?

It would depend on what the voices in my head told me to do.
*laughs*

I don't think that any person has the right to end another persons life. That being said, I also don't think I would allow another to end anothers life. I do not believe in war, but I think sometimes you have to stand up for peace. You should always do your utmost to preserve life, even if it is a shitty life.

There is always the 11th hour.

Given certain choices I'd let the most innocent die before the least innocent, and the most holy die before the least.

Only the good (should) die young.

So, ~Soulshroude~ if I may inquire, what made you bring Count St. Germain to this conversation, can you elaborate on the association between both the thread and the persona? Did he somehow change the would around us? and if so, what security you could give us as for this claims?(not asking for links, but personal knowledge/approach on this).

Germain was always a very kind hearted individual. He was rumoured to be a puppet master in a couple of famous historical events. Most of the information is in the link that I provided.

Contrary to your initial thread post, I was implying that Germain was in it for the greater good, but not the genocidic endevour that Hitler succeeded at.

~Revenous~ asked: "If you hold the power to foreshadow future events and could see that in present and continuously behavior of our human condition lead us to the end of our race, would you design a strategic agenda to save human existence?"

Which is where my reply about Germain came into play. He was rumoured to have a certain "power" to foreshadow future events, as if he knew they were about to happen and of course, tried to warn certain participants about their future agony, or "untimely" passing. He had a very strategic agenda to save human existence. Which I think was his whole purpose of being alive and being the individual that he was... It was his destiny. Now, if only those certain individuals would have heeded his word, certain historical events such as the French Revolution might not have happened the way they did.

The greater good, what about the greater bad? It has to be equal. For every good thing we do something else "bad" as people state it happens.
For example for every person that dies a new born baby is born.
Or when fire burns forest, forest has seeds that are planted under ash. Rain falls. Forest rebirths something that was better then before.
When there is someone that dies, earths population changes slightly, when there is stealing it's teaching you not to be sentimental to items, when someone lies ask why the lied first, it could be because they wanted to protect someone or they honestly believed in something.
I do believe that there is some truly darkness in some people/creatures/spirits. But think about it. The greater good? What would happen if there was too much good.

But you see, that was Germains whole reasoning. He knew the outcome was going to be "bad" to begin with. He just tried to put things into motion to where the outcome would be a bit "less bad" in the long run.

Nicolas Cage did it as well in the movie. But unfortunately, some events cannot be changed if they are destined to happen the way they need to. But if we are going to have this discussion head into a quantum atmosphere, then I would then post an entire page about it.

But that would be a change in the thread and be completely off topic.

I think you didn't understood the question clearly. But I get your point. For a concise answer i would ask you: " how do you know those things happen when the other happen?" How are you assured that when one person dies, a handful emerges?, or when a forest is burns down- you have the security that the seeds of that same tree burned will thrive on hazard conditions, and not seizes space/time to another tree/biomes to take the place?>natural selection destroy that reasoning ultimately, but since the term is presented, natural selection is exactly what can be concluded as "sacrifice for the greater good" yet is it natural if its man-made agenda? or the fact that we are part of nature and we bring this makes it naturally selected for the continuation of our species life expectancy?

look it up. When a forest burns, generally most the time the forest regrows and has more life then before. It is a circle. It is a way of life. It's natural, that can't change.
Anyways, Greater Good, is something I try not to strive to reach too far. I do help people more then myself when I can. I have my own things to do but I will spare change or give a friend shelter for a while, I will give away my clothes if needed, i will cook for others just cus I love cooking. If that is the greater good you are thinking of then I suppose that's how I help out.
I try to reach out to people. I try to teach them what I know, and trust me as young as I am, I do know a lot.

I think I know where you are going with this. the whole "natural selection" topic seems to have been implanted within our subconscious since childhood to where we think we believe these things may happen.

Nature always takes its course in the long run. It takes time as well for things to conclude and begin once more on their own accord. These things may not be an absolute, but they happen nonetheless after years or even decades.

*Starts hearing the song..."Circe of Life"*

Yes but answer the addressed question, if you could kill a group of people would you do it to improve whatever is that you think is "greater good"or bad in any given case or perspective of personal idealization. Yes I know if you make a society to good you suspect it would turn bad, but that is speculation, you aim for something and thats what we are following here.

So you are actually asking about how natural disasters actually benifit a species, and if manmade events actually benifit the species at the sacrificing of a generation.

For example: the holocaust. Without Hitler would there be an Israel, without Israel would the world have the potential to evolve the prophecised "heavan on earth."
A generation of European Jews sacrificed for the strengthening of the (race) breed and perhaps the species.

If a person had forwarning that the lack of a holocaust would deny the world Israel, (and you were a jew, or believed in the prophecies,) would you facilitate a holocaust to strengthen the species or the betterment of man?

Does destruction/chaos fertalize the soil for "evolution?"

~Revenous asks: "If you could kill a group of people would you do it to improve whatever is that you think is "greater good"or bad in any given case or perspective of personal idealization? Yes I know if you make a society to good you suspect it would turn bad, but that is speculation, you aim for something and thats what we are following here."

I respond with: Ah yes, I almost dismissed the question entirely. I think the universe has plans for all of us. If it is an individuals time to pass on, then the universe will deem it nessessary to take the extreme messure and support it without justification.

If the universe needs an individual to be a conduit to carry out such atrocities, then the cause and effect scenerio would surely take place and have that individual suffer accordingly.

A good analogy (and dont take this to be a conspiracy theory by any means...) would be the whole Hurricane Katrina fiasco. Supposedly the government thought New Orleans was too violent a city to live in, so they decided to thin the herd so to speak. I wont go into details. But, the effect after several years later remained the same. Yet again, a violent city. Not the caliber of Detroit, but statistics know the truth. Did the eratication improve the "whatever"? Not at all.

Thus, it is simply a question of whether or not the actions any individual may take, quell whatever it is that is ailing them, will it stay the same, or simply make things worse in the long run?

Alright good points both, so for KG, Destruction/chaos may be the activism required for a revolution, the only way, yet open doors bring open information, As nazism agenda was to opened and left disastrous influence by that mere selection of execution, now US "is the new nazi agenda" in a more latent platform, you don't know anything, the population brings the needs without even accepting any of it, and the change is expanding in the shadows, nobody cares to notice/acknowledge it, or simply don't give a F$5# about the founding fathers "future/ or idealization of freedom". This are the same destruction/chaos inflicted in both open/closed doors operations, the question is what will happen when is to late? and the "greater good" is something given not desired? the "greater good" here is not for the world is for one country.

For Soulshroude you bring a reasonable posture, as for the question, i think to attain such positive outcomes of the sacrifice and your example of Katrina's example,it would have to be something very generic, very opened, and simply the opposite of this economical based structure, technology is the key of the change but it would not work if its held by things keeping us primates, and the only ones with the key are people that doesn't give a damn about anyone else but their interest. The head of the state is the ultimate weapon to "promote CHANGE" in this times, if only the mask were actually real then we could've have a good president, what everyone fail to notice is that is the same whacky games since Government seized to be the voice of the public and when other "things" put words on the public.

I think I again, know where this may be headed. Not to get into the politics, I will instead go back into the 2012 theories. Since in my view, this thread was an idea started by the aftermath thoughts ascertained by the 2012 thread. Correct me if I am wrong.

Sacrificing for the greater good is usually a military agenda, and or application. Again, correct me if I am wrong. All individuals that serve within the military are sacrificing themselves for the greater good, but for which cause? Theirs, or ours? Who are the they, and who are the we? If some within society think that the America as the we know it may be coming to its conclusion, then why even bother?

It goes back to my simple point of the cause and effect scenerio. if the we, try to change the outcome, would it matter? Which is basically why most within society does not really seem to try, because the end justifies the means for most. the quote "it may happen sooner or later" being the case.

This smacks of Watchmen...lol. Having just seen it on BluRay, I would say that it only reinforced something I've always held true, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I know that is again fro a movie, but before the movie was my service to king and country as a military member.

My take is the I would unequivically kill one in ten to save the rest. Who that one would be might be my child or my mother, even so let it be. If it is an exstinction event and it required the sacrifice to save the species, then it needs be met with a stiff upper lip and resolve to carry through.

I think that I could kill X-Amt. of people *IF* I had for a certainity that we would be better off in doing so and no way of saving everyone on the planet. It is a natural thing to survive, and it is genetically built into us to do so. Myself this would not be a bad thing to do, yet it does tear at our morals of the human race. Sometimes we have to do what we NEED to do in order to survive.

I would have regrets because I feel we have no rights to decide who lives or dies, YET* I am a firm believer in Survuval.

Members of Mankind get this ego that natural matters need our conscious interaction. I am reminded of the town that fought to keep boars from being
hunted.. two children maimed latter, and they where begging hunters to kill the offending boar. "?"

So ~Dab~, you wouldn't agree that when a certain species is at risk of beginning to extinct, you wouldn't intervene in the natural process?

Rev, that is a topic for another discussion.

I am a supporter of current developments in conservation of endangered species. There have been some irrational implimented in wild life, some that even had promising prospects turned sour.

It is part of another discussion but an extension of your previous post, and in a case correlates to the topic relevance. I will not explain how, cause is evident by common reasoning.

I would mention I am at the opinion that civilization caters to idiots who would normally be subject to ellimination by natural selection.

I view the practice of mankind intervening in the extinction of animals as a fuzzy logic area. We have examples of such practices going wrong. Even being grafted.

My novella idea has an example of just how outside interest can taint such
well intended intervention.

Interesting question. If you say yes, I believe you are playing god (or believe one does not exist). Would you kill an innocent child, rip its organs from its lifeless body, just to save several other children dying from disease or injury?

It seems when the question is presented in a large scale, its easier to come to grips with ones actions and say yes.

My spectulation of " Mass Equation Operations" would include the organization that arbitrates population targets.

I am reminded of " Make Room Make Room" by Harry Harrison

What a selfish statement to destroy the one billion for the salvation of 5 billion it means you will going to kill oen member from your family if they are six or one member from your familt if there are 18 person among 5 families...

would you like this...

Just think of those one billion who they will be.... You are supporting hitler and opposing your governments.

You can bring emergency in your nations of no more kids than 1 in four families only allowed till become 4 billion world. china is successful in such policies.

We are talking about, sacrifice. Not murder due to hatred or blind alegiance to a governing body.

Could you consign yourself to "hell" for the love of mankind?

Could you burn your lifes work, knowing that doing so would advance a divergant field of work,that would be of better benifit to man?

why would we kill mankind anyway?

most of r all loving and effectuate
(Sometimes)

although killing my brother sounds like a good plan.

Forseeing a devistating future to the human race and getting others to heed your preminition is another issue.

the Governments already have plans in action should a nuclear fall out occur. The have predecided our fates.

the world is in need of an overhall if we killed half the worlds population it would allow the natural resorces that we have to replinish themselfs and the starin on food and water surplies while be much less and it would also all the natural order of thing to realign and become balanced once more. for every thing has a balance for with out balance there can be nothing

Even if we killed enough people to allow the Earth to have a break and refresh itself, we would only do the very same thing in overpopulation and pollution again.

I think it would be more effective to share the knowledge and build a following to win people over to the ideal of saving humanity. Just picking and choosing to kill others because they might do or cause something bad to happen makes no sense.

If mankind cannot learn to avoid destroying itself, does it deserve to continue anyway?

Worse case scenerio, and Carefree Oblivion, two absolutes, Geologist are on the job.

Self Moderation as inhabitants if Earth is agreed upon, however their will always be "Chicken Littles", and " Gross polluters"

When alternatives become feisable, practical, and economically defined
we will learn to maximize what we do have. Personally I am watching the Hemp industry, as the Engaging Environmental Catylst.

As in my Sci fi novella the fact that we are prolonging lifespans, and decreasing birthing fatalities.. Is it not defying natural selection.

well i do believe this will happen with out any help from any person . and thos that have same believes as me know what i am talking about .
You see every thing as a time to end and most of man kinds days are numbered , but not of there own accord but by the way things are and thats all there is to it .
Its like man trying to live in outerspace it would never work we were not made for that .
And there is nothing we can do to change the facts .
We need what we have here on earth but some are right the earth does not need us.
But think of it this way it was made for us. not we for it like some would like you to believe.

I would prefer to seek solutions that do not involve billions of people dying.

Such solutions might include better birth control, financial incentives to have fewer children, researching a functional fusion reactor, and colonizing Mars.

To me, these would be better ways to promote the greater good, and I would sacrifice some consumer spending to pay for them.

That is ridiculous,it is the view of saving people by killing other people that would surely be the cause of human extinction.
The only way one could save the human race is by helping people see that killing and violence to get people to hear you or understand you is not the way to go.
Why must people die so others will understand you, and part of that is because we have become so dehumanized when we see horrible things that happen on the news we look at it and keep walking its become an everyday occurrence that it is just no longer a big deal.
Teach people to listen to their feelings again would be a good way to start saving everyone.

I would eradicate and completely destroy those that had committed grievious crimes, those that were destroying the planet on a noticable scale and of course those that didnt care for the preservation of the human race since they are like minded to those who dont care for the planet and I do believe after I wrecked my havoc upon the planet with a great act of biblical proportion those who were left would be forced to band together for survival and learn to work together in better harmony. IF I were a god presuming I had that power and that was the only answer.

CH that happens on a smaller scale now a days that people die to save others......... after all freedom isnt free and as long as we have whack jobs out there that think they can own the planet threw force then this will continue to take place...it maynot be a solution to the problem as we cannot change the minds and actions of others but it is a preventive measure. No offense intended I just felt id point out this does in fact take place on a smaller scale.

Fundementalist would consider themselves the only fit inhabitants of the planet.

All who they deem immoral would be subject to eradication, or exile from redistributed resources. Sort of like England did to Ireland.

To answer the question yes I would kill, after all we are natural killers

However I feel re-education of the masses wouldn't work until a form of extermination was administered.

Then with the threat of further extermination just maybe people would respect the planet.

What England did in Ireland was nothing to do with who was deemed immoral or who they wanted to conform. It just made it easyer for the British. The distribution of resources went to the rich and anyone who sided with the British or the Protestant Irish! The English at the time had no morals! ^ ^ Money, Land, and Power were what they were after. If you got in there way they would simply get rid of you!

The Germans did it with the Jews, you know, sort of like what America did with the Indian, to go one step further the Spanish with the Aztec.... Zimbabwe with the white farmers...ect

We already have many resources that would slow down the decay of our planet.

Money has a lot to do with how the distribution of these resources are carried out!

I could go on but I want to up my stats ^ ^

Death to the humans, if it were up to me they'd all be dead already

I agree vastly in your response ~theban~ and would like to see you expand without limitations without the fear of what others think.

In my novella the solution is " Binom Bank Randomizations" BBR
Logarythmes are used to " Punch peoples numbers", what eventually happens though is the once supportive shadow governing body attempts to
alter the selection process.. obviously to " disadent civil elements".
But the scientist go underground, this time with a criminal label.

- Dabbler -You have a published book? can you share the name; sounds almost like the reality we are living.

Lol, fear is the mind killer.

Dab I will have to add your journal, I'm not here as of in a few minutes for a day or so, I may explain what I was waffling about lol

I would think that when human civilization devolves to the point where the majority believe that they can pick out a minority and inform them that they are no longer worthy of existence, because of the greater good, and that they will be dispatched immediately, THEN the majority itself has reached a point where it doesn't deserve to survive.

By the way, who on this thread will sacrifice their children, grandchildren, parents,etc.

Yes, stand around silent and one day they will in fact come for you and yours!

While this forum topic at first seems merely a re-hash of the old "If-you-could-kill-Hitler-as-a-child,-would-you?" morality question, yet there is a much more disturbing component to it that so far none seem to have zeroed in on.

This entire question depends first upon a belief in one's ability to "foreshadow" future events (I supposed this means, see into the future).

In other words, unlike the morality question regarding Hitler that involves a known fact of history (the Holocaust) that then questions whether we would act to prevent the near-genocide that occurred by killing Hitler were we able to travel back through time... yet HERE, the question depends not at all upon actual historical atrocities to be corrected, but upon an imagined or otherwise believed event that would supposedly result in the destruction of the entire Human species.

This is what places this hypothetical question clearly into the arena of some VERY SCARY territory... territory we saw most recently, perhaps, in... Nazi Germany. And that is because anyone who advocates committing mass murder in the BELIEF that without such atrocious action all of Humankind would be destroyed is acting... just... as... did... HITLER.

Think about it. Why did Hitler murder six million Jews and would have murdered them all if he had completed his "Divine" (as he saw it) mission?

Hitler tried to annihilate all Jews from this planet because he BELIEVED that he was doing so for the exact same reasons as proposed in this hypothetical scenario:

Hitler BELIEVED he was murdering a few millions so as to save the Human species from "prophesied" worldwide Jewish conspiracy that would have enslaved all others on this planet. Thus... Hitler reasoned (just as does this hypothetical question) that it was better to murder millions so as to SAVE Humanity from what he BELIEVED would have happened in the future to the world if he had not!

And so many others likewise BELIEVED in this conspiracy theory and BELIEVED that Hitler truly and accurately "foreshadowed" the future and, thus, had the "final solution" to this supposed future catastrophe. And this was why they threw their support behind him... and that include not only Germans but many many others, including some of the wealthiest and most powerful men on this planet at the time, including such magnates as Henry Ford.

They, too, believed that it was better to act NOW so as to keep a future calamity from occurring... a calamity they BELIEVED they had the ability to "foreshadow" in advance.

However... their belief in their ability to see future events and their belief in Hitler was exactly what CAUSED the Holocaust, itself. And that was the only TRUE catastrophe that occurred. The result: over six million slaughtered... for no reason except due to the fear generated by ... a... belief.

Here yet again... the extreme importance of NOT giving in to belief, but instead doing what we know to be right regardless of what some "belief" might otherwise dictate.

As one particular quote I love states so accurately: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I would expand on this quote only to replace the words "religious conviction" with ... "belief." Any belief that is believed strongly enough, whether religious or conspiracy-oriented or belief in one's own supernatural ablities, etc., lie at the root of the world's most selfish, most narcissistic and most evil actocities.


- Upir'

Yes I can honestly say that I would sacrifice my parents, they have lived already and are old!
As for my children and grand children ..no I wouldn't...you know a little like Logans run....although wasn't that flawed because they had elders controlling the city..lol

I really feel that human kind are worth it! As much as I also dislike some of what humans stand for and achieve, we have done some wonderful things for the betterment of humankind. I can only hope, that one day we as a species will find enlightenment

To further open up this topic one needs to look closer at world events

Is this already happening (Bird flue) (Swine flue)