Fredward

Okay, this is a question I've been asking some of my friends. Imagine you see a beautiful blond haired blue eyed baby, but you know for a fact that when this baby grows up it will cause the deaths of millions of people. Maybe billions. Lets just ignore the HOW you know this, the point is that you do and it will come true. This is the ONLY time the child can be killed and the biggest disaster in the history of mankind averted. Now, you don't know if this kid will cause this by accident or on purpose, you only know that you can stop it if you kill the child then and there. Lets say you're alone with the baby and no one will be able to track it's death to you.

Okay, personally I would kill the thing. My consciousness will plague me for the rest of my days, even though my brain says that doesn't make sense. I mean, one life, even that of a baby isn't worth billions of other life's, whether the deaths were caused accidentally or not. My only other problem would be, besides that I killed a baby, is that maybe, just maybe, this baby's disaster MIGHT have prevented another even bigger one. It's a gamble but I would say the chances are on my side.

Most people I've asked said they wouldn't kill the kid, which like I said doesn't make sense to me. But lets see what you guys think.

gilwellian

I think that some species have an interesting biology that might appear to lead to population control through suicide, i.e. lemmings (but I think this is a particularly relevant myth). We humans DO NOT because our most bizarre but 'rational' method of keeping the populace under control is war and kill each other, kill as many as possible.

IMO human beings are a fatal disease infecting planet Earth, we CAN NOT change our nature.

So yes, I'd save the baby.

metalman

If you don't kill the baby because you cant stomach it, in reality, you are killing millions of baby's by not doing it. kill the baby. If I could go back in time, I would kill baby Adolf!!!

Jane

The logical answer is to kill the baby.

I think to not kill it based on any morals or code of ethics you may follow personally is kind of selfish.


Unless of course, you're some sick twit that would just get off on a crazy means of population control.

just an illusion

I don't like children, so I'd be happy to kill one, especially if it could help save the world. Yes, there can be other and bigger disasters and catastrophies in the future, but why die earlier if you can live happily more time by killing just one baby? And yes, it probably sounds cruel.

Scott

So you'd like to kill one regardless, just an illusion? Yeah, that's pretty sick.

As far as the OP, it seems an unlikely event, so answering is slightly pointless. If you're certain it would kill millions and nothing (not imprisonment, drugs, happenstance, etc.) could stop it, bye bye baby.

Wildangel

I would save it.
Since I know that this child has the potential to kill millions or whatever, I can influence it otherwise.
Before my interaction with the child, it may be pre-destined to kill many many people- but with my influence- there would be a whole different outcome.

Scott

The OP's positing that you can't influence it. I think.

just an illusion

Most of the time I'm rather tolerant to children if they don't bother me but sometimes I want to kill them all, not just one. With few rare exceptions I really dislike kids. Now all baby lovers can hate me. =)

Larki18

I have two answers, because you specifically said "millions, maybe even billions."

I would let the baby live if it was only going to kill millions. We need population control pretty desperately anyway.

I would kill the baby [not a phrase I ever thought I would write] if it was going to kill billions of people. We've got, what is it now, seven billion people on Earth? Compared with 7,000,000,000, a few million isn't that impressive a number. It's not like I'd torture the kid, though. I'd figure out what the most painless way would be, and go for that.

I'm sorry, that wasn't really an answer since I gave two conflicting ones.