The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Helping others will be the doom of our civilization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,102 times Debate No: 35173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Our civilization is at yet another deadly crossroads. Will we all be killed by a nuclear holocaust, enslaved by self-serving aliens or be cooked by invisible gamma rays from space? That could certainly be the case! OR will our civilization in stead be able live through and survive the numerous identified doomsday scenarios by slowly, but surely developing the technology necessary to protect us from each single threat? If so, this would leave us immortal, putting the human race on the map as the newest, perhaps overly confident player in the universe.

So far, our civilization has done good. Luck dictated that our planet was formed at a habitable distance from our sun, the chance of that being 2 % according to the Drake equation.

Then, life evolved in the form of simple cells 3,6 billion years ago. The same Drake character has speculated that the chances of this is one in ten.

These simple cells then evolved into increasingly more advanced life forms - bacteria, fish, reptiles, mammals, Neanderthals, aborigines and further on to what we are allowed to classify as intelligent life - beating yet another 1 in 10 odds.

As the years passed we evolved even further to where we are today, an Earth ripe with Finns, Japanese and Germans bringing discipline, efficiency, ordenung and cutting edge technology to us all, launching a world war now and then only to truly motivate innovative change in those parties involved.

Having beaten a lot of high odds, we again are called to the table and must roll the dice, beat the odds and fight the universe for our civilization to survive. Not rolling the dice is not an option - that pesky, but necessary industrial revolution made sure of that. That aside, leaving the North Koreans and any asteroids flying through space to themselves does not seem like a good idea. We need to take charge of our own faith! We need to threaten the Koreans and prepare nuclear detonations in space.

Our best and brightest would say the most likely outcome in the coming years is that we die, leaving the planet for another species to step up, be it the dolphins or a handful of underground Eskimos on a strict fish diet. Or, our civilization could continue to beat the house and continue to evolve, eventually obtaining immortality. To achieve this, we need to colonize other planets. Being spread across our little part of the universe, we are safe from any single point of failure. This will enable us to continue towards becoming omnipotent Gods - masters of the Universe.

We need to be smart in the coming years. We are where we are because of a simple rule - survival of the fittest. Sure, luck somebody comes into play, but in the long run, the deserving will prevail. We are truly the fittest, a little ironic looking at how many people are overweight today. However, only about 10 % of the work force truly contribute, the rest simply man unimportant stations.

The political left mean well when they want to come to the aid of all those in need: hungry Africans, Haitians without huts, those inflicted with AIDS or Malaria or simply keeping Greece from going bankrupt. As an example, in Norway we are expected to feed gypsies beggars, adopt an Asian long distance and keep pouring money into Africa and whatever problem they have created this year. And the Greek had it coming, a lazier people is hard to find, even outside Europe.

This philosophy is highly counterproductive - the resources spent on lost causes should instead be used developing new space vessels, researching alternative energy sources or educating German scientists. If anybody will advance science, it is the Germans and with their ever-lasting shame from WW2 they are guilted to share their finding with the rest of us. The jews will keep making sure they are reminded.

Darwin is turning in his grave. He used butterflies to illustrate why the red ones would and should die, while the green flourished. Earth is billions of years old, and there has never been a case of red butterflies feeling sorry for green butterflies, offering them moist leaves to sit on and bringing food to those that were unable to hunt themselves.

Nor has there ever been a case of lions taking pitty to neighbouring hyenas in need. On the contrary, the lions would enjoy seeing the hyenas starve before them as it would mean yet another meal today and less competition tomorrow. The lions are focused on securing their own future and if they are the strongest, they will survive. If everybody was programmed to help the weak among us, we would still be living in the stone age as we never had time to develop the tools that would advance our race. In stead we would be busy providing shelter to those poor Neanderthals, however stupid, inbred and underdeveloped they might be. Going to sleep in our cold caves, we could take comfort in the fact that we had done good. The defense against asteroids heading for earth, however, would have to wait yet another day. Unknowingly to us, the dolphins were adding even more resources in the preparation of a shark holocaust that would disturb all who lived in the oceans and secure the Dolphin's place at the top of the food chain.

I argue that helping others is something we should strive for, but when the time is right. First, we must focus on ourselves. We need to become dominant, immortal and god-like creatures. Only then should we consider helping others. I would say only if it benefits us even further, but I might be wrong as a more advanced version of myself will make the decision. That is however not the point, the point is that we should live and let live. Occasionally intervening if it benefits us, including the use of deadly force.

This might seem harsh, but it is better that ten people die today, than a hundred tomorrow. Anyways, the decision should be based on the above, in certain cases a hundred people tomorrow might be the better choice.

Any argument against the above should elaborate on how our civilization survival chances are effected.



Thanks for beginning this debate!

I accept my position against the statement that helping others will be the doom of our civilization.

Although I appreciate your request for the Con argument to elaborate on how our civilization survival chances are affected I've decided that we should cross that bridge when we come to it (namely when and if it becomes necessary for me to disprove your evidence).

Since you have a significantly elaborate argument - or put simply, the case for why helping others will be the doom of our civilization - I look forward to you sharing your evidence in order to fufill your BoP.

Debate Round No. 1


Are you asking me to prove my point? I think you should be able to appreciate that our civilization has been lucky so far.

I am furthermore arguing that our civilization need to let go of our emotions, although I am sure some will find it difficult to let Africa starve, it is for the greater good and our race is in a life or death struggle. The people responsible for this initiative will no doubt prohibit any news reports from Africa, although they would never admit that publicly. On the flip side, I am seeing feel good stories two or three years in, a la: "rhinos are thriving now that nobody is killing them for increased potency", "racial outbreaks, a thing of the past, says representative for the Boer community".

The core of my argument is that in this struggle for survival, we need to focus our resources on reaching the one and only goal we should be concerned with. That means:

1. Stop wasting resources on dead-end projects (Africa, Eskimos, several Pacific islands etc.). The struggle (humanity's next step) will probably be decided within say the next one or two hundred years. There is no time to try and lift Africa up to a European or American level. They are simply to far behind and doing so would require more time than is available, if possible at all. We are already overpopulated and we are actually alleviating this issue at the same time as we are saving resources.

2. Use the resources saved under item one to advance towards humanity's next goal, basically safeguarding against doomsday scenarios and finding and reaching a habitable planet, alternatively creating one in our own solar system.

There are many positive side effects of the two items above: emissions will decrease, new resources will become available into our new project, we are able to build vacation homes (some rest will be required even in this struggle), all immigration problems will seize, no new diseases etc. etc.

The sum of this is that valuable resources are no longer sunk in Africa and can instead be allocated on the project that will decide our faith. It is impossible to estimate exactly how big the effect will be (huge though), but an estimate is not necessary. Even a single hour or dollar is enough to justify the initiative. We are, of course, locked in a life and death struggle and every little bit helps.

This is my first debate, so let me know if anything is unclear


Boring troll is boring.;
Debate Round No. 2


I accept your resignation.



You have not fulfilled your BoP. Since you haven't produced a single shred of evidence for any of your claims (not even a link from a questionable or comedic information source, there is not much I can say.

I mean, this could have been a really entertaining and funny debate, but it was rather tedious.


I'm not saying it was aliens... but it's aliens.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by thethief 4 years ago
Arrivingatdeparture: please close the debate. I am getting lots of requests to vote, but they are unable as we are all missing your "final argument". Thank you, I think the voters deserve that much.
Posted by thethief 4 years ago
I see no shades of Eskimos, they are all the same at least for the sake of this debate. If you need silver, it makes no difference if I am handed a manure or mud, it is not what I need.

I meant no respect referring to inbred Eskimos surviving under the ice of an apocalyptic scenario, your people were used to illustrate that earth had been reset to zero. Between you and the dolphins, the smart money is on the Dolphins.

Please stop commenting this debate.
Posted by EskimoRightsNow 4 years ago
I am very saddened by your hurtful remarks about Eskimos. Are you referring to any particular type of Eskimo? To me, being a member of the Arctic Circle Red Fish tribe, there are definitely different types of Eskimos. Simply put, you will not find an Eskimo worth half a rotten seal south or east of the Arctic circle.

Having said that, I think you are racist, although I would welcome the scenario where a handful of inbred Eskimos will have to repopulate the human race in a post apocalyptic world. We would head definitely head south!
Posted by thethief 4 years ago

You make some very compelling arguments. I will stop helping Africa immediately. I think it is much more important that we focus on the big picture, and as you say, sacrifice Africa for the greater good.

Actually, if all the people creating the hunger hype disappear, the country might be really nice. Off course, there will be a lot of lions, but they can be shot as they really contribute nothing towards space exploration and have little entertainment value. We might actually charge the people that kill the lions as they are really popular animals to kill, the money could go to a German fund encouraging kids to build gamma radiation shields. They probably can't do it, but if anybody can it would be those German jugends, they most definitely have a greater chance than those lions!

I actually think this might work, I can feel that I am getting very excited now, very excited indeed.

As for supporting Africa I really haven't helped them much anyways, but I did go to a couple of NBA games when I was younger. I regret that now.

I will finish with a question: is it ok to buy Eskimo furs if they are at a huge bargain, on the scale of exploiting? I might also add that I am really fond of furs and that I think Eskimos are fantastic! I am sure they will be worth tons of money should they be extinct.

Ok, thanks for everything. Please post more. What are your thoughts on a post-non-aid-Africa, say 5 years after the fact? Do you think anybody will be alive? I really don't know, but I think it might be beautiful country.

2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering sources. Did Fictional actually click on those links?
Vote Placed by Fictional_Truths1 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pretty much forfieted.