duh

How wouldn't you know it? Especially with all that infomative TV you watch.

No, he's expanding his philosophical eduacation through discussion. I think you fell into the wrong forum.
Allow me to help you back to your comfort zone...

Duh nothing. His island policy might be no outside contact now. That doesn't mean he can't change his policy for the good of his people.

Maybe cuz I was never that interested. But now that you brought it up, maybe I'll do some research on Ol' Aussie.

Ass.

Ok Mr. monstrosity:

------------------- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

...and that is how it started. :p

geez...I'm away for 24 hours and I'm already the topic of conversation. I guess this place really can't survive without me. ;)

Pierce, I think your colony will need to impliment the 1 child policy for the next couple of generations and sweat it out till then.

Well we wuv you angel. :angel:

To Drax:
The isolation rule isn't a policy of the islanders. It is one of the rules that were stipulated when the thought experiment was set out. Tinkering with this defeats the point of thinking about it at all. While I like your lateral thinking, in this case, it doesn't fit the situation.


General comment:
This sort of scenario is often tossed around in undergraduate philosophy courses to get people thinking about these issues.

The most robust variation I have seen involves a damaged space ship. It is cruising back to earth with 10 people on board, when the oxygen system fails. It cannot be repaired. The reserve tanks only hold enough oxygen to keep five people alive until the ship reaches Earth (at maximum oxygen conservation). The ship cannot be accelerated. No help is available. The only options are:
1. choose five people and kill them, thus allowing the other five to survive. The choice can be random or considered.
2. all die together.
This scenario removes any doubt about getting help or some people struggling through.


Option 1 has the advantage that five more people survive than option 2, but at the price that we have to actively kill five people. I think that the active killing/passive killing distinction is morally insignificant - either way, we are making a decision that leads to their death.
Option 1 may be objected to on the grounds that it places an unfair burden for the survival of others onto a few individuals. This is generally considered bad. However, in this particular scenario, it might be replied that there is no real burden, since the unlucky individuals would die under option 2 anyway.

For these reasons I would choose option 1.

The next decision is whether to choose who to kill by considered decision or random means.

While randomness has a certain clean simple appeal, what if it results in killing the entire crew, leaving the passengers to die because they can't operate the ship?
What if the passenger list includes, for example, two indispensible crew members, Einstein, Ghandi, Mandela, Monet, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Amin? Random choosing from this lot would seem stupid.

Yet, if we are to decide carefully .... how the hell are we to choose? Unlike the list above, most people are much nearer the middle of the moral spectrum, in the broad shades of almost indistinguishable gray.
And remember - if we spend more than one day arguing about it, we've used up extra oxygen and now have to kill six people...

I get as far as firmly choosing option 1 before getting bogged down.
So for PH's example, yes, I believe we have to reduce population by 200. I agree with HLJ that there is no immediate reason to target the infants, unless we are thinking of a "last on - first off" rule, which seems silly.
I'd be wary of a random selection. It might end up killing the people who most enrich the lives of everyone else. That only leaves the option of calling for volunteers (not likely to make up the numbers), or thinking long and hard about who to kill.

Incredibly hard as such a deliberation would be, to NOT face up to killing 200 now would lead to the certain deaths (from famine) of many more than 200 people in the foreseeable future. Bite the bullet, and save as many as you can.

The Cold Equations.

Eh, thinking about this again an LJ's response made me realize this has nothing to do with rights but ethics.

I agree with basically everything on ZenGum's response.. I made it an island because this scenario actually happened in real life (kind of, I changed two things) and also because by choosing to let everyone die you will destroy the future for a countless amount of generations.

wow...i thought everyone was ignoring me cuz i usually shy away from the serious stuff. sorry i barked at you.

Yep, nothing like dying to put a damper on the old future. ;)

If all the humans disappeared from the Earth, would the rest of the animals get together and celebrate?

I think they would.