Genocide ain't a nice way of making everyone get along, but if done competently, it is a damn effective one.

It'd solve the worlds problems until you came around to a group within your group that didn't quite fit.

Complete understanding of all cultures is the least bloody way to solve world problems, but genocide is the faster, easier, more eco-friendly way(less humans=less omnivores all over the place)

You could regard it as positive learning experience, I guess. Just because it's in your nature to behave like a caveman doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea to do so.

If the world's problem is several thousand dead people per year because of local conflicts how can you call murdering millions a solution?

Several thousand dead a year? Have you heard of the Congo?

I thought we were talking about conflicts caused by terrorists, not about full-scale civil wars.

The argument remains the same though as casualties from a war would usually be smaller than killing the entire popularion of one of the opposing sides.

And yes, I have heard of the Congo. In contrast to other countries geography and ethics are still among the things taught at schools over here.

Lucky. Over here, we have to teach ourselves.

The issue isn't about up-front casualties, though. A tribe of one million may be wiped out tomorrow, but if that tribe had continued to exist, over time many many more people could have died due to conflict suffered by that tribe. Of course, this does get into the "potential=/=actual" issue, but let me play the devil's advocate here.

In practice however it is what most people do for all they might protest otherwise. If you really valued human life equally you would be completely unable to deal with the myriad tragedies in the world, for every person that died you would feel it a closely as if a member of your most beloved kin had died and taking a life for any reason would be an impossibility for it would be valued as highly as your own. If value was not something earned then no man could stand aside while another suffered.

It is considered morally wrong when it happens within that society as something unsanctioned by law. However most people for all they might have a little piss about it every now and then so that they can go home at the end of the day and feel good about themselves are quite happy to allow countless innocents to be put to death as long as it's not on their front door. They'll even allow unborn humans to be put to death if they can somehow smudge the grounds of plausibility into the idea that they're not real people. What is this moral belief when it commands no duty and returns no meaning?

However valuable you perceive life to be it can be erased in moments by environmental variables. Just look at the Rwandan Genocide, or in a more Westernised environment the Stanford Prison experiment, or Milgram's work with obedience to authority. People might believe that their morals place them above such things but history tells us this is very rarely, if ever, the case.

Most people would rather have the world convert to a police state then have another genocide

Well looking at History, Genocide doesnt really work considering many peoples have tried this method to cure this problem, and instead of helping them it bites them in the ass in the future. Nothin more to say about that.

Besides if we look at it your way, if the Europeans in the middle ages or the Nazis of WWII killed off 90% of the Jews then atleast definatly 2 of these problems up there wouldnt exist. Right? Think about it.


No.

You cannot found a utopia on the corpses of those who "potentially" could have threatened it. Nor can you found it on a lie, because either "solution will become a corner stone that will need to be kept in place by killing whoever discovers it, lest your "utopia" collapse. A world where anyone who is different in a certain way is killed, is in every way, a complete dystopia.

Humans are unpredictable, and in that they are both horrible and wonderful, and because of the existence of one, the other exists, and only by that one's existence. Evil cannot exist without Good and vice versa. Attempting to kill off one or the other to break the balance, is not only immoral, but meaningless as if you succeed, which you can't, you destroy both, negating benefit.

Most people have no idea how many genocides we've had since the end of World War 2 nor how many people have died in them.