Genocide as a viable alternative solution to world problems
 

Reading this thread gave me an idea on how to fix ALL the problems faced in the world.





Look at it this way. The US and her allies, notably the UK are the biggest kids on the block. Okay, so the US is the biggest kid on the block, but we're in your gang so that's all that matters. The solution to the problems in the world are simple:

My gang is bigger than your gang and your gang is making demands on my gang or on my turf. I kill your gang and the problem goes away. Let's look at some the notable trouble spots in the world right now.

• Iraq
• Israel
• Sri Lanka

In each you have a smaller gang making demands of a bigger gang and the bigger gang just sitting there acting dumb or maybe beating up on the smaller gang members occasionally. Why not just pull out all the stops and eradicate the problem.

Imagine Iraq without the Kurds or the pesky Sunni tribes.
Imagine Israel with no Palestinian problem.
Imagine Sri Lanka without the Tamil.

These are all nightmare situations which could very easily be fixed if we employed the methods of the Colonial era. Find out who is causing the issue and erase them. We have the tech. We have thousands of nukes, we just lack the balls of steel the old British Empire (as an example) had.

Now, before you all start shouting 'Hitler' at me, consider that I'm not suggesting we do what Old Adolf did. I'm suggesting we round up queers and retards and gas them, or that we consider some groups of people to be sub-human or less developed than us. All men were created equal, but after creation the equality stops. Let's start nuking nuisance populations right away. World peace is only a nuke or four away!!

What is the point of world peace if attaining it causes more misery than the present conflicts?

What matters is not the sum of overall suffering but the part of that total that can be exacted against us.

But then you're back to "we're inherently superior to others", which AzH apparently tried to avoid in his argumentation.

No, this is not about racial superiority, it is about the removal of one society/race/nation/culture/system to ensure the continued survival and dominance of another society/race/nation/culture/system.

Regarding misery, people only experience misery if they're alive. I do not condone the use of concentration camps or other methods of abuse/torture. Genocide can be afflicted quickly and relatively painlessly. Suffering would be kept to an absolute minimum by ensuring quick deaths for the condemned.

Equality is not a grounds for restraining from a things destruction or harm. Were that the case then you couldn't put people in prison for violating the law, for surely they are equal enough to you that you don't gain any innate right to rule them, you could not kill people who were threatening to take your life, for they would also be broadly speaking equal to you. The greatest threat to us often comes from those most equal to ourselves, and their destruction or harm often makes the most sense regardless of that equality.

The conflicts you named aren't really fights for survival, at least for the side that would be supposed to use genocide as solution. Besides, nationalism (in this form) is just as bad as racism if you ask me.

If a quick death is not problematic for you why bother in the first place? Most of the victims of a suicide-bomb attack die in the fraction of a second and it seems obvious that a small number of killed people offers less of a potential for misery through injury than a large number.

That's not what I said, my argument was only that someone who is willing to kill countless of people to prevent a relatively small threat to his own people must think that his own people are in some way superior or more valuable than others.

Equality seems to be a good reason not to kill others for most people though, as far as I know murder is illegal in most countries.
You can't really compare self-defence or punishment of criminals with slaughter of countless of innocents.

I have a hard time imagining AzH as a father, but nevertheless, pressing the big red button to get rid of problem groups does sound tempting, although not too realistic.

At the minute they're not fights for survival, but they will get that way if we do not do something about it. Our very way of life is being threatened and we, in our politically correct induced madness either stand by and watch or actually aid in it's destruction. Look at the immigration problems facing the developed world. In the US, Mexicans pour north in their millions. In Europe the opening of the eastern states has lead to an influx of immigrants invading the towns and cities of our nations. The war is being fought each day, and not through conventional means either. Here's a great example of what I am talking about:

Chinese Taking Over Russian Land

The chinese could essentially win this undeclared war through the power of mass migration. How many ethnic Chinese are there in Europe or the USA? Just the same as the Chinese in Russia you have the Mexicans in California, the asians in Great Britain, Albanians in Berlin. The list goes on. I'm sure every European on these forums can give you an example of immigrants in cities or towns close to them who refuse to integrate. We're being forced out of our homes through the migration of the same people that in less 'civilised' (and I use that word so very loosely) times would have been our enemies and victims of aggression against them. We're soft and we're losing.

Now, of the three examples I pulled out of the air, this only really applies to the Israel one. Simple demographics mean that eventually the Israelis will lose. The Pals will simply out-breed them, and there is not a lot you can do about that. Some guy in a shack in Palestinianville has 15 or 16 kids to three wives. His Jewish counterpart has one, maybe two? It's simple maths. The Palestinians will win this fight in the end.

Unless the Israelis opt for genocide (which ironically would not sit too good with the Jews, would it?).


It's a case of looking at the motive of the suicide bomber. He/she is not out to kill as many people as possible - okay, he is, but that's not the primary motivation. The suicide bomber is a weapon of terror. An arab blows up a bus full of Israelis, the Israelis are fearful and do not use the buses, business is affected, etc etc etc. The families of the victims of the suicide bomber are the real victims as opposed to those killed. They have to live with that loss for the rest of their lives. Knowing that the death was a futile death. That is the true purpose of terror.

The solution offered here is the eradication of the group/race/class whatever responsible for this. If you kill them all nobody but a few bleeding heart liberals would care. Of course in these days of instant communication the entire world would know about what you did and there would be some questions to answer. But if you're ensuring the survival of your way of life and the way of life of your children and your children's children, what's the big deal with explaining a little blood on your hands?

If that were the case, then to "fix all the problems faced in the world" a simple genocide of all Americans and western Europeans should indeed solve all the world's problems.

Or he might just think that all humans lack any innate worth, that worth is something earned rather than given.

In most western societies where murder is illegal it is also legal to commit abortion as a simple matter of convenience. Laws on murder have little to do with the value of human life and much to do with the value of social integration and practicality.

I just did. ;) My point being that the value of human life is a variable rather than a constant.

I guess it depends which conflict exactly you're talking about. I don't think the Kurds will ever be able to seriously threaten Turkey, just as insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan will never be able to invade the US.
Israel is a bit different as their defense against terrorism can trigger a reaction from countries in their region that could be a serious problem - but since they have so much support from the US their survival is probably assured for a while.

As for immigration, I agree that this can be a problem if it's not handled correctly (look at France), but it can also be the solution to other problems (birth rates in Germany, for example).


Well I don't know any immigrants who refuse to integrate, I know a lot of immigrants who have trouble integrating because they don't have the necessary means and I know a few Germans who make the whole thing even more difficult by being rather hostile towards immigrants.

As far as I'm concerned immigrants should be required to integrate themselves to an extent, that is happening here now through language tests. But apart from that they are welcome to practice whatever cultural habits they brought along as long as it's not bothering me - that's their right in a democracy.

Israel is rather wealthy and receives the (almost) latest in military technology, so I don't think they will lose any time soon.

Having more children doesn't help against Israel. Human wave attacks simply don't work very well in a desert.

There are alternative ways to deal with terrorists. Look at Ireland - it took quite a while but after all it has been better to convince the IRA with conventional means instead of dropping some nukes.


I'm sure a lot of people would care because this solution involves killing a large number of completly innocent people. As genocide is against international law it is also likely that the person responsible would end up in jail or be executed.

Using genocide to secure a way of life that is based on principles of enlightenment seems contraproductive anyway.

Which would be equally bad.

No, in most societies murder is actually considered morally wrong. It is true that it's also practical that people aren't allowed to kill others whenever they feel like it, but as you can deduce from most constitutions that is not the primary reason for such laws.

Human life is as valuable as we consider it to be. My point is that considering human life as constant value is generally better as it reduces the chances that someone gets funny ideas and starts killing those he considers to be worthless.

Is he serious? Really?



Genocide to solve the world's problems. Good one.

I wouldn't even bother going through the entire economic hardships that would be caused by nuking (primarily) our oil sources, or the difficulty of acquiring raw minerals, or of radiation spreading...

Not to mention the whole ethical issue, and the question of who is an "annoyance" that deserves to be vapourized.

I remember a month or two ago someone posted a thread about some guy theorizing that the only way to maintain constant stability on Earth is an almost complete removal of human beings. And people said stuff like

"OH NOES THAT WOULD INCLUDE MY COUNTRY WTF DID WE EVER DO!!!!"


I can't believe anyone would EVER suggest selective genocide. You say you're not like Hitler, but selective genocide IS WHAT HE DID. He isolated several minority groups who he thought were the basis of Germany's (and Europe's) source of all problems, and exterminated them. And you consolation is that it will be more or less painless???? (Which is not true, because most would die of radiation poisoning.)

Nice. Good one.

This always creates problems. Humans, do have a sort of inherent morality, yet a morality that can be easily walked around.
Would you murder someone you would see as an equal? Or would you gladly destroy someone who you believe to be under you? This excuse always comes to being.

Everyone deserves a chance. As towards what could harm a "way of life"changes depending on who you are, because everyone has a different way of living. Southern Plantation owners had a "way of life" that included slavery with the excuse of racial "superiority" which was simply a way of justifying what they were doing in their own minds to negate their conscience. If you eliminate all people who don't agree with you, then how much better are you than them, if not worse. Such a solution only resolves potential incident, it in itself is the action that it attempts to resolve.

Its simple to say you want to kill a whole race of peole from one country, have you ever met these people? I dont know if you know this but war is not a game its a human fighting a human, each with personailitys and a story to tell

Think about that, would you kill your best friend because he/she is from Iraq or looks abit different? Why dont we kill all Americans! I mean it was only a bunch of stupid politions that caused a war, but who cares, just because of there actions the whole American race needs to die.

Why don't we all just detonate all nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants, everyone is equal then, we all die

technically, we caused a war, but it has had good results, not that anyone notices

I smell irony!

Genocide...Hmm...

Interesting thought.

You have to remember that while it does have an element of sacrifice in it, if the USA drops some hydrogen bombs on these problematic areas I believe the gains of future generations would definetely outweigh the risks for this generation.

It might cause global war because of this, but other nations have to remember this: "Democracy" "Freedom" and "Peace" are matters of opinion, are relative, or are undefinable.

If someone has the guts to stand up and slaughter those who are responsible instead of puttering around because of "endangerment of civilians" and "political incorrectness", it would solve almost every problem.

The only thing wrong with this course of action is the retaliation from other factions. They'll just fly back to the old "You killed innocent civilians to get one deadly terrorist!" And the whole thing starts all over again.

Imagine this. A terrorist has a bomb strapped to his back, and over the bomb he has a man named John. He also has a gun, and is standing in a crowd of people.

If you had the power to instantly do so, would you detonate that bomb?

Sure, John's family and friends might be unhappy, but so is the family and friends of just about anyone else who dies. John dies, the terrorist dies, and maybe a few civilians in the crowd.

You waste time trying to get the civilians out of the way? The terrorist will start shooting up the crowd while you try to "get them out of the way". By not taking swift, decisive, powerful, firm, lethal action you will lose countless more lives. Two lives, quickly and painlessly gone, instead of a hundred dying of blood loss? Which way would you want to die? Which way would benefit those around you more?

The only possible way to attain world peace would be for a nation to be so powerful it DID/WOULD wipe out everything in the world except its own.

What is the point of trying to attain world peace when the very idea is fundamentally against human nature?

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.

Let me just name a few, I know I'll miss plenty.
People's Republic of China,
Cambodia,
East Timor,
Sudan(for decades now, why bother trying to make treaties anymore?),
Bosnia/former Yugoslavia,
Rwanda,
DRC/Zaire/whatever else it has been named,
Burma/Myanmar,
Malaysia(the suppression of that rebellion was accomplished mainly by genocide),
Indonesia,
Iraq,
Iran,
the ones on this list:http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POSTWWII.TAB.GIF, coming out to about 10 million...

Genocide, yay. Instead of specifically executing the real trouble makers, you are just going to massacre lots and lots of innocent. And then you'd still be left with your troublemakers at home, including those trouble makers who suggest massmurder for solving problems.

If you are suggesting a genocide as a solution, then you are just as bad as the people you are having in mind when suggesting this.Well, the actual question is whether the Jews were a real problem or just a scapegoat.

Regardless, eliminating a scapegoat won't solve the actual problem, but make it seemingly disappear, until the problem comes through again and a new scapegoat must be found.

Overall, this is really subjective. The people who appear troublesome to you might see you as troublesome.

Also, if you are not open to peace right now, seeing how this is a rather ignorant suggestion, why should there surprisingly be peace when this suggestion prevails?


P.S.: Utilitarianism fails.

Death that occurs close to you has obviously more of an impact, but that doesn't mean that the life of the people who died was more valuable or that they somehow earned your respect, it just means that they were closer to you.



What do you mean with that? In most societies murder is considered morally wrong and sanctioned by law at the same time.

Even if you were right and abortion was morally wrong in every case that would only mean that people are inconsequent in their behaviour, which is still better than flat out accepting or even supporting murder.


Speak for yourself. In my experience people are able to control their destructive urges using basic moral concepts.

It is nothing new that people have the potential to do great harm, but that does not mean that using this potential is inevitable. If history shows us cases of people who comitted genocide then this only means that those people had a rather strange set of moral concepts. Just look at those parts of history where people managed to live together without devastating conflicts.


Even then I doubt that you'd end up with less dead. Let's just take a conflict and do the math. Afghanistan during Soviet rule, for example. I took this conflict because it fits to the ones described in the first post and ended when the Soviets decided to leave.
Genocide of the population would have caused 20-30 million deaths vs. one or two million dead on Afghanistan's side and some ten thousand Soviet soldiers.
If you like you can add the casualties from the current conflcts as well, it's still a much smaller number.

And don't forget that in a conventional war a lot of the people killed are soldiers while genocide does not differ between those responsible and innocents.


If you're seriously advocating genocide as means of solving problems why stop there? You could just as well abolish due proess and simply shoot all those accused of a cimre. Chances are you will kill less innocents that way.


What most people here seem to forget is that in order to use genocide you'd first have to convert to a police-state or something similar.

Death solves all of lifes problems. Though it's the ultimate solution, an extreme solution.

Second best solution would be to be selfish and not care about other nations/powers. It would for example save a lot of recourses to leave Africa alone (nevermind who drained the country of the recourses).

The generally favoured solution is to aid others, either because of a feeling of guilt or because it's "the right thing to do". This will cost you recources (men, food, money, ...) though but is rewarded by making people feel good for doing "the right thing". To coornidate such "third party interverence" you probbly would need a independant or atleast democratic power. This is currently resembled by the UN. Though the UN has it's flaws (one country having more power for a certain reason then an other for example).

Good question. I think it mostly has to do with correcting past fuckups. "we are responsible for the current mess, we ought to correct this".

I wish I had time right now to reply to all the points raised properly, but I really need an hour or so to sit down and go through this. As I'm at work this is not currently possible. Maybe I will have time tonight. I just wanted to say before this goes off on a tangent, that you're (not all but some) getting the wrong impression.

The dictionary definition of genocide is:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Thos examples Crazy Wolf supplied of genocide are not true cases. They are attempts, but were never successful. In WWII the Nazis attempted the genocide of the Jews, they were not successful. If the group or race survives it is mass murder rather than genocide. Only if the group is rendered extinct is it true genocide.

You guys need to start looking at the bigger picture. Fancy-schmancy, when talking about war I was referring to the ideological/racial battle between the Palestinians and the Jews. You're trying to dump that into conventional terms. Sure, yes, human wave tactics do not work on open ground, sure, yes, the Israelis are backed by American might and firepower, but you're not seeing the situation as it is. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to fight a war. Look at the Cold War, fought through proxy forces and the power of capitalism versus socialism. Look at Gandhi's struggle. Was the fight for Indian independence not a war? The war has enveloped us all and we sleep soundly in our beds at night. The war is on our streets, in our towns. We live and work with the enemy and don't realise it.

If the war is to preserve your way of life and your way of life is changed through immigration, have you lost that war? No a single shot was fired but the war was lost regardless.

In the southern states of America, the Mexicans are taking control. They work better and cheaper than the whites which means Americans lose jobs. Without a job there is no money, without money there is no power. If you have a million Mexicans to 500,000 Americans and there is an election between an American candidate and a Mexican candidate. Who would win? Human nature is to stick to racial lines. We like to think we're a multi-cultural hands-across-the-ocean global society, but the news and history tells a different story. In Iraq the Iraqis, the Kurds and the Turks are embroiled in a struggle. The Sunnis and the Shi-ites are against each other. Do you think that the Mexicans are going to embrace your ways and your people? They're going to stick together and you're going to lose this war you don't even know you're in.

Here in the UK, the Asians are migrating in their thousands. Entire cities are being turned over to immigrants. The original population moves out and they are replaced by more immigrants, because these groups stick together. There is talk of adopting Shariah Law in the UK. Shariah Law!!! We've grown so soft that we do not see the hidden invasion. First come the people, then the customs, then the laws. We sit idly by hooked on shite TV and junk food and oblivious to the battle that goes on. Our way of life is being eroded and we're doing nothing about it.

But I digress. I'll come back to this when I can. Hopefully tonight. Just don't dismiss this off hand.

Also, don't make comments like this:

Because that's just retarded. . .

If your idea actually happened, the "side" causing the most trouble and being the biggest threat would be the one commiting the genocide. In which case it would be best for world peace if the side advocating the genocide of the other would be the one to die out.

Besides, you are assuming that everyone goes along with it. If enough people were disgusted at the government for eliminating millions of innocent people, don't you think that they would become the new trouble makers?



Just out of curiosity, is your genocide idea merely an "I bet I can out-argue these people even if I argue in favour of something totally ridiculous" kind of thing? Or are you more of a nutter than I first thought?

This is a problematic topic, but please follow Pub-rules anyway.

Like I said, I agree that immigration can be a problem but there are other options than completly stopping it.
I think it is not right to call this a hidden invasion. People migrate mostly because of economic differences between countries or prosecution in their homeland, not because they all have a secret plan to take over a country. It is of course possible that a result of migration is a change of one's culture but it should be possible to stop such a change if it is not wanted (we have laws to put radical immigrants are under surveillance, for example).
There are already so many immigrants in most European countries that a hostile stance towards foreigners will make segregation only worse.

As for Israel, I don't really know what you mean. They've been under all sorts of attacks since their state was founded but they still seem to do rather well. There may have been points in Israel's history where it was close to being wiped off the map, but then Israel was facing conventional war. The current problems (mostly rocket-attacks and sometimes suicie-bombers) don't really seem so bad compared to that.

Well, the Holocaust as an example of a mostly successful geocide so far as you define it as removal of a people from a place. Prior to 1940 there were some 500,000 Jews in Germany. 1945? about 10,000. Thats a hell of a population reduction.

It was "meant" to solve a growing depression in Germany, through the holocaust they killed and looted part of German after labeling them non German, though ultimately they "solved" their depression by robbing Germany for the good of Germany.

The issues you bring up AZH are more closely related to inept governments remaining inept while well-abled citizens watch it crumble. Genocide is not needed to fix this issue, following the rules of nature and logic are. World peace is attainable if evil is rooted out; the real question is whether or not people around the globe are willing to do so. If the answer to the question is no, nature will automatically reset after we kill each other.

I just have to say Azh that tears formed…. quickly wiped away…while reading your text of “All men were created equal, but after creation the equality stops”. ;)

Wish I had more time to discuss but I will add something useless later. More important things to consider :beer::beer:

Rooting out something indefinable as "evil" cannot be a logical concept.

But what could be more dangerous for the existence of a civilisation than misanthropic logical concepts without ethics?

Examples of genocide/mass murder as an effective way to get rid of a certain set of problems(often creating a new set, but not always)

Sudanese termination of the Dinka people.
Laotian termination of the Hmong people(the survivors are hunted like dogs in their homeland and the rest are in Thailand or the USA)
American near-annihilation of the majority of American indigenous tribes, total annihilation(by Americans, Mexicans, or other European-based states) of tribes like the:
Of course, you could argue that we didn't eliminate them all, but the estimated number of inhabitants before white men came to the Americas of inhabitants is about 100 million. We pared that down by a digit or so.

Seems more like relocating problems, instead of solving and creating new ones.

Evil does not need to be defined in order to be moved away from. It seems you are attempting to throw into logic with the ethics part of my argument when I did not intend that. That's an issue of clarification.

Do we even have enough bullet for all this? This topic really creeps me out, killing so many people just because a few thousand of them piss you off.

How can you fight something you cannot even define?

The second part of my last post was not directed at you.

Competition for scarce and finite resources and space compounded by mans inability to manage his own numbers in a sustainable way? Genocide isnt evil, its just the end result of natural selection writ large. You can sugar coat it any way you prefer and people will always try to tack a justification onto it whether it be religious, racial or economic but at the end of the day the real reason will be because one side wants theirs and their own to be successful and if that comes at someone elses expense, so be it.

A striking summary. But I feel uneasy regarding your (?) conclusion ("so be it").

If a vague definition of justice can be arrived at (without having to set forth crystal clear terms), we can move towards good and away from evil. This is possible only by laying down a universal framework, such as individual rights. If the ability for individual rights to be trampled upon is limited, whether this be in the state where the strong rule the weak, or a large government, there is less of a possibility for individual rights to be removed. That's simple enough and evil does not need to be defined in that situation. It is essentially stating that by limiting the amount of "bad" things that can happen (such as a violation of individual rights), we can move towards more good things without having to get into the nitty-gritty of a centralized definition. For more objective terms, it's like moving a vague circle of the sense of right and wrong along an axis of justice and injustice without having to define either/or.

More towards the topic:

There's a TV show that I love that appeared on FOX back in 1999, but was canceled after just 13 episodes. The show was Brimstone. You guys can look up the plot, but it has a great line:

The Devil: These microbes never cease to amaze me. An orgy of pain and suffering in such a little tiny package. You really have to give that old bitch Mother Nature a lot of credit.

Stone: Mother Nature? What the hell she's got to do with this? Pain and suffering's your domain, isn't it?

The Devil: Please, Ezekiel. My job's not to decide who lives and dies. My business is with the soul. And I have never damned a soul who didn't thoroughly deserve it. Mother Nature is a completely different story. She kills indiscriminately, good and evil alike. Why she gets all the good press, I'll never know.