The earth will be destroyed Scenario

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
The earth will cease to support life in 10 years

The top countries pool their resources together to create a gigantic faster than light space station.

They complete this project with only 1 year remaining.

Who should they save?
 
Values Clarification

The teaching here about choosing which people to essentially murder is sometimes doverailed into a whole system of thought called, “values clarification”.

Lisa Contini has discussed this system of pedagogy in Homiletic and Pastoral Review (can be seen here)

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3512

Here is a brief quote (with parenthetical additions) mine.
(Values clarification recipients when being taught how to think this way) "are supposed to base their (“ethical”) choice primarily on the information they received in class (and on their feelings), rather than upon moral absolutes they learned at home or in church.
God bless.

Cathoholic

A systematic examination of values clarification techniques and their negative impact on moral formation and the development of conscience.
Larger Work

Homiletic & Pastoral Review
Pages

20-29
Publisher & Date

Ignatius Press, 2515 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94118, November 2000

QUOTE:
Values Clarification Destroys Conscience

by Lisa Marie Contini


Despite the passage of twenty-some years and the enormous void of forgotten moments, memory has mysteriously preserved a seemingly odd high school lesson in what I thought was critical thinking. My English teacher distributed a single mimeographed page to each student. The heading briefly explained a challenging scenario. It went something like this:

One hour ago, Flight 13, miles off course, crashed in an extremely remote, completely unpopulated area. The aircraft’s emergency locator transmitter was destroyed. There are 17 survivors and it is highly unlikely that they will be discovered for at least several weeks. There is only enough food and liquids available for nine people for three weeks. Their location is a wasteland: no vegetation, no wild game, no lakes or streams. The survivors are solely dependent on the food stores in the wreckage. You are one of the survivors. You are to determine which nine people should be allowed to eat. The group has agreed to abide by your decision.

Underneath this paragraph and along the left margin was a list describing the remaining 16 survivors in brief. There was a 91-year-old woman, a three-year-old child and her mother, a basketball player, a 49-year-old priest with arthritic knees, a medical student and his kleptomaniac wife (inseparable), a prostitute, a scientist, a fashion model, a young lawyer on anti-depressants, a Hollywood starlet, a homosexual, and so on. Given about ten minutes to work individually, my classmates and I were to determine which eight unfortunate souls would have to starve to death. My teacher made it very clear that there were no right or wrong answers; the exercise was to make us think, or so I thought.

Moments later, a heated but cordial debate ensued. Who would live and who would die? Which lives were the most valuable? Which survivors could most contribute to the ongoing survival of the nine? Who were expendable? Some of the questions were extremely thought provoking. Would eight able-bodied people sentenced to starve to death passively endure their fate or would they have to be restrained? What would be done with their corpses? If rescue required more than three weeks, would the nine chosen to live consume the flesh of their deceased fellow travelers?

Yet no one asked the most pertinent question of all: Isn’t it morally wrong to force eight people to starve to death?

Years later I realized that the plane crash exercise was not about critical thinking. Rather, it was a typical values clarification classroom strategy. The lesson was designed to indoctrinate students with a very specific message: that some people have a fundamental right to choose life or death for others. Simply by participating in the exercise until its conclusion, students affirm the lesson’s personal choice agenda, and submit unsuspectingly to morally dangerous indoctrination. . . . . .

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3512
 
Clearly, atheists and non-believers will be the first ones pleading. I look forward to the next life. Come, Lord Jesus!
 
The earth will cease to support life in 10 years

The top countries pool their resources together to create a gigantic faster than light space station.

They complete this project with only 1 year remaining.

Who should they save?
Assuming that not choosing means everyone dies it would seem the way to answer this starts with who gets left behind. First would be to explain the situation and ask who volunteers to stay behind.

Next is survivability. No point getting saved just to have a medical condition kill you. Realistically, drug manufacturing requires a level of agriculture unlikely to exist in this situation.
  1. Those with medical conditions that require treatment and/or drugs unlikely to be available. Specifically conditions that are deadly or debilitating without treatment.
  2. The leadership countries/groups whom have actively attempted to kill you. Basically terrorists and pirate leadership.
Who to save:
  1. The crew
From the remaining pool, conduct a lottery for 99% of the seats. The last 1% is a special lottery to ensure enough fertile couples are on board.

A lottery is the only “fair” system.
 
Values Clarification

The teaching here about choosing which people to essentially murder is sometimes doverailed into a whole system of thought called, “values clarification”.

Lisa Contini has discussed this system of pedagogy in Homiletic and Pastoral Review (can be seen here)

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3512

Here is a brief quote (with parenthetical additions) mine.

God bless.

Cathoholic

A systematic examination of values clarification techniques and their negative impact on moral formation and the development of conscience.
Larger Work

Homiletic & Pastoral Review
Pages

20-29
Publisher & Date

Ignatius Press, 2515 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94118, November 2000

QUOTE:
Values Clarification Destroys Conscience

by Lisa Marie Contini


Despite the passage of twenty-some years and the enormous void of forgotten moments, memory has mysteriously preserved a seemingly odd high school lesson in what I thought was critical thinking. My English teacher distributed a single mimeographed page to each student. The heading briefly explained a challenging scenario. It went something like this:

One hour ago, Flight 13, miles off course, crashed in an extremely remote, completely unpopulated area. The aircraft’s emergency locator transmitter was destroyed. There are 17 survivors and it is highly unlikely that they will be discovered for at least several weeks. There is only enough food and liquids available for nine people for three weeks. Their location is a wasteland: no vegetation, no wild game, no lakes or streams. The survivors are solely dependent on the food stores in the wreckage. You are one of the survivors. You are to determine which nine people should be allowed to eat. The group has agreed to abide by your decision.

Underneath this paragraph and along the left margin was a list describing the remaining 16 survivors in brief. There was a 91-year-old woman, a three-year-old child and her mother, a basketball player, a 49-year-old priest with arthritic knees, a medical student and his kleptomaniac wife (inseparable), a prostitute, a scientist, a fashion model, a young lawyer on anti-depressants, a Hollywood starlet, a homosexual, and so on. Given about ten minutes to work individually, my classmates and I were to determine which eight unfortunate souls would have to starve to death. My teacher made it very clear that there were no right or wrong answers; the exercise was to make us think, or so I thought.

Moments later, a heated but cordial debate ensued. Who would live and who would die? Which lives were the most valuable? Which survivors could most contribute to the ongoing survival of the nine? Who were expendable? Some of the questions were extremely thought provoking. Would eight able-bodied people sentenced to starve to death passively endure their fate or would they have to be restrained? What would be done with their corpses? If rescue required more than three weeks, would the nine chosen to live consume the flesh of their deceased fellow travelers?

Yet no one asked the most pertinent question of all: Isn’t it morally wrong to force eight people to starve to death?

Years later I realized that the plane crash exercise was not about critical thinking. Rather, it was a typical values clarification classroom strategy. The lesson was designed to indoctrinate students with a very specific message: that some people have a fundamental right to choose life or death for others. Simply by participating in the exercise until its conclusion, students affirm the lesson’s personal choice agenda, and submit unsuspectingly to morally dangerous indoctrination. . . . . .

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3512
I am not sure that in this case it would necessarily be murder if they leave people behind. Leaving people behind in this scenario is unavoidable.
 
Did it really happen? Science says there’s no evidence of a world wide flood.
Ok, what kind of evidence is science searching for, and what branch of science is involved

Are you Catholic
 
Pick Me , Pick Me , Pick Me ,Pick Me,

UM, can I bring my Wife along, she might get Cranky if I leave her behind !
 
Is believing in the literal history of a world wide flood a requirement of being Catholic?
Just a couple of comments, yes there is a lot of scientific evidence for a great flood; No you don’t have to believe in it if you are Catholic; I’m not sure how to pick who lives and who dies. What’s your idea?
 
The earth will cease to support life in 10 years

The top countries pool their resources together to create a gigantic faster than light space station.

They complete this project with only 1 year remaining.

Who should they save?
Douglas Adams uses this scenario. Three arks are built, and the first to leave has on board people such as toothbrush advisers, walking coordinators and sandwich artists. They are told they have the important task of preparing the new home planet for everyone else.

The other two arks never take off, as the whole scare story was just a ruse to get rid of all the time-wasters in non-jobs :D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top