Which scenario would be more catastrophic for the advancement of humankind?

Say that tomorrow one every single person composing the following groups died:

Group A: Artists, writers, playwrights, movie producers, anyone in entertainment, actors, historians, talking heads, etc

OR

Group B: Electrical, mechanical, petroleum, chemical, nuclear, computer, biomedical, ... engineers, pharmaceutical researchers, CDC scientists, software developers, actuaries, architects, etc

The loss of which group would hinder our progression as humans the most would you say?

Bonus: The loss of which group would cause for a huge stock market crash?

what do you think putinbot?

Everyone in group A are useless minus Historians and writers.

Originally posted by SquallX
Everyone in group A are useless minus Historians and writers.

I'm having a hard time countering this argument mmm

@Putinbot1 we need your fatherly wisdom

You mean which group brought us Global Warming, Atomic Bombs, possibly AI and Bioweapons etc? You mean which group are more likely to accidentally end mankind or provide the tools for some maniac to do so? Which group are most likely to hinder mankind by ending it? 🙂

Originally posted by Putinbot1
You mean which group brought us Global Warming, Atomic Bombs, possibly AI and Bioweapons etc? You mean which group are more likely to accidentally end mankind or provide the tools for some maniac to do so? Which group are most likely to hinder mankind by ending it? 🙂

😆

Originally posted by Putinbot1
You mean which group brought us Global Warming, Atomic Bombs, possibly AI and Bioweapons etc? You mean which group are more likely to accidentally end mankind or provide the tools for some maniac to do so? Which group are most likely to hinder mankind by ending it? 🙂

Dammit, I honestly thought OP got you this time. I didn't respond because here's my take:

There is far too much overlap in both. You'd end up killing some of the greatest minds off if one or the other had to go. And you'd end up with highly specialized people that may not be practical enough to explore outside of their focus.

Really, at the end of the day, all that tech and science crap is because some philosophers deigned to ask a few questions. Upon the foundations of philosophers is built the entirety of modern science and technology.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dammit, I honestly thought OP got you this time. I didn't respond because here's my take:

There is far too much overlap in both. You'd end up killing some of the greatest minds off if one or the other had to go. And you'd end up with highly specialized people that may not be practical enough to explore outside of their focus.

Really, at the end of the day, all that tech and science crap is because some philosophers deigned to ask a few questions. Upon the foundations of philosophers is built the entirety of modern science and technology.

Unfortunately for these kids DDDM, this is not Scooby Do. 🙂

Good post, DDM.

But the OP reminded me a little of World War Z (the book), where in the ashes of the old world, the new world has a new hierchy and pecking order, where the blue collar plumber who can fix a toilet has far more value than the former white collar CEO of film corporation who is all but useless now aside from menial labor.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good post, DDM.

But the OP reminded me a little of World War Z (the book), where in the ashes of the old world, the new world has a new hierchy and pecking order, where the blue collar plumber who can fix a toilet has far more value than the former white collar CEO of film corporation who is all but useless now aside from menial labor.

CoM is a superb film (not read the book) and far superior to WWZ. Once it gets going, it's a linear ride all the way up. Few films do that.

Originally posted by Robtard
CoM is a superb film (not read the book) and far superior to WWZ. Once it gets going, it's a linear ride all the way up. Few films do that.

Have not. Will look into it, thanks.

To touch back on DDM's great point, think of things that were first written about as science fiction and then later became reality. Space travel, nuclear weapons, automated doors, deep sea diving etc. etc. Verne, Wells, Asimov, all ahead of their time and used as inspiration by the minds that would eventually take those ideas and make them real.

TLDR:

Both groups are needed for any world someone might enjoy living in.

Originally posted by Robtard
Have not. Will look into it, thanks.

To touch back on DDM's great point, think of things that were first written about as science fiction and then later became reality. Space travel, nuclear weapons, automated doors, deep sea diving etc. etc. Verne, Wells, Asimov, all ahead of their time and used as inspiration by the minds that would eventually take those ideas and make them real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTaYrm1mdMU

Originally posted by Surtur
TLDR:

Both groups are needed for any world someone might enjoy living in.

Originally posted by Surtur
TLDR:

Both groups are needed for any world someone might enjoy living in.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Unironically one of your best posts and one of the better posts period in recent memory. 👆

Originally posted by Putinbot1
You mean which group brought us Global Warming, Atomic Bombs, possibly AI and Bioweapons etc? You mean which group are more likely to accidentally end mankind or provide the tools for some maniac to do so? Which group are most likely to hinder mankind by ending it? 🙂

Which group brought you the Internet, Paper, Movie Theaters, Smartphones, Electrical Power to RUN all of the Very Important Devices everyone now uses?

How could we get PootButts' Fabulous KNOWLEDGE if Computers and the Web were not Created?

What I may have just changed my mind.....

😱