Background - Imagine a world where suddenly everybody has a new power - all they have to do to kill someone is to think the thought. So say if Bill wants to kill John - he just has to think "I want John to die" and then John is dead.

Some rules

  • you don't need to know the name or the face of the person you kill. But you do need to be able to distinguish this person from another person. I'm still working on this rule but say for example, if you met a masked man, you couldn't just kill the masked man. But if the masked man say started talking to you and you got to know him and was able to form a distinction in your mind between him and another masked man, then you could kill him.
  • when someone dies, no one knows who killed him
  • the power is something you can use impulsively but not accidentally. Like you can't think "if John forgets to submit the TPS report again, I'm going to kill him" and then he won't forget to do it and die.

So I imagine, anyone famous would be the first to go. I mean, Justin Bieber has a lot of fans but he really just needs one enemy. And then I imagine everyone would go into hiding because if no one knows you exist, no one can think kill you.

But after that, how could a society exist and function? Will it be possible to have leaders?

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ You mentioned that a person can kill another based on being able to identify them. Does this extend to killing groups of people who share a common characteristic? Could you kill everyone in <ethic group/religion> just by thinking "I wish every <individual in ethnic group> was dead!" $\endgroup$
    – Green
    Commented Jun 13, 2015 at 16:40
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ Do you know "Death Note"..? not fully the same, but it gives you idea... $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 13, 2015 at 17:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Another fictional example: Shin Sekai Yori (From the New World). In short: society collapses and is rebuilt upon mind control (to enforce non-violence) from birth and culling at the first sign of anti-social behavior in any of the telekinetic youth. $\endgroup$
    – Mark H
    Commented Jun 14, 2015 at 11:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also relevant: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lullaby_(Palahniuk_novel) Another thought: we are basically living in such a world already, there is almost nothing stopping anyone from just going out and stabbing someother to death with a kitchen knive. Only thing holding us back is social norms. $\endgroup$
    – fho
    Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 9:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd just like to suggest making it even more interesting by throwing in the counter in that people can also bring anyone back to life just by thinking about it. Not rising from the grave or anything, but they can essentially will that person into existence as they were at any stage of their life. This could be amazing or totally evil in so many ways. $\endgroup$
    – thanby
    Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 14:47

9 Answers 9


The phrase ultimate paranoia comes to mind.

Let's suppose that every human being has this power from the inception of active thought, say around the age of 2.

The Young

People don't have a firm grasp of what death is until as late as the age of seven. From the same link, those below the age of four typically don't understand that death is final. So three-year-olds who are socially inept or unstable may quickly resort to the death wish to make those bothering them go away. The young are still exploring their world, who they are, and what they can do. As the age of four rolls around, you're going to see a wave of deaths as the young discover that they can make people dead. It'll be fun for them, since there's no risk involved.

The Teenagers

Starting around the age of ten, humans experience hormonal activity that spawns a plethora of dangerous activities and emotional discord. Anyone who's seen the stereotypical teen in movies and shows is sure to know the line "I hate you! I wish you were dead!" Feel free to congratulate the teen for killing the object of their anger.

The Adults

We like to think we're civilized, but our modern society is built on the savagery of those who came before us. Parts of the Middle East are experiencing the savagery the West went through already. Charlemagne conducted experiments on living humans to understand how the body functioned (they weren't pretty). If all adults had the death wish, they could visit death on anyone they chose. Terrorists would have nearly unlimited power. The death wish would return our precariously stable society to a state of savagery.

What Does It Mean

Society vanishes overnight. Anyone with a name dies, from the MVP on the opposing basketball team to a woman's husband's mistress to the President of the United States. Everyone who remains goes into seclusion as far from others as they can. Upon first making contact with someone else, the best option is to kill the other, before they can kill you. Society is based on trust and the expectation of trust in return, but a society where anyone can visit death on anyone else at any time is a society without trust.

  • 10
    $\begingroup$ The short answer the title question then is: It doesn't. $\endgroup$
    – Samuel
    Commented Jun 13, 2015 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Samuel Sure, but short answers aren't as much fun to write! :) $\endgroup$
    – Frostfyre
    Commented Jun 13, 2015 at 16:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This would make a great horror story if this ability magically appeared overnight :) $\endgroup$
    – simonzack
    Commented Jun 14, 2015 at 1:07
  • $\begingroup$ @LightnessRacesinOrbit In case you haven't seen, there's a meta thread about these comments. Worth a read. $\endgroup$
    – ArtOfCode
    Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 16:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Joze My answer does identify how a society would function: it doesn't. Because it can't function, there can't be leaders. Which makes this an answer to the question. $\endgroup$
    – Frostfyre
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 13:32

Assuming the "only for adults" rule, only individuals can be targeted and not entire groups, there's going to be lots of dead people, really fast. I'm imagining a mechanism akin to Avada Kedavra (but without wands and at any distance) from the Harry Potter universe where if you don't really mean it, it won't actually do anything.

Very violent communities would implode immediately as everyone who had a grudge would be able to exercise it. The luck of the draw would dictate who lives and who dies. Instances of symmetric murderous intent will resolve themselves very quickly.

Some answers say that humanity would become a species of hermits and I disagree. Certainly there are those who would become hermits, who do everything they can to be forgotten but the benefits of maintaining a society are too great to force everyone into permanent seclusion.

Murderous psychopaths probably won't last long if their technique involves rape or torture of their victim first, as I'm considering a fight-or-flight instinct to be sufficiently strong for a victim to want to kill their attacker. There will be those crazy socio/psychopaths who may simply walk through phone books picking people at random then wishing them dead, just because it's fun.

Day Zero: No one knows they have the power but exercise it out of ignorance. Soldiers in firefights drop like flies. Lots of world leaders, popular and unpopular alike drop dead immediately, as do many celebrities. Anyone awake and thinking about a murderous grudge they have against someone is going to find that grudge immediately dead. The first day will see a huge spike in apparent homicides but by and large the death toll will be relatively small compared to world population.

Week One: Eventually, people will figure out they have this power and this knowledge will begin to spread through the populace. Panic will strike many and the level of paranoia will go off the charts. Social networks will see a huge decrease in activity or huge increases in people checking their privacy settings to make sure that only people they already know can identify them. A second wave of murders will ensue because people know they have the power and can exercise it against individuals they don't like. Members of lists of powerful industrialists/billionaires will vanish. While there will be a lot of deaths at this stage, I don't think the toll will be super high because you can only kill people you personally know. So even if someone is wildly racist, they can't exercise that murder lust because they don't actually know all that many people in that ethnic group.

Some peaceful communities will never discover they have this power.

Months: Probate courts will cease to function. There will be too many deaths to figure out who gets what. The economy will likely collapse because people are too worried to go to work because they worry about who's going to kill them if they go out in public. I don't know if this will precipitate a death spiral as everyone kills everyone else for the last remaining food/water/medical supplies or if the economy will restabilize at a lower level.

Years: Eventually, society will calm down around the new norm. All the really violent people will be gone. Society would stabilize around tribes and very tight-knit, geographically close communities near the Dunbar Number. At this stage, the communities would resemble Earth societies where everyone carries a gun. Crimes will be committed by stealth and in the dark because openly committed crimes can be instantly punished by death. People who show themselves incapable of exercising the insta-death power responsibly will not be around too long. Very strong social norms will arise around the exercise of insta-death with strong training for children and teenagers.

Edit to answer comment: Since you can only be attacked by people you know, the population at large will become very very careful about who knows them and who knows others. The human tendency to gossip about what So-and-So is doing or some tragedy that Whatserface had will increase because that provides the critical information about who may be at risk of exercising the power when they shouldn't. Stats for the US (pdf) show that most of the time (78%), it's the people you know who kill you.

All kinds of alliances would appear to assure mutual destruction if someone goes crazy. Conversations like "Bro, I just had an argument with The-Ugly-One. If something happens to me, you know where to go looking."

The most likely people to be irresponsible with the power are young adults who haven't learned yet, people who go mentally insane for some reason and the elderly who are losing their minds. Young adults are easy to watch, as are the elderly. I hope that psycho/sociopaths who use the power to kill would be found quickly though there's nothing to stop them from killing by conventional means too. But it's a tougher thing to pull off. You have to know your victim to some degree and you have to do it fast enough that the victim doesn't know it's you trying to kill them.

Society would also likely build up a strong martial art around the exercise of the power. Just like kids taught karate are strongly disciplined on when and where to use their abilities, the same would be true for people using the power.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ People who show themselves incapable of exercising the insta-death power responsibly will not be around too long. How do you identify them? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 9:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Since a normal person's vulnerability to attack is the set of people they know and human communities have shrunk dramatically since the power arrived, the community at large will know when someone isn't doing well or becomes unhinged. Young kids new to the power will be watched especially close to see how they manage it. $\endgroup$
    – Green
    Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 11:53

Several answers have covered the catastrophic consequences of this power, both in the short term and as we approach near-extinction. Let's talk about how a society could stay meaningfully connected despite its new handicap, assuming it doesn't destroy itself within days.


@Frostfyre covered the problems that arise from infants/toddlers/teenagers being able to kill with a thought. Assuming we can't save the ability until adulthood (and that that would help), how do we survive our offspring?

The cop out

Maybe children are actually safe. Certainly in normal circumstances, accidentally dropping a brick from a roof will kill someone as effectively as intentionally doing it, but this power comes with the explicit definition that you won't accidentally kill someone. If you don't yet understand that people can end forever, can you intend to end them forever? However, even your child remembering you from when they were 5 is a persistent danger.


Infants can be nurtured safely until they develop coherent thoughts at all, which gives them a year or two to be raised by their parent(s). Once they develop any kind of intentional action or understanding of cause and effect, they are moved to solitary confinement.

In isolation, interaction happens through modulated video and audio, and necessary physical presence is done in a uniform that masks face and body (we do this today to maintain wildness in rescued animals). Either we must trust caretakers, or the children are also in uniform, and every interaction is randomized to avoid familiarity and recognition. Education is automated and self-taught as much as possible. Of course, this will have enormous detrimental effects on later social behavior and mental health.


At some point, you have to learn to be a part of society; we can't just bring you out of a room after years in confinement and expect you to function. We can't even do that properly with sane, convicted adults today. So as you grow up, you get "friends" to the extent that it's safe. First, you learn to play a game with a computer - a very mechanical game, with no real room for improvisation or creativity. When you're consistent at it, you play it with other children: in isolation over a terminal, then through glass, then eventually in the same room. Both of you are in uniform, and if either of you deviates from the game in a way that might identify somebody, the game is cut short. The game gradually becomes more social until it involves multiple other people and more freedom, but at that point you've all learned consistent-enough behavioral skills that short interactions are feasible without leaving an impression of individuality.


Society needs some way of determining a person is fit to enter it, and passing calculus is too low a bar. To be considered an adult and emerge from your childhood confinement, you must pass rigorous psychological and behavioral screening. Constant observation during adolescence provides history to a panel that makes the decision. If we don't trust our caretakers, this observation is anonymized - a pool of workers is given short clips of random, uniformed children and asked to document their behavior. Graduates are allowed into society on the basis that their education ideally has prepared them to control their impulses, but at least taught them to keep themselves indistinguishable.

What happens to those deemed unfit to enter society is left as an exercise for the reader.

Social norms

On the assumption that you trust no one, or very few people, social interactions hinge on conducting oneself anonymously. The most obvious aspect of that is a uniform that masks your face, body shape, gait, voice, any anything else we're concerned about. I'm thinking Rorschach jumpsuits and voice modulators. Maybe people express themselves through fashion, but if they do, that season's color is truly ubiquitous. The morning news tells you what the most people are wearing that day, and on Friday we all wear Hawaiian shirts.

You don't have a name, or if you do, it lasts only as long as the current interaction. Conversation is terse and communicates only the necessary information, with no displayed emotion or identifying idiosynchracies. Come to think of it, when this calamity strikes, hope you're on Vulcan. People with identifying characteristics like tics, speech impediments, or unmaskable physical differences leave their home at great risk.

You don't tell anyone where you live. You move frequently so your neighbors don't notice your habits, which you do your best to randomize. Either you have a dozen different soaps so you smell different every day, or everyone uses the same generic brand.


A plethora of automated assistants appear that help you manage yourself. They alert you if you use a phrase unusually often or visit the same coffeeshop too regularly. Everybody uses them, and no one talks about them, because they warn you not to mention what they warn you about.

All browsers block ads and use Tor, because a database of identifying marketing information is a database of death wishes. Either Facebook shutters itself on ethical grounds, or the rush to delete profiles DDoSes the site into oblivion.

Your cell phone is paid for in cash or cryptocurrency (credit cards collapsed right along with the marketing industry) and randomizes its IMEI constantly. Only data plans remain, since it's not like you're giving out your number. Soon, no one will remember why it's called a "phone".


Luckily, this dystopia doesn't need imposingly anonymous, masked police. Everyone's anonymous and masked, the police just carry guns. Most crime is unchanged, since "the masked man who stole my purse" isn't enough to kill, though identity theft is a cute euphemism for assassination.

Judicial proceedings are simplified because it's virtually a requirement that the defendant be arrested during or just after the crime is committed - otherwise, they have no identifying characteristics. They are kept in isolation both to protect them from the plaintiff and just to keep track of them until the trial, which consists of each person privately telling a judge their side. No one's entitled to a jury of their peers, and no one wants a dozen strangers getting to know them anyway. Fines must be assessed immediately. Prisons are 100% solitary confinement. Capital punishment amounts to publishing your face.


Everyone works on a team of people chosen at random from a pool representing their skill set. Coworkers rotate through constantly, because staying amongst the same people for any amount of time is dangerous. Everyone has at least two co-bosses, who are rotated similarly, and the redundant structure goes all the way to the top. This provides enough continuity for work to move forward without anyone being able to distinguish an individual, but there is efficiency lost in the constant churn.

Employee evaluation is pointless, since there is no lasting record or means to recommend you to future employers. Workplace issues like safety or harassment result in immediate termination, because there is no way of giving you three strikes. You get paid at the end of each day because there's no telling if you'll come in tomorrow. If you misrepresent your ability to do the job, they call the cops.


It's obviously difficult to develop friendships, let alone romantic involvement, though there are plenty of meetups for like-minded people in sufficient numbers. Making a real friend is one of the most difficult, dangerous, intimate things you can do. Everyone is constantly on guard and just passing through, but there is enough interaction that you'll eventually find just a small handful of people to very, very, very slowly get to know. Since everyone's passed their ready-for-society test, there's actually not as bad a trust baseline as their could be.

A sufficiently close relationship—which perhaps we could call marriage, though it doesn't have to be—is bonded by showing your faces to each other in the presence of a (safely masked) third party officiant. The officiant is employed by the state (or some other trusted entity), and gets a feed of recently deceased faces, which he checks every day for one of you. If one dies, he kills the other.

The officiant makes long-term relationships safe, sexual or not, but obviously that's a supremely high bar. All other sexual encounters are like the rest of society's interactions - brief, impersonal, and anonymous. Undressing is risky if you have an identifying birthmark, but alcohol helps erase the details. Seeing someone's face is the obvious fetish, and there's a whole industry around CGI heads and human masks.


That this society provides no room for error is stressful, but has its upside. Concern for their life if they tick someone off keeps them civil, maybe even kind. Pre-killing-power, calling someone a name might get you yelled at, but if you're not willing to risk death on the other person not figuring you out, you'll hold your tongue.

And for the most part, nobody wakes up wanting to kill people. Just as you're trying to avoid doing anything that'll get you noticed, you actively ignore everyone else so you don't accidentally gain the ability to end them. Everyone generally minds their own business and avoids conflict.


This society lives in constant fear of retribution for the slightest social misstep. They wear masks outside, try to look and act like everyone else, and don't open up to anyone in case it comes back to haunt them. Everybody exists in their own, isolated universe, passing by myriad other equally inscrutable, equally lonely people, always wondering if they can risk getting close or trusting someone.

But really, does that sound so different?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's a shame I only have upvote to give, but dear God a society of people who dress like Rorschach and act completely interchangeably is an awesome idea. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14, 2015 at 23:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JoshuaSnider: A Scanner Darkly, although presumably you could "kill Agent Fred" once he identifies himself as such. I wonder what happens if, over a period, you encounter several different people wearing scramble suits who all identify themselves to you as "Agent Fred", and who you incorrectly believe all to be the same person, and then wish that fictitious person dead while remembering a particular one of those meetings ;-) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ All the upvotes! This is a spectacular analysis of it, I thought of the intentional anonymity that this would produce, but not in so many details. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 1, 2015 at 17:47

You need to add another rule: the power manifests itself at adulthood.

Giving such power to children, who have difficulties with cause and effect anyways, would be pretty much catastrophic. Imagine a two-year-old whose tantrums are lethal.

Actually, it's been done. "It's A Good Life" by Jerome Bixby is really creepy.

Anthony Fremont is a three-year-old boy with near-godlike powers: he can transform other people or objects into anything he wishes, think new things into being, teleport himself and others where he wishes, read the minds of people and animals and even revive the dead.

Anthony's powers were present at birth, as he was able to kill the obstetrician

Anthony decides Dan is a "bad man" and turns him into some sort of horrific entity (described only as "something like nothing anyone would have believed possible") before "thinking" him into a deep grave in the cornfield.

Even with this addition, it's important to keep in mind that there are monsters among us. There are those who take deep offense at any imagined slight, and there are sociopaths who do not recognize other people as being "real". There are paranoid schizophrenics who imagine that virtually everybody is part of an organization which is deeply inimical. It won't take many of these to cause major loss of life and social breakdown. Then things get really bad.


Society will survive and eventually stabilize by making this impossible:

But you do need to be able to distinguish this person from another person.

And they will do this by loophole - make sure that all new births are identical twins (or triplets, or more), through a combination of in-vitro fertilization and fertility drugs. They could also, potentially, use plastic surgery and such to make people into "fake" twins.

Each pair will be given the exact same name and will maintain identical physical appearance and activities to keep themselves indistinguishable. They'll effectively be the same person, from a legal and society viewpoint. I'm aware this isn't how twins currently work, but since it's a matter of life and death I think they'll adjust.

This will limit the power's usefulness to close friends and family who are able to distinguish between the two somehow, by knowing them closely. Since purely physical criteria isn't enough:

you met a masked man, you couldn't just kill the masked man

You can't just say "kill John Doe on the right" - you need to know them, and if they're otherwise identical on a surface level the power will fail to function.

  • $\begingroup$ That's really brilliant. $\endgroup$
    – user8808
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ Really clever but I think people would likely use masks in addition, even if it wasn't that useful wearing a mask would provide make a lot of people feel safe, and if everyone wore a mask eventually people would be uncomfortable not wearing one in public. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6, 2015 at 21:10
  • $\begingroup$ One of twins can still kill the other - though leaving him/herself exposed. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2016 at 12:30
  • $\begingroup$ @TomášZato what if the twins never know each other? They may not recognise their twin. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2017 at 6:00

There would be many more deaths, but it wouldn't be catastrophic.

People tend to kill each other all the time, but when you think of how easy committing many crimes are, and how many people there are, it's surprising how few people are harmed. I imagine that your world is similar, that although everyone could, most people have decent morals. Of course there would still be a ton more murders, especially in already high-crime areas where people might already be on the verge of an attack. The police could try to manage this, I know you said that it can't be tracked, but I'm sure that they could at least find possible suspects (people they disagreed with, etc.), and they would definitely have to defend against the small percent of the population that is certifiably psychopathic. This could be done by just following the path of destruction and then thinking about the only guy left standing. Celebrities, politicians, and other public figures would all be toast, and I also have to agree with @WhatRoughBeast that the power should be taken away from kids. But other than a spike in homicide, I don't think it would have a huge effect, and could definitely sustain a society (a really timid and polite society).


The human race would probably be much smaller. If we are to assume society does function (instead of just collapsing), then it would make sense that the race would find a way to reduce the threats posed. I think the most interesting rule here would be the one about the masked man scenario. If differentiability is a necessary condition for this method of killing, then it would make sense that human beings would develop cultural conventions to the effect of remaining indistinct to strangers until individuals felt they had acquired sufficient information to justify the risk. Technically speaking, even reproduction could be made anonymous, through either the use of artificial fertilization, "glory holes", blindfolds, and I'm sure ten thousand other things I can't think of at the moment. If we assume, however, that individuals will crave human interaction for its own sake, then these conventions of nondifferentiability will have to occur.

It seems the biggest question involves human interaction. The standard of living possible for a person in isolation is quite low compared to what has been standard for at least centuries. Specialization of labor means that we must interact with people we do not know well, but who can do a job we do not. That is, I may not know the grocer particularly well, but his shop serves a purpose in my life by making available the eggs and milk. I am not close friends with the baker, but I still need to interact with him if I want any bread with my dinner. The question is how people would reconcile the need to do business with people we don't know too well with the competing need for anonymity. It seems reasonable that conventions would be developed to introduce greater anonymity to these processes. For example, we might see the phasing out of cashiers in favor of self-checkout. We might see the growth of automated business, i.e. electronically purchasing the groceries and receiving them by a drop-off, or even an another automated system of delivery. But I think that electronic payment systems might not have a huge change, because simply having a person's address doesn't seem like it'd be sufficient information in itself to qualify as the ability to differentiate a person enough to kill them.

Another question of interest for me is the question of policing, i.e. the quis custodiet ipsos custodes question. If the police are understood to be "mandatory", i.e. if I as a resident of Townsville am by default subject to the Townsville Police, then it would seem very hard to enforce a system of accountability, and would give the police force little incentive to function as defenders of their charges; that is to say, there is little reason for the Townsville Police to exercise restraint, and moreover the Townsville Police could very easily flaunt any sort of check, as murder would be exceedingly difficult to trace back to the murderer. Though I don't know that it would be an obvious or inevitable conclusion, a system of privatized police doesn't seem absurd in this lens, as a police force whose charges tend to die in an unusually high number would be more likely to be dismissed. This unusually high number might be due to a proliferation of crime or police brutality, but in either case the problem is most likely with the police force. This would, of course, be an imperfect system, but the idea of the Townsville Police would sound quite suspect here if one was effectively stuck with the Townsville Police, instead of having options.

I disagree, however, with Kristjan's assertion that the jury system would be overhauled. It seems that the trial by jury could be maintained, so long as sufficient nondifferentiability were introduced. There are already conventions in place which are used when a witness's identity is meant to be kept secret. It might be a sort of confessional-type thing, where individuals can be heard but not seen.

It seems, however, reasonable that these conventions should develop organically as a spontaneous order. The conventions proposed already would occur naturally by individual volition once it became apparent that these problems needed solving. Moreover, history shows that it can often be hard to predict how exactly individuals will adapt to new conditions, but the one thing that can be counted on is that they will, even if it's not a top-down plan, or perhaps even being consciously reasoned as an explicit solution (e.g. if there's an egg shortage, I might not necessarily know there's an egg shortage, but if it persists, then I will be likely to notice the increase in the price of eggs, and adjust my behavior accordingly).


If children have the power then that's a whole new world of pain, but assuming it kicks in around adulthood:

Knowing who someone is is the ultimate power so the control of that state is the primary means of exerting power. A small number of individuals will position themselves at the top of the pyramid. They will only ever appear in public completely covered in identical outfits and with voice modulators that prevent them being recognised. They will likely know who each other are, but the maintenance of their power structure relies on them having enough in their cabal to remain indistinguishable among those beneath them and this, and common interests, will maintain safety among them.

They will create beneath them a hierarchical structure of identi-groups all of whom are known to those above but wear identical clothes so that no-one below them can be identified. They'll be held collectively responsible for any unidentifiable breaches on their part and the whole lot mind-executed if they cross the line. Fear of those above, and the rewards of rank will keep them largely obedient.

The unwashed masses at the bottom will be obliged to keep their faces uncovered at all times. Identical twins will be tattooed or branded shortly after birth to ensure they're identifiable. Deaths among the faced will simply be a fact of life. Their masters will kill those they suspect of killing others but, basically, they're interchangeable labour so it doesn't matter that much and most people aren't psychotic enough to kill people on a whim.

Rioters, or similar, who try and hide their identity will be killed using conventional weapons reserved for those at the top.

Those near the top will enjoy many privileges under this system but also the constant fear of execution; for those at the bottom it will be an unrelenting dystopia. Faced with the fear of arbitrary execution, society will become exceedingly polite so as to avoid unwittingly offending others.


We will go back to being cavemen!!!

With only family to trust(maybe) people will seize to even talk to other people.
That will demolish everything...from business meetings to inviting people over to your place. So everybody will start living in fear inside their houses just like cavemen.

As the time will pass everybody either will die or will become fully self dependent(from growing a steady supply of food to keeping your mind calm) i.e V.hard without someone to trust.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .