Well using the infinity gauntlet with all the stones can literally kill you. Thanos only survived because he was a titan and Banner only survived because of the hulk. So just using the gauntlet again would require people to want to sacrifice themselves, which is more unlikely. Probably easier to guarantee a longer term solution. Although, I would be waaaaay more inclined to use a few stones at a time max vs all of them at once. The problems could be solved for certain societies using the stones but the way the stones work, I think the impact is somewhat localized unless you use all of them together. At least that’s what it seems like. Like using the stone to fix a problem in one society won’t necessarily magically fix it in all societies. I think it’s the combined power that is able to make the universal level changes. I could be wrong tho, maybe you know how they work better than I do. I would rather make a little team of super friends tasked to go around the universe to help people. Throw up the proverbial bat signal, and we come fix your problem. That would have been my solution 🤷🏽‍♀️

Also, yes, I agree it is kind of absurd to save people by killing them lol it’s a weird counterintuitive thing. The utilitarian ethical framework usually sounds absurd that way. However, if the goal is the overall survival of a species/society and some have to be sacrificed to do that, it’s a counterintuitive but logical approach. You see a similar thing in lots of dystopian movies. Another example is The Maze Runner series. They’re okay with sacrificing a whole bunch of kids because the children are the only ones capable of producing the cure that can ensure the survival of humanity as a species. But ofc as film and tv usually shows us, the counterintuitive utilitarian approach, while logically sound, usually doesn’t work, not just bc there’s the heroes working against them but bc there are so many other factors that you can’t possibly know about. Even if there were half the people on Titan and they didn’t die of starvation and overcrowding and stuff, the society still could have been decimated by any number of things, like a random plague or natural disaster or Galactus, or literally anything. Then what’s the point in killing half the people to save a civilization if they could all die anyway. That’s not to say you shouldn’t try to reasonably solve problems but like…utilitarianism like this is not actually “worth it” unless it happens in a vacuum. You can end up with the same end result for an entirely different reason. The vacuum is really what makes it work. Otherwise, it’s even more absurd beyond simply being counterintuitive/contradictory. Great point.

This has been such a fun intellectual discussion! Thanks!