Who do you Save?

[Shamgarr]

2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 6. Easy. Would have been easier if you told me the gender of everyone which is the most important thing in this situation.

I suppose if you're looking at this straight from a logical perspective... but then again, if you were that logical you'd have pointed out that a population can't come from just 6 people. This is more of a philosophical/idealistic quesion. Who do you think would benefit a new society of humans the greatest?

 

[crudus]

2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 6. Easy. Would have been easier if you told me the gender of everyone which is the most important thing in this situation.

I suppose if you're looking at this straight from a logical perspective... but then again, if you were that logical you'd have pointed out that a population can't come from just 6 people.

That always does cross my mind. Doesn't stop me from answering the question. The question asks you to make the following assumptions: other people won't survive by chance, the people inside the shelter won't die while in the shelter, human population can come from 6 people.

 

[Asciotes]

that means we've gotta delete four, that will be easier.

1. Rabbi is first to go. The Reasoning: You're tasked with the project of rebuilding the human race. There has to be polygamy involved. The Rabbi would cause conflict.

2.Adieu Historian. you're old, you're male and you're dying soon anyways.

3. The police officer, male I'm assuming should also not be taken. We don't want someone taking control, we'd need to act as a community, plus they most likely have a gun and we wouldn't want to risk anyone using it.

4. The pregnant lady goes to. She and her baby would take up unnecessary food. no way jose, sorry.

That leaves:

1)A male Librarian (Get the girls pregnant, and labour)
2)An olympic male Athlete (Labour, and has good genes)
3)A renowned female starlet (Get preggo, pass down the arts and laso hyas good genes)
4)A college Co-ed (Labour, is young, A girl? and could learn some proffessions from the earlier generation)
5)A second year medical student (we need a doctor)
6)A biochemist (Might be handy)

I think that's a good point for my halfway to the thousand mark.

 

[Shamgarr]

that means we've gotta delete four, that will be easier.

1. Rabbi is first to go. The Reasoning: You're tasked with the project of rebuilding the human race. There has to be polygamy involved. The Rabbi would cause conflict.

2.Adieu Historian. you're old, you're male and you're dying soon anyways.

3. The police officer, male I'm assuming should also not be taken. We don't want someone taking control, we'd need to act as a community, plus they most likely have a gun and we wouldn't want to risk anyone using it.

4. The pregnant lady goes to. She and her baby would take up unnecessary food. no way jose, sorry.

That leaves:

1)A male Librarian (Get the girls pregnant, and labour)
2)An olympic male Athlete (Labour, and has good genes)
3)A renowned female starlet (Get preggo, pass down the arts and laso hyas good genes)
4)A college Co-ed (Labour, is young, A girl? and could learn some proffessions from the earlier generation)
5)A second year medical student (we need a doctor)
6)A biochemist (Might be handy)

I think that's a good point for my halfway to the thousand mark.

wow, you're one of the first, other than myself, who don't immediately want to save the pregnant lady. In my opinion, she offers nothing to a new society, except for a head start, which isn't that worth it anyway. Kudos to us.

 

[Shamgarr]

2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 6. Easy. Would have been easier if you told me the gender of everyone which is the most important thing in this situation.

I suppose if you're looking at this straight from a logical perspective... but then again, if you were that logical you'd have pointed out that a population can't come from just 6 people.

That always does cross my mind. Doesn't stop me from answering the question. The question asks you to make the following assumptions: other people won't survive by chance, the people inside the shelter won't die while in the shelter, human population can come from 6 people.

what if i were to take it a step further and ask you to assume that no matter who you choose, a new society will come as their offspring? That, whoever lives, humanity starts anew with soley their anscestor's wisdom to guide them.

 

[crudus]

2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 6. Easy. Would have been easier if you told me the gender of everyone which is the most important thing in this situation.

I suppose if you're looking at this straight from a logical perspective... but then again, if you were that logical you'd have pointed out that a population can't come from just 6 people.

That always does cross my mind. Doesn't stop me from answering the question. The question asks you to make the following assumptions: other people won't survive by chance, the people inside the shelter won't die while in the shelter, human population can come from 6 people.

what if i were to take it a step further and ask you to assume that no matter who you choose, a new society will come as their offspring? That, whoever lives, humanity starts anew with soley their anscestor's wisdom to guide them.

I usually take that into account as well (as secondary of course). That's why the historian is in the group of people I chose to save.

 

[Romicron]

For everyone choosing people according to breeding potential - 6 people is well below the number required for a diverse enough gene pool to reconstitute an entire species. IMO, better to pick people based on their skill set. Humanity is doomed either way if they are the only people to survive, so the exercise is moot. That's no fun though.

I would have lots drawn. Number each 1 to 10 and have them drawn out of a hat. It's the only fair way. If only one of the first two was chosen, they may elect to defer and have a seventh number drawn if they feel that they cannot live without the other being alive.

You pretty much have to pick 1 and 2, or neither. Singling one out is bad, unless you enjoy ruining people's lives and think that the others are equipped to help her deal with survivor's guilt and PTDS symptoms, and/or rage. Also, would they be taking their library with them? How much reading do they do?

Either way, just a list of careers is a very incomplete way of choosing people. You have no indication of personality clashing or anything, let alone their personal issues. Does the college co-ed have a drug problem? Does the elderly historican have a drug problem? =P

Lack of information.

 

[Pifflestick]

For everyone choosing people according to breeding potential - 6 people is well below the number required for a diverse enough gene pool to reconstitute an entire species. IMO, better to pick people based on their skill set. Humanity is doomed either way if they are the only people to survive, so the exercise is moot. That's no fun though.

I would have lots drawn. Number each 1 to 10 and have them drawn out of a hat. It's the only fair way. If only one of the first two was chosen, they may elect to defer and have a seventh number drawn if they feel that they cannot live without the other being alive.

You pretty much have to pick 1 and 2, or neither. Singling one out is bad, unless you enjoy ruining people's lives and think that the others are equipped to help her deal with survivor's guilt and PTDS symptoms, and/or rage. Also, would they be taking their library with them? How much reading do they do?

Either way, just a list of careers is a very incomplete way of choosing people. You have no indication of personality clashing or anything, let alone their personal issues. Does the college co-ed have a drug problem? Does the elderly historican have a drug problem? =P

Lack of information.

I compeletly agree with you about the lack of information.

What if the Police Officer is a capitlalist but the Biochemist is a socialist? What if the Actress is a recovering alchoholic? What if the Co-Ed is gay (which would probably clash with the Rabbi)? What if the Olympic Athlete is black and the Medical Student is racist?

We have no idea wether these people could live together at all.

OT:

Olympic Athlete: Because we would need people who can protect the group.
Historian: Because we would need to know where we came from so we can avoid a repeat of the tragidy.
Medical Student: Because we would need medical knowledge to prevent annialation by disease.
Police Officer: Because we would need someone who can keep us from killing each other.
Biochemist: Because we would need science to help us get back to at least a steam driven existance.

Actress: Because we don't need religious enlightenment, we don't need co-eds, and it would be unfair to take the librarian without his wife. Let them both die or let them both live; I can't take one or the other. Besides, having entertainment would help morale.

 

[AnarchistAbe]

Give me the sexes of the other individuals and I could decide. Also, their cup size.

4, 5, 6 if female, 7, 8, 10

If 6 is a male then I want 2.

well its more of a philosophical question as opposed to just, "who can produce babies". Think about what their jobs or ideals could contribute to a completely new world.

But, who can form the new world is a void point if there is no possibility for babies. No babies = No future.

I would take a FEMALE college co-ed. She would be the youngest out of the choices, so she has the opportunity to breed more children in her life. Also, by being the youngest out of the choices she is, physically, better off to survive/work in a post-nuclear society.

 

[Jedamethis]

1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10

I think we're all set.
1 and 2 for babies
the college student and athlete, for protection and stronger babies (if the student is female)
and the rest to teach the babies about stuff

 

[Shamgarr]

For everyone choosing people according to breeding potential - 6 people is well below the number required for a diverse enough gene pool to reconstitute an entire species. IMO, better to pick people based on their skill set. Humanity is doomed either way if they are the only people to survive, so the exercise is moot. That's no fun though.

I would have lots drawn. Number each 1 to 10 and have them drawn out of a hat. It's the only fair way. If only one of the first two was chosen, they may elect to defer and have a seventh number drawn if they feel that they cannot live without the other being alive.

You pretty much have to pick 1 and 2, or neither. Singling one out is bad, unless you enjoy ruining people's lives and think that the others are equipped to help her deal with survivor's guilt and PTDS symptoms, and/or rage. Also, would they be taking their library with them? How much reading do they do?

Either way, just a list of careers is a very incomplete way of choosing people. You have no indication of personality clashing or anything, let alone their personal issues. Does the college co-ed have a drug problem? Does the elderly historican have a drug problem? =P

Lack of information.

You're a government official looking at a list, this is the information you're given. On the verge of a nuclear holocaust, I don't think you'd really be complaining about "lack of information". And besides, this isn't supposed to be approached from that perspective. I think that there would be personality clashes between whoever we placed in there, we're not looking for the most compatible people to save, simply the aspects of human culture we wish t survive.

 

[Vorpals]

1) A male Librarian
2) The Librarian's wife, who is 6 months pregnant - To help repopulate.
4) An elderly male, famous historian - To keep history.
5) A renowned female starlet (dancer, actress, singer, songwriter, etc) - Reproduction purposes.
7) A second year medical student - We need medical care in case anything happens.

And the police officer or athelete for reproduction/order purposes.

 

[Julianking93]

2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10.

Why do we need the olympian?

Just because he's a librarian doesn't make him important.

I already know how to defend myself. The police man would just abuse his power.

And I think most people on here know my feelings towards any religious authority.

In my opinion, the Olympian represents the pennacle of human achievmant, the accumulation of thousands of years of strength, training, and the evolutionary process. It would be ashame to have all that go to waste and restart the human race with a sissy college kid and a librarian's wife. The librarian holds importance to me because he holds within him a memory of (most likely) all the greatest stories and works of literature since written language was invented. Classics such as Homer, Shakespeare, Twain... would you be willing to see all these simply fade from existence? So you know how to defend yourself? That's a pretty selfish mindset when the world depends on you to repopulate it. In that situation, one has to think about the good of the future, of the humans that may or may not come from your decisions. The police officer is beneficial because he establishes law and order, in what will probably be a lawless and orderless world. If you hope to rebuild society, you'll need a strong hand to guide it and serve as it's foundation.
As far as religions authority goes, it's pretty much just up to the person. In my opinion, I believe a new society could greatly benefit with the guidance of a spiritual leader. One would argue that religion would just fuck everything up, and I somewhat agree with that completely. BUT: the religion that would screw everything up the most would be the religion set up without someone who knows what they're talking about. If the Olympian declares himself god, or the co-ed declares a flying spaghetti monster in the sky, I guarentee that without guidance, these new religions would ultimately bring about the destruction of our new society. With the Rabbi, religion could be structured, and kept in check. This, I believe, would not only avoid conflict, but ultimately benefit a new world order.

1. Really? Is he the greatest athelete in the world? Yes, I see what you mean, but I don't find him that important. Yes, he would help in making the future children stronger, but I chose more brains over brawn.

2. The librarian wouldn't be important to me because all the great stories should already be known. Does it matter at all if I know them? And besides, I chose his wife for 2 reasons. 1 being that she is pregnant, obviously, and 2nd because she's the wife of a librarian. I'm sure she would know at least a bit about literature.

3. Laws should already be known to most people I chose. Plus, I dislike police officers, so I discluded him for personal reasons.

4. Seriously, do we really need a structured religion? Thats the last thing that'll be on my mind while roaming the desolate wasteland. But, thats all just my opinion. I believe the new world would be better off without religion.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

And lastly the Cop...
What the hell would we need him for? There are 6 survivors all of which have been living in a vault for three months, it's not like there's much policing to be done.
and given the choice, he would rather start looting to survive then continue to uphold ridiculous laws that hold no meaning in a world that's been utterly annihilated.

I think the cop would come complete with a gun, something nessescary for post apocalyspe survival

I was taking a realistic approach, and excluding the possiblity of Mutated surivors attacking...
seeing as a conventional nuclear warhead would either incinerate/blast you to tiny bits from close ranger or kill you slowly from fallout.

A gun just isn't needed, and who says the necessities in the bunker didn't include weapons?

I was taking a realistic point of view aswell. In a world with no rules, no army comming, no food, no colour TV, no hope, how many people would turn to violence as a problem solver? A gun is a nessecity to protect yourself and to keep order among your future settlement. And also, there may be guns in the vault, but the cop is only who knows how to use and mantain one.

True, religion may cause comfort in times of despair, but don't you think people with solid knowledge about how to rebuild humanity would be more important? In a new world, the top priority would be regaining all that was lost, and I believe religion would not help with this. What would be more productive, sitting and praying for god's help or rebuilding yourself?

Yes, it's been here since the dawn of man, but back then, people used religion to answer the questions that they could not answer. Humanity has gained much knowledge since its conception, knowledge that answers many questions scientifically whereas before people used to answer with "because god made it that way". We are currently a science-driven society, and facts are often viewed as more useful than what the holy book says (this is getting into the science vs. religion debate).

Finally, although religion has given humans strength, comfort and a sense of belonging over the course of history, it has also caused more wars and human conflict than anything else. Think how many less wars there would be if religion did not exist. It takes out a great deal. There would be no prejudice based on religion, no "Holy Crusades" that kills all the heretics, etc.

Basically, all I'm trying to say is that in a new world where humanity needs to rebuild itself, a person that can use science to take action is much more useful than a man who sits and prays to god. As you can see, I'm not very religious, but I still respect those who do believe. Remeber, I don't mean to bash religion; I respect your opinion but respectfully disagree.

Alright Good well thought out points. Here are my replies:

First of all, you use religion to control them, not to "Pray to Jeebis that I won't die". In a world where yours is the only police force, the only farm, the only town, the only army, the only rescue boat, where no help is comming, the single most difficult task will be keeping people in line. Shure, when you only have 6 people(and yourself) that wont be a problem. But lets look further down the line: Say when you "Group" has become a 50 strong. 100 strong. 1000 strong. Suddenly keeping moral high becomes a true challenge, as more people will fall into despair or question why they are listenning to you. The easyiest solution? Start religion. Optimal choice? Immediatly. As soon as you get into the vault, you should be set to work establishing your cult, in this case a tweeked version of judism. Then further down the line, everyone will believe this(in theory), and you can focus on things like defense. A society only works when everybody works to the same ends. Shure you can substitue Guns or science for religion, but Guns only work while you have bullets, and science lacks the hope of a good afterlife.

And yes religion has been used to answer things. But to any good leader, he values such a set up. It is no coincidence that a strong religion resembles a strong dictatorship. Luckily, you supplied me with an example. Back in the Dark Ages, one word from the Pope and thousands of people left there homes and traveled across the continent to fight, just because they where told to, because they believed it was "What god wanted". Can you image that degree of control? Something you would most deffinately need if you plan to survive.

I am not a fanatic either, but I realise how useful of a tool religion could be, especialy when trying to maintain order or keep peopel from killing themselves in despair.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

On reflection, though. In a case like that It would be more funny to stand out in the open and see the devils camera bliz.

 

[Archemetis]

And lastly the Cop...
What the hell would we need him for? There are 6 survivors all of which have been living in a vault for three months, it's not like there's much policing to be done.
and given the choice, he would rather start looting to survive then continue to uphold ridiculous laws that hold no meaning in a world that's been utterly annihilated.

I think the cop would come complete with a gun, something nessescary for post apocalyspe survival

I was taking a realistic approach, and excluding the possiblity of Mutated surivors attacking...
seeing as a conventional nuclear warhead would either incinerate/blast you to tiny bits from close ranger or kill you slowly from fallout.

A gun just isn't needed, and who says the necessities in the bunker didn't include weapons?

I was taking a realistic point of view aswell. In a world with no rules, no army comming, no food, no colour TV, no hope, how many people would turn to violence as a problem solver? A gun is a nessecity to protect yourself and to keep order among your future settlement. And also, there may be guns in the vault, but the cop is only who knows how to use and mantain one.

True, religion may cause comfort in times of despair, but don't you think people with solid knowledge about how to rebuild humanity would be more important? In a new world, the top priority would be regaining all that was lost, and I believe religion would not help with this. What would be more productive, sitting and praying for god's help or rebuilding yourself?

Yes, it's been here since the dawn of man, but back then, people used religion to answer the questions that they could not answer. Humanity has gained much knowledge since its conception, knowledge that answers many questions scientifically whereas before people used to answer with "because god made it that way". We are currently a science-driven society, and facts are often viewed as more useful than what the holy book says (this is getting into the science vs. religion debate).

Finally, although religion has given humans strength, comfort and a sense of belonging over the course of history, it has also caused more wars and human conflict than anything else. Think how many less wars there would be if religion did not exist. It takes out a great deal. There would be no prejudice based on religion, no "Holy Crusades" that kills all the heretics, etc.

Basically, all I'm trying to say is that in a new world where humanity needs to rebuild itself, a person that can use science to take action is much more useful than a man who sits and prays to god. As you can see, I'm not very religious, but I still respect those who do believe. Remeber, I don't mean to bash religion; I respect your opinion but respectfully disagree.

Alright Good well thought out points. Here are my replies:

First of all, you use religion to control them, not to "Pray to Jeebis that I won't die". In a world where yours is the only police force, the only farm, the only town, the only army, the only rescue boat, where no help is comming, the single most difficult task will be keeping people in line. Shure, when you only have 6 people(and yourself) that wont be a problem. But lets look further down the line: Say when you "Group" has become a 50 strong. 100 strong. 1000 strong. Suddenly keeping moral high becomes a true challenge, as more people will fall into despair or question why they are listenning to you. The easyiest solution? Start religion. Optimal choice? Immediatly. As soon as you get into the vault, you should be set to work establishing your cult, in this case a tweeked version of judism. Then further down the line, everyone will believe this(in theory), and you can focus on things like defense. A society only works when everybody works to the same ends. Shure you can substitue Guns or science for religion, but Guns only work while you have bullets, and science lacks the hope of a good afterlife.

And yes religion has been used to answer things. But to any good leader, he values such a set up. It is no coincidence that a strong religion resembles a strong dictatorship. Luckily, you supplied me with an example. Back in the Dark Ages, one word from the Pope and thousands of people left there homes and traveled across the continent to fight, just because they where told to, because they believed it was "What god wanted". Can you image that degree of control? Something you would most deffinately need if you plan to survive.

I am not a fanatic either, but I realise how useful of a tool religion could be, especialy when trying to maintain order or keep peopel from killing themselves in despair.

S'a very good point, but mine still stands about religion when it comes to the end of your post.

"Chances are, the nukes are flying because of religion."

[EDIT]:

Whoops, hit post prematurely, That's how easily the world could be destroyed...


Right anyway, and the guns thing, Like I said, what made any of us think that weapons weren't included as supplies in the bunker?
Th inclusion of the Cop?
What if he was just the type of cop that deals out parking tickets and has no gun? (at least in England they don't.) We'd still be as screwed as we were before, and all we'd have to show for it was a cop with no gun but in stead authority over a world containing 5 other people.

And as you said, guns only work for as long as you have bullets.

 

[Archemetis]

Well if it fits 6, im puttin myself in there first

The whole point is 6 people as well as yourself.

 

[happysock]

The Librarian's wife, who is 6 months pregnant
A renowned female starlet (dancer, actress, singer, songwriter, etc)
A second year medical student
A police officer
A biochemist
The Librarian

That's my six

The wife because that's like an extra person for nothing
The starlet because she is a female for them to reproduce (as I wasn't sure of the others gender)
Med student as he will be able to use his medical ability to teach others
Police officer to enforce law and to protect the people from anything which may be waiting in the fallout
biochemist to reproduce plants etc to live off of
And the librarian loves as he has a son to raise and a wife to look after