Your chance to play God. Who lives and who dies?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

Topic started on 12-2-2008 @ 03:47 PM by TheDuckster

Case Scenerio:

A Hollocaust of mega proportions is about to ensue upon humanity. 6 People have arrived at an underground facility, but ALAS, only 5 people are allowed in.

The shelter contains enough supplies, food, water, etc., to sustain only 5 people for 3 years. Basic medicine cache.

Dilemma:

Pick only 5, and state your reasons as to WHY these people should have a place in the shelter.

Candidates:

1. Chad - Harvard Graduate. Engineering is his forte. He recently found out that he might possibly be 'sterile' - due to previous lab experiments.

2. Ben - Healthy and verile male. Yet, egotistical, and has many biases towards others because of his upbringing. Doesn't subscribe to authority very well.

3. Maria - Surgeon/Physician. Her husband left her 4 yrs. ago, and she hasn't trusted the male species since then.

4. Cecil - Diabetic. Has almost 3 yrs. of Insulin supply. Hardworking individual; no task is too menial.

5. Brenda - 5 months pregnant. Candidate #4 - 'Cecil' - is her husband. Very hard working individual

6. Rachel - Ordained Minister. Taught Theology for 25 years. Excellent teacher.

Who would you choose and Why?

Note: This was an actual exercise given in our class in high school. I'm curious to readers responses

~Ducky~

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:03 PM by AWingAndASigh

I would include them all, ration supplies, and hope that the crisis would be over sooner than anticipated.

Also, if I had advanced notice, I'd try to figure out some way to "grow" food while sequestered. Grow lights and solar power, some kind of algae grow tanks, etc.

In this way, if we couldn't get out before the food ran out, we might be able to grow enough while sequestered to make up the difference.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:11 PM by TheDuckster

reply to post by AWingAndASigh

I love your charitable heart, however, you can only choose 5 out of the six.

Decisions...decisions...

~Ducky~

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheDuckster]

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:12 PM by Nemiro

Very noble, but not answering the original post.

Cos' I'm atheist/agnostic, and therefore biased, I initially thought leave Rachel out. I don't want to be told God is rooting for me when everythings gone to hell in a handbasket, as you suggested. I want skills and the ability to increase numbers.
But then again, she is unlikely to die after three years, like Cecil, and anyone will do a job in those situations. So, Cecil dies. Sorry buddy, etc.

Although Brenda's baby, once born, constitutes a 6th person. Poop.

Meh. We can always eat it.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:16 PM by TheDuckster

reply to post by Nemiro

The baby can live on its mom's milk for awhile.

You brought up a good point though, about it being the 6th.

How much food would a child of 3 yrs old consume? I wonder if the mother rations properly, can the child be included?

Hmmmmm....

~Ducky~

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:17 PM by AWingAndASigh

Originally posted by TheDuckster
reply to post by AWingAndASigh

I love your charitable heart, however, you can only choose 5 out of the six.

Decisions...decisions...

~Ducky~

That's not a decision I would make. It's unethical, and not something I would allow. Where there's a will, there's a way. One way or another, everyone would live - I would see to it.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheDuckster]

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:18 PM by scientist

Originally posted by TheDuckster
reply to post by AWingAndASigh

I love your charitable heart, however, you can only choose 5 out of the six.

Decisions...decisions...

i dont understand why the pregnant woman doesnt count as two people?

Honestly, I would have a hard time deciding on even 5 people. The preggo and the diabetic would probably have to be left behind. Not for personal reasons, but for survival reasons. Actually, only allowing 4 people instead of 5 sounds like a good idea. I'd take chad, ben, maria, and rachel.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:26 PM by TheDuckster

reply to post by scientist

What if, after the crises was over, there were safe/viable quanties of insulin to be found. We're not talking about completely effacing the earth. Not to mention one of the doctors may be able to procur more supplies of insulin? Would a cure be on the horizon?

~Ducky~

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:27 PM by hikix

I would have to leave out the pregnant woman. Even though we had enough food and supplies for 3 years, eventually we would have to eat the baby. And, i personally, think that is wrong.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:30 PM by scientist

Originally posted by TheDuckster
reply to post by scientist

What if, after the crises was over, there were safe/viable quanties of insulin to be found.

what-ifs don't matter much in terms of survival. I would make this selection under the premise that theres a very good chance that the crisis would not be over anytime soon. I stand by my decision, as living on tight rations between 5 people would not be as agreeable as living on the same rations with one less mouth to feed (and a picky eater at that - diabetic diet would be hard to accommodate under such conditions).

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:31 PM by TheDuckster

Maria may be able to contribute to populating our species, and a great doctor/surgeon, but would she be hardened in her heart too much to allow herself to be with another man.

We're going to need lots of people, to do manual labor, re-populate; basically starting all over with a handful of viable genes to distribute amongst each other.

~Ducky~

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:36 PM by AWingAndASigh

Originally posted by TheDuckster
Maria may be able to contribute to populating our species, and a great doctor/surgeon, but would she be hardened in her heart too much to allow herself to be with another man.

We're going to need lots of people, to do manual labor, re-populate; basically starting all over with a handful of viable genes to distribute amongst each other.

~Ducky~

I hate to splash cold water on that scenario, but 5 people is not enough genetic diversity to avoid a lot of genetic problems in offspring. If not in the first generation, then in subsequent generations.

The greater the breeding population and the less related they are, the better their reproductive results.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:46 PM by TheDuckster

reply to post by AWingAndASigh

Mabey there were other case scenerios with other bunkers involved.

If 5 people can ride it out, perhaps there are others somewhere in the world?

~Ducky~

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:54 PM by SemperParatus

Before I'd make that decision the 6th one could take my place and I'd leave the shelter and fend for myself. The only circumstances that I can see where I'm justified to decide who lives and who dies would be under attack.

[edit on 2/12/2008 by SemperParatus]

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:59 PM by AWingAndASigh

Originally posted by TheDuckster
reply to post by AWingAndASigh

Mabey there were other case scenerios with other bunkers involved.

If 5 people can ride it out, perhaps there are others somewhere in the world?

~Ducky~

Then why the need for limits?

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 05:06 PM by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by TheDuckster

However if it were a live-fire exercise, that option would be totally viable (if not that smart) - as would the option of leaving more than one person out to fend for themselves.

Now, assuming we're talking full-out ELE catastrophe, survival of the species is prime, thus making females more valuable than males. Rachel, Brenda, and Maria thus get a free pass in. This leaves it down to the three males in the equation. With only hte basics of medical supplies, the baby will likely not make it before succumpbing to disease, exposire, toxicity, and the myriad other problems od what would amount to 4th-world conditions.

Chad is well-educated in a field that could be very useful, even in a stunted post-apocalyptic way. His "maybe" sterile condition isn't a definite, and even if it is, only one fertile male is needed for breeding.

Cecil will bust his ass with anything you throw at him. He also has the advantage of a relationship with one woman and being certainly fertile. His insulin problem is not an issue to the survival of the other four people, and depending on the condition he needs it for, it can be stretched beyond it's supply through judicious use and acceptance of side effects.

THis leaves us with Ben. Healthy and fertile, yes, but what else does he have going? He would be likely to cause clashes in the group, leading to strife and perhaps even physical harm. Unless he is "leader" the entire group will suffer, and even if he IS the leader, it remains a strong problem as his ego will get in the way of actual leadership.

Sorry, Ben, you just got voted out of the bomb shelter.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 05:11 PM by bigbert81

reply to post by TheDuckster

Oooh, I like this thread, could be fun. Starred and flagged!

Ok, so, playing along with your game and not thinking outside of the box as far as environment, types of foods, location, etc. etc., I would have to get rid of Ben.

Let me show you why:

Chad - Having an engineer around would be an excellent resource in maintence and fixing things that we could want or something that breaks down. A doctor for immaterial goods. Him possibly being sterile is irrelevant. We only have 3 years anyway.

Maria - How foolish would it be to get rid of the only doctor in the bunch?

Cecil - Hard working. Baby on the way. Wife here. Getting rid of Cecil would not only be getting rid of someone who has the most potential to fit in with the group for the next 3 years, but it would obviously be devastating for his wife. His wife becomes unpredictable and depressed. Need to survive for herself and child lower.

Brenda - 5 mos. pregnant. Yeah, like I'm going to kill 2 people when I don't have to. Plus wife of Cecil, so many correlating issues.

Rachel - Once again, would most likely be able to get along with everyone else. Plus, she serves as a giver of hope. Something that is VASTLY important in this scenario.

Now, that leaves Ben. Being verile has nothing to do with anything. We only have 3 yrs. anyway. He would be the most unpredictable, and therefore the most dangerous. He would also not fit in as well with everyone else, something that is extremely important for the next 3 years. And, in addition, he would have the BEST chance of surviving on his own, being young and strong.

Like I said, playing the game without looking for an outside of the box idea, that's my answer. Let me know what you think.

[edit on 2/12/2008 by bigbert81]

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 05:15 PM by AshleyD

Oh Dear. This is tough. I'd let them all in and have them ration ration ration.

But that doesn't answer your question. I'd at least at least ask if there were any noble volunteers in the group.

Or do we have a spot in the group? It would seem so if we are choosing the entires. Are we allowed to give up our spot and let the others go in while we stay out?

I just couldn't send someone away who was scared and alone. Sorry I didn't answer this at all.