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

The toss up for me is between Maria and Rachel.

Despite the value of her medical knowledge, her willingness to be post-apocalyptic "Breeding Stock" is questionable and risky if willing. Natural childbirth without modern medicine is statisically risky. The odds of her clashing with any male in the three years are great.

Rachel is around 45+ as presented and makes her viability to have healthy children very low. This makes her the least valued member.

Chad's engineering skills and plannng are an asset thus given a pass.

Genetically speaking, provided there are enough males for diversity for the offspring. A one woman source would be enough to propagate the human species.

For repopulation purposes Cecil will have to be limited to two children with Brenda (hopefully female) and Chad will have to hopefully father a male and female with Brenda. Ben, being the youngest male will have to wait until the Brenda's children are old enough if Rachel or Maria are not an option.

The largest risk genetically is Chad in this equation. If he is sterile then have a lower genetic stock and inbreading will have to be watch closer. In any case Chad would be the planner if not actual leader of this inbread Brady Bunch, provided Ben doesn't kill him.

Give Brenda a gun and tell her to kill Ben.
He bugs me. Brenda, you and your husband will need to split
your rations with the baby.

This isn't about repopulating, it's about surviving 3 years in a cave with each other. Ben would bother me and he would be ejected anyway.

We all get along and we all live.

Years ago I had to play a game called lifeboat where we were on a lifeboat with X amount of seats and Y amount of swimmers.
After listening to everyone trying to be noble and or suicidal, it ultimately came down to empowering yourself with the will to live. To know that you are worthy enough to survive without guilt. It was a trying day. People that were too busy trying to find loophole in the rules, died.


sorry Ben

If I am making the decision that means there is a place in the shelter for me that is secured. Since I am not God I would give up my position so that all six of them could stay, with the required supplies for three years.

This might be considered a cop out by me so I don't have to pick one of them. In this situation if someone dies I pick myself.

They are all better qualified than me.

oh and on the other hand, if I was God I would prevent the situation from happening in the first place so they all live.

Originally posted 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.
~Ducky~

Depends on what you mean by mega proportions, are you talking
Global, Continental, or Oceanic?

Once while I was a boot in the army the drill instructor asked what would I do if I saw the flash of a nuclear bomb, I replied that I would bend over and kiss my butt goodbye.
I wound up doing a lot of extra push ups for that one.

Having been through a few CD courses I can safely say that-

1. If it's going to be that bad. You do not have enough supplies to last out long enough for a livable environment to redevelop.

2. The mental pressures of living in a shelter will start to drive
everyone nuts after about 30 to 60 days never mind lasting out
3 years.

3. The mental pressure of leaving one person behind will start the processes
as stated in #2 very nicely.

So the answer is D everybody goes or nobody goes.

Wing-Nut

Chad is out the door. Cya wouldnt want to be ya.

reply to post by Wing-nut


As I originally mentioned from my 1st post, this was an exercise handed out to students in my high school. Theoretical in nature

The idea was (is) to see the who picked what, and the reasoning behind people's decisions, as well as 'common denominators'.

Without adding too much more to the Case Scenerio, we are asked to pick 5 out of 6 people; dealing with the cards we are dealt.

There are a variety of answers on the thread right now; with no two people repeating the same answers.

This exercise provides insite to people's behaviors, reasoning, compassion, etc.

We are afforded alot of time to be able to 'think away through things' when we type our answers in this thread.

However in real time, if the situation should hold true, our answers would be very different when the clock is ticking, or rather yet, when impending doom is in the wings.

I await to hear more answers from our readers!

~Ducky~

This is a shortened version of a very famous psychological and sociological group exercise. There is no correct answer, of course, but in the process, you reveal a tremendous amount of information about your biases and prejudices. The more famous version involves almost double the number of people, with roles such as a married couple-one of whom is the only doctor left, and he stipulates that if he is allowed to stay, his wife must stay, a black basketball player, a general in the army, a musician, a farmer, etc.
My wife and I used this game when we taught teenagers in our church youth group. It was a good way to point out prejudices, and allow people to put themselves in roles of those that maybe they do NOT admire. The youths had to take the role we assigned them, and argue their case.
It's a great game when correctly moderated. In some ways, it's similar to many of the debates that take place on the threads here. Even though members are anonymous, you can learn an awful lot about the people here, just by following their responses from day to day.
Have fun!

reply to post by mybigunit


Why would Chad be tossed out?

What is your reasoning behind this?

~Ducky~

p.s. becareful of the 1 liner's

well according to your scenario I obviously wouldn't be allowed in because there are 5 places and now by my count 7 people including myself.

So I would choose myself and #5 she is pregnant and if she were allowed in she would bear the offspring and that would make 6 people in a shelter that only had the provisions for 5 people.

This is sick logic but it is logic. Its cruel and horrible to think of shutting the door on a pregnant woman. But in a case of the needs of the many, this is where I would go.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Exactly!

sashaying up to Prof..lolol

Care to take a stab at this particular one yourself?

Who would you pick Prof?

~Ducky~

reply to post by whatukno


You don't include yourself.

The rules were to pick ONLY from the list of people in my OP.

~Ducky~

reply to post by TheDuckster


kick out the female minister.
why?
I am a christian, and the bible specifically says that women are not meant to be ordained ministers. Since this Woman is not obeying what she claims to be an expert at, she is lying, and would be useless in the shelter

reply to post by TheDuckster


Well, here's hoping Rachel has made her peace with God. But Chad almost drew the short straw.

reply to post by TheDuckster


Still my answer #5 stands because if you kick anyone else out when she deliverers the child there would still be 6 people in a shelter that only has provisions for 5. That child would need extra provisions after it started weaning off of breast milk that would deplete the supplies quicker than they were allocated for.

#5 the pregnant woman is the correct answer although admittedly cruel, it is the logical answer to keep all 5 people alive for the 3 year span that has been given in the OP.

reply to post by whatukno

Still my answer #5 stands because if you kick anyone else out when she deliverers the child there would still be 6 people in a shelter that only has provisions for 5.

Sounds a tad more humane. A few of the other posters had the baby lined up for cannibalism....ewww.

~Ducky~

reply to post by kosmicjack


How did Chad almost 'bite it'? Why bump off Rachel?

What are the reasonings behind your decisions?

~Ducky~

reply to post by TheDuckster


I guess you could say that I took the easy way out.
All or nothing...

You see, in the past having to make those very decisions "who lives and who dies" and yes some people did die because of the decisions I made.

When time is short as Ducky said you have to make the decision one way
or the other because the circumstances will make it for you.

I hope that none of you really have to make that kind of decision......

Wing-Nut
Formally
AASCSAR Team 5


[edit on 2/12/2008 by Wing-nut]

reply to post by Wing-nut

I hope that none of you really have to make that kind decision......

You and me both my friend.

Thanyou Wing-nut for taking the time to post in here. I very much appreciate your thoughts.

~Ducky~

reply to post by TheDuckster


Yes it would be odd to resort to cannibalism in a shelter that has enough provisions for 5 people for 3 years. Kinda like an old south park episode where the townsfolk got snowed into a building with the crew from Cops and ate the crew in one night.

Besides the fact that mothers tend to defend their young quite fiercely. I think it would be a hard thing to do to barbeque the baby with the mothers consent. I mean sure people would like fresh meat now and again but baby x shouldn't be on the menu.