A Hypothetical Situation and Questions.

I've been thinking about this since last Sunday, when the new season of The Walking Dead premiered.

Since last season, when Glen and Tara the woman he came across and saved at the prison, the sister of the Governors girl friend, ran into Sgt. Abraham Ford,Rosita and Dr. Eugene Porter, the scientist who says he knows what caused the outbreak and can stop it, and Abraham and Rosita are trying to get him to Washington, so he can fix it. I get a big kick out of Eugene.

Any way I started thinking, dangerous I know but I've been doing it any way. What would I do if let's say that there were only seven people divided into two groups, call them A & B or what ever you want, left alive in a particular area. Your trying to get to a certain place and it's nothing but bad lands between you and there, it is very hostile due what ever your scenario is, and no hope of anyone along the way to help you. Say Group A has four people in it, is resource rich, has food, water, weapons, vehicle, means to get fuel for it, everything that they might be needed to ensure a extended journey 's survival. Group B has three people in it, and has very little and about to run out of what they do have.


Now lets also add this, say that Group A's people are of average intelligence and good common sense, good health, very psychical fit, able to fend for themselves in all situations, fix any and all problems that may arise, but they need help to finish the trip and only have room for two people. Due to what ever reasons, no room in vehicle, would have to leave supplies to take all three, what ever reason, it is just impossible for all three to go with them and death would result for the one left behind.
Group B has three people, one is in good health, has average intelligence and good common sense, psychical fit, they are just like everyone in Group A. The second one, is in good health, has average intelligence,psychical fit, but lacks some in the common sense department , always doing some thing stupid even if they know better. the thrid has a very high level of intelligence, good health, not very psychical fit ie, couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, has no common sense, think Sheldon Cooper type, can think out of the box, very awkward in both social settings and psychical capabilities , but not arrogant.

Question for Group A who do you pick? there could be advantages in all three and disadvantages in two .
Question for Group B who goes? do you leave your people that have survived with you or do go? or send the other two?

If I was in Group A, I'd have to go with the the first and second. although having someone that has a very high level of intelligence, and can think outside the box would be a advantage, being not very psychical fit, no common sense,and being very awkward in both psychical capabilities, and socially i feel would place undue risk to the group, due to having to watch after them in some situations. But the bad thing about this is that leaving that one behind would just eat me alive.

Now if in Group B, regardless of which one i was I'd stay, my sense of loyalty would not let me leave the others unless it was impossible to avoid, then it would probably gnaw at me for a very long time.

I hope I worded this so it could be understood and look forward to hearing the responses.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

According to Pixar, group B is golden in terms of ticket sales. ;p

If we are talking about the survival of all humankind and the potential liberation of Zombies back into the land of the living, you'd want to make sure to optimize your potential of getting there intact. Would that necessarily mean a big group or a smaller, more mobile group?

In terms of group B, neither of the first two options add anything to group A, but the third option, while counter-intuitive is at least like adding a toothpick to your swiss army knife. You may never need it, but if you do...

Personally, I'd think in Zombieland a large group would be problematic for travel over vast distances. Instead of taking two people on, I'd trade out one of my people for the zonky brain from group B. This way you'd have a 3:1 ratio of very capable people to counterbalance his liabilities without forcing anyone from Group B to sacrifice themselves. But then again, I'm one that values intelligence, so I may be biased. Many people believe that a group of disciplined soldiers are enough to survive any situation you can throw at them. Let's hope they are right, because that seems to be the way most task forces actually work in our real world.

a reply to: Nechash

your choices and reasoning are very interesting. but wouldn't people of average intelligence, who have common sense, with good comprehension skill be able to continue the human race. don't you think that unless everything that contained knowledge
was turned to a cinder, that they could find resource to construct the thing they might need.

also i can understand what you mean by larger groups, smaller groups do lend towards easier concealment and possibly move faster. but there's strength in numbers, and if your having to have some one look after the very awkward, psychically unfit intellect, that lacks common sense. if you trade some one that was capable in the areas they lack, you have cut your strength.

now if they were to have just one more thing in there favor, i might could see it. but what trait would you want them to have. me i think it would be common sense.




ETA: the reason i left the scenario open is because there would be more options to look at. such many hostile people between points. running from armed forces of a nation, many different things.

Group B has three people, one is in good health, has average intelligence and good common sense, psychical fit, they are just like everyone in Group A. The second one, is in good health, has average intelligence,psychical fit, but lacks some in the common sense department , always doing some thing stupid even if they know better. the thrid has a very high level of intelligence, good health, not very psychical fit ie, couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, has no common sense, think Sheldon Cooper type, can think out of the box, very awkward in both social settings and psychical capabilities , but not arrogant.

In real life I would find another solution. Do the Sheldon like person have self control or not? Maybe It would be better to leave both the second and the third if they will get all the others killed because of their lack of self control? If the third one have self control then the second one is the the weakest link and the one that will get the group in trouble.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I think it would depend on the situation. If we were talking simple survival, then I don't think it matters all that much, but if we are talking mission critical, we need to get to some specific place to deliver some specific item, then I think you'd want more options available to you. In any case, I wouldn't feel comfortable asking anyone to sacrifice themselves, but that's just me. I think the option I listed above leaves group A with three capable survivors plus one wildcard with some liabilities and leaves group B with three capable survivors, one of which has some liabilities. It is a pretty equitable solution.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

but if you don't have common sense, self control has little to do with it.
say that common sense tell you not to go there, you have none, so you not knowing any better you go there.
if you are the thrid, although your level of intellect might let you figure a way out, lacking in the others hinders you.

where as if the second, even though you knew better. you stand a better chance of psychically and mentally getting yourself out without someones help.

Group A shoots group B & uses the extra space to pack all of group B's stuff...

That's obviously how they became resource rich with a nice vehicle, lots of weapons and food...also explains why they're all in shape.

You are leaving out the very human component that Group B may not go with you if all three do not go. Maybe Group B is a family? Maybe Group B could simply not live in good conscience leaving one or two behind? What do you do then?

Your scenario says you need them. What do you do if they refuse to go unless all three go? You obviously will not kill them, because you need them, and they may use this as a bargaining chip, especially if they knew you needed them. And if you force them to go, you do not have a trustworthy unit - those forced to go may rebel or even attack and/or kill members of Group A, or even sabotage their efforts.

Also, if you leave a member or some members of Group B behind, you are then creating another potential hazard and/or enemy. The human component is very complex indeed.

a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

Ooh, ooh, we found one with a high EQ. If you really want to rebuild civilization, you should take him along too. ;p

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: LittleByLittle

but if you don't have common sense, self control has little to do with it.
say that common sense tell you not to go there, you have none, so you not knowing any better you go there.
if you are the thrid, although your level of intellect might let you figure a way out, lacking in the others hinders you.

where as if the second, even though you knew better. you stand a better chance of psychically and mentally getting yourself out without someones help.


Your common sense is learned and is relative to the pre SHTF world, not the new one, so it may not be the advantage you think. For example, in this world, it may be common sense to try and talk your way out of or run away from dangerous situations-but post SHTF zombies wont listen and will follow no matter how far you run, so your learned common sense will get you killed. Take the super-intelligent guy-he may be more adaptable and more valuable in the new world than you think.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I can't follow The Walking Dead over here. I think I get your scenario though.

For me, from a group A perspective, the guy who lacks common sense and gets into trouble stays behind. He'd be harder to 'look after' than the smart guy.

If I was 'in charge' of group B, I'd send the smart guy on ahead with group A. Hopefully, the smart guy would be able to figure a way to get the remaining two out of the woods. You don't want a weak guy on your team if you have to hump-it anyway.

A lot of variables to consider...and I can't see any way that a scenario like that would end with all involved complying with any final decision. It would turn into a huge disagreement, most likely ending in a bloody Mexican standoff.

Logic would hardly playa factor here and it would come down to strength and loyalty...in that order.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

as this is one of those " hypothetical " situations - what I would do is not a valid answer

but to answer the " challenge " invite person 1 to join our group - then shoot the other two