NationStates Jolt Archive

If they're not going to shelter everyone/as much as possible, I'd say those who are in on the plan are the ones going to survive.

The end of the world is coming a la Deep Impact and some people are being rounded up for the continuation of the species to be placed in special shelters to help them outlast the effect of the giant comet or whatever.

They are able to shelter approximately 1 in 10000 people.

Are you going to be chosen? If so, why? And what method of determining who is included do you think they should use?

EDIT: Sorry, the selection is world-wide. Sorry, Americans but you have to compete with the entire population.

Would I be chosen? Hell no.

*sniffle*

The end of the world is coming a la Deep Impact and some people are being rounded up for the continuation of the species to be placed in special shelters to help them outlast the effect of the giant comet or whatever.

They are able to shelter approximately 1 in 10000 people.

Are you going to be chosen? If so, why? And what method of determining who is included do you think they should use?

Yes, I would be chosen. Because I would probably be writing the software that made the choices.

no i doubt it. i mean there woud be plenty of ruins and whatnot to excavate once the dust settled, but there are also plenty better archaeologists than me.

although maybe some official could be persuaded to save the ginger gene and they'd let me in. i have got a very strong ginger gene after all :D

I wouldn't be chosen. I don't know enough 'elite' people. Instead, I'd build my own and only let in people who are gaming geek nerds like me. That way we could play Dungeons & Dragons untill the nuclear winter effect wore off... then we could rebuild society our way with a new feudal system and...


....hm. Did I say that out loud?

If they're not going to shelter everyone/as much as possible, I'd say those who are in on the plan are the ones going to survive.

Who said they aren't going to shelter as many as possible? Not I. The amount they could shelter would be necessarily limited and attempting to include more than they could care for would be to endanger all. (In this scenario)

Unless my betrothed was also on the lists, I'd take my chances with her outside.

No, I wouldn't be chosen. Because of this, I would work to somehow sabotage the installation that special people are going to reside at. And drag them all to hell with me. :)

And for the record, I think I'd be chosen for different reasons than already offered. I'm extremely healthy and atheletic, as is my entire family (good stock). Also, high intelligence runs in my family (no comments from the peanut gallery). Tall. Thin. Healthy. Intelligent. And capable. I'd like to pretend I have some special skill they'd have to have, but really I think they'd pick me as a breeder.

is the competition mostly local or worldwide?

I mean if I am competing against my local peers? yeah.

I am highly intelligent, and have a lot of skills.

And for the record, I think I'd be chosen for different reasons than already offered. I'm extremely healthy and atheletic, as is my entire family (good stock). Also, high intelligence runs in my family (no comments from the peanut gallery). Tall. Thin. Healthy. Intelligent. And capable. I'd like to pretend I have some special skill they'd have to have, but really I think they'd pick me as a breeder.

It wouldn't be because you really, really, really like yourself, would it?

Erm... my little fingers are both double jointed! I could be the next stage in human evolution!

Would I be chosen? No. Would I be unhappy about it? Yes. Would I start hunting down and killing people that were chosen? Probably

Unless my betrothed was also on the lists, I'd take my chances with her outside.

Why would you be chosen? Why wouldn't she? What ways do you think they should chose?

The end of the world is coming a la Deep Impact and some people are being rounded up for the continuation of the species to be placed in special shelters to help them outlast the effect of the giant comet or whatever.

They are able to shelter approximately 1 in 10000 people.

Are you going to be chosen? If so, why? And what method of determining who is included do you think they should use?

Not a chance--I'm 38 and had a vasectomy 15 years ago. Even though I'm getting it reversed next year (the waiting list is unbelievable), that still keeps me out of the "prime breeding stock" category, and if we're talking about a situation where the future of the species is at stake, I'm on the outside looking in. That's not to say that fertility is the only category, but it's certainly an important one, and a deal breaker. No sterile people of either sex included, and ideally, no one past their childbearing or impregnating primes.

No, probably not. I don't really have any sufficiently useful skills (at least, none where I'd consider myself to be superior to the vast majority of people on this planet), so it'd probably be a waste of resources to keep me.

However, I am fairly intelligent and very healthy in general, so I have that going for me. I'm also, like Jocabia, fairly capable, so I could be put to use doing something.

Of course, given the option, I might just say 'Fuck it', and take my chances outside the shelters.

is the competition mostly local or worldwide?

I mean if I am competing against my local peers? yeah.

I am highly intelligent, and have a lot of skills.

Whole world.

Thinning the competition would not be bad, actually. What do you have to lose?

Not a chance--I'm 38 and had a vasectomy 15 years ago. Even though I'm getting it reversed next year (the waiting list is unbelievable), that still keeps me out of the "prime breeding stock" category, and if we're talking about a situation where the future of the species is at stake, I'm on the outside looking in. That's not to say that fertility is the only category, but it's certainly an important one, and a deal breaker. No sterile people of either sex included, and ideally, no one past their childbearing or impregnating primes.

Actually, I'd disagree with that. I think a society benefits from elders. I wouldn't want to be in a group of people all 30 and less. Seriously, consider that for a moment. And fertility definitely drops off after about that point. Fertility should certainly be a consideration, but I think we'd do well to create a group, not a bunch of individuals.

I could make a convincing argument for improving the gene pool of our species... and then once they let me in I'd have to break it to them that I'm only going to have two kids. Suckers.

My first thought is that I could build my own shelter. Or find an old gold mine up in North Georgia that could be reinforced and improved for better habitability. I figure that if the government takes on the challenge of providing shelter, it's just going to be another "Big Dig". Now there's a sequel that's truly unecessary.

Eutrucsa called me an old hermit once, and he's probably right.

probably not but its not the end of the world........oh wait

Whole world.

I may not win that competition.

I am in the top 2% of intelligence, but then......there are people smarter than me... a LOT of people. My skills may or may not translate well on a worldwide scale.

I could make a convincing argument for improving the gene pool of our species... and then once they let me in I'd have to break it to them that I'm only going to have two kids. Suckers.

I think in a situation like this, it would be very difficult to argue for anything but choosing the strongest bodies and minds. I suspect, you intend to say that you'd make a strong argument that YOU'D improve the gene pool. It's fairly easy to make an argument for improving the gene pool of the species.

I don't think it's just about genes, necessarily. I think it would be important to look at this in terms of creating a self-sustaining community, which means genetics would be a factor, but so would your contribution to the community.

I doubt I'd be chosen due to the limited number of spaces, but I can see why I might have a chance. I'm a young, healthy and single student in an engineering discipline at what is probably the world's most esteemed source of academics with a great many skills to my name. What's more, I'm a good cook and write short stories and discursive essays in my spare time.

Jeez, sounds like a personal ad. >_<;

I may not win that competition.

I am in the top 2% of intelligence, but then......there are people smarter than me... a LOT of people. My skills may or may not translate well on a worldwide scale.

Quite frankly, I think you're biggest issue would be arguing through the food alergies and whatnot. In a position where you'd want to have supplies that are most broadly applicable and where communal living would be so important I would think such specific needs would be an issue.

Which isn't to say that it's not something they would or could deal with, but the question would be whether or not you offered something that would make it worth dealing with.

Or, at least, that would be my thinking. I'd be happy to hear how I'm wrong, however.

I think in a situation like this, it would be very difficult to argue for anything but choosing the strongest bodies and minds. I suspect, you intend to say that you'd make a strong argument that YOU'D improve the gene pool. It's fairly easy to make an argument for improving the gene pool of the species.

I don't think it's just about genes, necessarily. I think it would be important to look at this in terms of creating a self-sustaining community, which means genetics would be a factor, but so would your contribution to the community.
Well, I'm also reasonably smart and have good problem solving skills. Though I can't say there would be much use for astronomers if we're living in an underground bunker... but that's where the physics education comes in handy, right?

Well, I'm also reasonably smart and have good problem solving skills. Though I can't say there would be much use for astronomers if we're living in an underground bunker.

Well, eventually, we wouldn't be, but, of course, I don't see how in a community that would have to be so driven by survival astronomy would be initially important. However, I think the skills utilized by astronomy might be. Particularly, since astronomy was how we were able to prepare for the BAC (Big-Assed Comet) (trademark pending).

Why would you be chosen? Why wouldn't she? What ways do you think they should chose?

I have no idea.

Well, I have a good background in physics as well. And physics is totally useful.

I probably wouldn't measure up against whatever criteria were arrived at.

Well, eventually, we wouldn't be, but, of course, I don't see how in a community that would have to be so driven by survival astronomy would be initially important. However, I think the skills utilized by astronomy might be. Particularly, since astronomy was how we were able to prepare for the BAC (Big-Assed Comet) (trademark pending).
Well, I have a good background in physics as well. And physics is totally useful.

Select random... if we were to save the species, let us select random *nod*

I probably wouldn't measure up against whatever criteria were arrived at.

Being well-endowed?

If you consider the number of people (say, 10,000) to be put in the shelter, and the number of skills required for rebuilding or carrying on, would there really be much emphasis on maintaining things like racial or cultural diversity?

I mean, even if you TRIED to maintain some racial or cultural diversity in a pool of 10,000, you would be BOUND to leave some out - and if the comet is truly an extinction level event, you will be condemning certain groups to eternal dissolution simply by choosing.

Select random... if we were to save the species, let us select random *nod*

Sorry, God, your favorite species died out because when they had a chance for protecting the species they instead decided to leave their survival to sheer and utter chance. Chalk up yet another "intelligent" species as "too stupid to live"

i get pick so they can kick me out later to fight the Mutants mind i would have some fun with the ladys inside before they kick me out

Sorry, God, your favorite species died out because when they had a chance for protecting the species they instead decided to leave their survival to sheer and utter chance. Chalk up yet another "intelligent" species as "too stupid to live"

We are simply not capable of selecting are we? We will likely make lots of mistakes... Random selection allows us to keep a bit of all... Still it might be wise to exclude some groups like NSGers

We are simply not capable of selecting are we? We will likely make lots of mistakes... Random selection allows us to keep a bit of all... Still it might be wise to exclude some groups like NSGers

1. Place NSGers in a cave, 1000 feet below the surface, with food, water, air, etc.

2. Shake planet well.

3. Years into the constant discussions, riots break out - survivors fight each other to the death over topics, even though there are plenty of resources.

I work on K street...of course I'd be chosen!

Select random... if we were to save the species, let us select random *nod*
"So, by our new random person selector, we have come up with the following group: The Republican Party of the USA. Thanks go to Diebold, the manufacturer of our random selection machine!"

I really wouldnt be chosen. Yes, Im healthy and young enough, but my skills arent superb enough for me to be special.

Random? Of course not. You have to get only healthy, sane people who are competent enough and are able to deal with hard and life threatening situations. 10.000 people is not a lot of people, and I doubt half of them would survive a long winter.

:sniper: Where did you here about this end of the world shelter. Ps they will probably choose the smartest and most athletic most inovative and likely to survive plus theyd be pretty fertile

If you consider the number of people (say, 10,000) to be put in the shelter, and the number of skills required for rebuilding or carrying on, would there really be much emphasis on maintaining things like racial or cultural diversity?

I mean, even if you TRIED to maintain some racial or cultural diversity in a pool of 10,000, you would be BOUND to leave some out - and if the comet is truly an extinction level event, you will be condemning certain groups to eternal dissolution simply by choosing.

that's why i would start petitioning for the preservation of the ginger gene at the earliest opportunity.

Everyone in the world writes there name on a piece of paper. In New York (the unofficial capital of the world) they have a giant wheel thing (like the lottery or bingo) and pick 10,000 names. REdnecks, stupid people no one is exempt. But you'd have to spin the thing like 100,000 times first to be fair.


:sniper:

:sniper: Where did you here about this end of the world shelter. Ps they will probably choose the smartest and most athletic most inovative and likely to survive plus theyd be pretty fertile
It's a hypothetical scenario.

Nah, they won't allow disabled people to be there...

:sniper: Where did you here about this end of the world shelter. Ps they will probably choose the smartest and most athletic most inovative and likely to survive plus theyd be pretty fertile

Ah, so n00bish.

I really wouldnt be chosen. Yes, Im healthy and young enough, but my skills arent superb enough for me to be special.

Random? Of course not. You have to get only healthy, sane people who are competent enough and are able to deal with hard and life threatening situations. 10.000 people is not a lot of people, and I doubt half of them would survive a long winter.

1 in 10000 is about 600,000 people.

Oh, for added fun. Why would you be chosen?

For me, because they'd want to choose someone that people wouldn't kill in their sleep just to get them to stop talking.

"So, by our new random person selector, we have come up with the following group: The Republican Party of the USA. Thanks go to Diebold, the manufacturer of our random selection machine!":p

Sorry, God, your favorite species died out because when they had a chance for protecting the species they instead decided to leave their survival to sheer and utter chance. Chalk up yet another "intelligent" species as "too stupid to live"But is there really any option but to make it random?

You can save 600,000 people. What are you going to do? Take only the most intelligent scientists? Well, what about philosphers, sociologists, urban planners, artists, doctors? We take the preeminent scholars in those fields, too, you say?

So what about teachers, nurses, electricians, carpenters, seamstresses, plumbers, farmers, all of which are arguably a lot more important in the actual physical survival of the species? How would you even go about picking the best ones in these fields?

And how would you do it for the whole world? Have each country select theirs? Give a quota to each country how many of each they can pick? But the Western World is going to have much more of those preeminent people in their fields, so tough luck for the "Third World"? Your 600,000 would be predominantly White people from rich countries?

What about children? Who knows, maybe they'd grow up to be just average, oh noes!

What about old people? What about simply average people? What about handicapped people? What about sick people? None of those, you say? Master race, here we come, what an excellent opportunity!

Random selection is the only possibility. If you want to make sure there is at least a minimum of highly capable people maybe handpick 5,000 out of the 600,000. Everything else would be impractical. It would also start that new and improved Master race off with the biggest possible blemish on human conscience.

:p

But is there really any option but to make it random?

Of course there is. You're actually presenting some of them.


You can save 600,000 people. What are you going to do? Take only the most intelligent scientists? Well, what about philosphers, sociologists, urban planners, artists, doctors? We take the preeminent scholars in those fields, too, you say?

No, you'd likely take a smattering of various necessary roles. I doubt anyone would advocate only the most intelligent scientists.


So what about teachers, nurses, electricians, carpenters, seamstresses, plumbers, farmers, all of which are arguably a lot more important in the actual physical survival of the species? How would you even go about picking the best ones in these fields?

Again, you've just made an argument for not making it random, but instead selecting some of these disciplines precisely for the reasons you've listed. As to how you'd pick the best ones in these fields, I don't suspect you'd have to. You'd likely choose people who have multiple things to add to the group. For the most part, if your skillset is not particularly unique you'd be chosen for other factors like viability and ability to reproduce.



And how would you do it for the whole world? Have each country select theirs? Give a quota to each country how many of each they can pick? But the Western World is going to have much more of those preeminent people in their fields, so tough luck for the "Third World"? Your 600,000 would be predominantly White people from rich countries?

Create a list of criteria with the world's leaders (yes, I know that would never actually happen, but we're assuming world cooperation here for the purpose of discussion), and allow those leaders to present thier top 600,000 according to those criteria. You'd likely then use a slow screen process until you end up with a smaller list and then argue out some of the points.


What about children? Who knows, maybe they'd grow up to be just average, oh noes!

So? No one is bashing average people. The point is to do our best to select for a group most likely to survive.


What about old people? What about simply average people? What about handicapped people? What about sick people? None of those, you say? Master race, here we come, what an excellent opportunity!

Who said none of those? I didn't. In fact, I specifically said that some elders would be a benefit. As to the handicapped or sickly, it would depend on their likelihood of survival and their contribution.


Random selection is the only possibility. If you want to make sure there is at least a minimum of highly capable people maybe handpick 5,000 out of the 600,000. Everything else would be impractical. It would also start that new and improved Master race off with the biggest possible blemish on human conscience.

Again, random would be entirely impractical. You've not defended it. You've actually given a number of reasons why random would be a bad idea. Was it your intent to mention a lot of non-random factors and to call them important.

As far as the master race, there is no effort being made to select for race at all, so your comparison is simply a Godwin. There would be no reason to select for race. It would be solely and entirely an attempt to choose the most likely to survive and to add to the survival of the group. If a handicapped person or sick person or elderly person or child does that, then they should be chosen.

Personally, I wouldn't say being any of those things would be a necessary reason for exclusion, as well as being of a particular race, sexuality, religious belief, etc.

I'd be chosen based on my ability to annoy Jocabia. :p

1 in 10000 is about 600,000 people.

Oh, 1 in 10.000? Then I guess I could have a chance, something like 0,05%.

As far as the master race, there is no effort being made to select for race at all, so your comparison is simply a Godwin. There would be no reason to select for race. It would be solely and entirely an attempt to choose the most likely to survive and to add to the survival of the group. If a handicapped person or sick person or elderly person or child does that, then they should be chosen.

Personally, I wouldn't say being any of those things would be a necessary reason for exclusion, as well as being of a particular race, sexuality, religious belief, etc.

Even if you aren't selecting for race overtly, you will, by omission, delete some races and ethnicities and cultures from the face of the Earth, simply by not selecting them.

Well, I've got great survival skills. I can hunt, trap, fish, dry/smoke meat, make preserves, I'm good with native crops.

But who knows. I'm not sure I'd WANT to be chosen.

:p

But is there really any option but to make it random?

You can save 600,000 people. What are you going to do? Take only the most intelligent scientists? Well, what about philosphers, sociologists, urban planners, artists, doctors? We take the preeminent scholars in those fields, too, you say?

So what about teachers, nurses, electricians, carpenters, seamstresses, plumbers, farmers, all of which are arguably a lot more important in the actual physical survival of the species? How would you even go about picking the best ones in these fields?

And how would you do it for the whole world? Have each country select theirs? Give a quota to each country how many of each they can pick? But the Western World is going to have much more of those preeminent people in their fields, so tough luck for the "Third World"? Your 600,000 would be predominantly White people from rich countries?

What about children? Who knows, maybe they'd grow up to be just average, oh noes!

What about old people? What about simply average people? What about handicapped people? What about sick people? None of those, you say? Master race, here we come, what an excellent opportunity!

Random selection is the only possibility. If you want to make sure there is at least a minimum of highly capable people maybe handpick 5,000 out of the 600,000. Everything else would be impractical. It would also start that new and improved Master race off with the biggest possible blemish on human conscience.


Fuck them. Its the survival of the species that matter. They should make this gene pool as diverse as possible, with white, black, red and yellow people, whatever that means. Asians, Africans, Americans, Europeans, people from all over Oceania. But healthy, young, competent people. NO old people. No kids that are too young, like below 8. No handcap, unless its not genetic but due to a problem in life.

Who cares if its not just? I dont. I would want the best to keep going, so that we could had a better chance to make life after the winter better.

Well, I've got great survival skills. I can hunt, trap, fish, dry/smoke meat, make preserves, I'm good with native crops.

But who knows. I'm not sure I'd WANT to be chosen.

S'ok. You can take your chances with my wife and I.

The end of the world is coming a la Deep Impact and some people are being rounded up for the continuation of the species to be placed in special shelters to help them outlast the effect of the giant comet or whatever.

They are able to shelter approximately 1 in 10000 people.

Are you going to be chosen? If so, why? And what method of determining who is included do you think they should use?

EDIT: Sorry, the selection is world-wide. Sorry, Americans but you have to compete with the entire population.
Did you stay to watch "Cast Away", too? :p

"So, by our new random person selector, we have come up with the following group: The Republican Party of the USA. Thanks go to Diebold, the manufacturer of our random selection machine!"

:D

I like you. *bows*

Would I be chosen? Hell no.

*sniffle*

This is incorrect on SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many levels.
One would think a little tour around NS might provide a glimpse of how high a demand there is on WYTYG. *nods emphatically*

If the human race needs to live in shelters to survive, there probably won't be enough food around to survive. The effect of a comet or asteroid of such a size that makes that necessary would last rather long.

S'ok. You can take your chances with my wife and I.

That's what I was thinking. Screw these guys and their exclusive club. I just don't buy that everyone but the chosen would perish. I'll stay outside, thanks.

Even if you aren't selecting for race overtly, you will, by omission, delete some races and ethnicities and cultures from the face of the Earth, simply by not selecting them.

Which would be inevitable given the situation. You wouldn't be selecting for race or culture, so you'd not be deleting them and more than I wasted apples because I never bought them all at the store. They may not have been purchased and no one may have used them, but I didn't waste them.

Unless you're prepared to say one race is more important than another, or one culture over another, attempting to preserve them is a bad idea.

Well, I've got great survival skills. I can hunt, trap, fish, dry/smoke meat, make preserves, I'm good with native crops.

But who knows. I'm not sure I'd WANT to be chosen.

I think these are all skills that should be desired. I think it's funny that given that this is a survival situation that people think for some reason we'd want to select scientists or that there would be a likelihood that white people or western people would dominate. I think there would a predominance of people capable of survival in the more basic ways. What value would string theory have in an apocolyptic world?

I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens, at the bottom shafts of some of our deepest mines. The radioactivity could not penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. In a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements for a dwelling space could be provided.

Man is an amazingly adaptable creature. After all, the conditions would be far superior to those, say, of the Nazi concentration camps, where there is ample evidence most of the wretched creatures clung desperately to life. It would not be difficult. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered.

A quick survey would have to be made of all the suitable minesites in the country, but I shouldn't be surprised if several hundred thousand of our people could be accomodated. Every nation would undoubtedly follow suit. A special committee would have to be appointed to study and recommend the criteria to be employed, but off-hand, I should say that in addition to the factors of youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included, to impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.

Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time and little to do. With the proper breeding techniques, and starting with a ratio of, say, ten women to each man, I should estimate the progeny of the original group of 200,000 would emerge a hundred years later as well over a hundred million. Naturally the group would have to continually engage in enlarging the original living space.

When they emerge, a good deal of present real estate and machine tools will still be recoverable, if they are moth-balled in advance. I would guess they could then work their way back to our present gross national product within twenty years.


Q: Won't this nucleus of survivors be so shocked, grief-stricken, and anguished that they will envy the dead, and indeed, not wish to go on living?

Certainly not, sir. When they go down into the mine, everyone else will still be alive. They will have no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion should be one of a nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiousity for the adventure ahead.


Q: You mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Wouldn't that necessitate abandoning the so-called monogamous form of sexual relationship?

Regrettably, yes. But it is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to perform prodigious service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics, which will have to be of a highly stimulating order.

Well, I've got great survival skills. I can hunt, trap, fish, dry/smoke meat, make preserves, I'm good with native crops.


You rock. *bows*

That's what I was thinking. Screw these guys and their exclusive club. I just don't buy that everyone but the chosen would perish. I'll stay outside, thanks.

Ha. It's not an attempt to exclude, but the assumption that exclusion is inevitable. The world is going to be wiped clean. All but 600,000 people and some animals and plants will perish. Even if every attempt is made to do this thoughtfully, survival isn't incredibly likely (since it would be unlikely we could predict the climate or layout of this new world). It's simply an attempt to survive in some fashion until the world is inhabitably again.

I think these are all skills that should be desired. I think it's funny that given that this is a survival situation that people think for some reason we'd want to select scientists or that there would be a likelihood that white people or western people would dominate. I think there would a predominance of people capable of survival in the more basic ways. What value would string theory have in an apocolyptic world?

Oh, I don't think there is any doubt that people with survival skills would be chosen.

But the 'elite' simply believe that said people would be their bitches.

And then we'd have to beat the crap out of the elite. It would just be badness, all around.

Ha. It's not an attempt to exclude, but the assumption that exclusion is inevitable. The world is going to be wiped clean. All but 600,000 people and some animals and plants will perish. Even if every attempt is made to do this thoughtfully, survival isn't incredibly likely (since it would be unlikely we could predict the climate or layout of this new world). It's simply an attempt to survive in some fashion until the world is inhabitably again.

Yeah, I get that.

I'd still hope for the best, outside of the 600,000.

Which would be inevitable given the situation. You wouldn't be selecting for race or culture, so you'd not be deleting them and more than I wasted apples because I never bought them all at the store. They may not have been purchased and no one may have used them, but I didn't waste them.

Unless you're prepared to say one race is more important than another, or one culture over another, attempting to preserve them is a bad idea.

No, but selcting on something like IQ or economic worth, is correlated with wealth... Therefore we would likely loose races and cultures

Random is the way to go; with or without diebold machines :p

Q: Won't this nucleus of survivors be so shocked, grief-stricken, and anguished that they will envy the dead, and indeed, not wish to go on living?

Perhaps. I would think that might be a factor in whom we select. It's a good point.

Q: You mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Wouldn't that necessitate abandoning the so-called monogamous form of sexual relationship?

I think you misquoted.

And I can't imagine that we would put monogamy over survival. No, I can imagine it, but we shouldn't.

No, but selcting on something like IQ or economic worth, is correlated with wealth... Therefore we would likely loose races and cultures

Random is the way to go; with or without diebold machines :p

IQ when measured properly is not correllated to wealth or particular cultures or races. Meanwhile, I don't see why this would be a primary factor. Economic worth wouldn't be a factor at all, since living would be communal.

Obviously I and my famly will be chosen; The new world will need Goofballs. :cool:

And I can't imagine that we would put monogamy over survival. No, I can imagine it, but we shouldn't.And how would you keep the ratio 10:1? Kill 9 out 10 newborn males?
That'll go over well the first few decades.. And is there even really a point to it?

Again, random would be entirely impractical. You've not defended it. You've actually given a number of reasons why random would be a bad idea. Was it your intent to mention a lot of non-random factors and to call them important.

I have done nothing of the sort. The only "reason" you could refer to is the paragraph about the professions that are "arguably more important for the survival of the species".

Now, for one thing, I very much assumed that these professions (of which there are obviously a lot more than I listed) will be naturally represented in a random sample of people. After all, those are the profession most regular people work in - at least outside the Western world, where more people today work in service sector sales and clerical jobs, but even there the professions mentioned above are still a big part of the workforce.

For another, I explicitly stated that one might handpick maybe 5,000 of the 600,000 for the exact reason to make sure that the basic survival skill needs will definitely be covered.


As far as the master race, there is no effort being made to select for race at all, so your comparison is simply a Godwin. There would be no reason to select for race.
While Lord Jehovah above is correct, I apparently should have put "Master race" in quotation marks.
I thought it was obvious from the placement of the term in my post that I wasn't using it to describe actual "biological race", whatever that is, seeing how the paragraph I used it in didn't even mention race but applied it to the sorting out of the sick, old, and handicapped which smacks very disturbingly of Eugenics. Especially coupled with the earlier talk about "improving the gene pool".

And arguing about what a child or a sick or handicapped or elderly person can add to the survival of the group and if it's enough to make up for the fact that they're a child or sick or handicapped or elderly is exactly the kind of immoral slippery slope discussion that makes this whole enterprise so morally revolting.

And arguing about what a child or a sick or handicapped or elderly person can add to the survival of the group and if it's enough to make up for the fact that they're a child or sick or handicapped or elderly is exactly the kind of immoral slippery slope discussion that makes this whole enterprise so morally revolting.

Not to mention that the selection process would likely be dominated by one particular worldview, to the exclusion of others.

If my people had to choose, we would of course have fit men and women to have children, and to provide sustenance, etc...but we would also insist upon elders and holders of traditional knowledge. Without them, we'd be lost anyway. Crippled, old, infirm...whatever...they would ultimately be our more valued 'assets'.

Obviously I and my famly will be chosen; The new world will need Goofballs. :cool:

And it will apparently need more tacos, mud and a more substantative supply of vowels.

Obviously I and my famly will be chosen; The new world will need Goofballs. :cool:

You would be chosen for self protective reasons, for leaving you out to bask in the radiation would be a bad idea...

Just imagine coming out after a thousand years and finding huge mutated goofballs.... :eek: the horror

We will just have to cope with a kick in the nuts now and then… *sigh*

no i wouldnt be chosen, im too old.

im thinking that there needs to be twice as many females chosen as males. the women should be from 15 to 35 years old; the men should be from 20 to 50. no diabetics, no cancer patients, no one who is dependant on a specific diet or on certain medications for survival. strong, healthy, hardworking and educated should be priorities.

And it will apparently need more tacos, mud and a more substantative supply of vowels.We could easily balance that by giving a higher quota to people from former Yugoslavia.

no i wouldnt be chosen, im too old.

im thinking that there needs to be twice as many females chosen as males. the women should be from 15 to 35 years old; the men should be from 20 to 50. no diabetics, no cancer patients, no one who is dependant on a specific diet or on certain medications for survival. strong, healthy, hardworking and educated should be priorities.

600,000 people left on earth.

Do every single one of them have to be involved in procreation? Are large numbers REALLY a priority in terms of 'survival'?

And it will apparently need more tacos, mud and a more substantative supply of vowels.

There never seems to be enogh. :(

no i wouldnt be chosen, im too old.

im thinking that there needs to be twice as many females chosen as males. the women should be from 15 to 35 years old; the men should be from 20 to 50. no diabetics, no cancer patients, no one who is dependant on a specific diet or on certain medications for survival. strong, healthy, hardworking and educated should be priorities.

Definitely, willingness and ability to learn would also be vital. Versatility of capabilities and interests would also play a key role.

Nature capabilities wouldn't be so important as technical and social positions (after all, a comet wouldn't just obliterate humanity, but vast quantities of the other things living on this planet as well). Engineers, physical scientists, social scientists, historians of all stripes, anthropologists, authors and the broadly literate, they would be vital. They'd need to be early in their careers, and be provided with vast amounts of readily available information. I guess I can ignore the sanctity of copyright laws and intellectual property rights for the time being.

600,000 people left on earth.

Do every single one of them have to be involved in procreation? Are large numbers REALLY a priority in terms of 'survival'?

In the first few generations, absolutely.

Not to mention that the selection process would likely be dominated by one particular worldview, to the exclusion of others.


Meh.

At a point in time such as the one being currently described, the importance of multiculturalism goes straight out the window in favor of maximization of survivability, however that may be.

In other words: Whoever built the shelter gets to decide who gets to go in.

600,000 people left on earth.

Do every single one of them have to be involved in procreation? Are large numbers REALLY a priority in terms of 'survival'?

yes they are.

600,000 where 6,000,000,000 are now. isolated groups of people here and there around the world. everyone needs to be a breeder and more women are needed than men--but not so few men that it causes a genetic problem.

We could easily balance that by giving a higher quota to people from former Yugoslavia.

How about a zillion points for a most excellent The Onion reference?
:D

As i'd said, HIGH demand.

actually, during all the chaos, I'd probably be the one nuking the world. I doubt I would be chosen, and if I was only because of my extensive knowledge of literature and writing.

Woe be to Alexandria.

actually, during all the chaos, I'd probably be the one nuking the world. I doubt I would be chosen, and if I was only because of my extensive knowledge of literature and writing.

Definitely, willingness and ability to learn would also be vital. Versatility of capabilities and interests would also play a key role.

Nature capabilities wouldn't be so important as technical and social positions. Engineers, physical scientists, social scientists, historians of all stripes, anthropologists, authors and the broadly literate, they would be vital. They'd need to be early in their careers, and be provided with vast amounts of readily available information. I guess I can ignore the sanctity of copyright laws and intellectual property rights for the time being.

yeah. im thinking that the loss of our knowledge base would be terrible. we would need to keep as many people who know stuff as possible, as long as they are young, healthy, hardworking and capable of breeding.

You would be chosen for self protective reasons, for leaving you out to bask in the radiation would be a bad idea...

Just imagine coming out after a thousand years and finding huge mutated goofballs.... :eek: the horror


Hmm... On second thought...*rubs chin thoughtfully*

How about a zillion points for a most excellent The Onion reference?
:D

As i'd said, HIGH demand.In your shelter maybe. You'll add a zillion points more after you check your TGs, btw.

yeah. but its not likely to be a world project but a "local" one. so there would be a few in india, saving indian culture; a few in china, saving chinese culture; a few in europe, saving european culture, and so on.

And I can have my own shelter with blackjack and hookers! :D

Meh.

At a point in time such as the one being currently described, the importance of multiculturalism goes straight out the window in favor of maximization of survivability, however that may be.

In other words: Whoever built the shelter gets to decide who gets to go in.

yeah. but its not likely to be a world project but a "local" one. so there would be a few in india, saving indian culture; a few in china, saving chinese culture; a few in europe, saving european culture, and so on.

yeah. but its not likely to be a world project but a "local" one. so there would be a few in india, saving indian culture; a few in china, saving chinese culture; a few in europe, saving european culture, and so on.

Of course, of course, I'd assumed so.

It would be vital to spread the locations out, as well, lest conditions be too severe in one position that it actually manages to wipe out the shelter.

And I can have my own shelter with blackjack and hookers! :D

I'd have to say you could make such a shelter qualitatively better if you included flaming tigers and crazy Italian performers.

Given that I am completely opposed to personally bearing and rearing children, I'm gonna guess "no."

The end of the world is coming a la Deep Impact and some people are being rounded up for the continuation of the species to be placed in special shelters to help them outlast the effect of the giant comet or whatever.

They are able to shelter approximately 1 in 10000 people.

Are you going to be chosen? If so, why? And what method of determining who is included do you think they should use?

EDIT: Sorry, the selection is world-wide. Sorry, Americans but you have to compete with the entire population.
that's 1 out of 10000 for every slot?

probably not, since the scientists/specialists/engineers will be selected first.

as i think about this more, the whole project is doomed to failure.

consider the united states and its 30,000 saved people...

dont we all know that it would include the president and his wife, the vp and his wife, the speaker of the house and her husband, donald trump and his wife, bill and melinda gates, various and sundry other very rich and powerful men and women, almost all of whom are over the age of reasonable procreation and yet too powerful to be able to keep out.


wouldnt it be the same with the 100,000 chinese and 100,000 indians?

are you going to tell me that ANYONE Is going to build one in africa that includes any africans who are not the completely most powerful men on the continent and then fill the rest with rich european and US overflow?

and wont most of the mexican spaces get taken the same way?

it would represent the most pathetic breeding group ever. and how many of these people are going to be willing to roll up their sleeves and get to the physical work of rebuilding civilization once the crisis is over?

we're doomed.

Considering I'm a music student, I doubt it.

Oh, I don't think there is any doubt that people with survival skills would be chosen.

But the 'elite' simply believe that said people would be their bitches.

And then we'd have to beat the crap out of the elite. It would just be badness, all around.

I suspect the elite would not do well in a survival competition with those chosen specifically for that ability.

The end of the world is coming a la Deep Impact and some people are being rounded up for the continuation of the species to be placed in special shelters to help them outlast the effect of the giant comet or whatever.

They are able to shelter approximately 1 in 10000 people.

Are you going to be chosen? If so, why? And what method of determining who is included do you think they should use?

EDIT: Sorry, the selection is world-wide. Sorry, Americans but you have to compete with the entire population.

I would manipulate the people in charge of the selection. I'm pretty, really convincing. And manipulative, and seductive.

yeah. but its not likely to be a world project but a "local" one. so there would be a few in india, saving indian culture; a few in china, saving chinese culture; a few in europe, saving european culture, and so on.

In the completely ludicrous scenario it would be a world-wide project no focused or promoted by certain cultures. Reason being that it kind of kills the discussion.

Of course, of course, I'd assumed so.

It would be vital to spread the locations out, as well, lest conditions be too severe in one position that it actually manages to wipe out the shelter.

Yes, I actually thought about that and you'd want to have separate shelters for this reason and for the possibility of disease or some other catastrophic event to one of the shelters.

Considering I'm a music student, I doubt it.

If in charge of the selection process, I would certainly allot space for those whose skills and knowledge would be of cultural importance.


Although, if I were the director of the selection process for my nation, I might actually feel a moral obligation to exclude myself, as I would definitely be more than a mite bit biased on that matter. I'd have to debate the ethics of the matter further, but I might.

I would find my own shelter, I don't need the worlds permission to survive.

I would find my own shelter, I don't need the worlds permission to survive.

Unless you have a shelter that can provide not only shelter from the immediate effects (ground shock, blast wave, heated air, showers of molten rock) but from the long term effects (no sunlight at all for years, no food or water available), you wouldn't survive.

I doubt that many private individuals would have the ability to create, stock, and run such a shelter.

I have done nothing of the sort. The only "reason" you could refer to is the paragraph about the professions that are "arguably more important for the survival of the species".

Now, for one thing, I very much assumed that these professions (of which there are obviously a lot more than I listed) will be naturally represented in a random sample of people.

Random means random. Given the infrequency of some professions, not the mention the likelihood you would just happen on someone likely to survive in such a scenario, you'd naturally not cover many, possibly critical professions. If those professions have value than selecting them would obviously also have value.


After all, those are the profession most regular people work in - at least outside the Western world, where more people today work in service sector sales and clerical jobs, but even there the professions mentioned above are still a big part of the workforce.

I assumed you did not list every profession of importance and you've confirmed my assumption. Why you'd claim it's vital that we have said professions and leave whether they are covered up to chance is, well, let's be kind and call it nonsensical.




For another, I explicitly stated that one might handpick maybe 5,000 of the 600,000 for the exact reason to make sure that the basic survival skill needs will definitely be covered.

1% of the total selected to cover the important factors and 99% left to cover your "I don't want to choose, so let's make it stupidly random" scenario.


While Lord Jehovah above is correct, I apparently should have put "Master race" in quotation marks.
I thought it was obvious from the placement of the term in my post that I wasn't using it to describe actual "biological race", whatever that is, seeing how the paragraph I used it in didn't even mention race but applied it to the sorting out of the sick, old, and handicapped which smacks very disturbingly of Eugenics. Especially coupled with the earlier talk about "improving the gene pool".

Your "master race" scenario is based on a number of assumptions that are not confirmed in any post I've made.


And arguing about what a child or a sick or handicapped or elderly person can add to the survival of the group and if it's enough to make up for the fact that they're a child or sick or handicapped or elderly is exactly the kind of immoral slippery slope discussion that makes this whole enterprise so morally revolting.

Amusing, but nonsensical. So you'd risk the species because you aren't willing to address difficult moral issues.

Let me ask you. Let's adjust the scenario. Let's say you can only save 20 people. Would you choose then? At what point are you going to stop risking the entirety of humanity die out because you're not willing to face up to these issues.

In a random sampling, a huge, huge portion wouldn't make it out of the shelter. You'd not be including them in anything other than an attempt to make you feel better about a catastrophe.

A doctor does a process called triage where in certain scenarios he has to overlook someone unlikely to survive to save the person most likely to have a positive outcome. Is that also morally revolting? Should the doctor instead attempt to save someone who will not survive just so he can feel better, while dozens of other people perish?

You think that by not choosing you avoid the dilemma, but by not choosing you are, in fact, choosing to allow people to perish who would survive because you filled their slots with those who could not survive.

Would I be chosen? I doubt it, especially considering that my skills are more oriented towards recovery of the past, not building a future. Besides, any competent selection system would be able to tell that I'm lazier than the vast majority of humanity.

Not to mention that the selection process would likely be dominated by one particular worldview, to the exclusion of others.

If my people had to choose, we would of course have fit men and women to have children, and to provide sustenance, etc...but we would also insist upon elders and holders of traditional knowledge. Without them, we'd be lost anyway. Crippled, old, infirm...whatever...they would ultimately be our more valued 'assets'.

That's precisely the kind of discussion I was attempting to foster. I think most people focus on one of two ideas.
1. Everyone must be able to reproduce and be strong genetic stock
or
2. We want the most intelligent scientists, etc.

Personally, I think your method is more valuable. I wouldn't necessarily exclude anyone because they were infirm. I would only want for us to include those who could survive until we left the shelter (in the scenario from Deep Impact it was maybe twice two years, or four years).

I think the old, crippled or infirm should be selected if they provide a value. But I think among those who are elders and have a particular value that we should attempt to choose those who are likely to survive.

My grandmother would call you names if your tried to put her in the shelter over others. She would call that a wisdom that one should learn. I personally have argued that her value to the world is greater because she's been around so long, but she'd NEVER go to the shelter, mostly because she knows it would be a waste of resources better served to others.

She's 93. However, ten or fifteen years ago, she'd not only gone, but she'd have helped us pack up the shelter and she'd still be carrying boxes while some of the young bucks were taking a break.

I think there would be no simple formula, but the point was discuss what kinds of things are important to any group of humans that would continue forward.

Would it be simply surviving?

Would it be preserving our history and knowledge?

Would it be about diversity?

Would be about preserving cultures?

Personally on the list of importance I would put our history and knowledge as last. Everyone acts like preserving scientific knowledge should come first, but I don't find that we've gained as much as a people from science as many would claim. I do think we made strides that knowledge have helped us reach, like the idea of equality, but I don't think there is an inherent importance to string theory or rocket science.

Definitely, willingness and ability to learn would also be vital. Versatility of capabilities and interests would also play a key role.

Nature capabilities wouldn't be so important as technical and social positions (after all, a comet wouldn't just obliterate humanity, but vast quantities of the other things living on this planet as well). Engineers, physical scientists, social scientists, historians of all stripes, anthropologists, authors and the broadly literate, they would be vital. They'd need to be early in their careers, and be provided with vast amounts of readily available information. I guess I can ignore the sanctity of copyright laws and intellectual property rights for the time being.

How can you make that argument against what Sin said and then right after talk about this? What happened to maximization of survivability.

I think it's amusing that so many people act like they can throw out other views because survivablity must be maximized while also make their own argument for the things they value over survival.

And how would you keep the ratio 10:1? Kill 9 out 10 newborn males?
That'll go over well the first few decades.. And is there even really a point to it?

I didn't promote that ratio. You're asking the wrong person. The shelter scenario would only be for a short time. Then the population would no longer by limited so there would no need to worry about ratios after that.

I only said that monogamy would not be more important to survival. I never advocated any particular ratio.

Are you going to be chosen?

God I hope not.

The shelter scenario would only be for a short time.If it's an impact serious enough to warrant people hiding in shelters, I somehow doubt that.. The environment would be shot to hell by the consequences of an impact for centuries, long before you couldn't hide on the other side of the world from the impact itself.

Even if there was some reason to include me, I'm anti-authoritarian, so I'd be ruled out.

If it's an impact serious enough to warrant people hiding in shelters, I somehow doubt that.. The environment would be shot to hell by the consequences of an impact for centuries, long before you couldn't hide on the other side of the world from the impact itself.

Why? The environment would be problematic, but provided the sky cleared there is no reason to believe we couldn't start encouraging plant growth within a couple of years. You figure the ground would be more fertile than usual since all of the decay and because nothing has been drawing from it. Water would likely be a problem, but that's only for us. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't be fine for plant growth. In fact, it'd likely be steadily getting cleaner because we're no longer polluting it.

Chosen? Nope, not a chance in Heck or in Michigan.

I'd bring Vodka and chocolate to the huge "We're not good enough, eh? See how you'll like living without someone to maintain indoor plumbing or the electrical system, handle the waste, or sanitize your phones*!
*Just go ask the Golgafrinchams!" party that we'll hold though. :)

Why? The environment would be problematic, but provided the sky cleared there is no reason to believe we couldn't start encouraging plant growth within a couple of years. But, with any impact you'd have to hide from, the sky wouldn't clear within any foreseeable time.
Even major vulcano outbreaks can ruin years of harvests by partially blocking out the sun. An impact that has devasting initial effects globally is rather more disruptive..

And feeding 600000 people even for a few month on rations is a nightmare, let alone years or centuries.

If we're ever to face an impact of a scale that makes it necessary, I seriously hope someone does a better job planning our survival.


And something to play with: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

But, with any impact you'd have to hide from, the sky wouldn't clear within any foreseeable time.

Based on what?

Even major vulcano outbreaks can ruin years of harvests by partially blocking out the sun. An impact that has devasting initial effects globally is rather more disruptive..

Yes, we're talking about years and it's not the size of the volcanic eruption that does it but the type of soot and such. This would be the same effect just on a broader scale. There is no reason to believe it would take longer to clear.


And feeding 600000 people even for a few month on rations is a nightmare, let alone years or centuries.

It would be years. Any assumption of centuries assumes something we'd have no reason to assume. There is no reason to believe that the ash and debris that would be pushed into the atmosphere would block out the sun for centuries.



If we're ever to face an impact of a scale that makes it necessary, I seriously hope someone does a better job planning our survival.


And something to play with: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

Better job than whom? No part of this scenario has discussed the actual plan, only who would be invited to the shelters.

The some republician would get control of the project and make it so only people who hold public office and make above $250,000 a year would be in the selection pool.

Probably not. I have no valuable skills or anything.

Erm... my little fingers are both double jointed! I could be the next stage in human evolution!

All 10 of mine are. Phear me.

I might not be selected, actually. :(

All 10 of mine are. Phear me.

I might not be selected, actually. :(

Me either. :(

Maybe. The few surviving would need entertainment. And freak shows might be a way of providing that.

Not a chance.

They should aim for diversity and for those who skills will be most in need after the catastrophe.

Not a chance.

They should aim for diversity and for those who skills will be most in need after the catastrophe.

I agree, but it should be true diversity, diversity of meaningful attributes, not shallow things like eye color, hair color, skin color, etc.

My question was meant to have people show what it they feel would be important to preserve in order to carry on humanity. Would it be simply to survive or for more.

The answers have been interesting. Some people were focused purely and only on survival. And some were focused on preserving ideas and particular ideologies even if it meant no one would be around to express them.

I think posting on NSG is automatic disqualification for any potential chosen :)

A better way of phrasing the thread question would have been "are you an arrogant sod, yes or no?"

Realistically? Probably not.

But I can think of some things that might make me a good candidate. I'm in the bioengineering field. I haven't gotten my PhD yet, but I'm a quick learner and I'm sure they'd preserve the relevant research in the field. I could certainly help provide medical care for those being saved by helping to provide devices, make medicines, etc. But I'm not exactly top in my field (yet, hehe), so I don't know that that would do it.

There's also the fact that the women in my family were built for pregnancy. There's been a pretty low rate of complications in pregnancies and childbirth, even on the 4th or 5th or 6th kid. Other health problems? Yes. But the women in my family tend to give birth in the span of a couple of hours. I think I could argue for that being a good trait, and maybe they'd keep my man and I alive as breeders. =)

My future husband is a computer geek. Again, he's not yet well-known in his field, but he *is* good at what he does. There'd certainly be a chance that could get him in to help run things in the shelter.

I'm not going to be anywhere near the top of any VIP lists, but I am healthy, intelligent, educated young and fertile, so I might squeeze in at the last minute when all the people who are too old, have dangerous diseases, or simply don't want to be saved are eliminated from calculation.
At least I've got a better shot at winning survival than Abebe, the starving Ethiopian child.

I would be walking to the expected impact site and whistling Greensleeves, because I highly doubt my selection.

Not only do I doubt my selection, I don't want to be selected. Let me embrace the coming doom with a sense of pride, and live my last days in acceptance that we have chosen our best and brightest, our most skilled and creative to carry on the misbegotten legacy of humanity.

I'll be at the orgy in the planetarium, waiting for the comet.

Hmm. I very much doubt I would be chosen, given the combination of a genetic disorder and an unwillingness to breed with just anybody, but I could imagine myself being selected if they were looking for young, intelligent people with knowledge in a wide variety of categories who'd be willing to instruct the next generation in such things. I think I'd make rather a good teacher at Post-Apocalyptic High School.

Not a chance. I'm a music major. And even if I was selected, I wouldn't go unless my ladyfriend was as well. Some may say that's selfish, but really, humanity as a whole hasn't really demonstrated it deserves to survive, so I don't care.

Unless you have a shelter that can provide not only shelter from the immediate effects (ground shock, blast wave, heated air, showers of molten rock) but from the long term effects (no sunlight at all for years, no food or water available), you wouldn't survive.

I doubt that many private individuals would have the ability to create, stock, and run such a shelter.


I could ... besides why should there be limited space? Its not like the counties of the world haven't built shelters for decades, if not longer.

Nope. I'm a dead man.

Who said they aren't going to shelter as many as possible? Not I. The amount they could shelter would be necessarily limited and attempting to include more than they could care for would be to endanger all. (In this scenario)

I think 1 in 10000 people is an extremely low number of people. If this is the case all that would be allowed in the shelters would be the ultra rich and the extremely intelligent. So you would either find or create your own or die!

I am healthy, tall, athletic, amiable, and intelligent. I am generally good at the sort of things that would be needed post-apocalypse: I am mechanically inclined, I can cook, I have decent knowledge of farming, I have worked several years in construction. Even with all that, I still don't think that I would be picked in the top .01%.

I think 1 in 10000 people is an extremely low number of people. If this is the case all that would be allowed in the shelters would be the ultra rich and the extremely intelligent. So you would either find or create your own or die!

Money isn't worth much in this situation.

I think 1 in 10000 people is an extremely low number of people. If this is the case all that would be allowed in the shelters would be the ultra rich and the extremely intelligent. So you would either find or create your own or die!

Yay for not reading the thread.

I very much doubt I would be chosen. For one thing I'm asexual and wouldn't want to have children, which would eliminate me from the start even if I qualified otherwise, most likely.

I very much doubt I would be chosen. For one thing I'm asexual and wouldn't want to have children, which would eliminate me from the start even if I qualified otherwise, most likely.

Its good to know that if you were the last women on earth, your convictions that sex is evil would stop you from saving the future of the human race.

In your shelter maybe. You'll add a zillion points more after you check your TGs, btw.

Certainly, you wouldn't fault one for having a discerning eye and sense for quality, no? ;)

BTW - thank you. :fluffle:

I'm really, REALLY behind on resizing those weasel pix.

I very much doubt I would be chosen. For one thing I'm asexual and wouldn't want to have children, which would eliminate me from the start even if I qualified otherwise, most likely.

*raises eyebrow*

You think any young woman chosen would have to allow herself to be turned into a baby factory?

Nope. I'm a dead man.

Perhaps you'd be included as meat stock, then?

*raises eyebrow*

You think any young woman chosen would have to allow herself to be turned into a baby factory?

Of course. People dont understand that if you´re hiding in a bunker because of a meteor winter, you´re gona have to make concesions.

Its good to know that if you were the last women on earth, your convictions that sex is evil would stop you from saving the future of the human race.

I'm not convinced that saving humanity is worth being raped and forced to bear a whole bunch of children to me...

Of course. People dont understand that if you´re hiding in a bunker because of a meteor winter, you´re gona have to make concesions.

I think I'd rather die than be raped...

*raises eyebrow*

You think any young woman chosen would have to allow herself to be turned into a baby factory?

Probably...:(

I learn pretty quickly, have a solid memory, am good at making plans and building things, and am not afraid to change my ideas if newer and better ones come along. I'd be flexible enough to help rebuild the world, advise others on how to rebuild it, or invent new things to aid in that reconstruction.

So, maybe.

Perhaps you'd be included as meat stock, then?

I'm not sure that would be too healthy...

Of course. People dont understand that if you´re hiding in a bunker because of a meteor winter, you´re gona have to make concesions.

I don't think morality would break down that quickly if at all...

Yes.

An AK47 gives little guys like me a lot of respect.

I wouldn't be chosen. I don't know enough 'elite' people. Instead, I'd build my own and only let in people who are gaming geek nerds like me. That way we could play Dungeons & Dragons untill the nuclear winter effect wore off... then we could rebuild society our way with a new feudal system and...


....hm. Did I say that out loud?

Heh. Myself and a few of my friends were talking about something like that. A nuclear winter MTG draft... good times...

If they're not going to shelter everyone/as much as possible, I'd say those who are in on the plan are the ones going to survive.

Well, in a situation like this, whomever would make such a system would know a few things:

1)They would need more females than males. This is just simple logic, a single male can impregnate many females, whereas a single female can be impregnated only once at a time. Having more females is far more desirable for this. Probably a 3:1 ration, if not a bit more would be most desirable.

2)Those willing to work in a group very well, and are not competing against each other for higher places. The key here is survival, and with a low population, only those willing to not compete heavily for resources, instead sharing the resources, are far more desirable than a bunch of single people.

3)Those who are not only intelligent, but also have a great deal of ingenuity. This means those who are capable of new, useful ideas.

Now then, for 1 they will look for people who are most willing to forgo the idea of a monotonous relationship, as it is necessary to have multiple partners. Not only this, but they will screen out those with STD's and other illnesses that are detrimental.

For two, they are looking for non-competitive types.

For three, they are looking for those willing to explore new ideas.

This means that the list of "best possible" applicants is dramatically reduced.

Now, as I have no problem with non-monogamous relationships, have no STDs, am a communist whom believes that those willing to share their resources is a good system, and am always willing to explore new ideas(revert back to why I am a good applicant to #1), and I'm in. Not to mention, physically I am healthy and reasonably fit.

However, the sure-fire way for such a system to fail miserably is if you ignore these three simple rules. If all you go for are people who are in extremely great physical shape, or even a large portion of that, such a system will not work well, if at all.

And another reason why I would be such a great candidate is that I was able to point out the best system possible. Obviously, I am of great intelligence.

I very much doubt I would be chosen. For one thing I'm asexual and wouldn't want to have children, which would eliminate me from the start even if I qualified otherwise, most likely.

Oh that's only because you've never seen me. I make women and men alike melt like ice on a summer's day.

*woosh!*

Also, sexual potency wouldn't necessarily eliminate you, as there would be areas I suppose where it isn't necessary. However, the field for this group of people would be much lower than for those who would be otherwise, likely.

I'd probably be chosen. I'm young, fertile, in college and I don't depend on any medication to survive. Most importantly though, I have money.

Its sad to say, but probably the people who will be chosen will be the ones who have money. Donald Trump will have priority over a 5-year old from El Salvador.

I'm not sure that would be too healthy...

Ah, that's what spices are for. Saved the sea-faring crew of the early explorers, oh yeah! Rancid, opalescent greenish meat was made barely palatable, along with a little dose of vitamin C. Buggery, of course, was optional.

I get rejected from almost every job interview I have, so I think it's unlikely I'd get to go. However, considering that a very big proportion of the world did not get the good schools and education that I did, I might actually get accepted if it was based on intelligence and fitness alone.

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble doing anything of use in the world at the moment, and I can't think that would be good in an attempt to rebuild civilisation.

They'll need something to eat, so yes. No, I'm not a chef. ;-)

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm a certifiable genius, but I never went to high school, so I don't have many skills. I'm a young, fertile female, but I find the male body physically repulsive. I think probably not, since whoever's in charge of selecting poeple to survive wouldn't know I exist.

Oh that's only because you've never seen me. I make women and men alike melt like ice on a summer's day.

*woosh!*
:rolleyes:


Also, sexual potency wouldn't necessarily eliminate you, as there would be areas I suppose where it isn't necessary. However, the field for this group of people would be much lower than for those who would be otherwise, likely.

All right, well I probably wouldn't be chosen anyway...

By sleeping with the right people I'll not only be chosen to survive, but I'll be in charge of choosing who else will survive. People who post on NSG or spam would be given a much higher priority over those who don't, who would in turn be given a higher priority over those who post on 4chan or 7chan.

I'll also likely choose lots and lots of hawt women, and assign some of the lay-dees of NSG(and probably a few of our resident gheys) to choose some hawt men.

Someone will probably point out that we'll need smart people in our new society, so I'll choose college students who do well in drinking contests.

I'll also choose 10 crazy extremists of each religion and lock them in a small room together for the amusement of the rest of the survivors. Something similar will be done with political extremists.

The first task fo the new society will surely be to rebuild the internets, so Al Gore will have to be saved so he can explain exactly how one builds an internet tube. We'll also need some people from tech support in Bangalore, India.

Contraception will be very important so we don't outgrow our resources, so the living space of 5 people and all the food they would eat and all that will be replaced with condoms, packets of The Pill, emergency contraception and DIY Abortion Kits(patent pending). Another 5 people will be replaced by porn.
Obviously I and my famly will be chosen; The new world will need Goofballs. :cool:

You and your family will likely be the reason that the end is extremely fucking nigh. :p

Let's look at the basic problem of who is going to do the selecting. Well, who is? Is it a UN committee? Another government? We all know how those bureaucratic organizations work. By the time they decide on the selection criteria and settle the challenges, the crisis will be past and the shelters (who's going to build them, by the way) will remain unoccupied. But the people that would wait to be chosen are not the ones we want to start a new world, anyway.

On the other hand, those that take it upon themselves, or group together in small and manageable groups will probably survive. They are the ones with the initiative, perseverance, and common sense that will needed after the crisis.

I don't think morality would break down that quickly if at all...

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Impending apocalypses do strange things to people.

Oh that's only because you've never seen me. I make women and men alike melt like ice on a summer's day.

*woosh!*

:rolleyes: You again

I'd probably be chosen. I'm young, fertile, in college and I don't depend on any medication to survive. Most importantly though, I have money.

Its sad to say, but probably the people who will be chosen will be the ones who have money. Donald Trump will have priority over a 5-year old from El Salvador.

Money? Why? What good would money be? You'd have limited resources and in the recovery period, money would not be one of the things that would aid your survival. In survival times, people survive FIRST then get paid.

You and your family will likely be the reason that the end is extremely fucking nigh. :p

:eek: Who told yo... er... I mean...

Ridiculous! :p

Would I be chosen? No. Would I be unhappy about it? Yes. Would I start hunting down and killing people that were chosen? Probably

Mint. I shall be joining you on the hunt.

No.

Would I be choosen?


Who do you think would be making the list...?

I wouldn't be chosen. But then I'd create my own underground shelter...with blackjack...and hookers!

I wouldn't be chosen. But then I'd create my own underground shelter...with blackjack...and hookers!
In fact, I'd forget the shelter.

How many people from NSG would be chosen? Probably like one or two?

By sleeping with the right people I'll not only be chosen to survive, but I'll be in charge of choosing who else will survive. People who post on NSG or spam would be given a much higher priority over those who don't, who would in turn be given a higher priority over those who post on 4chan or 7chan.

I'll also likely choose lots and lots of hawt women, and assign some of the lay-dees of NSG(and probably a few of our resident gheys) to choose some hawt men.

Someone will probably point out that we'll need smart people in our new society, so I'll choose college students who do well in drinking contests.

I'll also choose 10 crazy extremists of each religion and lock them in a small room together for the amusement of the rest of the survivors. Something similar will be done with political extremists.

The first task fo the new society will surely be to rebuild the internets, so Al Gore will have to be saved so he can explain exactly how one builds an internet tube. We'll also need some people from tech support in Bangalore, India.

Contraception will be very important so we don't outgrow our resources, so the living space of 5 people and all the food they would eat and all that will be replaced with condoms, packets of The Pill, emergency contraception and DIY Abortion Kits(patent pending). Another 5 people will be replaced by porn.

Extremely sound, reasoned out over what might appear to be several hours' worth of thought and consideration.
However, the bolded/underlined implies that we'd also have to keep Ted "The Hulk"/"Clinically Depressed" Stevens, who is, with his son, genetic Valley Trash, and seriously detrimental to any future endeavours regarding the well-being/continuity of our species.
Seriously.

I don't consider myself to be in the 600k club of the human species. Although I'll be the dick to blow up that shelter beforehand and then do a jig as the meteor hits.

I don't consider myself to be in the 600k club of the human species. Although I'll be the dick to blow up that shelter beforehand and then do a jig as the meteor hits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/images/300/baby_crying_closeup.jpg

They'll need something to eat, so yes. No, I'm not a chef. ;-)

Not gnaw, eat.
*shakes head*

:rolleyes:



All right, well I probably wouldn't be chosen anyway...

Oh, you roll your eyes now. Just you wait.

:D

:rolleyes: You again

I'm faster than a speeding bullet.