NationStates Jolt Archive

A catastrophe is imminent. We have been prescient enough to divide people into two groups -- achievers and non-achievers. Non-achievers live primarily off the efforts of others and achievers are primarily self-sustaining.

Who do you save and why do you make that choice?

Define self-sustaining. Do they grow/hunt their own food, or buy it at the supermarket?

Did they build the car they use to drive around their hometown, and use fuel they themselves pumped out of the ground? Or do they have Ford Motor Co. and an Arab-run oil cartel to thank for both?

Total self-sufficiency is an illusion in the present day.

By what criteria do you make that determination?

EDIT: Dammit, why is everyone typing faster than me today...

Obviously the non-acheivers, because if the acheievers are REALLY so good, then things'll be sorted out by them. Otherwise, they become another bunch of non-acheivers.

*sigh*

Moral and philosophical conundrums...

...

From a completely practical standpoint we need a population that is capable of actually SURVIVING long enough to ensure the continuation of the species...so...

I wouldn't care if they were achievers or non-achievers or Baptists. If I could help save them, I would try. I might have missed the point. Do they still sell Big League Chew? Grape was good.

Myself.


What, you'll know you would do thesame.

Myself.


What, you'll know you would do thesame.

Yeah...If we have a true catastrophe, Society will descend into chaotic Anarchy...I guess the people who can sustain themselves will survive and others won't....

question seems a bit vague. what scale of catastrophe are we talking here? i take it we can only save one group for some reason, yes? and we are assuming that 'achiever' and 'non-achiever'dom are essentially unchanging psychological facts about people, unshaken by mere changes in scenery like surviving a massive catastrophe?


but anyways, i think i'll take the 'non-achievers', as that includes the entirety of humanity.

Kill everyone.

Other: nobody's really self-sustaining nowadays, what with needing electricity for power, agriculture for food, etc. And if you think about it, even in the stone age, people relied on the support of others - people weren't hermits back then.

Total self-sufficiency is an illusion in the past 6 million years or so.

fixed

Other: split the difference and keep a good balance of acheivers and non-acheivers. A society of acheivers alone would not be worth living in.

The poll options are so vague my first reaction was confusion. But sorting people into those 2 groups would be easy. Everyone between 15 and 55 who are well trained and healthy can achieve what they must when survival forces them to while everyone else are less likely to be capable of surviving.

I'd try to help anyone as long as it doesn't seem like they are looking for someone to rob.

You save the people who have the most valuable skills. How to determine this is not for me to decide. If it was, then I'd consult various advisers and sources and weigh my options.

Define self-sustaining. Do they grow/hunt their own food, or buy it at the supermarket?

Indeed. A manager might earn more money than a farmer, teacher or construction worker , but I do believe the latter group could be more useful to a devastated society. The manager also gets paid due to the efforts of others.

Since the only acheivers that exist are weird hermits who never get sick I'd have to go with the nonacheivers.

rabbits.

:sniper:Kill everyone.
First kill all the lawyers

:sniper:

good post

fixed

Thankee kindly.

Whichever group promises more sexual favours in exchange for my help, duh.

You save the people who have the most valuable skills. How to determine this is not for me to decide. If it was, then I'd consult various advisers and sources and weigh my options.

I'd think you'd have to include the genetic edowments of people along with their skills. Intelligence, health, and athleticism would likely be essential for long term survival. Even fat people with "thrifty" genes may be good if the food supply is not guaranteed.

Indeed. A manager might earn more money than a farmer, teacher or construction worker , but I do believe the latter group could be more useful to a devastated society. The manager also gets paid due to the efforts of others.

Right. Living below the poverty level but working in construction doesn't make you a non-acheiver, whether or not you get a welfare check every week. Similarly, I'd hardly call Jeffrey Immelt and Jack Welsh acheivers, whether or not they pulled in multi-million-dollar salaries as CEOs.

Honestly, who's more important when you're reduced to using farm equipment and building log cabins: the CEO, or the construction worker/farmer?

I would save a mix of both.

I'd think you'd have to include the genetic edowments of people along with their skills. Intelligence, health, and athleticism would likely be essential for long term survival. Even fat people with "thrifty" genes may be good if the food supply is not guaranteed.

also, you are going to need to account for overall attitude and personality for the immediate post-catastrophe period. you'll need people who are very good at working with others and not a bunch of control freaks, etc.

Whichever group promises more sexual favours in exchange for my help, duh.

will you be using just quantity or will quality count too?

I would save all the NS'ers, so achievers. We are all achievers here!

















http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/breath/Faces_asthma/present_images/VIIB1.gif

A catastrophe is imminent. We have been prescient enough to divide people into two groups -- achievers and non-achievers. Non-achievers live primarily off the efforts of others and achievers are primarily self-sustaining.

Who do you save and why do you make that choice?

Um, everyone?

A catastrophe is imminent. We have been prescient enough to divide people into two groups -- achievers and non-achievers. Non-achievers live primarily off the efforts of others and achievers are primarily self-sustaining.

Who do you save and why do you make that choice?

Honestly I'd be glad to see all the useless people removed from this planet. And to preempt anybody if that includes me then so be it- it would be in the best interests of society. Of course it is quite complicated to decide who is useful and who is useless, as other posters have stated.

Honestly I'd be glad to see all the useless people removed from this planet. And to preempt anybody if that includes me then so be it- it would be in the best interests of society. Of course it is quite complicated to decide who is useful and who is useless, as other posters have stated.

For some reason I am now reminded of a bit in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, involving sending all the "useless" people like telephone cleaners away in a huge spaceship... how did that bit end again ;) ?

will you be using just quantity or will quality count too?

Quality and quantity will both be taken into account.

Total self-sufficiency is an illusion in the present day.
Not true. There have always been a few weirdos who go out into the wilderness and eat locusts or roots.
It might not be a very long life, and it might not be one worth living to most people, but it is still a life of sorts.

Not true. There have always been a few weirdos who go out into the wilderness and eat locusts or roots.
It might not be a very long life, and it might not be one worth living to most people, but it is still a life of sorts.Odds are, this catastrophe would leave them completely fucked as many of the mechanisms they live off of would be destroyed.

For some reason I am now reminded of a bit in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, involving sending all the "useless" people like telephone cleaners away in a huge spaceship... how did that bit end again ;) ?

*ahem* I knew monkeys were too good to be related to!

For some reason I am now reminded of a bit in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, involving sending all the "useless" people like telephone cleaners away in a huge spaceship... how did that bit end again ;) ?

You win the thread and at life.


But to answer the question... whichever group I'm in.

Odds are, this catastrophe would leave them completely fucked as many of the mechanisms they live off of would be destroyed.
Depends on the catastrophe. If it were some sort of plague, they'd actually be more likely to survive than anyone else, if it were a nuclear holocaust that sterilized the surface of the Earth it wouldn't really matter since nobody would be surviving.

The questions of how much people achieve and how much of others' achievement they live off are separate. This also somewhat ties in with the question of general achievement versus specialized achievement.

Those who are a useless drain without potential would have to go. Those who are (or have a strong potential to become; goes for everything regarding ability following) highly specialized and highly achieving but rely on others' achievement in other areas to be productive can be just as important as those who are more self-reliant given high enough skill. (or even much more, if of outstanding capability)

The very best of the specialized are, in many areas, of absolutely critical value - if you want more than to just survive in a primitive state. Those with a broader set of skills and more self-reliance are also important, and can serve as a fall-back for the more specialized when so is needed, but often cannot replace the true specialists.

Generally, the less the self-reliance and breadth of skill, the higher the bar would be set regarding its depth. That bar would never reach zero, so a hard cut-off somewhere along the line to filter out those of the least usefulness would apply to those everywhere on the self-reliance spectrum, estimated according to many criteria (perhaps best done by an elaborate algorithm constructed for that purpose).

I save those who are capable of nuances of human interaction, who are able to critically evaluate cituations, and able to treat other people with compassion.

Those who demonstre a myopic and extraordinarily narrow perspective, who are unable to appreciate the complexities of human society, and are devoid of necessary compasion and empathy, like the OP, are of no real use to rebuilding any functioning society.

Either way, society would collapse. It needs both groups to sustain itself in a meaningful fashion.

Reminds me of the old question:

If all of the garbage collectors and all of the CEO's disappeared which would you miss first?



As far as this question:

If it's survival the people would have to work together. Which means who would best survive, a society of all Chiefs or all Indians? I would have to pick the Indians as the Chiefs would be too busy fighting to continue to produce.

Depends on the catastrophe. If it were some sort of plague, they'd actually be more likely to survive than anyone else, if it were a nuclear holocaust that sterilized the surface of the Earth it wouldn't really matter since nobody would be surviving.I'm thinking the catastrophe is more along the lines of "<insert event here> happens <insert place here> which killed 99.9%-100% of people in the immediate area and is going to fuck over everyone else on Earth." Examples could include The Day After Tomorrow, a giant flood that covers most of Earth, or a pretty bad meteor strike. Societies could survive those event, but Mr Back-to-nature would be completely fucked when the fire he uses to keep himself warm at night didn't work when the region he lives in is covered in feet of water.

Societies could survive those event, but Mr Back-to-nature would be completely fucked when the fire he uses to keep himself warm at night didn't work when the region he lives in is covered in feet of water.

How would anyone else survive in a similar situation, even if they were in a 'society'? It isn't like any modern technologies would still be functioning. I guess they could all huddle together for warmth, but Mr. 'Back-to-nature' could huddle with bears.. we all know wilderness hermits talk to animals.

A catastrophe is imminent. We have been prescient enough to divide people into two groups -- achievers and non-achievers. Non-achievers live primarily off the efforts of others and achievers are primarily self-sustaining.

Who do you save and why do you make that choice?

A mix is good because then by having someone skilled and someone not you give the skilled one the motivation to achieve something to show the other how to do it.

How would anyone else survive in a similar situation, even if they were in a 'society'? It isn't like any modern technologies would still be functioning. I guess they could all huddle together for warmth, but Mr. 'Back-to-nature' could huddle with bears.. we all know wilderness hermits talk to animals.The basic idea is that there would be allot (read: a fuckload) more people to come up with a way out, and implement any ideas. Sure lots would be fundamentally fucked, but some would work out. Sure all of New York may die when people decide "Everyone just by a scuba system and swim everywhere instead of walking" (or not) but someone else may say "we need a fuckload of boats, now" and could save lots of people people (or not).

Then when everybody is in a boat, and someone gets hungry, there will be more than two ideas on how they are going to feed themselves. Even if a bunch turn out to be a dud, they can be tried out in parallel.

Back to nature would have to get everything right, while society would have the ability to make up for mistakes by virtue of a larger population.

The basic idea is that there would be allot (read: a fuckload) more people to come up with a way out, and implement any ideas. Sure lots would be fundamentally fucked, but some would work out. Sure all of New York may die when people decide "Everyone just by a scuba system and swim everywhere instead of walking" (or not) but someone else may say "we need a fuckload of boats, now" and could save lots of people people (or not).

Then when everybody is in a boat, and someone gets hungry, there will be more than two ideas on how they are going to feed themselves. Even if a bunch turn out to be a dud, they can be tried out in parallel.

Back to nature would have to get everything right, while society would have the ability to make up for mistakes by virtue of a larger population.

Makes sense.

If none of the ideas work out, they can always eat eachother, whereas the hermit can only eat a few non-essential limbs.

I guess this was really a trick question, but I'll get to that later. The answers turned out to be about what I would have expected out of such a non-judgmental crowd -- Mostly waffling and avoidance. And then there were a few that just couldn't resist a poke or two at me...as if I cared.

Most tried to define achievement in monetary terms. That's not bad, but I think y'all missed the point. Someone doesn't need to be independently wealthy to be a self-sustaining individual. Being able to get up, go to work, and bring home a paycheck for the job you do is plenty good enough. That way, you help to support all the non-achievers that are the parasites among us. So the carpenter, the steelworker, the self-made millionaire are all achievers in the most basic way.

I think most of you hit the nail on the head when it came to non-achievers. Not only are they poor, but in the United States, they have generally made themselves poor. I wouldn't want to depend on this group to get me through a crisis. Their shining moment came and went with Hurricane Katrina.

The vast majority of those that just sat around and waited for the government to save them were non-achievers, no matter what their income. They built on their non-achieving abilities by staying in federally provided lodging, all the while carping about how bad off they were.

The achievers got new housing, new jobs, and went on with their lives.

What was the trick? Most of you should be smart enough to have figured it out by now, but just so it isn't open to interpretation, I'll tell...

Self-sufficient people may not grow all their own food, or make the gas that their car runs on, but they have one quality that distinguishes them from the parasitic. They can make good decisions. They have initiative. They have perseverance. They won't need saving, they're the ones that will bail out the non-achievers again and again because it's the right thing to do.

I guess this was really a trick question, but I'll get to that later. The answers turned out to be about what I would have expected out of such a non-judgmental crowd -- Mostly waffling and avoidance. And then there were a few that just couldn't resist a poke or two at me...as if I cared.

Most posters recognized that you deliberately tilted the question to lean the way you wanted it to go so they looked at the the ambiguities of the language you used.

Most tried to define achievement in monetary terms. That's not bad, but I think y'all missed the point. Someone doesn't need to be independently wealthy to be a self-sustaining individual. Being able to get up, go to work, and bring home a paycheck for the job you do is plenty good enough. That way, you help to support all the non-achievers that are the parasites among us. So the carpenter, the steelworker, the self-made millionaire are all achievers in the most basic way.

So basically dependents such as the elderly whose savings ran out and youngchildren are parasites on the back of society? Will you give back your Social Security check the government will send you when you retire?


The vast majority of those that just sat around and waited for the government to save them were non-achievers, no matter what their income. They built on their non-achieving abilities by staying in federally provided lodging, all the while carping about how bad off they were.

Source?


The achievers got new housing, new jobs, and went on with their lives.

Not one acheiver griped about how bad off they were? They were all incredibly stoic?


What was the trick? Most of you should be smart enough to have figured it out by now, but just so it isn't open to interpretation, I'll tell...

Self-sufficient people may not grow all their own food, or make the gas that their car runs on, but they have one quality that distinguishes them from the parasitic. They can make good decisions. They have initiative. They have perseverance. They won't need saving, they're the ones that will bail out the non-achievers again and again because it's the right thing to do.

I don't get what you are saying. How can saving parasites be a good thing? What are people who have ok paying jobs but not a high paying ones because they no initiative? These people don't live off the state, charity, or family. Are they acheivers? How can they be acheivers if they have no initiative? How can they be nonacheivers when they don't live off anyone?

Someone doesn't need to be independently wealthy to be a self-sustaining individual.

yeah, you merely need your own internal biological nuclear reactor

A mix is good because then by having someone skilled and someone not you give the skilled one the motivation to achieve something to show the other how to do it.

though note that the op didn't actually talk about skill, but rather defined achievement in terms of being 'self-sustaining' and non-achievement in terms of living in society ('off the efforts of others').

Achievers.... and me.

though note that the op didn't actually talk about skill, but rather defined achievement in terms of being 'self-sustaining' and non-achievement in terms of living in society ('off the efforts of others').

I'll save Free Soviets just for the fuck of it.

He can survive off of killing orphans like me.

I'll save Free Soviets just for the fuck of it.

He can survive off of killing orphans like me.

mmm mmm good

A catastrophe is imminent.

LG's children have come of age. :eek:

Either that or they've joined with the House of Smunk. :eek: :p

I'd hand-pick a few 'achievers' to run my new world regime and save a whole bunch of 'non-achievers' to slave away building me pyramids and also for additional food, should standard methods of food gathering fail.

im taking the non-achievers.

why?

taking the achievers is like trying to save the dinosaurs. they are perfectly adapted to the way the world USED to be. they are the investment bankers, the corporate lawyers, the lobbyists, the CEOs. they are highly invested in the world that is no more and quite unsuited to the world as it has suddenly become. how can they possibly deal with a new situation where knowing the arcane bits of corporate law does not get them anywhere? where putting money into the correct stock is no longer possible? where a fancy suit and $5000 watch no longer indicate status?

is this new post-apocalyptic world (that i have decided you are proposing) there can be no slacking off to survive so everyone has to become a worker. the non-achievers are more likely to be able to psychologically adapt to a world where they are not top-dog (since they have never been top dog). they are already used to thinking around things, taking a different path, making do with less. they have no big psychological investment in the world that no longer exists so they can perhaps adapt better than the achievers can.

if, however, you are talking about a more common type of catastrophe like hurricane katrina...

and i have a school bus the morning after that can pick up about 100 people and carry them to safety...

im taking the non-achievers, the diabetic grandmothers, the handicapped, the young people who stayed behind to make sure that that diabetic grandmother would be OK. those who would have left but had no transportation. the charity workers who worked through the crisis until it was too late to get out on their own.

the achievers had their fucking chance. they should have gotten away when they could.

if, however, you are talking about a more common type of catastrophe like hurricane katrina...

and i have a school bus the morning after that can pick up about 100 people and carry them to safety...

im taking the non-achievers, the diabetic grandmothers, the handicapped, the young people who stayed behind to make sure that that diabetic grandmother would be OK. those who would have left but had no transportation. the charity workers who worked through the crisis until it was too late to get out on their own.

the achievers had their fucking chance. they should have gotten away when they could.

haha, damn fucking straight

LG's children have come of age. :eek:

Either that or they've joined with the House of Smunk. :eek: :p

Do you really think anyone would be safe?

As for me, I'd save everyone whose last name begins with the letter F.

I figure I'd get a nice assortment that way. :)

Which group would I save?

It depends. Which group did you put the artists in (and by that I mean everything from musicians to photographers and beyond)? That is the group I want to save.

Which group would I save?

It depends. Which group did you put the artists in (and by that I mean everything from musicians to photographers and beyond)? That is the group I want to save.

Does that include struggling poets and amateur harmonica players?

If so...
*breathes sigh of relief*

If not...
*starts painting, Pollock style*

There is not a single human on Earth who is self-sufficient. Basically, this is a choice between saving nobody (the mythological "achievers") and saving everybody (the so-called "non-achievers").

There is not a single human on Earth who is self-sufficient. Basically, this is a choice between saving nobody (the mythological "achievers") and saving everybody (the so-called "non-achievers").

As in we all rely on something else, such as oxygen in the air to breathe, food, water, etc..?

A catastrophe is imminent. We have been prescient enough to divide people into two groups -- achievers and non-achievers. Non-achievers live primarily off the efforts of others and achievers are primarily self-sustaining.

Who do you save and why do you make that choice?

I'd let them decide with a battle royale. Survival of the fittest or sick game? I'm inclined to go with the former. You want reality TV there you go!

Ummm....I'd save those who best able to work cooperatively. The cooperative effort would be more effective in rebuilding, maintaining and advancing the new society than a bunch of crazy survivalists guarding their property all crazy hillbilly style.

I'd perhaps eliminate the scientologists or the religious fanatics before the battle royale but yeah that's a good point. Why just go with the achievers, even those people can be worthless to a society.

Ummm....I'd save those who best able to work cooperatively. The cooperative effort would be more effective in rebuilding, maintaining and advancing the new society than a bunch of crazy survivalists guarding their property all crazy hillbilly style.

As in we all rely on something else, such as oxygen in the air to breathe, food, water, etc..?

No. We all rely on other people for stuff. And if, by some chance, there is someone who somehow manages to not have to rely on any other person, he relies on the bacteria in his gut.

There is not a single human on Earth who is self-sufficient. Basically, this is a choice between saving nobody (the mythological "achievers") and saving everybody (the so-called "non-achievers").

been beaten to it

Does that include struggling poets and amateur harmonica players?

If so...
*breathes sigh of relief*

If not...
*starts painting, Pollock style*

Indeed it does. And quilters, and stone carvers, and people who fold little paper origami swans, and sidewalk chalkers, and actors, and novella writers, and pastry chefs who make those fancy desserts on the Food Network Challenges, and tap dancers, and comic book inkers, and costume designers, and glass blowers, and those guys who created South Park, and lyricists, and scrimshaw makers, and ...

I am not sure if it actually includes Pollock, though, because I don't think that is art. Of course, that may be a discussion for another thread, but if I am in charge of the saving, stick with your harmonica and don't worry about the paint drips.

Indeed it does. And quilters, and stone carvers, and people who fold little paper origami swans, and sidewalk chalkers, and actors, and novella writers, and pastry chefs who make those fancy desserts on the Food Network Challenges, and tap dancers, and comic book inkers, and costume designers, and glass blowers, and those guys who created South Park, and lyricists, and scrimshaw makers, and ...

I am not sure if it actually includes Pollock, though, because I don't think that is art. Of course, that may be a discussion for another thread, but if I am in charge of the saving, stick with your harmonica and don't worry about the paint drips.

Pollock is art. *glare*




:p

and who decides what an achievement is.

used to have a regular argument with someone at work

he claimed he was an achiever because he had the company car and the hue salary, i claimed i was an achiever because i had saved someone's life.

-snip-

Gee, why was I sure this was all based on a silly right-wing talking point? To your credit, at least you acknowledge that bailing them out is the right thing to do. Now, we just need to get past the begrudging part.

Whoever's closest to me (my physical location).

Non-achievers. They're clearly the more intelligent group. ;)

Those who demonstre a myopic and extraordinarily narrow perspective, who are unable to appreciate the complexities of human society, and are devoid of necessary compasion and empathy, like the OP, are of no real use to rebuilding any functioning society.

I think you just demonstrated all those traits in that one sentence.

I'd save myself, the people I care about and damn everyone else, achievers or not. This is about ME!

A catastrophe is imminent. We have been prescient enough to divide people into two groups -- achievers and non-achievers. Non-achievers live primarily off the efforts of others and achievers are primarily self-sustaining.

Who do you save and why do you make that choice?

By some definitions, I am a non-achiever. I've always worked at low paying, dead end jobs. But, I raised two achieving children - both of them well-educated and productive. I wouldn't be so quick to condemn "non-achievers."
Some "achievers" are only in good positions because "non-achievers" supported them at critical times.

Unfortunately, I would have to go on a case by case basis, which would take too much time.