You Can Only Save So Many

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowYou'rePlayingWithPower
  • Start date Start date

The World Will End Wihout Ending 80% of it's Population, Who do you Save?

  • USA/Western Europe

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • Other North America/South America

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Middle East/Eurasia

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Eastern Europe/Russia

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Central Asia

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Southeast Asia

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Oceania and the Penguins

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Africa and Atlantis

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Top 20% Rated by Financial Success

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Top 20% Rated by intelligence

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • Total voters
    9
I voted for intelligence.

Can't be a bad thing, right?

Well, not-necessarily. :dunno:
 
I havent read Atlus Shrugged but Im going with Im saving everyone if I can.......


And if thats not possible penguins at the least ^_^
 
Monkey Man said:
Hmm... guessing the other vote was from you Sister Lisa.

Great minds mate, great minds. :LOL:
Click to expand...

Atlantis was promising, but they're more hermit than the DPRK.
So, not enough information to lean in their favor.
Besides, favoring intelligence should yield a great representation of cultures.
 
The~Kid said:
Its a new dawn.......


Dawn of the Penguins. Slippery, wobbling bastards been waiting forever, preparing for this moment......


A Thousand year Penguin Empire :devilish:
Click to expand...

Penguins come with Kangaroos and Kiwis in this scenario.

"I know not with what weapons will be used to fight in WWIII, but WWIV will be fought with flippers."

-Diane Feinstein
 
The~Kid said:
Can we have emus and lamas too......... either way Im ready to bow to our new Penguin Overlords :worship:
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I don't live in Oceania. Pretty sure I'm not a penguin, either. Well, mostly sure.
 
I voted intelligence because it was the closest thing to my real answer.

It’s survival of the fittest. Guys with the best plans, who are best prepared and ain’t afraid to kill all their neighbors and take their shit.
 
Floyd Eye said:
I voted intelligence because it was the closest thing to my real answer.

It’s survival of the fittest. Guys with the best plans, who are best prepared and ain’t afraid to kill all their neighbors and take their shit.
Click to expand...

I feel my apocalypse is less dark. Would let everyone stay alive. Those who don't make the cut just become sterile. Probably the nicest way to go about it.
Would like to see the population continuing to decline post 20% allotment to a more healthy and favorable balance of the actual 6% that I'm aiming for.
Just didn't want to come off genocidal in the poll. So, was trying to be nice by going with eugenics.
 
Where's the option to save no one and let it all burn?

My answer is along the same lines as Floyd. I'd pick intelligence, but basing it on meaning different types of intelligence and not just high IQ. Like just because you can do complex mathematical equations doesn't mean you can practically build a shelter or know how to plant crops. Or on the flip of that because you can build a basic shelter or get a couple tomato plants to grow doesn't mean you can formulate rebuilding a city or feeding a large society. All types of intelligence would be needed at some point in this type of scenario. Expanding, you'd also want to have some "jack of all trade" types. They may not be the top of any field, but can function equally well across multiple areas.

So it sorta boils down to survival of the fittest, but it would be more along the lines of the fittest group of people as a whole.

NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
I feel my apocalypse is less dark. Would let everyone stay alive. Those who don't make the cut just become sterile. Probably the nicest way to go about it.
Would like to see the population continuing to decline post 20% allotment to a more healthy and favorable balance of the actual 6% that I'm aiming for.
Just didn't want to come off genocidal in the poll. So, was trying to be nice by going with eugenics.
Click to expand...

I just caught the question was without 80% immediately dying. If no one dies and 20% remain fertile... it's a different scenario. You're not relying on survivors to recover society. You still have the entirety of the population to keep things going in the immediate. So you're really looking at a large population decline over the course of a generation rather than 80% being wiped out immediately. I don't know if it would matter who could still breed or not. A genius or dumbass has the potential to come out of any paring. You're not relying on 1st gen survivors to set the groundwork for rebuilding. You're looking towards their offspring to keep things going, just with a lot smaller population. 2 different sets of variables.

I think for this scenario I'd save Oceana and let the penguins have their shot as the dominant species.

In any case, the completely expendable ones are those who believe in flat earth. No one has any use for them.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
Where's the option to save no one and let it all burn?

My answer is along the same lines as Floyd. I'd pick intelligence, but basing it on meaning different types of intelligence and not just high IQ. Like just because you can do complex mathematical equations doesn't mean you can practically build a shelter or know how to plant crops. Or on the flip of that because you can build a basic shelter or get a couple tomato plants to grow doesn't mean you can formulate rebuilding a city or feeding a large society. All types of intelligence would be needed at some point in this type of scenario. Expanding, you'd also want to have some "jack of all trade" types. They may not be the top of any field, but can function equally well across multiple areas.

So it sorta boils down to survival of the fittest, but it would be more along the lines of the fittest group of people as a whole.



I just caught the question was without 80% immediately dying. If no one dies and 20% remain fertile... it's a different scenario. You're not relying on survivors to recover society. You still have the entirety of the population to keep things going in the immediate. So you're really looking at a large population decline over the course of a generation rather than 80% being wiped out immediately. I don't know if it would matter who could still breed or not. A genius or dumbass has the potential to come out of any paring. You're not relying on 1st gen survivors to set the groundwork for rebuilding. You're looking towards their offspring to keep things going, just with a lot smaller population. 2 different sets of variables.

I think for this scenario I'd save Oceana and let the penguins have their shot as the dominant species.

In any case, the completely expendable ones are those who believe in flat earth. No one has any use for them.
Click to expand...

How I see it is; The less complex you perceive complex things to be, the higher the intelligence. Ultimately, wouldn't come down to overall knowledge as much as it would a combination of both common sense and perception. Which would cover a lot of traits from reasoning and wisdom to down to earthness and charisma, etc... Imo, offspring would have a better chance of yielding higher than current levels of average intelligence through both genetics and the environment created for them by their parents and eventual society. The question in the OP is really however someone wants to interpret it happens, tbh. I was mainly just responding to Floyd's version of events.
 
The penguins all the way. :rock:

s-l400.jpg
 
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
I feel my apocalypse is less dark. Would let everyone stay alive. Those who don't make the cut just become sterile. Probably the nicest way to go about it.
Would like to see the population continuing to decline post 20% allotment to a more healthy and favorable balance of the actual 6% that I'm aiming for.
Just didn't want to come off genocidal in the poll. So, was trying to be nice by going with eugenics.
Click to expand...

I was trying to differentiate between an ideal scenario and a realistic one. So I guess my answer would change depending on if you are talking about an organized, coordinated “ reset” or talking about a realistic situation where resources are scarce and will have to be distributed among a population based on individual ability to obtain and retain those resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top