What Would You Do? - Survival of the Submissive (1116 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 0.51 on 42 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by SilvrWolf (View user info) at 2009-02-14 21:01:43 EST
What if five out of every seven people you know had to die in order for you to survive? What if you had the power to choose who got to live and who had to die? Let's say for a minute that the carrying capacity for this planet is 2 to 3 billion people. That means the maximum number of humans that can survive indefinitely with the resources available on this planet. We're fast approaching a population of 7 billion human beings. So, for this hypothetical scenario, the choice is made (either through force or farce) that there will be a culling of our species.
First, you have to think about what this means. If you're around a few people at this moment, look around. Think about your closest family members. Five out of seven of them will soon cease to exist. That's pretty hardcore if you think about it. As a species, we haven't seen that scale of population bottleneck since the Toba supervolcanic eruption 70,000 years ago. Think of six of your closest friends, family members or both. Assuming you yourself want to survive, which one of the six others would you most want to stay alive with you?
Now, still assuming you've made the decision to survive, what would you be willing to sacrifice? If you had to leave everything that you once considered yours behind, every material possession, and moved into a life/living arrangement designed for you, could you do it? In this scenario, you're not in control of your own life. You're being told to report to a mega metropolitan area and being "reassigned". Your residence, your career, even your recreation are structured and regimented by an entity. Keep in mind that you had to choose to leave loved ones behind in order for you to live here. The "survivors" are herded together and packed together like cattle. Your assigned job has to be done by you in order for you to be allowed to live. Freedom no longer exists and you WILL do what you're told to do or face becoming one of those five of seven. Could you do it?
Are you an independent spirit? Say you can't stand the thought of being subjugated and decide you won't give up your liberties. Would you fight? Some would argue that it depends on "what" you're fighting. That really doesn't matter in this hypothetical. The entity that forced this decision on the world isn't the focus of this thought experiment. Let's give you a 0.001% chance of success should you decide to fight to live free. That means if you're fighting along with 100,000 other people, only one of you will achieve a long life ending in a natural death. Live free or die takes on a whole new meaning now, doesn't it? Are you still willing to fight?
What kind of life would you be left with if you chose not to conform? We'll say it's a life mostly of hiding or at least keeping a very low profile. You hunt for your food, whether it's plants or animals. If you choose to farm, your crops would have to be in very small plots so as not to attract attention from either the entity which will still be hunting you down or other "outlanders" willing to steal or kill to survive. It is a life of subsistence and self-sufficiency. You'll be set back technologically at least two hundred years. Is this a life you're willing to live in order to keep your freedom?
It's a truly frightening scenario when you think about the scale of it. Think about this: if all the pieces were in place, we have the technology as a species to make this a true story. Truth be told, it SHOULD happen for the sake of the planet. We also have the technology to increase the carrying capacity of our world if we make the right decisions. But what I'm more interested in is: what would you choose to do if it came to this?
User Reviews
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2009-02-21 16:45:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I would try to bring evreybody with me. With all the people dead I'm sure there would be a nuke left unattended somewhere
Submitted by RoadSong (user info) at 2009-02-19 13:28:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
If it came to this I would close my eyes and sing my death song.
It is called "A Good Day to Die".
I am a flatliner and death is not what I fear.
What do I fear?
Cages.
Submitted by rachelbee (user info) at 2009-02-18 12:36:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i think about this kind of stuff after I play Left 4 Dead, the new zombie game for xbox 360. That game is crazy. In fact, my new apartment has a really heavy door, and my first thought upon encountering it was "damn zombies could not get through this." then i think about what if a zombie apocalypse really did happen, and how incredibly fucked in the ass we would all be. I mean think about how many people live in a square mile in a heavily populated city. thousands. you would have to drive around in a tank just to be able to carry enough ammo. and then if they could run, like in 28 days later, you would be 2 or maybe even 3 times as fucked, since zombies dont get tired, and if youre short, like me, you cant run very fast.
anyway...it would suck.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-18 11:57:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-02-17 07:15:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2009-02-17 07:04:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-16 14:43:56 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2009-02-16 15:32:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
or so the saying goes.
------
i wonder how hookers feel about this phrase...
====
Of course you do.
-----
+2 this exchange
----
i like how she doesn't like me. it's the best passive aggressiveness ever.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2009-02-18 11:27:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"it would probably help the entity in charge if you did fight... I would fight too"
lol
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2009-02-17 18:43:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think the "I would fight and die" guys understand that there is no great victory to be won in this scenario. Infact, it would probably help the entity in charge if you did fight. He would be able to spin it like you (the unworthy) are trying to steal resources from the people he has selected to live. They would fight you back, and probably exterminate you due to better weapons and training. If he loses a few thousand troops so what? his whole plan is to kill off a vast chunk of the population.
I would fight too, but the only victory you would ever celebrate would be waking up in the morning.
Submitted by monkeyswithguns (user info) at 2009-02-17 14:17:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Been thinking about this lately. I often think of these types of scenarios. No questions asked, I'd rather fight and die than be dominated.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-02-17 07:15:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2009-02-17 07:04:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-16 14:43:56 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2009-02-16 15:32:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
or so the saying goes.
------
i wonder how hookers feel about this phrase...
====
Of course you do.
-----
+2 this exchange
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2009-02-17 07:04:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-16 14:43:56 CST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2009-02-16 15:32:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
or so the saying goes.
------
i wonder how hookers feel about this phrase...
====
Of course you do.
Submitted by SilentRenegade (user info) at 2009-02-16 20:18:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/108968
http://www.ubersite.com/m/109240
that is all
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-16 15:43:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2009-02-16 15:32:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
or so the saying goes.
------
i wonder how hookers feel about this phrase...
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2009-02-16 15:32:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
or so the saying goes.
Submitted by BruceCampbell (user info) at 2009-02-16 14:46:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Only one person need to survive beside myself... my sex partner.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2009-02-16 12:05:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Is that Pripyat in the Chernobyl area?
Also, I don't think there will be any Megatropoles in the coming centuries. Humans are way too disorganised for them to start behaving like ants any time soon. The people coming closest to that behaviour are of course the Chinese, but look some photos up (of their cities) and you'll see they're still way off.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-02-16 10:17:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i'll take my chances in the wild, thanks.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2009-02-16 09:38:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
like you said, it SHOULD happen. "freedom" is little more than a marketing gimmick aimed at making insecure and powerless people willing to be subjugated by commerce and mediocrity, which is much worse than being "subjugated" by a society with goals and values, which is the natural order of human existence. technological "progress," too, is ultimately irrelevant - being able to watch Seinfeld and cook your own pot roast in 20 minutes has no bearing on quality of life, only comfort of life. pursuing comfort and convenience as goals is pathetic. eliminating technology purposefully, however, would be idiotic. there is no benefit in throwing ourselves back to the stone age, but there is a huge benefit in bringing the values of antiquity into modern times - values that hold truth, purpose, harmony, honor, and power as being above convenience, comfort, entertainment, and feel-good morality.
frankly, i think the scenario presented would be wonderful, not terrifying - death comes to all, and i see no problem with sending 90% of the human population to an early grave. does that mean i'd be willing to sacrifice my own family? of course not - eliminate loyalty and humanity only distances itself from anything noble.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2009-02-16 09:32:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.
-- Mark Twain
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2009-02-16 09:21:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
When Ubersite publishes "Posts on tape", this one should be read in Don LaFontaine's voice.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-02-16 09:11:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I suspect that it wouldn't be a random 5 of 7 who would end up dead. In fact, if it ever comes to pass, I'd wager that the 5 of 7 would be largely those who have not learned basic evasion/survival skills or who simply have no will to fight when pressed. I have few friends or family members who fit those descriptions, so I and most of the people I know would likely do OK.
Like my psychotic friend Andy says, "I'll see you on Game Day, but you won't see me."
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2009-02-16 09:10:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Cancer is making that decision for us. It's like natural population control.
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2009-02-16 08:51:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
live free, I can survive and provide for my family.
Submitted by rubbermaid (user info) at 2009-02-16 08:08:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Being as pretty as I am you'd need me for my good looking genes which makes me great and necessary breeding stock. Pretty people bring the moral up so that leaves you on the dead side.
Good luck.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2009-02-16 01:05:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
So did this conversation happen before you tied her up to that homemade fuckmachine - or after she pooped on you again?
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2009-02-15 23:47:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2009-02-15 23:33:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Personally, I would kill off anyone with retardation.
Those with a chronic disease, anything from aids to diabedes would also go.
Those with useful skills or knowledge specificly of a technical aspect would be spared, but steralized.
So you either will kill yourself or volunteer to get STERALIZED????
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2009-02-15 23:33:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you fight that entity still wins, he is trying to reduce the population. war does that very nicely. Ask the russians or germans after ww2
Personally, I would kill off anyone with retardation, mental illness, or a family history of either to start with. Those with a chronic disease, anything from aids to diabedes would also go.
Those with useful skills or knowledge specificly of a technical aspect would be spared, but steralized.
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2009-02-15 20:30:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by billrhine (user info) at 2009-02-14 23:33:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Idiotic fool putting commas where none are needed. Wildman, the man without education. . .
*****
Anal-retentive, pedophiliac and wannabe grammar nazi unsuccessfully trying to fit in with people half his age.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-02-15 19:17:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And in that highly fictional situation I would take the logical route; unite the gangs, overthrow the government in a short and bloody goup, and video tape the leader as we put a metal bit in his mouth and smack him over the top of the head with a rubber mallet, smashing his teeth.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-02-15 19:13:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
To put it frankly, why would you NEED to control YOUR population (and risk rebellion) when you can simply kill everyone else?
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-02-15 19:12:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Since when, in the animal kingdom, did hungry, desperate crowded mobs == calm, unified conformity? Population control is one of those issues that's going to be avoided by every politician in every first-world country until critical mass is, quite literally, reached. At that point the first-world nations won't unite in some NWO; they'll do it nature's way and gang up on Asia, India, Africa, Araby and any other part of the world too benighted, splintered, or downright poor to defend itself and exterminate the population.
It will likely be excused by some manner of war, with lots of propaganda demonizing and dehumanizing the 'enemy'.
If this doesn't result in a nuclear war that destroys the species, it will spark a new colonial era, during which the first world countries will repopulate the areas they just purged.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2009-02-15 18:19:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
We used to say 20% shall survive.
It's either nature or man-made.
That kind of discussions took place being stoned-silly.
In the 80's.
and what Scourge said.
Submitted by orphelia (user info) at 2009-02-15 17:33:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I got stuck on the first line - I only know four people and three of those are 'online' people.
lol
really
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2009-02-15 16:10:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
similar questions have been:
A.) posed better, and
B.) debated by worthier minds than those you'll find here
utter rebellion is, of course, the correct answer.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2009-02-15 03:50:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'd choose to be safrificed. Partly because I like freedom but also because its no biggie - we're all going to die anyway at some stage.
Some ealier than others. I'm 39.
nice topic
Submitted by X54 (user info) at 2009-02-14 23:53:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
That's a loaded question. The word, "submissive," is perjorative. What if you don't consider it "submissive" but "fittest." You sneaky anarchist.
Submitted by billrhine (user info) at 2009-02-14 23:33:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2009-02-14 22:17:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I'm comfortable when 5, out of the original 7, members of the SWAT team die but that's just me.
=========
Idiotic fool putting commas where none are needed. Wildman, the man without education. . . .
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2009-02-14 22:28:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Would you be comfortable with only your aunt and yourself surviving this event, Wildman?
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2009-02-14 22:17:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I'm comfortable when 5, out of the original 7, members of the SWAT team die but that's just me.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2009-02-14 21:36:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Fair enough. My apologies for calling you a troll wannabe.
Submitted by Toddler (user info) at 2009-02-14 21:33:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm not a troll =(
Simply, your question is depressing and I'm indecisive.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2009-02-14 21:28:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not worried about the sake of the planet. I know the planet will be here long after we're gone.
This isn't meant as some bleeding heart bullshit.
And of course the choices suck, Toddler, you troll wannabe. That's the point. There is no other choice. What would you do? Try not thinking of your next generic insult and actually contemplating something profound for once.
My girlfriend and I were having a discussion earlier today on our Valentine's Day picnic (yeah, we discuss the end of humanity over romantic lunches) and I just thought I'd extend it here. I fully expect all the normal Uber bullshit.
Submitted by Toddler (user info) at 2009-02-14 21:21:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
All those choices blow major ass.
Submitted by dredwood (user info) at 2009-02-14 21:19:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
"sake of the planet"?. Don't worry about the planet, it will always take care of itself. In the end, a few billion humans do not really mean much... It is all relative after all. Happy V-Day