An intriguing debate from my Education class today

[enervated_thryn]

The ten persons listed below have been selected as passengers on a space ship for flight to another planet, because tomorrow the planet Earth is doomed for destruction. Go figure. Due to changes in cargo, it has now been determined that only seven may go. Which three do you leave behind? (Note: coed = female

Comments

[wishingfordaisy]

Ok.. Here's who I leave behind:

1) The "intelligent female movie star."
2) The basketball player.
3) The 70-year old clergyman.

Reasoning: No matter how intelligent that female movie star is, she's still only eye candy, most likely. She would put stress on all the other females because they aren't "movie stars," and would cause friction between the group. The basketball player... the same way. Basketball isn't vital to life like biochemistry, or medical students. As for the 70-year old clergyman... dude.. he's 70. He's going to be dying soon anyway. Not that it makes his life less worth living, but I'm sure between everyone else, they will be able to come up with a way of living easily enough without his expertise.

[enervated_thryn]

The big mistake everyone makes with this thing is that they make all sorts of assumptions.

Sure, yeah, the movie star could be beautiful, but we don't know that. We just know she's intelligent. For all we know, she's a Diane Keeton or something. Thus, wouldn't you want intelligent people to help repopulate the species?

Basketball isn't vital, true, but the skills that come with it might. The player is probably strong, so they could till soil, hunt down wild game, or fend off unwary preditors.

As for the clergyman... yeah, I thought the dude oughta get left behind, too. But he could serve as a link between old Earth's history and this new world. He also probably comes with lots of other great wisdom.

Dont'cha just love not having right or wrong answers? ;)

[wishingfordaisy]

Even if the movie star was "intelligent" she doesn't have any specified skill except acting. Even if she was over-all intelligent, she wouldn't know as much about what the group would need. Actually my first instinct was the pregnant wife of the accountant, but that's just morally wrong on so many levels that I couldn't bring myself to say it. Though, it is probably the most practical choice.

As for the basketball player, it doesn't say he was any good, it doesn't say he's professional, he could be just some kid on the street that may play for half an hour a day. We can't assume he's going to be strong or have any skills or strengths for that matter. Besdies, I would coun't on the policeman to be stronger anyhow. That is, if he can put his gun down long enough. Heh.

[enervated_thryn]

Actually...

4) A professional basketball player

Anyway, I left behind the accountant, the movie star, and the clergyman. But after our huge debate in class, I could probably argue both way for all the characters.

I don't see what the difference is...

[escaperail88]

I am dead so why am I choosing? If this were real no one would get on the spaceship, humans would destroy the spaceship because it was only designed to hold ten people and through the miracle of human engineering only holds seven. Also all of the science personnel hinges on the unknown variables of the planet they are travelling towards. If it is an agrarian Earth type of society a biochemist would be useless without a strong athelete to help build laboratories. But for the sake of argument I say go young, fertile, and strong...and damned if that accountant doesn't weasel his way on!

Re: I don't see what the difference is...

[enervated_thryn]

ah, But of course Steve, this isn't about who lives or who dies or the regular failings of human society, it's about what you think and how you think. :)

[enervated_thryn]

...so which three are staying behind?