Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
My group chose for the scientist, lawyer, doctor, and professor to survive. My decisions
regarding the survival of the fou...
Choosing the scholar will give the group a history of life before the Avian Flu in order to
commemorate the past and to fo...
will benefit the group. A point was made that he could provide resourcefulness to the group
because he lived with very lit...
Choosing a pregnant woman and her five year old requires using two selections and giving up a
much needed person. Although...
priest. If one does need another to talk to, he has another refined person to lend a listening ear.
My group chose the doc...
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

Survival Project

263 vues

Publié le

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Survival Project

  1. 1. My group chose for the scientist, lawyer, doctor, and professor to survive. My decisions regarding the survival of the four elite has a threefold basis: To ensure the present survival of the group as a whole, to maintain the upkeep of the bunker for the two year duration, and to ensure the nurturing of future human generations upon leaving the bunker to face the post-apocalyptic world. The doctor, scientist, professor, and lawyer give the best hope for survival. These four have prodigious qualities ensuring they last the two-year stint in the bunker. All four are well-read, book smart, industrious people that are independent and fully capable of using their specialties to contribute to the group’s survival. A doctor has knowledge of the human body and disease along with more extensive knowledge in his specialty. He has to his use medical facilities with no operating materials, which I assume implies the inclusion of supplies such as chemicals, medical instruments, medical wear, and machinery, along with the exclusion of supplies needed to fix a broken bone, for example. The doctor could work with the scientist, who I placed to tend to the greenhouse, to make medicines and other healthy supplies. The scientist, regardless of his field, should have at least rudimentary knowledge of botany and the process of plant growth. A scientist is the most likely choice to maintain the integrity of the bunker by solving whatever mechanical problems go awry (including the inevitable malfunctioning of the sewage system). He is the most inventive of the group, promising constructions that will benefit both life inside the bunker and after. Placing him in the greenhouse gives him inventive preoccupations that will test his integrity as a scientist.
  2. 2. Choosing the scholar will give the group a history of life before the Avian Flu in order to commemorate the past and to form new ideas from the old. The professor is unique in this regard; only he can record history’s past and present. Like the scientist, his usefulness lies in his ability to form ideas which will lead to helpful creations. The two go hand in hand and will likely spend the most time communicating to each other about the maintenance of the bunker and of the future of mankind. A lawyer is the master of debate and reason. His usefulness lies in making peace with whatever squabbles, though not likely to be serious, the other members of the group may have. He has adept problem solving skills, as do the other three, and this skill gives him the edge over the other choices. The layer will provide harmony, tact, and order inside the bunker and in society after. The other characters have faults too large to be kept inside the bunker. The army officer, welfare dependent, and the pair of hippies are useless malcontents that would harm the function of the bunker and provoke disorder among the group. An unstable officer, likely so due to some post- traumatic stress, has no role in the bunker outside of leadership. To replace one of the chosen four with this authoritarian would give superfluous order to individuals who do not need guidance. A mentally unstable man is certainly not welcomed in a time of great stress. No other choice is given an adjective that hinders his character but the welfare dependent. This makes the decision not to include him obvious because he will not do his fair share. He is certainly not intelligent enough to replace him with one of the four. He has no unique skill that
  3. 3. will benefit the group. A point was made that he could provide resourcefulness to the group because he lived with very little. However, all four of those chosen are professionals who have went through their own epoch of financial struggles. They made it through this phase to become successful. Think of why this man is welfare dependent! He would play no other role but as a parasite to the group. The married, drug addicted hippie couple would have no use apart from aggravating the others in the bunker. Now is not the time to welcome carefree people. Order is required and each group member must play a helpful role. Drug addiction in itself will disturb the unity of the bunker because they will be dealing with rehabilitation and therefore unable to provide any use had they any at all. A point was made that they could care for the greenhouse because hippies have knowledge of plants and other earthly things. This is a trivial stereotype that, without further description of the character of the two, would be insufficient to grant them. Another point was to separate the two and to only let one of them survive. My reasoning has already led me to remove the thought of their survival, but this point would only deepen my reasoning. One hippie is already dealing with overcoming a drug addiction, imagine what a loss of spouse would do to him! He would be driven more insane than the officer and twice as useless. Two more choices that would offer no help to the group’s survival are the disabled person and the elderly woman. These two are similar in that they will be unable to deal with heavy objects or worse, if a deadly system arose that threatened the life of the bunker and its inhabitants, they could do nothing to stop it. They have no benefit.
  4. 4. Choosing a pregnant woman and her five year old requires using two selections and giving up a much needed person. Although this choice guarantees two, possible three, healthy women capable of conception, the mother will not play as large a role in the upkeep of the bunker as the other choices and will require copious time for her own upkeep. This is a time of action preparing for the present and immediate future. There is no guarantee that there will be enough manpower to give her the food and care she needs, nor is there a given date as to how far along she is. The two women in the group will try for pregnancies once a new society is established in the post-apocalyptic world. It is impossible to rebuild while caring for an infant. There is also no time to deal with the 5 year olds immaturity; she would only bring down the chances for survival. Again, the concept of removing her from a loved one, her mother, would cause the mother grief so great it would harm the unborn baby. I see no getting around the problems just mentioned. Lastly, the priest offers no useful skills. A point was made that he could bring hope to the group along with religious ideas and a confession-like sort of therapy. This argument is illogical. The four I chose are independent with very developed ethos. They have overcome tremendous adversity to obtain their professional ranks. Only this arrangement could overcome the stress of their predicament. Knowledge of religion is surely present in all four chosen characters so there is no need for a priest to retell of God’s existence. A priest does offer theories on morality, but I believe each member has developed his own. A professor is more knowledgeable overall than a priest, who concerns himself only with religious history. An established sense of guidance among the four, along with a shared refinement in conversation between them, does away with the notion of a therapist. Surely they will be too preoccupied with matters at hand to consult a
  5. 5. priest. If one does need another to talk to, he has another refined person to lend a listening ear. My group chose the doctor, scientist, professor, and lawyer to survive because their skills give the highest chance for the survival of humanity. These four are independent, strong, and industrious while the other eight are unreliable subordinates and arguably less productive members of the prior society. Choosing only characters respected as leaders does away with both the need for a bellwether to lead the insignificant and the concept of a manorial society where the less skilled work under the leader’s rule. Since I was given the freedom to choose both the gender and occupations of the characters, I assume I could also choose their ages. Knowing their ages would allow more hope for future fertility, which, unless both pair of men and women lack, would make the gamble of not choosing a clearly fertile woman a lot lower. Other problems such as a group member becoming seriously injured could leave mankind doomed. However, these problems could not be solved using any other choice of group member, and I am certain that this group gives the most reasonable chances for survival.

×