[Rod_Cloutier]

This week my teen age daughter was given a grade 9 school ethics project.

Assuming that a world wide nuclear war had just occurred and there was only one fallout shelter available and assuming you had the power to choose who would go into it to perpetuate humanity, and who should be left out. Who would you choose to be included/excluded:

A) an infant baby who's mother had just perished
B) a doctor
C) a hairdresser
D) an engineer
E) a retired elderly couple

Ect.Ect.- you get the idea.

My daughter approached me and asked me what I thought? I told her that there would never be a recovery after such an event. That going into the fallout shelter was a useless endeavor as any survivors would have to deal both with 20+ years in solitude from the outside world. Assuming they could survive that, which is not a given, when they came out they would inherit a hositle world filled with radioactive water, soil, and a destroyed ecosystem. All human support systems would be gone.

The best solution would be that no one goes into the fallout shelter, because the survivors of a total world wide nuclear war would end up envying the dead. She thought about this on her own, and later put that in her report.

The teacher gave her a zero- an F for thinking critically about what the real consequences would be. (She got an A+ in my book for understanding an important lesson, that if it ever comes to that point, its game over and its important to never let it come to that point)- The true ethical answer to the dilemma presented.

[SeaGypsy]

Very clever.

Aside, we could have some fun with this topic anyhow?

1/ The Doctor- likely not a lot more use than a decent first aider when it comes to having no meds, once the antibiotics are used/ perished and sterilized santiaries are gone, we are very quickly back to the dark ages where a good herbalist with local knowledge would be more use than a modern medico.

2/ The hairdresser- once the 'product' runs out; any 7 year old can brush your hair, eventually sharp scissors and razors will be a faint memory. Vanity will come way behind nutrition and hygiene at end of day.

3/ The engineer, well this depends on their capacity for salvage and ingenuity. An IT engineer could well be less useful than a nice turnip.
A self taught teenage bike mechanic with a penchant for electric remote control toys might be worth their weight in gold.

4/ The elderly retired couple: a midwife and a market gardener.

5/ The physically fittest, most intelligent, least prone to sociopathic behaviour.

(I hate Eugenics, but it is entertaining to contemplate)

[Cloud9]

S.G. Japan recovered.

[dinopello]

This week my teen age daughter was given a grade 9 school ethics project.

Assuming that a world wide nuclear war had just occurred and there was only one fallout shelter available and assuming you had the power to choose who would go into it to perpetuate humanity, and who should be left out. Who would you choose to be included/excluded:

A) an infant baby who's mother had just perished
B) a doctor
C) a hairdresser
D) an engineer
E) a retired elderly couple

Ect.Ect.- you get the idea.

Was there a comedian/entertainer on the list ? I'd pick a few of those, assuming they were pleasant people. I don't know if George Carlin would be considered such, but either way I think I'd take him in the bunker.

In addition, I'd go for a cadre of versatile women singers like Katie Jane Garside a good cellist, guitar/banjo, rhythmist etc. Acoustic-only, of course.

Then there is always this classic plan

[rangerone314]

S.G. Japan recovered.

Japan was hit by two weapons in the low-teens in Kilotonnage.

Not hundreds in the hundred kiloton or megaton range.

[evilgenius]

The dangerous half-life of fallout is about a week to ten days. You are taking the "On the Beach" fallacy at face value. This isn't to say that a nuclear war is anything to consider, but it would not end humanity, nor humanity's ability to enjoy life.

As far as the ethics goes, I remember this from High School. Back then we picked the most fit and most likely to reproduce. Today I am of the opinion to take in the weakest. It is possible to survive in makeshift shelters (three feet of earth or eighteen inches of concrete; radiation does not go around corners) for the time required. What you are really talking about is not who will survive, but who will survive this period in the most comfort.

[Arthur75]

Strange subject and course title ...

[AgentR11]

While I don't approve of the grade she got, if she provided sufficient work product to justify her position to the casual reader. If not, it just looks like a kid trying to avoid writing more than a sentence or two. (a certain child of mine is famous for such antics, grrr!)....

If its one shelter, the answer is pretty simple to me, no one over 40, twice as many females as male, no high end engineering or science, no low end uneducated. No unattached children under 10. Medical trauma experience would be good, docs more involved with specialties or high end/tech procedures, not.

The fallacy is wanting to rebuild. What your target needs to be is a pool of humans that has reasonable odds of forming up into one or more tribal groups that can enter a world with very few if any other healthy humans, and carry on and craft an existence for themselves.

Rebuilding the ipad... not so much.

[Rod_Cloutier]

If not, it just looks like a kid trying to avoid writing more than a sentence or two. (a certain child of mine is famous for such antics, grrr!)....

Agent R- I hadn't thought of that? That my daughter used what I told her as an excuse not to properly present the reasons I gave her to her class, to only write a sentence or two?

I'll have a word with her now!

The alternative of going into the fallout shelter isn't bad either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90SIuISIVB8

[Quinny]

Did remind me of when my daughter was doing her business module at a college near where we live. It was part of her Equestrian course which is 'A' level equivalent / just before degree course. I had just taught business on degree level courses and all my students had got really good results even after moderation (moderators actually increased several of my students marks). She asked me for some guidance but she produced all her own work which I thought was pretty good. If I'd have marked it, it was A/B level work. She got a fail! I was devastated and went to see her tutor.

After 2 minutes talking to her tutor I realised that the tutor was too thick to teach business and obviously had a grudge against my daughter. She was even to thick to attempt to hide the fact. I managed to get it remarked by someone with a braincell, but didn't really do my daughter a lot of good in the long term because the tutor gave her hell for the next year.

As to the original question - I know it's different for a kid, but me and four young women would be my answer. I suppose farmers would be the favourite though.

[vtsnowedin]

I think that the notion that a modern Md without a modern pharmacy behind him is useless is totally ignorant.

[vision-master]

Hey teach,,,,,,,,,tell us about this, huh?



The airport was built in 1995 on 34,000 acres. Its construction forced the Stapleton International airport to shut down, although it used more gates and runways than the DIA. The initial cost of construction was 1.7 billion $ but the final project elevated the bill to 4.8 billion: 3.1 BILLION $ over budget. Numerous irregularities have been reported regarding the construction of the site:

■Different contractors have been hired for different parts of the airport. They’ve all been fired after their job was done. This lead observers to believe that it was a strategy to make sure nobody had the full scope of the project.

■110 million cubic yards of earth have been moved, way more than usually required. This arose suspicion of construction taking place underground.

■5300 miles of fiber optics were installed for communications (USA coast to coast is 3000 miles in comparison).

■Fueling system that can pump 1000 gallons of jet fuel per minute. This amount is totally absurd for a commercial airport.

■Granite imported from all over the world even if the project was already grossly over budget.

■Construction of a huge tunnel system (trucks can circulate in them) and underground trains. Most of those aren’t used at the moment.


http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersite ... l-airport/

[Ferretlover]

This week my teen age daughter was given a grade 9 school ethics project.
The teacher gave her a zero- an F for thinking critically about what the real consequences would be. (She got an A+ in my book for understanding an important lesson, that if it ever comes to that point, its game over and its important to never let it come to that point)- The true ethical answer to the dilemma presented.

She gets an A in my book, too. She knew enough to ask her parent for help. She considered his response, and used it anyway.
The teacher gets an F for failing to take the full scope of possibilities into consideration
(unless she was programmed to expect one answer only), and, for not giving credit for out of the box thinking.
I'd be at the school raising a stink about that grade.

[ralfy]

The living should not envy the dead as it is easy to die.

[evilgenius]

The living should not envy the dead as it is easy to die.

Good one! Life doesn't end because it becomes difficult. Like I said, this question isn't really about who will survive, but who will survive in the most comfort. You can fill the back of a pickup truck with dirt and back it over a ditch in order to provide yourself makeshift shelter. All you need is water and the self-control to stay put for ten days. Thus I said that the best answer to the exercise is to take in the weak, all other answers, except for the astute one given by Repent, tempt the reader to engage in some form of eugenics. Clearly the teacher couldn't see this, or your daughter would have gotten a better grade.

[sparky]

.
One thing for sure , no primary school teachers in the bunker
I had the same experience , got the kid to think on a school project
a crack presentation and some imagination got low mark ,
conventional thinking ( the teacher's ) was compulsory for a good note

I'll go with a couple of teens , girl and boy ,
they are hard to handle but it's a strategic investment
the world would not be a wastland , plenty of salvage even after ten years

as for radiations , there would be a few hot spots to be kept well away
the rest would be OK

[ralfy]

The living should not envy the dead as it is easy to die.

Good one! Life doesn't end because it becomes difficult. Like I said, this question isn't really about who will survive, but who will survive in the most comfort. You can fill the back of a pickup truck with dirt and back it over a ditch in order to provide yourself makeshift shelter. All you need is water and the self-control to stay put for ten days. Thus I said that the best answer to the exercise is to take in the weak, all other answers, except for the astute one given by Repent, tempt the reader to engage in some form of eugenics. Clearly the teacher couldn't see this, or your daughter would have gotten a better grade.

What you gave is for me an "A" answer. It combines reason (people want to live) with compassion (protect the weakest) and intelligence (the strongest can make another shelter). It also shows the various dimensions of ethical issues.

The idea that such a situation should have been avoided in the first place and the implication that because the problem was not avoided then no one should enter the shelter belongs, I think, to another topic. I am not even certain if it considers ethics as it is essentially non-action. Does one threaten anyone who tries to enter the shelter with harm or death? Or do we see a situation where only the strongest will be able to enter the shelter?

[Pops]

@ Repent

I think you taught her to give up without a fight. That earns you an F in my book, sorry.

By your logic eating breakfast is a useless endeavor since odds are many of us will get old and sick and suffer pain and loneliness for many years before we die.

I'd certainly not elect to put you in the bunker!

[AgentR11]

...choose who would go into it to perpetuate humanity...

Whether one likes the eugenic'ish flavor or not; the assignment is specific with regard to purpose.

I'd modify mine a little and go all in, homo sapiens has such a puny level of genetic diversity as it is already, might be wise to try and keep as much of it as possible and put some ethnicity quotas into the puzzle as well. Though it wouldn't really factor into the choice between hair dresser and nurse.

[Beery1]

...The best solution would be that no one goes into the fallout shelter, because the survivors of a total world wide nuclear war would end up envying the dead. She thought about this on her own, and later put that in her report.

The teacher gave her a zero- an F for thinking critically about what the real consequences would be...

I would have given the same grade, though perhaps not for the same reasons. Your daughter didn't think critically about the issue. She asked her parent and went with the parent's answer. In other words, she cheated and followed another person's lead rather than figuring it out for herself.

Your answer also allowed her to avoid any sort of meaningful arguments about the attributes of the people involved.

If it was my daughter, I'd tell her that she must figure it out for herself.

Also, only people with severe depression envy the dead. A rational person would attempt to survive.

Also, you didn't consider the possibility that the area with the fallout shelter might be spared any long-term harmful effects. You can't go into that sort of thing just assuming that everyone who is not killed immediately is going to be poisoned by radiation. That's illogical, and as others have said, it's not realistic because the real dangerous radiation doesn't last all that long.

Finally, the question was "Assuming you had the power to choose who would go into it to perpetuate humanity who would you choose?". The question was not merely "Who should go into it?"

In other words, the question demands that the person making the choice must try to perpetuate humanity.