If 95% of humanity were to die from a natural disaster, how should the surviving 5% be selected?

Question

Let's imagine that fossil fuels were going to run out. Soon mechanized agriculture will no longer be carried on because there will be no fuel for tractors or harvesters, no artificial fertilizer, no pesticides. Further, there will be no way to transport the reduced harvest from the rural farmland to the cities. The experts calculate that only five percent of humanity can survive; everyone else will starve and die. There's still some time to build survivalist communities, able to endure the die-off period, and afterward re-establish some sort of civilized living once the population size is again in balance with the food supply. The question is: who should survive? Why? What makes some more worthy than others? When quantity must go, shouldn't quality, at least, be saved? If so, which qualities should top the list of those targeted for salvation? By what standards do you grade the "survival candidates" for the more highly valued qualities?

Answer 1

If you use a neo-Darwinian standard, then the fittest should or will survive, where fittest mean the strongest, the most cunning, ruthless, and so on. No one is going to select these people, they will select themselves.

There's no way that any government or organization is going to be able to classify people into survivors and not survivor camps. Natural processes will take care of the situation. Everyone would be out for themselves in that case. Perhaps a voluntary program of self-euthanasia would work, but the least able would probably be the most afraid to die.

The criterion most people would use is: me and my family can live, everyone else can die. If you leave it up to the government, they'll move themselves and their families to "safe" places and let the rest of us battle it out to the bitter end.

In sum, while interesting as an exercise in "What if...?" thinking, there is no practical way to resolve the question.

Answer 2

1. who should survive? well.. I think it isnt a matter of who should but who can and will.. some say only the strong survive.. others say intellect. I say... who ever can.

2.Why? If we had to choose then I believe no one would survive. The argument alone would kill us all off.

3. The stronger and more intelligent would be "worthy" only because they were able.

4.Qualitly vs. quantity... when competition is removed, quality would become a standard... with so few people, there really wouldnt be such a problem. We should be intelligent and strong enough to create the quality desired individualy.

5. List of targeted quality? Pollution standards, economical issues, currency value, Health Care!.

6.If there were to be a standard I would say, once again, Intellect, knowlege, strength ie. (healthy persons). It would take this kind of human to uphold the "quality" of this new generation of individuals.

It seems to me that all of these questions are leading up to the same sort of answer.

Answer 3

It seems to me that if 95% of the human race were to die off, the remaining 5 percent would learn to survive, or else.

Those who know farming and handcrafting skills, and who know how to do things without relying on machines would be best for immediate survival. But for the long term, knowledge of the technologies would be needed as well.

In truth, I am extremely wary of any philosophy that gives any one group the power of life or death over another. Far too often in our own history, that power has been misused.

Answer 4

Ask Dr. Strangelove

Answer 5

Me. I get to choose. So these idiots on Yahoo can't go. Some of you, but very few can join me.

Answer 6

Let the 'natural disaster' do the selecting.