Today in class we were given a situation. A nuclear war took place on earth. Only 10 people survived the war and were now staying in a bunk with limited resources. The resources would last up to 2 years, if all 10 people stayed. However if only 3 people stayed, the resources would last for many, many years. We were given, as a group, to choose who would stay, and who would go. Each of us were assigned a person to represent and argue why they should stay in the bunk. The people currently in the bunk were a scientist, a priest, a drug addict, a pregnant woman, an army soldier with a mental disability, an old woman, a disabled person, a man who can’t get a job and is on welfare, a lawyer and an artist. Each of us argued who should stay. The idea was thrown out that we could keep everyone, but we quickly put that down. In the end, the 3 “most valuable” people to stay, were the scientist, the marine and the pregnant woman. Most groups chose the same, with the exception of the lawyer.
This seemed like a small-scale activity, one to simply practice our debating. It did help us with our debating, but this was only a tiny portion. There’s a larger fraction of this that would go unexplored, if no thought was went into what the purpose of doing the exercise was.
How did we choose who survived and who had to leave the bunk to their death? Did we choose who would stay based on the arguments people gave? Or just based on the status of the person?
It would seem as though the status of a person was what stood out. Without the argument, who would you like to live with for 3 years? A scientist or drug addict?
As a society we tend to assign a value to people based on many things. Such as their level of intelligence or state of health. A scientist, with an assumably high level of intelligence was picked much quicker than the old woman who probably needed aid. We tend to put the higher privileged above everyone else. Before anyone said their arguments, the group was talking about how the scientist, the marine and the lawyer would most likely be staying because they were the most “valuable”. A lawyer has education and smarts yes, but what would they be contributing to survive in a bunk? The old woman would make more sense to stay down there. She could have more primitive ways of living, she could help sustain the limited resources they had. She would also have a different view on things, helping to make a smarter choice. Our group however, was blinded by the possibilities and only focused on where the person was on the social scale.
This is a small example of a bigger picture. We often jump to conclusions without considering the possibilities. As a society, we need to take a step back, and recognize all the possible options.
This seemed like a small-scale activity, one to simply practice our debating. It did help us with our debating, but this was only a tiny portion. There’s a larger fraction of this that would go unexplored, if no thought was went into what the purpose of doing the exercise was.
How did we choose who survived and who had to leave the bunk to their death? Did we choose who would stay based on the arguments people gave? Or just based on the status of the person?
It would seem as though the status of a person was what stood out. Without the argument, who would you like to live with for 3 years? A scientist or drug addict?
As a society we tend to assign a value to people based on many things. Such as their level of intelligence or state of health. A scientist, with an assumably high level of intelligence was picked much quicker than the old woman who probably needed aid. We tend to put the higher privileged above everyone else. Before anyone said their arguments, the group was talking about how the scientist, the marine and the lawyer would most likely be staying because they were the most “valuable”. A lawyer has education and smarts yes, but what would they be contributing to survive in a bunk? The old woman would make more sense to stay down there. She could have more primitive ways of living, she could help sustain the limited resources they had. She would also have a different view on things, helping to make a smarter choice. Our group however, was blinded by the possibilities and only focused on where the person was on the social scale.
This is a small example of a bigger picture. We often jump to conclusions without considering the possibilities. As a society, we need to take a step back, and recognize all the possible options.