Pick: Rugged Individualism Or Cooperative Interdependence

[IDL]

All or nothing scenarios don't translate well to the real world.

 

[speakhandsforme]

I tend to wonder how frequently I would masturbate if I was on a deserted island by myself.

 

[ithinktheymad]

This is an entirely false claim meant to avoid the moral implications of the scenario.

What if the island, combined with the resources in your backpack, proved extremely limited? In other words, enough for perhaps you and one or two others to survive on for an extended period of time - but quickly depleted when rationed out to 50 individuals.

How well do you think Bear Grylls would do if they not only dropped him from the helicopter in a remote locale but added some injured, elderly and children that he had to stay with in a "co-survival" scenario?

Get real and try again.

You can fish on an island and eat things like seaweed. For how snarky you are you're not very intelligent and rather transparent. Just say the real question.

 

[ithinktheymad]

I tend to wonder how frequently I would masturbate if I was on a deserted island by myself.

You could make fake tits out of coconuts.

 

[afrdzak]

Go with the group.
No brainer for me.

 

[Higus]

I get what TS is trying to do, but the execution was done poorly. Here's a better scenario:

You are deserted on an island with limited resources with 49 other people. While exploring, you discover a cache of non-perishable canned goods. You estimate that there is enough food to feed the entire group for 1 day or feed yourself for 50 days. What do you do?
A) Share all the supplies with the group
B) Keep the supplies to yourself and try to stay alive as long as possible
C) Barter canned goods for services and favors to the rest of the survivors
D) Something else

Bear in mind that you may be rescued and will have to explain your actions to the world someday.

 

[afrdzak]

My answer doesn't change given the above.
I'd still share. If not, chances are, those 49 are coming for what I have....and solo, I can't repeal all 49 people.

 

[Higus]

There has been a lot of studies showing that leaving just about anything to a group decision is a bad idea. There is no better example than the hell one goes through trying to complete group assignments in school.

I would still go with a group as long as its not too democratic.

Any sources? I've done group survival/decision making exercises before and they almost always show that groups tend to make better decisions than individuals can.

http://www.wilderdom.com/games/descriptions/SurvivalScenarios.html

 

[HOLA]

Depends how much wampum they offer me. If not satisfactory, they'd meet the same end as Piggy.

 

[ben236]

Should we, as individual members of a society, be called upon and expected to forego full independence and personal gain in order to prevent the deaths, ease the sufferings and advance the standard of living of others?

Or is it every man for himself, the goal full maximization of all personal strengths and advantages (earned or gifted), full steam ahead and 'sorry for ya'...?

And why will the same person often pick the first when considering, for example, a battlefield, but pick the second when considering the marketplace?

I get what you're trying to do. But the individual with all the advantages is better off staying with the group and due to his advantages, he would most likely be the leader since the rest of the group would view him as the most valuable. And due to the women viewing him as the alpha male, he'd likely be getting all the poon. He wouldn't be getting any poon if he went off on his own.

So just because he stays with the group doesn't mean he wouldn't be at the top of the social hierarchy.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Should we, as individual members of a society, be called upon and expected to forego full independence and personal gain in order to prevent the deaths, ease the sufferings and advance the standard of living of others?

Or is it every man for himself, the goal full maximization of all personal strengths and advantages (earned or gifted), full steam ahead and 'sorry for ya'...?

And why will the same person often pick the first when considering, for example, a battlefield, but pick the second when considering the marketplace?

Why? Well, people pick and choose don't they..

 

[ben236]

This is an entirely false claim meant to avoid the moral implications of the scenario.

What if the island, combined with the resources in your backpack, proved extremely limited? In other words, enough for perhaps you and one or two others to survive on for an extended period of time - but quickly depleted when rationed out to 50 individuals.

How well do you think Bear Grylls would do if they not only dropped him from the helicopter in a remote locale but added some injured, elderly and children that he had to stay with in a "co-survival" scenario?

Get real and try again.

So hunting, building and scavenging is not an option in your hypothetical?

If so... Then it's not a good analogy to capitalism because your scenario is a zero-sum game whereas a capitalist system is not.

 

[ultramanhyata]

So hunting, building and scavenging is not an option in your hypothetical?

I made it clear that it was not only an option but the group's "plan", if you will.

If so... Then it's not a good analogy to capitalism because your scenario is a zero-sum game whereas a capitalist system is not.

There was a poster who attempted to "better" my scenario with a shittier zero-sum game one. Maybe you are confusing the two.

And capitalism is an absolute "zero-sum game" in every practical sense, relative to human survival. To claim otherwise is an attempt to escape moral responsibility.

There are a certain number of produced resources, either real goods or their monetary representatives, on planet earth at the moment it completes each rotation on its axis. So the 20,000+ people who die from hunger ever 24 hours will not be around to see the glorious, future free-market expansion of the economic pie. Every time someone dies, for them, the "game" is over.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Why? Well, people pick and choose don't they..

That's deep. It was worth starting the thread just to gain that single pearl of wisdom. Thank you.

 

[kpt018]

It's really easy and convenient for people to favor "rugged individualism" while they enjoy all the benefits of collectivism.

I think if really breakdown it down people really don't favor rugged individualism at all.

That said, I do understand why people who live in rural parts of the country feel that way.

 

[panamaican]

Of course you team up, that's survival. But interdependence doesn't mean you abandon your individualism. You can hunt on your own and share with the group, you can improve your jungle hut. You can apply your knowledge to improve your situation while still helping others improve theirs.

The idea that you must either live in the jungle yourself or subjugate your will to the masses is a false choice.

But what happens when one of the able bodied men decides he doesn't want to search for food or help build shelters?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Go with the group and form a harem. Have a colony of little goats. Come back to America sell the rights and buy an NFL team.

it probably would take being stranded on an island for women to be with you...

 

[AgeofEmpires2**]

I've seen how this all turns out... we're going to need a conch.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Of course you team up, that's survival. But interdependence doesn't mean you abandon your individualism. You can hunt on your own and share with the group, you can improve your jungle hut. You can apply your knowledge to improve your situation while still helping others improve theirs.

The idea that you must either live in the jungle yourself or subjugate your will to the masses is a false choice.

This isn't about black and white choices as much as it is about overall societal attitudes and values.

This island scenario wasn't even meant to be an analogy. It was simply a generic version of many, many real life, documented, historical survival stories. Those who sacrifice the most in these situations (some their actual lives in order that others might not perish) have been heralded by society as heroes - men and women worthy of reverence and, if we, ourselves possess the fortitude, emulation.

Yet at the same time, society worships and envies men and women who, through a life of tenacious and unyielding personal, competitive ambition - one that either ignores or runs over, where required, those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder - build immense fortunes and live opulently in a world chock full of death-dealing poverty.

To put it mildly, I find it odd.

 

[CableandThanos]

BS scenario is BS

I sure as hell wouldn't tell everyone to work together and then let a certain segment of people sit on the ass all day and I go to the trouble to pull my weight and have to share my rations/benefits with the lazy asses.


NEW SCENARIO

The lazy asses, do we allow them to live or let them starve until they decide to start pulling their own weight, or at least become the entertainment of the group by letting everybody bang them.