Would you rather get lost in the Sahara Desert or in Antarctica?

Would you rather get lost in the Sahara Desert or in Antarctica?


  • Total voters
    116
Nope. This is a terrible take. Survivorman actually really does it by himsepf for a week straight. Bear grill is a fraud and liar and the whole show is a setup. Nobody is jealous of that unless they are equally without principles. But les has principles.

Hi Les.
 
Sahara, you just keep walking 1 direction and you will be out of there in no time. Far less harsh conditions.

LOL. The Sahara desert is smaller than Antarctica, but it's nearly the same size as the US. If you are not already near a water source, your fucked.

The Artic Circle for me. Love the cold. You could drop me at the Arctic Circle wearing a pair of bikini underwear, without my toothbrush, and tomorrow afternoon I'll show up at your pool side with a million dollar smile and fist full of pesos.

 
On one hand, Antartica doesnt have polar bears so that's a plus. On the other hand I much prefer sweating to being cold
 
If surviving was not an option, give me the Antarctic. I would imagine you would die rather quickly in the frigid cold, compared to a slower death in the heat.
 
Sahara easily. Though surviving wont be. At least there is random insects and lizards, if you can find a smooth rock or 3 you can create a water reservoir with a hole (tinfoil works better).

Still likely die.
 
This is like asking would you rather die by burning to death or be shot in back of head.


Your dead both ways. But Antarctica you could strip naked an lay on snow and be numb before your body hits the snow n dead in 30 seconds.


There's no way to survive either place. Ypu could survive Antarctica if you had wood to burn or a way to keep a fire going. Then you can melt ice, keep warm enough, and cook fish. You would need a fire source, a tarp , basic igloo building tools , fish line, an axe n knife.

In the Sahara....... no water source even Bear Grylls ain't making it to long.
 
Sahara is much more survivable for humans and also much more populated. Bury yourself in the sand during the day if your in open desert and cover you head with clothing and the heat would be survivable.

Besides the cold in Antartica I think people underestimate that tis actually a desert as well, most of it your not going to find much snow to build an igloo or to melt to drink just near rock hard ice under you.
 

yes bear grills lies constantly, has a whole crew who does the work (builging shelters, tools nets, spears etc) for him off camera, brings in mcdonalds at night, plants snakes and things to kill and eat and takes risks that nobody who knows anything about survival would take. all of that would have been fine if he had not lied about that but he did.

les stroud gets dropped off, his crew waits 20 or 30 miles away, carries all his own gear and film equipment, and shows the reality of what its like to survive in the wild in a responsible way that you could actually emulate safely in the wild.

you can tell les is really doing it (its known that he really is and nobody disputes it) because he looks like shit progressively as the week passes on, often goes hungry for most of the show and just generally shows the wear and tear of really surviving all by himself for a week straight.
 
If I'm in a T-shirt then Sahara. I'll last longer which might give a rescue team time to find me.

In Antarctica I'd be dead like in 5 minutes.
 
I've seen many survival shows that focus on the desert.
I've also seen a horror TV show that's set in the ice (The Terror).
So in summary I'd go with the desert.
 
yes bear grills lies constantly, has a whole crew who does the work (builging shelters, tools nets, spears etc) for him off camera, brings in mcdonalds at night, plants snakes and things to kill and eat and takes risks that nobody who knows anything about survival would take. all of that would have been fine if he had not lied about that but he did.

les stroud gets dropped off, his crew waits 20 or 30 miles away, carries all his own gear and film equipment, and shows the reality of what its like to survive in the wild in a responsible way that you could actually emulate safely in the wild.

you can tell les is really doing it (its known that he really is and nobody disputes it) because he looks like shit progressively as the week passes on, often goes hungry for most of the show and just generally shows the wear and tear of really surviving all by himself for a week straight.

Cool, Les still comes across as a miserable bastard who is clearly bitter about Bear's greater success and constantly drops snide little digs toward him. I even the like the guy, but let it go.

He never lied, he just didn't tell the whole truth / let the audience believe the myth........like almost every TV show ever, and that has been known for the best part of 20 years.

Les went hunting for Big Foot whilst Bear continues to make fun, entertaining shows whilst raking in coin.

....and if you don't think Bear is in the top 0.01% of people in the survivalist game just because he didn't put himself though unnecessary hardship (fair play to Les for that), you're an idiot.
 
I think the appropriate response to this would be "hi bear"

Because everyone knows bear Grylls is a fraud so the only person that would ever defend him would be bear himself.

Incorrect.


Inb4 2004 article with the breaking news that Bear didn't always camp out for 4 days, and bent the truth somewhat and thus making everything he ever achieved "fake'.

<45>
 
I think the appropriate response to this would be "hi bear"

Because everyone knows bear Grylls is a fraud so the only person that would ever defend him would be bear himself.

He's always been open about it in person. We have a mutual friend. He's a good egg, kinda got screwed by the production company, they didn't want it live for the risk etc.
 
Back
Top