There are 1000 Starving People Before You. You have The means to feed 800 of those 1000

[WeDidIt]

Which will you do?

[Deja Q]

1. How are the remaining 200 defined?

[cliffordu]

2. "Shoot the hostage"

That's what Keeanu Reeves told me.

[Hansel]

32. "You told me to."

Speed had some great stuff in it. Josh Whedon's hand no doubt and he didn't even make it in the credits.

[peace frog]

3. I'll take Door #3, Monty

Re-distribute the food so that all 1000 can be fed, and move forward quickly with a plan to make sure all 1000 are fed on a continuous basis.
Why yes, I AM Mother Teresa, thanks for asking.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. If you want to keep changing the rules...

Let's say the food was already redistributed, from feeding 400 to 800, and there is no further redistribution possible. You can still move forward with another plan, but what do you do with the food you have?

[Lerkfish]

37. and what if I was an orange Ostrich, and had to juggle fourteen balls in the air?

and what if my mother was Eva Braun?


honestly, I don't see the point of these hypotheticals. Just make your point.

[peace frog]

61. Let's say green dragons exist

and are benevolent creatures. Let's say teabagging is the best indoor sport since naked Twister. Let's say....then again, let's not.
Thanks for playing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

80. Ahh, so you're really not interested at all and are just replying to be jerk.

Gotcha.

[peace frog]

87. It's sacrilege to call Mother Teresa a jerk

but since you don't know how to play nicely, we'll have to play around you. Have fun playing with yourself.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

89. It's also sacrilege to pretend to be a saint.

But you do seem so keen on making up rules as you go.

[peace frog]

96. Keep playing with yourself

you're bound to come to a conclusion, to the great relief of us all.

[REP]

123. Impiety: Your irreverence to my deity

No one is required to worship or to even admire Hell's angel.

[peace frog]

125. You're a little late to the party

but if you read a bit more thoroughly you'll realize we are not in disagreement.

[woodsprite]

35. I had the same very first thought before I clicked.

I didn't know there were only going to be *TWO* answers choices - neither of them correct (imo).

[BlooInBloo]

73. Ah yes. The magic jesus wand solution. Well played, Captain Kirk.

[Deep13]

114. Did she feed people?

Anyway, that's essentially my answer too.

[peace frog]

120. Most definitely, she did

but we're not allowed to change the rulez!!!111!! :eyes:

Do be prepared for a visit by our resident ball handler from upthread, who will play naughty with you on the subject. ;)

[pipi_k]

133. I was looking for that option too

give a little bit less to the 800 and in that way all 1000 can be fed.


Or maybe teach the entire 1000 to make/catch/grow their own food and they'll be set for life.

[meegbear]

4. Make applesauce

[Sabriel]

5. I would have the "Death Panels" decide

After all, isn't that what they're for?

[closeupready]

64. Right. They'll be in charge after Obama's plan is passed.

According to Sarah Palin, that is.

[MagickMuffin]

6. Neither of the choices

I would try and provide all of them to eat by dividing the meals to include the 200 being left out.

[JuniperLea]

8. I thought of that too...

It's closer to the "three fishes and five loaves" parable of my youth:)

As a recovering Fundy, I reserve the right to cherry pick from the gospel to suit my needs:)

[WeDidIt]

12. You cannot

You only have the means to deliver food to 800 of the 1000. You cannot divide the food up to provide 4/5 of the food to each person.

Either 200 people must die or 1000 people must die.

It's your choice.

[MagickMuffin]

62. Too LATE, I already fed them ;=D

Those 200 people are very grateful that I thought of a way to feed them ALL. They are enjoying a nap now!:evilgrin:

[WeDidIt]

90. No, you ignored the parameters of the exercise

The parameters were clear, you only have the means to feed 800. I said nothing about the food to feed 800, just the means.

[WeDidIt]

13. You cannot

You only have the means to deliver food to 800 of the 1000. You cannot divide the food up to provide 4/5 of the food to each person.

Either 200 people must die or 1000 people must die.

It's your choice.

[xxqqqzme]

58. You don't understand feeding huge groups do you.

As someone posted 'that's not how food works'.

If you can feed 800, you can feed 1000. If you only have enough for 200, then you have a problem.

[WeDidIt]

91. No, you do not understand plain English

I said nothing about how much food you have. I said you only have the means to feed 800 of the 1000. For whatever reason, you cannot get any food to 200 people.

[xxqqqzme]

127. Well then it is a

transportation problem and not food.

[Xipe Totec]

7. Give each of the 1,000 people 4/5ths of a meal

[WeDidIt]

14. You do not have the means to do that

You only have the means to get food to 800 of the 1000.

[Xipe Totec]

17. What? No forks & knives? How uncouth! n/t

[JVS]

36. That's not how food works.

[WeDidIt]

92. You're making a broad assumption outside teh parameters of the exercise

You are assuming all 1000 people are in the same location.

[JVS]

100. You didn't specify otherwise until now. In fact you said that they're before me. Your example sucks.

Unless I am more than once place at a time, they are all in one place by your initial condition

[WeDidIt]

103. I did specify

I said you do not have the means to feed all 1000 people.

You assumed I said you do not have the food to feed all 1000 people.

[JVS]

131. You said they were all before me, and now you say they are in different locations.

[WillowTree]

111. The "parameters of the exercise" are ridiculous.

[pipi_k]

136. Yep, they certainly are, because they keep changing

I think if people want to get answers based on purely either/or situations, they need to be VERY specific about the parameters right off the bat...not keep changing them each time someone comes up with a creative solution.

[dugaresa]

38. that makes no sense, food can be divided

even if they are Army rations, they can be divided.

I finished a book about the folks who were shipwrecked and they shared the food even though it wasn't enough to feed even 2 people for a long time. They did it for the good of all.

Then they drew lots.

[WeDidIt]

104. You've altered the conditions of the exercise

You are assuming the conditions are you do not have the food to feed all 1000 people. That is an alteration of the conditions.

The conditions are, you only have the MEANS to feed 800 people.

[dugaresa]

119. if the other 200 are aware of the situation, you will have outright chaos

and not need to feed 800 but probably more around 500 after the fighting stops.

[Lerkfish]

39. just make your damn psuedo-point and be done with it. Fishing expeditions like this are

tiresome.

[JVS]

43. +1

[Forkboy]

44. LOL...it's pretty easy to figure out.

And it's as tiresome as the fishing expedition is.

[Liberal_in_LA]

107. You beat me to it

[Make7]

9. Jesus would come in handy in a situation like this. ( n/t )

[Ikonoklast]

18. Yeah, but who wants leftovers?

Stale bread and day-old fish?



Pass.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The "Sacrifice the few to save the many." ploy is the same as "The end justifies the means"

A handy exercise to quash dissent.

[Echo In Light]

23. Exactly

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. It's a handy exercise in reality.

You don't always get the perfect option. The world would be in a lot better shape if that could happen. Join us in reality to solve the problems we have instead of waxing rhapsodically over what should be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. The "reality" is that saving the few to save the many is fine...unless you're part of the few.

The bosses always have justifications for their willingness to sacrifice the few. Just look what's happening now with healthcare "reform". As usual, the few are the sacrifices for the greedy.

This country can afford to have single payer, universal, health insurance. There is no need to for anyone to be sacrificed.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. ...and as soon as you convince the other 60ish% of the populace, you'll have it.

There's a major, major chunk of the reality that you're ignoring that has nothing to do with the "bosses". That's the few that are willing to sacrifice themselves.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Who are the few that are willing to sacrifice themselves?

When I was going through infantry training in the marines, they took us to an open field and showed us what machine guns could do by firing tracers across the field from 2 machine guns.

Then they took us to another field facing a bunker. Half of our platoon was sent to the right to outflank the machine guns. The other half was assigned to stand up and march toward the bunker while popping off our trusty M-1s. The idea being that we were to be sacrificed to save the hypothetical battalion approaching behind us.

Even as a 17 year old boot, I could see that this was fine idea. But, if any SOB of sergeant ever told me to do such a dumbass thing as walk towards a machine gun, he was going to have a helluva fight on his hands, and I had a gun.

[Gormy Cuss]

51. The reality is that we aren't facing such a dire choice.

Tierra-y-Libertad is correct.

The reality that we can't get even a good solution in the current political climate is separate from that. I understand that this is the best that the administration thinks it can do but it's a pale substitute for real health care reform. It reminds me of the welfare reform that Republicans rammed through Congress under Clinton.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. There is no possible way to separate the climate from the solution.

It's insanity to even suggest that you can or should remove the context under which the bill is considered when considering the bill itself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Fine. But, I don't have to go along with what comes out in the process.

Or, respect the process which says that people are expendable because the politicians are in cahoots and beholden to the corporate powers.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

79. Then why do you follow politics at all?

There's really point in it participating at all if the only thing you're really willing to do is scream at a wall and complain when you don't like the outcome.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. It beats working for a living.

[Gormy Cuss]

85. The analogy in the OP isn't relevant. It's an overstatement intended to quelch dissent.

That as I wrote before is why I believe Tierra-y-Libertad is correct.

Of course there's no way to separate the climate from the proposal. The administration is calculating that it can pass this weak little sop to health care reform and nothing more at this time. I get that. I just don't plan on sitting quietly and pretending that this is some giant accomplishment. Health care reform can't stop here. It's only a beginning.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

102. That's fine - just don't shoot the messenger.

It's not the administration's fault that this is the best we can get at this point in time.

[ipaint]

126. When that imperfect option we all must settle for

gets it's sacrificial lives from the haves instead of always, without exception from the have nots, you might have a point.

[Barack_America]

11. Where is the "Feed Myself" option?

So we know how many freeper trolls we have with us today?

[petronius]

15. Demand > supply? I smell massive profits...

:)

(If this is the real-world, then the proper answer is upthread. In the highly-constrained hypothetical world, I feed the 800...)

[slackmaster]

16. Feed the neediest first, and concentrate on finding additional sources of food

No problem.

[givemebackmycountry]

19. OTHER:

I would find the "richest" starving people, the top 1% and I would give all the food to them.
The other 99% can, and should, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, it's the American way dontcha' know.

:sarcasm:

[Matt_in_STL]

20. This is easy

Everyone knows that 20% are illegal immigrants and obviously just need to be deported so that we can feed the 800 true Americans.

Or something like that.

[TxRider]

28. No no no...

You divide them along some imaginary line of ideology and get them to make war on each other.

You end up with 3-400 left alive and victorious and they get a feast made for 800..

And your righteousness wisdom and place of power and your role in the history books are assured...

:sarcasm:

You people think so small...

[onehandle]

21. Let them all starve.

Hey, It's not my fault they didn't plan better.

In a related subject, I happen to have 800 meals to sell.

[RandomThoughts]

22. I would dispute the premise of the argument.

What is the argument for the 200 having to die, or do you just believe the person telling you that?

If someone said I could feed 800 or feed none of the 1000, I would ask them why someone is trying to make me chose to leave 200 without food?

By your question, someone is saying 200 can't be fed. So I would look to see if the person making that choice is correct. I would see if the food is there, and if it was, I would then ask them why they are saying the 200 can't be fed?

So far the only answers I have heard are vague ones about maintaining control over the food.

Well if someone has the food, and is willing to let 200 starve, then letting him control the food is not that smart, because he made the point that he does not mind 200 starving in the first place. If he is willing to say he would let 200 starve when the food is there, then he is not able to govern how the food is used. If you do take the 800 deal the next week he will find a way to starve 2000 since you would have agreed to give him the power.

That question requires the good faith belief that it is true that 200 can't be fed. If that is true, where is the argument? If it is bad faith argument, then he wont feed the 800 anyway once you give in and agree.

So I would feed the 1000 as my choice, and ask what argument stops that?

[Statistical]

26. Feed all 1000 80% of full ration. n/t

[high density]

Feed 800 and then find food for the next 200.

Or maybe some of the 800 will be afraid of and refuse my food so I can give it to the remaining people who aren't so stupid.

[Morning Dew]

27. Who are these starving people and why don't they have food?

They should have made better choices, perhaps? If they'd just work harder, they would have food.

Some of the younger ones are pretty strong and don't think they need food?

Why should I provide food for them? That's just socialism.

Can I sell them the food? I mean, not all of them (the 800) could afford it but some probably could. That's fair isn't it? Let the market decide.



And whatever is left, I'll throw away.

:sarcasm:

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Feed the thousand, each a little less than optimally. nt

[T Wolf]

31. NO! 1,000 people are starving. You can either fight to get food to all 1,000 or you can provide

confederate dollars to 800 (these 800 are now "covered") of them. But, when they go to buy the food, the store says, "Sorry, we do not accept confederate dollars."

PS - those rebel dollars were bought from a private company with actual, US government-backed treasury bills. And now there will be no improvement to the situation because it has been "solved."

Now - which choice do you make?

[progressivebydesign]

33. i'd just break it down further so that all 1,000 can eat a little, then work on getting more food NT

[JVS]

Split the stuff up in 1000 parts

[Lerkfish]

34. weird question.

you don't include the answer of giving each of them 0.8 of a ration.

none of them starve.

not really sure of your pretend point here?

[dugaresa]

40. you feed all 1000, or you risk the 200 killing the others in their sleep

and that would work to help thin the herd, but it would be uncivilized.

This question is poorly constructed, although I understand why it is being posed.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. Make them work for it.

Tell them, "I only have food for 800 of you and the best 800 workers get it".
icanhascapitalism?

Seriously though, just feed the 800 people and move on.

[demwing]

42. I get the point you're trying to make regarding healthcare - feed those you can right now

And likewise, cover those you can right now. Take the wins that are available to you.

But you're condition is so contrived as to be completely unrealistic, and therefore, actually works against the point you are trying to present.

When you presume there are no other options, the limitations you work under are those you have created.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. As soon as you come up with the votes, let us know what those other options are. (nt)

[demwing]

54. THATS just it

You start from the limitation "we don't have the votes" and then you want to try to get something passed with the votes you have. you are limiting your self.

Here's my alternative - start with the BILL you WANT, and push, prod, twist, seduce, convince, pull, poke. plead, wheel and deal your ass off till you get the VOTES you NEED.

There's always an alternative, you will just never see it when you set pre-existing conditions on yourself :)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. You've never negotiated anything, have you?

How about this: Find a house that's up for sale in the $1 million range. Put in a formal offer of $150,000. After all, that's the price you'd WANT, right? See if you even get a response.

Then come back to me and talk about setting pre-existing conditions.

[demwing]

69. Where's the negotiation? That's an insane example,

And if you think that pushing for the public option is the equivalent, your fooling yourself

Here's a better analogy for what YOU and the OP are driving at: I saw the house, accepted the price as given, plopped down my initial investment, and went hunting for financing. Over time, if I'm lucky. I'll get what I want, just not now. Maybe I won't get financing at all, but IF I do, by making payments, I slowly build equity.

Thats really what the OP is suggesting. Take what we can get now, and hope/work for more in time. It's building equity in reform.

The problem is that you can't guarantee the market will be suitable for reform in ten years, or in two years, or even in a month.

And, to answer your extremely pissy question, Yes, I have negotiated. Considerably, and successfully. I've been in sales and operations management for years, and have been divorced twice. I'm a father, and ended up with sole custody. Not an easy thing to do. I had to start those negotiations long before the marriage ended, so drop your attempt at sarcasm and stick to something your good at.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

88. So you don't ever buy a house because you can't guarantee the market?

You seem to agree with the OP by your explanations, and yet disagree with your direct response to it. It makes no sense to me.

And as for negotiation, yes, starting with single payer is the EXACT equivalent of offering 10% of what the buyer wants and expecting to take it from there. It was a complete non-starter. So we started with a public option instead, dealt our asses off, and are now at a point where we have a public option, albeit not the optimal one. We can take that deal, build up equity, and expand it from there, to use your parlance. But if you're waiting for the market to completely bottoming out before making any move at all, you're talking about perhaps decades, maybe never before that will happen, and in the meantime, a lot people that we COULD have helped will suffer needlessly.

[Uncle Joe]

130. The only reason Medicare for everyone was a non-starter is because they never put it on the table!

There was no attempt to bring public political pressure to bear by debating the pros and cons of universal single payer coverage over the current system or a public option.

The Congress abandoned it's responsibility to represent the American Peoples' best interests by not giving full consideration.

If the American People were the sellers of a legitimate appraised million dollar property; that being the ideal and practicality of universal single payer coverage, the Congress or peoples' supposed agent started the negotiation by stating to the buyer; who was bribing the Congress on the side that one million dollars was off the table, it was only worth half a million, and if the buyer bought it, the seller would subsidize the buyer's mortgage payments!

Any real estate agent; supposedly representing the seller, trying that scenario would lose their real estate license in a heart beat.

[newfie11]

45. I would split it up evenly among all 1000 n/t

[WeDidIt]

94. You have made a fallacious assumption

You have assumed all 1000 are in the same location.

You ahve the means to feed only 800. Tehre are 200 people you absolutely cannot get any food to.

[JVS]

101. "There are 1000 Starving People Before You"

How many fronts do we have?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. So Much Ignorance Found In Some Of The Replies.

So many answering in the "well, well, well, just feed all 1000!" premise. Well DUH!!!!! If that was acceptable as an answer would the question even had existed??? How hard is it to comprehend a rhetorical question for the simplicity it provides, without having to change its premise and rules to suit your own needs? Geesh!!!!!

[BlooInBloo]

75. Hard questions are much easier if you just duck them.

[Deep13]

115. The premise involves food...

...which can be subdivided.

I know the OP's point and it's wrong. We are not faced with an either/or choice.

[scheming daemons]

49. Why not feed all 1000 an amount equal to 80% of what you would've given them?

Then everybody is a LITTLE satisfied.

[undeterred]

50. Ask everyone to share.

[flvegan]

52. Fatten the 800 up to be feasted upon by the 200.

The question was begging for it.

[Rebubula]

71. Sometimes...

...I come in just to look for your comments...

You sir\madam, are awesome.

[MNDemNY]

53. Feed the liberals, let the conservatives starve.

[Overseas]

55. I sell half of my gun collection to feed the other 200. //nt

[librechik]

56. As the first 800 are given their food, ask them to share with their neighbors

research shows we are a very nice and generous lot, on the whole. No one would starve in that situation.

[omega minimo]

65. SOYLENT GREEN is PEOPLE!!!!!!

[Critters2]

66. Why can't I divide the food up differently, so everyone gets some? nt

[peace frog]

78. Cuz they sez yer can't, that's why not!!11!

Youse is set up to fail, yer see. A parlor game fer the fundie toffs, so's they kin have a bit of a larf at the expense of the stoopid libruhls, doncha know.
Pathetic and sad it is, but they takes they fun where they kin gets it.

[WeDidIt]

98. For the purposes of the exercise, you do not have the means to do that

I did not say you only have enough food for 800. I said you only have the means to feed 800.

[Critters2]

121. I can't do the reasonable thing to meet everyone's needs?

I'm supposed to act like a Republican.

I don't think I wanna play.

[Deep13]

116. That's the only moral, reasonable and practical thing to do. nt

[Ignis]

67. Please, utilitarianism isn't this simplistic.

But framing issues in this artificial manner is what has given so many people a poor opinion of both utilitarianism and consequentialism in modern philosophy.

:thumbsdown: from this utilitarian.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. Wait until there are 2000 starving people.

Then I can make a better case for my purity test.

:sarcasm:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

70. You do what you can with what you have, where you are. Period.

[Javaman]

72. Put them all on 3/4 rations, take the last quarter and barter for seeds.

then take the seeds and plant them. Next time you will be able to feed them all.

[QC]

74. You can feed 1000 people, or feed 800 people and buy a corporate parasite a new Bugatti.

What do you do?

That's a much closer analogy.

[dugaresa]

76. that is basically it.

[QC]

83. Yep. n/t

[yawnmaster]

77. hmmm.... distribute the food equally and then let each decide if they want to ...

give up their share to save another.
In other words, give them the food and let them decide what to do with it.

[Romulox]

81. Other: unrecommend a stilted poll. nt

[Old Hob]

82. IDK, but if I was one of the 200 that was left to starve and die I can tell you what I would do

[JackDragna]

84. There's a very simple solution to all this!

You feed the 800, THEN let them eat the corpses of the 200 who died! Soylent solutions.

[Hekate]

86. Oh come now. Food is divisible, up to a point, and 8/10 is hardly that point....

Once bellies are full enough, I (since you say it is I who has the abundant yet inadequate means in the first place) form a committee of adults to work on the next plan. This country is not yet in such dire straits that there can be no next step. Community organizers know that. Food banks are struggling with a surge in new clientele and a drop in donations -- yet there is hope and the work goes on.

Hekate

[WeDidIt]

105. You misread the conditions of the exercise

I did not say you only ahve the FOOD to feed 800.

I said you only have the MEANS to feed 800.

Two different concepts.

[yawnmaster]

109. no...I think they only have 800 gift certificates to Olive Garden...how do you distribute...

that to 1000?

[Hekate]

110. Oh, Olive Garden! Then some of the infants may be fed by flagrant breastfeeding there...

There have to be quite a few infants in any crowd of 1000, so that should help. :evilgrin:

Hekate

[guitar man]

93. Just throw the food in

and let them fight it out for it. Sell tickets to the event so you can buy more food for them...and neat gladiator costumes too. :P

[Stevenmarc]

95. Feed the 800 and give the other 200 internet access so they can make up idiotic poll questions

[Liberal_in_LA]

108. ouch!

[Sebastian Doyle]

99. Taking this ridiculous analogy to it's proper conclusion

...I would send the 800 people nothing but a gallon of high fructose corn syrup and demand that they pay MonSatan for the privilege of drinking it.

[Liberal_in_LA]

106. feed all 1000 80% of a meal

[Fleshdancer]

124. +1

sounds reasonable to me. :shrug:

[Fumesucker]

112. Donner, party of 200..

Practically every situation you can imagine has already been imagined by someone, surprisingly often a Science Fiction writer.

What does your society do when food is extremely scarce and moreover the only meat is long pig?

http://www.amazon.com/Courtship-Rite-Timescape-Donald-Kingsbury/dp/0671460897/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252700587&sr=1-1

It is said of Donald Kingsbury that he writes horror stories for smart people.

[Deep13]

113. make soup out of the supplies and feed everyone.

Otherwise, I'd get more from the rich.

[Touchdown]

117. Feed as many as I can.

Even Oscar Schindler couldn't save them all. :(

[Apollo11]

118. The 400 fattest folks get half rations. The other 600 get the full amount.

That would be a distribution that takes need into account. Doesn't assume everyone has the same level of need. But it also meets the criterion of bugging WeDidIt.

[DatManFromNawlins]

122. Simple

I give 800 people 80% of the food, and the other 200 20%.

Math is your friend.

[Liberal_in_LA]

128. kick just to annoy some folks

[branders seine]

129. why are they starving?

define "means"

will the 800 simply starve tomorrow?

[diamidue]

132. Yes! Someone who gets to the root of the problem. n/t

[BOG PERSON]

134. I would put 1000 starving people to work, to make sure they're not freeloading off me,

and only pay them with as much food as they require to continue working.

[AzDar]

135. Storm the kitchen, eff up the selfish quartermaster rationing the food, and FEED 'EM ALL!

:thumbsup:

[LisaL]

137. Are you going somewhere with this?