[SoLiDUS]

You are leading 100 people in a survivalist situation, when suddenly your
lives are in danger and you must choose between two courses of action.

One would cause ten of the people to die and everyone else would live; the
other would have a 70% chance of saving everyone but were it to fail, then
everyone would die.

Which would you choose and why ? Explain your choice.

[Fireal]

Run for it.
I wouldnt let 10 people die, as a sacrifice. I would go for it. Either we would make it, or die... Together.

[ninty]

This is quite interesting. If I knew that the 10 people would die, I don't think I could sacrifice those people. I would want everyone to live, therefore, I would try to get everyone out of the situation, not require 10 to give their lives.

[Short Hand]

logic. Let the 10 die.

[Pvt.Pinhead]

Thats a very hard question, I cant answer it exactly. I know I myself would die to save the lifes of 69, but I would not be able to force 9 others to die...yet I would hate to take the chance of losing all the ppl...what I would do is make a vote and let the rest of the team decide what they would want to do, unless there were 9 other guys like me who would willing come up and die for the lifes of others, then I would go with (A), but unless there were those 9 others Id let the group decide, since I do not have the right to chose who dies and who lives.

[F|4m3s Ru|3]

If the 10 deaths assures that the remaining 90 people will survive then I think it is worth it. If there are families on this 'trek' I'm sure that some fathers or grandparents would willingly sacrafice themselves for the sake of their children. If nobody volunteered I'd choose the 10 ugliest people and send them on their way.

[SoLiDUS]

Let me make this clear.

YOU are leading 100 people. This adds up to 101 humans. Choice #1 says
10 of those will die so that 91 can live: this is guaranteed. The second is a
game of chance:

70% chances are that all 101 humans will live,
30% chances are that all 101 humans will DIE.

In other words, #2 is a gamble. You must decide whether or not you wish to
take that chance. Now that this is cleared up, please go on...

[Tripper]

I'd go with no.2, If I knew everyone on the trek well.....Otherwise, I'd choose ten people die.

[Cpt. Obvious]

I think i would go with the gamble, im sure everyone on the trek would agree to try and have everyone live then selecting ten people to go to there deaths

[Slaggg]

Only a 30 percent chance that all will die? Not bad odds really. I'd take that gamble. Better to fight to live than doom others to certain death when all may still die.

[Madmartagen]

I'm more of a risk taker, I would take the chance that everyone might live. Who am I to decide who can die and who doesn't? I couldn't make that choice. Its all or nothing.

[SoLiDUS]

I've decided to calculate the exact odds for everyone:

Choice #1 - You have 9.9009% chances of dying.

Choice #2 - You have 30.0000% chances of dying.

Are you still sure about your choice ? ;-)

I wouldn't sacrifice everyone: mine is #1 for obvious reasons. Reason will
force you towards the choice that increases the likelyhood of prolongation
of your existence... that is, unless you value your life the same or lesser
than that of those 100 strangers you are leading.

Slight edit:

If this isn't enough, let's up the ante a bit. Suppose everything remains
the same except for the fact that you are now leading 1000 people, not
100: will you still refuse to sacrifice 10 in the hopes that 1001 will live ?
How about 10000 ? 100000 ? A million ? Are you still so sure about your
choice ? ;-)

[ninty]

Yeah, its simple if you can forget about everyone else, and just think about yourself. But I can't do that. I'm not going to say "fuck you all, i'm saving my own life". I couldn't do that.

[Fireal]

That stuff will fuck with you later on though.

[Fireal]

On the edit:
Yes I am sure. That is no different than murder, in my mind.
It can be the entire population of the world. Im not going to sacrifice anyone