Do you treat everyone equal?

[Nimos]

I'd go for the atheists; because they are more likely to be scientists or thinkers and therefore most useful when building a new society.

Again, everyone is equally qualified. There is no difference in that department at all.

 

[Altfish]

Again, everyone is equally qualified. There is no difference in that department at all.

That doesn't make sense

 

[darkskies]

1. and I know I can't remove conflict altogether, but it's something.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Being English, I would have to choose an Irishman and a Scotsman, so at least we could start out with a joke (assuming there's a bar nearby)...

 

[blü 2]

Let's assume that you were told that you had to choose two other people to join you for the rest of your life lets say you were shot off the planet to start a new colony somewhere in space. You would never return to Earth and there would be no communication again with those left behind, for whatever technical reason. And every decision made you would vote on.

The only thing you know is that everyone you have to choose from, is equally qualified but you have never met or spoken to any of them. You simply have to choose two people to come along with you, under the following rules.

1. You can choose two people that share your religious beliefs, like a Muslim could choose two other muslims, atheists two other atheists etc.

2. Choose two people sharing the same religion (you didn't know which, it would just be random), but it would be different from yours or two atheists etc.

3. Wouldn't care about it.

So when it comes down to it, would you choose option 1, 2 or 3?

Okay, so we're going to a distant star, to colonize a planet from only what we bring with us and what we find.

Assuming the material aspects like air, water, food, shelter, technical resources are all covered, who do we want for our crew?

We want high IQ and high EQ and high stability and high initiative and capability and efficiency and problem solving.

We want fertile women and men. We want genetic variety. So if if there's only three of us, we want one man (male role model) and two women and as well as our one male a high quality sperm bank in the freezer.

And we need compatibility, a natural egality, a common language (though it needn't be native).

I don't foresee much by way of proselytizing in a group answering this description, but if there were it would be unacceptable. A shared philosophical outlook will maximize cooperation and hence the chances of survival.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The only thing you know is that everyone you have to choose from, is equally qualified but ...

Equally qualified for what? The qualifier is simply vacuous.

If I select two Muslims, there's little or no chance that we'll end up with a successful vineyard. Meanwhile, with two Jews I may well end up with something akin to Manischewitz. And with two Christians there's always that chance that one of them would be off praying over a jug of water under the maxim "WWJD".

Atheists are always an option, but I can easily imagine them off by themselves, drinking all the wine, opining about the definition of atheism, and commiserating with each other about the insufficient opportunities for bible-bashing.

Damn! I miss Earth already.

 

[firedragon]

Let's assume that you were told that you had to choose two other people to join you for the rest of your life lets say you were shot off the planet to start a new colony somewhere in space. You would never return to Earth and there would be no communication again with those left behind, for whatever technical reason. And every decision made you would vote on.

The only thing you know is that everyone you have to choose from, is equally qualified but you have never met or spoken to any of them. You simply have to choose two people to come along with you, under the following rules.

1. You can choose two people that share your religious beliefs, like a Muslim could choose two other muslims, atheists two other atheists etc.

2. Choose two people sharing the same religion (you didn't know which, it would just be random), but it would be different from yours or two atheists etc.

3. Wouldn't care about it.

So when it comes down to it, would you choose option 1, 2 or 3?

I will choose Salma Hayek and Sophia Loren.

 

[Nimos]

I will choose Salma Hayek and Sophia Loren.

Well these are good choices, but you can't choose anyone specific

 

[Nimos]

Equally qualified for what? The qualifier is simply vacuous.

If I select two Muslims, there's little or no chance that we'll end up with a successful vineyard. Meanwhile, with two Jews I may well end up with something akin to Manischewitz. And with two Christians there's always that chance that one of them would be off praying over a jug of water under the maxim "WWJD".

Atheists are always an option, but I can easily imagine them off by themselves, drinking all the wine, opining about the definition of atheism, and commiserating with each other about the insufficient opportunities for bible-bashing.

Damn! I miss Earth already.

Equally qualified for whatever needs to be done. You want to make a vineyard, the Muslims are well qualified to do that. However they might disagree that it is the thing to do and that maybe a Mosque might be more important, so they might potential vote you down. Not because they don't know how to do it, simply because they thought it would be a bad idea.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Equally qualified for whatever needs to be done.

Thanks for the robust clarification.

 

[Nimos]

Okay, so we're going to a distant star, to colonize a planet from only what we bring with us and what we find.

Assuming the material aspects like air, water, food, shelter, technical resources are all covered, who do we want for our crew?

We want high IQ and high EQ and high stability and high initiative and capability and efficiency and problem solving.

We want fertile women and men. We want genetic variety. So if if there's only three of us, we want one man (male role model) and two women and as well as our one male a high quality sperm bank in the freezer.

And we need compatibility, a natural egality, a common language (though it needn't be native).

I don't foresee much by way of proselytizing in a group answering this description, but if there were it would be unacceptable. A shared philosophical outlook will maximize cooperation and hence the chances of survival.

Yes but its not the option you have, all of them have the exact same IQ and can all do the same things. The atheists might say that religion ought to be band, you don't know. The christians might want to build a church and raise everyone as Christians. All the technical issues are in order, so you don't have to worry about it. But whatever you do, it will be a vote between the 3 of you regarding the direction things should go.

 

[Nimos]

Thanks for the robust clarification.

It doesn't matter

If you want to build a bridge, they know how to do it. If someone gets sick they can fix it. Again, it's about your vision or opinion and whether you believe that, whoever you choose would be more inclined to agree with these ideas, if they shared your religious beliefs or not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks for the robust clarification.

It doesn't matter

Very well. I vote agains all those whose religious views are predicated upon the belief that robust clarification doesn't matter. Do I win?

 

[firedragon]

Well these are good choices, but you can't choose anyone specific

Thats an unfair law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's assume that you were told that you had to choose two other people to join you for the rest of your life lets say you were shot off the planet to start a new colony somewhere in space. You would never return to Earth and there would be no communication again with those left behind, for whatever technical reason. And every decision made you would vote on.

The only thing you know is that everyone you have to choose from, is equally qualified but you have never met or spoken to any of them. You simply have to choose two people to come along with you, under the following rules.

1. You can choose two people that share your religious beliefs, like a Muslim could choose two other muslims, atheists two other atheists etc.

2. Choose two people sharing the same religion (you didn't know which, it would just be random), but it would be different from yours or two atheists etc.

3. Wouldn't care about it.

So when it comes down to it, would you choose option 1, 2 or 3?

Knowing nothing about them I'd rather go it alone.

 

[Nimos]

Very well. I vote agains all those whose religious views are predicated upon the belief that robust clarification doesn't matter. Do I win?

There is nothing to win.

Im surprised how unwilling people are to answer this.

Thats an unfair law.

Yeah, but then again this whole mission is unfair

Knowing nothing about them I'd rather go it alone.

You had to choose, again would their religious beliefs play any role?

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, but then again this whole mission is unfair

You had to choose, again would their religious beliefs play any role?

Not at all Nimos. Its the way we grew up. Never knew anyone more than the other. I mean never had more muslim friends than any other, and vise versa. So maybe its because how I grew up, or maybe its something else. I must say I don't care whatsoever. in fact, I would prefer diversity. I am 100% sure about that.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Let's assume that you were told that you had to choose two other people to join you for the rest of your life lets say you were shot off the planet to start a new colony somewhere in space. You would never return to Earth and there would be no communication again with those left behind, for whatever technical reason. And every decision made you would vote on.

The only thing you know is that everyone you have to choose from, is equally qualified but you have never met or spoken to any of them. You simply have to choose two people to come along with you, under the following rules.

1. You can choose two people that share your religious beliefs, like a Muslim could choose two other muslims, atheists two other atheists etc.

2. Choose two people sharing the same religion (you didn't know which, it would just be random), but it would be different from yours or two atheists etc.

3. Wouldn't care about it.

So when it comes down to it, would you choose option 1, 2 or 3?

Option 1.

 

[Vee]

Let's assume that you were told that you had to choose two other people to join you for the rest of your life lets say you were shot off the planet to start a new colony somewhere in space. You would never return to Earth and there would be no communication again with those left behind, for whatever technical reason. And every decision made you would vote on.

That's an experience I hope I'll never have, but for argument sake, I would want to take people with the same beliefs as mine and preferably easy going too. Can you imagine the hassle of starting life from literally nothing and also having to deal with cultural/ideological differences? I don't think I could last long with a load like that.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well there is no time for an interview, you have to go at once

The only thing you know is what is under the conditions, so who would you choose?

Fine go option 3 and roll the dice. I worked retail for years and the one thing you learn about working with the public is you build a tolerance threshold towards people in general lol