Monday, 18 April 2011

Life Questions #5

You are leading 100 people whose lives are in danger and you must choose between two courses of action. One would save only 90 people; the other would have a 50 percent chance of saving everyone but were it to fail everyone would die.  Which would you choose?

53 comments:

  1. wow, first i guess id explain the situation and ask if 10 ppl were willing to sacrifice their lives. if not guess were going with option 2!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If I had to choose it would be option 2. I really don't like being put in these type of situations >_<

    ReplyDelete
  3. umm this is what I don't like .. well if I had to choose I rather sacrifice 10 people than 50 percent chance .. that's a risk

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pretty much the typical crappy war time problem. I'd probably go with the 90 people one, but probably end up being one of the 10 to sacrifice myself. It also depends on how lucky I'm feeling.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
    spock

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, do i get to choose who dies? Because i mean out of 100 people I'm sure i could find 10 who i wouldn't be too upset about seeing leave

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, in case 1 you save 90 people every time, but in case 2 there is 50% chance to save 100 and 50% chance to save 0, so expectation value is 100*0.5 + 0*0.5=50 people saved, so I would go with case 1

    ReplyDelete
  8. Depends on the circumstances. If there are people willing to stay behind to let more people live, then I'd go with option 2. However, if the success ratio depended on my or my associates skills then maybe I'd go with option 1.

    ReplyDelete
  9. all for one and one for all...option 2

    ReplyDelete
  10. Like BLK Jesus said. If 10 people won't then its option 2!

    ReplyDelete
  11. kill ten to save 90, just don't make me pick the ten

    captcha sux

    ReplyDelete
  12. depends on the conditions of the people, if they were all kids, or some old some young. most likely go with option 1, just because probability wise, it makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  13. all or none!!! If i was scared i would be attending a church service.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If option 2 would I be included in the dead? I don't want to lead anyone, so option 2, you're either a hero, or there is no one left to care.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kill 10 to save 90. 50% chance is not nearly high enough to justify the risk. Anyone who says 50% is not qualified to be in a position to answer that question.

    There is actually a statistical field related to questions like this. Engineers do a lot of risk analysis also. I guarantee you they would all kill 10

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'd prolly go with the first option..

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yeah first option. I'd be willingly to sacrifice myself.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I would save 90. I would rather have 90% than risk having none.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 90% there will always be people who die in these situations. from a realistic perspective its safer and more efficient

    ReplyDelete
  20. great post! keep up the good work

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm not one for gambling with people's lives so I'd save the 90.

    ReplyDelete
  22. all or nothing. go big or go home. amirite?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Logically, option 1, but spur of the moment, probably option 2. It's rare that the conditions are ever that simple though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Statistically, the 90% option is the way to go. With option 1, every person has a 90% chance of survival, but with option 2, each person's chance is only 50%, so with an infinite number of trials, option 1 will save, on average, 40 more people than option 2. Logically speaking, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'd say 90%... Following and supporting. alphabetalife.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  26. Great blog,
    I can't believe I am commneting twice in the same day but this content is unique.

    James

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is one of those things where you'd like to know more, but can't. And since I can't I'd say the first option.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I guess I would go with the 90 people. The 50% chance is so slow that wouldn't want to risk it. Just don't make me choose the ten.

    ReplyDelete
  29. saving 90% for sure is way better for me.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 90 for me, I wouldn't want the risk

    ReplyDelete
  31. I would take the chance of saving them ALL. Even if that mean my own death!

    ReplyDelete
  32. I would choose the path that would save the 101st person, ME! maybe im just selfish...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Great post,
    you should check out my latest post, there is some great info that my blog likes to cover,
    I think you'll like it

    Jake

    ReplyDelete
  34. Let's play a game. You have 60 seconds. Make your choice. It sounds like a nice SAW-scene. I would try to safe them, but I have to know I'll be save myself

    ReplyDelete
  35. i pick the 10 people with b.o. and/or annoying habits such as flossing outside of the bathroom and say smell ya later

    ReplyDelete
  36. saving 90 percent is right

    utubed.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  37. save the 90 and everyone can eat the 10!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Line everyone up, shoot the 10 ugliest people in the crowd, then go with Option 1. I just saved 90 people and improved the gene pool.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'd save 90 people without hesitating.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I would choose to dance, possibly with tap shoes, I might be wrong but it wouldn't be affective.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'd go for the 50% chance, coz I know I'll save everyone no matter what happens...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Number 1. Better that 90% of the people are guaranteed to survive than a 50% chance of everybody surviving. Having a guarantee of most surviving, I think, is better than a 50/50 chance of everyone surviving. You can't really save everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well, No. 1. But this is very hypothetical because in real life you would know the odds of either choice.

    ReplyDelete