Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hordini wrote:
Besides all the people with "hard" skills, I'd want to pick at least a few who are also musicians or entertainers of some sort, and artists, writers, historians, and teachers.

If it's really a post-apocalypse type situation, keeping morale high is going to be critical.

only if they also had a hard skill that was useful. otherwise to hell with them

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Besides all the people with "hard" skills, I'd want to pick at least a few who are also musicians or entertainers of some sort, and artists, writers, historians, and teachers.

If it's really a post-apocalypse type situation, keeping morale high is going to be critical.

only if they also had a hard skill that was useful. otherwise to hell with them

They'd ideally also have a hard skill, but it would be good to have at least a few who are primarily artists of some sort. Even if they don't, they'll be able to work, and you'll need people to tend to and teach the children that will be had.

The new civilization isn't going to last very long if everyone is so depressed and traumatized that they decide to, as Jihadin would put it, opt themselves out. They're going to need an outlet.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
From what I saw in the show it was less than 50 people, moved to another planet, with likely no way to get back
Same with sliders.

Yeah, of course it should be noted that in the show humanity isn't confined to Earth. Humans, of some form or another or a derivative like the Jaff'ar, are pretty much one of the more common intergalactic species thanks to the Stargates. So picking up recruits from other planets is an option. Not to be relied upon, but its there.

Anyway, there would be little point in saving the existing command structure. You'd want a separate group that doesn't change every 4-8 years. The group would also have to be quite large.

So assuming we have the Stargate situation, you'd have a core of people who are the leadership and are aware of the general plan. Then you'd have more groups, with multiple in-built redundancies, that have necessary skills but aren't aware of exactly what they've signed up for. Just simply kept on alert to be ready to go at a moments notice.

Say you have the command group. This would be maybe 1-200 people. You'd have the actual leaders of this emergency evacuation plan, a few military units specially trained to deal with the challenges you'd face, as well as some advanced technical specialists. This group would further be broken down into smaller self-sufficient units that could function independently if others got wiped out. And each would command one of the larger groups who are kept in the dark.

These larger groups would be a little more fluid and more basic skills. Simple hunting and survivalist techniques, and ordinary military units. Ordinary people plus some who have specialized skills.

In addition to these planned groups, you would also have plans in place to evacuate civilians from the general area if possible. Along with any other military units you could rescue too.

There would need to be several bases preexisting to be locations to move to, or possibly move to several. These bases would have supplies and machinery prebuilt and onsite, along with routinely updated technical data. Basically download the internet

To give further redundance, when the evacuation took place they would take more supplies with them. Enough to set up entirely new bases if the old ones are compromised.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I would bet you don't even know what 1st 2nd and 3rd world even mean

I have no idea what that response has to do with anything. Even if I didn’t understand 1st, 2nd and 3rd, either in the original geo-political meaning or the current socio-economic one, it wouldn’t change a damn thing about how people’s priorities (and therefore politics) change when their circumstances massively change.

besides that, Obama is a moron socialist with a complete lack of understanding of the last 50 years of US foreign diplomacy. I don't care about the "nonsense politics" I Just want the best person in office to make my country strong, and Obama is not that man.

You’re missing the point entirely. Any current political beliefs will just become irrelevant. Authority is what will matter, and there is no position in the US with as much authority as the President.

To walk you through this, imagine the zombie apocalypse just happened. Cities are in chaos, the dead are roaming the streets. You have your family huddled in the basement of your house, but supplies are running low. On the radio you hear of a safe zone, where what remains of the government has commanded the military to form a defensive perimeter, while the civil services begins to establish new infrastructure, and deliver food and medicine to the people who reach the camp. You hear this is being run under the current president, and you say ‘oh I won’t take my family there, as that president is a moron socialist’.

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I would bet you don't even know what 1st 2nd and 3rd world even mean

I have no idea what that response has to do with anything. Even if I didn’t understand 1st, 2nd and 3rd, either in the original geo-political meaning or the current socio-economic one, it wouldn’t change a damn thing about how people’s priorities (and therefore politics) change when their circumstances massively change.

besides that, Obama is a moron socialist with a complete lack of understanding of the last 50 years of US foreign diplomacy. I don't care about the "nonsense politics" I Just want the best person in office to make my country strong, and Obama is not that man.

You’re missing the point entirely. Any current political beliefs will just become irrelevant. Authority is what will matter, and there is no position in the US with as much authority as the President.

To walk you through this, imagine the zombie apocalypse just happened. Cities are in chaos, the dead are roaming the streets. You have your family huddled in the basement of your house, but supplies are running low. On the radio you hear of a safe zone, where what remains of the government has commanded the military to form a defensive perimeter, while the civil services begins to establish new infrastructure, and deliver food and medicine to the people who reach the camp. You hear this is being run under the current president, and you say ‘oh I won’t take my family there, as that president is a moron socialist’.

your over estimating obama's intelligence if you think he could pull that off. I would flee to California and link up with General Mattis and bring the hurt to the zombie buggers

 Ghazkuul wrote:
your over estimating obama's intelligence if you think he could pull that off. I would flee to California and link up with General Mattis and bring the hurt to the zombie buggers

Obama's personal attributes are irrelevant. There is simply authority in the position he holds, and that authority is a powerful and important thing in itself.

If society crumbled, then individual soldiers would look to their next in command for guidance on how to react, who would in turn look up to their next in command. And the civil service would work the same. Expecting Obama to be the figurehead of the organised response has nothing to do with Obama’s personal characteristics, and everything to do with a basic recognition of how society works.

You say you'd follow General Mattis. You would trek to California, arrive on the door of his home, and ask him what his orders are. And General Mattis, summing all his impressive personal and military attributes, would then lead his grand army of you. Just you. Because that dude has been retired for a few years, and now has slightly less authority than the doorman at the Hyatt. Armies don't function by soldiers picking and choosing who they're most like to lead. You just hoping that that will change because you don't like the current president is an exercise in being zombie food.

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
your over estimating obama's intelligence if you think he could pull that off. I would flee to California and link up with General Mattis and bring the hurt to the zombie buggers

Obama's personal attributes are irrelevant. There is simply authority in the position he holds, and that authority is a powerful and important thing in itself.

If society crumbled, then individual soldiers would look to their next in command for guidance on how to react, who would in turn look up to their next in command. And the civil service would work the same. Expecting Obama to be the figurehead of the organised response has nothing to do with Obama’s personal characteristics, and everything to do with a basic recognition of how society works.

You say you'd follow General Mattis. You would trek to California, arrive on the door of his home, and ask him what his orders are. And General Mattis, summing all his impressive personal and military attributes, would then lead his grand army of you. Just you. Because that dude has been retired for a few years, and now has slightly less authority than the doorman at the Hyatt. Armies don't function by soldiers picking and choosing who they're most like to lead. You just hoping that that will change because you don't like the current president is an exercise in being zombie food.

im guessing your expertise is based on years of study and first hand experience

General Mattis will never retire from being Chesty Pullers Bastard Son and therefore a Bad ass. Their was a campaign to have his name written in on the last election. He garnered several thousand votes even though his name wasn't even on the ballot Trust me tens of thousands of marines who have either known him or served with him would flock to his banner. Furthermore you overestimate people if you think they would blindly follow someone during a massive crisis like that. History has proven that in a case where a political figure isn't up to the task of a serious catastrophe he is retired/relieved or replaced. And furthermore you are saying that this global catastrophe that ended civilization as we know it didn't kill the C&C so orders would have to be verbal at best. in most of these scenario's DC is gone and the cabinet is destroyed, factor that in.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
im guessing your expertise is based on years of study and first hand experience

I take it we’re expected to defer to your first hand experience of living through complete social collapse?

Furthermore you overestimate people if you think they would blindly follow someone during a massive crisis like that.

No, you just continue to operate within the chain of command as you did before. Think about it like this – Obama replaced Bush, and many soldiers with strong Republican loyalties were now under a president they didn’t like. But they didn’t stop operating as soldiers, because whether or not they liked the president meant gak when their direct superior gave them an order.

That’s how society works – the formal structures remain in place whether you like the leader or not. And in the formal structure that is the US government, both civil and military, the chain of command stops with the President. Whether or not he's a good president is quite meaningless compared to the importance of having someone clearly in that role.

History has proven that in a case where a political figure isn't up to the task of a serious catastrophe he is retired/relieved or replaced.

Yes, we retire, relieve and replace generals. But we maintain the chain of command. How are you not fething getting this?

And furthermore you are saying that this global catastrophe that ended civilization as we know it didn't kill the C&C so orders would have to be verbal at best. in most of these scenario's DC is gone and the cabinet is destroyed, factor that in.

I’m going to guess you’re aware of the presidential line of succession and just aren’t thinking very clearly right now.

Let Dr. Strangelove show us the way. 10 females for every male and we'll get that GDP back up to full speed in no time.
http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ccManager/clips/dr-strangelove-plans-to-use-computers-to-select/view




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
current/former military, they know how to deal with crisis a lot better then your average person.

Considering the last war we've won was WWII, I wouldn't make that statement.

We actually haven't had this type of thread in awhile. The Zombie survival/Fortress DakkaDakka was a good one.

Two groups
Trigger pullers and subject matter expert

Also the ability to hoolahoop is critical. Come on, we have to get this new society off right people.

Plus if walking dead has taught me anything its that someone needs to know how to settle up a portable still.

I tnink, they will be divided to duds with guns and duds who dig.
Like hierarhy.

Am I the only one who finds this idea daft? You want people so used to a tech society, get dumped into a non-tech world. likely loosing acess to their tech, to live in a campsite?
Eventually you will run out of vaccines, anti-biotics, food, even CLOTHes. I get that certain people are important, but arent survivalists what you want really?

The idea is that you bring people and supplies meant to rebuild these things as fast as possible. The point of your anti-apocalypse program isn't to just to assure that humans a species get to survive by rolling back to the hunter-gatherer days but that you're able to get something resembling society back up and running again. A

It'd be useful to know how many people we get, and what sort of supplies we're allowed. However I'll assume get ~1,000 people and everyone comes with basics for their job and we've got a about a years worth of supplies for the entire population to live off of to kick-start the process, once we make landing at our new home. Changes to these assumptions would change how I'd break things down, but they're what I'm using for now.


First off no young males, between say 16-35. This is by far the demographic most likely to destabilize any situation. They're the most prone to risk-taking and just generally not a group I'd want to be left in a newly created power vacuum where cooperation is going to be central.
Secondly, nobody really old. Say, over 60 or so. Supplies and time are going to be valuable assets and would be wasted on caring for the aged.

More women than men, but not grossly lopsided. The gender balance is going to come back in a few generations anyway and I'd prefer to avoid picking up any super weird cultural baggage from something like a reproductive ideal 5:1 ratio anything. Younger is probably better than older for women, if only because we need some vigorous young people and I'm excluding the men from being in that category for stability reasons. So we get something like:

60% Adult Female. Ideally 24-32 years of age.
30% Adult Male. Ideally 36-44 years of age.
10% Children. They may seem like a liability, but they're actually very important for creating stability. Caring for children and keeping them safe is an important motivator for people. With kids around people will behave more prudently.

I'd probably want two experienced political leaders but not much more than that. Preferably ones with a proven track record compromise, taking advisers seriously and being firm without trying to strong-arm personal agendas or pet projects. They should have close to absolute authority, with a sort of cabinet under them drawn from the appropriate skill sets. This is the kind of emergency that leaves no room for debate or hand-wringing, but would also be ruined by a hard head.

In terms of occupational breakdown.


50% Laborers: Individuals with a basic education, but nothing much beyond high school or special skills. Chosen primarily based on health and tests for work ethic and adherence to authority.
15% Skilled Workers: Mechanics, Carpenters, Plumbers, Welders, Miners etc... people with specific skillsets useful for extracting resources and rebuilding basic infrastructure fast as possible.
10% Engineers/Mathematicians/Scientists: We're going to need to hold on to our accumulated knowledge if we don't want to be knocked back into the stone age. Having a large "Brain Bank" to work on problems as they come up will be vital.
10% Misc: Anything that doesn't fall under the categories. All sort of things from Agricultural experts to folks good at marketing & motivation.
5% Medical: Surgeons, Doctors, Nurses: These need for these people should be obvious and.
5% Academics: Historians, Authors, Economists etc..
5% Managers: Just people who are good at managing others and logistics.

Of course everyone from the non-laborer sections would be expected to labor as needed, it's just that they aren't being chosen specifically only for their ability to labor.

My preference would be for really good looking celebrities.

Really , actually good looking ones, not ones who just like have really effective stylists.

a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...

 Viktor von Domm wrote:
a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...

Clearly we're going to need an island, some tiki torches, and bikinis. Keep you bunkers, your tunnels, your mines. I'm picking Maui.

Looking past survivalists... There are skills that we would lose forever in any situation like this, I'd want to think about minimising that.
We're already at a point in the modern world where folk are retiring and then being called back to pass their knowledge down - chemistry, construction, even some specialised methods of farming.
And personally, on a character profile alone, mothers and fathers who've had more than one child and coped well. There's a strength in both, and an adaptability.

islands are per se the best... you see who comes and goes...and it provides you more easily with proteins through fishing than through hunt...
and a place full of bikinis is likely near haven anyway^^

 Viktor von Domm wrote:
a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...

Very true. Even my assumption of 1000 people is a pretty shallow gene pool and that's with active management. You'd need a few thousand if you wanted a viable population without intrusive controls on who you have kids with and when.

Honestly if we've got a Stargate and the backing of the US Government and we're really interested in having a backup, I can't imagine it being sensible to have anything but a pre-built site with room for ~5000, with 1-2k in regular residence. Generators, farming, resource extraction and transportation etc... should already be in be place before we have to move the full backup population over.

^that is sensible...its not for nothing the saying: to raise a kid you need a village... only strength is in numbers...

 Viktor von Domm wrote:
islands are per se the best... you see who comes and goes...and it provides you more easily with proteins through fishing than through hunt...
and a place full of bikinis is likely near haven anyway^^

And now someone who gets it.

 Viktor von Domm wrote:
a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...

Good point, I hadn't considered the mathematical reproduction element.

Ouze wrote:

 Viktor von Domm wrote:
a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...

Good point, I hadn't considered the mathematical reproduction element.

You've obviously not accounted for Kronk, who single "handedly" keeping the European birthrate in balance.

Wasn't this a bad Slider's episode?

There where no bad slider episodes.

 Chongara wrote:

 Viktor von Domm wrote:
a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...

Very true. Even my assumption of 1000 people is a pretty shallow gene pool and that's with active management. You'd need a few thousand if you wanted a viable population without intrusive controls on who you have kids with and when.

Honestly if we've got a Stargate and the backing of the US Government and we're really interested in having a backup, I can't imagine it being sensible to have anything but a pre-built site with room for ~5000, with 1-2k in regular residence. Generators, farming, resource extraction and transportation etc... should already be in be place before we have to move the full backup population over.

The minimum viable population for humans is somewhere between 150 and 3000, depending on who you ask and how you calculate it.

As to who, I would say you need as many experts and specialists as possible.

Off the top of my head I would want, doctors, nurses, engineers, builders, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, farmers, hunters, fishermen, carpenters, chemists & pharmacologists as a priority. People who have practical skills that can be used to make things, fix things and do useful stuff. Probably a gunsmith and a butcher too.

If numbers are limited I would not want lots of military people in that number as people have suggested. Possibly one person who has some understanding of deference and security, but I think I would prefer an experienced police officer to do that. Ultimately this would not be a military campaign, but a re-building situation, and you need experts who can teach others, and as much redundancy as you can get in your skill spread.

I think the real answer is "whoever the hell you can get" but if we are talking about "build a bunker and fill it with who you need" I would not be looking for military. I would however include someone who is very senior (a high ranking politician or civil servant) who can take charge and direct, as long as they were under orders that the first thing to do is to organize proper leadership, which may or may not be them, but has the power to immediately take charge and implement this.

I don't know who I want, but I know I wouldn't be one of the peope to go. No real skills except cubicle piloting first-class!

What sort of apocalypse are we talking about? Nuclear winter? Zombie Apocalypse? Instability in genetics causing negligible birth rate? Comet striking the earth? Global pandemic?

Where will the survivors be living? What is the terrain like? What is the climate? How did they survive? Are there other groups of survivors?

There are a lot of variable that are missing from the equation, but I think at the very least the following is needed;
- medical personnel
- engineering personnel
- people with survival knowledge
- security personnel

The question was asked why would people would think the military is the best answer. To me it would seem that the discipline, physical fitness, and the intermixing of skill sets (combat engineers fulfill security and some engineering) would be advantageous. Although knowing you are the last remaining humans on the planet adds an element of mental stress that no one has had to deal with prior.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Viktor von Domm wrote:
a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...

Very true. Even my assumption of 1000 people is a pretty shallow gene pool and that's with active management. You'd need a few thousand if you wanted a viable population without intrusive controls on who you have kids with and when.

Honestly if we've got a Stargate and the backing of the US Government and we're really interested in having a backup, I can't imagine it being sensible to have anything but a pre-built site with room for ~5000, with 1-2k in regular residence. Generators, farming, resource extraction and transportation etc... should already be in be place before we have to move the full backup population over.

The minimum viable population for humans is somewhere between 150 and 3000, depending on who you ask and how you calculate it.

As to who, I would say you need as many experts and specialists as possible.

Off the top of my head I would want, doctors, nurses, engineers, builders, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, farmers, hunters, fishermen, carpenters, chemists & pharmacologists as a priority. People who have practical skills that can be used to make things, fix things and do useful stuff. Probably a gunsmith and a butcher too.

If numbers are limited I would not want lots of military people in that number as people have suggested. Possibly one person who has some understanding of deference and security, but I think I would prefer an experienced police officer to do that. Ultimately this would not be a military campaign, but a re-building situation, and you need experts who can teach others, and as much redundancy as you can get in your skill spread.

I think the real answer is "whoever the hell you can get" but if we are talking about "build a bunker and fill it with who you need" I would not be looking for military. I would however include someone who is very senior (a high ranking politician or civil servant) who can take charge and direct, as long as they were under orders that the first thing to do is to organize proper leadership, which may or may not be them, but has the power to immediately take charge and implement this.

The number I've heard for the minimum population you want to have a nice robust diverse sampling without needing artificial muddling that is managed pairings is ~2000. Maybe that's bunk, maybe not. At any rate I think if we can avoid it we don't want ot be going for "minimum viable" we want to aim to be well above the minimum healthy, robust and redudant.

I'd also agree on the military point. In a universe where our little pocket of population are the only humans in existence there just isn't any need for a military. Some general peackeeping, police would be nice but if we go with my idea and don't allow any males under 35 or so, the need for them is greatly reduced. You don't need anyone to keep the peace when nobody wants to break it in the first place, when you don't have any young men there isn't anyone to break the peace. Pretty much all social instability & unrest is caused by young men. Without them around we can count on things to stay basically peaceful barring huge unforeseen external pressures.

but if we go with my idea and don't allow any males under 35 or so, the need for them is greatly reduced. Pretty much all social instability & unrest is caused by young men. Without them around we can count on things to stay basically peaceful barring huge unforeseen external pressures.

if the peeps try to multiply after the new start... new young men are hopefully happening...i know many problems start with young men and their bubbling hormones....but for the right mix we need them too... they have the best fertility...

also... it is quite often that the majority happens to look down on younger men /boys because of their boyish nature... in former times there was no ADHD issue or something similar...

 Viktor von Domm wrote:

but if we go with my idea and don't allow any males under 35 or so, the need for them is greatly reduced. Pretty much all social instability & unrest is caused by young men. Without them around we can count on things to stay basically peaceful barring huge unforeseen external pressures.

if the peeps try to multiply after the new start... new young men are hopefully happening...i know many problems start with young men and their bubbling hormones....but for the right mix we need them too... they have the best fertility...

also... it is quite often that the majority happens to look down on younger men /boys because of their boyish nature... in former times there was no ADHD issue or something similar...

Look at the end of the day older guys can take care of that. Sure you're going to have a couple duds in the 40+ crowd, but they've still got plenty of good swimmers. I can't see any reproductive benefits outweighing the sheer risk of violence and general belligerence brought about by bringing in men in their teens and 20s. The simple fact is you take an account of every person dead at the hands of another person in history, 95% of those hands belonged to young men. What you lose in vigor you make 10 times over in stability and perspective.