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.

So, I was watching stargate and they mentioned taking the president, his staff and VIPs to a certain site incase it hits the fan. The site is a glorified campsite basically.
This was to continue the human race and yadda yadda. them mentioned scientists and docters.

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?

Here is was I would want.
Community leaders, better than a president for being more likely to deal with small group issues.
Herbalists and various low tech doctors along ith classical doctors. These people, when the medicine runs out are more likely to be able to forage for medicine and midwifes
Survivalists and hunters, preferably those who can kill without guns.]
And a trained psychologist.

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

I found it odd too. A president should die with his people not be sent on an ark.

As for the question I personally would want people who don't complain. It sounds simple but I find those who complain tend to be very damaging to those around them and themselves.

I think we would all be surprised about how well humans can survive, so ultimately it doesn't matter what these peoples backgrounds are mostly as long as they can put things aside and get jobs done.

I was once lost in the outback (never been so thirsty in my life) and it hit me once we found someone to rescue us. I could have died because we were so focused on getting rescued and finding our way back that we didn't actually take care of ourselves. Instead we played the short game and it could have been very bad. However if I knew that i was going to the wilderness to live my focus would have changed entirely and I would definitely have done things differently.

Another thing to add is soldiers. Soldiers or anybody military have been trained to work as a machine. If you see soldiers working together it is really interesting. Kind of like ants. Military men would be invaluable I think.

Some engineers or clever fellows could be useful. If they can keep some technology running a little longer, more lives could be saved.

I'd also want to save some relics too; keep pieces of civilization safe until someone can put it back together again. We built safe places once, we could do it again.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Some engineers or clever fellows could be useful. If they can keep some technology running a little longer, more lives could be saved.

I'd also want to save some relics too; keep pieces of civilization safe until someone can put it back together again.

Ohh yeah, I would definitely keep my Ork army

Side note: Did you mean "Military Men" or did you mean anyone military because realistically I would take Military women to. Not the average woman though, just the top 1%, the ones that go hard or not at all

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Some engineers or clever fellows could be useful. If they can keep some technology running a little longer, more lives could be saved.

I'd also want to save some relics too; keep pieces of civilization safe until someone can put it back together again.

Ohh yeah, I would definitely keep my Ork army

Side note: Did you mean "Military Men" or did you mean anyone military because realistically I would take Military women to. Not the average woman though, just the top 1%, the ones that go hard or not at all

It's just a bad habit. I have never seen a female military anything before and much of the history I enjoy reading obviously features primarily military men and thus as I type what I think etc...

Obviously a camp with only men will not work for long as a society.

I'm with ghazkuul. Prior or current military. Different fields would be good (get a variety of skills). But for the most part they won't whine like children.

Im not sure having just military would be a good idea.

I think it’s a mistake to look at just the skills needed. Humans can acquire skills and knowledge very quickly when we need to. The biggest issue we have, even today, is organisation and collective effort.

So what matters most, I think, is a structure that best produces combined effort, and an established and respected process to make sure conflicts are resolved peacefully. We get pretty heated right now over truly minor things, imagine how intense we’re going to get when we’re making decisions that affect whether or not our children will flourish or starve to death.

Probably one of the big life lessons I’ve got the hard way is that making the right decision actually doesn’t matter as much as simply making a decision, getting everyone on board, and getting started. Time lost in debate is time you will never get back, and people who fail to buy in are resources either lost or maybe even working against you. In this sense a great leader is a lot less important than a team that believes they have a great leader, if you get the distinction.

That’s why the President is important. Not because of any skill he might have, but because of the authority of the position, the status people have already granted him. It’s far from a guarantee of stability and unity, but it’s about the best chance possible in the short term.

 sebster wrote:
I think it’s a mistake to look at just the skills needed. Humans can acquire skills and knowledge very quickly when we need to. The biggest issue we have, even today, is organisation and collective effort.

So what matters most, I think, is a structure that best produces combined effort, and an established and respected process to make sure conflicts are resolved peacefully. We get pretty heated right now over truly minor things, imagine how intense we’re going to get when we’re making decisions that affect whether or not our children will flourish or starve to death.

Probably one of the big life lessons I’ve got the hard way is that making the right decision actually doesn’t matter as much as simply making a decision, getting everyone on board, and getting started. Time lost in debate is time you will never get back, and people who fail to buy in are resources either lost or maybe even working against you. In this sense a great leader is a lot less important than a team that believes they have a great leader, if you get the distinction.

That’s why the President is important. Not because of any skill he might have, but because of the authority of the position, the status people have already granted him. It’s far from a guarantee of stability and unity, but it’s about the best chance possible in the short term.

Our current President I would follow to hell and back!.....but only out of idle curiousity

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im not sure having just military would be a good idea.

When all you are is a hammer, all you see are nails.

Ouze wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im not sure having just military would be a good idea.

When all you are is a hammer, all you see are nails.

the common misconception that all military people think the same way is the first sign of ignorance about the military

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Our current President I would follow to hell and back!.....but only out of idle curiousity

Meh. You’re living a first world life in a stable society with all your needs met. Change that and watch the nonsense politics just drop away.

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Our current President I would follow to hell and back!.....but only out of idle curiousity

Meh. You’re living a first world life in a stable society with all your needs met. Change that and watch the nonsense politics just drop away.

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

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.

The Dakka OT, ladies and gentlemen: where people can't resist showing off their Obama rage-boner no matter how off-topic or irrelevant it is to the topic at hand.

If this topic is going to go back on track, and I'm sure it won't, because soshulism; then I have a question for hotsauceman: how large is this theoretical group? How long are we expected to survive for - is this an otherwise extinction level situation, or what? Is the entire planet a radioactive clicking wasteland? Is there a survivable area we are migrating to? Because this could actually be an interesting discussion.

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.

Ouze wrote:
The Dakka OT, ladies and gentlemen: where people can't resist showing off their Obama rage-boner no matter how off-topic or irrelevant it is to the topic at hand.

If this topic is going to go back on track, and I'm sure it won't, because soshulism; then I have a question for hotsauceman: how large is this theoretical group? How long are we expected to survive for - is this an otherwise extinction level situation, or what? Is the entire planet a radioactive clicking wasteland? Is there a survivable area we are migrating to? Because this could actually be an interesting discussion.

Better make sure we stay on topic by posting a reply that is 1/2 a reply about someone else going off topic because someone discussed the president being included in the group and I have to defend "Soshulism" as much as I can.

Anyway, Back on topic. Don't include president because realistically he is useless in all matters beyond being a figurehead and annoying 1/2 the group.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

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

To be perfectly fair though, he did use the word correctly considering you're flag is the most beautiful organization of red, white, and blue. But that's as much as getting the right answer to a math problem and not knowing why.

Tydil wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

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

To be perfectly fair though, he did use the word correctly considering you're flag is the most beautiful organization of red, white, and blue. But that's as much as getting the right answer to a math problem and not knowing why.

exalted

Clearly we need the Vault Dweller. And a dog. Everyone else is moot.

Who would you want to continue human society after an apocalypse?

If all humans will die. Some furries will continue Earth society?

If some will survive. Probably, there will be some slavers or early-middle-age-like econimics.

North Korea will be same as now like nothing happen

Clearly we need the Vault Dweller. And a dog. Everyone else is moot.

And vault dweller's name will be Richard Gray?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Our current President I would follow to hell and back!.....but only out of idle curiousity

Meh. You’re living a first world life in a stable society with all your needs met. Change that and watch the nonsense politics just drop away.

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

I'd be willing to bet, of all the people here, that sebster is well aware of what First, Second, and Third World means.

50 seems like a pretty big number with a lot of options.

I think my ideal group would include, split evenly between men and women when possible:

A few small-scale farmers. I'm talking mom-and-pop types, as well as some third-world subsistence farmers\tribesmen types. Maybe a covert weed farmer as well; those guys are crafty.
A few doctors and nurses. Possibly a midwife? That might be too specialized.
A pharmacologist - this might be the wrong term, but a more generalized pharmacist.
A few fishermen
a few hunters and trappers
a few military types with backgrounds in force protection
A botanist
a general mechanic
a civil engineer
a mechanical engineer
Someone with a background in economics
A sociologist


I'm sure I'm mising some specialities but I think that's about 20 or so people right there.

Ouze wrote:
50 seems like a pretty big number with a lot of options.

I think my ideal group would include, split evenly between men and women when possible:

A few small-scale farmers. I'm talking mom-and-pop types, as well as some third-world subsistence farmers\tribesmen types. Maybe a covert weed farmer as well; those guys are crafty.
A few doctors and nurses. Possibly a midwife? That might be too specialized.
A pharmacologist - this might be the wrong term, but a more generalized pharmacist.
A few fishermen
a few hunters and trappers
a few military types with backgrounds in force protection
A botanist
a general mechanic
a civil engineer
a mechanical engineer
Someone with a background in economics
A sociologist


I'm sure I'm mising some specialities but I think that's about 20 or so people right there.

well in my general experience the VAST Majority of military men in the Military are also at least one of the following, Hunters, trappers, fishers, farmers or mechanics

But why all military? It isnt a operation, but continuation of the human race, we would want a varied group

Because nails, bro

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But why all military? It isnt a operation, but continuation of the human race, we would want a varied group

ohh im not saying take all military, im saying you can multi task military men with several jobs. that way you can double up on useful skills in several key areas :-P

 Hordini wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Our current President I would follow to hell and back!.....but only out of idle curiousity

Meh. You’re living a first world life in a stable society with all your needs met. Change that and watch the nonsense politics just drop away.

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

I'd be willing to bet, of all the people here, that sebster is well aware of what First, Second, and Third World means.

Second world country?

Ouze wrote:
50 seems like a pretty big number with a lot of options.

I think my ideal group would include, split evenly between men and women when possible:

A few small-scale farmers. I'm talking mom-and-pop types, as well as some third-world subsistence farmers\tribesmen types. Maybe a covert weed farmer as well; those guys are crafty.
A few doctors and nurses. Possibly a midwife? That might be too specialized.
A pharmacologist - this might be the wrong term, but a more generalized pharmacist.
A few fishermen
a few hunters and trappers
a few military types with backgrounds in force protection
A botanist
a general mechanic
a civil engineer
a mechanical engineer
Someone with a background in economics
A sociologist


I'm sure I'm mising some specialities but I think that's about 20 or so people right there.

It reminds me Dwarf Fortress

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.