Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: MV5BMTAwNzk4NTU3NDReQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU3MDg3OTEyODI@._V1_.jpg (73KB, 462x680px) Image search:
[Google]
73KB, 462x680px
I was wondering if some other /his/torians might be willing to try and help me streamline this predicament I was thinking about earlier today. Doubtless it's been thought of before, just presented via a different scenario.
I was thinking about The Road, and from this I tried to consider what someone might do in a similar situation. Basically the problem goes like this:
>A father and son are in a completely hostile land. One unable to sustain any agriculture, and has no fresh sources of water. All supplies must already exist, and consequently are scarce. Further, the quality of these remaining foodstuffs and water supplies are dubious at best. Complicating their situation even more, they have no method to test whether or not the food and water they come across is toxic. This leaves them in a particularly precarious situation where even if food and water can be found, it may not be safe for consumption.
>This forces the father into having to make a difficult decision. He can either A. eat the food/drink the water first, and confirm that they are safe. B. have his son eat the food/drink the water first, in order to confirm that they are safe. Or C. have them both eat the food and drink the water at the same time. If he goes with A, it could kill him - but spare his son. Unfortunately, this will almost certainly condemn his son to death without his father to protect and care for him. If he goes with B, the father is in effect protecting himself, but runs the risk of killing his son each time they drink or eat. And if he goes with C, then neither of them will know if the food/water is poisoned, and could kill them both.
What would you do in this situation? Is there another option? I am curious to hear your thoughts.
>>
>>2852199
Historically, they would have both died, and a group that could keep a growing population through their methods of survival would be the progenitors of a new human era.
It wasn't wise to ask /his/ this. Now-a-days we're half /pol/ half World War autism.
>>
>>2852199
A logical person would say B. It's less about protecting himself and more about the fact that the son would not survive without the father. In the same novel you're quoting there are multiple instances of children being raped or used as a food source by roving gangs of survivors who have abandoned morality. Most people would probably agree that death by consumption of unsafe food is preferable to this.
A case could be made for C, if one of you is going to die from unsafe food, might as well be both of you. The son wouldn't survive without the father and you could argue that the father wouldn't want to live without the son. However this is fuzzy at best because it's a very emotion based argument.
A is the least valid option but a moralistic case can be made, the father is "protecting" his son by eating the potentially dangerous food. One could also argue that as a full grown adult he has a better chance of surviving something that is harmful but not absolutely fatal than a child. However if something were to kill him, he would leave his child to a much worse fate as mentioned before.
Option D which isn't explored in the novel but which is probably best and has a societal precedent is an animal companion that eats any scavenged food first, similar to a mining canary. Probably a cat or small dog would be best. Assuming that the food is unsafe due to radiation from nuclear fallout, there would be no difference in its effects on humans vs. animals.
>>
>>2852305
This, ideally having a trained rat or two would come in handy. But if the kid was old enough to be on his own, I'd eat it first, no question.
Also now that I'm a dad, The Road made me cry when I reread it. McCarthy's fantastic.
>>
>>2852335
Don't have a child but it is a very fucked novel. Tore me up emotionally. The only time a post-apocalyptic novel has really made me question humanity as a whole.
>>
>>2852351
How many post apocalyptic novels have you read?
>>
>>2852351
It's fucked up but also oddly heartwarming, at least for a McCarthy novel
>>
>>2852199
logicaly the son should eat it becuse the dad would have better chance of survival therefore more chance of eventualy making an other kid and ensuring the survival of the human race
>>
>>2852694
Not him, but I've read a fair amount. Only The Road and Canticle for Liebowitz really reached the level of moving literature.
>>
Autists, all of you. This is all so completely tangential to the themes of he book. It's not a survivalist fantasy, it's about carrying the fucking fire through the fucking wasteland.
In case the metaphor is getting too heady for you: YOU'RE IN THE WASTELAND, RIGHT NOW. IT'S 'MODERNITY', IT'S OUR HISTORICAL MOMENT, IT'S A SPIRITUAL DESERT. WE BIRTH OUR YOUNG TO FEED ON THEIR FLESH AND DRINK THEIR BLOOD BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUTURE HERE FOR US. HAHA, GET IT?
>>
>>2852899
I liked the state of New Rome in Canticle of Liebowitz. Unfortunately, once we destroy civilization, we will never be able to reach our current level of civilization again as we have depleted all our surface resources.
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1