Would you rather…?

[ElijahRyne]

This question requires some set up.
Assume some entity tasks earth with finding and training 2,000 people to best survive two scenario. You will be chosen and trained for one of them.

Scenario 1:
Every one selected in this scenario will get 1 month of training, and will not be coming back. You will be transported together into the Jurassic. Any animal larger than a house cat in this scenario will be starting hostile. You and a thousand people equipped with what they can carry, + enough seeds to feed your population if properly planted and taken care of, are to be teleported to the Jurassic era together in a place suited for whatever seeds you chose. You collectively are able to bring enough books to establish a long term Iron Age society given you are able to act on it, as well as books on modern medical knowledge. Enough food to last your group a month if properly rationed, gallon of fresh water for every person, 25 rifles and a hundred rounds each, 250 handguns with a hundred rounds each, 5 big game rifles with 20 rounds each, 3 anti material rifles with 10 rounds each. 12 fishing rods + proper fishing equipment. A shovel, spade and hoe for every person. Every person also is carrying a hatchet, utility knife, hammer and 500 nails, fire starter and kindling, a pan, 3 changes of durable and environmentally relevant clothing, as well as a backpack. Some people also brought extra things they thought might be useful, be that for their expedition.

Scenario 2:
Everyone selected will be split up into groups of 5 and given relevant training. They are to survive in an alternate Earth with no homo genus, for 3 years before being transported back. They will get no equipment outside of a week of food and water, a utility knife, and the clothes they are wearing. Each group will be transported to a designated area known beforehand. So that they can get suitable survival training for the area chosen, such as knowing the edible plants, important resources, animals, water sources, etc. as well as survivalist, group training, medical, and tool/building construction knowledge. However how relevant some of this knowledge will be is questionable sense changes in species and environments due to human activity will not have happened.

So then which do you choose? Why? What do you expect to happen? What are your general thoughts on the scenarios? IMO, I would die in the first months of either scenario, but the modern alternative reality gives me better chances.

 

[Sunsetinapainting]

I chose the first one before I saw the words you will not be coming back so I changed it to option 2

 

[ElijahRyne]

I chose the first one before I saw the words you will not be coming back so I changed it to option 2

IMO, the survival chances for the average person are about equal in both. A thousand people in the right environment and suitable food and water, with the right tools, abilities and knowledge, are unlikely to die once they set up a territory. Even if the larger wildlife is starting hostile after a few months or years of interaction fear will become a factor.
In scenario two the targeted training, both group and individual, give you a massive starting point. However the lack of medical equipment, and a stable food source counter balance that. Injuries become more dangerous, large predators and megafauna are more prevalent no matter where you go. If you factor in the survival time, I think that by 3 years you probably be having more difficulty than the group of a thousand after 30.
Both scenarios are victims

 

[Ellie_in_Pink]

2

Fewer people means fewer variables to deal with while already stressed with figuring out how to survive. Especially when all those people have guns. Plus ... bear and wolves vs dinosaurs + diseases that the human immune system has never encountered. I'm used to bears and wolves, even on my own. I'll take my chances with them.

 

[ElijahRyne]

2

Fewer people means fewer variables to deal with while already stressed with figuring out how to survive. Especially when all those people have guns. Plus ... bear and wolves vs dinosaurs + diseases that the human immune system has never encountered. I'm used to bears and wolves, even on my own. I'll take my chances with them.

That is not counting the predators and megafauna we hunted or drove to extinction. That means that lions and hyenas would be a threat in most continents, as well as big cats in general. Crocodiles and alligators will stalk most waterways. Stampedes will be more dangerous and frequent given we haven’t hunted down the animals participating in them. You will also be relying on the environment to be kind. Unlike scenario 1, where you get one suitable to the crops you bring, in scenario 2 you may be subjected to blizzards, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, landslides, volcanic activity, etc depending on where you are transported.

 

[LiteraryWho]

Depending on what you mean by hostile, scenario one is almost trivial to survive. The only real downside is you wouldn't come back (and your civilization would technically have a time limit, as there's a big ass meteor on you way that'll have to be dealt with eventually. They wouldn't be allowed to go puttering about on earth forever).

Humans didn't become the dominant lifeform on the planet on accident, and that's when we had naught but sticks and rocks. Scenario one starts them with guns. A long as the animals on the planet actually just behave like animals, and not video game mobs, the fauna wouldn't present any real problem.

The diseases wouldn't matter, because diseases need to evolve for their host even more than the reverse. In the Jurassic, there are only proto mammals at best. It might be the healthiest humanity has ever been. A bigger problem would be that there might simply not exist a suitable environmental for the seeds they bring.

Anyway, I picked the second option not for for its superior survivability, but for its greater upside. In the first scenario, you're the genesis of a new human civilization. That's cool and all, but we already have one of those. For all its faults, there's no reason to be sure that the best way forward isn't through where we are now, rather than backtracking and taking a different path.

In the second scenario, assuming you survive, you get all the (character) benefits and experiences of a tough survival situation, but then to return that to the present, where you get the best of both worlds. The biggest downside, I'd say, is that it might be hard to meet up with your compatriots back in the real world. Also, I suppose, you'd realize just how much of a bunch of losers everyone is, so you're bound to get lonely.

 

[ElijahRyne]

Depending on what you mean by hostile, scenario one is almost trivial to survive. The only real downside is you wouldn't come back (and your civilization would technically have a time limit, as there's a big ass meteor on you way that'll have to be dealt with eventually. They wouldn't be allowed to go puttering about on earth forever).

Humans didn't become the dominant lifeform on the planet on accident, and that's when we had naught but sticks and rocks. Scenario one starts them with guns. A long as the animals on the planet actually just behave like animals, and not video game mobs, the fauna wouldn't present any real problem.

The diseases wouldn't matter, because diseases need to evolve for their host even more than the reverse. In the Jurassic, there are only proto mammals at best. It might be the healthiest humanity has ever been. A bigger problem would be that there might simply not exist a suitable environmental for the seeds they bring.

Anyway, I picked the second option not for for its superior survivability, but for its greater upside. In the first scenario, you're the genesis of a new human civilization. That's cool and all, but we already have one of those. For all its faults, there's no reason to be sure that the best way forward isn't through where we are now, rather than backtracking and taking a different path.

In the second scenario, assuming you survive, you get all the (character) benefits and experiences of a tough survival situation, but then to return that to the present, where you get the best of both worlds. The biggest downside, I'd say, is that it might be hard to meet up with your compatriots back in the real world. Also, I suppose, you'd realize just how much of a bunch of loseres everyone is, so you're bound to get lonely.

In scenario 1 the seeds are guaranteed to grow given proper cultivation and planting. After the first year/few months you would have likely scared off all of the local hostile animals. In scenario 2 one mistake could end the group. If someone breaks a leg, provokes an elephant or mammoth, falls, etc. survival becomes immensely more difficult. However scenario 2 does have an end point meaning that it has a possible upside, outside of leaving modern life if that seems good to you.

 

[LiteraryWho]

outside of leaving modern life if that seems good to you.

Technically scenario two has that same upside, as you can always go homesteading out on some piece of land here in the modern world (if you want). With the skills you gained in your experience, the work to do it today would feel trivial.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

To be honest, my main concern isn't the wildlife but the other people.

2,000 people to best survive two scenario.

I'm not sure what "best" means here, but I'd assume it means fitness/survival skill rather than morals. With that said, I feel like a small group containing myself and four other people who know they only have to work together for three years will be much more manageable than working with a disorderly mob of 1,999 survival experts.

In scenario 2, Even if I'm not super useful to the four others, my death still decreases the team's manpower by 20%. But would anyone care about my life in scenario 1?

 

[ElijahRyne]

Technically scenario two has that same upside, as you can always go homesteading out on some piece of land here in the modern world (if you want). With the skills you gained in your experience, the work to do it today would feel trivial.

However even in the most wild areas humans have shaped the environment for themselves. In scenario 2 it becomes homesteading on crack, as you could be mauled by a lion or sabertoothed cat if you are not careful.

To be honest, my main concern isn't the wildlife but the other people.

I'm not sure what "best" means here, but I'd assume it means fitness/survival skill rather than morals. With that said, I feel like a small group containing myself and four other people who know they only have to work together for three years will be much more manageable than working with a disorderly mob of 1,999 survival experts.

In scenario 2, Even if I'm not super useful to the four others, my death still decreases the team's manpower by 20%. But would anyone care about my life in scenario 1?

That is the issue, however in scenario one the group is not limitless. Ignoring the life of someone means that they may feel free to ignore yours. With 1000 people in scenario 1, each person is likely to have their role. Be that digging ditches/trenches, for rice paddies and slowing down hostile megafauna, cutting trees, transporting dug earth for earthenwork walls/slopes. Think of it this way. In scenario 1 a disagreement or hostility with someone means that you are hostile or disagree with .1% of the people there. A disagreement or hostility in a group of 5 means that you disagree and or are hostile with 20% of the group. IMO, however, both are unlikely because of the stakes of such a disagreement but having one in scenario 1 is less disastrous than scenario 2.