| |
|
Okay, so you're trapped in the wilderness in the midst of a blinding, months-long blizzard, and it's like you and a bunch of other people, say like fifty other people, and some of them are children. Naturally, you resort to cannibalism. Everyone (except the really old people) can generally agree that the really old people should be eaten first, and so the Greatest Generation becomes a fair-to-middling breakfast. There aren't that many of them in your group, you see, and the ones who are tend to be on the withered side and therefore yield little meat. Next go the small number of unrepentant vegans in the group -- they refuse to resort to eating other people on the grounds that meat is murder (which, in this instance if none other, is true), and while that does mean there's more for the rest of you, it also means that the vegans are almost certainly going to die (due to starvation) long before help comes, and waiting for them to perish of natural causes will only cost you valuable foodstuffs. Tough luck, hippie. Now:
Everyone who remains is on more or less equal footing -- you're all relatively vital. It's time to draw straws. Which leads to two questions --
1. Do you include the kids? I mean, fair's fair. Besides, who's going to take care of them in the event that all of the adults are eaten? Should that transpire, the kids will only turn on each other anyway. Brrr.
And:
2. Should you START with the kids? Maybe it would be better to spare them further horrors. Considering what they've already seen and done, is there any hope they could possibly mature to lead happy and productive lives? Might it not be the best thing for everyone involved if it's the children who are selected to next fill the tribe's (figurative) taco shells, and is it not just a small bonus that -- in the event that they are chosen -- the kids probably can't run away real fast or fight back all that well? (But it'll be so adorable to see them try...)
So. Eat the kids? Yea or nay? |
|
|
