PDA

View Full Version : The Lottery



Arga
October 28th, 2009, 02:11 PM
I was waiting for a remark from Young, that never came.
It was to tell people that to be chosen to go in the shuttle is not so much luckier than to stay in Destiny, since they don't know if the planet is inhabitable... So "winning" at this lottery is not necessary lucky..

Also, the idea for this escape was to take refuge in a new planet. As human instincts dictate, the goal would eventually be to populate the planet, after they secure themselves. So wouldn't it be more logical to set a 50/50 proportion of male/female to go on the shuttle? (imagine that Chance only took males from the box, TJ would have been the only female! oh dear...)

Do you think Wray was right to suggest that Young individually choose people, based on their skills, to increase the chance of survival?

Anyway, it's funny that the "lucky" 17 people, are all characters that we've already seen play a more or less important role in the series, and not some people we've never seen in close-up before, like some extra, taken in the crowd...
I would have liked that Fate had chosen some actor/extra whom we haven't been introduced to yet.
We see there the limits of a tv show and real life...

IcarusAbides
October 28th, 2009, 02:21 PM
I was waiting for a remark from Young, that never came.
It was to tell people that to be chosen to go in the shuttle is not so much luckier than to stay in Destiny, since they don't know if the planet is inhabitable... So "winning" at this lottery is not necessary lucky..

Also, the idea for this escape was to take refuge in a new planet. As human instincts dictate, the goal would eventually be to populate the planet, after they secure themselves. So wouldn't it be more logical to set a 50/50 proportion of male/female to go on the shuttle? (imagine that Chance only took males from the box, TJ would have been the only female! oh dear...)

Do you think Wray was right to suggest that Young individually choose people, based on their skills, to increase the chance of survival?

Anyway, it's funny that the "lucky" 17 people, are all characters that we've already seen play a more or less important role in the series, and not some people we've never seen in close-up before, like some extra, taken in the crowd...
I would have liked that Fate had chosen some actor/extra whom we haven't been introduced to yet.
We see there the limits of a tv show and real life...
I'm not sure Young wanted the responsibility of choosing the people who would survive, Wray only wanted Young to fix the lottery or choose the people outright as she wanted him to pick her.

s09119
October 28th, 2009, 02:23 PM
I'm not sure Young wanted the responsibility of choosing the people who would survive, Wray only wanted Young to fix the lottery or choose the people outright as she wanted him to pick her.

That's not true. She honestly thought the crew would be better off if they fixed it to ensure their best odds of survival... and given who went, he may well have despite what he told Rush.

Lightning Ducj
October 28th, 2009, 02:30 PM
I was amused that in about 10 minutes the 'survivors vs doomed' completely reversed sides

Lightning Ducj
October 28th, 2009, 02:33 PM
ape was to take refuge in a new planet. As human instincts dictate, the goal would eventually be to populate the planet

No, you don't repopulate a planet with 15 people and it's very unlikely many of them, no matter what skill set, would survive whatever the planet's version of 'winter' would be. This was just a chance to live maybe another day and get a chance to go down fighting.

slurredspeech
October 28th, 2009, 02:38 PM
... and it's very unlikely many of them, no matter what skill set, would survive whatever the planet's version of 'winter' would be. This was just a chance to live maybe another day and get a chance to go down fighting.

At the time of the lottery, no one knew the planet was a rock. There was only Rush's speculation that it should be 'moderate'. It could have turned out to be somewhat like Earth, in which case they could have lived long and prosper.

Of course, it could have also been worse than what they encountered. Fact stands, there was a chance they'd be able to live just fine.

Egle01
October 28th, 2009, 02:38 PM
Anyway, it's funny that the "lucky" 17 people, are all characters that we've already seen play a more or less important role in the series, and not some people we've never seen in close-up before, like some extra, taken in the crowd... Not true. There were some unfamiliar faces and names, who hadn't been introduced before that.

Lightning Ducj
October 28th, 2009, 02:42 PM
Not true. There were some unfamiliar faces and names, who hadn't been introduced before that.


Like the first Airman

maddmike
October 28th, 2009, 02:43 PM
I had a feeling it would all be ok... i couldn't see the series being based on 17 people who are living on a random planet without a stargate lol.

Egle01
October 28th, 2009, 02:45 PM
Like the first AirmanHuh? Becker was the one who worked in the mess. I meant there was a doctor. Unfamiliar names were David Walters and Boone. And they didn't count all the 15 on screen.

Lightning Ducj
October 28th, 2009, 02:48 PM
At the time of the lottery, no one knew the planet was a rock. There was only Rush's speculation that it should be 'moderate'. It could have turned out to be somewhat like Earth, in which case they could have lived long and prosper.

Of course, it could have also been worse then what they encountered. Fact stands, there was a chance they'd be able to live just fine.

No, humans do not survive 'just fine' in isolated groups like that. "Gilligan's Island" was fantasy after all. We're too adapted too and dependent on our social and technological infrastructure. Some very few can and some can last longer than most, but for the most part, they could land on Hawaii and few would survive anyway. And with the slim chance of Greer, I don't see that any of the characters identified so far would have both the training and/or experience and mental toughness to do it.

Lightning Ducj
October 28th, 2009, 02:50 PM
Huh? Becker was the one who worked in the mess. I meant there was a doctor. Unfamiliar names were David Walters and Boone. And they didn't count all the 15 on screen.

Sorry, didn't really recognize him.

There's the "A" players (Rush, Young, Chloe, etc...), The "B" players (Riley? Becker?, Wray so far?) and The "Rest" and I don't recognize all the B players from the Rest yet

slurredspeech
October 28th, 2009, 02:52 PM
No, humans do not survive 'just fine' in isolated groups like that. "Gilligan's Island" was fantasy after all. We're too adapted too and dependent on our social and technological infrastructure. Some very few can and some can last longer than most, but for the most part, they could land on Hawaii and few would survive anyway. And with the slim chance of Greer, I don't see that any of the characters identified so far would have both the training and/or experience and mental toughness to do it.

Okay, first of all, you were arguing they wouldn't survive because of the climate and that they weren't doing them a favor by sending them off; I was responding accordingly.

Secondly. Had the planet been Earth-like, perhaps there would have been people already living there?

Dude. I don't know. Don't particularly care either, to be honest.

IcarusAbides
October 28th, 2009, 02:57 PM
That's not true. She honestly thought the crew would be better off if they fixed it to ensure their best odds of survival... and given who went, he may well have despite what he told Rush.
After the episode i was unsure as to whether he had fixed it or not but i just couldn't see him leaving eli behind if he had fixed it.

s09119
October 28th, 2009, 02:59 PM
After the episode i was unsure as to whether he had fixed it or not but i just couldn't see him leaving eli behind if he had fixed it.

I meant fixed as in "sending people helpful to survive" as "fixed." Eli would be a detriment to the colony, if anything.

Lightning Ducj
October 28th, 2009, 03:02 PM
Okay, first of all, you were arguing they wouldn't survive because of the climate

No, I was arguing that they wouldn't survive, period.


and that they weren't doing them a favor by sending them off; I was responding accordingly.


It's a favor to let them live a little longer and maybe have a better grasp on how they die. On the plant, if I find food I live and if I don't I die so every day my life is my own. Granted, I think eventually you lose that battle but at least it's better than dying on the Destiny in a few hours with no recourse.

However, I think in such a scenario, the chance of long term survival for even the majority of the party is so remote that thoughts of populating the planet from the given group is useless no matter who you send


Secondly. Had the planet been Earth-like, perhaps there would have been people already living there?

In which case, who you send especially doesn't matter.

Arga
October 28th, 2009, 03:15 PM
No, you don't repopulate a planet with 15 people and it's very unlikely many of them, no matter what skill set, would survive whatever the planet's version of 'winter' would be. This was just a chance to live maybe another day and get a chance to go down fighting.

:o oh, when I wrote "repopulate the planet", it was more like establishing a camp, start families, farming, and let the course of nature do the rest, if the conditions are favorable.. And I think it would have been hard if there was a very disproportion of male & female, with tension arrising... Well even if it was equally distributed, I bet some male would remain single while one other male would get at least 3 wives ;)

garhkal
October 28th, 2009, 03:17 PM
Do you think Wray was right to suggest that Young individually choose people, based on their skills, to increase the chance of survival?
.


After having a lot more time to think about it i am thinking she was right..

Eternal Density
October 28th, 2009, 04:23 PM
They didn't show everyone who was picked for the shuttle, so later they can have some extra who we've barely or never seen before say they were on the shuttle.

Jeff-B
October 28th, 2009, 05:38 PM
I just don't understand why anybody would think their goal would be to repopulate the planet? Let's face it, it wasn't exactly the Mayflower( whose goal was to establish a whole new society), rather the goal was to have a little better chance of surviving a little longer. Why would they even consider having babies, stretching presumably thin resources even further?

dunce_d
October 28th, 2009, 05:48 PM
I think Young knew that the planet was not likely able to support life. The mission of the Destiny is to follow the seeder ships that deposited stargates on worlds that the ancients would likely have visited. Since there was no stargate in that star system then all of the planets would have been deemed inhospitable to ancient/human life forms, at least at the time when they were surveyed by the seeder ships. The conditions of planets that have stargates have obviously changed since they were initially surveyed, as we have seen by the desert planet in air, but it is unlikely that they would have improved with time.

The Ori
October 28th, 2009, 06:59 PM
I would easily be able to choose! All the women and me on BOARD!!!!

Arga
October 29th, 2009, 02:41 AM
I just don't understand why anybody would think their goal would be to repopulate the planet? Let's face it, it wasn't exactly the Mayflower( whose goal was to establish a whole new society), rather the goal was to have a little better chance of surviving a little longer. Why would they even consider having babies, stretching presumably thin resources even further?

it's maybe not the goal (this word was badly chosen).
But if they find a way to survive and establish a safe camp, then I bet there won't be 1 year before a first baby arrives. That's just how humans are.

renboy
October 29th, 2009, 03:29 AM
Definitely not a large enough gene pool to build up a society;
But I do see a couple of baby's springing up while they are there - maybe even having a baby of their own eventually - but that's about it.
Taking that issues into consideration sounds ridiculous though, with only 17 people - the only issue is survival for the longest period of time;
Best case scenario - those people would be able to live out the rest of their lives on the planet and die of old age.

Wayston
October 29th, 2009, 06:19 AM
15 people is not a bad amount of genes to start a society. Given long enough there will be many genetic mutations ensuring a diverse enough gene pool. The "starting seeds" would need to abandon any notion of monogamy though to ensure maximum diversification.

I think the main reason Young didn't hand pick the shuttle crew is that this would lead to a small revolution by the people who weren't picked. Also there was no real strategic objective to be reached with maximum efficiency. It was not a question of chosing the best and brightest to achieve something, it was just about who out of a bunch of people that weren't supposed to be anywhere near the situation they were in would get a chance to live another day over the other people who weren't supposed to be there. Since nobody signed up for their situation, everybody should get that chance (except for the barest minimum to survive: a pilot and a medical expert) especially since it wasn't a real military situation.

Arlan
October 29th, 2009, 11:11 AM
Also, the idea for this escape was to take refuge in a new planet. As human instincts dictate, the goal would eventually be to populate the planet, after they secure themselves. So wouldn't it be more logical to set a 50/50 proportion of male/female to go on the shuttle?

Actually the best chance for eventual population would be more women then men. You'd want to have as many babies as quick as possible, so the more women the better.

With 17 people you'd probably want 13 women vs 4 men, or something like that. Basically any woman on the destiny capable of bearing children should be on the shuttle, since there probably aren't even 13 of them total among the crew.

Quadhelix
October 29th, 2009, 12:41 PM
Actually the best chance for eventual population would be more women then men. You'd want to have as many babies as quick as possible, so the more women the better.

With 17 people you'd probably want 13 women vs 4 men, or something like that. Basically any woman on the destiny capable of bearing children should be on the shuttle, since there probably aren't even 13 of them total among the crew. Unfortunately, that doesn't quite work: if you have only 4 men, that means that you can have 4 "families" - the generation after that, it condenses down to two families (unless people are "marrying" their half-siblings"). It wouldn't be long before inbreeding became a serious problem.

Unfortunately, even with a 50/50 mix, all you're doing is staving off the inevitable for a few generations: 17 people is not a large enough gene pool to support a long-term colony. Indeed, it's quite possible that the entire crew of the Destiny (all ~80) represents too small a gene pool to establish a long-term colony.

jcoy
October 29th, 2009, 12:50 PM
Why does everyone think having lots of children quickly would improve their chances of survival? That's just more mouths to feed with the same limited resources.

If the planet required military survival training to survive, they probably wouldn't be concerned about starting families.

If the planet was a tropical paradise, it would probably have a stargate. A seeder ship must have come through this system, or how would Destiny know about it in enough detail to plan a no power aerobraking maneuver. In fact if Destiny was trying to put them in orbit around one of the planets, it would probably have been one with a stargate.

Arga
October 29th, 2009, 01:04 PM
Unfortunately, that doesn't quite work: if you have only 4 men, that means that you can have 4 "families" - the generation after that, it condenses down to two families (unless people are "marrying" their half-siblings"). It wouldn't be long before inbreeding became a serious problem.

Unfortunately, even with a 50/50 mix, all you're doing is staving off the inevitable for a few generations: 17 people is not a large enough gene pool to support a long-term colony. Indeed, it's quite possible that the entire crew of the Destiny (all ~80) represents too small a gene pool to establish a long-term colony.

no, it doesn't mean "4 families".. That's assuming a male would only mate with 1 female.

To work, theoretically, it should be like that (imagine there are 4 men and 12 women, the 13th women could "rest" for a year without being pregnant) (and don't take my post too seriously, don't be offended, it's just for the fun of the demonstration) :

each of the 4 men impregnate 4 different women, that would be a total of 12 future mothers. At least 12 babies 9 months later, if there are twins : more.

Then, after those births, the 4 men impregnate again 4 women each, but 4 others than last time.. And 9 months later, same thing, sex duty again with 4 other women.

So in about 3 years, each men would have given children to every women of the group. 36 babies of very mixed gene pools..

i know it doesn't sound very normal in our kind of civilization, where monogamy is pretty much the norm, but if their intent was to create a population, that's indeed the best solution.
If they wanted to keep their standards about relationships & "family values", they should stick to the 50/50 proportion, and every couple would act like a family.
The lottery would become : "who gets to bound with whom?"...

Quadhelix
October 29th, 2009, 07:19 PM
Why does everyone think having lots of children quickly would improve their chances of survival? That's just more mouths to feed with the same limited resources. That's not the point of talking about children: the point is colony that would last longer than one generation. The basic idea is that, if the planet is to be anything other than a place for the survivors to die, there is going to have to be a "next generation."




no, it doesn't mean "4 families".. That's assuming a male would only mate with 1 female. No, it isn't: children who share a single parent (in this case, the father) are part of the same family. Unless, of course, you want to have people having children with their half-siblings.

Basically, if there are only 4 men, then there are going to be 4 families: one for each man. It doesn't matter how many women those men have sex with (although the women have to remain monogamous, for reasons that will be clear in a second). This means that the first generation "planet-born" will have a choice between marrying one of their father's children or the children of one of the 3 other "spacer" men. It would, of course, be critically import that they know which man fathered each child, otherwise people would be unknowingly sleeping with their half-siblings.

Okay, so you have 4 families of first-generation planet-born. Let us call them A, B, C, D. Now, barring siblings matting, the possible match-ups to produce the second generation are AB, AC, BC, BD, CD. Notice that each one of those shares a grandparent with several of the others (ex., AB shares A with AC and B with BC and BC - leaving only CD as a possible match).


As I said before, inbreeding becomes a problem after only a handful of generations: there simply isn't enough genetic material. Also, although a 4 male 13 female split certainly exacerbates the problem, having a roughly 50/50 ratio doesn't solve the problem: 17 people is too small a gene pool for any long-term colony.

Eternal Density
October 29th, 2009, 08:32 PM
Unless there's the right kind of radiation in which case they'll mutate into superhumans...
:P

prion
October 30th, 2009, 08:59 AM
As I said before, inbreeding becomes a problem after only a handful of generations: there simply isn't enough genetic material. Also, although a 4 male 13 female split certainly exacerbates the problem, having a roughly 50/50 ratio doesn't solve the problem: 17 people is too small a gene pool for any long-term colony.

To put it simply, if they tried to make a whole population out of that many people, you'l'l have the folks who populate SyFy's horror flicks containing the inbred mutant cannabilistic hillbillies. (although realistically they'd probably die out but this is SyFy so they'll go the gratutitous gore way) ;)

Captain Obvious
November 3rd, 2009, 03:46 PM
As I said before, inbreeding becomes a problem after only a handful of generations: there simply isn't enough genetic material. Also, although a 4 male 13 female split certainly exacerbates the problem, having a roughly 50/50 ratio doesn't solve the problem: 17 people is too small a gene pool for any long-term colony.

Studies done on many people of varying cultures have found that the offspring of first cousins are not any more likely to have unhealthy children unless there is a severe genetic defect present in the parents or the population is overtly homozygous. First cousins could only share maximum 25% homozygous DNA, which isn't too far off the average random paring of people of 2 similar genetic backgrounds. When any of the parents are mixed race or varying races, the children could share as low as 12.5% common DNA, as random as finding a stranger on the street and having a child with them. ( actually, it is possible to share zero genetics with a first cousin, but it is very unlikely, I was going by averages.)

Considering the varied races amongst the crew, I would doubt that there would be too many double recessive genetic issues floating around (unless of course one of the African American crew members is Nigerian/Liberian decent and a "white" crew member is actually of Ashkanasi Hebrew decent, causing possible sickle cell anemia.). I would think the ideal number of males would really top out at the 5-6 number.

You are also forgetting the possibility of what is called "cross-gen breeding", using older males as a stud for unrelated 2nd gen females. This widens the genetic pool out. It can be done in reverse, but our social and cultural mores won't allow it in humans as much (as the "spacer" women would be unable to have kids with the 2nd gen males until they reached at least their early teens, when many of them might be at the end of breeding age). Also, males maintain fertility much longer than females, again making it even more likely.

Quadhelix
November 8th, 2009, 06:45 PM
I'm putting the quote in spoilers to save space.

Studies done on many people of varying cultures have found that the offspring of first cousins are not any more likely to have unhealthy children unless there is a severe genetic defect present in the parents or the population is overtly homozygous. First cousins could only share maximum 25% homozygous DNA, which isn't too far off the average random paring of people of 2 similar genetic backgrounds. When any of the parents are mixed race or varying races, the children could share as low as 12.5% common DNA, as random as finding a stranger on the street and having a child with them. ( actually, it is possible to share zero genetics with a first cousin, but it is very unlikely, I was going by averages.)

Considering the varied races amongst the crew, I would doubt that there would be too many double recessive genetic issues floating around (unless of course one of the African American crew members is Nigerian/Liberian decent and a "white" crew member is actually of Ashkanasi Hebrew decent, causing possible sickle cell anemia.). I would think the ideal number of males would really top out at the 5-6 number.

You are also forgetting the possibility of what is called "cross-gen breeding", using older males as a stud for unrelated 2nd gen females. This widens the genetic pool out. It can be done in reverse, but our social and cultural mores won't allow it in humans as much (as the "spacer" women would be unable to have kids with the 2nd gen males until they reached at least their early teens, when many of them might be at the end of breeding age). Also, males maintain fertility much longer than females, again making it even more likely.These are all valid points.

Nevertheless, IIRC, there is still a minimum population size necessary for there to be enough genetic diversity/breeding options for long-term survival. Again, if I recall correctly, that size is in the hundreds, not the dozens.

Captain Obvious
November 12th, 2009, 12:56 AM
I think Young knew that the planet was not likely able to support life. The mission of the Destiny is to follow the seeder ships that deposited stargates on worlds that the ancients would likely have visited. Since there was no stargate in that star system then all of the planets would have been deemed inhospitable to ancient/human life forms, at least at the time when they were surveyed by the seeder ships. The conditions of planets that have stargates have obviously changed since they were initially surveyed, as we have seen by the desert planet in air, but it is unlikely that they would have improved with time.

we do not know if there are stargates in the system, because our gate had zero power and we could not dial out!

Tanie
November 28th, 2009, 04:06 PM
I was waiting for a remark from Young, that never came.
It was to tell people that to be chosen to go in the shuttle is not so much luckier than to stay in Destiny, since they don't know if the planet is inhabitable... So "winning" at this lottery is not necessary lucky..

I have to completely agree!

natyanayaki
November 28th, 2009, 08:25 PM
Do you think Wray was right to suggest that Young individually choose people, based on their skills, to increase the chance of survival?


I do think Wray was right, but that's my personal opinion and as much as I hate to admit it, Young has the right to his opinion. I do, however, think that Young's inability to comprehend Wray's suggestion, and his refusal to even consider the suggestion demonstrates that Young is not fit to command under such duress. In difficult situations such as these, leaders have to make decisions they aren't entirely comfortable with, for the survival of the species etc. Prime example, BSG, Roslin who was apparently pro-choice, made the decision to ban abortions because human reproduction was at that time their prime concern. She had to go against her personal beliefs for the good of her people (btw, I'm not suggesting that I am anti-abortion, just using that situation as an example).


Like the first Airman

No, we'd seen the first airman (Riley) quite a bit, as we had James, Park, Brody, Becker...while some were formerly unseen, we had been familiar with the majority chosen.


Why would they even consider having babies, stretching presumably thin resources even further?

Because ultimately the goal of DNA is to replicate, reproduce and survive? Why else send a group of people to a planet, if they only hope to survive a few more years, then die off. I'm assuming that some were hoping that they'd be able to survive long enough as a community for Earth technology to figure out a way to find them and take them home...