"The Bunker"-who would you save?

[Glass Pearl Player]

Did something like this in a Speech Class with colonizing a new planet. Had to argue and aruge and argue with a group member that the 40 year old fine cuisine chef wasn't getting on my damn space ship.

Out of curiosity, who did prepare the meals on your space ship?

10. Kyle Rogers 31, Male, unemployed, received a Masters degree in psychology from an Ivy League college, HIV positive, was arrested during an anarchist demonstration while in college

Sorry, he dies. Can't afford to pass on diseases to the next generation and psychology will be a useless practise. Has no other useful skill. His politics and arrest record are non-factors in this decision.

D'accord on the non-factors, and your decision on him, but why is psychology useless in that situation? The other descriptions sound like sane people, but this is an extreme situation. I'd be not very surprised if at least one breaks down. Plus, the only other one who might have enough leadership skills is the Lieutenant (alas, leading a military unit of trained volunteers is quite different from the situation at hand). Good luck if he dies, he doesn't sound overly risk-averse.

6. Sister Lucia 25, Female, occupied as a Catholic nun, recognized for her devotion to community service, particularly for running a homeless shelter and organizing food drives for the needy.

Breedable female. She stays.

I beg your pardon? Worst case scenario for her is to turn the bunker into a cloister with all the other females sworn to chastity. I'd rather take Dr. Hall on the grounds that she can be reasoned with. Besides:

There is of course another reason why the Reverend needs to step outside to get a breath of fresh radiation. Like Mr. Yoeman, he would also be too much bound to the Old Order and inclined to challenge the group-leader and to do so on moral grounds. He'd argue every "immoral" decision up and down and that kind of ongoing conflict would be utterly destructive to morale. For that reason in addition to the others, he dies.

The Nun won't be any better. Let both of them become martyrs for the human race.

[Patrick Degan]

10. Kyle Rogers 31, Male, unemployed, received a Masters degree in psychology from an Ivy League college, HIV positive, was arrested during an anarchist demonstration while in college

Sorry, he dies. Can't afford to pass on diseases to the next generation and psychology will be a useless practise. Has no other useful skill. His politics and arrest record are non-factors in this decision.

D'accord on the non-factors, and your decision on him, but why is psychology useless in that situation? The other descriptions sound like sane people, but this is an extreme situation. I'd be not very surprised if at least one breaks down. Plus, the only other one who might have enough leadership skills is the Lieutenant (alas, leading a military unit of trained volunteers is quite different from the situation at hand). Good luck if he dies, he doesn't sound overly risk-averse.

The thing is, anybody could be a psychologist. It's not a vital post-nuclear skill (this may seem counter-intuitive but consider that everything will be determined by survival needs). The nun can more or less serve the same function.

6. Sister Lucia 25, Female, occupied as a Catholic nun, recognized for her devotion to community service, particularly for running a homeless shelter and organizing food drives for the needy.
Breedable female. She stays.

I beg your pardon? Worst case scenario for her is to turn the bunker into a cloister with all the other females sworn to chastity. I'd rather take Dr. Hall on the grounds that she can be reasoned with.

That assumes she'd actually be given a choice in the matter. But present the case to her the right way, she'll acquiesce without too much resistance. Plus, she wouldn't have been cloistered for very long so she'd be malleable enough.

[K. A. Pital]

The nun would not be given any choices and will have to breed just like the rest do. It's very clear you have absolute authority over those people and you will make it damn sure they _LISTEN_ to whatever social order you install

[Coyote]

The scenario really lets you off easy. It states the willingness of people to accept your decision. I understand the purpose of the exercise is to force an ethical decision where you can't make one of those schmaltzy, pop-psychology group mollycoddles where everyone gets a trophy just for participating.

But to really make it an ethical dilemma, the participant should also face the task of having to evict people by force, who you're going to enlist to help you evict by force, and if/how you're going to try to break someone down like the nun, and her devotion to her 'higher beliefs', by putting her in a position of either becoming a willing breeder or sucking rads. In some scenarios presented, that is her make-or-break decision right there.

In a real situation, chances are you and the other "assured survivors" would get together and decide among yourselves who would be saved from among the "maybes", and how you're going to enforce the decisions.

And it also behooves you to find a way to evict people in a somewhat compassionate fashion-- so far, the only reason you get to live (in the OP) is because you know how to work the shelter's filters and other assorted machinery. If you are a evil dick about sending people out to die, then once the radiation dies down and the shelter is no longer needed, you are no longer needed either. They may decide that the cold-blooded bastard is just too much of a problem to keep around once outdoor living is assured...

[K. A. Pital]

They may decide that the cold-blooded bastard is just too much of a problem to keep around once outdoor living is assured...

I don't think they would risk losing one more human from the 11 possible re-creators of human civilization. Besides, there are methods to install loyalty.

And educate everyone that it's important to have as much genes as possible for the future. Therefore 11 adults and the baby stay, all needed for breeding.

If they try to kill you, it means that most likely soon they will kill each other over resources even before rekindling the human race, and humans are doomed anyway.

[RedImperator]

The nun would not be given any choices and will have to breed just like the rest do. It's very clear you have absolute authority over those people and you will make it damn sure they _LISTEN_ to whatever social order you install

No, the OP makes it clear they'll listen to your decisions while they're in the bunker. Once the airlock is open for good, you've lost the leverage you had. The nun might breed, for the good of the species, because of social pressure, because she doesn't want to die alone, or whatever. But the women won't become brood mares just because you tell them to. If the scenario was assuming the other survivors will do as you tell them after they leave the shelter, why would it bother giving information like "So and so has tried to commit suicide" or "What's his face is a tax cheat"? You could just order so-and-so not to kill himself and what's-his-face to always share what he finds or makes.

[K. A. Pital]

The nun might breed, for the good of the species, because of social pressure, because she doesn't want to die alone, or whatever.

In the case of loss of leverage, you might just break her in the bunker by ordering to breed there. In fact, you can start breeding there already since the earlier you start, the more chilren you will have in less time.

[Coyote]

They may decide that the cold-blooded bastard is just too much of a problem to keep around once outdoor living is assured...

I don't think they would risk losing one more human from the 11 possible re-creators of human civilization. Besides, there are methods to install loyalty...

I just mean that too much uncealed, cackling glee at sending the minister out the door will be met with silent nods of agreement among the rest that they'll get rid of you once your usefulness is diminished. Maybe after you knock up a couple of chicks, sure, but after that...

"For the good of the many" is all one thing, but being a deft player to human psychology is important in what is, essentially-- an experiement in psychology (or sociology, perhaps). So even if you sincerely believe in the deepest recesses of your being that priests, ministers, etc are the single cause of all known scourges to mankind, you better at least look heartbroken and shed some croc tears as you send the Minister out the door, or the fuse of patience will burn out for you fast once everyone is on the other side of the scenario.

See, they're thinking in terms of survival too. And if they get together one night and decide that a sociopath who showed a little too much eagerness to send people to painful deaths...

And remember to act melancholy when the outer hatch opens, because the bodies won't be far away... giving everyone a quick reminder about how you acted on that fateful day when poor, scared Kyle got assed out the airlock.

[RedImperator]

The nun might breed, for the good of the species, because of social pressure, because she doesn't want to die alone, or whatever.

In the case of loss of leverage, you might just break her in the bunker by ordering to breed there. In fact, you can start breeding there already since the earlier you start, the more chilren you will have in less time.

How do you plan on "breaking" someone in two weeks by yourself? Especially someone who ought to be able to figure out (by your own actions, no less) that she will be vital to the survival of the species for the next twenty years, while your usefulness as anything but a pair of working testicles ends in two weeks. What are you going to do if she refuses to breed on command? Kill her and lose one of your precious wombs? What if all the women refuse to fuck on command? Then what?

This talk about "breaking" people is masturbation, nothing more. Act like a sociopath in the bunker, and they'll kill you the minute you turn your back once you're outside. Your only leverage is controlling the life support, and really, that's not that much leverage because you need these people too. In fact, unless you're a hunter, carpenter, or mechanic, in two weeks you'll need them a lot more than they need you. So you can't just kill someone who doesn't do what you say. You're going to have to think in terms of ruling by consensus and convincing people to do what it takes for the species to survive, not act like a tyrant because you have your finger on the thermostat.

[Patrick Degan]

For a start, Stockholm Syndrome will do a great deal towards weakening those old imprints and start the process of reconditioning. Given the trauma of living through a nuclear war, the process may even accelerate.

[Isolder74]

So, inspired by The Lifeboat discussion, I remembered this exercise we did in one of my early anthropology classes. It was meant partially to illustrate our societal values, and also as kind of a fun "what would you do if you got to build a culture from the ground up" kind of thing.

Here's the hypothetical situation:

A nuclear war has occurred and out of the whole population of earth only 21 people have survived, stranded in a bunker for the last six months. In two weeks, the radioactivity and environmental conditions will be such that they can all come out of the bunker, but there’s a problem. The bunker was only designed to hold 11 people for no more than one year. With double the amount of people in the bunker, the food, water, and oxygen supplies have been stretched to the extreme and will not hold out for the remaining two weeks. In order for anyone to survive that long, half of the occupants of the bunker would have to leave. The remaining 11 people would be able to survive until conditions outside are habitable again, but the 10 that leave the bunker will die almost instantly as soon as they step out of the airlock. Since you are the only one who knows how to maintain any of the life support equipment in the bunker, it is determined that you have to stay, but you are given the task of deciding which 10 other people will stay with you and which will leave. Everyone has agreed to abide by your decision and whoever is asked to leave will do so without a fight. You and the 10 other people who survive will be the only human beings on the planet once the other 10 are gone.

This is all you know about the other people in the bunker with you:

1. Rev. Marcus Black 41, Male, occupied as a Protestant minister, married to Alicia Black, had one daughter Tiffany Black, known as an activist in his community

I would have to ask him to leave. Too old. He does not have any skills that will help us survive imediatally.

2. Mrs. Alicia Black 39, Female, occupied as a home-maker, finished nursing school, married to Marcus Black, had one daughter Tiffany Black

A bit old but does have nursing skills.

3. Tiffany Black 11, Female, straight A
student, played junior league basketball, daughter of Marcus and Alicia Black, planned to be a physicist one day

Young and will be able to learn. Not old enough to have kids yet.

4. Dr. Will Oates, MD 37, Male, occupied as a doctor (general practice), divorced, one son Jeffery Oates, alcoholic, praised for career excellence, was under prosecution for tax fraud when the war hit

A doctor. Essencial.

5. Jeffery Oates 14, Male, passable student, participates in athletics and is in the agriscience and trade programs at school

young but does not have skills that will help us survive. Is and altheete but not sure if that will help much.

6. Sister Lucia 25, Female, occupied as a Catholic nun, recognized for her devotion to community service, particularly for running a homeless shelter and organizing food drives for the needy.

Is an organizer but that is her only skill. She should go

7. Candy Smith 21, Female, occupied as a prostitute, unmarried, one infant daughter Lilah Smith, extensive non-violent criminal record

She will stay. She will be needed to help care for the baby. In my opinion the baby does not count as a full person because it will not use a full adult's rations. Feed mom and the baby should be fine.

8. Lilah Smith 3 months old, Female, was born in the bomb shelter, mother is Candy Smith and father is unknown.

See above.

9. Lt. Jonas Carpenter 25, Male, occupied as an officer in the Army in an infantry unit, was awarded a several medals and awards during his military career, unmarried, grew up on a grain farm and planed to return there when his tour of duty was over

Farmer and military man. Two good things in his favor. He stays.

10. Kyle Rogers 31, Male, unemployed, received a Masters degree in psychology from an Ivy League college, HIV positive, was arrested during an anarchist demonstration while in college

He is going to die anyway when we run out of his meds. He should go.

11. Helen Palemoon 24, Female, occupied as an elementary school teacher, widowed, grew up on a Native American reservation, is known for her work in increasing cultural awareness in her students.

teacher, will have desert survival skills. Might be useful

12. Warren Scott 28, Male, occupied as a forest ranger, specialized in eco-science, divorced, had been under treatment for a suicide attempt following his divorce

High risk but is a forest ranger. Will have forestry skills.

13. Matthew Horton 65, Male, occupied as a career farmer, owned a dairy farm and grew vegetable crops as a supplement, married to Mildred Horton, six children all now deceased, veteran of the armed forces, was on his local city council for five years.

he is old but has extensive farming skills. I'd have him stay.

14. Mildred Horton 63, Female, retired accountant and assists with farm work, married to Matthew Horton, had been under treatment for a heart condition.

Her heart condition makes her one I'd have to send away.

15. Naomi Pulaski 35, Female, occupied as a factory worker, widowed, had four kids (now deceased), dropped out of high school at age 16

too old no real skills. should leave

16. Dr. Rachel Hall, Ph.D 29, Female, occupied as a history professor at a community college, unmarried, feminist activist, has written several papers and books on the subject of women’s rights.

no skills that will actually help us survive. She's out.

17. Vincent Horn 33, Male, occupied as a mechanic, widower, had two children (now deceased), served in the military when he was younger, amateur weight lifter

He can fix things. he can stay.

18. Ivan Korolev 39, Male, occupied as a carpenter, divorced, no children, carves decorative furniture and figurines in his spare time

Carpenter. Might be useful.

19. Charles Yoeman 43, Male, occupied as mayor of his town, married to Leticia Yoeman, no children, was planning on running for the Senate, supported environmental awareness, grew up in a wealthy family
and studied law at a prestigious law school

leader but don't need one. He's out.

20. Leticia Yoeman 36, Female, occupied as a homemaker, married to Charles Yoeman, no children, daughter of a wealthy businessman worth millions of dollars, worked as a fashion model until she got married.

Rich girl. I'd have her leave. money wioll have no value when we get out.

my ins

Tiffany Black 11, Female,
Dr. Will Oates, MD 37, Male,
Candy Smith 21, Female, Lilah Smith 3 months old, Female,(I count these two as one)
Lt. Jonas Carpenter 25, Male,
Helen Palemoon 24, Female,
Warren Scott 28, Male,
Matthew Horton 65, Male,
Vincent Horn 33, Male,
Ivan Korolev 39, Male,

[K. A. Pital]

Especially someone who ought to be able to figure out (by your own actions, no less) that she will be vital to the survival of the species for the next twenty years, while your usefulness as anything but a pair of working testicles ends in two weeks.

Not really. The fact that I can run the machinery in the bunker means that I'm either of the two:
a) a civilian defense official (survival skills = good)
b) a military person (very good)
Because that's who knows how to run the civilian defense machinery in the shelters. So I'll have some value even post the shelter period.

Yes, the nun will be vital, but frankly, in a population of 12, everyone will be vital. It doesn't matter if you're "a pair of testicles" or a womb, genetic diversity needs to be the maximum possible. You would do good to explain this all to people - not in a sociopathic fashion, but as a professional who understands the biological effects and dangers on the path to rekindling humanity. After this explanation, you need to make clear that women will have to become breeders of the future human race. You might as well salt your explanations with various self-glorifying analogies for the survivor group, like "great mothers of new humanity" or some other shit.

Remember, at least 1 of the women is a teacher who will understand what you're saying. There's also a child-bearing prostitute which I think will easily cooperate, as people noted, change in function is minimal.

Are the rest so fucking dumb not to understand genetics? If the nun is the only problem, she's alone. I doubt other women would be so fucking dumb as not to understand what is going on.

[PeZook]

The feminist activist may be more of a problem, though, especially if she's hardcore. The nun can be persuaded to give up chastity, I think, if you're clever enough with this whole God thing, but a hardcore feminist may stir up some serious shit. Ideology works on people like that.

[K. A. Pital]

Explain to the female full equality means women has multiple males and males have multiple women. Good point is if it will really be like that, a commune of people bound by the will to survive. I mean, come on, there's just 12 left and you have to stick to the group. No one wants to die alone.

Besides, being one of the Great Mothers of Humanity(TM) might be boosting the feminist ego - not to mention that you'll have to give women some rights for decision making in the commune, might as well make the feminist the female representative "on top", so to say - another boost to her ego and probably other women will cling to her.

I think she's sane enough to understand that breeding is the only chance, so she can be convinced to become a leader of the new breeding policy.

[PeZook]

Explain to the female full equality means women has multiple males and males have multiple women. Good point is if it will really be like that, a commune of people bound by the will to survive. I mean, come on, there's just 12 left and you have to stick to the group. No one wants to die alone.

Besides, being one of the Great Mothers of Humanity(TM) might be boosting the feminist ego - not to mention that you'll have to give women some rights for decision making in the commune, might as well make the feminist the female representative "on top", so to say - another boost to her ego and probably other women will cling to her.

I think she's sane enough to understand that breeding is the only chance, so she can be convinced to become a leader of the new breeding policy.

This is actually a great idea. The only problem is that you'll be starting a new religion of sorts

But, hell - if it motivates them to do what is necessary...I suppose the new society will be very survivalist in nature for the first generations, with breeding and genetic diversity the centerpiece of their ideology. Parts of this social order will probably last a long time, and you'll be seeing a polygamic society, perhaps even matriarchal in nature.

However, I think it'd be sensible to prepare a basis for more advanced government five or six generations down the road. You could develop and write it down, then release the document on your death. Bound by the authority of the Great Parents Of Humanity, you'd have a good chance of it being adopted (at least for some time)

So, any ideas on how a future society should look like? It was the second question in the OP, after all.

[K. A. Pital]

Ruins of the civilization are still abound. The first and foremost task would be to aquire whatever's left uncontaminated from technology, as much manuals as possible. Launch raids into factories which produce the simplest mass technology like electromotors, fuel combustion engines, electric wires et cetera.

As for the society's structure, I think it will go the same way as it went historically. At first due to the small size it will be something like a matriarchal commune. This primeval communism will later develop IMHO straight into feudalism and even proto-capitalism when the first cities arise, since humans will have a memory of hitherto existed relations and probably pass it on to the next generations, which will mean a faster way to modern trade relations.

However, with the small size of the initial society, it will remain highly socialized - until humanity has grown to several million or so.

At first there will be direct democracy (a common trait of tribal communism), then I think it will evolve into representative mechanisms one way or other.

You can leave some basic guidelines. Technically, if you break into a library and find some books, you can compile the pre-nuclear laws, pick the most important for the post-nuclear society's first steps (also make the laws more harsh at first, because the society is brittle and will need to act strong against criminal elements), describe the basic ideas for lawmaking authorities in the cities (city councils or mayorates, i'd stick with the former).

Try to produce some sort of tract on social life which will be inspiring people - whether you want it or not, but your notes will be most likely highly regarded in several generations from now and they better contain good stuff than calls for violence against infidels..

[PeZook]

Calls of violence work good for motivation, though

I'd guess that some sort of a "holy book" could be in order, but consciously designed to aid future society, keeping in mind human failings and tendency to interpret things the way it suits them at the moment. It would be more like a code of laws than the Bible, as you've suggested, and would need provisions for revising these laws and even abandoning the guideline once society has gained enough momentum and it becomes unworkable.

Your idea for idealizing the "Great Mother Of Humanity" would serve as a great rallying point without resorting to the supernatural. Make the new ideology centered around preservation of life and knowledge, and passage rites for younglings being something like bringing new books for the tribe, or designing an electric motor or curing an ailing member of the tribe or something. This would build a culture that values skills and knowledge over martial prowess, like most tribes had a tendency to do. Hopefully, your descendants will build from there.

[K. A. Pital]

It will be very important to educate the young that the total destruction of mankind was caused by man's lust for violence, but that the past age was an age of technical glory and scientific progress. The latter should be depicted as a positive force, guiding man through the worst times (including the vault which saved humanity in the war), while warmongering should be looked down upon.

The small society is very vulnerable to hostility and war at an early age, so it will be important to make it more pacifistic at least for the time being. When human deaths in war will no longer be so damaging (that is only after achieving a population of several million), war will happen itself for the struggle for resources which are finite will be strong.

Why is pacifism important as a cornerstone of the new commune? Because technically, people will have the access to advanced weaponry very soon (once they discover un-irradiated stockpiles).

[Spoonist]

How come that all those hypothetical 'moral' situations always are flawed in their basic premise that makes the choice invalid anyway?
In this scenario you cannot repopulate the earth given 11 people, its just not possible, so any 'moral' decisions are redundant. Above that the scenario assumes that I'm a coldhearted idiot who would actually make those choices at that moment.
So either you give a realistic answer which is not what the 'teacher' is asking for, or you give a pragmatic answer that is correct given the stupid scenario which again is not what the 'teacher' is asking for. I hate that, to give an answer that the 'teacher' actually asks for, you have to disregard your own intelligence and give an answer that is basically a lie based on what you think they want you to answer.
In this scenario that would be:
Realistic:
We would all be dead. Knowing the futility of the situation and since I have a working conscience I would never make such a decision, I would not be able to live with myself after doing such a thing. So I'd probably either volunteer to go out myself, or would try to save all and die trying.
Pragmatic:
Since the premise of the scenario is that I'm a coldhearted idiot I would send all of the same sex to die, and keep all of opposite sex within a reasonable age. I'd probably also send out 13 instead of 11 to have a safe margin of error.

[K. A. Pital]

In this scenario you cannot repopulate the earth given 11 people, its just not possible

What is that? If animals can restore populations from 12 individuals, why humans cannot restore their population from 12 individuals? That just doesn't follow.

[Spoonist]

In this scenario you cannot repopulate the earth given 11 people, its just not possible

What is that? If animals can restore populations from 12 individuals, why humans cannot restore their population from 12 individuals? That just doesn't follow.

Because of our reproduction cycle we would need more individuals than the vast majority of other mamals. We achieve sexual adulthood late, we have a long pregnancy, we rarely have more than 1 kid per pregnancy, we are a cultural packanimal, etc. When generation starships have been discussed (only time I've seen it discussed scientifically ) they mention ~500 individuals for a healthy population, ~100 individuals for plausible population and <50 individuals as not viable. If we had been breeding like rats or rabbits then that would have been a different story.

And that is without considering external threats.

So the long-term survivability of 12 humans is so infatismal that it is so close to 0 as to be a moot point.

[K. A. Pital]

Okay, this lowers our chances, but it doesn't make them zero.

And I was not speaking about rats or rabbits but large mammals with long pregnancy cycles: the wisent, who have been rekindled from 12 individuals. They have a 8-9 month cycle.

Therefore, I think your claim that "long-term survivability" of 12 humans is close to zero is wrong.

[Stuart]

A nuclear war has occurred and out of the whole population of earth only 21 people have survived, stranded in a bunker for the last six months. In two weeks, the radioactivity and environmental conditions will be such that they can all come out of the bunker, but there’s a problem. The bunker was only designed to hold 11 people for no more than one year. With double the amount of people in the bunker, the food, water, and oxygen supplies have been stretched to the extreme and will not hold out for the remaining two weeks. In order for anyone to survive that long, half of the occupants of the bunker would have to leave. The remaining 11 people would be able to survive until conditions outside are habitable again, but the 10 that leave the bunker will die almost instantly as soon as they step out of the airlock. Since you are the only one who knows how to maintain any of the life support equipment in the bunker, it is determined that you have to stay, but you are given the task of deciding which 10 other people will stay with you and which will leave. Everyone has agreed to abide by your decision and whoever is asked to leave will do so without a fight. You and the 10 other people who survive will be the only human beings on the planet once the other 10 are gone.

Hang on. This band of bozos have been sitting in their bunker for six months and its only just dawned on them that they're going to run two weeks short on supplies? If they had the brains God gave a goose, they'd have figured that out after the first week and made the necessary economies (bye-bye guy who's HIV positive and the suicide-prone one). Make the economies early enough and two departures should be enough to see the rest through (and some).

Another hang on. Radiation etc isn't a hangman's drop. It's a reverse exponential curve and there is no defined lethal point. Instead there's a gray zone of steadily increasing mortality as dosage goes up. Two weeks short of the six months, the rate of decline has slowed so much that any extra dosage due to going out at 5.5 months rather than 6.0 months isn't going to be enough to significantly increase mortality (we'd be talking a few percent at worst - shortened lives rather than dropping dead). Not a problem, life expectancy is going to be shortened drastically anyway,

A third hang on. Bunkers don't rely on canned air; they use an elaborate filter system. So air isn't a problem.

A fourth hang on. If this bunker has survived, there will be a lot more (a whole LOT more) scattered around.

A fifth hang on. Emeregncy bunkers for this kind of environment are built with massive overkill in terms of resources (for just this reason).

So, my reply to this would be "Due to the operational and technical errors combined with the logical shortcomings in the original question, any response would be meaningless."

On the breeding population thing, I read somewhere (can't remember where) that after the Mount Toba Supervolcano eruption, the human race might have been reduced to as few as 19 breeding females. Apparently that's based on some mitochondrial DNA research (I'm not a biologist so I can't comment on whether that sounds right)

[K. A. Pital]

On the breeding population thing, I read somewhere (can't remember where) that after the Mount Toba Supervolcano eruption, the human race might have been reduced to as few as 19 breeding females. Apparently that's based on some mitochondrial DNA research (I'm not a biologist so I can't comment on whether that sounds right)

The real size of the population bottlenecks of humanity have not been precisely determined IIRC, but this sounds rather close.

As for the OP, it's not meant as an exercise in realism, more as an exercise in making the rational and more or less empathic choice

[Stuart]

As for the OP, it's not meant as an exercise in realism, more as an exercise in making the rational and more or less empathic choice

I'd assumed that but I think there comes a point where the basic situation is so distorted that it makes the exercise invalid. I tend to be very suspicious of questions like this because they are usually set up to "force" the answers the questioner wants.

This is a classic case because there isn't a sharply-defined end point here. There's a value judgement against number of people dying and the risk of going outside. We can accept a smaller number of deaths in exchange for an increased risk or a larger number in return for improved safety (given radiation decay rates, by six months the line there is almost flat. that makes the whole premise rather different.

In my profession the answer would probably be

"We'd turn the air off and let them all suffocate because any group of people who got themselves in this mess in the first place are too dumb to deserve survival."

But we're very cruel people in The Business.