After the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, a German army surrounded the city of Leningrad in an extended siege beginning that September. In subsequent months, the city sought to establish supply lines from the Soviet interior and evacuate its citizens, often using a hazardous “ice and water road” across Lake Ladoga. A successful land corridor was created in January 1943, and the Red Army finally managed to drive off the Germans the following year. Altogether, the siege lasted nearly 900 days and resulted in the deaths of more than 1 million civilians.
(http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/siege-of-leningrad)
This event caused huge problems for Russia in World War II as Leningrad had weapon factories which provide a lot of the weapons for the army during the war. This city was under siege 872 days and these days were really dark days. To survive people resorted to cannibalism. Then the question comes in “Who deserves to Live?”.
In my opinion, the food distribution should be :
- 30% Soldiers / Blockade
- 23.3% Women
- 23.3% Men
- 23.3% Children
I decided to split the food in this way due to a few reasons:
- The food is very important for the soldiers as if they do not get enough food, they may not be able to hold up the blockade which would lead to the Germans entering the city and wipe out everybody. thus, they would be the first priority but not by too much
- The rest of the food is split up evenly across all genders and ages as each person have the same chance of living and dying. And overall everyone is selfish, thus, if a person of a certain age or gender has more food, it will cause problems in the society.
Great background information, thanks for the context. Your division of resources is very precise, and your logic seems sound, but what about the ethical dilemmas, and how easy it would be in reality to condemn those who are weak, sick or dying by denying them enough resources? Also, would just 10% more be enough to sustain an army of soldiers? Are there alternative perspectives?
Wow! This is a really interesting post Avi. I liked how detailed you were when explaining the historical context and who you would allocate the rations to. But do you think it is that simple? Do you think the people who are engaging in cannibalism or murder deserve to be rewarded with the same amount of rations as those contributing to society (police or the people risking their life to bring in resources across the frozen lake)?
BRILLIANT! I love the fact that you used actual percentages to convey your decision. Would you waste food on people who have less chance of surviving, if it allowed equal opportunity?