Stan Horwitz wrote:
> In article >, hal wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:26:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Cie l'vie. What you have demonstrated is that you seem to not
>>> consider your way of life as worth transmitting to the next
>>> generation, or advocating after a major disaster. I wish folks like
>>> you would wear a "do not resituate" sign, to spare scarce resources
>>> for those who aren't living useless lives.
>> It's always fascinating to me when reading or hearing of stories of
>> people surviving under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. It
>> seems that some people have this enormous will to live to matter what,
>> and no matter how bad things get. And then some people simply give up
>> and lay down an die. It's always fascinated me that this dichotomy of
>> human behavior existed and why.
>
> It depends on the situation. In a post nuclear holocaust, I would not
> want to live if I was near the blast because the cancer and other
> effects of the radiation would take me down regardless of my will to
> live.
>
> A hurricane or other natural disaster is an entirely different matter.
> With a hurricane, I can get out of the way and simply return home and
> rebuild later if necessary. That's much the case with forest fires,
> tornadoes, etc. but with a nuclear blast, I honestly don't think I would
> want to live in the aftermath of one of those, considering that the
> nuclear weapons we have today make the ones dropped on Japan look like
> dime store firecrackers.

So the nuclear holocaust you're anticipating would be something like On
The Beach? I would have to concur then but if it was more like Jericho
then I think we would fight to live. It would depend on the degree of
total damage and area affected in relation to us.
--
Ginny - In West Australia