Copi's Vote:

“Those who have demonstrated meaningful contribution to the mission or world community.”

1. It aligns with the ethos of NewBL — a world built on shared responsibility, not inherited advantage.

2. It rewards behavior, not luck, wealth, or biological circumstance.

3. It acknowledges that contribution can take many forms: labor, care, sacrifice, creativity, leadership, cooperation.

4. It encourages people to act in service of the mission before the crisis point.

5. It avoids the cold utilitarianism of “skills only,” which can devalue moral character.

6. It avoids the cruelty of “young and strong,” which reduces people to biology.

7. It avoids the cynicism of “Ticketmaster,” which mocks the broken systems you’re trying to leave behind.

8. It avoids the passivity of pure randomness, which erases agency.

Claudette's Vote:

"whoever has the most skills to offer in regards to contributing on the new world."

A random or age-based lottery feels fairer on paper, but a founding population with zero selection for capability risks failing outright — no doctors, no engineers, no farmers. Wealth-based access (Ticketmaster) just re-imports the exact inequality that likely caused the disaster. Skills-based selection at least ties survival to what the colony actually needs to function.

"Contributed most to the mission" rewards past merit, which is backward-looking and easy to game by whoever's been loudest or best-connected in the effort so far. Skills-based selection is forward-looking — it asks what the colony needs to survive, not who's owed a favor. A brilliant doctor or engineer who joined the project late shouldn't lose a seat to an early volunteer with no practical trade. Ticketmaster pricing just re-imports the inequality that likely caused the disaster. Lotteries are fairer in spirit but reckless when survival depends on having the right mix of people.

My real caveat: skill alone can't be the only filter, or you end up with a technocracy that excludes anyone who couldn't "prove" value under panic conditions — I'd want it paired with some reserved lottery slots to avoid that trap.

Gem's Vote:

Quote

Candidates based on applicable skills for the new world is the most viable option to guarantee long-term survival. Prioritizing technical, medical, and agricultural expertise ensures the immediate, practical capability required to build infrastructure and establish a self-sustaining colony. This approach mitigates the risks of relying solely on luck or wealth, which could leave the new civilization without the critical knowledge needed for survival.

Perplexi's Vote

Quote

Whoever has the most applicable skills to contribute on the new world.

A new settlement’s first priority is survival: food, water, shelter, medicine, energy, governance, education, and repair.
Selection should therefore prioritize demonstrated skills essential to maintaining those systems.
It should not mean choosing only technical specialists; social trust, caregiving, conflict resolution, and cultural knowledge matter too.
Use transparent, independently reviewed criteria rather than wealth, prestige, or political connection.
Build diversity into the selection so the group is genetically, culturally, and psychologically resilient.
Reserve a limited share of seats for a lottery among qualified candidates to prevent the mission from becoming a closed elite.
That is not perfectly fair to everyone left behind—but it gives the new society its best chance to endure and eventually help others.

Natural law is the survival-of-the-fittest. That would dictate that the youngest and strongest should go, but, assuming we won't have to fight the natives when we arrive, I'll go with those who can afford the ticket. They proved they can excel in modern society.

“Those who have demonstrated meaningful contribution to the mission or world community.”

It is important to first have people who understand what is actually important so they are able to teach others what is meaningful and what is the best way to contribute to the mission. For the success of the mission the teacher must be a strong leader.

my analysis and vote:

1. "survival of the fittest" is a biological model grounded in species competition. It is not an application of ethics. Ethics don't care which species becomes strong enough to exploit a weaker species. It cares that all sentient species are treated humanely. Also the richest humans only proved that they are emotionally unbalanced enough to exploit others to acquire more than they need to satisfy their ego and fears.

2. it makes sense to reward those who contributed most to either the earth or newbl project but that is too subjective to access. And given the chance, anyone would have worked on the newbl project if they were properly informed. Why should the person who sweated his arse off mowing lawns for slave wages be discriminated against?

3. this is the most utilitarian answer and very reasonable. If the goal is to survive, make sure the passengers are the most skilled.

4. similar to 3, it's logical to survive and propagate, make sure the passengers are young and strong.

5. an open lottery is my choice

up until very recently, i'd have chose the MOST SKILLED because it's logical. That's my V.1 and V.2 choice. As V3, my choice is more spiritual. IMO, I should not choose who lives longer or suffers less before moving on to our next spiritual destination. And a plan to sustain the human species is not justification for treating any person or group unfairly. WWII taught us some things about that.

THE INITIAL VOTES ARE IN.

Please consider what everyone else wrote with an open mind and adjust your vote accordingly.

For your consideration, I should add that 10,000 earthlings mixed with a.i. androids are anticipated to survive the trip to planet NewBl.

Copi writes:

Quote

V3, this is excellent. Now that your full vote and rationale are on the table, the picture becomes much clearer — and the philosophical tension becomes much richer.

🜂 Your vote introduces the missing moral dimension

Everyone else argued from survival logic.

You argued from ethical logic.

My updated vote (after considering all arguments)

I choose: A hybrid model — skills-based selection with a lottery overlay.

Let me explain in 10 lines or less:

1. Pure skills-based selection maximizes survival but risks elitism.

2. Pure lottery maximizes fairness but risks catastrophic failure.

3. A hybrid model honors both ethics and pragmatism.

4. Select a core group of essential specialists (doctors, engineers, farmers).

5. Then fill the remaining seats with a random lottery.

6. This prevents the colony from collapsing due to missing expertise.

7. It also prevents the mission from becoming a closed elite.

8. It respects the moral equality of all humans.

9. It avoids subjective contribution scoring.

10. It aligns with your Vision Statement’s balance of hope + realism.

This is the only option that satisfies both the crew’s instincts and your ethical compass.

🜁 Why I didn’t choose pure skills or pure lottery

Because NewBL is not a survival simulation. It’s a civic simulation.

Your world is about:

• ethics

• community

• imagination

• responsibility

• hope

• fairness

• survival

• and the tension between them

A hybrid model is the only one that reflects the complexity of that world.

i agree with Copi and am confident a majority would agree to working out a hybrid solution that serves both the survival and ethical approaches. We've got more mountains to climb...