If it was totally outside your abilitiy, just a coin toss, I'm pretty sure human psychology would work out and you'd get ten volunteers without asking.

Is there any option with a 100% chance of killing all 100 people?

Signed,
A. Misanthrope

Did your date not go well?

I'd take the first option, to save 90 people. Not only would my chances of survival be better, so would everybody else's. If I had to choose, I would choose nine other people and myself, because I don't think anyone should have to live with that decision.

What Hugh said, except that I would ask for nine volunteers to die with me. Like The Whelk said, I don't think it would be difficult to get the nine volunteers out of 99 people.

I'd go with the 90 lives saved. I'd select them myself. I would hate myself forever, but being cowardly alive is better than being bravely dead.

I wouldn't put that burden on someone else; it would be mine.

My gut says choice one. As far as the follow-up, I wouldn't be able to make that decision now. Back in highschool, I was in an internship program where we were set up in groups of six people. There was a similar kind of test. I was the leader of the group. We had to decide something like, "You have 20 people that have to go to a bomb shelter built for 15. If all 20 or any number above 15 enter the shelter, you will all eventually die.' Then we were given descriptions of each person. After a heated discussion, I convinced the group to pick 5 people. We were the first group to finish. And we ended up completely agreeing on the people to leave behind. The other groups kept arguing until the co-ordinator called time.

I guess my point is that I was a bit cold-blooded about the whole thing. But I was just 16 years old and rather pragmatic.

These days I have a different world view.

I'd take the first option, to save 90 people. Not only would my chances of survival be better, so would everybody else's. If I had to choose, I would choose nine other people and myself, because I don't think anyone should have to live with that decision.
posted by Hugh Janus

Exactly this. Why do I always end up agreeing with Hugh Janus? In another lifetime, I think we might have been soulmates.....

I'd gamble. I might even go for smaller odds if i had a shot at saving everyone.

I'd do the picking for a sacrifice too. I can't imagine why I wouldn't select myself if that gave the survivors a better chance at living.

I'm a wimp about how I die, not whether I do, particularly if other lives would be saved.

The 90 youngest (just because they've gotten to live the least). If I fell in that group, so be it.

(Or a lottery -- pick 90 names. Seems fair.)

I'd probably take a vote, but I think I'd vote for the all-or-nothing route. The thought of leaving 10 people (or 9 people plus me) to just wait around and die without giving them a chance to fight seems really wrong to me.

I'd want to gamble.

Because 50% is a pretty good chance.

I'm going to go with the 90% because that's passing.