Question of the Day, Feb. 27, 2010

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Question of the Day, Feb. 27, 2010

image

Let's take a break from talking about gaming to ponder one of life's more important questions: What's worse, being eaten by one large thing (like a bear) or many small things (like a school of piranha)?

Permalink

A school of piranhas would tear you apart painfully and you would have to go through that before you die. A bear would at least kill you first right?

Surely this is a no-brainer. A big thing would either knock you out first or eat you in a few bites while lots of small things would take longer.

Better a quick death by shark bite than a slow devouring by fire ants.

For me, I imagine something big (Like a T-rex) would kill you pretty quick, and then that would be it.
A lot of small things (Like the tiny raptor things in Jurrasic Park 2) would have lots of small nips and bites before they managed to tear into you properly, and even then, they'd probably stop being hungry when they'd stripped off most of your skin and flesh, unless there was a lot of them.
Hence my decision of small things being worse.

Small things would be way worse.

Many small things for sure. Seems a bit more violent and painful in my mind for some reason. :)

It's a no-brainer, when big things want to eat you they'll kill you to make you stop struggling. Small things don't care if you struggle, they can eat whether you're alive or dead.

Many small things.
Worms...

Unless I'm already dead of course, then it wouldn't matter so much.

I'd rather die before I'm eaten, and I don't think piranhas bother with killing. they just eat.

Big things eat you whole. Little things nibble and nibble and PAIN.

Dammit, misread it as "Which is preferable". Disregard one of those "big things" votes.

Depends. If I'm concious I think I'd rather be eaten by one big thing. Something tells me it'll feel faster than being nibbled to death by thousands of tiny mouths. If I were out cold I could go either way.

I think generally speaking, death by one big thing is preferable. Unless said big thing happens to be something like this.

Seems fairly obvious that being nibbled all over your entire body slowly would hurt a lot more than one or two big hits.

Many small things. They would take longer and the pain would be dragged out. Better to get it over with.

SachielOne:
Better a quick death by shark bite than a slow devouring by fire ants.

This is the logic I applied to the situation. You wouldn't feel a shark bite as much, because after it takes a maximum of 5 chunks out of you, you're pretty much dead. But with loads of tiny ants eating you, you'll feel all the millions of bites and it'll take them longer to kill you.

In other news, I overthink things.

Would "many small things" include being torn apart/devoured by zombies?

I large predators will generally kill you, then eat you. Small things won't kill you straight away. Large predator for me thanks.

being eaten by many small things must be most painfull, where a large creature could kill you with a single bite, the smaller ones will take many small bites, which won't kill you in one hit.

Many small things of course.

Do you realize how awkward it would be to tell people in hell how you died?

"So I was shot in the head by a terrorist"

"I got killed in a car-crash"

"... I got eaten by 15 little kittens"

DaxStrife:
Would "many small things" include being torn apart/devoured by zombies?

Hmm...no, I don't think so. That might be "many large things."

Oh, and for the record, big things don't always kill you or render you unconscious when they start eating you. You're just kind of lucky if it happens that way. They will, most likely, render you incapable of running away, but that can be simply standing on top of you, knocking you into a rock and breaking your legs, taking a big enough first chunk to slow you down, and so forth.

Not that I'm arguing the logic against the small things, mind. Just making sure we're all on the same hypothetical page.

Also, this is a very silly discussion. One of my favorites so far.

something big, to where i can be eaten as a whole and the risk of instant death
is substantualy increased.

so many small things.

This is a no-brainer... I picked small things.

Getting eaten sucks either way, but with small things it's more painful and humiliating. So yeah.

Andronicus:
I think generally speaking, death by one big thing is preferable. Unless said big thing happens to be something like this.

I'm confused, why don't you want to be eaten by a giant sand vagina? Sure, you're gonna get digested over centuries, but hey, kill yourself first, that's how you get around that.

OT...ish: I'd rather get eaten by a big thing. It seems like many small things would take too long to kill you...and I'm reminded of that scene in Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull when the guy gets eaten by those Brazilian ants. Or, even worse, that cave of bugs in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

I hate bugs.
Help

I figure a big thing is higher up on the food chain while many small things rely on teamwork, which any strategist can tell you is totally not fair to nature. Mother Nature: "If I'd wanted you to eat something by taking a million tiny little bites I would have given you a million tiny little heads like the genitals of a Japanese demon!"

Sam G:
Dammit, misread it as "Which is preferable". Disregard one of those "big things" votes.

Make that two votes.

I need glasses

I'd rather die quick by one big thing

I'd rather not be eaten, dead or alive.
But at least being eaten by something bigger would be a quicker death...
Thanks for giving me these thoughts, whoever came up with today's question.
I'll have my revenge...

Small things... they rip you apart while one thing could just be one bite. Plus, one big thing has a greater chance of instant (painless) death.

DaxStrife:
Would "many small things" include being torn apart/devoured by zombies?

I think small zombies would mean little people zombies, which would be an under-rated threat in the zombie horde. You hardly ever seen little zombies, except in kids' movies, and then they are comic relief. I think a movie about a town over-run by midget zombies would be sort of interesting, actually.

My biggest phobia is being eaten by a large creature. So I'd prefer to be eaten by smaller creatures, even if it is probably more painful.

But upon looking at the question again, I notice that what they list as the big thing is a bear. I'd chose that over little things. I was thinking of big, unrealistic fantasy monsters.

Andronicus:
I think generally speaking, death by one big thing is preferable. Unless said big thing happens to be something like this.

Like that.

Many small as it would so much more painful...

gee what ever would eat me would regret it because i'd give them such heartburn they'd never do it again

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here