Draft
Not for
Public Posting
—— ~18:20 ——
“We have ten days of food. Not ten years. Not ten months. Ten days. Show me the anti-explore plan for Day 11. Show me the plan for Day 13. I’ll wait.”
Scattered applause from near-front. Middle crowd looks up from food, then back down.
“Day 11 is a problem. But Day 1 could be the last day if we trigger something by going out. You’re solving Day 11 by gambling with Day 1. The starvation timeline is known and manageable. The exploration risk is unknown and irreversible.”
Wilson Wang:
“Manageable? How? Describe the management plan. Ration the food? Fine. Day 13 arrives anyway. Then what?”
Grace Su:
“Then we explore on Day 10 with ten days of information gathered from observation. Better than exploring on Day 1 with zero information.”
Jason Li: “She has a point about the timing, but what observation? We can’t see anything from campus.”
—— ~18:30 ——
“Let me address the Dark Forest argument directly. You’re afraid something out there will see us. Captain Wu already went 5 kilometers in every direction. Armed patrol. Visible. Noisy. Nothing responded. If something is watching, it already knows we’re here — 2,400 people arrived with a flash of light and have been shouting for six hours. You think not sending scouts is what’s keeping us hidden?”
“One patrol. One. You went one time. You saw zebras. Congratulations. Now tell me what’s at 10 kilometers. Tell me what’s at 50 kilometers. Tell me what comes out at night. You don’t know. You can’t know from one walk.”
Harrison Hao:
“Which is exactly why we need more patrols, not fewer.”
Anonymous voice:
“Or we need to stop poking the bear and observe from where we are.”
Harrison Hao:
“Observe what? There’s nothing to observe from campus. Grassland in every direction. You want to observe grass?”
Laughter from explore side. Conserve side visibly irritated.
—— ~18:40 ——
“I’ve been listening to both sides. Here’s what I think. The explore people are right that we need food. The conserve people are right that we don’t know what’s out there. But there’s a third option nobody’s saying: defense first. Before anyone goes out, we arm up. We set perimeter watches. We establish who goes and who stays. We screen anyone who comes back — how do we know they haven’t been... changed?”
“Think about it. Unknown force brought us here. What if scouts get caught? What if they come back and they’re not the same people?”
This got very quiet. Several people nodded. More than expected.
“Changed how? What does that even mean? You’re describing a movie plot. In the real world, if our scouts go out and come back, they’re the same people. We can verify — they’ll know things only they would know.”
Alumnus:
“And if the thing that changed them also has their memories?”
Emily:
“Then we’re already doomed regardless and this whole conversation is pointless.”
Alumnus:
“That’s precisely my point. We might already be in grave danger. Shouldn’t we at least prepare for the worst?”
Lucas Lu: “This ‘changed/replaced’ argument is spreading. At least 4 separate tables having this conversation now. It’s not fringe — it’s becoming a real faction position.”
—— ~18:50 ——
“We’ve been going in circles for an hour. I want to state the math one more time and then I’m done. Option A: explore. Risk: unknown, but Captain Wu’s patrol returned safely. Option B: don’t explore. Risk: guaranteed starvation on Day 13. In one option, bad things might happen. In the other, bad things will happen. That’s not a debate. That’s arithmetic.”
“Very clean math from a product manager. But you’re leaving out a variable. Option C: we get sent back. How long do we wait before we gamble with people’s lives? At least give it a few days.”
Martin Li:
“How many days?”
Paul Liang:
“Three. Four.”
Martin Li:
“And if nothing happens in four days?”
Paul Liang: [silence]
Martin Li:
“That’s what I thought.”
Someone from the back: “We’re going in circles. Same arguments. Nobody’s changing their mind. Can we just agree to vote tomorrow and shut up?”
Multiple voices: “Yes.” “Fine.” “Tomorrow.” “Vote.”
—— ~19:00 — End of Debate ——
Resolution
Debate ended by mutual exhaustion, not consensus. Both sides agreed to postpone formal decision to tomorrow’s assembly. Ahmed’s proposal from the afternoon — structured group discussion followed by vote — was informally adopted as tomorrow’s format.
The explore/conserve split is completely unresolved. Positions are more entrenched than at the assembly, not less. People have now argued face-to-face for hours.
Population Breakdown (team estimate, end of dinner)
| Position |
% |
Observed Behavior |
| Active explorers |
~5% |
Vocal. Outdoor types, researchers, Wilson Wang, adventurous students. |
| Uncommitted middle |
~60% |
Watching the debate. Genuinely torn. Not “silent explorers” — actually undecided. |
| Active conservers |
~35% |
Gut says caution. Vocal hardliners (~5%) at mic; rest quietly agree. |
Emily: “The military is in the 60%. They’ll go wherever orders point. Both sides need them. Neither side controls them. Michael Li controls them, and Michael Li doesn’t know what he thinks.”
Lucas Lu: “Debate continues in dorms and classrooms. We cannot track those conversations. Board will be updated with any overnight developments. Tomorrow will be contentious.”