Do you really think that if we were stranded on an island with other people we could really trust them. I mean think about it.... <br><br>

Hi Katie,<br><br>I would think that it would depend on the people in your group and how you arrived at the Island. If you knew then from before like a party/fish boat loaded with friends then you would already know, to a point, who you could trust and who you would not turn your back on. If you did not know them you could be in a heap of trouble. Supplies and procurement of water would be my first priority. You could live quite a while without food but without water you would soon perish. I think the will to survive would quickly become more important than trust. Allies and bands would quickly form in a large group. But to be quite honest I would not trust any stranger until he/she had proved their worth.<br><br><br>Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. <br>—Thomas Jefferson <br>

It is natural for small groups of people who undergo common hardships to bond with a sense of comraderie. They would also benefit greatly by cooperating to share things like a common fire and shelter and the division of labor, etc. And sharing each other's company would also be a powerful reinforcement to keeping a close, cooperative group. There would be very little incentive for the individuals to betray each other because presumably no one would have significantly more resources than the others. Think of that as a "Gilligan's Island" scenario. I think you could trust people implicitly under those conditions.<br><br>If the group of people is large enough, it creates the possibility for different factions to develop. The factions could be competing with each other for the same resources and may not be able to trust each other. This is more like a "Lord of the Flies" scenario. However, in the "Flies" the characters were children without a developed sense of morality. I have enough faith in human nature to think that in a similar situation with typical adults, that a much more stable and gentle social structure would develop in which people could trust each other. However, that certainly wouldn't hold true if you were unlucky enough to be stranded with people that just happened to be immoral individuals.<br><br>I think that the way you view this question is an indicator of how you view human nature.<br><br>

Katie, I lurked and hesitated to reply because I have more of an interest in survival (i.e., equipment and techniques) than survivalism. But I had a pretty different point of view from some others, regarding your question.<br><br>I don't share the optimism and "faith in human nature" that you see in other posts about this question. My opinion (I do this for a living) is based on many years and many published research articles in the Psychology literature on small group dynamics and "crisis" behavior.<br><br>In short, don't expect altruism or concern for others if there are significant dangers or resource shortages. Expect PRIMITIVE behavior: power alliances, survival of the fittest (even within the "tribe"), "might makes right", etc.<br><br>Sorry to be so negative, but my opinions are based on the studies that looked at this type of stuff. <br><br>

Ah yes,"primitive behavior" tooth and claw chaos of brutish hominids.Sorry,but with a background in Anthropology I am still awestruck by REAL humans.You know,those PRIMITIVE people that refuse to accept Victorian Englishmen as the pinnacle of civilization.The Neanderthals lasted far longer than we have,or probably will with this me first hubris.Sorry,but Ill take my chances with the Hopi,U'wa,Saami,Gwichen,Maori,Inuit,Zulu et al over some 3piece suit,latte sucking asphalt pounder whos perrier just ran out.<br><br>

No value judgment intended in my post, Chris.<br><br>Or ad the Hopi say, K'Tchapi<br><br>