The world is about to be destroyed in a nuclear war, and the only safely habitable place is an island in the South Pacific. Only six people can get to the island. Ten people want to go. You must choose six people from this list:

A man of religion (age unknown);

A homosexual doctor (male, 46);

A female singer (30);

A policeman with a gun (age unknown);

The chief of an African tribe (age unknown);

The chief’s pregnant wife (age unknown);

A judge (male, 41);

A university professor (female, 34);

A warrior with a spear from a nearby island (male, age unknown) and

An alcoholic agricultural scientist (female, age unknown).

This is a discussion exercise (from Rooks’ Non-stop Discussion Workbook, 1988) that I have done with at least a dozen classes since coming to China. It is a great lesson, and almost guaranteed to get the students excited. It is fun, although somewhat morbid, and for me, it highlights some interesting differences in the ways that Americans and Chinese see the world.

No class has ever, not even once, chosen the man of religion. Most classes have dismissed him without much thought. Others have given pretty convincing reasons why the priest (or rabbi, or monk or imam) should be left behind. Some men of religion refuse to marry. Others have rules about what they won’t eat. Who needs that kind of aggravation when you are trying to build a new civilization?

Almost every class has wanted the doctor to go to the island. Many students have expressed some homophobic reservations, but they still agreed that for the sake of all future medical science, he needed to survive.

And of course, the survivors need a mix of men and women so that they can reproduce. Every class has voted to save the chief’s wife, since she represents a two-for-one deal. Some classes have chosen to save her husband, while others have left him behind.
Those were things I expected. What shocked me was my students’ response to the policeman with a gun. Almost every class has voted him on the island as one of humanity’s lucky six survivors. And in order to get the cop, they have been willing to sacrifice the warrior with the spear.

“But a gun only has six bullets,” I protest. “What will happen when he runs out of ammunition?”

“I think he will bring enough bullets. He will be able to protect the people.”

Gun beats spear.

That’s exactly why many Americans (like me, for one) would not let the cop on the island. Power should not be concentrated in the hands of one person. Americans don’t think of strongmen as protectors. They think of strongmen as threats.

I have been thinking about this in relation to the strongman with a nuclear weapon who lives across the Yellow Sea from Qingdao.

North Korea announced on Monday that it had successfully tested a nuclear weapon. I thought, “somebody get the gun out of that guy’s hand,” but I also recognized my own bias in that reaction.

I am severely bothered by the fact that Israel and France, for example, have nuclear weapons, just as I am bothered by America’s possession of them. As long as these weapons exist there will be, in all probability, another nuclear war. Still, I don’t expect the U.S. or its allies to disarm anytime soon.

China has already expressed outrage at North Korea’s nuclear tests. Now, the U.S. government and the United Nations expect China to do more. They expect China to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

I don’t know what will happen, but don’t be surprised if the Chinese see things differently.