Question

It's the year 2525, and an asteroid is on a collision course with Earth, forcing humanity to abandon the planet. There are two options for continuing human life: 1. One large spaceship that will take all of humanity to a relatively large planet. 2. Two smaller spaceships that will take half of humanity to each of two smaller planets. There are only enough resources to build either the two small spaceships, neither of which can reach the larger planet, or the large spaceship-which cannot go to both the large planet and another planet. Not surprisingly, the situation has generated a lot of debate, with people rereading Kremer and Malthus, among others, for insight about which option is better. Two key considerations in the debate have emerged: The two smaller planets are too far from each other to effectively communicate. The combined agricultural land of the two smaller planets is greater than the amount of agricultural land on the large planet. Based solely on these two considerations, which option would be most attractive to a person convinced by the ideas of Malthus? (Hint: Assume that experiencing a bad situation later is better than experiencing it sooner.) O Both options would be equally attractive. O Option 2 would be most attractive. O Neither option would be clearly better than-or clearly equal to-the other without more information. O Option 1 would be most attractive.