I think 'assuming good faith' may be the issue, as it cannot usually be reasonably assumed, and without it, everything good about this falls apart. In that tri

I think 'assuming good faith' may be the issue, as it cannot usually be reasonably assumed, and without it, everything good about this falls apart. In that trip of 300, I don't think what you set up quite aligns with the way things are. If it were more realistic, 50 people already are going to die unnecessarily anyways, and 40 of those families will already lead miserable lives for the next few generations. The point is, things are bad in a lot of ways, but making them temporarily worse can making things incredibly better in the future. Now, of course, the fully realistic scenario there, is that the 5 smartest people end up deciding later on "hmm, well we do have half of the wealth in the whole tribe, we kinda hold the power here now...we could just keep serving ourselves...what's that? 180 extra people will die as a result and every family but those of the 5 smartest will live miserable lives? Sucks to be them I guess!" Or even if they had good faith life-long, their children may not. So I agree with you in practicality - its best if someone stands up and says "hey lets just work together as a tribe and do this as fast as possible but avoid ever purposely causing harm, so not as fast as those 5 say" In principle though, if there was some magic way of good faith staying true, then the 5 people ruling could end up being the best case scenario.