Toddler survival

[qwertz6607 130]

So uh, 'hypothetically', if you left 37 toddlers on a large uncontacted island in the middle of an ocean, could they possibly survive? The toddlers should be able to perform basic functions and communicate. Maybe. Anyway, y'all think they could survive? If they thrive or become the last person alive they win a... hm... yeah, no they're not getting anything.

[SharpWit 2,711]

Lol, nope.

Warning, I guess?

Spoiler

Let's say best case scenario.

There's ample shelter from caves, conditions are just right so that it's never to hot or too cold.

A spring that exits like a small waterfall from the side of a rock face with an angle less than 90 degrees so nothing can wash or crawl in to contaminate a continuous water supply.

There is an abundance of perfectly edible fruits that are never out of season and plenty grow within a tiny arm's reach.

The island has never been visited prior, so there are no mammals to prey on or spread disease to the youngsters. Any animal threats will solely exist from the surrounding waters.

Finally, I think of Toddlers as between 2 and 4 years old. The older they are, the better chance they have, but let's be fair and divide them up more or less evenly. Twelve whom are 2, twelve whom are 3, and thirteen whom are 4. Maybe some are even getting close to turning 5!

So they shouldn't immediately die from exposure, thirst, starvation, or predation. Sounds pretty good. Now let's see where it all falls apart.

This is an age group little to no responsibilities. Despite access to shelter, some may just wander off. With no supervision, any number of tragedies will occur, but we'll begin with a few falls and drownings.

Despite access to fresh food and water, some are used to everything being provided for them, and if they don't all stick together, then they may not have access to these, and we lose a few more.

Those in pampers who do not have them removed in due time will at best have a bad rash, but will likely develop UTIs. Those who help them may not properly wash their hands, resulting in subsequent cases of pink eye, E. Coli, but worst of all, infections followed by sepsis should fecal material find it's way into and cuts or scratches.

Things should steady out momentarily between the second and third week. We've lost most of the youngest, and maybe a few of the others. But now they've entered a state of depression, and even at such a young age, there will be those who shut down and simply give up.

The signs of malnutrition are already beginning to show. One can live off of just fruit, but one must also have the knowledge and access to the right ones. There's also the issue that these are children going through near constant growth streaks. The lack of protein, calcium, and substantial carbs means they're missing out on some essential building blocks and energy. They could catch some crabs and other shellfish, but with no way or how to cook them that's just not happening. What attempts they make likely loses a few more to general food poisoning. Some may even meet some of the less than friendly wildlife amidst the waves while aimlessly trying to catch something, whether it be sharks, urchins, or a wave that was just a little too big for someone without water wings.

The lack of parental care and especially antibiotics have taken a heavy toll.

From here the decline becomes a slow arduous crawl, as an imbalanced diet plays havoc on the mind and body. Accidents are significantly more likely to happen, deformities in the spines and limbs occur from impeded bone growth or even reabsorption, significantly increasing the risk of breaks from falls.

I expect <5 make it past a year, and that last issue only gets worse with time.

If this happened to be a daycare group left behind on a cruise ship, I think our odds of survival go up significantly.

Anyhow, I'm off to make roasted parmesan squash.

[Clawdeen 15,458]

From looking it up the age range of what is considered a toddler is the range of 1-3 years old.

So no. That’s faaaar too young to survive all on their own. 

[Dreambiscuit 10,095]

This is really an unsettling question. I imagine some of them might be capable of finding food. And seeking shelter is kind of a basic human instinct. 37 of them means they’d need a lot of food and especially water, so if they were to revert to their natural animalistic senses of survival, the most strong or aggressive would probably find the minimal requirements to exist, and have the upper hand while the weak would suffer. A lot depends on individual personality and initiative. Kids don’t start coming into the ‘age of reason’ until they’re about four years old, so anything beyond basic impulses would be sketchy. Even animals in the wild have a sense of right and wrong, and act more compassionately than many humans, so humans should have a decent capacity to help each other and recognize that helping each other is for mutual benefit. I hope no one ever has to find out for sure.

[Crypty Scribbles 5,322]

In theory, it's possible if some social animals like apes or wolves will care about some of them. History knows such cases even if they are are extremely rare.