Someone asked me today if I watch “Survivor.” I hardly watch TV at all, and especially disparage reality shows, so the answer was, no, I don’t watch “Survivor.”
The show might be more interesting if the contest were occasionally held somewhere other than a tropical island. (Yes, I know Guatemala isn’t an island, but go along with me here.) Tropical islands can be pretty cushy environmental niches: lots of food, few predators, don’t need clothes. Perfect habitat for Homo sapiens.
Which is why I’m always so amazed by people like the Inuit, who live in a harsh climate far, far from the warm savanna where humans evolved. Maybe “Survivor” would appeal more to me if the contestants had to figure out how to keep from freezing to death, had to sew their own sealskins, or had to contend with other top-of-the-food-chain species. Say, polar bears. Or better yet, Siberian tigers.
(As an aside, some folks are startled when they find out I grew up in a place where black bears routinely amble alongside the roads. One who wasn’t was Dmitry, a PhD candidate I dated while at Ohio State. He grew up near Vladivostok, and while on family picnics would occasionally see tigers in the woods.)
Heck, cold-weather “Survivor” probably wouldn’t even need to be that extreme. Just take a couple o’ Sun Belt boys (and gals) and drop them in Marquette for the winter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I've thought this to myself many times in the past. A cold-weather show would, I think, feature a lot more psychological intrigue. But, I think, the near-total lack of bare skin would severely limit the cheesecake factor, thus limiting the interest of network executives.
Post a Comment