>>529968Well, you're treating everyone's body as the same, and you're taking it to the extreme. i.e.: setting the limits of the human body completely arbitrarily without any consideration towards the environment or personal abilities.
Imagine saying to someone that doesn't have much knowledge "you can survive 3 weeks without food". He may think he'll be fine for three weeks, which he won't. You have to define "survival", and "survival" is not pretty. You may have a body still functioning after three weeks, but that body may be fucked up beyond repair depending on how much mass the body started with.
The same goes for heat, saying you can last 3 hours without heat is completely irrational, because it depends on how you're dressed, and where you are. The variation is just too high to set up a "rule of thumb". The same goes for water. A person will not last 2 days in the sahara desert without water, if not acclimated.
These little rules of yours may help you prioritize, but the numbers are meaningless. Simply put, you're establishing survival probabilities based on a very general idea of human metabolism (again, regardless of the environment, which is pretty stupid), while it's pretty much established that the greatest factor in survival is mindset, not whatever the average human body can endure.
THAT is why I call using these rules of thumb being a pleb. A much more sensible "rule of thumb" would be the 5-10Cs of survival.
