It is evident that this small and exquisite heater is not suitable for large-scale use as a heating device in an apocalyptic disaster.
Anything that cannot be mass-produced industrially is meaningless in such a situation, not to mention this expensive toy that can only be used by a few people.
After all, besides the cost issue, what needs to be considered more is how to allow more people to survive this disaster, rather than making the relatively well-off survive more comfortably.
This is actually the true meaning of the existence of order and rules, and also the true embodiment of civilization.
If there were no rules and order, the strong would be able to plunder the weak at will, making the strong stronger and the weak weaker.
And the most direct embodiment of rules and order - the law, is to weaken the strong and protect the weak.
If the weak feel that the law is biased in favor of the strong, it must be an illusion because without the law, the plundering of the weak by the strong would be wanton, even trampling on the survival rights and lives of the weak at will.
The existence of the law precisely prevents the strong from wantonly plundering the survival rights and lives of the weak, protecting their existence.
Although to some people, this may seem like it is for exploitation and oppression, it is undeniable that the existence of order is always protecting the weak, which is precisely why there is the famous saying - even the worst order is better than no order.
Starting from this sentence, for Perfikot, there are actually two choices in coping with this disaster.
First, choose to improve the level of security as much as possible, allowing a few "elites" to survive with a higher probability.
Second, choose to ensure that more people survive as much as possible, at the cost of lowering everyone's survival standard to a very low level, only enough to ensure survival.
Choosing the former is the so-called most rational choice.
Because the total amount of resources is limited, under these conditions, rather than thinning out these precious resources and allowing more people to survive at a low level, it is better to ensure the high quality of life for a few elites.
After all, low-level survival security is actually fraught with risks and hidden dangers, because lower survival conditions mean a lower error tolerance rate and a lower ability to withstand crises.
If the environment remains unchanged at a certain baseline, then doing so is not much of a problem.
But once the environment deteriorates and exceeds the tolerance limit, the entire social system will collapse.
Concentrating the same resources on a few elites can greatly improve their survival probability, allowing more resources for redundancy design.
In this way, even if the environment changes or other disasters occur, there is still a high chance of survival.
However, doing so also has flaws, the most important being that a stable social structure requires a majority of the grassroots and a certain overall number to reach a certain scale.
Ensuring the survival of a few people can indeed increase their chances of survival, but a few elites cannot support a stable social structure.
So the most ideal state is to maintain a certain population with a relatively low standard of living, with a portion of them for maintaining the stability of the social structure, and a small number of elites maintained above this grassroots.
But this is an ideal model, and in a certain sense, it is actually difficult to achieve.
Because it is very difficult for decision-makers to grasp what this so-called relatively low survival standard is exactly and how many people should be maintained.
Although sociologists and biologists can calculate the population required to maintain human natural reproduction and genetic diversity, they cannot guarantee that this number will certainly survive the apocalypse.
The reason is simple, they cannot guarantee that no major changes leading to population decrease will occur in the future.
Moreover, there's a crucial point: although a relatively low living standard has a higher stress tolerance compared to trying to save as many people as possible, this higher tolerance is also only relative, and no one can ensure it will last through the environmental changes.
Therefore, compared to this approach, making a more sentimental choice to save more people, or a more rational choice to ensure that fewer people survive, is much easier.
Moreover, there is a more critical point: the former does not need to consider who to let survive, and the latter does not need to consider who to let survive either.
However, more than this, what Perfikot needs to solve now is the problem at hand.
"I have a friend who has been researching synthetic materials. Maybe he can help us." Oliver thought quickly. Since building an alchemy device for personal warmth was not feasible, then the issue should be solved through clothing or other methods.
From this point of view, a friend he knows who researches synthetic materials could undoubtedly come in handy.
Hearing Oliver mention knowing someone who researches synthetic materials, Perfikot was not surprised.
Although this world hasn't developed a chemistry discipline due to the existence of alchemy, it doesn't mean chemistry doesn't exist.
In fact, just like in Perfikot's previous world, early chemistry was actually part of alchemy; it's just that in the original world, the mysterious elements faded out, and the more pragmatic chemistry developed.
But in this mysterious world, alchemy developed, so chemistry as a discipline did not separate from alchemy; it remains part of it.
This leads to projects that originally belonged to chemical research, in this world, falling wholly within the domain of alchemy.
For instance, in the original world, various synthetic materials such as plastics, synthetic fibers, polyester, and acrylic are products of chemical research, but here, they are considered complete alchemy.
Yet because they all belong to alchemy, such research is relatively overlooked.
After all, the things alchemy can accomplish are far beyond simple chemistry, at least one point, chemistry is about scientific principles, but Perfikot's Philosopher's Stone does not follow those, as it can break the laws of conservation of material and equivalent exchange.
So, to alchemists, what they pursue is higher-level material transformation, like turning stone to gold, or achieving immortality, not inventing nylon to make stockings for women.
These alterations of material, without any mystical power involved, generally do not even require the activation of alchemy, and are usually only researched by those alchemists who achieve neither high nor low, hence they often are somewhat looked down upon.
However, Perfikot didn't hold any prejudice about this, she simply told Oliver: "You can let your friend try to synthetically produce materials similar to cotton. If he can achieve it, there will be a place for him in the Arctic exploration program."