Life or death conundrums.
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Counterbalance
Registered Senior Member
~~~
I'd give the lifebelt to my child along with any or all advice I could think of on what to do regarding the possible scenarios (s)he might face before (hopefully) being rescued or managing to drift to land. Knowing my own children, I also know there's a real chance that my child and I would try to figure out a way for both of us to survive--even within the span of a half-moment's time. We are accustomed to teamwork; it's more or less a habit to try problem-solving together.
My child would try to support me, for example, while (s)he wore the lifebelt and while we tried to come up with a solution. If we could think of no solution, I expect I would have to push my child away from me if I didn't want (s)he to be overcome by my extra weight. Not easy for me to watch a child like my own's dismay in this kind of situation. Not easy to know how difficult it would be for them have seen me die. Still, my child fears death and isn't ready to die, while I don't fear it--or don't as far as I've been able to discern so far.
~~~
For the pet scenario...
Got to say I'm leaning in with tiassa on this one. I've had pets off and on throughout my life, but the dog we have now is no ordinary dog. And... we weren't told that we couldn't swim in this scenario, or tread water... sooooo... I'd TRY to be creative, but if I can only save one, then I'll save the one I value most: my canine friend.
~~~
Counterbalance
Chagur,
Haha, you’ve missed the basic purpose to everything you do and the reason for your existence.
The primary purpose of your existence is the survival of the species. Why do you think humans have such strong sex drives? Once you are past your primary years of procreation, you whither and die. Your individual survival is irrelevant to the evolutionary process. This is no different from every other species on the planet.
Intellectually you may not be aware of this but your physiology and especially your male hormones have no doubts about what you are meant to do.
So I see basic human drives as -
1. Find a mate or multiple mates.
2. Impregnate as many as possible, and as often as possible.
3. Protect your mates and offspring until you are incapable.
4. Self survival.
Reasoning –
If you don’t survive before you procreate then you didn’t have value. If you weren’t strong enough to survive then your genes won’t go forward. Basic theory – survival of the fittest.
Now of course so-called modern society has prevented these basic drives from occurring as intended, well almost. Notice how infidelity has been occurring for centuries.
A survey from many years ago showed that virile young males think about sex once every 10 minutes on average, while females only consider the matter on average twice a week.
If the survival of the species was left to females then we would have become extinct many millennia ago.
What ya reckon?
Cris
Haha, you’ve missed the basic purpose to everything you do and the reason for your existence.
The primary purpose of your existence is the survival of the species. Why do you think humans have such strong sex drives? Once you are past your primary years of procreation, you whither and die. Your individual survival is irrelevant to the evolutionary process. This is no different from every other species on the planet.
Intellectually you may not be aware of this but your physiology and especially your male hormones have no doubts about what you are meant to do.
So I see basic human drives as -
1. Find a mate or multiple mates.
2. Impregnate as many as possible, and as often as possible.
3. Protect your mates and offspring until you are incapable.
4. Self survival.
Reasoning –
If you don’t survive before you procreate then you didn’t have value. If you weren’t strong enough to survive then your genes won’t go forward. Basic theory – survival of the fittest.
Now of course so-called modern society has prevented these basic drives from occurring as intended, well almost. Notice how infidelity has been occurring for centuries.
A survey from many years ago showed that virile young males think about sex once every 10 minutes on average, while females only consider the matter on average twice a week.
If the survival of the species was left to females then we would have become extinct many millennia ago.
What ya reckon?
Cris
I'd let my child have the life jacket. I would hold on to both, so we are not separated, while struggling to remain afloat and not a bouyancy burden to it.
Because of my child's low ratio of surface area to body mass, my child is thermally disadvantaged and therefore more likely to succumb to the elements before rescue, or before washing ashore, than me. At which point the life vest would be of further assistance to me.
No, I wouldn't cast my vested child adrift. I'm not interested in performing ritual suicide just to help y'all feel emotionally superior.
As to the second scenario, I would save the human, or the pet, or neither, according to which is less likely to cause my own untimely death by misguided selflessness.
Because of my child's low ratio of surface area to body mass, my child is thermally disadvantaged and therefore more likely to succumb to the elements before rescue, or before washing ashore, than me. At which point the life vest would be of further assistance to me.
No, I wouldn't cast my vested child adrift. I'm not interested in performing ritual suicide just to help y'all feel emotionally superior.
As to the second scenario, I would save the human, or the pet, or neither, according to which is less likely to cause my own untimely death by misguided selflessness.
Hey, Cris ...
I like your scenario even better!
1. Find a mate or multiple mates.
2. Impregnate as many as possible, and as often as possible.
3. Protect your mates and offspring until you are incapable.
4. Self survival.
Except I'd put #4 first.
Re. "A survey from many years ago showed that virile young males think
about sex once every 10 minutes on average, while females only consider the
matter on average twice a week."
Cris, where were you with that bit of info. when the wife at the time accused
me of thinking about sex all the time? Just think: I could have replied, "We're
perfectly normal, Love. Now let's go to bed."
Take care
I like your scenario even better!
1. Find a mate or multiple mates.
2. Impregnate as many as possible, and as often as possible.
3. Protect your mates and offspring until you are incapable.
4. Self survival.
Except I'd put #4 first.
Re. "A survey from many years ago showed that virile young males think
about sex once every 10 minutes on average, while females only consider the
matter on average twice a week."
Cris, where were you with that bit of info. when the wife at the time accused
me of thinking about sex all the time? Just think: I could have replied, "We're
perfectly normal, Love. Now let's go to bed."
Take care
This is an interesting one in terms of evolutionary psychology. I'm not sure what I would do in either situation, but I can tell you what I think most people would do in the first one, regardless of what they <i>say</i> they would do (and that includes me).
<i>The scenario is that you and your child/loved one are shipwrecked and are the only survivors. The only hope for survival is a single lifebelt that will only support one of you.</i>
Every creature has a strong survival instinct. If that was the only factor at work, most people would choose themselves over their child. However, there is also the biological urge to pass on your genes and ensure that they survive to the next generation. That complicates things here. Who has the best chance of passing on your genes? You share half your genes with your child, but your child is also younger than yourself. Who is most likely to survive, all things considered? It is difficult to weigh up these factors, and in fact they may be too complex to properly evaluate in the time available. Most like, social factors will dominate in the decision making process. Possible repercussions of the decision will be considered. Most likely, all other things being equal, I think most people would decide to save themselves. After all, the adult is a proven reproducer, having had at least one child already, and presumably the potential to have more. Then there is the strong instinct for self-preservation. Add the social factors and the social pressure to love and care for children might well dominate, as might general altruism of the individual.
Add religion to the mix and belief in the afterlife and the balance tips, I think, heavily towards letting the child live and sacrificing oneself. After all, you'll go to heaven anyway, won't you? (Though presumably, so would the child...)
<i>Another scenario: Your well-loved family pet has fallen into a rough sea and is in danger of imminently being drowned. A man, a complete stranger to you has also fallen into the sea and is also about to drown (assume a non-swimmer). Who do you choose to save and why?</i>
There is no genetic equation at work here, so this situation is purely based on social values and warm fuzzy feelings. Most people still believe that humans are "special" compared to animals, and so would save the human. Some others are animal lovers to the exclusion of humans and so would save the pet. All sorts of extraneous factors may also be important here. Do we have any more knowledge of the stranger?
I really don't think anybody could really answer this until confronted by the particular situation.
-------
Cris:
<i>The primary purpose of your existence is the survival of the species.</i>
No it isn't. The primary purpose of your existence, as far as your genes are concerned, is to propagate your genes. Individuals care little for "the species".
<i>So I see basic human drives as -
1. Find a mate or multiple mates.
2. Impregnate as many as possible, and as often as possible.
3. Protect your mates and offspring until you are incapable.
4. Self survival.</i>
This is a very male perspective, Cris. It seems your genes are doing a good job of getting their way with you.
-------
wet1,
A bit of a sidetrack, but how can I make life preservers from my ordinary clothes, should the need ever arise?
<i>The scenario is that you and your child/loved one are shipwrecked and are the only survivors. The only hope for survival is a single lifebelt that will only support one of you.</i>
Every creature has a strong survival instinct. If that was the only factor at work, most people would choose themselves over their child. However, there is also the biological urge to pass on your genes and ensure that they survive to the next generation. That complicates things here. Who has the best chance of passing on your genes? You share half your genes with your child, but your child is also younger than yourself. Who is most likely to survive, all things considered? It is difficult to weigh up these factors, and in fact they may be too complex to properly evaluate in the time available. Most like, social factors will dominate in the decision making process. Possible repercussions of the decision will be considered. Most likely, all other things being equal, I think most people would decide to save themselves. After all, the adult is a proven reproducer, having had at least one child already, and presumably the potential to have more. Then there is the strong instinct for self-preservation. Add the social factors and the social pressure to love and care for children might well dominate, as might general altruism of the individual.
Add religion to the mix and belief in the afterlife and the balance tips, I think, heavily towards letting the child live and sacrificing oneself. After all, you'll go to heaven anyway, won't you? (Though presumably, so would the child...)
<i>Another scenario: Your well-loved family pet has fallen into a rough sea and is in danger of imminently being drowned. A man, a complete stranger to you has also fallen into the sea and is also about to drown (assume a non-swimmer). Who do you choose to save and why?</i>
There is no genetic equation at work here, so this situation is purely based on social values and warm fuzzy feelings. Most people still believe that humans are "special" compared to animals, and so would save the human. Some others are animal lovers to the exclusion of humans and so would save the pet. All sorts of extraneous factors may also be important here. Do we have any more knowledge of the stranger?
I really don't think anybody could really answer this until confronted by the particular situation.
-------
Cris:
<i>The primary purpose of your existence is the survival of the species.</i>
No it isn't. The primary purpose of your existence, as far as your genes are concerned, is to propagate your genes. Individuals care little for "the species".
<i>So I see basic human drives as -
1. Find a mate or multiple mates.
2. Impregnate as many as possible, and as often as possible.
3. Protect your mates and offspring until you are incapable.
4. Self survival.</i>
This is a very male perspective, Cris. It seems your genes are doing a good job of getting their way with you.
-------
wet1,
A bit of a sidetrack, but how can I make life preservers from my ordinary clothes, should the need ever arise?
JR,
Nice analysis. I expect honesty on the first scenario to be difficult. I would expect women would have an easier time deciding to sacrifice themselves for their children (dominant mothering instinct), but men might be more mercenary (dominant personal survival instinct).
1. Choose a strong (good genes) mate.
2. Become pregnant and give birth.
3. Protect the offspring.
4. Self survival.
Another of the surveys I remember this time from about 15 years ago. A group of 12-year-olds were asked about their future ambitions. There was an equal mix of gender. All the boys listed various job-related goals. Most of the girls mentioned marriage and children, and many listed numbers of children and a few detailed the names they’d choose for their children. I always wondered how much of those choices were due to evolution and how much to social conditioning.
I’ll add my own answers and analysis to the conundrums shortly. But I’d like to see if more of the issues emerge before then.
Cris
Nice analysis. I expect honesty on the first scenario to be difficult. I would expect women would have an easier time deciding to sacrifice themselves for their children (dominant mothering instinct), but men might be more mercenary (dominant personal survival instinct).
I didn’t mean to imply there was an intellectual process. But successful propagation of genes results in survival of the species. Any successful action by an individual has a direct result for the species, but each individual is expendable.
Ha ha, yes I’ve forgotten to consider the female perspective recently. How about this for to compensate –
1. Choose a strong (good genes) mate.
2. Become pregnant and give birth.
3. Protect the offspring.
4. Self survival.
Another of the surveys I remember this time from about 15 years ago. A group of 12-year-olds were asked about their future ambitions. There was an equal mix of gender. All the boys listed various job-related goals. Most of the girls mentioned marriage and children, and many listed numbers of children and a few detailed the names they’d choose for their children. I always wondered how much of those choices were due to evolution and how much to social conditioning.
I’ll add my own answers and analysis to the conundrums shortly. But I’d like to see if more of the issues emerge before then.
Cris
Boots,
Take off, flip upside down and pour out water. Push into water fast to trap air. Put them under your arm pits to hold you up.
Tee Shirt,
Leave on, throughly wet if not already so. Hold up edge at waist and drag and trap air with hand. hold edge down and refill as necessary.
Pants,
Take off, tie legs together. Put around neck. Trap air in waist and fill until inflated. Hold bottom of waist down.
Coveralls,
Take off. Tie arms together and put behind head. Coveralls should be backwards with back upwards. Insert legs in legs of coveralls. Raise zipper and use hands to drag in air. Refill as necessary.
In each case, except boots, wetting cloth keeps air in.
Take off, flip upside down and pour out water. Push into water fast to trap air. Put them under your arm pits to hold you up.
Tee Shirt,
Leave on, throughly wet if not already so. Hold up edge at waist and drag and trap air with hand. hold edge down and refill as necessary.
Pants,
Take off, tie legs together. Put around neck. Trap air in waist and fill until inflated. Hold bottom of waist down.
Coveralls,
Take off. Tie arms together and put behind head. Coveralls should be backwards with back upwards. Insert legs in legs of coveralls. Raise zipper and use hands to drag in air. Refill as necessary.
In each case, except boots, wetting cloth keeps air in.
Hi Cris,
<i>I didn’t mean to imply there was an intellectual process. But successful propagation of genes results in survival of the species. Any successful action by an individual has a direct result for the species, but each individual is expendable.</i>
My point is that the individual generally couldn't care less about survival of his/her/its species from a genetic point of view. An individual's action might ultimately affect the fate of a species, but that fact does not generally guide an individual's actions to any great extent. Individuals, by and large, care about Number One first, then close relatives, then their wider social group, then their species, then other species, in order according to whom they share the most genes with.
The concept of "species" is, in any case, merely a human construct, defined differently depending on who you ask.
To sum up, individuals might be expendable from the point of view of a species, but when it comes down to basics there is no species - just a collection of individuals who are certainly not expendable in their own eyes.
I am interested to hear your approach to the two dilemmas.
<i>I didn’t mean to imply there was an intellectual process. But successful propagation of genes results in survival of the species. Any successful action by an individual has a direct result for the species, but each individual is expendable.</i>
My point is that the individual generally couldn't care less about survival of his/her/its species from a genetic point of view. An individual's action might ultimately affect the fate of a species, but that fact does not generally guide an individual's actions to any great extent. Individuals, by and large, care about Number One first, then close relatives, then their wider social group, then their species, then other species, in order according to whom they share the most genes with.
The concept of "species" is, in any case, merely a human construct, defined differently depending on who you ask.
To sum up, individuals might be expendable from the point of view of a species, but when it comes down to basics there is no species - just a collection of individuals who are certainly not expendable in their own eyes.
I am interested to hear your approach to the two dilemmas.
Most people suggest they would do the "right" thing and give up their life for another, rather than admit the possibility of saving numero-uno. I would probably choose self-preservation and then rationalize for the rest of my life. There are numerous factors in the equation, including age and upbringing. I think, for example, that the majority of heroic acts depend on an audience. As for basic needs, (wo)man is driven by the four F's: Food, Fight, Flight and Procreation. Peace & goodwill in this new year.
orthogonal
Registered Senior Member
Hey Cris,
I hope I don't start to sound like a broken record in this group, but I think we make these life and death decisions everyday. We decide who of the world's population will receive food and medicine, and who will not. As a direct result of our decision people die, they die as surely as if you and I whacked them with our own hands.
Your question reminds me of a Japanese film I once saw, though I can't remember its title. The setting was an isolated village haunted by famine. To maximize efficiency the village families pooled their labor to grow rice. They collectively stored their rice harvest in a communal warehouse. In the course of the film a certain family was suspected of stealing from the warehouse. The village elders met to discuss the problem. Their solution was for a detail of men to go just out of town and dig a big hole. The detail returned to storm the house of the suspected family of rice thieves. The grandmother, father, mother, teenage daughter and young son were quickly put into cloth bags. The bags were just as quickly dumped into the hole and covered up. Problem solved. By the next morning, everyone acted as though nothing had happened. It was as if the family had never existed.
I don't remember if the family actually were guilty, but let's assume they were. Though I was initially horrified by their solution, on my walk home from the theater I tried to consider the situation from the point of view of the town's people. Even in an average year people went hungry at times. In lean years some people starved to death. Well no, not just some people, your own child or wife perhaps!
Ignoring other possible solutions, such as banishment instead of being buried alive, did the town act in a moral manner? Is an analogy between the actions of this Japanese village and the actions of the world as a whole, a fair one?
Michael
I hope I don't start to sound like a broken record in this group, but I think we make these life and death decisions everyday. We decide who of the world's population will receive food and medicine, and who will not. As a direct result of our decision people die, they die as surely as if you and I whacked them with our own hands.
Your question reminds me of a Japanese film I once saw, though I can't remember its title. The setting was an isolated village haunted by famine. To maximize efficiency the village families pooled their labor to grow rice. They collectively stored their rice harvest in a communal warehouse. In the course of the film a certain family was suspected of stealing from the warehouse. The village elders met to discuss the problem. Their solution was for a detail of men to go just out of town and dig a big hole. The detail returned to storm the house of the suspected family of rice thieves. The grandmother, father, mother, teenage daughter and young son were quickly put into cloth bags. The bags were just as quickly dumped into the hole and covered up. Problem solved. By the next morning, everyone acted as though nothing had happened. It was as if the family had never existed.
I don't remember if the family actually were guilty, but let's assume they were. Though I was initially horrified by their solution, on my walk home from the theater I tried to consider the situation from the point of view of the town's people. Even in an average year people went hungry at times. In lean years some people starved to death. Well no, not just some people, your own child or wife perhaps!
Ignoring other possible solutions, such as banishment instead of being buried alive, did the town act in a moral manner? Is an analogy between the actions of this Japanese village and the actions of the world as a whole, a fair one?
Michael
Last edited: