Why are women and children saved first?

[LightbulbSun]

...o-kay...that does not make your example good.

In your opinion. You're going to have to prove that there's a correlation between wisdom and age. I have countless examples of elderly people acting like imbeciles. It doesn't matter whether you think it's good or not, because you're clinging to your distorted view that age=more wisdom.

 

[rootX]

You're talking about the movie Splash.

I thought she's talking about
http://images.art.com/images/-/Disney/The-Little-Mermaid--C10053914.jpeg

 

[Evo]

The Incredible Mr. Limpet.

OOOH, that's one of my favorite movies. Don Knotts as Das Limpet, Lady Fish, and crusty the crab.

 

[Cyrus]

In your opinion. You're going to have to prove that there's a correlation between wisdom and age. I have countless examples of elderly people acting like imbeciles. It doesn't matter whether you think it's good or not, because you're clinging to your distorted view that age=more wisdom.

Compared to children, elderly people do have more wisdom. This is not an opinion. A small child has relatively no knowledge.

How about you tell us all exactly what wisdom small children have, I'm all ears.

 

[Evo]

Ok, you save 5 elderly people, let 5 children die. Within a week all 5 elderly people are dead from heart attack, stroke, smoke inhalation...

 

[Cyrus]

Ok, you save 5 elderly people, let 5 children die. Within a week all 5 elderly people are dead from heart attack, stroke, smoke inhalation...

But that's an assumption that the elderly people will die within a week. I would say someone above 60 is 'elderly'. A 60 year old isn't going to drop dead anytime soon.

 

[Evo]

But that's an assumption that the elderly people will die within a week. I would say someone above 60 is 'elderly'. A 60 year old isn't going to drop dead anytime soon.

They were in a burning building, the stress, smoke inhilation, losing their life's belongings, grief over their dead grandchildren...

 

[sketchtrack]

It is kind of funny the way things work. If the baby is still in the womb, then it is ok to have it terminated, but as soon as it is out, then it is top priority to be saved. I think that is a clear example of the way Americans like to think. The same goes for the way people look at world issues. Ignorance is bliss, and so long as we can lie to ourselves we will, but when it is staring us in the face we can't lie to ourselves anymore.

 

[lisab]

It is kind of funny the way things work. If the baby is still in the womb, then it is ok to have it terminated, but as soon as it is out, then it is top priority to be saved. I think that is a clear example of the way Americans like to think. The same goes for the way people look at world issues. Ignorance is bliss, and so long as we can lie to ourselves we will, but when it is staring us in the face we can't lie to ourselves anymore.

OK, so we can all agree that the only person who is sure to be rescued from a burning building is a pregnant elderly woman who is wise.

 

[cristo]

It is kind of funny the way things work. If the baby is still in the womb, then it is ok to have it terminated, but as soon as it is out, then it is top priority to be saved. I think that is a clear example of the way Americans like to think.

That's a completely different discussion.

 

[Evo]

That's a completely different discussion.

Yes, that's off topic, any further off topic posts will be deleted.

 

[mgb_phys]

It comes from a famous victorian shipwreck where the troops remained on board to allow the women and children to fill the inadequate number of lifeboats. Add in victorian senitmentallity and cheap journalism made it famous.
Edit - wiki says it was HMS Birkenhead

Ironically the same attitude on the Titanic lead to an increased number of deaths as half-empty lifeboats were laucnhed full of little old ladies who couldn't row them away form the ship.

 

[sketchtrack]

We save the people who's deaths will generate the most sadness. When kids die it is sad for more people because they missed out on a whole lot more. That makes us feel more grateful to have had a longer life. We remember all the times we had and think wow, that kid will never experience a whole life.

Some people put economics into the equation and judge by who is worth more. This excerpts a darker side to the cold reality of our smallness as human beings in the universe. In this way we judge who is more valuable. Then there must be a cause that
you are valuable for. Yet how do we make choices between things that are valuable for different causes? What is your cause? What kind of place do you wish the world to be? And beneath that, what kind of place do you want your surroundings to be? Or beneath that, what kind of person do you want to be?

Now there is the clash between the emotional and economical perspectives. This is where we lie to ourselves. We cannot take on the entire emotional perspective of the world. We cannot worry and feel sad about everything bad which happens to people of the world. So, we find ways to iscolate ourselves to a degree. We make an order of importance and concentrate on that order. Maybe family, friends, community, country, demographics etc. This is our balance between emotion and economical order. The question really boils down to what is your cause, and how much emotional attachment are you willing to sacrifice.

The tricky part is that in order to sacrifice much of our emotional attachments in the name of a cause, we in effect turn some of our love into hate. The hate serves us trouble and ultimately oppresses you yourself. The same with greed and so forth, those kinds of negative passions end up inflicting damage upon yourself.

So in reality, it is important to have a healthy amount of emotional attachment which is of more value than the economical value. So they say the best things in life are free. But is it good to be entirely selfless? How far can you stretch your oder of importance before your more important dedications become watered down?

It is kind of like star wars and the light side vs. the dark side.

 

[loseyourname]

There could be some basic group survival tactics at play here, too. The future of a society is its children, and one man is enough to impregnate quite a few women, but a woman can only do so much herself to repopulate. A woman might have twenty kids or so at the top end of the bell curve. Shawn Kemp has probably quintupled that number without even trying to have kids.

 

[rootX]

so, we are trying to make sure that total human population after that tragedy is more than before ...

I think we have some population problems.

I would consider about economical and other social benefits
i.e. saving people who are rich, intelligent, wise ..(I can always ask few questions before saving them) and leaving all people who are useless and not so good for the society.

 

[neu]

There could be some basic group survival tactics at play here, too. The future of a society is its children, and one man is enough to impregnate quite a few women, but a woman can only do so much herself to repopulate. A woman might have twenty kids or so at the top end of the bell curve. Shawn Kemp has probably quintupled that number without even trying to have kids.

So after all the women and children are saved do the blokes start totting up their sperm counts to see who's going to survive?

I don't think the death of at most 1000 women in a scenario that we're envisaging would be much of a blow to the population. Hence you're Dr. Strangelove type thinking is not applicable.

I really don't think anyone in a life or death scenario would seriously assert that women should be saved before men; putting aside age and all that.

A group consensus type thing of "OK, the ships going down, Ladies grab your personals and jump in the lifeboat, Gents start praying" would never happen.

However, I can imagine that individuals would decide to die for their family, for example, if I had a family and partner, I would be forced to consider sacrificing myself if that meant my family survived. My wife/gf wouldn't have that pressure simply because she's female.

 

[DaveC426913]

I still don't understand why everyone is talking about sperm count, wisdom and etc.

This topic is NOT about long-term survival, it is simply about exiting the ship to safety.

 

[arildno]

There could be some basic group survival tactics at play here, too. The future of a society is its children, and one man is enough to impregnate quite a few women, but a woman can only do so much herself to repopulate. A woman might have twenty kids or so at the top end of the bell curve. Shawn Kemp has probably quintupled that number without even trying to have kids.

I already said so, 3 years ago.

Quite simple:
Women:
You need only one male to fertilize many women, so you can make do with fewer men than women in building up the population

 

[neu]

I already said so, 3 years ago.

Quite simple:
Women:
You need only one male to fertilize many women, so you can make do with fewer men than women in building up the population

And I already said that this is irrelavent. The topic is refereing simply to life or death scenarios, not a nuclear holocaust.

I'd be a little annoyed if I were on the titanic and the reason you mentioned was used to justify not letting me onto a lifeboat.

 

[arildno]

And I already said that this is irrelavent. The topic is refereing simply to life or death scenarios, not a nuclear holocaust.

Wherever did you get the idea that adaptation is some sort of high-precision tool?
It is not, it is a bundle of rules of the thumb.
The instinctive reaction will trigger in "dangerous" situations, where we err on the side of caution in the "evaluation" of what constitutes "danger".

 

[DaveC426913]

The instinctive reaction will trigger in "dangerous" situations, where we err on the side of caution in the "evaluation" of what constitutes "danger".

It seems to me the implications if it being 'instinctive' are that, in a dangerous situations, we instinctively (i.e. from our genes, not our brains) toss the women on the lifeboats and remain behind. That we don't have to be told 'women and children first'. That it is more powerful than our instinct for self-preservation.

I'm not sure I can buy that.

 

[neu]

It seems to me the implications if it being 'instinctive' are that, in a dangerous situations, we instinctively (i.e. from our genes, not our brains) toss the women on the lifeboats and remain behind. That we don't have to be told 'women and children first'. That it is more powerful than our instinct for self-preservation.

I'm not sure I can buy that.

I agree. Surely SELF preservation is all important, so if a man were single he'd be rather silly not to kick every women and child out of his way if he were truly instinctive.

The only reason I can see to justify the saving women and children first is not for breeding but for preservation of a family unit. Take a nuclear family, if one member has to be sacrificed many would chose the father, and I think many men with a family would feel they should concede to this overt pressure if they were in an applicable situation. The situation is far different for a group of single adults, where I think any gender based demarcation for rescue would be socially "justified" and not instinctive, as in this situation instinct = save yourself.

 

[Cyrus]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=URvMd-pjSMc

 

[C Rob]

It's not women and children first anymore. They try to keep families together these days. Sorry single guys out there, you're going down with the ship.

 

[Evo]

If it's evacuating an airplane, it's whoever shoves their way past the others.

 

[neu]

It's not women and children first anymore. They try to keep families together these days. Sorry single guys out there, you're going down with the ship.

What about single women?

 

[mgb_phys]

If it's evacuating an airplane, it's whoever shoves their way past the others.

I always wondered why arm rests had to be down on planes for take off - I assume it is to delay you long enough that the cabin crew have time to get out first!

(Yes, I know cabin crew are primarily there for your safety and wil happily risk their lives because you didn't listen to the safety briefing)

 

[neu]

I always wondered why arm rests had to be down on planes for take off - I assume it is to delay you long enough that the cabin crew have time to get out first!

(Yes, I know cabin crew are primarily there for your safety and wil happily risk their lives because you didn't listen to the safety briefing)

I heard that the "safety" procedures like the one you mentioned and the strange emergency position you're supposed to adopt is so that in the case of a crash your dental records are kept in your seating position. This does sound a little far fetched doesn't it?

 

[BobG]

If it's evacuating an airplane, it's whoever shoves their way past the others.

It's whoever plans better before the accident occurs.

1) Pick a http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4219452.html . Back in the days of smoking on airplanes, it always seemed ironic that the smokers were the most likely to survive an airplane accident. Equally ironic is that the more expensive your seat, the more likely you are to die - the first class passengers are the most likely to die.

2) Know what you're going to do when the plane comes to a stop. You have about 90 seconds to get out of a crashed plane before toxic fumes overcome you, maybe a few more seconds. Fortunately, most of the people surviving the impact itself will be too shocked to move. In fact, any surviving flight attendants will take several seconds to recover before they start directing the passengers to evacuate. That means if you're mentally ready to evacuate before impact, you have a real good chance of being one of the people that get out within 90 seconds.

3) Forget the elderly or the small! They'll move too slow, so you're probably sacrificing more than one healthy adult for each slow moving old person or child you save. If you planned well, it might be worth a "This way! Quickly!" to an attractive person of the opposite sex as you evacuate. If they don't respond quickly enough, then they probably weren't good reproduction material in any event.

4) Just remember that, no matter how stressful the plane crash itself might be, surviving a plane crash will probably result in http://www.apa.org/releases/planecrash.html (definitely better than the mental health of the non-survivors).

Edit: mgb_phys and neu will probably be one of the non-survivors. People that believe a plane crash is virtually certain death are almost always correct. They're the most shocked about surviving the impact and the slowest to start reacting.

 

[Evo]

BobG, I've been meaning to tell you that I'm afraid you're our next funniest member Guru. I would suggest you start preparing your fireproof apparel.