Why are women and children saved first?

[Math Is Hard]

I would save the smart people. Those are going to be the ones that actually know the most. Babies don't know anything, and don't really hold much value to anyone other than their parents in the larger picture.

What if there's no time for IQ tests or resume reviews?

For all the babies that died, their parents could make another one or adopt another one in 6 months. How are you going to replace 60+ years of experience with a baby?

When you have to make a fast decision, how do you know if you're saving someone with 60+ years of experience in something, or the elderly, uneducated wino who wandered into the stairwell just before the building caught fire?

This might be another assumption about the scenario that I am missing: that we know something about the individuals to be saved.

As before, I'm not objecting to Cyrus's or anyone's decisions, just noting that there are different circumstances and presumptions that we all come up with in our heads when the decision-making scenario is ambiguous.

 

[Cyrus]

What if there's no time for IQ tests or resume reviews?



When you have to make a fast decision, how do you know if you're saving someone with 60+ years of experience in something, or the elderly, uneducated wino who wandered into the stairwell just before the building caught fire?

This might be another assumption about the scenario that I am missing: that we know something about the individuals to be saved.

As before, I'm not objecting to Cyrus's or anyone's decisions, just noting that there are different circumstances and presumptions that we all come up with in our heads when the decision-making scenario is ambiguous.

I would simply save the older people because a baby literally contains no useful knowledge. Even the uneducated old person could tell you, "dont be like me, I made these mistakes"

A baby won't be able to do anything, nor will it even appreciate being saved.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Let me guess -- she let you be first all week. First to mow the lawn, first to take out the garbage, first to wash the car...?

I always get the last word too. "Yes dear".

 

[Moonbear]

To be clear, I am not talking about an end of the world senario. If there were a burning building full of people, I would save the old people first. The children can be helped by their parents. After I get the old people out, I'd get the children out (probably starting from age 5 and working my way down).

I think you've just added another assumption to the scenario, that someone who is NOT part of the disaster (yourself) is becoming part of it to save people who can't save themselves. On the other hand, your motives seem similar to the women and children first approach, except you seem to be opting for the infirm first...basically, save those who can't save themselves.

I think you're making quite a generalization to assume all older people have more wisdom than younger people. More wisdom than a baby, sure, but I don't have any reason to think that an old person who has done nothing but watch soap operas all day every day has accumulated any more wisdom than a 30 year old who has traveled the world as a member of the Peace Corps. It's another stereotype to assume that age means wisdom.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, you see why making this a moral issue is fraught with pitfalls. You're all assigning a value to each life and basing your priorities on that. And that's quite subjective.

The https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1812625&postcount=34" doesn't concern itself with deciding "who deserves to live more", it simply goes under the assumption that we work towards everybody living - and goes about that the most efficient way possible.

 

[Cyrus]

I think you've just added another assumption to the scenario, that someone who is NOT part of the disaster (yourself) is becoming part of it to save people who can't save themselves. On the other hand, your motives seem similar to the women and children first approach, except you seem to be opting for the infirm first...basically, save those who can't save themselves.

I think you're making quite a generalization to assume all older people have more wisdom than younger people. More wisdom than a baby, sure, but I don't have any reason to think that an old person who has done nothing but watch soap operas all day every day has accumulated any more wisdom than a 30 year old who has traveled the world as a member of the Peace Corps. It's another stereotype to assume that age means wisdom.

The OP says women and children, so I don't know why 30 year olds are in the picture here.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The next time you find yourself on a sinking, unsinkable ship, here's what you do.

1. First you must ascertain whether you are a woman or child. If you are then you should stand around like some kind of Nell waiting for some kind of Duddley Doright to come and save you. No cheating by trying to save yourself here, this will only serve to intensify the man's sense of guilt for saving himself first.

2. Judge the distance to shore. If the ship hasn't taken off yet and is sinking in 3 feet of water, grab all the women and children you can and wade to safety. Go back for more if there are any. If you feel guilty for surviving, you can always go drown yourself afterwards, but first finish up grabbing the women.

3. Assuming this is a true disaster and not just a hypothetical situation on some physics forum, you need to decide if you save the women first or the children. The usual phrase is "women and children" so I suppose you would save the women first. But if you are a child should you be saving adults? I say yes. You will face a rather bleak future in a world without women. Men wouldn't give you the time of day. Especially if you had saved yourself and his mistress died in your place.

4. Once you have decided which category of your fellow human beings to save, you have to consider which individuals. It has been suggested that certain people are more worth saving than others and I have to agree. At least with rich people there is the possibility of lucrative reward. Therefore, I suggest that before you save anyone, you should ask them how rich they are. Here are some guidelines: Billionaire - save immediately. Millionaire - probably save but first judge how generous they look. Flat busted - are you sure this is a woman?

 

[BobG]

4. Once you have decided which category of your fellow human beings to save, you have to consider which individuals. It has been suggested that certain people are more worth saving than others and I have to agree. At least with rich people there is the possibility of lucrative reward. Therefore, I suggest that before you save anyone, you should ask them how rich they are. Here are some guidelines: Billionaire - save immediately. Millionaire - probably save but first judge how generous they look. Flat busted - are you sure this is a woman?

Unless you're in the will of one of the rich people on the ship. Kind of something to consider when you're making a will or buying life insurance. Never make a good potential rescuer the beneficiary of your will or life insurance policy.

 

[WarPhalange]

....are you 12?

Are you? At what age does "random middle-aged man with average job and average life" become "Wise old man with the power to see through walls"?

My Grandpa is a drunk, other grandpa wasn't fortunate enough to live this long, his wife died a few years ago and had Alzheimer's and my other grandma is a hag who I would rather leave to die instead of some animal.

Old people aren't anything special simply because they are old. I don't understand how this fairy tale keeps getting passed on.

 

[DaveC426913]

Old people aren't anything special simply because they are old. I don't understand how this fairy tale keeps getting passed on.

Not to pick on anybody in particular, but this thread serves less as a collection of wisdom on how we conduct disaster scenarios and more as bait to lure out individuals' real attitudes about the value they place on humans and how they rank their worth.

If I had a big decision to make and I needed to know how people really felt about human life, I'd propose this scenario and then sit back and watch as people happily assigned worth and threw their "less valued" brethren overboard.

I just watched Dark Knight and...

Spoiler

let me tell you, the ferry scene would have been completely different if PFers had been aboard any of the ships.

 

[moose]

The OP says women and children, so I don't know why 30 year olds are in the picture here.

Then why are old people in the picture here?

 

[neu]

If not done so already, can we first establish whether this would actually be implemented in a titanic like disaster? I doubt very much that there is a law that states this.
I can understand saving children, the disabled, injured and the elderly before able adults, but not women before men.
If women can fight on the front line then they are in the same boat, pardon the pun. Is there any justification at all to save women before men?

I think it all comes down to the moment of truth, where the owness, for whatever reason, is on men to take the brunt i.e. die. Perhaps a better question would be to ask why this is so?

 

[rootX]

If women can fight on the front line then they are in the same boat, pardon the pun. Is there any justification at all to save women before men?

I saw a movie in which the guy saves a really beautiful woman and then marries her. Even her sister was really cute! So, the guy loved both of them.

But the sister was deaf... and the guy was a fireman. The girl tried to stop him from working but he never did so in the end he died while saving a man .

 

[Math Is Hard]

I saw a movie where a guy fell out of a boat and a girl saved him.

She turned out to be a mermaid.

 

[LightbulbSun]

What a terrible example.....anyways.

Typical.

 

[BobG]

I saw a movie where a guy fell out of a boat and a girl saved him.

She turned out to be a mermaid.

I remember that movie. Darryl Hannah was in it, wasn't she?

 

[Math Is Hard]

I remember that movie. Darryl Hannah was in it, wasn't she?

Yup, and Tom Hanks and John Candy, too. I watched part of it Wednesday because they were having a summer film series on campus and showing movies at lunchtime. They were all nice aquatic themes this year. Two weeks ago they showed The Incredible Mr. Limpet.

 

[Cyrus]

Typical.

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

 

[Cyrus]

Then why are old people in the picture here?

You have taken what I said out of context, so I don't understand the point of your comment.

 

[stickythighs]

I saw a movie where a guy fell out of a boat and a girl saved him.

She turned out to be a mermaid.

You're talking about the movie Splash.

 

[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.