Women and children first

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Is bad right? If men and women are equal why should women get the added value attached to them? Wouldn't it make more sense for a policy of one adult per family unit and children first? But than how would the rest of the seats be decided when you've got 2 minutes to live? (no there isn't any time to vote stupid) How would we avoid the stampede?

edit: The obvious answer of bringing an adequate amount of lifeboats is disallowed in this thought experiment.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

You are not taking into account the fact that women are the ones who can have babies. In the old days of prehistoric human societies, we protected women, because they are the ones who can have babies, and children, because we need them to grow up. I guess those behaviours are still present in us.

[kashkin]

Women and children first is a myth, studies have shown that crew have the highest survival rates, men afterwards and women tend to have around half the survival rates of men. The captain generally has a 60% of survival. The myth came from the Titanic, which was analysed and publicised more than other ship sinkings.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

You are not taking into account the fact that women are the ones who can have babies. In the old days of prehistoric human societies, we protected women, because they are the ones who can have babies, and children, because we need them to grow up. I guess those behaviours are still present in us.

Isn't that "sexist"?

[helot]

Women and children first is a myth, studies have shown that crew have the highest survival rates, men afterwards and women tend to have around half the survival rates of men. The captain generally has a 60% of survival. The myth came from the Titanic, which was analysed and publicised more than other ship sinkings.

Definitely this!

Interestingly there's tons of examples of ships sinking and the crew actively undermining the passanger's chances of survival by doing things like locking them in quarters etc so that there's enough space and provisions for themselves.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

This was a thought experiment. If the crew aren't evil bastards, how should survival be decided?

[helot]

This was a thought experiment. If the crew aren't evil bastards, how should survival be decided?

I don't know about evil, it's not necessarily malicious but fearing for ones life can lead to some incredibly detrimental behaviour.

Anyway, it shouldn't be women and children first, it should be those less likely to survive first. Young children, the disabled etc. An athletic woman in her 20s shouldn't get preferential treatment over some man in a wheelchair

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I don't know about evil, it's not necessarily malicious but fearing for ones life can lead to some incredibly detrimental behaviour.

Anyway, it shouldn't be women and children first, it should be those less likely to survive first. Young children, the disabled etc. An athletic woman in her 20s shouldn't get preferential treatment over some man in a wheelchair

I'm not talking about letting the disabled cut in line, i'm talking about situations where there is a limit to escape pods or food supplies.

[helot]

I'm not talking about letting the disabled cut in line, i'm talking about situations where there is a limit to escape pods or food supplies.

That's what i'm talking about too. I wasn't on about letting the disabled cut in line as such but that those least likely to survive, the weakest, being first. As a young guy in my 20s i can go longer without food than my father who's in his 60s

[hetz]

Anyway, it shouldn't be women and children first, it should be those less likely to survive first.
Why?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

That's what i'm talking about too. I wasn't on about letting the disabled cut in line as such but that those least likely to survive, the weakest, being first. As a young guy in my 20s i can go longer without food than my father who's in his 60s

Seriously wouldn't it make more sense to save those who'd have a better chance at survival?

[helot]

Why?


It's due to their increased vulnerability. You provide aid to the most vulnerable first because they have a higher chance of dying.


Seriously wouldn't it make more sense to save those who'd have a better chance at survival?

So let's say there's a severe famine should the children, the elderly, those with compromised immune systems etc be ignored while the healthiest get to eat? But the healthiest are more capable of going X amount of time without food.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

It's due to their increased vulnerability. You provide aid to the most vulnerable first because they have a higher chance of dying.



So let's say there's a severe famine should the children, the elderly, those with compromised immune systems etc be ignored while the healthiest get to eat? But the healthiest are more capable of going X amount of time without food.

No but you need to keep at least one person strong enough to take care of the weak and gather necessary materials. And not to be ageist but i'd think that anyone over 65 should give their seat to anyone under 25.

[helot]

No but you need to keep at least one person strong enough to take care of the weak and gather necessary materials. And not to be ageist but i'd think that anyone over 65 should give their seat to anyone under 25.

Are you somehow implying the entire human population is facing a life or death event? In which case it wouldn't matter, there wouldn't be enough people to work even if all survivors were fit and healthy. It would be an extinction event.

If this isn't the case then you're ignoring the rest of the human population that wasn't directly affected by the disaster.

[Bronco]

Women and children first is a myth, studies have shown that crew have the highest survival rates, men afterwards and women tend to have around half the survival rates of men. The captain generally has a 60% of survival. The myth came from the Titanic, which was analysed and publicised more than other ship sinkings.

In the case of the Titanic though 74% of women survived and only 20% of men, so even though the saying might be rarer than made out it seems that when a women and children first policy was declared it would indeed be carried out

[Sasha]

Seriously wouldn't it make more sense to save those who'd have a better chance at survival?


actually, looking at a.o. the example of partisan groups in WOII (for example the Bielski group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielski_partisans)), groups that take in everybody (inc women, children, the elderly, injured etc) have a better overal survival rate than groups that only (or dominantly) care about fighting fit men.
this is echoed through out human history but even also among every other social animal, its shown for example that chimp and elephant groups that take care for their weaker group member have a better survival rate through catastrophic events than less social groups.

as so often i advise ppl to read the book "the age of empathy" by frans de waal (http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/empathy/book.html), yes its an socio-biology book written by a liberal but damn does it have some convincing stories to tell.
my favorite being the story of a chicken breeding experiment i which in one line they bred with most "successful" (most eggs laying) individuals and in the other line bred with the most successful group. at first the individualist line took a huge leap forward in a few generations but pretty soon the egg count dropped to almost zero as the chickens where to busy pecking each other to death, the breeder created an breed of selfish psychopaths without empathy. all the meanwhile the group line kept on improving at a steady but consistent pace for all generations.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Are you somehow implying the entire human population is facing a life or death event? In which case it wouldn't matter, there wouldn't be enough people to work even if all survivors were fit and healthy. It would be an extinction event.

If this isn't the case then you're ignoring the rest of the human population that wasn't directly affected by the disaster.
OK you're in a disabled space cruiser that only has 1 cryochamber for every 3 occupants. The systems are shutting down and in true sci fi fashion the ships resident genius has told you that he could rewire the systems energy to the cryochambers indefinitely.

[helot]

OK you're in a disabled space cruiser that only has 1 cryochamber for every 3 occupants. The systems are shutting down and in true sci fi fashion the ships resident genius has told you that he could rewire the systems energy to the cryochambers indefinitely.

Ok you're face to face with a dinosaur... You can think of imaginary scenarios to prove any point because they're imaginary.


Btw, if the resident genius can rig the ship's systems to provide energy to the cryochambers indefinitely then how are they all shutting down? Your imaginary scenario doesn't even follow its own logic. I expect the genius is tricking everyone

[hetz]

actually, looking at a.o. the example of partisan groups in WOII (for example the Bielski group (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielski_partisans)), groups that take in everybody (inc women, children, the elderly, injured etc) have a better overal survival rate than groups that only (or dominantly) care about fighting fit men.
Where are you getting that from? It doesn't sound plausible to me.
Besides the partisan groups operated from the woods with support from the countryside, they didn't mobilize everyone because that wouldn't make sense.

[Sasha]

Where are you getting that from? It doesn't sound plausible to me.
Besides the partisan groups operated from the woods with support from the countryside, they didn't mobilize everyone because that wouldn't make sense.

i have it originally out of a dutch book on partisan groups, but you can find more about it in snippets on the net, for example;
At the time of liberation, the Bielski group had reached its peak of 1,230 people. More than 70 percent were women, elderly persons, and children, who otherwise would have perished under the German occupation. An estimated 50 members of the Bielski group were killed, an unusually low casualty rate in comparison not only with other partisan detachments but also with Jewish groups in the region.

this is also a very interesting article investigating the role of women in eastern-european partizan groups; http://www3.sympatico.ca/mighty1/forest.htm

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Ok you're face to face with a dinosaur... You can think of imaginary scenarios to prove any point because they're imaginary.


Btw, if the resident genius can rig the ship's systems to provide energy to the cryochambers indefinitely then how are they all shutting down? Your imaginary scenario doesn't even follow its own logic. I expect the genius is tricking everyone

Come on think about it. You're in a big ass space ship that powers thousands of subsystems. Rerouting the power to a few systems could keep the power going for a century or more (which the genius omits to save morale). And every 40 years they are gonna have to cull another 10% by waking everybody up to do the same thing all over again. (Although by than they should already have wandered into the inevitable forerunner planet).

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

actually, looking at a.o. the example of partisan groups in WOII (for example the Bielski group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielski_partisans)), groups that take in everybody (inc women, children, the elderly, injured etc) have a better overal survival rate than groups that only (or dominantly) care about fighting fit men.
this is echoed through out human history but even also among every other social animal, its shown for example that chimp and elephant groups that take care for their weaker group member have a better survival rate through catastrophic events than less social groups.

as so often i advise ppl to read the book "the age of empathy" by frans de waal (http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/empathy/book.html), yes its an socio-biology book written by a liberal but damn does it have some convincing stories to tell.
my favorite being the story of a chicken breeding experiment i which in one line they bred with most "successful" (most eggs laying) individuals and in the other line bred with the most successful group. at first the individualist line took a huge leap forward in a few generations but pretty soon the egg count dropped to almost zero as the chickens where to busy pecking each other to death, the breeder created an breed of selfish psychopaths without empathy. all the meanwhile the group line kept on improving at a steady but consistent pace for all generations.

Yes this is true (it sets up a more unified collective) but i'm talking Titanic, not Walking Dead.

[hetz]

Yeah, the most members of the Bielski group survived. Less than 10 percent died, even though Soviet Belarus as a whole lost some 20% of its total population during the war due to fascist terror. It seems it was safer to join the Bielski group than stay in your home.
You see that doesn't really hold water.

[helot]

Come on think about it. You're in a big ass space ship that powers thousands of subsystems. Rerouting the power to a few systems could keep the power going for a century or more (which the genius omits to save morale). And every 40 years they are gonna have to cull another 10% by waking everybody up to do the same thing all over again. (Although by than they should already have wandered into the inevitable forerunner planet).


How about making one area, say sickbay or whereever, still functioning with life support send a distress signal and wait for Star Fleet to get to them just in the nick of time.

You're trying to create a situation where there can be no outside help under any circumstances and it's just absurd.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

How about making one area, say sickbay or whereever, still functioning with life support send a distress signal and wait for Star Fleet to get to them just in the nick of time.

You're trying to create a situation where there can be no outside help under any circumstances and it's just absurd.

It's a thought experiment so that's the fucking point (how you should act when you're semifucked no matter what)

[helot]

It's a thought experiment so that's the fucking point (how you should act when you're semifucked no matter what)

yet it's so abstract it provides no possible insight into the real world.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

yet it's so abstract it provides no possible insight into the real world.

You ain't that creative IRL are you? This gets to the heart of the matter in crisis situations. If civilization breaks down and production ceases to exist in most places how would you react?

[helot]

You ain't that creative IRL are you? This gets to the heart of the matter in crisis situations. If civilization breaks down and production ceases to exist in most places how would you react?

I'd use the magical powers i was given to shit out food and factories.

What's creativity got to do with it? Such thought experiments are stupid. I got enough of them and their pointlessness when i was 16.


Suppose mythical creatures were real and teamed up to wage war on humans..... *snore*


You can come up with whatever the hell you want but they're absurd and serve no use.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I'd use the magical powers i was given to shit out food and factories.

What's creativity got to do with it? Such thought experiments are stupid. I got enough of them and their pointlessness when i was 16.


Suppose mythical creatures were real and teamed up to wage war on humans..... *snore*


You can come up with whatever the hell you want but they're absurd and serve no use.

Cool bro i guess we'll talk later in the "If Trotsky ran the U.S.S.R" threads :ohmy:

[Skyhilist]

Why?

To expand on what people have already responded, it increases the survivor rate. For example, say I have 20 people. 10 are disabled and 10 aren't and I can put only 10 people on life boats. It makes more sense to save the disabled people on the life boats, because you'll leave behind a higher percentage of survivors than if you saved the able-bodied people. So really if you want to save the highest percentage of people, that makes the most sense. Forget the fact that the situation I gave is unlikely to happen though (in terms of numbers), because the same is true regardless of the numbers of strong, weak, and available life boats.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

To expand on what OP already responded, it increases the survivor rate. For example, say I have 20 people. 10 are disabled and 10 aren't and I can put only 10 people on life boats. It makes more sense to save the disabled people on the life boats, because you'll leave behind a higher percentage of survivors than if you saved the able-bodied people. So really if you want to save the highest percentage of people, that makes the most sense. Forget the fact that the situation I gave is unlikely to happen though (in terms of numbers), because the same is true regardless of the numbers of strong, weak, and available life boats.

What the hell is wrong with you people? You're getting into lifeboats because the ship is going down! (or about to have its systems fail and cause everyone not in cryosleep to starve and take the rest of the ship with them unless they go the way of the dodo). Those who stay behind will die no matter what.