Women and children first

[Starkess]

I agree with children first, because basically even if that child is not from an ethnically diverse population. It sits all kind of wrong with me to get a 30 year old preference over a 7 year old. Especially if someone has as little as 1/4 of an ethically diverse population, and one that would probably have many more of it's population able to breed still on land. I could see where it become a more interesting and disturbing question if you have two 7 year old children, one of an ethnic minority, one of an ethnic majority.

As for women. I can see giving pregnant women, or women with babies that are still reliant on them preference. But other then that I just see giving a parent, whether male or female preference over an non parent. Being a complete orphan would be neither beneficial to the child nor society. But it doesn't have to be the mother who gets the spot.

After that you take your strongest, and your people most able to survive and provide for said child. At least in my mind this should be how it works.

I disagree with the notion that it is categorically better for a 7 year old to be saved than a 30 year old. I mean I assume the hypothetical here is who we are going to save from dying, not who we are going to use to create a deserted island population or something. It seems like I'm definitely in a minority here, but I don't think there is any intrinsic value to being a child. Now if you want to say it's a chivalric code for protecting the weak and defenseless, in that case children qualify as that, but I'm not a huge proponent of chivalry anyway.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to make a lot of extra effort to save their child. I'm sure I would too. But I don't think it's reasonable or even moral to expect someone else to place your child's well-being over their own. No way am I giving up my seat on that lifeboat to a kid just because they're a kid. But no way do I want a man to give up a seat to me just because I have lady bits.

Personally (assuming, again, that we're merely looking at survival not at a rebuilding scenario), I think it makes the most sense to take the people who are most likely to survive. Sure it gives you martyrly satisfaction to let that 7 year old kid take your seat, but it's pretty stupid when at the end of the day now you're both dead.

[Phaing]

I pray to God the next ASOIAF convention isn't in a ship and if it is, I definitely don't want to be near any of you.

Or I'll simply learn how to swim.

You and me both.

Jeez...

[Skagosi High Chef]

If my four year old son were with me, he will be getting on a boat and I will be going with him. Period. If he were not with me then I will be getting on the boat and going home to him. We can discuss honor all we want. A single woman deserves to live no more than I do and she would not protect my son while waiting on rescue.

[Starkess]

If my four year old son were with me, he will be getting on a boat and I will be going with him. Period. If he were not with me then I will be getting on the boat and going home to him. We can discuss honor all we want. A single woman deserves to live no more than I do and she would not protect my son while waiting on rescue.

I'm not sure if you're replying to me, but I'm not disagreeing with that statement. I'm just arguing against the reverse. I don't think that anyone deserves to live more just because they have children or that children deserve to live more than any random person.

[Castel]

I disagree with the notion that it is categorically better for a 7 year old to be saved than a 30 year old. I mean I assume the hypothetical here is who we are going to save from dying, not who we are going to use to create a deserted island population or something. It seems like I'm definitely in a minority here, but I don't think there is any intrinsic value to being a child. Now if you want to say it's a chivalric code for protecting the weak and defenseless, in that case children qualify as that, but I'm not a huge proponent of chivalry anyway.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to make a lot of extra effort to save their child. I'm sure I would too. But I don't think it's reasonable or even moral to expect someone else to place your child's well-being over their own. No way am I giving up my seat on that lifeboat to a kid just because they're a kid. But no way do I want a man to give up a seat to me just because I have lady bits.

Personally (assuming, again, that we're merely looking at survival not at a rebuilding scenario), I think it makes the most sense to take the people who are most likely to survive. Sure it gives you martyrly satisfaction to let that 7 year old kid take your seat, but it's pretty stupid when at the end of the day now you're both dead.

I think, depending on the disaster, there could be an issue in that there should theoretically be enough places but you want to create a situation where the strongest can't just barge in and fuck over anyone that needs help.It maintains order by getting the weaklings out of the way. This is a good reason why the captain needs to stay and oversee things. In the perfect world he will get off but as a general rule this prevents the people with power from acting like assholes.

But yes, I've yet to see a strong defence of the right of children to be saved first otherwise. Intuition is doing all the heavy lifting here.

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

Generally I do.

The reason they did it on the titanic, was because it was believed ( and generally is true) that women and children are less physically strong and capable than Grown men.

[Starkess]

I think, depending on the disaster, there could be an issue in that there should theoretically be enough places but you want to create a situation where the strongest don't just barge in and fuck over anyone that needs help.It maintains order by getting the weaklings out of the way. This is a good reason why the captain needs to stay and oversee things. In the perfect world he will get off but as a general rule this prevents the people with power from acting like assholes.

But yes, I've yet to see a strong defence of the right of children to be saved first otherwise. Intuition is doing all the heavy lifting here.

That's true. That's part of what I meant by assuming merely a survival scenario and not a society-building scenario. I think it makes sense to maximize individual survival rate for a catastrophic event, but I don't think that makes it a good basis for a society. But perhaps even in a single event that would come into play? Hm. I certainly don't think the weak deserve to die or anything like that. I just also think one ought to look objectively at the odds of the matter.

This isn't something I've ever put a ton of thought into (besides a general distaste for the concept of "women and children first"), so I'm certainly open to argument and not really building an airtight case.

[Theda Baratheon]

if we are talking surviver scenario and not society building when whoever is closest to the exit/boat go as quick as you can and don't faff around

[Faydra]

The ship will most likely sink before anyone sorts out who's more deserving of living. Pointing your finger at a crowd and saying that one should live or die based on race or gender is plainly wrong. The most efficient thing would be to evacuate those who are next to the nearest boat.

[Phaing]

I was just wondering how the people who posted here feel about the whole thing now, since what happened in Korea.

[ACVG]

Simply put you have 100 survivors

1) 99 women 1 man = 99 pregnancies

2) 99 men 1woman = 1 pregnancy

This is at one time of course

Women are more valuable in terms of procreation

[TrueMetis]

We don't need anymore people.

[MerenthaClone]

Women are more valuable in terms of procreation

Who the fuck cares about procreation capability in this day and age? The human race isn't exactly in danger of going extinct in the very near future.

[all swedes are racist]

Simply put you have 100 survivors

1) 99 women 1 man = 99 pregnancies

2) 99 men 1woman = 1 pregnancy

This is at one time of course

Women are more valuable in terms of procreation

Wait, so like, the entire human population is on one boat?

You just want to be that one dude, don't you?

[The BlackBear]

Whilst assuming all of the humans are on one ship is a bit much, you might assume all the peoples of a particular island are on one one boat.

But from a purely genetic viewpoint if you had 100 women and one man, all the children would be descended from that one man. Which is an extreme genetic bottleneck, any genetic mutations that guy was harbouring, recessive diseases, would spread throughout the population in a couple of generations very quickly.

You just want to be that one dude, don't you?

It would drop off.

I was just wondering how the people who posted here feel about the whole thing now, since what happened in Korea.

I don't really know enough about how it happened to say, from the sounds of things I've heard people just got off as quickly as they could (which is the most sensible course in my view.)

[Tellus Explorer]

Who the fuck cares about procreation capability in this day and age? The human race isn't exactly in danger of going extinct in the very near future.

So true, poverty, lack of food, water, over crowding...... With all these things, more people aren't particularly in dire need

[MerenthaClone]

So true, poverty, lack of food, water, over crowding...... With all these things, more people aren't particularly in dire need

You're defending an argument that we should put women first because they're more important for procreation by saying that people are in dire need because of over-crowding. You might want to think about that one a little more.

Plenty of humans are in very great need, don't get me wrong. Large masses of humanity could, can, and do die very quickly. Humanity as a whole isn't exactly going to go, nor are the vast majority of ethnic groups small enough to fit on a boat in the first place. The argument from procreational value is ridiculous.

edit: vvvv They directly quoted my reply to exactly that argument, so reading it otherwise is somewhat strained. No, that argument was not put forth by Unencumbered, which is why I never said he did so.

[The BlackBear]

You're defending an argument that we should put women first because they're more important for procreation by saying that people are in dire need because of over-crowding. You might want to think about that one a little more.

Plenty of humans are in very great need, don't get me wrong. Large masses of humanity could, can, and do die very quickly. Humanity as a whole isn't exactly going to go, nor are the vast majority of ethnic groups small enough to fit on a boat in the first place. The argument from procreational value is ridiculous.

Did Unencumbered actually make that argument?

[Tellus Explorer]

You're defending an argument that we should put women first because they're more important for procreation by saying that people are in dire need because of over-crowding. You might want to think about that one a little more.

Plenty of humans are in very great need, don't get me wrong. Large masses of humanity could, can, and do die very quickly. Humanity as a whole isn't exactly going to go, nor are the vast majority of ethnic groups small enough to fit on a boat in the first place. The argument from procreational value is ridiculous.

edit: vvvv He directly quoted my reply to exactly that argument, so reading it otherwise is somewhat strained. No, that argument was not put forth by Unencumbered, which is why I never said he did so.

I'm not a MAN!!!!

AND no I'm not defending the importance of women, I was just saying the opposite really.... We AREN'T! in a dire need.

Edit;

Earlier when I unintentionally insulted some people I said I would want to be around a large sum of children and pregnant woman...

I was even in agreement with you that reproduction wasn't a necessity at the moment

[Phaing]

Hmm... PC sure makes it difficult to speak one's mind, don't it?

I never let it slow me down, let alone affect my speech.

The reason I brough this up vis a vi the Korean disaster is because it sums up the results of the whole "screw the women & children" viewpoint I see displayed in this thread.

I think the results speak for themselves;

Meanwhile, South Korean media outlets said 46 lifeboats were still attached to the ferry, further fueling their rage.

Looks as if the only lifeboat that made it out was the one the Captain took.

http://nypost.com/2014/04/17/only-1-lifeboat-deployed-from-sinking-ferry-287-still-missing/

Okay, so procreation is frowned upon in this Brave New World, so be it... just gotta wonder where these people think their Social Security checks wil be coming from.

Even so, I'll give a woman or a child my seat.

Have you ever heard a Child screaming in agony, or watched a crying woman die when she didn't have to?

Someday, most of you will, then we can talk.

I keep hearing that we should protect those weaker than ourselves, but these days I guess it's only said be people reaching for my wallet. When it comes to the real thing, those same people will kick pregnant women to the curb and cite population stats to justify that... really?

Maybe, maybe not.

IMHO, most of you would do the right thing when the time came.

Those that would not, those are in the minorty because they tend to Darwin themsevles out of existance, simple as that.