"What if ..?"

[Trace Malinowski]

Whilst I am general in favour of most neo-Darwinist views.... does this not leave you in an ethical dilemma if this situation arises during a cave course that you are teaching, Trace?

Andy,

As a lifeguard, I have a duty to act if someone is drowning. However, if during the action of performing my duty, I determine that I cannot save the victim without drowning myself, I have just cause to let go.

As a cave instructor, I also have a duty to act in a similar fashion, but I'm not expected to die with the student.

If one agrees with Richard Dawkins, you almost have no choice - altruism is in itself a destructive tendency... if your forbears were pre-disposed to altruism, they probably would have died out and hence not passed on their genes to make you.

Imagine if all those guys on the beaches of Normandy thought that way...

While we in the diving community may think this sort of dilemna is for the most part theoretical, people people in the military face these choices quite often.

Dale,

Soldiers also have a duty to act. The Congressional Medal of Honor couldn't be awarded for heroism, "above and beyond the call of duty," if that duty couldn't somehow be defined.

While we admire individual courage, philosophically, if every soldier on Normandy gave his life for a friend, there wouldn't be any live soldiers to have created dead enemy soldiers.

George S. Patton said, "An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse s**t. The bilious b**tards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about f***ing!"

At the same time as one soldier may be entering into the role of hero by performing an individual act of courage, such as exposing himself to fire to pull a buddy to safety, such an act is often assisted by others with the discipline to remain focused on the objective of the team.

Patton also said, "Take calculated risks. This is quite different from being rash. My personal belief is that if you have a 50% chance, take it!"

In the scenario I gave, you believe there is only enough gas for 50% of the team to survive. I didn't make that an absolute for a reason. There is a chance you are wrong, but looking at your SPG, you don't believe you are wrong.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

But do most surfers train and practice to deal with shark attacks? Or do they just accept the odds, and if they think about it at all, just figure that if it does happen they'll try to go for the eyes or the gills and go down swinging as best they can?

I've thought out what to do in some bad situations, but I'd rather focus on what it would take to communicate to the team and get everyone out alive and getting really hammered on margaritas later that night

But, they know that going for the eyes or the gills is an option. Most of us have had training to punch things, or have figured it out growing up. We just don't expect to really ever have to punch a shark.

For divers, a discussion about "What if's" like this gives divers options to consider. We train to shut off our buddy's gas every time we do a valve drill. We just never think that we'll be shutting off that valve to kill a teammate.

Drinking alone could be one way of coping with the aftermath.

 

[Doc Harry]

I had some respect for you, Trace, but your post describing how to kill your buddy just dissolved that respect.

 

[Sas]

I had some respect for you, Trace, but your post describing how to kill your buddy just dissolved that respect.

So do you think both divers should die then?

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

Speaking about the genetic thing, I posted the very same thread on a British forum, and almost all the replies are in favor of helping your buddy and making it (or not) together.

 

[Doc Harry]

So do you think both divers should die then?

After you left your buddy for dead, what happens if you run into another group of divers just 5 minutes later?

You don't know if you're both going to die until it happens.

If you're going to leave your buddy for dead, then you don't have any business diving in that environment with a buddy, you need to be solo.

If you insist on diving with a buddy, then you need to tell them that if anything goes wrong you plan to leave them for dead.

 

[Sas]

In the example given I was assuming that there would be no chance of both surviving. If you cannot confront that concept (as it seems from your posts) cool but I think it is unfair to criticise others who can confront it for choosing their lives over another's.

 

[Sas]

Also we are not talking about *anything* going wrong but the specific example of only enough gas for one to get out. Some sites I dive I can guarantee no others will be around so I ignored that idea.

 

[AndyNZ]

Imagine if all those guys on the beaches of Normandy thought that way...

While we in the diving community may think this sort of dilemna is for the most part theoretical, people people in the military face these choices quite often.

It would certainly be a different world. Many of them may have lived for a start.

Dawkins answered in this in _The Selfish Gene_ and now appears to have forgotten his own answer from what I've read lately.

That's what academics do... all in the quest for the next publication...!!

But do most surfers train and practice to deal with shark attacks?

No, but we will take common sense precautions to avoid them - I rarely surf at dusk or dawn any more. We have way too many of the 'big three' around our shores, though I really do miss having a dawnie before work. Shark attacks are rare, they are somewhat maligned and most attacks on surfers are a case of mistaken identity.

As a lifeguard, I have a duty to act if someone is drowning. However, if during the action of performing my duty, I determine that I cannot save the victim without drowning myself, I have just cause to let go.

As a cave instructor, I also have a duty to act in a similar fashion, but I'm not expected to die with the student.

No criticism was intended, Trace - it just seems that it would be a different decision if it was a student.... I wonder if the point where you make your decision is different?

The book I referred to earlier, Touching the Void, is a really good example. Joe Tasker smashed up his knee at 6000m on a mountain in Peru, even if they could get out it was something like five days by donkey to the nearest town. Many people would take one look at a person with their shin bone poking out of their thigh and say "you're f&^ed, matey" and leave them to die. Simon Yates undertook the mammoth task of attempting to lower Joe by rope down the face of the mountain - unfortunately in the process lowering him into a crevasse. At that point' Joe's weight would eventually pull Simon to his death..... so he cut the rope.

I think it's really hard to criticise Simon, though he was criticised, he had already done 1000% more than many would have done and he left it to the last available moment to save himself... others would have saved themselves earlier.

If people have never read this book, I really recommend it. It provides a real insight into the psychology of leaving someone for dead... and is also a riveting tale of survival. You'll also never listen to Boney M in the same light again.

 

[AndyNZ]

Speaking about the genetic thing, I posted the very same thread on a British forum, and almost all the replies are in favor of helping your buddy and make it (or not) together.

When I replied to Dale's post about soldiers, I wrote a huge monologue about war, survival and the British sense of fair play.... I ended up deleting it as it simply wasn't relevant.

Unfortunately, and I say this as someone from the UK, the Brits have a huge history of magnificent and glorious defeats... I personally blame the fact that the Brits always end up with public schoolboys as officers, and the state schoolboys in the ranks. Public (which is actually private!) is not the best training ground for making rational decisions on how to survive with minimal casualties! .