"What if ..?"

[ScubaSteve]

I'm still not sure anybody at all in this thread has said they would abandon a buddy in an emergency...

I am confident that several people have in fact said that. It is hypothetical but they have still said it.

 

[Sas]

I am confident that several people have in fact said that. It is hypothetical but they have still said it.

Source please. I'm referring to someone who has said they will leave their buddy in an emergency...

Not someone who has said they would leave their buddy because it was their life or their buddy's. There is a difference. Saying 'emergency' without specifying what one is talking about (in this case it is a do or die situation) is exaggeration and very misleading.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Source please. I'm referring to someone who has said they will leave their buddy in an emergency...

Not someone who has said they would leave their buddy because it was their life or their buddy's. There is a difference. Saying 'emergency' without specifying what one is talking about (in this case it is a do or die situation) is exaggeration and very misleading.

I was not aware that a situation where it was life and death is not classified as an emergency. Your interpretation of an emergency is way off what mine is. You have changed the terms so I change my answer. It is possible that nobody has said they would leave their buddy in situations that fit your version of an emergency.

 

[Sas]

I was not aware that a situation where it was life and death is not classified as an emergency. Your interpretation of an emergency is way off what mine is. You have changed the terms so I change my answer. It is possible that nobody has said they would leave their buddy in situations that fit your version of an emergency.

Exactly my point. If you are going to say 'emergency' you have to define it, otherwise (given the entire context of this thread which is about a specific type of emergency) it is misleading and an exaggeration.

If the emergency is defined as a life or death situation as it has been here then I think the assertion that one has no business being a buddy because they not willing to *die* for a buddy is just ridiculous.

Other emergencies, it is open to debate but it needs to be defined as such rather than talked about in generalities like it was by Doc Harry or else be seen as misleading.

The terms were not changed by me, I am trying to change them back to the topic at hand.

 

[LeadTurn_SD]

Here is the topic again

"What if you are in a team of two divers, your exit from a wreck or a cave was somehow delayed, your buddy runs out of gas, and you see that your SPG shows only enough gas, (in your estimation) to get one diver out?"

So, if nothing is changed with the original scenario Trace presented for discussion, this is a life and death emergency, where 1 or both divers will perish, depending on what you do.

It is (for me at least) VERY uncomfortable to think about how I would react.

I don't think there is a correct answer, no "right" or "wrong", just an ultimate "what if" because Trace is forcing you to make a life or death decision (buddy dies, you die, both die). My personal choice (I hope) would be to try to get us both out, to the bitter end.

It is sobering, I don't like thinking about it, but find it valuable as a reminder that the stakes can be very high with the sport we all love, and it will make me reflect on my own diving (solo and with buddies) to make sure I'm doing EVERYTHING I can to prevent a situation like this one.

Best wishes.

 

[boulderjohn]

I disagree with your assumption that your buddy demonstrated a willingness to kill you. He demonstrated a willingness you let you finish killing yourself. It is not his actions that have killed you, but your own. He has refused to try to stop your unintentional suicide at risk to his own life. If you fight your buddy for air and it results in his death, you have killed him and probably yourself as well. I will kill to stop them from killing me. I will not kill to possibly save myself from my own actions. I would much rather die with a clean conscience than live with a guilty one.

OK, then. He is willing to let you finish killing yourself, assuming your OOA situation was your fault and not an equipment failure. Let's take it from there.

Your buddy's actions show you that he or she is going to let you die so that he or she can go on living.

Now, for this question, don't think of what you would do. Think about what a hypothetical buddy would do. Which of the following best describes the most likely scenario?

• Wave goodbye and wish you well in your remaining life whilst he or she heads on to whatever happens after death, the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns.
• Ponder the existential issues of this situation and realize that, like Camus' stranger, or Sartre's prisoner in "The wall," there is a realization that life is a NOT, and absurdity, and our fates are determined by the choices we have made and nothing else.
• Claw at you frantically for that last chance at life.

 

[AndyNZ]

Wow.

That's all I can say.

It's hard, perhaps impossible, to understand what that must be like.

To be honest, there is a certain amount of "numbness" whilst making the decision - I think that my concious self was so wrapped up in my own circumstances that my subconscious had to make the decision, it was probably the most rational part of me at the time. The fact that somewhere inside my brain I can still remember how to conjugate Latin verbs....

You have to rationalise it after the event. I barely had the capacity to get out of my own situation, I would have not made it down if I'd stopped to help.

In that sense, it's close to Trace's original question - it was either they die, or we both died. The difference was that that I didn't know the person, hadn't even seen them around base camp, couldn't have even told you their name.

 

[DaleC]

I can only answer for myself, but when you get into metaphysical angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin kinds of discussions, I can't be 100% certain. Which, I guess makes me an agnostic. However, usually agnostics are identified practically with all kinds of wishy-washy beliefs about prime movers and interest in Unitarian churches and dabble in the more vaguely defined kinds of spirituality. In practice, I act like an atheist and I have absolutely no internal concept of what 'God' would be. I understand dictionary and philosophical definitions (going well beyond the Angry Old Testament God and into concepts like the Prime Mover, etc) and the social religious aspects, but when I really sit down and ponder God or the afterlife I just throw an internal Segmentation Violation. I really don't understand Heaven at *all* since I don't understand how you get life without death, how you get happiness without sadness so this idea of never-end life in a paradise doesn't work for me -- reincarnation makes some sense, but I just don't believe in it. Spirituality also doesn't really do it for me, except in some vaguely defined ways (yes, i think caves are very pretty and fascinating -- is that 'spiritual' -- dunno, what do you mean by it?). So, I can't prove anything, which makes me technically an agnostic, but I can't hold the concepts in my head around God and Heaven that you do -- doesn't work for me at all -- and i've tried for 38 years and it still hasn't ever worked...

And I actually grew up not in a Christian family but as a 2nd generation atheist/agnostic -- so, I never had to 'reject' anything like my father did, and there's no residual traces of Christianity/religion in my makeup because it was never really there... I've been exposed to the same social religious conditioning as everyone else from society at large, but that seems to be much less powerful than the conditioning that young kids get from their parents...

Lamont, my intention was not to question someones belief system in a negative way (I really believe "to each their own") but just to consider the term "Athiest". I hope you didn't take it as offensive. I belong to a group that discusses this sort of thing frequently and am quite comfortable doing so. Believe me, being a lone buddhist in a family of lapsed Catholics and a vegetarian in the same family of unflinching carnivores I've had my share of probing and questioning of my beliefs. My son used to ask me "What if you do all this buddhisty stuff and you get to the end and find out it was all wrong"? I told him that would be a pretty funny joke for sure but it wouldn't really matter because it makes me a better person regardless (not that everyone needs a belief system to be a better person - I'm a "special case"). He is like my very own Raptor testing the fence that way. He also likes to wave ham under my nose to test my "will power".

It is interesting to me that you see the term "Agnostic" as being somewhat wishy washy. I did not anticipate that. I see it as being quite grounded in the scientific state of mind/being. I think most scientists approach life from an agnostic POV (I don't know the answer; I think I'll try to find out). If they had unquestioning "faith" they would see no need to seek (it's there even if I don't understand it; no need to look) and if they were atheist they would not bother either (why seek, there is no answer).

Ponder the existential issues of this situation and realize that, like Camus' stranger, or Sartre's prisoner in "The wall," there is a realization that life is a NOT, and absurdity, and our fates are determined by the choices we have made and nothing else.

If I remember my Sarte correctly, in The Wall his theme was not that our fates were determined by our choices (as the prisoner made a choice that had a completely different outcome than the one he intended) but rather that our lives are defined by our intentions. We ultimately have no control over the outcome - only our intentions.



Trace, I understand what it is you are trying to say regarding not endangering yourself needlessly. I have heard the same valid opinion expressed at many inservices. At the same time it has never escaped my street senses that if one espoused the notion that "if it came down to me or you I'm out a there" around the firehall or squad room one might find themselves very very lonely.

The cave scenario may be hard to contemplate because it is so easy to say "I just wouldn't be in that position" but what if one were doing a wall dive and ones buddy lost bouyancy (for whatever reason) and began dropping uncontrollably. How far down would one swim to rescue them?
If it were an ista buddy.
If it were a good friend.
A student under ones care.
A loved one.
That's a situation where one can't definatively say "I just wouldn't be there".

 

[Darnold9999]

No way to know until you get there. Talk about it, think about it in advance, might help you make the decision at the time and allow you to be more comfortable with the decision if it is to save yourself, but you won't know until you get there.

Never have - hope I never do.

 

[Sas]

It is interesting to me that you see the term "Agnostic" as being somewhat wishy washy. I did not anticipate that. I see it as being quite grounded in the scientific state of mind/being. I think most scientists approach life from an agnostic POV (I don't know the answer; I think I'll try to find out). If they had unquestioning "faith" they would see no need to seek (it's there even if I don't understand it; no need to look) and if they were atheist they would not bother either (why seek, there is no answer).

I'm the same boat as Lamont - I see that people generally take 'agnostic' as one who is unsure about the existance of God. I'm not unsure, I just don't go around believing in things that have no evidence. Like unicorns - there's no evidence for unicorns, I don't believe them, but if evidence was presented to me of a unicorn's existance I would change my mind. Same with God. I just don't believe in God so therefore am not an agnostic as such though I don't think the existance of God can ever be proven one way or another (though in my opinion the probability of a God existing is very very low due to the complete lack of evidence for a God's existance around at the moment). Same as unicorns - what is to stop me going around and saying unicorns exist but they are invisible - no one can prove me wrong. Does that mean everyone who doesn't believe in them but realises they cannot disprove my invisible unicorns is a unicorn agnostic?

Atheism isn't about not seeking an answer at all. I have sought for any evidence of God for a long time. I would welcome proof that there was an afterlife (though not a Christian God that runs things as I'd end up in hell, terrible sinner here). It would be one of the most relieving things I could hear.

I don't think scientists should approach life like an agnostic. I think scientists should approach everything with doubt and skepticism until proven otherwise. Agnosticism is the belief that something is unknowable primarily though it has been altered to incorporate a definition of someone that is skeptical or doubtful. Though I tend to prefer to refer to myself as an atheist as it makes it a lot clearer to others where I stand.