"What if ..?"

[Trace Malinowski]

If your predetermined intent is to run away and save yourself when there is an emergency, then I'll say again:

You have no business diving with a buddy in that environment.

Doc and all,

I want to address this issue from the point of courage and cowardice because I think something is being overlooked. When I posted this question, in my mind, I was not thinking that the diver in the donor position was a coward. In fact, in my mind's eye, the imaginary team was one in which the donor was actually the type of individual who could make the hard choices and not the kind of man who would cut and run.

The ability to make hard choices is often what leadership is about. For those who served in the military, think of the finest officer and NCO you ever knew, or if you didn't have great leadership, think of the type of person you would be proud to serve under. I'd bet that individual would have the courage to sacrifice himself for others as well as have the courage to sacrifice others for the greater good. Could such a leader look someone in the eye and say, "I need to let you die, because ... if I don't close this hatch, this compartment will flood too." But, I bet that leader would gladly swap places with the sailor or sailors on the other side.

If a lifeguard did everything possible and gave his all to make a save, is he cutting and running when he realizes the only way he will live is to let the victim go?

In an air share, you reach a point on the exit where you know you normally use 500 psi to exit on your best day and there is 200 left in the tanks and a difficult restriction ahead, or whatever would make you certain both of you aren't going to make it. You are 100% certain, and not only are you 100% certain, you are 100% correct. You may not even make it and it would take all of your skill, all of your tricks, all of your experience, and to make it out would be a miracle in itself at this point, but you are good enough, that maybe you just might, but in that air share there is absolutely no way. It's not Ginnie. It's not a popular cave. It's in the Bahamas. You know the only three cave divers on that island and they are not planning to go diving that day. Are you really a coward? Are you cutting and running?

It's a hard choice. Hard choices take courage.

I read a psych study that was done in the 1960's on a group of BUDS/UDT students in training and a group of US Army Special Forces soldiers at an A Camp in the highlands of South Vietnam. The study was measuring stress hormones. IIRC, they found that the stress hormones of the BUDS students were normally higher because they were afraid more often than the green beret A-team in combat. As different pieces of equipment would be introduced, even benign things such as when a facemask was added, once trainees became used to the swims and drills with fins, the level of cortisol would measure higher than those experienced by green berets on days when they were under fire. However, the stress of the green berets would be highest just before a mission, but lower in combat. What they discovered during the interview process was that the green berets were more afraid of letting their buddies down or making mistakes that would cause their teammates to die than each individual was afraid of his own harm or death. Coincidentally, the BUDS/UDT students were afraid of failure and washing out of the program. The conclusion was that the fear of the unknown, the fear of letting others down, and the fear of failure physically released greater stress hormones than were released by those involved in battle. In fact, the lowest levels of stress hormones were on the days when the green berets' intelligence reports told them to expect attacks against the camp. (I know some military guy is going to want to make a military intelligence joke at this point so I'll preempt it! )

Playing Devil's Advocate here, so LeadTurn doesn't have to become my thread secretary, could it be that the "easy way out" is just to "quit" by sticking with a buddy knowing that you don't have a prayer, but it is easier because you don't have to make the hard choice and you won't have to face ridicule?

Would it take more courage, knowing 100% for sure that two cannot make it, to decide to try to save one?

As MafiaJoe said, correctly, "He's already dead."

 

[Doc Harry]

Thanks for the insight Trace.

I personally did not even think about courage or cowardice in regards to this issue. It is interesting that you bring it up. I'll have to digest this one... I'm not convinced that this issue has anything to do with courage or cowardice, but I'll ponder the matter.

I guess I take issue with "knowing 100%" -- that implies hopeless, and I always have -- and always will -- believe that I will make it out okay.

Proof is that I'm still alive, ain't I? (English is my second lanuage, hillbilly is my first.)

To ask a question and rule out any hope of survival is like asking, "If I cut off your head, will you chose to live or die?" It's a silly question that doesn't even need to be asked.

I think people have been responding to your OP as if certainty was 100%, but that's a silly question tantamount to my beheading question. So I've been responding to your OP as if there is still hope for survival.

That's why I'm not sure this is a courage/cowardice issue, but instead a hopefulness/hopelessness question.

And, as good military officer, a little bit of "duty" thrown in.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

To ask a question and rule out any hope of survival is like asking, "If I cut your head off, will you chose to live or die?" It's a silly question that doesn't even need to be asked.

Ah, but Doc, there is hope of survival - for one.

 

[Thalassamania]

Most scientists I know are atheists. A minority are some form of believer, ranging from deist to more mainstream Christian, with a rare Buddhist or Hindu mixed in. None that I can think of are agnostic in any sense of the word.

 

[DaleC]

A believer states there definately is something
An atheist states there definately isn't
An agnostic states they just don't know.
The first and last are an act of faith, derived at without definative proof.
The motivation of science is the agnostic mind.

Perhaps one reason you cannot concieve of a "god" or "afterlife" is because you have already placed conditions on them. It must be this and not be like that. Sort of like a person, surrounded by gold, who sees only poverty because there is no silver.

But why resort to unicorns? Before the invention of the telescope did the planet neptune exist? Have you ever seen an atom? If one is deaf does music exist? People believe in plenty of things every day that they have no experiential knowledge of. The existance of something does not depend on the fact that you or I know of it personally.

And what would evidence of "gods" existance look like anyways? Would it involve some childlike notion of a burning bush or the granting of a special wish. What would the evidence look like?

I'm not saying there is or isn't but to state that one "knows" god does not exist sounds fairly definate. Can you provide any evidence to support your statement? If not, it is as much an act of faith as my beliefs are. What I would want to know is why one would hold to such a faith if it provides such little comfort? If I were faced with the prospect of believing I was headed towards "nothingness" I would be a bit more motivated to find a plan B.

If one were an ant I suppose one would think there were no "higher intelligence" than that of an ant. They cannot concieve of an intellligence that appreciates art, ponders philosophy or wonders about life on other planets. Those things don't exist for them. An ant cannot see any signs of "higher intelligence" yet we humans can sit atop an ant hill and study them. We probably understand how an ant thinks far more than the ant itself does and can anticipate many actions they will make before they make them. An ant may think it is at the apex of being (because it cannot concieve of anything greater) but I can observe, affect and understand their lives and behavior.

If I can quickly provide such an example of one life form being oblivious to the higher state of being of another why is it impossible to believe that there "may" be something greater than ourselves?

 

[DaleC]

Most scientists I know are atheists. A minority are some form of believer, ranging from deist to more mainstream Christian, with a rare Buddhist or Hindu mixed in. None that I can think of are agnostic in any sense of the word.

They only think they are atheist (or in one area claim to be) but professionally they act and have the minds of agnostics. How many scientists go into a field of study having their mind made up and knowing everything about that field before they begin? They don't know - that's why they explore. Again, to say one is atheist is to claim proof of the non existance of "god". Where's the proof? Most scientists want recognition for making discoveries so why doesn't the atheist show demonstrable and repeatable proof of the non existance of god so they can claim the prize. Most scientists just can't focus the same openmindedness to "a higher state of being" that they do to say, "finding a cure for cancer" or "seeking a unifying theory" (both of which they hope is out there but no one can put their finger on it yet). Plus, it sounds more intelligent to say you are "something" than to say you aren't sure what you are. Most scientists have a lot invested in appearing intelligent.

 

[Doc Harry]

This is not a religious issue.

Edit: P.S. Trace -- I did have to make a decision once, like the "closing the hatch" decision you made in a previous post. We had an aircraft fuel bladder rupture on the flight deck, spilling 35,000 pounds of jet fuel. The fuel spilled into a catapult and ignited. There were 60 jet aircraft crowded together around the catapult, all loaded with bombs, rockets and fuel. There were hundreds of maintenance personall servicing the aircraft. The normal procedure called for flooding the catapult with steam to put out the fire. But as Flight Deck Officer of the Day I knew that there were workers performing maintenance inside of that particular catapult. Below decks and around the catapults were all the berthing compartments.

Remember the 1967 USS Forrestal flight deck conflagration? 162 dead, 32 injured.

I flooded the catapult with steam.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

Most scientists I know are atheists. A minority are some form of believer, ranging from deist to more mainstream Christian, with a rare Buddhist or Hindu mixed in. None that I can think of are agnostic in any sense of the word.

That's really kind of interesting, Thal. One would think that a scientist wouldn't choose a side until there was either 100% scientific proof supporting intelligent design or 100% scientific proof supporting that no intelligence could possibly have designed the universe.

Am I incorrect in thinking that the definition of an agnostic is one who doesn't know if God exists or or does not exist?

Wouldn't a scientist believe in his theory about the existence or lack of existence of God, gods, intelligent design, etc., but keep an open mind that his theory might be wrong?

I don't think anyone has provided scientific proof of either.

Good thing I minored in philosophy. I believe in God. I have faith that an intelligent designer that we call God has created us to seek Him out, and this process has lead to religions, and that the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim beliefs are on the right track more so than other religions. Of the three, I believe that the love of one's fellow man and the endless compassion and forgiveness and duty toward others asked (but, not practiced very well at all by anyone) by Christians is the closest to how a designer would wish a primate with our reasoning abilities to behave. With evidence for and against the mystery of Jesus, I choose to lean toward that fact that there is more to Jesus' existence and Jesus' understanding of God than our arrogance as modern beings over ancient ones can really assert. I believe the real answer to the purpose of our existence isn't found in mathematics, sciences, philosophies, or the poetry and artistry by which we live and record the histories and mysteries of our lives, but by the weaved tapestry of all. At the end of the day, I believe that the mystery of God, for me, is best answered by my Christian belief, but that there is more to that and more to God than is defined by the writings of the ancients and that there are many inconsistencies to what is scribed, but something divine is at work. I believe God does not want religion or the :inquisition: and that these are poor attempts of primates to relate to the divine. I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't have faith in my ability to be certain so I am open-minded enough to be proven wrong. Which is why I admire agnostics over atheists because the atheists believe their fairy tales written by men without proof of anything, and without proof, seem as silly as me believing that a first century Palestinian Jew is the Son of God. At least for agnostics, they haven't decided on a verdict - which you would think is what a scientist would be doing?

I could be wrong about that.

I could be wrong about believing in Jesus Christ.

But, I know that I could be wrong. So, does that make me an agnostic? Or, am I Christian with the wisdom to know that this world and universe is so complex that my puny primate brain cannot process it and God will forgive me for being human?

(PS - I realize there are many philosophic reasoning problems with the above, but this is ScubaBoard so unless I'm getting 3 credits for grad school, I'm not going to worry about it.)

 

[Trace Malinowski]

Let's stick to the topic, this is not a religious issue.

Edit: P.S. Trace -- I did have to make a decision once, like the "closing the hatch" decision you made in a previous post. We had an aircraft fuel bladder rupture on the flight deck, spilling 35,000 pounds of jet fuel. The fuel spilled into a catapult and ignited. There were 60 jet aircraft crowded together around the catapult, all loaded with bombs, rockets and fuel. The normal procedure called for flooding the catapult with steam to put out the fire. But as Officer of the Day I knew that there were workers inside of that catapult performing maintenance. Below decks and around the catapults were all the berthing compartments.

Remember the USS Forrestal conflagration?

Ooops - sorry for the metaphysical post, Doc. I minored in Philosophy and Religion. I couldn't resist jumping in for a moment. Didn't see your post until I sent my query to Thal.

Anyway, my mother's fiance was a chief on the Forrestal - a boilerman. I think he was onboard during that, but not when dating my mom. I know he was when an arresting cable snapped and killed one or more sailors. My mom wanted him to quit the Navy. She was a teacher and hoped for a normal family life. If he hadn't loved the Forrestal more than my mom, I might not be here! She married a marine who was discharged for the loss of a left eye instead. He lost it in a BB Gun accident as a young kid, but by the time he grew up he had all eye charts memorized and never got caught for several years - until they got that eye test machine that gives you the M's, W's E's and reverse E's. The Navy doctor giving my dad the eye test was irritated. Thinking he was being a smart-@$$, "What's the matter Malinowski? You blind?" My dad replied, "Yes Sir!"

 

[Trace Malinowski]

Remember the 1967 USS Forrestal flight deck conflagration? 162 dead, 32 injured.

I flooded the catapult with steam.

I missed that since I replied to your post prior to the addition ...

Then you know exactly what I was talking about from personal experience.

Sorry. It must have been a hard choice. But, I'm sure it was the right one. :salute:

Just as military officers are expected to be professionals and follow procedures, training and orders, professional rescuers are trained to follow procedures. I think that is why a lifeguard faced with that situation is mentally obeying the order placed into their brains by the lifeguard manuals & instructors, "You must not drown. If you need to let the victim go, do it. It's better to lose one than two."

For me, the OOG scenario is the same as towing a victim, even if that victim is my best friend and fellow lifeguard, and rescue procedures from the time I was 18, over and over and over, told me in written and verbal form: You, the rescuer, must not drown.

I'm sure everyone involved in carrying out your order, did so, because the Flight Deck Officer gave the order and they knew that it was an order from an officer, who was a real leader, and because they knew the order was the proper procedure, a hard choice they didn't have to make, and respected you all the more for making it.

Thank you, for serving our nation, Doc.