I have no trouble believing they were unprepared without a clue of what dangers they could face. I’ve seen many docu-dramas about people who survived accidents, getting lost, natural disasters, etc., and it’s quite common that their own bad choices are what makes things worse.
One example was a group of guys who were flying a Cessna to Cabo San Lucas. Since it’s over water, they were required to have life vests on board. But rather than get the expensive, adult-sized life vests, they get the cheapest, kid-sized life vests from Walmart. The plane crashes in the sea and they struggle to stay above water because the life vests are insufficient.
There are also many stories of hikers who decide to keep forging on even though it’s getting dark, the weather is getting worse, and they don’t have any overnight or survival gear. Ooops! It’s freezing, we don’t have any food, and we can’t start a fire. Let’s wander around the forest in the dark to try to find a Starbucks.
It’s a good thing they packed so much food. They’re lucky they were vegan so maybe they thought ahead that they might not be able to restock in random islands.
So, I am starting to get the impression that these two sailor-ettes may have been too dumb to realize how much danger they were in. (At least, until the food started to run low.)
I wonder if there are people who drift through life, thinking that their positive kharma balance will protect them from harm. (This is a parallel to the New Age woo found in post #99.)
On that note, I’d also recommend Deep Water, a documentary about an around the world yacht race in 1968 entered by an unqualified sailor that ended in a hoax and death.
“Comes across?” Just because you haven’t given it much thought doesn’t make it “arrogant.”
Imagine there’s something bad you won’t do. Maybe there’s nothing so evil to you that you wouldn’t do it, even if your survival depends on it, or perhaps out of concern not to appear arrogant or unreasonable. But let’s imagine there is.
I don’t know you, so I can’t say what that would be. But let’s say, “molest a child.” That’s a common one. I’m not comparing that to killing animals, human or other kinds, but simply using it because it’s a common taboo that comes up in conversations as a bright line many people will not cross.
Now use it in a sentence. Let’s assume a sadistic villain is ordering you to cross that bright line, and harm that child, or else he will kill you. Would we say:
“If someone is so [moral] that they refuse to [molest that child] even if their survival depends on it (not referring to this pair, but generally speaking) - well, that comes across as arrogant or unreasonable, not sympathetic.”
…or would you be a hero for refusing, even at peril to yourself?
Dogs are omnivorous and can survive well on a vegetarian diet if properly balanced and supplemented. If they were carnivorous they wouldn’t be nearly as interested in the bananas and sweet potatoes they constantly mooch from me.
However, I will reserve judgement on these two dufuses until more facts emerge. They very well could have survived as they said in spite of their own ignorance and mistakes.
Weren’t they claiming that they thought their boat was on the verge of sinking when they were rescued? AFAIK it is still floating out there.
Also, is there any footage of the two dogs when they first got back to dry land? After 5 months at sea I would expect that they would have great difficulty standing up, let alone walking, on dry land.
In fact, those dogs were in amazingly good shape for not having been running for 5 months…and what was it they fed the dogs that kept them in such unbelievable health?
I like nature and crunchy granola, too, but I’m under no illusions that the “natural world” is a peaceful and gentle place. It will freakin’ kill you if you get stupid, or just get unlucky/have a bad day.
Since there have been several mentions of the 1968 yacht race and related hoax in this thread, I just wanted to add that this story has been made into a movie starring Colin Firth and Rachel Weisz which is supposed to be released this year or early next year.
Here’s an article from today’s Washington Post discussing the rescue of the two women and the doubts about their story.
Dog food, probably for much of the voyage. They switched to human food only when that ran out.
I don’t find it at all implausible the dogs were in decent health after the voyage. It’s not like they were confined in a small kennel. Since when do dogs need to run to stay in good health?
They are resurrecting the Golden Globe Race for next year. Entrants will be tracked by satellite this time to avert shenanigans, though the sailors themselves will only (more or less!) have access to what was available last time (1968) so no GPS &c.
