There are some morbid shipwreck stories where the starving survivors drifting in a lifeboat draw straws to decide who to will die so that the others will have something to eat. There’s even a term for it. “The custom of the sea”. In fact, I remember a recent thread about it 
In a small space like this, I doubt that anyone would be able to kill someone else unless it was a group decision. No one is going to sit by just a few inches away and not do anything.
Titanic tourist submarine missing 6-19-2023 (Debris field found, passengers presumed dead. 06-22-23)
This is typically spoken in situations where someone poses an immediate and deliberate deadly threat to you, the argument being that such exigent circumstances may morally justify lethal self-defense, even if it results in legal peril. Proactively killing someone whose only transgression is continuing to consume their portion of the sub’s oxygen supply - something to which everyone in the sub arguably has equal claim - is an altogether different moral situation, irrespective of any legal peril that may follow.
Moral objections? for a Billionaire? those things are for the little people.
nm. Hijack
.
Must be scary to be the last one to go. Waiting out your last hours or minutes, surrounded by 4 silent corpses, at a depth of two miles.
IANA doctor, but I would think that if they’re dead, you’re probably unconscious—unless they died from stab wounds.
That would be awful. I think I’d want to be the first one to go, then I’d haunt the other four as a ghostie.
It sounds like there still may be hope, and they have air to breathe until at least tomorrow morning. That surprises me, I figured they’d be out by now.
Missing Titanic Sub Updates
“Fair is fair, Larry …”
The amount of air-time this story is getting is pretty amazing, considering they really have nothing new to tell us.
Heh. Air time.
‘I’d rather eat Johnson.’
I must say, if the reports of disregard for safety are correct, it’s fitting that the CEO is among the trapped and likely dying passengers.
An unmanned salvage craft could bring this submersible up some day. But what if it is lying on top of the Titanic? Would that salvage operation be allowed now without permission of RMS Titanic, Inc., or whatever legal entity is now in charge of the site?
I have a small room under the staircase in my house that we use for storage. I am thinking of turning it into an attraction called The Titan Experience. You will be locked into the small, dark enclosed room and sit on the floor. You can look at the “porthole” which will be an iPad displaying blurry video of the Titanic. There will be a PlayStation controller and some other screens displaying technical looking information that won’t actually do anything.
For extra money, I will offer The Titan Emergency Experience where you and your fellow passengers are locked in for 4 days and you can bang on the walls as much as you like.
If you are a billionaire and you’re interested, get in touch. My prices are reasonable and my attraction is a lot safer than the real thing.
I mean, that’s not wrong from a purely academic standpoint. But from a real-world engineering perspective… well, that’s also not wrong. At least not on its face. But getting to the subtext, the way he describes the cost-benefit approach to safety suggests a degree of cavalierness that may be masking some serious flaws in his ability to conduct a rigorous, unbiased, and ultimately reliable analysis.
In short, the way he said it doesn’t make what he said wrong, but it suggests maybe he doesn’t actually adhere to the principles he’s articulated.
“Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six,” as the saying goes…
…is another example of a saying that, while perhaps superficially true, suggests an underlying flaw in the speaker’s ability to properly assess risks and mitigate or otherwise respond appropriately. Not that I’m accusing you of anything. I get that in your case it’s a joke. But I’ve met people who have said that, at most, only half in jest.
I would expect that *human life takes precedence over property, and would-be rescuers would be privileged to infringe on any property rights (if there are any—I’m not certain what the actual status is of the wreck) on the basis of necessity in any of the relevant legal systems that might be engaged.
*Yes, yes. Even I will grant that billionaires are human. And anyway, one of the people on board is a teenage son and another is merely a researcher, whose financial status has not, from what I’ve seen, been reported upon, and so is entitled to a presumption of less-than-obscene wealth.
ETA: To fix typos, post-quote
Oh I agree, absolutely.
I have no doubt of that, but in not many hours we have to presume there is no longer human life in that submersible.
Dead men tell no tails.
The one survivor could say that they did a roshambo and he won.
I know it’s in poor taste and disrepectful and all, but a little gallows humor can take a little edge off a tense situation.
Huh. Where’s the fun in that ?