I could not do it with foreknowledge. With foreknowledge, I would be thinking about leaving my still young kids without a father.
On the other hand, I am probably dumb enough to rush into a burning building without thinking things through to rescue a child.
As it has come up, I would give my life immediately for my own kids.
This reminds me of a prior thread where the question was ‘would you save your Mom or your own child?’ I was surprised when people did not pick the child as I know what my Mom would want me to do and would encourage me to do. I would be shocked by any Grandparent that would look for their own rescue at the expense of their grandkid.
I’m surprised no one has jumped all over you for this. May I?
It’s one thing to stand aside and do nothing, it’s another to push someone, especially someone who cannot defend themself, into the jaws of death, just to save yourself.
On the other hand, a guy in a wheelchair might work better than a small child, the metal gets jammed up in the axle, slows things down. You have to think this kind of sociopathic decision making through a little better.
Risking one’s life is so different from certain death, though. Certain death would be donating your heart when you are still alive. Would you give your heart to a dying child you never met?
Some kid bolts into the street, and I’m supposed to die? No fucking way. It’s a kid anyway, the parents can make another one. This time they can teach it not to be an idiot. I’m not gonna give up my life to reward negligent parents.
Good movie, which led you to this freaky question.
I think that I would instinctively save a child, without foreknowlege. But I don’t know for sure – maybe I’d just freeze in shock.
With foreknowlege… well, knowing myself, I think I’d show up on the street early and try to spot the kid or the bus before the accident. Now, if the Norns were on their toes and the situation went down as planned, then I’d be back to instinct – and I’d either jump in front of the bus to save the kid, or freeze in shock; whichever it will be.
I agree, such children should not be allowed to grow into adulthood to breed. We’re talking about thinning the herd here, and vehicular traffic is about as close as society can manage to a ‘natural predator’ of children.
I’m one of those people who’d give up my life to save someone else’s kid. I can think of a few different ways to rationalize this behavior, but I suspect that, fundamentally, it’s an emotional decision rather than an intellectual one - a question of personal makeup, unlikely to be influenced by debate.
So you can’t understand a single mother, with 5 chidren, opting not to leave 4 of them orphans? Because that seems like a reasonable exception to me.
Maybe part of the cold reality of evolution is that those people who’d be less inclined to make this sacrifice for their children are also slightly less likely to see their children live long enough to pass on their genes? If you prefer, you might consider this a form of justice.
Then again, there may be some evolutionary advantage conferred by this unwillingness to make the ultimate sacrifice. If you think about it, a parent whose child has died might still be only 9 months away from creating a new generation of offspring. But if the parent dies while saving a (let’s say preadolescent) child, then the kid is some number of years away from creating any offspring, while also being somewhat less likely to survive long enough to do so, having lost at least one caretaker already.
Leaving out the ‘justice’ part (natural selection 'taint teleological, no matter what Brannon Braga says) that is what I mean. A disinclination to save the life of one’s own progeny who have no yet reproduced would tend to make an organism unfit. I apologize for the wiggle words, but as you seemed to be implying, there are a lot of variables here; sacrificing one child so you can protect your other children is a different thing than letting your only child perish.
I disagree. With the exception of certain mammals, most lifeforms only concentrate on getting their offspring to a stage of self sufficiency, not breeding age.
He said certain mammals. Most mammals behave as he describes; those which raise their offspring to sexual maturity as opposed to mere self-sufficiency are the exception, rather than the norm.
I excepted mammals because they comprise a very small percentage of life on our planet, and we are making rather sweeping assumptions about the nature of natural selection here. Even if you only compare us to other vertebrates, most of them only care for the young until they are self sufficient.
Mammals come in three types:
Herding animals/ pack carnivores: Grow up quickly and remain with the group. So while the parents may not directly care for the young, they get indirect protection from the herd. Even still, they often do not breed until they are several years old in the case of males especially. They do not receive any meaningful parental care after weaning.
Lone carnivore: Offspring are cared for until they can hunt for themselves. This may or may not coincide with breeding age. The larger carnivores certainly do not care for offspring of breeding age.
Human strategy: Offspring are cared for long after sexual maturity and remain with the family group. Culturally produced problems aside, 12 year olds are perfectly capable of providing food, water and shelter for themselves. It is a cultural construct related to our social behaviour to keep them around so long that has turned out extremely successfully for our species.
