williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (04/18/85)
I would wait until someone died of natural means. I certainly wouldn't throw a dead body overboard. Which reminds me . . . Isn't it silly how we seal dead bodies before we bury them? It's not like there's much use for it beyond archaic superstition. Cremation is even more ridiculous. I think I'd rather be buried in a garden or something. Comments? John.
karen@amd.UUCP (Karen Bain) (04/18/85)
I think the best way to handle this raft situation is survival of
the fittest. Whoever dies of starvation first gets eaten by the
other. It only seems fair - this way no one feels guilty about
killing anyone, and by the time one of the people starves to death,
the other will have sufficient appitite to eat him.
- K.B.rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (04/23/85)
> I think the best way to handle this raft situation is survival of > the fittest. Whoever dies of starvation first gets eaten by the > other. It only seems fair - this way no one feels guilty about > killing anyone, and by the time one of the people starves to death, > the other will have sufficient appitite to eat him. Very good. But by the time one of the people dies of starvation, he might have lost so much weight that eating him won't do any good. As far as morals are concerned, the decision (as I see it) should be based on who has the greater chance of surviving. This being equal, draw lots. Of course, I don't know if I would be quite so selfless in practice. Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (05/02/85)
In article <1216@amd.UUCP> karen@amd.UUCP (Karen Bain) writes: > >I think the best way to handle this raft situation is survival of >the fittest. Whoever dies of starvation first gets eaten by the >other. It only seems fair - this way no one feels guilty about >killing anyone, and by the time one of the people starves to death, >the other will have sufficient appitite to eat him. > > - K.B. But by then there may not be enough left of him/her to do much good. If one were to cause the demise of ones raft mate early in the game, it would also save water which may be more important than food anyway. Also, if the ordeal did not last as long as one originally thought it might, any leftovers could be eased over the side.
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/02/85)
> In article <1216@amd.UUCP> karen@amd.UUCP (Karen Bain) writes: > > > >I think the best way to handle this raft situation is survival of > >the fittest. Whoever dies of starvation first gets eaten by the > >other. It only seems fair - this way no one feels guilty about > >killing anyone, and by the time one of the people starves to death, > >the other will have sufficient appitite to eat him. > > > > - K.B. Another solution is the one proposed in Voltaire's Candide: A group of people were assieged in a fortress without any food. So, all the women "donated" one of their buttocks to the cause and nobody died. I guess that's a nice "cooperative" solution to the problem :-). I can't remember whether the men donated anything and if they did, what it was. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
holmes@dalcs.UUCP (Ray Holmes) (05/06/85)
Ray Holmes asks that I state first off that this reply is not from him; it's
from his friend Andrew.
This life raft bit is rather interesting, but Karen Bain's "Survival of the
Fittest" idea has a few problems. People in life rafts have as their
primary worry not starvation, but dehydration. ("Water, water everywhere/
Nor any drop to drink" points out Coleridge, and was right.) Now, this may
seem irrelevant to the ethical question of cannibalism at sea, but just hang
on a minute, I've a point I'd like to make. In Cord Christian Troebst's "The
Art of Survival" cases were cited wherein castaways were slicing each other
merrily up so as to get at their blood, in hopes of slaking their thirst.
(For those of you who sneer at survivalism entirely, take my word for it
that drinking sea water speeds the dehydration process, and since I've got
your attention, No, Virginia, the vast majority of the survivalist movement
in North America are not the raving homicidal lunatics we're made out to
be.) The difficulty with that solution was that waiting for someone to die
is not as effective as killing him, since the blood flows out still under
pressure in the latter case. So, I have to agree, killing one of your number
seems a more practical idea. The common complaint about the survivalist
movement stems from the fact that many of our number walk about with Uzi
submachineguns, Second Chance body armour, and suchlike window dressing.
Well, consider all of the situations which the survivalists out here are
considering and preparing for, many of which are analogous to your life raft
proposition, but on a larger scale. If there are folks out there who'd kill
me in my sleep, and eat my meaty carcass, and have said so over the net, I'd
be out of my mind not to own a gun, and be willing to use it. Maybe that's
just another way of defining "the fittest" (and I don't relish the thought
any more than you do, Karen) but in most such situations, the leftovers ARE
tossed over the side, figuratively speaking. This is certainly not a pretty
thought, but if you are willing to off ME to survive, you're thinking like
the survivalists (self proclaimed; I certainly don't identify myself with
them) who've given the movement the whole repulsive image that we are trying
to avoid. Well, anyway. Anybody got a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook
that they could loan a fellow?wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (05/06/85)
I can't resist --- The men in this situation donated --- hold on now ---- a Fanny Farmer cookbook!!! Sorrrrry --- it was just too good to pass up. T. C. Wheeler
bill@hpfcms.UUCP (bill) (05/12/85)
>I would wait until someone died of natural means. I certainly >wouldn't throw a dead body overboard. This is a viable solution. >Which reminds me . . . Isn't it silly how we seal dead bodies >before we bury them? It's not like there's much use for it beyond >archaic superstition. Cremation is even more ridiculous. I think it's silly, also, to preserve a dead body, put it in $3000 worth of hardwood, and erect a large monument. However, it's probably done for the sake of the surviving loved ones (would you like to see your father's body thrown into a heap outside of town? - sorry). These days its probably got nothing to do with "archaic superstition" (which I assume refers to beliefs that the soul still needs the body at some time, etc.), but tradition. However, I differ from you in that cremation seems like a good idea to me. It's cheap, doesn't take up land, and doesn't cause people to talk to graves as if they were people. I think it helps us to remember that the actual person is somewhere else now, not physical anymore (I firmly believe there's more to a person than just a body). >I think I'd rather be buried in a garden or something. Why would you want to be buried in a garden, anyhow? You won't be around to know or care! It seems just as silly to me to want to be buried in a garden as it is to seal a body and all that! Bill Gates hpfcla!bill-g