Women, children and elderly first?
What is the reasoning behind this statement in a civil crisis?
A male in his 20's is not invincible - they die from hypothermia, starvation, drowning, disease and etc.
Both young men and women are worth more than the elderly if we're being machiavelian.
Young adults are worth more than kids from an accountants point of view as there was more investment in them and they could produce after the crisis.
Both 60 year olds and 80 year olds are equally old therefore both 7 year olds and 20 year olds are equally young too.
A lot of Young people make this statement at there own expense.
Is this statement just a crowd control tactic or do people actually believe in it?
A male in his 20's is not invincible - they die from hypothermia, starvation, drowning, disease and etc.
Both young men and women are worth more than the elderly if we're being machiavelian.
Young adults are worth more than kids from an accountants point of view as there was more investment in them and they could produce after the crisis.
Both 60 year olds and 80 year olds are equally old therefore both 7 year olds and 20 year olds are equally young too.
A lot of Young people make this statement at there own expense.
Is this statement just a crowd control tactic or do people actually believe in it?
It’s true that young men aren’t invincible but in certain situations they are still the group that are most likely to be able to save themselves. So depending on what the crisis is, "women, children and elderly first" may be the optimal strategy. (This is from the point of view of simply wanting to get the maximum number of survivors, without trying to place a “value” on different people’s lives, which is always going to be subjective.)
If it's a "repopulating and rebuilding civilisation" scenario, the optimal strategy would again probably be "women and children first", because you need far fewer men than women in order to be able to do that, and because children are the very thing you're trying to create, so you'd want to keep the ones you already have.
If it's a "repopulating and rebuilding civilisation" scenario, the optimal strategy would again probably be "women and children first", because you need far fewer men than women in order to be able to do that, and because children are the very thing you're trying to create, so you'd want to keep the ones you already have.
(edited 1 year ago)
Women and children first makes most sense if we're trying to continue the species. 1 man can impregnate hundreds of women but each woman can only have one child at a time so are more valuable than men.
Original post by tazarooni89
It’s true that young men aren’t invincible but in certain situations they are still the group that are most likely to be able to save themselves. So depending on what the crisis is, "women, children and elderly first" may be the optimal strategy. (This is from the point of view of simply wanting to get the maximum number of survivors, without trying to place a “value” on different people’s lives, which is always going to be subjective.)
If it's a "repopulating and rebuilding civilisation" scenario, the optimal strategy would again probably be "women and children first", because you need far fewer men than women in order to be able to do that, and because children are the very thing you're trying to create, so you'd want to keep the ones you already have.
If it's a "repopulating and rebuilding civilisation" scenario, the optimal strategy would again probably be "women and children first", because you need far fewer men than women in order to be able to do that, and because children are the very thing you're trying to create, so you'd want to keep the ones you already have.
Keep the kids you alrrady have I agree but 20's is still young I mean they are little more than a boy. If they can't live to fulfill their purpose then why have kids in the first place?
The Birkenhead Drill
The protection of women over men has always been the rule throughout history for the reasons stated above, but the origins of "Women and children first" in a given disaster situation such as a sinking ship, is called the Birkenhead Drill and has only been the accepted drill since 1862 when the iron clad paddle steamer, "The Birkenhead" from Southampton foundered on a reef off the coast of South Africa.
Only a few of the lifeboats were available due to lack of proper maintenance and as a result the Captain ordered women and children first into the few boats. It was a death sentence for the men left onboard and they knew it as the sea was alive with Whitetip sharks that immediately took the horses that were put into the water in the hope that they may swim to shore, yet not one man scrambled into a boat to save himself. There is a good detailed account of it told by Neil Oliver told here. https://youtu.be/f8NTHyucXwc (The story starts at 4;30 and is well worth the listen.
The protection of women over men has always been the rule throughout history for the reasons stated above, but the origins of "Women and children first" in a given disaster situation such as a sinking ship, is called the Birkenhead Drill and has only been the accepted drill since 1862 when the iron clad paddle steamer, "The Birkenhead" from Southampton foundered on a reef off the coast of South Africa.
Only a few of the lifeboats were available due to lack of proper maintenance and as a result the Captain ordered women and children first into the few boats. It was a death sentence for the men left onboard and they knew it as the sea was alive with Whitetip sharks that immediately took the horses that were put into the water in the hope that they may swim to shore, yet not one man scrambled into a boat to save himself. There is a good detailed account of it told by Neil Oliver told here. https://youtu.be/f8NTHyucXwc (The story starts at 4;30 and is well worth the listen.
(edited 1 year ago)
Old school chivalry, nothing more. In this day and age you can happily elbow the nearest woman in the face to get to the lifeboat (equality etc.). Personally, i was always a first come first served kind of person anyway. I see zero reason to save someone just because of their genitals or ability to carry future children, grossly sexist.
Children going first is fairly obvious though.
Children going first is fairly obvious though.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
