Nathan
Nathan
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3675
Joined: Sep 2, 2016
January 19th, 2017 at 10:43:50 PM permalink
So, I saw this interesting question somewhere.....

"There are 3 people who are about to die in a disaster. You can only choose 1 person to save. One is a 90 year old great grandmother with lots of great grandchildren, grandchildren, and children who love her. One is a 17 year old who is a good guy, but dropped out of school. The third is a 5 month baby." Who do you choose to live?"

My thought was "I would save the baby as the baby hasn't really lived yet and deserves a chance to grow up." A poster posted ,"I would save the 17 year old as the baby is naive and has no concept of life, wheras the 17 year old who is practically an adult knows the value of life." Someone else said,"I'd raise hell if someone let my 17 year old child die!" Everyone agreed that the 90 year old should be the one to not be saved as at 90, she has already lived a full life and her many family members would be sad at her death but would know that dying at 90 is a very long life.


It really is an interesting question.
In both The Hunger Games and in gambling, may the odds be ever in your favor. :D "Man Babes" #AxelFabulous "Olive oil is processed but it only has one ingredient, olive oil."-Even Bob, March 27/28th. :D The 2 year war is over! Woo-hoo! :D I sometimes speak in metaphors. ;) Remember this. ;) Crack the code. :D 8.9.13.25.14.1.13.5.9.19.14.1.20.8.1.14! :D "For about the 4096th time, let me offer a radical idea to those of you who don't like Nathan -- block her and don't visit Nathan's Corner. What is so complicated about it?" Wizard, August 21st. :D
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
January 19th, 2017 at 10:56:24 PM permalink
The 17 year old. Grandma won't last long and the baby isn't proven good, bad, or even healthy yet. For all we know it's baby Hitler or the baby won't even live to 17 anyways.
I am a robot.
Nathan
Nathan
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3675
Joined: Sep 2, 2016
January 19th, 2017 at 10:57:37 PM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle

The 17 year old. Grandma won't last long and the baby isn't proven good, bad, or even healthy yet. For all we know it's baby Hitler or the baby won't even live to 17 anyways.



"Baby Hitler! " LOL.
In both The Hunger Games and in gambling, may the odds be ever in your favor. :D "Man Babes" #AxelFabulous "Olive oil is processed but it only has one ingredient, olive oil."-Even Bob, March 27/28th. :D The 2 year war is over! Woo-hoo! :D I sometimes speak in metaphors. ;) Remember this. ;) Crack the code. :D 8.9.13.25.14.1.13.5.9.19.14.1.20.8.1.14! :D "For about the 4096th time, let me offer a radical idea to those of you who don't like Nathan -- block her and don't visit Nathan's Corner. What is so complicated about it?" Wizard, August 21st. :D
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
Thanked by
Boz
January 19th, 2017 at 11:33:33 PM permalink
Not interesting at all.
The 90 year old already has lots of heirs and her will already made out, she is too old and crotchety to be financially generous to you anyway, so you strike out there.

The 17 year old is a male... big difference if it were a 17 year old female who's sleep with you for a couple of weeks in return.

The baby might turn out to be female but it is too long to wait for a reward.

So, I'd just leave them all to their fate and save myself.
MrV
MrV
  • Threads: 364
  • Posts: 8158
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
Thanked by
bobbartopBoz
January 20th, 2017 at 12:31:06 AM permalink
To hell with all of them.

I'd save the cat.
"What, me worry?"
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
January 20th, 2017 at 12:41:05 AM permalink
Quote: MrV

To hell with all of them.

I'd save the cat.

Good demonstration of why you shouldn't save the baby. I'd probably do that in real life saving the baby though because it's so helpless, you'd probably not really believe the others didn't have a chance.
I am a robot.
supergrass
supergrass
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 58
Joined: Apr 6, 2014
January 20th, 2017 at 1:02:16 AM permalink
I will call the police and ask for their opinion. Otherwise I am at risk being sued for some thing.
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 20th, 2017 at 5:05:38 AM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

The baby might turn out to be female...

LOL
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
charlestfuller
charlestfuller
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 43
Joined: Nov 18, 2016
January 20th, 2017 at 5:34:52 AM permalink
Gotta save the baby. Probably feel ashamed afterwards if you chose to save one of the other two.
Romes
Romes
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 5600
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
January 20th, 2017 at 7:00:03 AM permalink
The question is based around logic, not feelings. It's the exact same as saying, could you kill one child to save 1,000? The idea is that you put feelings aside and do what's right for the greater good.

The logical choice is clearly the 17 year old. Who knows, maybe this near death experience is what propels him to finish school, get higher education and make a change in the world. The 90 year old as everyone else has said has lived a full life. There's not much that is potential to change with the 90 year old. There's also nothing that would change with the baby. The baby wouldn't know what's happening and won't remember what has happened and thus will take no wisdom away from the experience... but the 17 year old... he will undoubtedly take away a life changing effect from the experience and has the ability to be changed by the experience, for the better.

My favorite "what would you do" of these is the train problem, but then the train problem modified.

#1. A train is barreling out of control down the track and is going to kill 3 workers just down the tack. You're on a bridge and can hit a switch to make it change paths, but if you do it will kill one worker on the other side. Do you do nothing and allow the train to kill the 3 workers, or do you hit the switch to save the 3 workers but kill the other worker?

(Now my favorite)
#2. Exact same scenario, EXCEPT, the single person on the other track is your best friend. Do you do nothing and let the train kill the 3 workers, or do you change the track and kill your best friend to save the 3 workers?

Even though the same "logic" applies to both scenarios, people almost always have 2 different answers to these questions...
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
DRich
DRich
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 11596
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
January 20th, 2017 at 7:42:45 AM permalink
The baby, it is much lighter in case you have to carry it to safety.

I think a much more interesting question is how much would you personally be willing to pay to save a random persons life?

Let's assume you will never know who the person is, it may be a family member but more likely a just one of the 7 billion other people on earth.

Would you pay $1 to save that random person? I think most of us would.
Would you pay $5 to save that random person? .
Would you pay $25 to save that random person?
Would you pay $100 to save that random person?
What is your limit?
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
ncfatcat
ncfatcat
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 363
Joined: Jun 25, 2011
January 20th, 2017 at 7:52:27 AM permalink
Well with the growing opinion in the USA that Government should be run as a business, how long will it be until the elderly and disabled are seen as obsolete non-functional parts of society and not deserving of government healthcare?
Gambling is a metaphor for life. Hang around long enough and it's all gone.
Gandler
Gandler
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1795
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
Thanked by
onenickelmiracle
January 20th, 2017 at 10:28:35 AM permalink
Generally the youngest one first. I would hope that a 17 year old would insist on taking the baby above herself anyway. The 90 year old certainly would.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
Thanked by
onenickelmiracle
January 20th, 2017 at 10:55:24 AM permalink
Quote: ncfatcat

Well with the growing opinion in the USA that Government should be run as a business, how long will it be until the elderly and disabled are seen as obsolete non-functional parts of society and not deserving of government healthcare?

That is how they are already viewed, its just that those views can not be expressed in a politically correct manner.
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 16282
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 20th, 2017 at 12:14:05 PM permalink
Easy. Perry.
The 90year old. She's the only one who can reward you.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 16282
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 20th, 2017 at 12:18:50 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

Easy. peezy.
The 90year old. She's the only one who can reward you.

The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
Romes
Romes
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 5600
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
January 20th, 2017 at 1:11:29 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Generally the youngest one first. I would hope that a 17 year old would insist on taking the baby above herself anyway. The 90 year old certainly would.

Interesting you took "the 17 year old" to be a "her." I, for no good reason, took it generically to be a "him." Actually, I re-read the op and he said he's generally a "good guy."

The 17 year old is too young to make a decision like that... This is why they can't even vote, drink, nor die for our country. It would be foolish to let the 17 year old decide or weigh in on this very important decision. Like I said prior, this is a log test, not a feelings test. The 17 year old is beyond the logical choice, for the reasons I listed prior.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 20th, 2017 at 1:50:49 PM permalink
Quote: DRich

The baby, it is much lighter in case you have to carry it to safety.

I think a much more interesting question is how much would you personally be willing to pay to save a random persons life?

Let's assume you will never know who the person is, it may be a family member but more likely a just one of the 7 billion other people on earth.

Would you pay $1 to save that random person? I think most of us would.
Would you pay $5 to save that random person? .
Would you pay $25 to save that random person?
Would you pay $100 to save that random person?
What is your limit?



I have one too.

Three toddlers. You have to strangle them with your own hands in front of their parents. This is your only choice or do nothing. The world is absolutely guaranteed to be much better if you do. The babies are such kids as Adolf Hitler and the like. You can never explain the situation to anyone.

You only have 10 seconds to decide after reading the above.

Is that tough enough? Make your decision fast!
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
January 20th, 2017 at 4:18:52 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I have one too.

Three toddlers. You have to strangle them with your own hands in front of their parents. This is your only choice or do nothing. The world is absolutely guaranteed to be much better if you do. The babies are such kids as Adolf Hitler and the like. You can never explain the situation to anyone.

You only have 10 seconds to decide after reading the above.

Is that tough enough? Make your decision fast!

No way. In such a case, you have to figure you're being deceived and lied to in the first place.
I am a robot.
charlestfuller
charlestfuller
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 43
Joined: Nov 18, 2016
January 20th, 2017 at 5:27:47 PM permalink
Romes,

I dont think there is enough information in this scenario to make it a logical test. Assuming the 17 year old dropout will have some life-altering epiphany is a big assumption. We all know people that don't change for the better even after events that should cause them to.

Regarding the other scenario with the train, #1 save the 3 workers over 1. #2, not sure if I want to contemplate that haha....in a split second decision I would probably save my friend.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 20th, 2017 at 6:19:24 PM permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracle

No way. In such a case, you have to figure you're being deceived and lied to in the first place.



Well, of course in the real world. But I didn't give you the option to take a real world solution.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 20th, 2017 at 7:07:25 PM permalink
Okay here is one which I think has an answer. Can you guess it?

You run into a burning building, and there are two adult twins who have been chained with a very heavy chain to a girder. They each have thick metal collars on their necks. There is no way you can cut through the metal with an axe which is the only thing you have. Each one of them is begging you to be the one who will die so the other twin can live. So you have to cut off one of their heads to free the other in time. You don't have time to do anything else.

What's the best answer?

This is what I believe is the best answer. Got a better one?

lay the axe down between them where they both can reach it
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 164
  • Posts: 22272
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
Thanked by
onenickelmiracle
January 20th, 2017 at 11:08:32 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Okay here is one which I think has an answer. Can you guess it?

You run into a burning building, and there are two adult twins who have been chained with a very heavy chain to a girder. They each have thick metal collars on their necks. There is no way you can cut through the metal with an axe which is the only thing you have. Each one of them is begging you to be the one who will die so the other twin can live. So you have to cut off one of their heads to free the other in time. You don't have time to do anything else.

What's the best answer?

This is what I believe is the best answer. Got a better one?

lay the axe down between them where they both can reach it

It would depend if you were left or right handed and who was closest to you.
---------------------------------------
Always save your friend, that's obvious to me.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
January 21st, 2017 at 8:37:22 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Well, of course in the real world. But I didn't give you the option to take a real world solution.

I know, but that's what all the people that snap wind up thinking. They think if they do something heinous, it's for good. In my heart I could never believe such a scenario. If I failed the logic test, I passed the sanity and wisdom test.
I am a robot.
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
January 21st, 2017 at 9:35:36 AM permalink
"Pick a number between 1 and 100..."
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
January 21st, 2017 at 9:58:04 AM permalink
Quote: RS

"Pick a number between 1 and 100..."

Either 33 or 42. 42.
I am a robot.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
January 21st, 2017 at 5:41:20 PM permalink
NEVER save anyone who can't prove they are not a puzzlemaster.
OzzyOsbourne
OzzyOsbourne
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 184
Joined: Jul 10, 2012
January 21st, 2017 at 6:30:14 PM permalink
Really surprised anyone picked the 17 year old who dropped out of school over a baby. That means this kid is probably in the bottom 20th percentile as far as aptitude goes. Since the baby is still basically a random sample and the kid isn't, I gotta go with the odds and pick the baby. If it was even an average 17 year old I would probably pick him, but it's close in my mind. If it was 17 year old honor student I would pick the 17 year old.
casino's money disappears the execs worry when the wizard is near He turns tears into joy Everyone's happy when the wizard walks by
Nathan
Nathan
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3675
Joined: Sep 2, 2016
January 22nd, 2017 at 3:54:23 AM permalink
Quote: OzzyOsbourne

Really surprised anyone picked the 17 year old who dropped out of school over a baby. That means this kid is probably in the bottom 20th percentile as far as aptitude goes. Since the baby is still basically a random sample and the kid isn't, I gotta go with the odds and pick the baby. If it was even an average 17 year old I would probably pick him, but it's close in my mind. If it was 17 year old honor student I would pick the 17 year old.



I'm glad you picked up on the implication that the 17 year old guy is a failure. Though he is a good guy he is a drop out failure...
In both The Hunger Games and in gambling, may the odds be ever in your favor. :D "Man Babes" #AxelFabulous "Olive oil is processed but it only has one ingredient, olive oil."-Even Bob, March 27/28th. :D The 2 year war is over! Woo-hoo! :D I sometimes speak in metaphors. ;) Remember this. ;) Crack the code. :D 8.9.13.25.14.1.13.5.9.19.14.1.20.8.1.14! :D "For about the 4096th time, let me offer a radical idea to those of you who don't like Nathan -- block her and don't visit Nathan's Corner. What is so complicated about it?" Wizard, August 21st. :D
zippyboy
zippyboy
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 1124
Joined: Jan 19, 2011
January 22nd, 2017 at 10:55:29 AM permalink
Quote: DRich

Let's assume you will never know who the person is, it may be a family member but more likely a just one of the 7 billion other people on earth.

Would you pay $1 to save that random person? I think most of us would.
Would you pay $5 to save that random person?

Would you pay $25 to save that random person?
Would you pay $100 to save that random person?
What is your limit?


This question is already given to us daily in TV commercials. "Send your check for $19.99 to save this starving family in Africa." or the Sarah McLachlan "save this poor dog" late-night ads. Most of will NOT pay any money to save some random person, or animal.
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
houyi
houyi
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 38
Joined: Jun 26, 2016
January 22nd, 2017 at 9:26:32 PM permalink
Quote: Romes

The question is based around logic, not feelings. It's the exact same as saying, could you kill one child to save 1,000? The idea is that you put feelings aside and do what's right for the greater good.

The logical choice is clearly the 17 year old. Who knows, maybe this near death experience is what propels him to finish school, get higher education and make a change in the world. The 90 year old as everyone else has said has lived a full life. There's not much that is potential to change with the 90 year old. There's also nothing that would change with the baby. The baby wouldn't know what's happening and won't remember what has happened and thus will take no wisdom away from the experience... but the 17 year old... he will undoubtedly take away a life changing effect from the experience and has the ability to be changed by the experience, for the better.



I'm generally inclined to agree with you that given all the information presented, the 17 year old is the "logical" choice. However, I think you go to far in your listed assumptions. Part of your reasoning that the 17 year old is the logical choice is that the near-death experience will have the ability to change his outlook on life for the better. Perhaps, has you say, the event will be the trigger that turns his life around and gets him back to school.

This, however, is completely unknowable. All we know about the 17 year old is that he is a "good guy" (what that means is open to interpretation but I think the implication is morally good) and he dropped out of school. Maybe the near-death experience leaves him with a paralyzing fear for the rest of his life and he never achieves anything--this is just as plausible as saying that the near-death experience gives him added drive and ambition. We have no information on how he deals with crises or his general mental state. We cannot assume, given the information we have, that there is an reason to believe that the near death experience will be a positive driving force on the 17 year old (besides the fact, of course, that he will be dead if we don't save him). The baby, on the other hand, will never remember the experience happened to him/her and so will be a "clean slate."

The reason the baby cannot be the "logical" choice given the information given, though, is that we have no information about whether he/she has any guardians that will take care of him/her after we save him/her. For all we know, the baby was orphaned by the disaster and any adoption infrastructure in the region was destroyed. We would be saving the baby only for he/she to die almost immediately afterwards (this requires the minor assumption that we cannot physically take care of the baby after we save it, but the facts as given simply says we can save one person from the disaster, not that we can take care of the person afterwards, or give the 17 year old a kick in the ass to get back to school ;-)).

The old woman is not logical simply because she will be dead soon in any case. We might imagine that, given the facts we have, her loss would be hurtful to her family, but for much the same reasons as the above, we cannot read too much into it. Also, we have to imagine that the family is, if not expecting her death, at least would not be shocked to see her dead via natural causes at any time.

The 17 year old is therefore the logical answer. Given the information we have, there is no reason to assume he will not be able to fend for himself after we give him this chance at life. Maybe the experience will affect him positively, maybe negatively, maybe it actually won't affect anything. But we have no reason to believe that, in a vacuum, he will be unable to live a full life after we save him, which is more than we can say for the other two.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
January 22nd, 2017 at 9:44:28 PM permalink
Sorry pal, but that is like this burning building stuff. The only sensible answer is to go get a stick and a box of marshmallows and come back in twenty minutes.
houyi
houyi
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 38
Joined: Jun 26, 2016
January 22nd, 2017 at 10:22:49 PM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

Sorry pal, but that is like this burning building stuff. The only sensible answer is to go get a stick and a box of marshmallows and come back in twenty minutes.



If we're going that route, the logical answer requires chocolate and graham crackers as well. Smores>>>roasted marshmallows
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 164
  • Posts: 22272
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
January 22nd, 2017 at 11:52:57 PM permalink
If you want more props afte the fact you should always save the baby.

I honestly think you should save the kid that's 17.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2426
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
January 23rd, 2017 at 5:11:53 AM permalink
Quote: Romes

The 17 year old is too young to make a decision like that... This is why they can't even vote, drink, nor die for our country.



You must not know any 17-year-olds. They do drink, get tattoos, and enlist in the military.
Romes
Romes
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 5600
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
January 23rd, 2017 at 7:32:49 AM permalink
Quote: houyi

I'm generally inclined to agree with you that given all the information presented, the 17 year old is the "logical" choice. However, I think you go to far in your listed assumptions. Part of your reasoning that the 17 year old is the logical choice is that the near-death experience will have the ability to change his outlook on life for the better. Perhaps, has you say, the event will be the trigger that turns his life around and gets him back to school.

This, however, is completely unknowable...

I suppose maybe I worded my response a bit funky, but I was just simply showing that the 17 year old WILL be affected by the situation. Yes, it could be a good outcome, or it could be a bad one, but the 17 year old would be affected... In "general" I'd think saving someone's life (who is said to be a good person) would have a positive outcome on their life.

I worded it poorly because it's not my direct assumption he'll go back to school because of this, just that it's a good possibility (and yes I also understand there could be negative outcomes to this as well). I suppose logic would dictate while both are possible, saving someone who's a "good person" would tend to have a better affect than worse in general, or at least that's my assumption.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 2549
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
January 24th, 2017 at 3:47:09 PM permalink
It's a bit strong to say that it's a logical question. Any logic is going to go back to subjective preferences and assumptions.

You can argue a 17 year old has experienced many of the best years of life, provided they had a decent upbringing. Better than nothing, which is what the baby has had. I think most of us would agree, we'd rather have died at 17 than in infancy.

You can argue that the 17 year old, in spite of being a drop out, is ripe from the perspective of society as a whole. In other words, many resources were poured into bringing that 17 year old to the brink of maturity, and now they are almost prepared to make the way for the following generation. It's relatively easy to replace the baby.

Family and friends probably also have deeper connections to the 17 year old.

You could go either way. I think the harsher your existence is, the more likely you'd be to pick the 17 year old. Probably a no-brainer if you were a viking or something, since it was much harder to get someone to age 17.

Most interesting question to me would be, have you done anything deeply wrong if you save the 90 year old?
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
January 24th, 2017 at 4:15:03 PM permalink
What would Chuck Norris do? I heard Chuck Norris once fought Superman. The loser had to wear his underwear over his pants

I'd save the baby.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
January 24th, 2017 at 6:24:24 PM permalink
I can definitely rule out the grandmother. It is tougher between the other two but I would go with the 17-year-old. Why? Even though he dropped out of school, the world needs ditch diggers too. Society has already invested a lot of money in him to get him to the point to enter the work force.

Why not the baby? I'll grant the baby has more years to live and saving the baby would be saving more years lived. However, I also factor into my decision the value to society of the decision. It will take many years for that baby to start contributing something back.

A lot of it comes down to the character of the 17-year-old. If he was mooching off society, either by welfare or crime, I'd save the baby.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
January 24th, 2017 at 11:58:48 PM permalink
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J4JzxG0cnpg

Dont you feel bad laughing? Grandma wouldn't need you if you hooked her up for $10 a month.
I am a robot.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 164
  • Posts: 22272
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
January 25th, 2017 at 2:17:31 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I can definitely rule out the grandmother. It is tougher between the other two but I would go with the 17-year-old. Why? Even though he dropped out of school, the world needs ditch diggers too.

That's kinda ill-mannered.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
January 25th, 2017 at 5:23:31 AM permalink
Save the 17 year old.

All things being equal -- people expect old people to die, unfortunately. Also, I'd expect it'd be easier (or less harsh?) for parents to deal with their baby dying than their 17 year old. The baby's immediate family would be sad about the death of the baby.....but the baby has no friends, so no one else would grieve the death of the baby. The family's friends would grieve for the family, but not so much the baby. Aunts and uncles may not even grieve the loss of the baby so badly, but more so feel for the baby's parents.


IE: If your dog dies, your friends probably don't care about the dog dying, but they care about you and you being sad. But, they don't really care about the dog because they never got an emotional attachment to the dog. The only one grieving the loss of your dog are those who have an emotional attachment to him.



Brought up earlier in this thread, which I kinda thought about several days ago before even looking at this thread.....how much money would you pay to save the life of someone whom you love? Say, one of your parents? Let's say the price is your net worth (if net worth is low, then some amount you'd have to pay off over the next 10 years and you'd be stuck financially throughout that time). But the twist is, they only get an extra 24 hours to live. Is it worth $100k or $500k or $5M for them to live just another 24 hours? Would you be greedy/selfish to say, "no im keeping my $100k or $500k or whatever, sorry, but another 24 hours of your life isn't worth it." ? It's a depressing thing to think about.
Romes
Romes
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 5600
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
January 25th, 2017 at 7:52:32 AM permalink
Quote: RS

...Brought up earlier in this thread, which I kinda thought about several days ago before even looking at this thread.....how much money would you pay to save the life of someone whom you love? Say, one of your parents? Let's say the price is your net worth (if net worth is low, then some amount you'd have to pay off over the next 10 years and you'd be stuck financially throughout that time). But the twist is, they only get an extra 24 hours to live. Is it worth $100k or $500k or $5M for them to live just another 24 hours? Would you be greedy/selfish to say, "no im keeping my $100k or $500k or whatever, sorry, but another 24 hours of your life isn't worth it." ? It's a depressing thing to think about.

Situational and depends on the person... Personally if I were the one that was going to die or live another 24 hours I'd tell my friend/etc to just let me die and save the money. I would hope/assume those closest to me would do the same as well. Thus, I would probably respect their wishes and keep my life in tact in the process.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
January 25th, 2017 at 11:09:03 AM permalink
Quote: RS

...Brought up earlier in this thread, which I kinda thought about several days ago before even looking at this thread.....how much money would you pay to save the life of someone whom you love? Say, one of your parents? Let's say the price is your net worth (if net worth is low, then some amount you'd have to pay off over the next 10 years and you'd be stuck financially throughout that time). But the twist is, they only get an extra 24 hours to live. Is it worth $100k or $500k or $5M for them to live just another 24 hours? Would you be greedy/selfish to say, "no im keeping my $100k or $500k or whatever, sorry, but another 24 hours of your life isn't worth it." ? It's a depressing thing to think about.



I saw an ad for Avastin, a drug that extends a terminally ill cancer patient's life on average 3 months, at a cost of $100,000 per year (which I assume is front loaded, so that the initial payments are more expensive than the later ones). Apparently, market research has determined that in the USA, customers are willing to pay between $50,000 - $200,000 per "quality" year to extend their lives.

It makes me angry that these vampires are swooping in to suck the last bit of coin out of these vulnerable people.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 10941
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
January 25th, 2017 at 1:48:29 PM permalink
Quote: Ayecarumba



It makes me angry that these vampires are swooping in to suck the last bit of coin out of these vulnerable people.



It makes me happy that these researchers are working hard to extend the lives of these vulnerable people. But let us not pay them for their work. Let us use our money to make Timofey Mozgov a multimillionaire. (please note sarcasm)
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 25th, 2017 at 2:31:13 PM permalink
Quote: Ayecarumba

I saw an ad for Avastin, a drug that extends a terminally ill cancer patient's life on average 3 months, at a cost of $100,000 per year (which I assume is front loaded, so that the initial payments are more expensive than the later ones).



One day, I'll have to look into the process that makes some drugs so expensive. I know it's often low demand and research add a lot to the price.

Me wonders if they need 1 liter of tears of a rare dung beetle in Botswana or something. (It's hard to make that beetle cry.)
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
January 25th, 2017 at 2:47:15 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

It makes me happy that these researchers are working hard to extend the lives of these vulnerable people. But let us not pay them for their work. Let us use our money to make Timofey Mozgov a multimillionaire. (please note sarcasm)



Hehe... It's bad enough that decision to pay is on a patient with a terminal diagnosis, but the cost is carried by surviving family members who may incur a mortgage sized debt that could take generations to clear, insurance company customers in the form of higher premiums, and finally government subsidized health care programs which means me... Joe Taxpayer. At least I can choose to not buy season tickets or cancel my cable when Mozgov goes on the IRL.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 2549
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
January 25th, 2017 at 11:03:09 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard



A lot of it comes down to the character of the 17-year-old. If he was mooching off society, either by welfare or crime, I'd save the baby.



What if he gambles for a living? BBQ?
Nathan
Nathan
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3675
Joined: Sep 2, 2016
January 26th, 2017 at 12:51:16 AM permalink
Quote: Rigondeaux

What if he gambles for a living? BBQ?



To be fair, 17 year olds cannot gamble for a living, at least not in America. I was shocked that in the U.K 15/16 year olds can legally gamble. There was a news article on a 16 year old U.K. teenager that won the lottery. I think her name is Callie. She won the lottery and went crazy with it, living lavishly with her winnings. She blew her money on drugs and booze(Which is another issue in itself, 16 year old who is a drug and alcohol addict) ended up broke in roughly a year. Who would think that giving a 16 year old KID a million dollars is a good idea? There are grown adults who waste their lottery million(s), so a 16 year old winning millions should be comletely out of the question.
In both The Hunger Games and in gambling, may the odds be ever in your favor. :D "Man Babes" #AxelFabulous "Olive oil is processed but it only has one ingredient, olive oil."-Even Bob, March 27/28th. :D The 2 year war is over! Woo-hoo! :D I sometimes speak in metaphors. ;) Remember this. ;) Crack the code. :D 8.9.13.25.14.1.13.5.9.19.14.1.20.8.1.14! :D "For about the 4096th time, let me offer a radical idea to those of you who don't like Nathan -- block her and don't visit Nathan's Corner. What is so complicated about it?" Wizard, August 21st. :D
  • Jump to: