h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

You're probably right, and I am probably being selfish in my point of view. I am a single parent, and while I think my older son would cope quite well when I die, once he gets past the initial shock, I am not sure about the younger one... (Especially after the death of my brother last year - my brother had been the closest thing he had to a father.) He's theoretically independent, but I sometimes think I've sheltered him a bit, and he seems to be a bit Aspergers-y in some respects (I have a nephew who was diagnosed with just that this time last year.)

Thing is, the death of a parent is a horrible shock - but in my case, (except for the occasional spasms one has even twenty years later)one gets over it, in the Victorian year, in the case of my mother and father. But my brother - that's very much another matter, he was younger than me...

<>

Someone goes postal, walks into a MacDonalds and starts spraying bullets around. Everyone has the same chance of being hit - I do not know many men who can stop a speeding bullet apart from Penn and Teller and I *think* there might have been some trickery involved there.

In fact, the children have a better chance of survival as they could slip beneath the tables.

The question really is about value of live; the worth of live etc. The situation is not important here or the ability of a person to get themselves out of it. That is another interesting discussion.

<< I theorise that it's infintely worse for parents to lose a child.>>

That's the view from most people I know - it is of course a totally understandable reaction. But as Z eluded to there are different aspects that come into it as well from an 'impartial observer' seemingly 'unfeeling' point of view.

I think with parents losing children, not only does it depend on the parent's psychology and expectations, but also on the age of the child.
It is by no means uncommon (even with a decent healthcare system) for parents to lose a child from natural causes at or shortly after birth, or at a very young age.
Thinking even of my college caving mates, two couples out of ~20 lost their first child shortly after birth.
Since my parents only really wanted two children, *I'm* probably only here because my parent's first child died at ~ 1 year old.
I imagine if people have incredible expectations for what their children are going to grow up to be even before they are born, they may take things harder than someone who realises in advance that it may be better not to make too many plans before their child has survived for a while.

I can imagine that when a child has become older and a more obvious individual, their death is generally likely to have a more severe impact on the parents, *and* from a practical biological point of view, the older a child is when they die, the harder it is to replace them with another one.

Speaking as a parent, I can't imagine anything worse than the death, injury or severe illness of one of my children.

I don't think expectations come into it, but I understand what you are saying about seeing more of the individual & potential as a child grows older. Another child will of course never be a replacement.

In situations where it is common to have large families because only a few offspring survive to adulthood, perhaps death is slightly less devastating, or dealt with differently, because expectations are less.

'Speaking as a parent, I can't imagine anything worse than the death, injury or severe illness of one of my children.'

Speaking as a parent, I can.

<>

In the case of my first brother, he died when he was about 3 months old, but the effect on my mother was as if he was three years old. When I had my second son 20 years after my brother's birth and death, my Mum wouldn't send him any gift, or card or anything - and then when he was 6 months old she sent him a gift and a letter in which she explained that she hadn't wanted to give him anything in case he died and I would have that thing to remind me which would hurt me too much. She and my father got rid of everything Gordon had owned, clothes and everything, and we didn't even know his dates of birth and death until my second brother went and found Gordon's grave.

My parents went on to have two more children, which was a great joy to them, and unexpected, as my Mum was 43 when her last child was born, and although that's comparatively common now, it was very rare in the early 1960s. That's why I tend to think that losing a child is much more horrendous than losing a parent - having observed the emotional effect on my parents...

I'm sure the reactions vary hugely from person to person, and depend a lot on beliefs and expectations.

Researching back through our family history, my father found more than one instance from birth records in the 19th century where a child was born and named after a parent or grandparent, and then a few years later, another child was born and given the same name. Possibly that actually helped people forget the first child.
I suppose when the expectation was that many children would die, people were more prepared for it to happen, since it was almost certain that one or more close relatives or friend would have lost a child. I imagine it is harder these days, with all the positive expectations, and less people to talk to when things go wrong.
My mother said that one of the hardest things she found was that other people who knew her just didn't know what to say, or how to deal with it, and would sometimes even avoid her in the street.

That said, I'd guess that losing a young baby does have the difference that if further children are possible and you have more, they will help keep your mind occupied, and in some way prove that life does go on. Losing a rather older child, especially from a small family, can presumably leave a hole that isn't possible to begin filling in for many people.

<

In the 1990s, my sister wrote to me about a former school friend of hers who had lost a child, and said that she didn't know what to say. I think people are often scared to remind the parent, and maybe don't understand that they don't need reminding anyway, that they are thinking about it all the time. I found it odd that my parents didn't want to talk about Gordon, or keep anything of his. I was the only child that remembered him, because my sister was too young at the time, and my other sister and brother never knew him.

Anhaga has a point, I suppose, about parents and children, it is just selfish to look at it the way I do.

I'm not sure any position could be considered fully noble or fully selfish.

Especially given a natural lack of ability to know or guess what other people are feeling, one thing I found very tricky when some close friends lost their first child during a slightly premature birth was knowing what both of them felt, as well as how long they may want not to be bothered with other people.
The natural instant reaction is to feel for the mother, (though she was very much a matter-of-fact, life-goes-on kind of person in general), but than my next reaction would be to wonder how her (generally quieter) partner was taking it, and then go back to thinking about what the mother's feelings might be, and so on.

Fortunately, I was a reasonably regular visitor to my friends, and though emotionally pretty useless, I am at least practically/technically useful, so I was round fairly soon to help the mother on something I could be of use with, and having some other objective besides just talking made it easier for both of us.

Had I gone round there just to visit and seen both of them at the same time, I wouldn't have known what to say, or who to say it to.

Everyone reacts differently, and what you did was right - just being there, which they probably greatly appreciated. That means as much as anything you might have said.

Just for interest's sake:

I put the child/father/widow question to my neighbor (Catholic, mother of three). Same answer as my friend and I: save the father.


Maybe it's a Canadian thing.

>1)if you were able to certainly save a large group of people that included some that you care for, would you accept a suicide mission to destroy the infrastructure that threatened your loved ones?

No, to me lay your life down means to lie down and die. I wouldn't do that. I don't have a problem risking my life for anything that seems worthwhile, but lying down and dying is too much to ask of anyone.

>2)if that certainty was in doubt, would you do the same?

Yes

>3) If your own life depended on it, would you kill?

And I'd sleep well that night.

>4) If that same large group of people was apparently in danger, would you kill people you were convinced were a part of the danger?

Yes. In fact, I'd be fired if I answered 'No' to either 3 or 4.

>If you would lay down your life to save the ones you love, would you also strap on a suicide belt to blow up an invader's tank or drop bombs on a city?

No, I think suicide missions are immoral. I would risk much, but I wouldn't do something that would directly cause my own death.

>If you felt that the people of your country were threatened, would you improvise an explosive device or fire that 50mm cannon?

Sure.

>What I find to be the more troubleing underlying question is not 'would you kill or lay down your life?' but rather 'in what real-life situation would you be convinced that it were necessary? What would constitute a certain mortal threat to your loved ones? What would constitute an appropriate method of laying down ones life? Who would be your legitimate victim in what situation? What if the person you kill were convinced that she were your innocent victim?

Almost everyone thinks of themselves as the 'good guy.' I don't have a problem with that. I'm here to represent my side. I'll to what is necessary to see that my side triumphs. The 'bad guy' from my subjective standpoint is free to think whatever he wants.

I have considered when I'd be required to kill. Earlier this week, I responded to an deputy who was with a guy who pulled a gun on him. The guy then pointed the gun at his own head. As I was responding, I started to prepare myself mentally, if the guy so much as flinches to point the gun at me, the other deputy, or anyone else, I resolved myself to killing him.

>How much "colateral damage" would you find acceptable?'

It depends on the situation. In a military situation, I would try to minimize causalities, but I wouldn't sacrifice the success of my mission. I would accept a lot of collateral damage. Outside of war, you have to consider things more carefully.

>What about if you had to choose between one brother or two nephews?

At the earliest opportunity, I'd kill the person who put me in that situation.

>You can save one of the following three people which one and why would you choose them over:

The four-year-old girl, she's the easiest to carry.

Regarding the military aspect, collateral damage might help the mission, but will usually damage the war effort as a whole I would think.

If you're planning to occupy the territory you're on then that becomes a lot more important.

Of course hearts and minds versus shot well I know I'd be a little trigger happy, but then again I'm not a trained soldier.

Collateral damage is almost always something you want to avoid. By definition, it means killing someone or destroying something that is not your target. It happens, and you can't lose sleep over it, but you want to keep it down for the reasons you stated.

There have been exceptions, but I think that strays a bit from the subject.

A twist to the question occurs to me. When did destruction of non military targets become generally acceptable. I'm thinking of the role of the airplane in WWII as opposed to WWI, namely bombing or more specifically *carpet* bombing.

If you were a bombadier who made a mistake which caused the death of innocents, why aren't you as responsible as someone who shoots civilians on the ground?

Echoes of Prussian artillery bombarding Paris in 1870 (1871?)

I expect its more a matter of what can be done with current technology than what is acceptable.

>>"A twist to the question occurs to me. When did destruction of non military targets become generally acceptable. I'm thinking of the role of the airplane in WWII..."

I think the Royal Air Force (RFC?) in Iraq in the 1920s were doing punishment air raids on the suppsoed home villages of rebels, though I *think* they did drop leaflets to warn people to get out before their houses were destroyed.

Then there were the 'volunteer' Luftwaffe planes in the Spanish Civil War.

By WWII, the general idea was fairly established.
I understand that the USAF (USAAF?) were initially much more reluctant than the RAF to area-bomb German cities, but then I suppose they may have had rather less of a revenge motivation, at least at first.

'When did destruction of non military targets become generally acceptable. I'm thinking of the role of the airplane in WWII'



I'm thinking of long boats off the coast of Britain.

non-miltary is almost impossible to define.

I'm thinking of a Russian School and its murdered children -