I scare myself in my feeling of contempt for some people in society, I'm sure it shows in my attitude, and I don't even realize it. for example. I thought to myself, 'if there were a fire in my place what would be the few items i'd choose to try to save?' (being that I live alone) my digital camera, laptop and legal documents (SS card, birth cert, etc). I guess that gives you an indication of what you find in life to be important. That's not such a hard choice, really. But hypothetically lets say you had your most prized (material) possession in room A and an unknown stranger in room B, and you only have time to rescue one of them. I hate to say it, but I'd really have to think a long time about it. I would probably rescue the stranger, but only because it would make me look bad if I didn't (not to mention good samaritan laws). yeah that's me being brutally honest with myself. I'm betting there are alot of people thinking, "well thats not me, people are waaaay more important than material possessions". Well, probably a more realistic senario would be a car broken down on the freeway, how many people stop on a regular bases to help them out? I'm sure everyone has passed them on the road. Lets say its an old lady in her late 70's (actually should it even matter their gender and age). Most who don't stop, probably justify their actions by thinking "well, i'm sure they have a cellphone and AAA" or "I'm sure a state trooper will be along here soon anyways" or "They might me a roadside serial killer that i've heard about; it would be foolish to risk my life", but aren't you putting you life at risk in the 'room A or B' senerio too? Back in sept 2001, when the WTC was struck, I was almost totally glued to my TV for the next few day to see how the events were going to play out. My memory is fuzzy but I think I remember seeing an AP picture of some guy that was playing golf as the towers burned in the distance background a few miles away. Looking back i'm not sure if I feel that's such a bad thing. (Even though I'm a somewhat agnostic person), it reminds me of the prayer: God, grant me the serenity, To accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Most people would probably be horrified, saying that I have no compassion to think that way. But isn't a paradox, that people are more concerned with people who have no chance of escaping vs helping someone brokedown on the freeway, or even some thing as mundame as volunteering at a soup kitchen, donating blood, giving money to a poor person living on the streets. Is that a defeatist additude? Where does one draw the line? Is altruism dead?46 responses total.
Altruism is a fiction. When we do things for others or for society at large, it is because doing so satisfies a need or a drive within us. Even when we risk our lives or our safety, on impulse, to protect others, it is largely because we are instinctively wired that way. That this is true in no way negates the social value of doing these things, though. Your hypothetical scenario is instructive. What it teaches is that you should back up your important data in such a way that it is moderately protected, and insure your computer, so that you can indulge the impulse to save a person rather than a computer without feeling conflicted about it. The person playing golf while the towers burned did exactly what your little prayer asks. He accepted what he could not change, at least in the short term. Many reactions to 9-11 were that "I" or "We" had been attacked, not that "the people in the towers" had been attacked. People imagined themselves the victim of that attack, even if we were really only victimized by the aftermath. This was a vast and dramatic image of the sort that produces an emotional reaction which is fairly consistent across different people, but what we do in response to our emotions is what distinguishes us from one another. So, no, there is no paradox there. The people who are wired to give will give, those who are wired to take will take (and by wired I refer to the result of both nature and nurture) and those who are wired to feel guilty will feel guilty.
I cannot imagine saving a computer rather than a person. We once rescued a biker on the highway. She zoomed past three of us on her skinny tire bike, trying to do 100 miles in one day. A medical student. We were carrying tent and sleeping bags, etc. Ten minutes later we caught up and changed her flat tire as she was not burdening herself with tools. We have been pulled out of a snowbank in Colorado by a passing car driven by people originally from Ypsilanti, and out of mud in Ypsilanti by a very polite young black man who probably has to deal with people being afraid of him. And given a ride when we were biking in Ann Arbor and it started raining hard. (It helped to have a 2 year old along). We have also picked up interesting hitchhikers. One of them was surprised to find out I spoke his language (Czech) and decided to continue with us for three days. If I were to rescue possessions it would be photographs.
hmm...contempt is much to strong a word, I meant ambivalence which isn't a whole lot better. re#1 I've read Ayn rands work....I'd like to think we do things out of compassion for others, but I think you're are right in regards to your statement in your first paragraph. re#2 I do help people out, just not as much as I think I could, which I think is the same for alot of people. I admire people who are more selfless than myself. I could give to other people and help them out in time of need, that's not the problem, it's the feeling inside that doesn't always align itself to my actions. I'm not sure if I can really explain it.
I'm not as cynical as Rand. I still think it is ok to aspire to altruism, even if it is a harmless self-delusion.
The last paragraph of #3: "That which I would, I do not; that which I would not, that I do" (Paul, in his letter to the Romans). I've stopped to help a car stopped on the side of the road, and I've changed lanes to give the stopped vehicle more room. Any more, I make my decision to stop based on the entire situation at the time. I'm not inclined to try to go from seventy to zero in heavy traffic.
Everything we do is because it satisfies a need inside us. The only alternative you have to agreeing with that statement is to state we do things at random, without any contributing cause. "Altruism" doesn't mean you don't feel good or get some other benefit; it means you are trying to help others rather than yourself. It's okay to feel good or be happy when you do things for others, and still call it "altruism". You'd be a very strange person -- you'd have to be insane -- if you really didn't derive any benefit at all from doing things for others. It seems kind of pointless, to me, to define words to mean something that can't ever exist or happen. The Ayn Rand definition of altruism is as useless in communicating as is talking of "dry water" or "descending upward" or "happy despair". It seems to me she strained the word out of shape and then pointed out it didn't mean anything any more. I don't agree with her on that. If I hand a bum on the street $20, it's altruism. He's not going to do anything for me. If it makes me happy, that doesn't invalidate that I was nice to the person.
In the UK there are adverts for charity saying "please give just 2 pounds a month to save X", where X varies according to whether the charity is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, charities for Africa, etc. Giving just two pounds a month (about $2.70) is all well and good, but how can one family afford to give "just two pounds a month" to all these charities? How do you choose between them?
More and more they are finding that a lack of empathy is hard wired brain chemistry. Experts found the differences most striking when looking at the brains of serial killers. But it can also be picked up in children with specific disorders, like mild autism. A child can be taught to initiate appropriate social responses. Don't know if they've had much success with adults.
"Initiate" or "imitate"?
It's not lack of empathy. It's lack of enough resources to feed oneself and all the charities that are asking for money.
Whether I stop to help depends on where I am. In this part of Michigan, help is rarely more than a short walk away, and stopping is dangerous due to heavy traffic and the risk of crime. I generally don't stop to help if I see someone broken down. If I'm out in the boonies somewhere, though, I will stop to help.
If it were just me, and the stalled car had three very big men, I wouldn't stop to help. True, I'm making an assumption which could be very wrong, but it's called self preservation. As for eprom's example, I don't know what I'd save. I'd like to say the stranger in the next room, but I know it really depends on what my "prized" possessions are at that time. For eg, I'd save my cat before a total stranger. Sad, but true.
I feel negatively toward someone stopping to help if my car is disabled. But then, I am prepared with a cell phone, two-way radio, and an AAA membership, which can call professional help in most places. I'd prefer for a police car to stop to offer assistance. Just another driver stopping might offer some help, but it could also be trouble, such as incompetent attempts to "fix" something.
My, you are the appreciative one.
Rane's response is natural for someone who has lived mostly in urban areas. A fair bit of my driving has been in places where cell phones don't work and AAA is likely to take hours to arrive, if they don't just tell you to bug off.
"helping" behavior has been studied a lot by psychologists and sociologists. A lot of interesting things about helping. For instance, if there are a lot of people around, there is diffused responsibility and thus the liklihood that help will be forthcoming is reduced. Think about it. Imagine your scenario where you can save your possessions or you can save a person but there are also a dozen other people around who also can save the person. Wouldnt that make you even more likely to dive to save your stuff? It is the same with the road scenario. If it is a busy highway, there is diffused responsibility. I have passed lots of people in urban areas. But, if I was driving out west in the desert and there was nothing around for miles, I probably would stop.
Did it "fizz" with the acid? If it did, then it was marble or even just limestone. There are also argillaceous and arenaceous limestones/marbles that would disintegrate in acid.
I think this is the wrong item Rane, but I don't remember if it fizzed with the acid.
Altruism must be dead...... 8^}
This response has been erased.
until when?
I have notied people are more inclined to help at accidents - or at least check things out - compared to situations that might end them up in hazardous situations. That's why people don't interfere in fights.
I was recently recertified in both PALS and ACLS (pediatric and adult life support). This happens every two years and each and every time there are significant changes to the algorithms and interventions. But this year there was a biggie. We are no longer expected to provide mouth to mouth resuscitation on anyone. If a rescue breathing mask isn't available then you go directly to chest compressions only. Now, there are two reasons for this, one being they've decided that pushing CO2 laden air into someone's lungs wasn't all that helpful compared to continuing chest compressions. But mostly it was asking a whole lot of a volunteer to exchange body fluids with a stranger. I found this a fascinating snapshot of changing times.
This response has been erased.
They actually collected case studies of CPR and effects and found that reliably better results were obtained when chest compressions were applied continuously (with appropriate checking to determine if the patient had resumed breathing and heart function) than when chest compressions were mixed with mouth-to-mouth.
Reliably better is misleading here as very few cardiac arrest victims survived at all without defibrillation. But they are hoping that if the pressure is off to do mouth to mouth on a stranger that more folks will be inclined to stop and help and use AEDs. That does save lives.
What are AEDs?
auto-electro-defibrillators? Something like that. It is a very easy to use (requiring little expertise) and quite effective mini version of the device with the paddles that you always see people shouting "clear!" in preparation for the use of on tv.
It's an automated external defibrillator. An AED is a little smaller than a shoebox and usually hangs on the wall in public locations. Airport terminals have 'em, high school locker rooms have 'em, Walmart has 'em. You need no training to use them as once you turn it on with a well marked green "ON" button, a recorded voice will tell you exactly what to do next. They save lives like CPR without defibrillation never did.
(Did you mean that Walmart offers them for sale?)
no, they hang them in the store. Just like they do fire extinguishers.
How much do they cost? It'd be great if they eventually got cheap enough that they could be installed as ubiquitously as fire extinguishers.
Are their any hazards with their use, say on a person that has fainted but some "good Samaritan" thinks has had a heart attack?
That's the 'automatic' part: they trigger themselves, based on the information they obtain from their leads. (Machinery always seems to find a way to fail, of course.) Last I heard, they were still around $1,000 each. I'm hoping they'll get cheaper; I'd like to put one in each vehicle.
First, s/their/there in #33.... 8^{
Re #34: my question concerns what can happen if they are given *bad*
information. The user might not interpret the victim's condition
correctly. Or are you saying the machine does the diagnosing itself? I
got the impression that it gave instructions and the user had to choose
the options.
I have a freind who is afraid of just that, since his heart is backward or something like that.
It seems like it should be possible for the electrodes to return a heartbeat or fibrillation signal before the charge is released. Would also be a ogod check that the electrodes are properly placed.
Ah, here we go: http://www.hometownconnections.com/utility/philips.html "For added safety, the HeartStart patient analysis system will only deliver a shock if one is needed."
It says "Plus the foolproof design of the FR2+ makes it virtually impossible to defibrillate someone who is not SCA." Note that "virtually" escape word. But I'd probably take the chance.
They run about $4,000 each and individual can purchase them for home use with a prescription from a doctor. They won't shock unless a shock is needed. There is an interesting story here about something the Ypsilanti school system did regading AEDs. But I'm at work right now. I'll enter it later, from home.
I could easily see a bully using one of those, if not for the autodetection safety feature.
An AED works like this. You turn it on. It tells you to put the pads (two large sticky leads) on the patient. There is a picture on each lead showing you placement. The AED then tells you it's analyzing and not to touch the patient. It will come back with "shock not needed" if pulse supporting activity is found. If it finds fibrillation it will say "shock indicated", "stand clear", "shock". At the point the person taking charge should visually check that nobody is touching the victim then push the SHOCK button. That's it. No decisions need to be made. The machine does all the evaluating. And it's very precise in terms of recognizing fibrillation. One of the only mistakes that can be made is if people can't keep their hands off the patient during the analyzing phase. That little bit of activity will be picked up and the AED won't recognize the fibrillation. You can't force it to shock someone with a heart rate. You can't fake it into shocking. Fibrillation is a very specific, low-voltage, fine phase rhythm. For those who collapse due to cardiac arrest their chances of leaving the hospital able to care for themselves, brain function intact, is close to zero if fibrillation continues more than 10 minutes. Despite CPR. Wow. Forget thumping on someone's chest. Run for the AED. I've been certified in this stuff for almost 30 years now, but the last couple have seen huge changes in how to save lives. And it's AEDs. So here's what happened with Ypsi schools. The PTO got together the money to buy one for these for the school. Lots of school have them now. I think it was used just last year to save a student who collapsed on the field in Saline. He had been hit in the chest with a line drive during baseball practice. Not an unusual response to such an injury. Anyhow, the Ypsi school board, hearing of the gift got it into their heads that this sounded like a technology ripe for abuse and *refused to accept the AED*. They couldn't have done any research into how they operate, or of the lives they've saved. They just knew it sounded like something they didn't want. I can just imagine how many zeros will be on the check they'll be writing when the first kid who needs this dies for lack of having it available. This is a great example of how dangerous ignorance can be. Wow, sorry about the length of that one.
Wow. Don't apologize for the length, Mary. I had no idea these AEDs were so useful or so carefully designed. The Cub Scout camp where my son and I went last summer has one. I thought it was an extraneous expense, unlikely to be used or to do any good. I'll have to look into whether the Clinton schools have them.
http://www.aedsuperstore.com/ offers AEDs starting at $1245, but that's still more than I can spend right now.
Re #42: I actually knew a guy in college who was doing research into designing better chest protectors for kids who play baseball. I had no idea that it was so easy for a blow to the chest to kill someone, until I talked to him.
whore.
You have several choices: