The Case of the Speluncean Explorers

[Obi2Kenobi]

http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html

This is a hypothetical case (which I'm told is quite famous!) involving some cavers who are trapped and enter into an agreement in hopes to survive until they can be rescued, only to have to fight the legal system. It's written from the perspective of several judges who observed the case. One of the most striking lines reads as such:

"Ten workmen were killed in the process of removing the rocks from the opening to the cave. Did not the engineers and government officials who directed the rescue effort know that the operations they were undertaking were dangerous and involved a serious risk to the lives of the workmen executing them? If it was proper that these ten lives should be sacrificed to save the lives of five imprisoned explorers, why then are we told it was wrong for these explorers to carry out an arrangement which would save four lives at the cost of one?

Every highway, every tunnel, every building we project involves a risk to human life. Taking these projects in the aggregate, we can calculate with some precision how many deaths the construction of them will require; statisticians can tell you the average cost in human lives of a thousand miles of a four-lane concrete highway. Yet we deliberately and knowingly incur and pay this cost on the assumption that the values obtained for those who survive outweigh the loss."

This is quite possibly the most interesting legal case I've ever read (even if it isn't real).

As I did a bit more research into this topic, I found that someone other than the original author has written the book The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions, and I was wondering if anyone has read it and can give a recommendation as to whether it's worth checking out.

[Drasca]

Reality is more interesting than fiction, as in the case of the Donner family, an ill fated journey in winter towards California from Illinois in the 1800's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party

" When one man gave out and had to be left behind, the others continued, but soon became lost and ran out of food. Caught without shelter in a raging blizzard, four of the party died. The survivors resorted to cannibalism, then continued on their journey; three more died and were also cannibalized.

Californians rallied to save the Donner Party and equipped a total of four rescue parties, or "reliefs." When the First Relief arrived, 14 emigrants had died at the camps and the rest were extremely weak. Most had been surviving on boiled ox hide, but there had been no cannibalism. The First Relief set out with 21 refugees on February 22.

When the Second Relief arrived a week later, they found that some of the 31 emigrants left behind at the camps had begun to eat the dead. The Second Relief took 17 emigrants with them, the Third Relief four. By the time the Fourth Relief had reached the camp, only one man was alive. The last member of the Donner Party arrived at Sutter's Fort on April 29.[2]

Of the original 87 pioneers, 39 died and 48 survived.[3]"

I once saw a PBS special on this piece of history.

http://www.donnerpartydiary.com/

There's more resources, many more, and of what actually happened from diary accounts, as opposed to hypotheticals.

No, men do not have to resort to murder. Man may lose vs Nature instead of fellow man. Besides, in the case of a cave in I'd rather be worried about a little thing like oxygen and water long before food. Humans easily don't need food for 2 weeks. Air and water are much more dire.

[Jester]

I have no objection to decisions, however horrible they may seem when seen from afar, taken logically to preserve the most lives for the most time. Cannibalism seems odious when it is unneccesary, but if it saves lives? Pass the co-pilot. Even outright murder, if it can be demonstrated that it was strictly necessary to save further lives(or, in this case, fairly decided and mutually agreed upon), is acceptable. It is only that we live in times that allow us the luxury of not having to make such decisions that we might think otherwise.

-Jester

[Drasca]

taken logically to preserve the most lives for the most time. Cannibalism seems odious when it is unneccesary, but if it saves lives? Pass the co-pilot. Even outright murder, if it can be demonstrated that it was strictly necessary to save further lives(or, in this case, fairly decided and mutually agreed upon), is acceptable.

Such decisions always result in victums, will result in imbalance of power and never be fair. I am not an advocate of such decisions, because that would treat the subject too lightly, allow violence to be used too freely. I am reminded of both Lord of the Flies,where little boys go crazy in absence of civilization, and Star Trek's OS epsidoe "A Taste of Armageddon", where war is treated too casually and death too common a justification to be lazy rather than work towards peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Ar...8TOS_episode%29

[Jester]

I am not an advocate of such decisions, because that would treat the subject too lightly, allow violence to be used too freely. I am reminded of both Lord of the Flies,where little boys go crazy in absence of civilization, and Star Trek's OS epsidoe "A Taste of Armageddon", where war is treated too casually and death too common a Such decisions always result in victums, will result in imbalance of power and never be fair. justification to be lazy rather than work towards peace.

There will always be "victims", yes. But is a person dead by human hand necessarily a greater problem than a person dead by nature? Remember in the cave, the choice was not between no deaths and one death. That's an easy choice. It was between one death and five deaths, which to me seems to also be an easy choice, just one that requires thinking in terms of the physical situation, and not an idealised plane of a lawful society. One of the commentaries mentioned this, and I agree. There is a degree of softness in law created to govern societies that is simply inapplicable in a strict survival situation, where deaths are certain and choices are clear-cut.

The choice was made randomly, which strikes me as the correct method, unless someone is willing to commit altruistic suicide. The choice of victim reflected the roll of the dice, not pre-existing power relations.

The obvious thing to say in the Trek example is to stop fighting any wars, imaginary or not, unless it can be shown beyond any doubt that the continued "imaginary" war is the minimum loss of life. If that is the case (which would be strange, but hypothetically), then why not accept it? What is so fundamentally wrong with the ToA situation that, if it was a certainty that more lives would be lost by stopping it, you'd stop it anyway? Wouldn't that just be functionally equivalent to killing all those extra people just because you're being squeamish about the ones who are already dying?

It is not right to kill and eat one of the people in the cave because it is fundamentally okay to kill and eat people. It is right to do so because not doing so means killing 5 times as many people.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

Strictly in regards to the Donner Party (ain't no party like a Donner party) situation, it's the breakdown of what is deemed acceptable even by the dire standards they were facing that to me is the real horror.

Seems a few came up with, 'ok, we'll eat the dead. But only those who died by natural causes, and no eating of one's own kin.' In a harsh and extreme survival situation, I guess it can be argued that protein is protein.

But near the end it came to this, at least according to http://discovermagazine.com/1992/marvingthroughthe4/

snipity snap:

The fourth and last rescue team reached the lake on April 17 to find Keseberg alone, surrounded by indescribable filth and mutilated corpses. George Donner’s body lay with his skull split open to permit the extraction of his brains. Three frozen ox legs lay in plain view almost uneaten beside a kettle of cut-up human flesh. Near Keseberg sat two kettles of blood and a large pan full of fresh human liver and lungs. He alleged that his four companions had died natural deaths, but he was frank about having eaten them. As to why he had not eaten ox leg instead, he explained that it was too dry: human liver and lungs tasted better, and human brains made a good soup. As for Tamsen Donner, Keseberg noted that she tasted the best, being well endowed with fat. In a bundle held by Keseberg the rescuers found silk, jewelry, pistols, and money that had belonged to George Donner.

After returning to Sutter’s Fort, one of the rescuers accused Keseberg of having murdered his companions, prompting Keseberg to sue for defamation of character. In the absence of legal proof of murder the court verdict was equivocal, and the issue of Keseberg’s guilt remains disputed to this day. However, Tamsen Donner’s death is especially suspicious since she had been in strong physical condition when last seen by the third rescue team.

On a lighter note, this reminds me of a skit by one of my favourite group, Kids In The Hall. Thanks for bringing up the Donner subject Drasca, I'm feeling kind of queasy now. Or maybe peckish... Where's that can of fava beans and the bottle of chianti.

http://www.kithfan.org/work/transcripts/...nibal.html

[Occhidiangela]

However, Tamsen Donner’s death is especially suspicious since she had been in strong physical condition when last seen by the third rescue team.

That is irrelevant, thanks to what we now know about hypothermia, and the widely varying ability to resist it in human beings. Having a higher metabolism, or any number of other traits that are not outwardly visible, impact on how one's body resists cold, what temp one's core dropping to induces lethargy. Also not obvious is the strength of will to live, and the point at which someone mentally loses the desire to live or fight the suffering. Likewise, some people reach a point, and simply accept their death, and stop trying. I cold weather situations, this tends to be fatal.

After seven different formal cold weather training sessions over 20+ years, I learned a bit more each time from the Physioligists, and the answers to how one survives cold (in our case, the general scenario was being in cold water, but similar issues apply to cold weather on land) are not as simple as "conventional wisdom" would suggest.

For What It's Worth

[Hammerskjold]

That is irrelevant, thanks to what we now know about hypothermia, and the widely varying ability to resist it in human beings. Having a higher metabolism, or any number of other traits that are not outwardly visible, impact on how one's body resists cold, what temp one's core dropping to induces lethargy. Also not obvious is the strength of will to live, and the point at which someone mentally loses the desire to live or fight the suffering. Likewise, some people reach a point, and simply accept their death, and stop trying. I cold weather situations, this tends to be fatal.

The discovermagazine link by Jared Diamond actually did mention some of the things you brought up. Even things like the physiological differences between sexes, considering the number of males vs females who survived and perished.

The will to survive is definitely a factor. What caught my attention though is the 3 ox legs, and the comment on how it's too dry. These folks according to the article at least, ate their oxen, dogs, and at one point either boiled or chewed their shoes.

So 2 things came to my mind. Keseberg developed a taste for human (sapiens, it's the other white meat!). A bit too lurid and sensational, but stranger things have happened I guess. Second is Keseberg mentally snapped. I'm likely to put my money on the second, but that could just be me trying to mentally shield myself.

After seven different formal cold weather training sessions over 20+ years, I learned a bit more each time from the Physioligists, and the answers to how one survives cold (in our case, the general scenario was being in cold water, but similar issues apply to cold weather on land) are not as simple as "conventional wisdom" would suggest.

Another thing the article mentioned, some of the folks who went out may not have the experience needed to take the route. And yes, I quite agree that when it's out in the field, nothing is simple as conventional wisdom.

ps. On a slightly unrelated note, I was on a light camping trip once where me and my friends tried out some of the 'survival tips' in some books. I remembered one tip on how to find direction from looking at which side of the tree\rock moss grows. Something about moss only growing on the East side or other. The tip simply didn't apply to where we were, because we found moss was growing on all sides of the rocks and trees. Nature did not comply with the information given from the book!