Who should pay for a rescue?

[Mark R]

if the small minority of Uber Alpha Males in the population would put a sock in it, stop trumpeting their personal declarations of self reliance

Um...wanting to take responsibility for my own actions doesn't make me some kind of Nietzschen Übermensch. I always got picked last in games at school...

[Ian_Montrose]

Mark
If you believe so strongly that the individual should take responsibility for their own misfortune, why are you raising money for a charitable mountain rescue team?

[Mark R]

Mark
If you believe so strongly that the individual should take responsibility for their own misfortune, why are you raising money for a charitable mountain rescue team?

Several possible responses to that, some you'll find easier to digest than others...

- For the reasons given here - http://southwestseakayaking.co.uk/2012/ ... liff-dawn/

- Because (although the person suffering misfortune on 21/11/09 was not myself) I personally believe that I owe it to those who assisted in retrieving my deceased friend to thank/ reimburse them in any way possible for their time and effort. This has been my position ever since, through various fundraising activities, and will continue to be so until I am satisfied that I have done all that I reasonably can to offer thanks.

- That was a pretty low and despicable question, which I hope can only be explained by your not having bothered to have read my fundraising links first.

[Ian_Montrose]

Mark
If you believe so strongly that the individual should take responsibility for their own misfortune, why are you raising money for a charitable mountain rescue team?

Several possible responses to that, some you'll find easier to digest than others...

- For the reasons given here - http://southwestseakayaking.co.uk/2012/ ... liff-dawn/

- Because (although the person suffering misfortune on 21/11/09 was not myself) I personally believe that I owe it to those who assisted in retrieving my deceased friend to thank/ reimburse them in any way possible for their time and effort. This has been my position ever since, through various fundraising activities, and will continue to be so until I am satisfied that I have done all that I reasonably can to offer thanks.

- That was a pretty low and despicable question, which I hope can only be explained by your not having bothered to have read my fundraising links first.

I'm fully aware of why you support that charity. It was not intended to be a "despicable question" merely an attempt to get you to consider the reality of the alternative system you propose. For a teacher, you surprise me by your lack of comprehensive skills.

I'm going to bow out of this thread as the personal insults being thrown about, most notably by yourself and Jim, are tempting me to lower myself to your level.

[Mark R]

It was not intended to be a "despicable question" merely an attempt to get you to consider the reality of the alternative system you propose. For a teacher, you surprise me by your lack of comprehensive skills.

Ian, your question was inoffensive? I imagine then, that you'll be happy to draw any recent tragedies occurring to friends of yours into this discussion, to score points?

Incredible.

[PhilAyr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-16929840

Who should pay for that ?

Phil

[Pete]

Watching Newsnight, they're debating whether or not women with "faulty" breast implants should have them removed free of charge by the NHS.

Is it any different from what's being debated here?

Are we a compassionate society, or is the state of the economy making us all a little less giving?

[David A]

Watching Newsnight, they're debating whether or not women with "faulty" breast implants should have them removed free of charge by the NHS.

Is it any different from what's being debated here?

Hi Pete, are you suggesting that the RNLI should remove these faulty breast implants free of charge?

David A.

[snapper]

smoking and kayaking are very good together. I had an ecg last year and though I've been smoking since my teens (20 plus years) I have a resting heart rate that is at the level of 35% of trained athletes. My wife became incontinent when I told her; I was eating a lot of crap at the time and padlding was my only exercise other than lifting boats at work. I've since shed 20% of my body weight (3 months) and am now a sexy 12 stone 5'10" (bought a wetsuit to pose in as a celebration) so have the willpower to kick the carbs BUT can I kick the fags? Can I fuck - been trying regularly for the last 15 years. Regrettably cigarettes are such vile, insidious little sluts that they keep on winking at you and calling you back even when you've lasted months. Still, that's life. I'll drown before I succumb to a terminal smoking illness. Willfully if required.

[tg]

I was always picked last for team sports too. Not because I was a wimp tho. Quite the opposite, I am a rather luxuriant love machine incredibly attractive and with enough surplus fuel to go the whole hog. And at school with my long black hair and being completely at home with touching my femine side, combined with my lithe muscular, responsive and tactile athletic body I always felt I should be first.

Unfortunately the other boys just thought I was a first class c***, so I was never picked.

Personally I've never charged for saving a life, or indeed got paid for it. I did once get free wine and dinner for a week in the Pyrenees from an Irish bloke who crapped himself. I was quite embarrassed. As far as I could tell he had not been in mortal danger, but it was hard to refuse. I just hauled him out of the river, he was spluttering and shocked, and, apparently, loaded. Whoop de doo! He did invite me over to Ireland for some hiking but I refused as I had been caught up in a few bomb scares in Central London during the eighties and the stupid buggers got too close to my mom, so I doubt I'd go for fear of fighting.

Like Christian Pete (good luck to you brother) I tend to believe that man's natural state of consciousness(?) is that of an altruist (see cell death theory). It's not that I expect a free rescue in as much as It's just what people do. Once the intellectual, the righteous and the so called educated classes get involved it all gets screwed up. Saving lives, indeed taking them is just not that difficult.

Of course that Irish guy could've died. My mum could've been killed by some other Irish guys, wearing different coloured tee shirts. I would've mourned and gotten over it. Like I have the dozen or so friends and family that I've lost in the last seven years, and hey, some of them didn't even smoke, I know, go figure!

So, I've been thinking. I've just found my rusty ... er... trusty ol' Gerber safety knife at the back of my camping wardrobe. With that, the apparent need for silicon (silly con!) implant reversal, my conviction that altruism works and the knowledge that I could use the names of my dead friends in order to promote myself, and consequentlly my business interests I'd like to propose this free service;

Lady paddlers; Remember G**.. No? Well he's dead. However do you suffer from an overtight summer wetsuit? Bothered by French under balloons? Fancy a tit job? I know I do ..

(OK, for the sake of balance)

Men paddlers; Remember D*** ... No? Well he's dead. Fancy a cock shortening... no.... I thought not.

Just PM, and don't forget to bring your own oil.

Tim

[Pete]

Watching Newsnight, they're debating whether or not women with "faulty" breast implants should have them removed free of charge by the NHS.

Is it any different from what's being debated here?

Hi Pete, are you suggesting that the RNLI should remove these faulty breast implants free of charge?

David A.

I'm sure the RNLI would be the volunteer respondents to a co-ordinated response from a from the relevant Govt. Agency.

As it involves breasts, I'm equally certain of a response from some "volunteers" in the sea kayaking fraternity.

[Jim]

Like Christian Pete (good luck to you brother) I tend to believe that man's natural state of consciousness(?) is that of an altruist (see cell death theory).

I think this is the reason Darwins 'Origin of Species' was so poorly received, it basically suggests the opposite - that nature doesn't care, and that man is no better or worse than anything else in nature. The thing is that for every decent person in the world, there seems to be 100 that actually don't care. That's perception of course not fact, the ratio could be opposite but only the latter draw attention...

[tg]

I love you Jim,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2305733.stm

Rather more recent than Darwin. My lay understanding is that your cells continue to exist because the cells around them continue to send positive stimuli.

Of course I am no biologist. I'm referring to a BBC Radio prog. which linked this to altruism. In fact concluding that the natural state of being is that we are all rather nice on the inside. I guess I choose to believe it because I just don't like the idea that I have to be nasty and mean to have a successful life. Obnoxious, challenging, naive, innacurate?; perhaps :-)

In truth I do find most folks to be reasonable; and if I were in need of voluntary rescue I believe it would be the first or second person that would leap to my aid, not the one hundred and first.

Call it faith if you like. I can't explain it. Has nothing to do with cheeses, just trust in human nature.

Tim

[Pete]

I've just read beyond your response David A. and seen TG's. My certainty of volunteers coming forward was not unfounded.

[lg18]

... - that nature doesn't care, and that man is no better or worse than anything else in nature. The thing is that for every decent person in the world, there seems to be 100 that actually don't care. That's perception of course not fact, the ratio could be opposite but only the latter draw attention...

According to evolutionary theory, whether or not something has evolved to behave altruistically towards its conspecifics (or family members, or herd members) depends completely on its life history and social structure. e.g. Homo sapiens has, by and large (and like other social species), evolved to be altruistic towards family members (i.e., kin altruism - a direct genetic benefit) and others in the local community (usually people you are very likely to come across again, so the altruism can be reciprocated, i.e. reciprocal altruism), because our genes are more likely to be passed onto the next generation that way. Basically, humans can't really survive and reproduce in the long-term without being part of some sort of community or extended family (for help, division of labour etc etc), and if you don't behave altruistically, you'll be chucked out, not helped by others etc. But it depends on the environmental context, e.g. in times of scarce resources individuals become more selfish (or are altruistic towards a smaller group). .. wars etc.

Evolutionary theory predicts a small number of "cheats" in any system - but there can never be too many. Maybe these "cheats" are Jim's few that are not "decent people". It all gets a bit weird in our modern society, with the altruism that we originally evolved to help us reproduce our genes more successfully spilling over into rescuing strangers and other people's dogs.

Not sure what this has got to do with anything, but maybe it can help answer Mark's original question about seeing if anyone can come up with a good reason why everyone should chip in to pay for general emergency services rather than a rather nasty, selfish "dog-eat-dog" world. It's just not how humans' brains/societies have evolved, well sort of. Although we haven't evolved to benefit from helping strangers, so - who knows whether it's a valid argument or not.

[sleepybubble]

Its nice to see this thread almost being derailed away from the Rainsley brand of fascism, however there is one teeny tiny problem I see with all this altruism guff. In the real world it don't work like that any more, and probably never did outside of middle class dinner table conversation. A certain sector of society does behave that way (myself included) however I highly suspect they are in the minority. The rest of the world are not "decent" people in fact far from it.
If it were not for state implementation of rescue services (voluntary or paid for) I doubt too many people would actually be getting rescued at all. In fact without a whole raft of legislation to try and prevent it I'm sure wrecking would still be prevelent to this day in many coastal communities.
.
.
.
.
.
oh no, darn it, it still is....



Mark

[David A]

A certain sector of society does behave that way (myself included) however I highly suspect they are in the minority. The rest of the world are not "decent" people in fact far from it.

Hi Sleepybubble (Mark), your statement reads like an article from the Daily Mail.

David A.

[MikeB]

Its nice to see this thread almost being derailed away from the Rainsley brand of fascism, however there is one teeny tiny problem I see with all this altruism guff. In the real world it don't work like that any more, and probably never did outside of middle class dinner table conversation. A certain sector of society does behave that way (myself included) however I highly suspect they are in the minority. The rest of the world are not "decent" people in fact far from it.
If it were not for state implementation of rescue services (voluntary or paid for) I doubt too many people would actually be getting rescued at all. In fact without a whole raft of legislation to try and prevent it I'm sure wrecking would still be prevelent to this day in many coastal communities.

A somewhat jaundiced view of life -

Remind me - what were the origins of the RNLI? Most certainly not state intervention. The state didnt invent the fire service, the insurance industry did, albeit as a response to mitigating their loses. In pre-NHS times, a wide variety of well meaning, often church led, groups were common to provide aid and assistance to those in need, and the same still exists today in the form of St John's Ambulance and the Red Cross. Mountain Rescue isn't a state led intervention and neither is Cave Rescue.

Many of our most troubled communities will, with the right facilitation and support, galvanise themselves into improving their circumstances and dealing with the anti-social aspects within them.

A quick look at basic motivational / management theories (I suggest Maslow and Hertzberg for starters) will show that people will seek to find fulfillment in a variety of ways - and the rise of the "third sector", and a variety of altruistic organisations in these economically troubled times is clear evidence of that.

Mike.

[PhilAyr]

Mike B wrote ..

Remind me - what were the origins of the RNLI? Most certainly not state intervention. The state didnt invent the fire service, the insurance industry did, albeit as a response to mitigating their loses. In pre-NHS times, a wide variety of well meaning, often church led, groups were common to provide aid and assistance to those in need, and the same still exists today in the form of St John's Ambulance and the Red Cross. Mountain Rescue isn't a state led intervention and neither is Cave Rescue.

D.C. appears to have the answer ! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12443396

;-)

Phil

[MikeB]

D.C. appears to have the answer !

;-)

Phil

I know that "the answer" doesn't involve him!

[Jim]

In fact without a whole raft of legislation to try and prevent it I'm sure wrecking would still be prevelent to this day in many coastal communities.

Except of course that it never has been anywhere, the whole concept was dreamt up by the Cornish tourist industry, that thousands of ships happen to have wrecked around Cornwall and the cargoes perhaps recovered by the locals like unexpected manna from heaven made it all the more easy to sell the story.
I presume your opening line was meant to be tongue in cheek?

Perhaps I need to look up Altruism - I thought it was about selflessness, helping others as a means to ensure they will help you (which I completely agree does happen; not just within a species but across species, domesticated animals being easy examples but there are also fish that groom other fish and parasites that are beneficial to the host and so on) is surely called something different? Either way I think this could form the nucleus of an argument if it is accepted as the basis of human society, previously I had been thinking that this kind of co-operation we really a form of displaced selfishness, banking favours to reclaim in the future sort of thing.... I guess the difference is whether or not you keep count ;-)

[snapper]

If you think that the majority of people are basically good and would come to your help then I'd suggest a very naiive outlook on life. The majority of people just don't care about anyone else. There is a minority who do care about random, unknown others and a minority that are difficult to describe as anything other than scum or vermin (my road is full of them and I bet none of the three (or any of them to be honest) would have come to my assistance if it was me that had got cut up with a machete back in August). Nah, most people are in it for themselves and outside of the immediate circle everyone else can go and die.

NB. Funnily enough I'm not a mail reader, nor a fascist nor even particularly jaundiced. I don't even live in a particularly bad place. I just have neighbours that make me psychotic.

[Wenley]

Jim wrote:

then there should be a system to recompense the owner or charty party to cover their expenses, in order that the masters of vessels don't use fear of the company as a reason not to help others.

Hello Jim,

Rendering assistance at sea is an exception to the obligations in a charterparty as if the goods had been lost by perils of the sea. If the arrival of a cargo is delayed or even lost, the shipowner -real or through a charter- is not liable to the goods owner. There is not any compensation but only eventually through insurance or through a potential reward if by providing aid which is essentially free, the ship in distress or its cargo were salvaged.

Jim suspected:

It does however put me in mind of something that may be real or I may have just made up in my imagination, that international maritime law requires any vessel able to join a search and rescue to join it.

You are right. Not only the search and rescue services, but the master of the ship in distress has a right to requisition any ship available. This right stems from Regulation 33.2 of Chapter V of the SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) Convention of 1/7/02:

"2 The master of a ship in distress or the search and rescue service concerned, after consultation, so far as may be possible, with the masters of ships which answer the distress alert, has the right to requisition one or more of those
ships as the master of the ship in distress or the search and rescue service considers best able to render assistance, and it shall be the duty of the master or masters of the ship or ships requisitioned to comply with the requisition by continuing to proceed with all speed to the assistance of persons in distress".

Mark asked:

Which craft at sea does this judgement apply to?

Hello Mark,

The case of Scaramanga v Stamp concerned the steamship Olympias, chartered to carry a cargo of wheat from Cronstadt to Gibraltar. "... When nine days out, the Olympias sighted another steamship, the Arion, in distress, and, on nearing her, found that the machinery of the Arion had broken down, and that the vessel was in a helpless condition. The weather was fine and the sea smooth, and there would have been no difficulty in taking off and so saving the crew; but the master of the Arion, being desirous of saving his ship, as well as the lives of his crew, agreed to pay 1000l. to the master of the Olympias to tow the ship into the Texel.
Having taken the Arion in tow, the Olympias, when off the Dutch coast, on the way to the Texel, got ashore on the Terschelling Sands, and with her cargo was ultimately lost.
(...)"

However, regulation 33 applies to all ships, regardless of tonnage and waters of operation. According to regulation 3.3 of Chapter V of the Solas Convention, "All ships" means any ship, vessel or craft irrespective of type and purpose. To this effect, a kayak is a ship, and the paddler is its master.

All the best,

Wenley

[snapper]

Hitler was a non-smoker.

In fact, come to think of it, he was a vegetarian as well.

Didn't drink either.

Churchill, on the other hand, did a mean summer barbie*.





*Klaus Barbie does not count in Hitler's favour.

[tg]

'Are you Good or Evil' - Horizon BBC4 right now. Morality and more.

[MikeB]

Churchill, on the other hand, did a mean summer barbie*.

Who was also overweight, and a heavy drinker and smoker. Def not one for the NHS to have taken care of.

[Kayaks'N'Beer]

These altruism conversations always remind me of the monkeysphere , or Dunbar's number as it's known in cognitive science.

[Yellerbelly]

These altruism conversations always remind me of the monkeysphere , or Dunbar's number as it's known in cognitive science.

Like a fragile naked human pyramid, we are simultaneously supporting and resenting each other.

Thanks, I'm convinced . . . . but then I'm a moron.

. . . . Ben

[snapper]

Churchill, on the other hand, did a mean summer barbie*.

Who was also overweight, and a heavy drinker and smoker. Def not one for the NHS to have taken care of.

yep, can't beat a smokin', drinkin', red-meat eatin' pigfest of a barbie after a snooze to midday!