[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 44 KB, 650x340, baby_man_sleeping_wool.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3573633 No.3573633 [Reply] [Original]

There is a baby and a man in front of you.

You can only save one of them.

Which and why?

>> No.3573634

The man.
I hate children

>> No.3573640

The man, because it's a lot easier to make a new baby.

>> No.3573645
File: 114 KB, 600x200, 1269959535869.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3573645

I'll anything valuable nearby and leave them both.

If there's nothing valuable, I'll put the baby on the man's lap and drag them both out by his feet.

>> No.3573646

Too many unknowns to decide the best course of action.

>> No.3573652

Thi baby if i dont have to raise it.

>> No.3573654

The baby doesn't matter, it'd be like a post-natal abortion

>> No.3573655

child
easier to carry

>> No.3573656

You need to provide more information.

If I could keep the kid I would raise him in a specific way so I can profit from his work once he becomes an adult.

If I can't keep the child and profit, I wouldn't save anyone.

Toddlers/children are annoying as fuck.

>> No.3573657

The man is the logical choice, because the investment in the baby, at this juncture, is smaller than that of the man.

Also the man seems to be the baby's parent, so to kill the man would also probably mean death for the baby.

Also, to anybody saying the baby, go and read The Selfish Gene, then realise how retarded and clouded by emotion you are.

>> No.3573658

I would save the child obviously. The man already has his own fetishes. I can train the child to share mine.

>> No.3573661

baby.
easier to eat.

>> No.3573662

>>3573661
The man has more meat, though, you're only choosing the baby because it seems more cruel, not because you're interested in feeding yourself.

>> No.3573663

>>3573657

This.

Any answer but 'The man' is either retarded or a troll.

To the people saying "Derp need moar info so am can does science analersis on it" You are worse than the people who say 'Baby'.

>> No.3573664

baby, more life ahead of it, unless it's a baby in the 3rd world, in which case it will probably die before the age of 5 anyway so I'd choose the man

>> No.3573667

Let me get this straight.

There are people who would destroy a mind that has accrued 30 years of experience, who has emotions and opinions and can appreciate life over a blank slate infant that for all we know doesn't even know it exists?

Put another way:

Would you save a computer with 30 years of files and work on it, with many upgrades, or would you save a brand new starter pc?

>> No.3573669
File: 126 KB, 450x373, fullretard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3573669

>>3573646
>>3573652
>>3573655
>>3573656
>>3573664

>> No.3573672

>>3573663
I would choose the baby only if I could profit from it. I'm not being clouded by emotion.

>> No.3573674

>>3573669
>Too many unknowns to decide the best course of action.
What's your gripe with this statement, anon?

>> No.3573675

Save from what?

>> No.3573678

The man. Fuck babies.

>> No.3573681

>>3573675
Chris Hansen

>> No.3573682

>>3573667
Are the files on the old computer valuable to me?
Are they valuable at all?
Is the old computer really fucking heavy, making saving it a risky proposition at best?

As for the meat aspect. While it has less meat, the baby is young and tender and probably pretty pure while the old guy will be stringy and could have all kinds of toxins accumulated in his flesh.

>> No.3573686

>>3573678
>>3573634
>>3573640
>>3573645
>>3573652
>>3573654
>>3573656
>>3573657
Looks like some people weren't breastfed by their mothers, I'm starting to think this is a common characteristic of atheists.

>> No.3573690

>>3573669
>ur dumb
Just wondering, do you realize how pointless statements like that are on the internet?

>> No.3573696

How old is said man? If he's old enough to collect Social Security, I'd probably go with the baby.

>> No.3573697

>>3573682
>toxins
>DONT DRINK FLUORIDATED TAP WATER WWHOOOAOAAARRG LISTEN TO ALEX JONES ZEITGEIST, SHOVE WHOLEFOODS INTO YOUR ASS, BECOME A SURVIVALIST 2012 REPTILIANS, WAKE UP SHEEPLE, THIS BLOTCH ON A PHOTO IS ALIENS
I see you said "toxin" out of context, unless I've been bitten by a venmous snake or have e-coli I don't need to worry about toxins.

>> No.3573700

Can I not save either of them?

>> No.3573706

>>3573700
You can save the baby then toss it into a well or something.

>> No.3573707

what sex is the baby?

>> No.3573709

>>3573707
If it's a girl, I can raise her to be my harem slave.

>> No.3573711

>>3573706
I don't want to murder anyone, I just don't want them to survive.

>> No.3573713

>>3573711
Why?

>> No.3573716

It's really a case of comparing potential value of the baby to the value of the man.

>> No.3573712 [DELETED] 
File: 205 KB, 552x310, do-you-even.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3573712

>>3573674
>>3573690

Aside from the fact that you niggers haven't even read The Selfish Gene (which is akin to The Origin of Species in it's scientific importance), the man is the only logical choice, for the same reasons as >>3573657 and >>3573667 pointed out.

Do you even study a science at degree level?

>> No.3573719

>>3573697
>hurrr durr fluorine
I was thinking more in terms of bioaccumulative stuff, like certain heavy metals, dioxins and stuff like that.

We all get some in us during our lifetime and while the amounts are usually negligible, someone who has been working in a steel mill or a chemical plant with sub-standard safety practices can have significant doses.

So unless I knew the guy had been working in some relatively clean environment, I'd rather eat the baby.

>> No.3573725

>>3573633
> Can only save one of them
If I have the refrigerator space to store a whole man why would I just take the baby? Hell if I'm serious about it I could probably find room to save both.

>> No.3573742

If I was emotionally retarded then the man as it makes sense logically.

However, I'm not. So I'd save the baby.

>> No.3573747

>>3573742

>implying the scenario has you emotionally involved with the baby

If you truly believe that, considering you are familiar with neither of the two subjects, only the baby is worthy of pity because it is a baby, then as a matter of fact, it is you who is emotionally retarded.

>> No.3573765

The man. Babies smell like shit and are all clingy, I hate them.

>> No.3573770 [DELETED] 

>>3573719
>heavy metals, dioxins
Those are toxics, "toxin" is a word used by retarded conspiracy theorists who never even bother to check words in the dictionary let alone facts.

>> No.3573773

>>3573719
>heavy metals, dioxins
Those are toxics, only retarded conspiracy theorists describe non-biological toxic chemicals as "toxins".

>> No.3573775

>>3573719
Big contributor to cancer and also dementia. You know how Ronald Reagan worked in Hollywood back when stage sets and makeup contained toxic chemicals? Well there you go.

>> No.3573779

>>3573747
This is the first time i've visited this website, and I must say i'm shocked, is this the true nature of the men of science? and to think that on documentaries you behave as peaceful and civilized individuals... now you tell me, who are the REAL hypocrites?

>> No.3573786

>>3573779

A baby has less capacity to feel pain, fewer experiences to lose, and is arguably easier to kill in a less painful manner due to it's undeveloped nervous system. Not to mention that compared to a 30 year old man, the baby is significantly easier to replace.

A man, however, has years of experience to lose, the investment of his parents raising going to waste, the full ability to feel pain and sadness at the fact that he is going to die, and a plethora of other emotions to feel.

Yeah, the man is clearly the logical choice.

I must say I'm shocked. Is this the true nature of uneducated, irrational and illogically thinking retards?

>> No.3573787

I would totally save the baby because I'm not autistic.

>> No.3573798

>>3573787

No, you're an emotionally clouded faggot, who would be at home in a flock of sheep who also prioritise useless, undeveloped organisms over productive members of their group.

>protip: There isn't a single species on Earth who prioritise their young over physically mature and fit members of the group when faced with a dilemma such as this, apart from humans.

>> No.3573811

>>3573798
u wrong

gorillas, elephants, bonobos, others

u really some kinda misanthrope, dude

>> No.3573818

And yet we manage to thrive in our environment even with this emotional cloudyness?

Oh darn...

>> No.3573827

>>3573786
I am in full and unbending agreement with you. Saving the baby would simply be foolhardy, no matter which (logical) way you look at it.

>>3573779
What is wrong with thinking logically? We are perfectly civilized and saving a grown man over a baby certainly doesn't make us any less so.

>> No.3573830

>>3573786
I'm speechless, I am without speech. I'm not even going to lower myself to the level of arguing with someone who clearly has a personality disorder, I would be surprised if you had any emotional bond with anyone, you can't seem to comprehend the importance of the young, if you were capable of emotions you would understand this and take the correct option.

>> No.3573836

>>3573811

Elephants:

>Physically fit members of the society protect younger members

>A mature Elephant, of any species, has no natural predators due to its sheer size, therefore will never be faced with this dilemma

>This is common knowledge, and needs no citation

Primates have been known to not only to abandon injured young because of the detrimental effect of lugging them around, but certain species in the Pan genus have even been filmed cannibalising their own young, and members of other groups.

You are stupid.

>> No.3573838

>>3573827
The baby represents the future, the next generation and all that. Who wouldn't save it?

>> No.3573849

This.

Problem solved.

>> No.3573851

>>3573836
elephants are often bullied by members of other herds and kidnapping of babies is not uncommon.

Organized parties of the primary herd of said kidnapped baby elephants have been observed to retrieve said kidnapped baby elephant from the kidnappers

people cannibalize each other all the time

your jaw is flapping but nothing substantive is coming out

>> No.3573854

>>3573830

>can't seem to comprehend the importance of young

Of course I can, our young are extremely important.

But a member of the species who is fully capable of propagating our species, and has already been proven capable of doing so, is more important than the baby. This is the truth of the matter.

And your view is completely hypocritical. You are basically saying that we should show emotion for our own species, but you completely neglect to mention our instinctual treatment of other species, and our coldly logical and impersonal view on animals we use as food. For example, we will happily kill of a baby beef cow if it is:

1. ill
2. Of insufficient size to be economically viable for raising to adulthood
3. Carries undesirable genetic traits such as high fat retention, low muscle generation etc
4. Others reasons that I don't care to mention.

Your argument is flawed, emotionally clouded, and has no place in a discussion such as this.

>>3573818

Humans have become technologically advanced enough to be able to eliminate the need for instinct, and we are never realistically faced with this dilemma, and when we are, he impact to our species is so tiny, as to be negligible.

>> No.3573855

>>3573773
Sorry, didn't mean "toxin". Got my vocabulary mixed.

>> No.3573860

>trying to justify killing babies
>thinks this has something to do with science
lol wat

>> No.3573862

>>3573779

these are trolls trolling each other, also high schoolers having their last fling at daytime internetting before having to return to school next week

all the real scientists are at work

>> No.3573865

>>3573838

The man is capable of making more young with his sperm, the baby is not, and there is no guarantee that the baby will survive until maturity.

Therefore the man is the logical choice.

>>3573851

None of what you have said relates to this dilemma at all, however

>people cannibalize each other all the time

Yes, but these people are either mental aberrations, or are performing cannibalism in a situation different from that the OP set forth.

>> No.3573867

>>3573860

Go and read the Selfish Gene, or shut the fuck up, you fucking retard.

>> No.3573877

>>3573865
What if the baby was the next Einstein or Hawking and you just killed him?

>> No.3573879

The man will take decades to replace, and the baby will only take a year or so.

I think the choice is obvious.

>> No.3573881

>>3573877
Oh god it's this argument again...What if the baby was the next Hitler? HERPA DERP

>> No.3573884

I hate babies. Save the man.

>> No.3573886

>>3573881
Can you afford to take the chance?

>> No.3573888

>>3573886
Nope, kill the baby.

>> No.3573893

>>3573877

Upbringing, early exposure to related material, and genetics play a massive part in the development of intelligence. You are assuming that intelligence is purely genetic, which is fallacious to say the least.

>> No.3573895

>>3573888
And kill the next Einstein? What a stupid thing to do.

>> No.3573900

>>3573877
>>3573881
What if the man were the current Einstein or Hitler!

>> No.3573901

Let me just clarify the obvious:

This is a question purely to do with which you think has more value; a baby or a mature adult.

The weight/size of the person is irrelevant.

It's interesting to see which point of view people take. Some look at it from a "what's best for our society" perspective, some from a "what's in it for me" perspective and so forth.

>> No.3573907

>>3573895
Bam, 6 million people dead.

>> No.3573912

>>3573907
Including the actual next Einstein. Didn't consider that did you?

>> No.3573914

>>3573901

Both perspectives result in the man being the only logical result.

Also, clarification isn't really needed. Anybody who DOES need something as simple as this to be clarified is either a troll, or too retarded for their opinion to be taken seriously.

>> No.3573918

The mang shall be saved. Breeding babies is faster than breeding men.

>> No.3573926

>>3573914
> Both perspectives result in the man being the only logical result.

lolfail

you have zero idea who the man is and whether or not the baby will grow to be more valuable to society.

the baby has a greater lifespan ahead of it though, so if you consider life to have value for the person living it then the baby is the way to go.

>> No.3573935

>>3573926
What if we need somebody now more than we do in the future? Or vice versa. There's too many reasons to go either way which we don't know.
So screw this, they can sort themselves out.

>> No.3573936

The man

There's a 50% chance the baby is a woman

>> No.3573942

>>3573936
There's a 50% chance the man is a woman.

>> No.3573948

>>3573936
this

also everyone saying "the baby could be useful to society you don't know" - the gender was never given so there's a 50% chance it won't be.

>> No.3573949

>>3573942

>there's a 50% chance the man is a woman

>the man is a woman

fullretard.jpg

>> No.3573958
File: 1.44 MB, 476x264, 1312850869100.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3573958

>>3573936

>> No.3573985

>>3573633
Save the blanket, that shit looks warm

>> No.3573997

If I have to save one, I'd probably save the baby.

I wouldn't feel like lugging some 200 lbs asshole out of a situation he probably got himself into to begin with.

>> No.3574039
File: 111 KB, 247x248, oooooooooaaaaaaahhhh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574039

>>3573867
>mistaking the "selfish gene" for a system of ethics
Wow, so edgy.

>> No.3574074

>>3574039

>Not knowing what edgy means

>imlplying ethical conclusions cannot be drawn from the theory

Anyway, I'll bite.

The selfish gene isn't a system of ethics, no, it is a discourse upon the effects of our genes on the logic of their 'survival machines.' It also uses fractions to elucidate the relationship between organisms.

Now, considering that we have no idea to what extent we are related to these two individuals, we could use an arbitrary fraction to describe it, such as 1/100 for both individuals. This would, providing that both individuals are identical in age, experience, upbringing etc., mean that both are logically viable to be saved.

This is not the case. The baby is undeveloped, infertile (at the moment), and unable to propagate the species and pass on its genes or experiences.

The man, however, can. Therefore the only logical conclusion, from the perspective of our 'survival machine,' is to save the man.

QED, you're a retard.

>> No.3574081

>>3574039

>Implying ethics aren't deductible by science

>> No.3574093
File: 28 KB, 331x311, tears-of-laughter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574093

>mfw every single moralfag/attempted troll/retard has tried to justify saving the baby over the man, and failed spectacularly

I love you /sci/

>> No.3574163

>>3574074
>Implying that the fact that the baby could be a female (it's far more benefitial to our numbers if a woman is brought to this world, because they can give birth, unlike men, and increase our numbers drastically) isn't 10 times better than sticking with the male.

Keep looking for excuses to kill babies.

>> No.3574177

>>3574163

>Fallacies, fallacies err'where

In a small population, you'd be right, but in a population of 6.7 billion individuals, you could not be more wrong.

Ratio of females to males in the human species is approximately 1:1

We have many mature, fertile females ready to reproduce. It would be illogical and counter-productive to hedge our bets on 1 individual who MAY reach physical maturity, and even fertility.

The male is fertile and ready to impregnate many individual females, who will then give birth.

I can't believe I even have to explain this to you.

>> No.3574185

Neither humans only disappoint me, why would I make the effort.

>> No.3574187

>>3574074

Except we're past that point, we're no longer cowering in jungles or savannahs praying we don't become breakfast for a whole host of predators, We're the # predator on the planet, and in essense no longer have any predators. We can afford to lose people in our species. The requirements for survival change, and in todays worlds we could more or less align survival with progress. Advancement is what put us where we are today. You could easily make a case that if the man wasn't on track to achieve some amazing discovery to further the advancement of human knowledge then we're better off giving the maybe a shot.

>> No.3574188
File: 126 KB, 384x480, friedrich-nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574188

None.
Male isn't sexy enough.
hate babies

>> No.3574199

>>3574185
why so pessimistic, my friend?

>> No.3574202

>>3574187

The same argument applies to the baby.

A million more will be born that day, a single baby is inconsequential in terms of logic.

>> No.3574208

Save them from what?

>> No.3574243

Baby.

An adult man is expected to save himself. The baby is dependant, the man is dependable.

>> No.3574249

>>3573661
lol.. there is no moderation here or what? ¬¬ why are you saying such things, it sounds crazy xD, i hope you're just jk.

>> No.3574259

>>3574202

I agree, I was just saying you could make the case for the baby in today world. In reality its inconsequential.

>> No.3574304

The baby.
It's probably the man's fault as to why they are in danger. Screw him.

>> No.3574305

>>3574304
I laughed, good point.

>> No.3574330

The man. I don't want to get stuck taking care of a baby. The man might be a great bro.

>> No.3574340
File: 13 KB, 240x240, 1264255155814.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574340

I save the baby. I then raise him/her to an outstanding member of society so he/she can add their inventive genius to the world.

>> No.3574343

Whichever is easier. If they're both strangers I don't care.

>> No.3574348

>>3574340
I don't think "finders keepers" applies to babies.

>> No.3574351
File: 14 KB, 400x287, 1262625068821.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574351

>>3574348
Losers weepers. My baby now.

>> No.3574407
File: 46 KB, 640x480, 1258626529164.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574407

>>3574340
>member of society
Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring.

Make her/him a ruler or at least a brilliant outcast.

>> No.3574412

>>3574348
Kind of a deal-breaker for saving the baby. What's the point then?If I can't keep the baby (assuming it's famale) and raise it the way I want to, fuck if I'm saving either of them. The Earth could use less people anyways.