They found it.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1687484131.jpg

I definitely would not.
That would go against my core values and morals.
Would you really want to be judged on
that as your last act on this earth?

But, it's a moot point.
They did not sit there waiting for a slow death.
They died instantly without warning as in 6000 psi of crushing implosion.

What would Schrodinger's cat do?

Me no kill. Killing wrong. Everybody know that.

https://media.giphy.com/media/d1E1ms...e1Fe/giphy.gif
https://media.giphy.com/media/eKrgVy...ZNZn/giphy.gif

Stockton Rush didn’t seem to have any moral dilemma about killing people.

I'd worry about getting killed while sleeping. But no, I would not kill someone else. Staying alive is not worth the price of killing another person. To me, at least. I have posted here before, whether in the context of humans or their dogs, that I see death as a part of life. Inevitable. And unfortunate, but just not the massive tragedy that so many others seem to think. Yes, I miss love ones when they pass. But again, this is a part of life.

So yeah. Basically, I'd accept an increased likelihood of dying rather than kill someone else. And I think this sort of question also touches on a basic ideological difference between two groups of thinkers. Two groups of people whose political ideology are quite different. One is survival-of-the fittest, take-what-you-can, the strong should survive and the weak should perish. And. The other group is just not like that. The first group gets to call themselves superior and regard the second group as sheep for easy conquer, and I don't see it that way. I actually see the second group as the more courageous.

But whatever.

Agree.

To extend the thought, what about if you or your family are being attacked. Are you OK with defending yourself if that requires killing someone else?

Supposedly the Russian prisoners escaping Siberian gulags would bring along someone extra..
(Their sleep-deprivation experiments were reportedly pure horror.)

Given time and vote, most would choose incremental sacrifice with future life's potential in theory, but in practicality it probably ends up with two factions offing each other.

Of course. It's the self preservation mechanism.

But to premeditate killing 4 people so that I can maybe, MAYBE be the one to make it out alive "for my family" is something I never even would have thought of until I read this thread.

Like I said before, I'd be hoping I brought along my cyanide capsule so I could mitigate a situation where I'm dying a slow, painful, smelly, horrifying death in the pitch dark without any chance of getting out.

By the way, who brings a hammer on a trip to see the Titanic at the bottom of the ocean. What else is in that toolbelt?

Yes. Definitely. All of my windows and doors are closed and locked when we go to bed. Any intruder will have defeated a lock, and will be killed. Death is not, to me, the tragedy others think it is. But if it comes down to a stranger versus my family, that choice is an easy one.

For the record, and there is plenty of mine here, you have a pretty good idea of which group I belong to.

Just like "there are no atheists in foxholes" (its an aphorism, go with it) there are no political affiliations 2 miles under a dark freezing ocean in a cobbled together capsule with a limited air supply.

We'd like to keep this out of PARF so please lets not continue with this track.

I bring a hammer everywhere.

Life is full of way more nails than we realize. :D

Two intelligent comments in a row. Agreed.

I wonder if decomposition would have accelerated the use of the remaining oxygen?

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/general-science/death-our-body-feasts-itself

I'm with ST..
when it comes to protecting me tribe..
I would get feral ..
excuses & explanations are for survivors..
so when it comes down to one shot..
or her...
tag your it...

Rika