Argonath RPG - A World of its own
Argonath RPG Community => Speakerbox => World and local news => Topic started by: Ted on May 01, 2012, 12:21:49 pm
-
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16219257 (http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16219257) - Links to the story/video with US news reporter, Hannah Thomas-Peter.
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2012/Apr/Week4/16219275.jpg)
New York City has a new tallest building - One World Trade Centre is now 1,271ft (387m) tall - just taller than the top of the Empire State building.
The huge construction, now 100 floors high, was built to replace the iconic twin towers that were destroyed in the 9/11 attacks.
The One World Trade Centre rises over the Manhattan skyline
In the coming months, the last four floors will be completed, making it the same height as the original One World Trade Centre north tower.
Next year the building will reach its full height.
Workers will add an antenna, which, if counted as part of the height of the tower, will make it the tallest in the US, and the third tallest in the world.
Vice Chairman of the Port Authority Scott Rechler said: "One World Trade Centre (WTC) is much more than an iconic symbol for New York ... it is a symbol of liberty and pride.
"It is perhaps the most complex construction job in our history ... it has been an act of passion and an act of patriotic duty.
He described the redevelopment of the entire Ground Zero site as a "game changer" for lower Manhattan.
Officials are building a transit hub and a performing arts centre alongside the numerous sky scrapers that are taking shape around the central memorial.
They hope that it will generate billions of dollars in economic activity for the city of New York.
One WTC, which will mainly be for commercial use, is due to open in early 2014.
I do plan on visiting New York hopefully sometime this year and witnessing the work done myself.
-
I like how they're making it even bigger this time. That's pretty much the correct response.
-
I understand the need for to rebuild it, but to 'brag' about it is just wrong..
Who cares about tallest buildings in the world?
-
Who cares about tallest buildings in the world?
Wait for Dubai to respond with a taller building.
-
Who cares about tallest buildings in the world?
It'll be the third tallest worldwide
-
I like it.
-
"In your face, Bin Laden."
I don't have much love for U.S. politics, but I admire how the nation rose from a tragedy that split contemporary history into two eras.
-
How the fuck are they even going to rent out office space in this thing D:
I for one would not be working in that thing, I could not live the sheer fact of what the building represents, let alone its a replacement for a terrorist target.
-
How the f**k are they even going to rent out office space in this thing D:
I for one would not be working in that thing, I could not live the sheer fact of what the building represents, let alone its a replacement for a terrorist target.
They'll cross that bridge when they come to it. Yes in all honesty a replacement is what this is but people should not continue to live in fear because of past events. If the worst does come to the worst in the future, then i hope the building is much more safer than the original buildings once were.
-
Beautiful.
-
http://www.wtc.com/ (http://www.wtc.com/)
http://www.wtc.com/media/images/wtc-renderings (http://www.wtc.com/media/images/wtc-renderings) These renderings give a great idea as to what it will look like on completion.
-
I like how they're making it even bigger this time. That's pretty much the correct response.
People won't be inhabiting it past a certain floor height to prevent a repeat of the past. The building was originally planned to be the tallest in the world as a symbol to show that the United States got back up on it's feet, and continues to stand tall against anyone who tries to hurt it. Everything in the higher floors will simply be filled with decorative plants and other little things that the general public wouldn't be packed within.
On the site, the holes where the original buildings once stood now contains a waterfall that flows down into where the center of the former buildings' basements were, and around the edge of the building outlines/waterfalls are the names of the emergency service personnel who were killed trying to rescue others on 9/11 around the country. It will serve as a memorial to those lost, and will also include an on-site museum dedicated to the day's horrible events, and those who brought up the courage to rush into the buildings, attack the fires, and even take down the plane which was allegedly heading towards the White House which passengers crash-landed to prevent more attacks.
http://www.wtc.com/uploads/images/712x534/18_45_Memorial-Pool--Names-Parapet.-Rendering-Squared-Design-Lab.jpg (http://www.wtc.com/uploads/images/712x534/18_45_Memorial-Pool--Names-Parapet.-Rendering-Squared-Design-Lab.jpg)
Here's a good example of the memorial name plaques around the waterfalls.
-
http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/index.html (http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/index.html)
-
Ooooh Shiny! :D
It's taken them a while though... It's to bad Bin Laden can't see it himself.
-
How the f**k are they even going to rent out office space in this thing D:
I for one would not be working in that thing, I could not live the sheer fact of what the building represents, let alone its a replacement for a terrorist target.
People won't be inhabiting it past a certain floor height to prevent a repeat of the past. The building was originally planned to be the tallest in the world as a symbol to show that the United States got back up on it's feet, and continues to stand tall against anyone who tries to hurt it. Everything in the higher floors will simply be filled with decorative plants and other little things that the general public wouldn't be packed within.
It will still be used for business. As with any business building, you cannot simply leave half of the entire building uninhabited for security reasons. It would be a waste of capital, and we all know how executives view their capital.
As such, I am betting they are finding some way to shoot down any plane that would dare come at this rendition of the WTC.
-
It will still be used for business. As with any business building, you cannot simply leave half of the entire building uninhabited for security reasons. It would be a waste of capital, and we all know how executives view their capital.
As such, I am betting they are finding some way to shoot down any plane that would dare come at this rendition of the WTC.
It has been specifically stated that they will not have people working that high up on purpose. It will simply be for show on the upper floors, and may contain plants for the very few that travel up there.
-
Would that apply for all the other tall WTC buildings too?
-
Would that apply for all the other tall WTC buildings too?
Prior to the attacks, there were only 2 tall WTC buildings. Now there is 1.
-
They are building more than one tall structure, you know.
-
They are building more than one tall structure, you know.
This. The renderings show more than one building that extends to heights which can still be targeted by airplanes in the same manner as 9/11.
-
Sugar commented that one building is currently standing not that others wouldn't be built along with it.
-
There also will not be something that is immensely as high as the Freedom Tower, which would be very difficult at the heights the other buildings have planned to crash a plane into. They won't be clear targets as before. Please also bear in mind that if every tower in the world above a certain height were targeted by terrorists, you would have thousands, if not millions, of possible attack locations. :roll:
-
This. The renderings show more than one building that extends to heights which can still be targeted by airplanes in the same manner as 9/11.
Guess what, every tall building can be targeted by airplanes
-
I dont really get the point of not putting offices in the top, yet they are building an observation deck on the top? if they were worried of a second attack why would they put an observation deck up there...
-
I dont really get the point of not putting offices in the top, yet they are building an observation deck on the top? if they were worried of a second attack why would they put an observation deck up there...
Well it's not so much a worry of people being up there as it is the amount of people that would have to be evacuated in such an incident.
-
Well it's not so much a worry of people being up there as it is the amount of people that would have to be evacuated in such an incident.
its just proof that terrorism works.
-
How the f**k are they even going to rent out office space in this thing D:
I for one would not be working in that thing, I could not live the sheer fact of what the building represents, let alone its a replacement for a terrorist target.
It's what America stands for. We are not afarid of terrorists. The attacks didn't seperate us if anything it made use stronger.
-
People won't be inhabiting it past a certain floor height to prevent a repeat of the past. The building was originally planned to be the tallest in the world as a symbol to show that the United States got back up on it's feet, and continues to stand tall against anyone who tries to hurt it. Everything in the higher floors will simply be filled with decorative plants and other little things that the general public wouldn't be packed within.
Apart from a couple floors, the top floors will be inhabited, it would make no business sense to fill them with plants... In fact, most floors have already been leased for 25 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center)
-
Guess what, every tall building can be targeted by airplanes
Obviously. What sets the taller buildings apart is the increased danger / hassle of evacuation in case of an attack, not to mention it would make no business sense to leave the upper floors with plants, as mentioned previously.
Hence my query about security systems. Working at the 100th floor isn't exactly the safest location, but you'd feel a lot safer if your tower had missiles to shoot down any incoming planes.
-
Working at the 100th floor isn't exactly the safest location, but you'd feel a lot safer if your tower had missiles to shoot down any incoming planes.
Are you suggesting they turn the new WTC into a SAM facility?
-
Hence my query about security systems. Working at the 100th floor isn't exactly the safest location, but you'd feel a lot safer if your tower had missiles to shoot down any incoming planes.
Shooting planes down in the middle of the city isn't exactly a smart idea, or, in the case of long range missiles, what if they hit another skyscraper?
-
Then you better hope the buildings can withstand a plane crash without devastating the area for blocks around. :pope:
-
Hence my query about security systems. Working at the 100th floor isn't exactly the safest location, but you'd feel a lot safer if your tower had missiles to shoot down any incoming planes.
I sincerely hope you're not serious about this.
-
It does not exactly have to be explosives or SAM missiles. But thinking practically, just what are they going to do if some idiot decides to fly planes into the towers again?
There has to be some last resort security measure at least, to ensure the safety of the rebuilt towers.
-
Apart from a couple floors, the top floors will be inhabited, it would make no business sense to fill them with plants... In fact, most floors have already been leased for 25 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center)
The North Tower (also known as Tower 1, Building One or 1 WTC) was one of the twin towers of the original World Trade Center in New York City.
Quite a bit of the tenancy is still uncertain at this point due to many companies being ruined, and people being killed in the attacks, and many others are still afraid of a second attempt, should they choose to move back in.
-
There has to be some last resort security measure at least, to ensure the safety of the rebuilt towers.
I agree, but equipping towers with missle defense systems is completely ridiculous. There's a reason why airport security is as tight as it is now since the 9/11 attacks.
-
Why live life in fear? The main 'brains' if you like, behind the attacks are gone, finito. The new buildings will have the same chance of being attacked in some form as any other building, tall or small.
-
Are you suggesting they turn the new WTC into a SAM facility?
Hey man, we're sticking AA missile sites on residential apartment buildings around the Olympics site.
Why live life in fear? The main 'brains' if you like, behind the attacks are gone, finito.
Won't be true as long as islam exists.
-
Shooting planes down in the middle of the city isn't exactly a smart idea, or, in the case of long range missiles, what if they hit another skyscraper?
Ask the Brits. :)
Why live life in fear? The main 'brains' if you like, behind the attacks are gone, finito. The new buildings will have the same chance of being attacked in some form as any other building, tall or small.
Groups like Al Qaeda are still around, and are not any more happier about having one of their most influential figures killed.
The WTC itself is not just any building (let alone one of those residential buildings in the UK with the happy AA missile launchers), but also a symbol that the United States recovered from a terrorist attack, and made the replacement bigger as well.
Now that you think of it, there are few things the terrorists would like more than to attack and destroy that renewed symbolism of hope for the Americans. After all, revenge has no limits.
-
(let alone one of those residential buildings in the UK with the happy AA missile launchers)
Which mental person tells you this stuff? :lol:
-
We have already seen how the old buildings collapsed and it's clear that no planes can cause anything like that. People can try and drive one or two, man, maybe even five planes into the new building but I'm quite sure it won't fall like the old ones did.
People are worried about the wrong thing.
-
Groups like Al Qaeda are still around, and are not any more happier about having one of their most influential figures killed.
Al Qaeda didn't do 9/11.
The WTC itself is not just any building (let alone one of those residential buildings in the UK with the happy AA missile launchers), but also a symbol that the United States recovered from a terrorist attack, and made the replacement bigger as well.
Yes, it's recovered from a self-inflicted wound.
there are few things the terrorists would like more than to attack and destroy that renewed symbolism of hope for the Americans. After all, revenge has no limits.
Yes. "The terrorists" would like to attack and destroy this country at any cost.
Won't be true as long as islam exists.
Long after the dissolution of Islam, there will be a new enemy.
-
Guys, let's not get into what we think caused 9/11. The topic is incredibly controversial, and although I have my own opinions on it that differ from some, I do agree that this isn't the time or place.
-
It's a nice building with a lot of positive qualities. :cop:
-
It's a nice building with a lot of positive qualities. :cop:
I agree. It sounds like it's living up to it's word of being a symbol for the country. The memorial site around it is definitely something I'm happy to see too.
-
I agree, but equipping towers with missle defense systems is completely ridiculous. There's a reason why airport security is as tight as it is now since the 9/11 attacks.
Oh so surrounding the 2012 Olympic stadium with them isnt? :roll:
-
Oh so surrounding the 2012 Olympic stadium with them isnt? :roll:
I never said it wasn't.
-
I never said it wasn't.
I know but they are kind of the same thing.. :razz:
-
If you compare the two, it'd make more sense putting SAM missiles on a globally famous building rather than on top of some residential site, as bombing the missile sites would mean bombing residential buildings rather than your actual intended target.
-
If you compare the two, it'd make more sense putting SAM missiles on a globally famous building rather than on top of some residential site, as bombing the missile sites would mean bombing residential buildings rather than your actual intended target.
So, you don't think they should be using missiles to protect the thousands of people tat will be at the London Olympics?
And also, bombing a ground to air missile site is basicly just impossible unless it's broken or out of missiles.... :poke:
-
I know but they are kind of the same thing.. :razz:
Yes, they are both absurd.
So, you don't think they should be using missiles to protect the thousands of people tat will be at the London Olympics?
And also, bombing a ground to air missile site is basicly just impossible unless it's broken or out of missiles.... :poke:
They should not, no. The death toll from the wreckage could be just as bad. Security measures should be in place to prevent the need for any such missle defense system in the first place.
-
They should not, no. The death toll from the wreckage could be just as bad. Security measures should be in place to prevent the need for any such missle defense system in the first place.
Let's talk worst case scenario and find a practical solution.
You see an airplane headed straight into the London Olympics and / or the World Trade Center, which will crash in 5 minutes. What will you do to avoid thousands of deaths?
-
I would hope that a situation like that wouldn't even have to be contemplated due to the increased airport security, but if a plane did end up hi-jacked and was heading for the Olympic Stadium with five minutes to impact, I would alert the spectators and all present within to evacuate as quickly as possible. I know it doesn't sound like much of an effective and life saving method, but I would still go with it over the use of missle defense systems.
I fully appreciate and understand the necessity for appropriate security measures, but I don't feel that gives justification to turning residential areas into anti-air sites.
But hey, that's just my take on it.
-
I would hope that a situation like that wouldn't even have to be contemplated due to the increased airport security, but if a plane did end up hi-jacked and was heading for the Olympic Stadium with five minutes to impact, I would alert the spectators and all present within to evacuate as quickly as possible. I know it doesn't sound like much of an effective and life saving method, but I would still go with it over the use of missle defense systems.
I fully appreciate and understand the necessity for appropriate security measures, but I don't feel that gives justification to turning residential areas into anti-air sites.
But hey, that's just my take on it.
Well it wasnt prevented at 9/11, the missiles are a good thing and plus, who would fly a plane towards something thats supposed to shoot planes down?
The missiles would blow anything up way before hand.
-
Let's talk worst case scenario and find a practical solution.
You see an airplane headed straight into the London Olympics and / or the World Trade Center, which will crash in 5 minutes. What will you do to avoid thousands of deaths?
Set the roof of that stadium on fire so they think someone beat them and fly on.
-
Set the roof of that stadium on fire so they think someone beat them and fly on.
I'd go with this actually! :lol:
Well it wasnt prevented at 9/11, the missiles are a good thing and plus, who would fly a plane towards something thats supposed to shoot planes down?
Well if they're planning to crash a plane into a stadium, I doubt the risk of being shot down by a missle is of major concern to them - in their eyes, they're going to die anyway.
The missiles would blow anything up way before hand.
The missles are short range and if they did bring down the plane, the aftermath damage from them wreckage could be catastrophic to residential areas, industrial areas, you name it.
-
@Gandalf:
Clever method, but any terrorist who underwent explosive training could tell easily that the stadium hasn't been compromised if the structure is intact and people aren't running from the scene as if Satan himself did a half-time show. Then again, any dumb idiot who signs up for such terrorist duty would probably fly the plane in anyway, just to ensure the target is decimated.
@Mikal/Alsatian:
I highly doubt five minutes would be enough time to save more lives by firing a missile at an oncoming rogue plane as opposed to evacuating a 100-story skyscraper or a 20,000+ seat stadium.
-
Apparently the spire which would've taken the tower when finished to the symbolic 1776ft, has been scrapped due to belief it would be hard to maintain. There is now speculation that in place of the spire there would be an antenna apparently easier to maintain as they can be removed. The problem with antenna's are that they are not counted towards the overall height of a building, it's something to do with them not being architecturally a part of the building. There'll be a lot of people upset.
-
@Gandalf:
Clever method, but any terrorist who underwent explosive training could tell easily that the stadium hasn't been compromised if the structure is intact and people aren't running from the scene as if Satan himself did a half-time show. Then again, any dumb idiot who signs up for such terrorist duty would probably fly the plane in anyway, just to ensure the target is decimated.
@Mikal/Alsatian:
I highly doubt five minutes would be enough time to save more lives by firing a missile at an oncoming rogue plane as opposed to evacuating a 100-story skyscraper or a 20,000+ seat stadium.
By blowing the plane up you kill the passengers and create a high risk of people being crushed or blown up by calling parts so I guess your right. :D
-
Withdrawing my statement, misread something. The new WTC is taller by about 200 metres :poke:
-
Withdrawing my statement, misread something. The new WTC is taller by about 200 metres :poke:
That's assuming the spire will be placed on top of One World Trade Centre and if it is it will be the tallest building in the US.
-
The comments regarding hopeful terrorist attacks and death on other users are not welcome here. Keep it out of the topic.
-
I wonder who the next "terrorists" are...
-
Tried to collect some 'Past, Present and future' images from internet searches.
I've changed the topic title a little so we can place all related updates here.
-
By blowing the plane up you kill the passengers and create a high risk of people being crushed or blown up by calling parts so I guess your right. :D
If you were forced to choose between two procedures in a worst-case scenario where one option would cause 500 deaths in one day (terrorist-controlled plane blows up in the sky, killing all passengers and about two dozen passerby below from the debris / crash) with the other causing 50,000 over the next ten years (terrorist-controlled plane crashes into the new WTC / olympic stadium, killing at least 20,000 with many others afflicted by health problems following the incident), the better choice is obvious.
-
If you were forced to choose between two procedures in a worst-case scenario where one option would cause 500 deaths in one day (terrorist-controlled plane blows up in the sky, killing all passengers and about two dozen passerby below from the debris / crash) with the other causing 50,000 over the next ten years (terrorist-controlled plane crashes into the new WTC / olympic stadium, killing at least 20,000 with many others afflicted by health problems following the incident), the better choice is obvious.
There is no better choice there.
-
There is no better choice there.
Then what will you do if you spotted a plane headed for the area, due to crash in 5 minutes?
-
Then what will you do if you spotted a plane headed for the area, due to crash in 5 minutes?
Try to contact the plane first...
-
There is no better choice there.
It reminds me of the "trolley problem" in ethics, where a trolley is hurtling towards five people on the tracks (and will kill them if it hits them), but you are on a bridge above the track. Next to you is a fat man that (in the hypothetical scenario) will stop the trolley before it hits the five if he gets in the way, killing him instead.
Mathematics would dictate that one should push the man over the edge, as you will save 5 and lose 1, instead of losing 5. However, many disagree with that course of action, stating that nothing should be done, as the fat man is in some way not involved (as he is not in danger unless you push him) whilst the 5 already are in danger.
That said, JDC's situation is a fairly easy one, with the first option being quite clearly the better course of action, IMO.
Even so, the families of the two dozen below (i.e. the uninvolved man in the situation above) would never forgive the person who was forced to decide and take action, even if tens of thousands were saved because of it.
-
Try to contact the plane first...
If a plane has been hijacked and is heading for the area at full speed, I doubt they will listen to logical reasoning attempts.
It could be politics, it could be religion. But extremists are extremists, and nothing will stop them from pursuing their goal, even if it means the loss of their own lives.
Even so, the families of the two dozen below (i.e. the uninvolved man in the situation above) would never forgive the person who was forced to decide and take action, even if tens of thousands were saved because of it.
If there is no other choice, then some sacrifices would have to be made, if it meant saving the majority from sure destruction. Whether those afflicted by the sacrifice will understand it or not, is another story.
-
If a plane has been hijacked and is heading for the area at full speed, I doubt they will listen to logical reasoning attempts.
How do you know it's hijacked and not just a miscommunication or a crashing plane? You never said the scenario included a hijacked plane. Regardless, any death is still unacceptable. It may not be avoidable, but saying that one scenario is "better" than the other would be a misnomer. No one deserves to die...and math doesn't really justify that.
-
It's a moral thing. Just like Sugar said, the amount doesn't matter.
-
How do you know it's hijacked and not just a miscommunication or a crashing plane? You never said the scenario included a hijacked plane. Regardless, any death is still unacceptable. It may not be avoidable, but saying that one scenario is "better" than the other would be a misnomer. No one deserves to die...and math doesn't really justify that.
Welcome to the real world. People are gonna die and you obviously dont have the capacity to ever make a life and death situation. But, most people don't so thats OK.
-
Welcome to the real world. People are gonna die and you obviously dont have the capacity to ever make a life and death situation. But, most people don't so thats OK.
Could not have said it better.
In the real world, things happen that are out of control, things that are not pretty... things that will require us to make some distasteful sacrifices in order to prevent an even bigger disaster.
This dilemma is what President Harry Truman was faced with when he decided to drop the bomb. In doing so, he crushed two Japanese cities and sunk their morale, but he also saved the lives of millions of weary allied soldiers who would have died in an invasion of Japan, and that includes many of your cherished american boys.
Realistically speaking, blowing a plane out of the sky and killing 600 in a day to save the lives of 60,000 who would directly suffer over the next 10 years is the more strategic decision. It's not pretty, but it's not like we can rub a lamp and wish for the genie to magically land the plane at an airport damage-free either.
In matters of life and death where you have no other choice, you have to choose between the lesser of two evils...
-
They have three tennants for One World Trade Center one most recently being 'GSA'.
-
In the case of the trolley if you are strong enough to push a fat man of the bridge, you can jump yourself and solve the problem.
As for the plane, all planes are using predetermined and controlled flight paths, and I am pretty sure none will be close to the Olympics area. If a plane deviates from its path it is immediately contacted, and should it not respond there is a very likely chance it will be brought down by force.
You might not be aware but I am pretty sure flight paths will be adjusted in such way that any deviation to head towards the Olymic area will not be over highly populated areas, minimizing the victims on the ground.
As for the passengers, life has to end.
-
In the case of the trolley if you are strong enough to push a fat man of the bridge, you can jump yourself and solve the problem.
It's a hypothetical situation where you jumping would not solve the problem (as in, you could not stop it).
Although, you being able to jump would present an interesting new option in a different scenario.
-
It's a hypothetical situation where you jumping would not solve the problem (as in, you could not stop it).
Although, you being able to jump would present an interesting new option in a different scenario.
The premise here is that anything with less mass than the fat man will be unable to stop the others from being killed. As such, the only choice you can take to save the others is to push the fat man.
Anyone who is unable to make decisions under such problems is clearly incapable of making a life-or-death decision.
-
The premise here is that anything with less mass than the fat man will be unable to stop the others from being killed. As such, the only choice you can take to save the others is to push the fat man.
Anyone who is unable to make decisions under such problems is clearly incapable of making a life-or-death decision.
The problem is invalid and falls in the category chicken and egg.
Making a life-or-death decision should not be based on impossible premises but on realistic choices.
Alternative suggestion:
You are the operator of a switch and see a trolley approaching at high speed.
You are in a closed house, and your only option is to press a button to throw the switch.
Without throwing the switch, the trolley will go in to a bumper, behind which 5 people are standing. There is a 99% chance the trolley will not be stopped and kill the 5 people.
If you do throw the switch, the trolley will crash in to a fat man standing at the end of the other track. There is a 100% chance he will be killed.
None of the people has a chance to be alarmed and get out of the way.
What do you do?
-
The problem is invalid and falls in the category chicken and egg.
Making a life-or-death decision should not be based on impossible premises but on realistic choices.
Alternative suggestion:
You are the operator of a switch and see a trolley approaching at high speed.
You are in a closed house, and your only option is to press a button to throw the switch.
Without throwing the switch, the trolley will go in to a bumper, behind which 5 people are standing. There is a 99% chance the trolley will not be stopped and kill the 5 people.
If you do throw the switch, the trolley will crash in to a fat man standing at the end of the other track. There is a 100% chance he will be killed.
None of the people has a chance to be alarmed and get out of the way.
What do you do?
Throw the switch, choose the lesser evil. There is no time to think any further because five lives will be lost.
-
Throw the switch, choose the lesser evil. There is no time to think any further because five lives will be lost.
Throw the switch and you have killed one man.
Do not throw the switch and there is a 1% chance the 5 survive.
Are you sure ?
-
Throw the switch and you have killed one man.
Do not throw the switch and there is a 1% chance the 5 survive.
Are you sure ?
Maybe my coffee didn't kick in yet but this is what I see:
There is a 99% chance the trolley will not be stopped and kill the 5 people.
If you do throw the switch, the trolley will crash in to a fat man standing at the end of the other track. There is a 100% chance he will be killed.
None of the people has a chance to be alarmed and get out of the way.
Maybe I did not get the concept right? Numbers always terrify us, so I am sure on this one.
-
Maybe my coffee didn't kick in yet but this is what I see:Maybe I did not get the concept right? Numbers always terrify us, so I am sure on this one.
You got the concept right, but think over your decision.
If you throw the switch, your action has surely killed a man.
If you do nothing, you have not killed anyone, and there is a chance nobody would have been killed, even it if is a 1% chance.
-
You got the concept right, but think over your decision.
If you throw the switch, your action has surely killed a man.
If you do nothing, you have not killed anyone, and there is a chance nobody would have been killed, even it if is a 1% chance.
From my bitter perspective, I stand firmly by this decision. By simply putting out this hypothetical situation(which is determined by unchangeable factors) you can already predict future answers. They are based on viewpoints(except the person had real encounters with given life/death situations).
Quite frankly, I am sitting here and writing my answer. The thought has left my mind minutes ago. How would I react in this particular situation?
How am I supposed to know that, Gandalf? We are just talking about a hypothesis. People would jump in front of a vehicle to save someone yet again they just might "freeze" when the moment comes. Tricky is this human nature/nurture.
-
From my bitter perspective, I stand firmly by this decision. By simply putting out this hypothetical situation(which is determined by unchangeable factors) you can already predict future answers. They are based on nothing but viewpoints.
Quite frankly, I am sitting here and writing my answer. The thought has left my mind minutes ago. How would I react in this particular situation?
How am I supposed to know that, Gandalf? We are just talking about a hypothesis. People would jump in front of a vehicle to save someone yet again they just might "freeze" when the moment comes. Tricky is this human nature/nurture.
The speed with which they answer the question and how they are able to defend their decision a posteriori does actually give a good indication of what someone would do in an emergency situation.
While I do not know you in person, or if you ever have been in a situation where you had to take emergency decisions, from your answer I would say the following:
In an emergency situation you are able to make a fast decision and you will go for the option that offers the highest amount of security of minimal damage.
-
The speed with which they answer the question and how they are able to defend their decision a posteriori does actually give a good indication of what someone would do in an emergency situation.
While I do not know you in person, or if you ever have been in a situation where you had to take emergency decisions, from your answer I would say the following:
In an emergency situation you are able to make a fast decision and you will go for the option that offers the highest amount of security of minimal damage.
This is a sort of romanticized view at hand. I am inclined to believe everyone would react in a similar way because there is something hiding underneath the fog of this particular situation. Guilt. No one wants the ultimate burden of guilt, but to feel safe and accepted. That is the main reason why we react in such way.
We are still just social creatures and as that, very susceptible. Lets see how our members answer to this situation and you'll see what I'm writing about.
Bottom line is, we will never know.
-
This is a sort of romanticized view at hand. I am inclined to believe everyone would react in a similar way because there is something hiding underneath the fog of this particular situation. Guilt. No one wants the ultimate burden of guilt, but to feel safe and accepted. That is the main reason why we react in such way.
We are still just social creatures and as that, very susceptible. Lets see how our members answer to this situation and you'll see what I'm writing about.
Bottom line is, we will never know.
I am pretty sure people will react different especially because if what you mentioned.
Is the burden of guilt that comes from being personally responsible for killing a person compensated enough by knowing 5 people were stopped from almost certain death (remember the 1% chance) were saved? Or would they rather not become a killer?
People freeze because their rational behaviour conflicts with their instinct, causing a short circuit in their brain. It also greatly depends on their circumstances when taking such test.
The same person might react different when under influence of alcohol or even with a higher amount of cafeine in their blood.
-
Is the burden of guilt that comes from being personally responsible for killing a person compensated enough by knowing 5 people were stopped from almost certain death (remember the 1% chance) were saved? Or would they rather not become a killer?
Their hands are already stained with other's blood. That's a completely new feeling. Sure, everyone will emphasize how you saved five lives and comfort you, reassure you that you did the right thing saving five instead of one but you'll die inside a little knowing you killed someone. This feeling will never leave you.
I may not know this firsthand but I know people that found themselves in these situations. They are not the same from the incident. This is completely natural as we are fragile beings dependent on analyzing. This feeling will be here because of "why and what if?" questions.
-
Throw the switch and you have killed one man.
Do not throw the switch and there is a 1% chance the 5 survive.
Are you sure ?
I would not play those odds to save 5 people, It would be best to flick the switch and kill one person. You could say you would feel guilt for the minuscule chance you could have saved everyones life, but at the end of the day the chances were just way to low to even think that you stood a reasonable chance of saving everyone. the risk is to high.
Post Merge: July 09, 2012, 10:54:37 am
Their hands are already stained with other's blood. That's a completely new feeling. Sure, everyone will emphasize how you saved five lives and comfort you, reassure you that you did the right thing saving five instead of one but you'll die inside a little knowing you killed someone. This feeling will never leave you.
I may not know this firsthand but I know people that found themselves in these situations. They are not the same from the incident. This is completely natural as we are fragile beings dependent on analyzing. This feeling will be here because of "why and what if?" questions.
I think this would depend on if you killed an innocent person to save more lives, or if you killed a criminal to save the lives of the innocent. I met a cop who did a talk last year in my city who talked about the emotional stress using your weapon can cause, especially when you kill someone. in the aftermath of the situation, you just need to have the self confindence to understand that your actions were correct. Not everyone has this ability, but thats why so few people these days consider going in to a career that involves taking such risks.
-
I think this would depend on if you killed an innocent person to save more lives, or if you killed a criminal to save the lives of the innocent. I met a cop who did a talk last year in my city who talked about the emotional stress using your weapon can cause, especially when you kill someone. in the aftermath of the situation, you just need to have the self confindence to understand that your actions were correct. Not everyone has this ability, but thats why so few people these days consider going in to a career that involves taking such risks.
The fact that he was a criminal will give you a different perspective, I agree. But the fact is that you killed a person. That's still a completely new feeling involved in your life. Have you ever killed?
I leave this conversation open as it is not in my hands to determine the "how" and "why" factor. I leave this to people who actually had a life bringing/taking decision.
-
Their hands are already stained with other's blood. That's a completely new feeling. Sure, everyone will emphasize how you saved five lives and comfort you, reassure you that you did the right thing saving five instead of one but you'll die inside a little knowing you killed someone. This feeling will never leave you.
I may not know this firsthand but I know people that found themselves in these situations. They are not the same from the incident. This is completely natural as we are fragile beings dependent on analyzing. This feeling will be here because of "why and what if?" questions.
You are completely right, and this is why I mentioned the difference of making this decisions when under influence of cafeine or alcohol. In WW2 Russian soldiers were given two shots of vodka (100grams) before going in to battle. This to induce a rush that would allow them to kill opponents with more success.
Many of them ended as alcoholics, as their mind could not process the actions they did while under this influence. This was reason to at least officially stop the habit.
-
You are completely right, and this is why I mentioned the difference of making this decisions when under influence of cafeine or alcohol.
Coffee or alcohol, when there is a life bringing/taking situation people are always under influence of their own system. This is another fascinating subject so I won't derail the thread further. This shock/paralyzer/drink won't last for long but something will and that's psychological trauma.
I will use your own example: No one comes back "alive and good" from the war.
-
Bump.
I read through the previous discussion on the trolley-and-the-fat-man problem, and I was wondering.
If the odds for the survival of the 5 people were increased to 25% or even 50%, what will you do?
You throw the switch, you surely kill the fat man.
You don't throw the switch, there is a 25% or 50% chance that the five people will be killed.
Just curious.
-
You throw the switch, you surely kill the fat man.
You don't throw the switch, there is a 25% or 50% chance that the five people will be killed.
Just curious.
This changes the very nature of the situation.
If anything that makes the situation tell you more about the person: whether they are risk taking gamblers or not. Whether they're an optimist.
In that situation you are gambling that you can save all 6 with the lives of the 5. That said, it is easier to take the gamble as it requires doing nothing. Personally I'd do that as (believe it or not) I'm still an optimist.
-
The steel skeleton of WTC One has been completed all that is left to do is to add the glass and the spire. The spire will be the make or break of it being the tallest building in the USA. Apparently it is still wanted to be classed as an antenna which do not count to the overall height of a building.