So long as you get a numbered T Shirt on the wall for us to remember you by?.....Laughing

Is "No, not again!" an acceptable answer? I base it on the fact that it would be best for the planet.

As long as I could take all the trouble making leftist, all the great unwashed and all the parasitical humanoids with me...then that would be a Big Fat Yes!

Nope. I would, however, use the heads up to notify a few select folks so they would know I had the opportunity to save them and declined based on the fact they were worthless a@@holes.

I have a "spiritual life" (not a 'religious' one) and I believe there is a life after this one... and it doesn't have to be on planet Earth.
Earth has had the "Great Flood", volcanoes that smothered life, 'ice ages' that froze man and beast, "Atlantis" collapsing, etc. etc. Life survived, and civilization (as we know it) rebuilt. It'd just be nice if we learned from the previous experiences, but we won't...
Short answer - probably I wouldn't.

Well there was a 'game' with 'teams' firing carpet tacks at each other. I do not recall any injuries! There are few pleasures to compare with the chance to injure those who live on the wrong side of the river. Now this is not answering the question, but it is giving the question the importance it deserves.

I agree with you completely! On my original post I was going to say "at the moment: no" but thought it wasn't necessary. Self interest changes and my answer might as well.

I suspect that this type of question would have little debate on most other forums. My question originally ended as, “…if it meant saving planet earth?” But a growing number of individuals would happily choose to save the planet but sacrifice the people. And unfortunately that is a more likely scenario.

If a person has faith in an afterlife, then one would be taking a risk that something better exists after this life, in which case such "sacrifice" might be viewed as hastening a better life for oneself.

This is a variant of Pascal's wager, for which the pros and cons of this argument are fairly well summarized below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%...

It makes no sense to sacrifice one's own life if there is no afterlife. There is no self interest. Certainly if one is an Objectivist, one is also an atheist. Can one believe in an "afterlife" if one is an atheist?

So a "Kobayashi Maru" situation: Sacrificing 'One' to save the 'Many'... I might consider it depending on the situation. I would consider a situation similar to that of the movie "Armageddon": A Global Killer Asteroid heading towards earth, and I have the skill set to save the planet. Sure, I'd sacrifice myself.

However, if indeed the Earth is overpopulated and has surpassed maximum sustainable limit of humans, then would sacrificing myself now only allow for a greater doom later on? If the answer to that is Yes, then I would have to say NO.

Another question is, do the majority of the people on this planet deserve to be saved?
There is something to be said about "Survival of the Fittest", and saving those whom are not fit enough would only manifest a cruel Wellsian future.

Anyone who served in the military or in law enforcement and first response services offered to give their lives in the service to others.

Is that what Jesus allegedly did? Was that his "deal" with his father? Sick! I can't imagine a scenario that would make this question the crux of preserving humanity. Who would impose such a condition? Anyone so powerful as to have life-and-death control over all the people on earth is playing a demented game and should be killed, not be left to demand self-sacrifice from anyone. And such a sicko could easily renege on the deal and kill everyone off anyway rather than give up one iota of its omnipotence. Absent such a monster, what condition could arise that would turn on the destruction of a single individual in exchange for the preservation of the rest? How would we know or have assurance that such a cause-and-effect existed? In any case, I am worth more alive than dead. Let's keep it that way.

There are degrees of survival instincts, each with a demand on personal sacrifice: survival of self, no sacrifice intended; survival of family, may result in loss of life; survival of tribe/nation, may result in loss of life; survival of species, most likely to result in loss of life. The determination of the worth of possible loss of life follows an odd curve: survival of self, instinctive, unconscious reaction; survival of family, partly instinctive, partly emotional conscious action; survival of tribe/nation, subjective, rational conscious action: survival of species, back to partly instinctive, rational decision.

I would more than likely decide to offer my own life to protect my species.

In theory, yes.

I can not enjoin under the context of Sacrifice. I can under the concept of value based choice. I care for my life. I care deeply enough (empathy) for all other life in the universe. Under conditions where my single life, ended, would keep from ending the greatest potential of the present and upcoming generations......I love you! Goodbye!

Given that "all" definitely includes someone, or several someones, I love, yes.

Given that this is likely an emergency, yes. Rand herself said emergencies have an ethic completely different from everyday life.

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

This doesn't cover "death". However, if the decision is yours and not the "collective's", it's your life, and if you feel it worth sacrificing it for millions of others -- it's your call. John Galt was willing to sacrifice his life to give Dagny a chance at joining the strike...but it was his decision. That makes all the difference.

Self interest changes with circumstance. The purpose of life is continuity. Life continues through intake and process of energy, and progeny. If / when you have kids......this may change.

I'd like to think so, but I've never been in that position.

Yes, for the sake of family and friends;but if asked to step forward to trade my one 72-year-old life as ransom for the otherwise doomed entire Jackass Party, me dino would only look around and whistle.

Bet you'd be good on the receiving side of Dodge Ball, a game me dino was pretty good at when it was still allowed in high school way back during the Sixties.

Assuming this was happening as asked, all or nothing, in real life, say I’m piloting a rocket bomb heading toward some giant astroid that will soon annihilate earth, I’d have to say yes. I have friends and family that I care about very much. There is also that bit about not wanting the human race to go extinct.

Even John Galt was willing to be tortured or possibly killed to save Dagny, the woman he valued beyond all others and could not live without.

On the other hand, these type of hypothetical questions seemingly have an easy, obvious answer. But the reason for an answer is the key. Is the reason, based on “the greater good?” Or is the reason based on what you value? If you choose, “for the greater good” you could soon be fodder holding some sign screaming some chant as part of an activist mob to stop “climate change” or living-your-own-life-ophobia by any means necessary.

Another answer, as some stated, is no firm answer, since these type of hypothetical “lifeboat” questions are not real life. Real life has countless sensory perceptions from the past and in the present that real decisions are made upon. In these hypothetical “lifeboat” questions these do not exist.

That’s MY answer.

What good would I do myself or any of my family being dead? I may die defending myself, my family or a friend but wouldn't ever consider sacrificing myself for anyone.

Not sure I should have replied, given the old man comment. :)

No I can’t stand to lose anymore.
Two days ago my mother fell and broke her pelvis.
She will spend many days in the hospital in Dothan Alabama and then more rehabbing. They had a hell of a bad time with Hurricane Michael and now this.

Well of course you would? But really, the rest of the world? No, no, first my family. I have few enough left. Can't stand to lose one?