At least some of the CEO's estate should go to paying for it, but pay out to victims' families first.
This. When the shit hits the fan, and lives are endangered, participants in the responsive operations focus more intently, and the lessons learned seem to get imprinted more firmly, than when it's a drill; I can think of an example or two from aircraft-carrier operations Back In The Day, but it's not hard to think of other examples.
(There was a reason that when Pearl Harbor was attacked, the emergency radio transmission that went out was, "Air raid Pearl Harbor X This is no drill." [0])
I suspect the pedagogy and psychology might be related somehow to Samuel Johnson's dictum that "When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/0...
And, yes, it's a zero sum game. People looking for the five rich guys are people that cannot look for the hundreds of children trapped on a sinking ship.
It could be that someone/something damaged the hull (oceans and boats are notoriously hostile environments) and that created a weak spot that failed under pressure, or that some other mechanical failure occurred. However, those are both every bit as speculative as what I'm cautioning against. They are provided for illustration, only.
The 5th passenger from the French, maybe not
I think there is value in living in the kind of society where you know that if
you are lost at sea there will be arguably irrational levels of resources thrown
into trying to find you.
And not just the rich either, no matter what Twitter would have you believe.
Oceangate had been warned by pretty much anyone with any knowledge of their efforts. They fired and sued their Director of Marine Ops who tried for stricter safety measures. They've already had to repair stress damage to the hull before the final dive. They were using parts not expected to hold up to 4000m dives, they were using flammable materials inside the sub.
The Thai team did something generally recognized as safe, and got caught up in a bad situation. The Oceangate folks did something that they'd been warned against repeatedly and consistently, something nobody thought was safe. Oceangate took every opportunity to do the wrong thing and try to profit off of it.
Insofar as wealth has anything to do with it, pedo guy happens to be pretty damn wealthy (ex financial broker). If those Thai kids hadn't caught a rich guy's attention their misadventure would've been a mere footnote.
I wouldn’t know, because i live in the kind of society where if you are lost at sea and you call for help but the call handler assumes that you have the wrong kind of passport they just tell you to call some other country and then hung up on you. [1]
But i would rather live in the kind of society where we spend our pooled resources to heal those who have fallen sick, than in one where we spend our pooled resources to rescue statistical anomalies. Everyone can become sick one day, not everyone will get suckered to buy a deluxe sea going group coffin by a conman.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/13/uk-coastguar...
>The refugee said it was his fourth attempt to cross the Channel. During the previous three attempts French police had caught them on the beach and punctured their dinghies with knives.
Honestly didn't realize though refugees thought the benefits in the UK were better than France's.
This is a simple observation of facts. If you don’t like some implication if it so bad for you. I don’t like it either, but I suspect we disagree in what way we don’t like the implications.
We still rescue them. I never argued against rescuing them.
The owner of subversive bragged about safety being useless, punished employee warning about safety ossies, by all reports pushed the luck again and again and his missions had track record of failures and issues.
not the same
As to who should share in the cost… my take is that it’s time to discuss whether some expeditions (e.g. risky commercial tourist rides) should sign a Do Not Rescue pledge before they head out and/or self-fund a commercial rescue operation.
It's just better that they call right away rather than wait too long and die.
If you search around on the internet, you can find people writing this up in much more detail and more eloquently.
But the considerations for something like this are pretty much entirely different, risk to non-technical rescuers is pretty minimal and the costs are just gas and the time spent on what is essentially just an unplanned hike with some extra gear.
I'm sure this is rare though.
https://npca.s3.amazonaws.com/images/11275/93882d38-5217-4aa...
https://preview.redd.it/mx98brhdszg71.jpg?width=960&crop=sma...
> We will serve our Nation through the selfless performance of our missions.
> We will honor our duty to protect those we serve and those who serve with us. [1]
In answer to your question: No. That's what taxes are for.
There could be other legal penalties if the SAR mission is prompted by negligence or illegal activity but the Coast Guard doesn't chase anyone down for operating costs.
Basically everyone in this thread is in the top 1% of global wealth (not just industrialized or western wealth) and does stupid things all the time and get treatment or are rescued. Happens every day. So, the argument is really weak.
No, and that's not what I am saying. The poor people you mention deserve help or assistance, not forgiveness, they did nothing wrong. You're making a categorical error, I think. Forgiveness is a separate deal from charity or inclusion or equality. We forgive actions, not living conditions.
Solving an unknown problem with whoever is available on hand at that moment. Coordinating between that ad hoc group and analyzing the results afterward is a real world activity that can't truly be simulated.
Nobody asked me if I want to pay for it or not. So i don’t feel that the “we” is justified. But if they would have asked me i would have voted to not move a finger unless some private entity (the company or the families, or literally anyone who wants to) pays for it.
They went out of their way to do something knowingly recklesly dangerous, and the cost of any rescue attempt is enermous.
But even in a hypothetical where the government sent out a snap poll saying “Sup citizen. 5 fellas lost in a sub. Need $140m for rescue attempt. Send yay or nay.” I would have responded with “nay”. So even in that hypothetical I wouldn’t feel I need to justify why we should spend money to rescue these people. (By the by, this hypothetical sounds crazy, but we could totally have this kind of direct say in matters. We have the tech for it.)
If training is not real, they create it. They spend billions every year simulating events.
But anyway, I expect them passing at least part of the bill to the company, that will go bankrupt.
Here in the alps, if you have an injury hiking and need a helicopter ride then you are required to pay for the ride (normally a few thousand euros). I assume it's the same if you're lost.
And I would assume it's the same on high sea...
Then recoup what you can from me or my estate if you determine I was reckless after the fact, when you have plenty of time to evaluate the facts.
Obviously there is an insurance for mountain climbing. But search party is not free, just that insurance pays if you have it.
The better question is 'Who do we refuse to help?'
Even if it doesn't balance out or make sense financially, I'm much happier living in a world where we care about each other rather than one where we're weighing the value of saving a life.
I had this same thought when watching The Martian. If you're unfamiliar, an astronaut is accidentally left on Mars. The story is about how he survives and the immense measures those at NASA and the CNSA go to just to save one life. It's an inspiring thought.