Would You Risk Your Entire Family to Save One Person?

I know my first instinct would be to send some on ahead while I go get the other child that was an hour away. When places start to evacuate,traffic becomes a nightmare. If traffic nightmare grid lock would be an issue I may start thinking of where the rescued child and I could safely to ride out the storm then try to reach the rest of the family.

Also- @Ganado asked a good question, what about the sheep family? Do you arrive on their doorstep say give me my kid & good luck?

 

I think you arrive with some supplies, but not enough to impact your contingency. Maybe something perishable that you would otherwise have to leave, or just a few small bags of beans and rice.

 

Nobody gets left behind. If there is no other choice, we live as a family or we die as a family.

That said, if it is possible for me to ensure that most of my family gets to safety while I attempt to rescue the missing family member...that would be the optimal choice.

 

That question is easy for my wife and me. Preservation of our daughter comes first, period. The scenario would dictate which of us would stay behind, take the risk, not be rescued, whatever to save her. If she was elsewhere, we'd both go get her as that in most cases maximizes chance of success. If the wife was elsewhere, I'd go get her but ONLY after the daughter was safe and secure with other family who would care for her if we didn't make it back.
I recall Chris Rock commenting on his new fatherhood a dozen years ago as he noted his purpose in life had changed. He realized his sole mission in life had become to keep his daughter off "the pole."
Generically, all the same; save the kids.

AT

 

My wife and I have discussed this many times and without question, would sacrifice our lives for our children or grandchildren. We have, on occasion, risked our lives to save others; our lives and the lives of our ship mates, most notably in Honduras during a tropical storm when we rescued several families trapped aboard a grounded trawler and breaking up. This was done without questioning the rescue, it was the only morale decision, given our capabilities. That said, Jimi and I rode out a Cat 3 hurricane aboard our shanty-boat years ago. Near three in the morning, our cleats ripped from the deck and we were in extreme danger of being broken up by a concrete pier just a few hundred feet away. We had our life jackets on but it was over a mile away before we would get to a point where we could possibly exit the St. Johns River, if we'd had to take to the water. The third member of our family was our cherished Retriever, Beaux. I strapped my pistol on while working desperately to secure additional lines around the floatation pontoons to prevent us from setting sail to our destruction. Jimi asked why I had my pistol on and I told her it was to shoot Beaux, if we had to take to the water. I knew that she would drown trying to save him.

 

It is a hard question. Here are some thoughts.
Save the child over the adult. We spend our lives passing on knowledge to children because they are the next generation and may grow to resurrect the world.

If the missing is a child and you don't rescue them, you may have to put them down in the future. They would try to survive in their situation and may join the MZBs. Then the MZBs would need to be put down. If they don't join the MZBs, they may "join" them as property to be used and it would have been better they died when you see the husk that they've become. If the missing adult joins the MZBs, then they would have written themselves off and if they know of your hideaway, they very well may become a traitor to lead the MZBS to your door.

Now the question becomes, who is immediate family? Aunts, uncle's, nephews, etc. Depends on your family connection. And it could be more beneficial to get to base, then run rescues. If you go with, send on the wife and couple kids, you'd blame yourself if anything happened to them on their way to base. Like I said, some tough questions.

 

I recently moved and my son asked me what our new rally point was. He's 12 and my daughter is 13 and I typically don't let them too far from me. That being said, in this scenario, my immediate family is my only reason for wasting air. Wife included. If one of them were separated I would create a new meet and would gladly take my last breath if it meant saving my family. I know that might sound selfish, but I don't think I'd be able to operate not knowing any of them weren't safe. You go I go.

 

I pray that I am resourceful enough to at least attempt to save both.

While I agree with others in that the priority should be to save the child first...in reality we would have to consider the odds of saving each and make the first attempt for the one we have the best chance of saving...which might also then present the opportunity to save the other. If the odds of saving the child first are long and you die in the process, you end up saving nobody. I think in situations like this you have to put logic over emotions...not that doing so is as easy as saying it.

 

Well Tiberius, if you have a plan, answer the question. It's the only Logical thing to do.

 

For me, it's all hypothetical, but this is the answer I consider most correct.. I will never bug out. I am at what I consider my best location now. This is why we train, and pass on all the knowledge and skills we can. We all die eventually. No one escapes death forever. If my absence from the stronghold is more of a threat to the tribe, I have to stay. If the threat is reduced at the stronghold, my second will take charge and I will go. Old as I am at this point, that needs to be considered as well. Maybe that point means I should or should not go. Someone will go for sure. No tribe member is left behind, ignored, sacrificed unless it is their decision and for one hell of a good reason.

 

Thanks Melbo. It is high time I try to start doing things faster. A disaster could be right around the bend.

 

Yeah, like the recent mudslide in California. Who saw that coming?

 

I would not leave this location either, at least not on a permanent basis(would evacuate for a wildfire, but we'd return and rebuild). There are some people I'd want to help survive a disaster, but those don't need my help, so that's good. I could not in conscience leave my mother alone in an emergency to rescue someone who won't rescue themselves. But then I've been rescuing myself since I was a kid, and these 2 brothers my age who lived behind us, decided we'd play a game where I was a princess captured by one of them, and the other brother would come and rescue me. I kneed him and rescued myself twice before they decided we wouldn't do that anymore cause I wasn't playing it right

Oh my mother grew up in the L.A. area, to this day she never understood why people kept rebuilding their homes in the same place and the same way every time they got hit by the usual wildfires.

 

Twenty years ago or so and it was serious my wife and I had a discussion of a scenario where we were holding our son off a cliff in one hand and one of us in the other he would be saved.

 

Have the child climb on the back of the dangling adult, then use both hands to haul the adult up.

 

Easy. Momma goes to rally point in her prescribed vehicle. I take the big truck to grab missing family, make offer to evac others and give them reasonable waiting time them vamoose with or without non-family members and head to rally point. We already have pre-planned evac routes set; no main highways. We'd use allyways in urban areas, fireroads, class VI roads and right-of-ways to evac where necessary.

Traffic is relatively easy to work around once you sit down and think about it.

 

I concur with you but if it was a zombie threat it would benefit your family to have expendables to slow the mob down... just sayin.... lol