Manimal2878 wrote:Yeah, I was alive before the cell phone too. I still don't buy it.
Ok, wasn't sure how old you are.
I'm not really sure what there is to 'buy
', if you take a cell phone, beeper or some electronic device out of the equation then the person wouldn't know that the other person was trying to reach them if they're away from their home or work phone. That's just a fact. :Shrug
For instance in Fire/EMS they still use pagers to a large degree despite having portable radios, the Nextel for the truck and your personal cell phones. That's generally how you get much of your call info. There are multiple redundant ways of contacting that crew.
Okay, so we jump in our time machine and go back in time and take the cell phones, the Nextel and the pagers out of the equation (they don't exist yet). Q :
If Peggy Sue the dispatcher wants to send Smith and Jones on a 911 call and she can't contact them on the radio what means of communication is she left with (if she can't contact them by radio)?
None. Short of going out to their location in another vehicle there's no other way of contacting them.
DannusMaximus wrote:Hell, I totally believe it. Your average person isn't really into contingencies for when their Plan A falls apart (for example, it may or may not amaze you how often people admit they don't know another way to get to where they're going if we have their normal road shut down for some reason), and I suspect your average street level drug dealer or addict is REALLY up a creek as far as coming up with quick alternative solutions in the case of an emergency. Calm, sober consideration of alternatives and planning ahead is not a hallmark of this type of person. If they normally use a pager, and the pager suddenly doesn't work, their head explodes.
True story time. My truck had shut down a street one Sunday morning for a half-marathon route that was winding through our section of the city. A lady stopped her car and came up to me and proceeded to chew my ass to a bloody rag because she couldn't drive down her normal street and get into the parking lot of the flower shop where she worked. She was ranting about losing her job, suing the city (and me in particular since I wouldn't make an exception and let her drive through the crowd of runners to get where she was going), yadda yadda. I waited until she was done venting and then pointed out that, since the flower shop was only about two blocks away, she could park in the accessible grocery store parking lot across the street from her shop and walk across the street to work, then come back and get her car when the runners had passed. She stood there, uncomprehending and slack-jawed, barked something about what a condescending smart-ass I was and peeled away. Not sure if she ever got to work or not. I think she genuinely represents the average person in my city - - actually, since she had a job she's probably what I would consider an upper-tier citizen.
Yeah, part of this is exactly what I'm talking about.
People are creatures of habit and they get used to doing things a certain way. Throw them out of the routine and many honestly don't know what to do.
Mikeyboy wrote:Yep , I'm talking scary wacko.
I can see a situation where people good, logical people are forced to do taboo things in order to survive. The Donner party stuck in a snowy pass, or the Rugby player stuck in the Andes made a hard yet logical choice to eat human flesh. Same with people stealing and killing in order to survive. Things like war, famine, and chaos are going to make most people do what they have to do to survive. 3 Days to anarchy makes a lot of sense.
I see where you're going with this and I'd have to disagree as to the similarities in bold. To me there's a great difference in doing something taboo (such as eating people who are already dead) and violently victimizing others.
In situations where it becomes difficult to survive some people might take the easy way out and immediately start to prey upon others. However I think that the vast majority would exhaust every resource at their disposal to avoid starving to death rather than turning into some kind of monster.
As an example I watched that movie 'Impossible
' with Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts yesterday, take that little 3 year old boy that Naomi Watts and her son found. Her son didn't want to go over and help him. Her son thought that he might be a drain on their resources and hinder their chances of survival. However despite having a punctured lung and having her back left leg flapped open she went over there anyway, got the little boy and brought him along.
In every disaster that's ever happened you're going to see examples of regular people doing things like that. They're often going to help others without them receiving any real benefit in doing so and sometimes putting a drain on their resources and limiting their own chances for survival. It's just the right thing to do.
There seems to be a limit to that help, but many people will still help others to some degree even at risk to themselves.
So I partially agree with what you're saying, but I disagree somewhat as well.