Titanic question.
- Thread starter Vanyel
- Start date
Not any more ridiculous than most of what was said, and it was intentionally so to prove the point. We've got the hindsight to see what happened, but people are also trying to blast them for not realizing that was even a possibility.
Even with the things being said, you're not guaranteeing the result you want, just trying to look better than they did. 100% capacity wouldn't have been enough, based on the panic and how things happened that night. So even with that recommendation, wouldn't have been enough. Certainly better, obviously. Boats that size could easily roll on its side vice sinking the way Titanic did, so 200% capacity would ensure a better chance at safety, as half the lifeboats would likely be underwater and unusable. I don't think we carry that capacity even today on a cruiseliner, are all cruiseliners irresponsible? Or just calculating profit vs human lives? Boat could roll over completely, Poseidon Adventure-style, but we don't have any sort of escape from the bottom of the hull...
At the end of the day, they didn't think the boat would sink, nor would it sink out of sight of land, without any nearby boats to rescue people and allow reuse of lifeboats. Extra capacity seemed a waste. Obviously a poor plan, but easier to say that now that we know it happened. It took a LOT of things going wrong for this to happen the way it did, and we learned a lot from it, hopefully to prevent it from recurring. Doesn't make them all mustache-twirling villains...
Even with the things being said, you're not guaranteeing the result you want, just trying to look better than they did. 100% capacity wouldn't have been enough, based on the panic and how things happened that night. So even with that recommendation, wouldn't have been enough. Certainly better, obviously. Boats that size could easily roll on its side vice sinking the way Titanic did, so 200% capacity would ensure a better chance at safety, as half the lifeboats would likely be underwater and unusable. I don't think we carry that capacity even today on a cruiseliner, are all cruiseliners irresponsible? Or just calculating profit vs human lives? Boat could roll over completely, Poseidon Adventure-style, but we don't have any sort of escape from the bottom of the hull...
At the end of the day, they didn't think the boat would sink, nor would it sink out of sight of land, without any nearby boats to rescue people and allow reuse of lifeboats. Extra capacity seemed a waste. Obviously a poor plan, but easier to say that now that we know it happened. It took a LOT of things going wrong for this to happen the way it did, and we learned a lot from it, hopefully to prevent it from recurring. Doesn't make them all mustache-twirling villains...
Sigh. Yes, I got that you were exaggerating. A very cute tactic, one much prized by elementary school debaters. ("If you like that book so much, why don't you marry it? I'm just being intentionally ridiculous to prove a point.") It would obviously have been completely phsycially impossible for the ship to have been carrying more than 2,000 lifeboats (i.e., your "entire lifeboat per person"). Can you point to anything anyone else has said that's remotely as outlandish? Go on, do; please.
(Also, methinks you should look up the definition of "compromise"...)
I was simply responding to the comment that it was gross negligence because they didn't have everyone covered, and that 100% capacity would have surely saved more. It's certainly true enough that it would have been better, but it still wouldn't have been enough, hence me pointing out the intentionally absurd example. Why are they criminally negligent for only having capacity for 1/3rd of the passengers at once, but off the hook if 100% capacity would only save roughly 80%? We know better, so while we're judging, should at least look down on them for not having enough to REALISTICALLY save everyone in a disaster scenario. Since they didn't think they'd need them in the first place, and couldn't foresee the shitstorm of things that all went wrong, clearly they thought they had done enough. Not like they put NO lifeboats onboard...
And since your proposed compromise was that we should agree SCI is right (despite not agreeing with his viewpoint) and I should shut up, I'm not sure I'm the one with issues over the definition. If it's bothering you, though, perhaps a compromise? I continue to discuss a topic I'm interested in, you go read something else?
And since your proposed compromise was that we should agree SCI is right (despite not agreeing with his viewpoint) and I should shut up, I'm not sure I'm the one with issues over the definition. If it's bothering you, though, perhaps a compromise? I continue to discuss a topic I'm interested in, you go read something else?
On the guilt trip we're all now going on, let's not travel by water, k? 
Never actually seen the detachable slides that can be used as life rafts on a plane, but is there enough capacity on them to hold the entire passenger + crew compliment? It would seem not, judging by the pictures, but honestly have no way to judge.
Sure, there are lifejackets and your seat can be used as a flotation device, but what if the water is freezing cold and you've gotta be in a raft to survive?
Of course, I guess you'd have to survive the "water landing" in the first place, but seems like they're getting a free pass on this same issue, no?
Sure, there are lifejackets and your seat can be used as a flotation device, but what if the water is freezing cold and you've gotta be in a raft to survive?
Of course, I guess you'd have to survive the "water landing" in the first place, but seems like they're getting a free pass on this same issue, no?
A LOT of things went wrong during the de-shipping. I agree even if they had enough lifeboats not everyone would have been saved (even if we accept some people could never be saved like those in the boiler rooms/areas that were sealed off and flooded when the sinking started.)
Along with having enough lifeboats for everyone they'd also need a crew far better trained in and organizing a swift de-shipping as well as more trust in the lifeboats' capacity, preventing them from being launched partly full.
Along with having enough lifeboats for everyone they'd also need a crew far better trained in and organizing a swift de-shipping as well as more trust in the lifeboats' capacity, preventing them from being launched partly full.
When it comes to planes there's probably a lot of "leeway" given when it comes to water crashes and having slides and such to use for evacuation over water. Ships need these things since they spend all of their time at sea, planes? Not so much. There also may be an ounce or two of factoring in survival likelihoods when a plane crashes on water too and that a plane is more likely to crash during takeoff/landing, times when there's other means of rescue and rafts aren't entirely needed. Heck, not even all evacuation slides have the ability to detach for use as a raft.
Nope, didn't say that. I said that I agreed with Sci; didn't say others should have to.
So, by your own admission, Sci's policy, which was totally feasible for the technology of the time, could easily have saved hundreds more lives. I fail to see how that's in any way comparable to your rational debate-sabotaging, physically impossible "humorous" suggestion that there should've been an entire lifeboat for each passenger.
Also, I must have missed the part where Sci said the White Star Line would have been off the hook had there been more lifeboats. Has anyone yet pointed out perhaps the biggest problem that night - that in conditions of extremely poor visibility (a new moon, and uncommonly still/non-reflective waters), the ship was going way too fast in waters they knew to be littered with icebergs? Sci, would you like to weigh in on that point, also?
Whilst it is true that the word unsinkable was bandied about, most of the time this wasn't as part of the advertising for the ship, and it was usually qualified. "Almost" or "As far as is possible". In the same way as condoms are never advertised as a 100% reliable birth control method but people assume they are.
And sadly often common sense and hindsight amount to the same thing.
I really don't know what to say to you if you cannot see the moral difference between trying but failing to make sure everyone survives, and not even trying and literally writing off two-thirds of everyone aboard in the event of a disaster.
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is not being too mean to the giant corporation that was willing to write off thousands of human lives in the name of greed (can't have too many lifeboats or that would hurt the "brand!"). After all, that wouldn't be "fair."
Also, I must have missed the part where Sci said the White Star Line would have been off the hook had there been more lifeboats. Has anyone yet pointed out perhaps the biggest problem that night - that in conditions of extremely poor visibility (a new moon, and uncommonly still/non-reflective waters), the ship was going way too fast in waters they knew to be littered with icebergs? Sci, would you like to weigh in on that point, also?
An entirely valid point. Now, I've read a couple of different accounts about that question -- did the White Star pressure Captain Smith to steam faster than the ship should have steamed? Was it reasonable for them to expect to see icebergs of such size that far south, or were icebergs unusually far south that year? Etc. The God-honest truth is, I don't really feel like I know enough about that to have an opinion.
But Jesus fucking Christ, people, there's just something wrong when you don't even bother trying to save two-thirds of your entire passenger and crew contingent. It doesn't matter what year it is or what the law requires at that point -- this is just basic and intuitive.
And yet not so basic and intuitive that the White Star line's policy was in any way inconsistent with either law or how other shipping companies were handling things at the time. In fact, as noted, Titanic carried more lifeboats than the law required.
I don't think anybody's claiming they're blameless, but neither should it be claimed that their policies were somehow an abomination in the time and place in which they existed...not unless you're going to make a point of faulting the governments that created the laws and the shipping companies that abided by them as well. Hell, why not blame the people living in the countries under those governments who apparently didn't feel enough moral outrage to do anything about said laws?
Jack's responsible for his own death because he could have protested the shipping companies' morally outrageous lifeboat policies but never even tried to do so until he had a blatant self-interest in the matter.
I don't think anybody's claiming they're blameless, but neither should it be claimed that their policies were somehow an abomination in the time and place in which they existed...not unless you're going to make a point of faulting the governments that created the laws and the shipping companies that abided by them as well. Hell, why not blame the people living in the countries under those governments who apparently didn't feel enough moral outrage to do anything about said laws?
Jack's responsible for his own death because he could have protested the shipping companies' morally outrageous lifeboat policies but never even tried to do so until he had a blatant self-interest in the matter.
IF you can imagine the scenario where the current safety protocols wouldn't work - and they didn't. It's tough to get too deep into the layers of how to save people from a sinking ship when you start from the premise that the boat is *virtually* unsinkable.
But in the off chance that she somehow takes damage:
-new design allows lots of flooding without loss of ship (didn't pan out because inexperience and small rudder meant they did the worst possible thing, and damaged all the compartments. If they had hit the iceberg dead-on, you'd have never heard of the Titanic at all, it just would have showed up late with a bashed-in front end)
-Can always call for help over radio or use flares, plenty of ships nearby to quickly work together and offload passengers (other ship's lifeboats may have been considered a factor in not carrying as many yourself). (Didn't pan out because not many ships nearby, and either shut off radio or failed to take flares seriously).
-We've got enough lifeboats to offload everyone to another ship or land in a couple trips. (Didn't pan out, out of range of land and ships, no ability to reload lifeboats).
-Ship will sink (if at all) slowly and can be arranged to go fairly flat, plenty of time to implement all of the above. (didn't pan out, went down pretty fast, and did lots of bad angles and broke in half in the process)
-At least we've got plenty of lifejackets, if everything else goes to shit, can have people don lifejackets and float near the lifeboats until a ship quickly gets here. (Didn't pan out, frigid north atlantic water killed pretty much everyone that went into it before help arrived)
-But don't worry about it, this thing is state of the art and can't sink anyway! If a minor issue comes up, we're more than covered, and should have plenty of time.
There may be something that shows White Star was making a conscious decision to write off 2/3rd of the passenger compliment in the case of a disaster, but I'd bet there isn't. They did more than required, and thought that if things went bad, there were more than covered. And as stated, it was partially a product of the times. Safety regulations weren't well thought out or implemented; it took a few eye-openers like what happened on Titanic (or the Cocoanut Grove fire I referenced) to get people to take these things seriously and implement reforms.
On the other hand, after several buyouts and mergers, White Star is now part of what is known to us as Carnival Cruises. Given how well THOSE cruises have gone lately in the news, maybe they didn't learn anything and they ARE a bunch of selfish assholes
Yes. Because the corporate and government elites of the era were immoral. It wasn't an abomination of the time because the era itself was corrupt.
I already have. Several times.
Mostly because they didn't live in real democracies where they had actual political power.
The fact that there weren't enough lifeboats for 2/3rds of the passengers and crew is in and of itself evidence. If you don't have enough lifeboats, then you are by definition writing off everyone else in a worst-case scenario.
On the other hand, after several buyouts and mergers, White Star is now part of what is known to us as Carnival Cruises. Given how well THOSE cruises have gone lately in the news, maybe they didn't learn anything and they ARE a bunch of selfish assholes
Ding ding ding. We have a winner!
ETA:
CNN: "What cruise lines don't want you to know."
Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but the Mythbusters did this, and they managed to get both Adam and Jamie onto a replica prop of the board used in the movie. They had a bit of trouble until the realised that they had to put the life jacket under the board to make it more bouyant. Once they did that, they both survived happily.
Without the advantage of hindsight and without the decades of experience these men have had on coming up with out-of-the-box solutions on the fly.
The Mythbusters "proved it could be done" but in reality it would have taken way more time and thinking than Jack and Rose had at the time while in much more harsh conditions than the San Francisco bay even in the coolest of weather.
It's been discussed at length already. Forgiveness denied.
Similar threads
