Who You Love The Most?

The blogger’s note: The Great Sifu Dr JB Lim posed a question to his e-buddies on Sunday 28/10/12:

In a boat there were 4 people.

Yourself

Your wife

Your mother

Your son or daughter

The boat capsized. You can only save one person. Whom would you save? Think hard. I will give you the answer later only to those who reply.

The blogger’s answer was “Yourself”. Another e-buddy Ir Tan Seng Khoon a.k.a. the High Priest of Evolution Temple informed that it was recorded in the holy Evolution Temple Text: "Save yee thyself first before yee proceed to save others".

Meanwhile, Pastor David Chen postulated many scenarios and wrote as follows:

“…. there is no hard and fast rule to apply when an emergency problem such as this arise.

Instinctively any father would attempt to save the child first. This is paternal instinct.

But what happens when there is a chaos and your vision is restricted to the nearest person other than your child.  The reflex action would be to save the one nearest first would be executed.

However, if there is life buoy on the boat, why would we only need to save one live when everyone can be saved. You did not mention there were none in the boat.

In such case your question does not apply. Correct me if I am wrong.”

THE ANSWER FROM THE GREAT SIFU IS AS FOLLOWS:

Monday, 29 October, 2012 4:52 PM

From: lim juboo

Correct! Absolutely correct! You save yourself first - you all Great Minds who gave this answer. You Great Minds think alike.

In sociology, in biology or in medicine, there is a phenomenon called "altruism" where an organism (including humans) will instinctively try to save itself or himself first from any danger to survive in an emergency situation.

This selfish act is biologically programmed in all living things to gives rise to a theory called "Evolution of Altruism" which is not different from our High Priest Temple of Evolution theory on "Survival of the Fittest". The reason why all living things exhibit altruism in their respective society is to give rise to a more superior species or super-organisms. This phenomenon is just part of neurobiology and animal (including human) behaviour, and is accepted as a scientific, sociological, and behavioural norm.

It is only once we are on safe ground, that we instinctively and reflexively prioritize whom we can rescue next without endangering ourselves once again. This is very normal and acceptable behaviour of self-preservation. It is an automatic reaction in the event of any life-threatening situation.

No matter how much we may love our mother (example), nobody will try to attempt to try and save her if she was already swept away, but we will instinctively pull up the nearest person (including those we have no love) to safety. This response is biologically instinctive.

Selfishness or Altruism is ingrained and programmed in all living creatures, and it is part of Nature to ensure survival of the species in order to give rise to 'super-organisms'. But the selfish priority is to save ourselves first, and not whom we love most. The only exception is Jesus Christ who gave up His entire life for the survival of all mankind. He did not wish to save Himself even though He has that Divine Powers, else His purpose in this world will not be done.

Even for rescuers, fire-fighters, paramedics, ambulance crew, the mandatory golden rule in all rescue operations is ALWAYS - DRABC (Danger, Response, Airways, Breathing, Circulation), with Danger to yourself as your FIRST priority, and NEVER the victim, casualty or someone you love. It is much better to lose just one person (casualty) than to lose two persons (the rescuer and the victim).

Congratulations to you Great Engineers TO Lau, and SK Tan (too long for me to write all your credentials before and after your name) who got the correct answer. For David, you almost got it, but you will find you will instinctively save yourself first in an emergency.

jb lim

(You love yourself most)

-------------------------

The blogger found from the dictionary that the definition of 'altruism' is actually the opposite of 'selfishness' and sought the Great Sifu's explanation.  Here goes his reply:

Saturday, 3 November, 2012 7:06 PM

From: lim juboo

Dear Learned Sifu TO Lau,

 

You are correct. This word was actually first coined by a very well-known Canadian physician called Hans Selye who was actually a Hungarian endocrinologist.

He was a very respected and world renowned doctor who described how most diseases are stress-related, and how the body tries to adapt itself to these changes by being ‘selfish’ for its own survival. He coined the term “General Adaptation Syndrome” in which he described how the body sets off triggering alarm bells (symptoms) to any threat from disease so as to selfishly protect itself first from any further external harm. In so doing, the cells selfish acts helps to selflessly protect the entire body.

But if the body refuses to take action (example continues to smoke, work without resting, getting angry unnecessarily, refuses to change bad lifestyle, etc, etc), the body will no longer respond to the life threatening situations, and allow it to continues do as it likes. There will be no more warming bells (pains, coughs, vomiting, etc).

The body will go on doing health-threatening habits without realizing the danger done to its own body (‘unselfish’ action to it) and even encourage (‘help’) others to do the same habit to their disadvantage (example, influencing others to take drugs, bad dietary exposure, late nights, etc) in the belief that these are ‘beneficial’ and ‘helpful’ (‘attempting to help’) to the body because, without the uncomfortable warnings they live in a surreal world by ignoring the warning symptoms and signs (alarm bells) of an impending disease to itself and the entire body.

They also endanger others by their ‘unselfishly help’ (influencing them into bad company) by ‘helping’ others to do the same thing, even though their ‘selfless’ acts are endangering its own health first.

As a result, the body sinks further down through such actions when the stress alarms (symptoms and signs) were repeatedly triggered off, but ignored.

Dr Hans Selye in his authoritive thesis to the medical world on stress-related diseases, described many examples of how the different cells of the body display altruisms to selfishly and unselfishly defend the entire body to protect the entire system, but in so doing, sacrificed itself without realizing the dangers to its individual cells.

Likewise, we also see altruisms (or ‘selfishness’) in family systems, whereby the parents may selflessly sacrifice themselves to defend their children first (a selfish act only for their family, not for others), then their relatives as second, then the closely knitted community as third, then only the general common society (example race and religion) as fourth, and lastly the country or others.

This term ‘altruism’ is both ‘selfish’ and ‘selfless’ (individual or for whole). It was actually a medical term by Prof Han Selye to mean ‘self-preservation’ of the entire body by the ‘selfish’ or ‘egoistic’ action of the various cells to survive during a disease threat by sacrificing themselves so that the entire body (family) can survive by the selfless (or selfish) actions of the cells, tissues, organs and systems. That was the original meaning used in biology and medicine, especially in endocrinal and stress-related medicine.

But now of course, based on these well-received principles, society and sociology has applied the same sociological and cultural concept, but to mean the willingness to do things which bring advantages to other people, even if it results in disadvantage towards own self.

It is very difficult for me to explain in simpler ways. Roughly, you may say “Survival of the Fittest” as in the Theory of Evolution, or “a selfish act for the sake of selfless survival of the entire species”.

I don’t think I can make it simpler.

Sorry, for causing the confusion to you. I just wanted to make things as short as possible in just one sentence without all these explanation here.

Unfortunately I caused confusion to you, maybe to others too instead.

The same thing with my talk where I was only given one hour to explain! I could go on for hours and hours on each point on a single slide. Even that, I took out only about 40 slides out of over 500 slides on health. How could I ever finish? How could I make things clear?

I hope at least ‘altruism’ is now clearer?

regards

jb