Sinking Ships Imply Altruism Takes Time
A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looked at the survival rates of men, woman and children from the Titanic and the Lusitania, and found more men stayed alive when the ship went down fast, and panic overtook chivalry. Karen Hopkin reports
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
When an ocean liner starts taking on water, what governs whether it’s “women and children first” or “every man for himself”? According to a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [see: http://bit.ly/clUjR2, lead author Benno Torgler], men’s altruistic versus self-serving behavior depends on how quickly the ship sinks.
On April 14th, 1912, the Titanic hit an iceberg and took nearly three hours to slip beneath the waves. Some 1,500 people perished. And the survivors tended to be female or young. The Titanic’s women were over 50 percent more likely to make it than were the males, and children had a 15 percent better chance of being rescued than adults.
But kids were not as lucky on the Lusitania, which three years later sank just 18 minutes after being hit by a German torpedo. In this situation it truly was survival of the fittest, with healthy young males being the most likely to live to tell the tale.
While passengers on the Lusitania panicked and scrambled for survival, scientists say that those on the Titanic had enough time to override their animal survival instincts and do the chivalrous thing.
—Karen Hopkin
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
