You can only save one— who do you choose? - Doug MacKay

From a practical perspective, one might also consider prioritizing the first distress call, especially if you were already in the process of responding to it

"Alright, I've decided, let's set course for." "They are all dead sir, you took too long to decide."

Interestingly, my natural line of thinking led me to choose the workers because there are likely families counting on them. So more tragedy and loss would occur if they died, because more people would be affected more severely.

Save the passengers on the Teleck 12. You are almost there and they are running out of air. The Pareeto is still structurally sound and might be able to recover on its own; also, if you bounce to every new distress call, you will never save anyone.

As someone who used to be a lifeguard, I was told to always prioritize the one who is closer from where I'm standing. Every life is precious

When I went on life guard corse we were tought who to Save if 3 people are drowning - the one who is closest, then the next, then the next. This way you have the highest chance of saving at least one person. If you swim to a further one, they may drown while you go there and the time lost may cause the closest one to also drown.

You could also take the extremely selfish route of prioritization. Failing to rescue the college students when you could have will generate much more backlash upon you personally than failing to rescue the workers. The college students being members of affluent families are much more likely to leave behind grieving parents who may try to take vengeance on you in the form of lawsuits or even assault. On that same note, rescuing the college students is far more likely to result in some kind of personal benefit for you for the exact same reason. The grateful and affluent parents have the means and the motive to reward you. Obviously from a moral standpoint, this isn't the correct way to go about making the decision, but it is another pattern of thought to consider. Such things may influence the final decision for many people in that scenario.

Definitely first distress call. - You're already heading there. Changing course might be the worst option which is both of them perish. - Telic 12 have bigger problems because humans CANNOT breathe in space. The explosion causing the ships to lose oxygen whilst Pareto losing thruster, all ships have alternative control system. As long as the captain of the ships alive, you can juggle alongside the belt around the gaps. Their chances to survive is more apparent than the other one who losing oxygen at the extreme rate.

As a nurse, we were taught to prioritize by what would kill the patient sooner. Whichever one I must save first I should save first. However, in a disaster event when we are forced to take in large quantities of patients, we also take into account which ones would not be able to be saved or which ones would take up too many resources by themselves to save (for a low possibility of success). In the Pearl Harbor attacks this was done and that part even made it to the movie (Pearl Harbor). We have to be quick on our feet and detach ourselves from the situation emotionally..

The real problem comes after you've flipped the coin and you forget who was heads and who was tails

In this case, all other circumstances being equal, I would save the miners. They probably are the sole source of financial support to young family. So even if you consider lives saved/impacted, it's much more.

I remember watching The 100 and the girl forced everyone to eat deceased humans to survive. She eventually said that she forced everyone so that they did not have to make that choice. In a world where you cannot satisfy everyone, the decision maker should be empathized with, not blamed for making a decision that failed to make you happy

I adore the way this one is animated. It feels like you're reading a classic children's book, like The Little Prince, except you're actually being put in charge of whether people live or die!

I think in this situation (and any situation where you need to decide quickly) you save the people from the first distress call because it came first. An ambulance wouldn't stop en route and start going somewhere else just because a wealthier person also made a 911 call. If you have to decide who gets the donated heart or something, that's tougher, but still I think it should go to whoever has been waiting for it for the longest (first in line).

My answer was save the workers first since they have limited oxygen. The people heading towards the astroid belt aren't actually in any real danger, as astroids in the belt are hundreds of miles apart from each other. Your chances of hitting one are almost zero. You have time.

Prioritize needs over wants. The wealthy in this case wanted to take a vacation which ended up putting them in a dire situation, while the workers needed to go to support their families. Plus the rich may in fact survive long enough for you to rescue both. So prioritize the workers first.

The coin flip really hits hard with the truth of reality. If among the workers you realize that your struggle to survive now depends on a game of luck and with the position they are in, they wouldve lost all hope as surely luck was never on their side most of their life. If among the students you realize that your name, money and position are meaningless in the face of imminent death

The moment you start attributing value to each distress call, you already lost. Time is a factor in emergencies, so the right choice is to pick one (doesn't matter which) and leave the second guessing till afterwards.

these are awesome! Keep it up Ted-Ed!

Concept. If you were to save the workers, who will die without help, they may be able to assist you in saving the college students, due to their occupation as spacecraft/station repairmen.