Imagine yourself on the edge of life and death. You can either save your life, or a person right next to you - no other choices. We as humans have developed many instincts over the history, and one of the fundamental ones buried deep inside our DNA is the survival instinct. Every living organism is programmed to ensure the survival of their genes. Once someone gets into the life-or-death situation, we as humans will do anything to protect us. Trying to save others significantly lowers the chances of your survival, and in most cases chances of others. It’s better to follow your genes, then to act as a hero. A great example would be a story of Simon Yates and Joe Simpson. Simon Yates, and his friend Joe Simpson went hiking; however, fierce winds and awry belay knocked them off the cliff. Simon ended up hanging on Joe, while Joe hanging on the cliff. Joe couldn’t climb up, and decided to cut the rope. Both hikers survived, and this story proves the fact that sometimes, not taking a risk is a better choice than relying on teeny chances you have. The story outcome would probably be way worse if Simon didn’t…show more content… He worked as a hotel manager, and when the genocide has started, he would hide all of the refugees in his hotel. Soldiers would come, demand to kill them, but everytime he used the power of language to convince them to come back. He risked his life many times, but in the end was victorious. There are many more stories about risking it all and saving a lot of people such as the story of Schindler during Holocaust. Trying to save others bravely certainly can end pretty well. Does this mean that taking risks is good? No, it doesn't. Only in rare cases do wonders happen and everyone gets saved, but in reality, chances are that you would die if you were to be in one of those situations trying to be a hero. Risking it, is same as gambling with others'
