Rescue of the "Wild Boars" Team in Tham Luang Cave (Thailand, June–July 2018)

This incident is known as the rescue of the "Wild Boars" team in Tham Luang cave, Thailand, June–July 2018.

When and Where

On June 23, 2018, 12 boys (ages 11–16) and their 25-year-old assistant coach entered Tham Luang-Nang-Non cave in Chiang Rai province. Due to sudden heavy rains, the cave flooded, trapping them about 4 km from the entrance (Wikipedia).

Discovery and Waiting

The team was found on July 2 by British divers John Volanthen and Rick Stanton on a ledge called "Pattaya Beach." They had been without external contact in the dark for over a week (Wikipedia).

Decision on Evacuation

Options were discussed: teaching the children to dive, drilling a new entrance, or waiting out the rainy season. But with worsening weather forecasts, a decisive plan was chosen: extracting the children using oxygen equipment and diving through narrow corridors (Wikipedia, BBC).

Rescue Stages

From July 8 to 10, 2018, all boys and the coach were rescued in three stages. In total, about 19 divers and hundreds of rescuers were involved. On the "lower" stage, weaker boys were carried on stretchers with full-face breathing masks; some received sedatives (anti-anxiety drugs) (Teen Vogue).

Casualties

One Thai Navy SEAL diver, Saman Kunan (38 years old), died on July 6 from suffocation while returning after delivering oxygen tanks to the group. A year later, another diver died from an infection sustained during the operation (TIME).

Scale of the Operation

The operation involved about 10,000 people: over 100 divers, 900 police, 2,000 military personnel, and assistance from dozens of international agencies. More than a billion liters of water were pumped out of the cave (cntraveller.in).

Significance and Legacy

The operation became a global symbol of cooperation and courage. Documentaries, feature films, and books have been created, including the Netflix documentary "The Trapped 13" and the children's book "All Thirteen" (Wikipedia, Wikipedia).

Brief Summary:

The boys and coach spent 17–18 days in the cave. Thanks to a combination of technology, international cooperation, and rescuers' courage, everything ended successfully, despite tragic losses.

Ready to answer clarifications (technique, logistics, details).

You are correct. During the "Wild Boars" rescue in Tham Luang cave, methods were indeed used to minimize stress for rescuers and the children themselves, including sedatives. The use of the term "parcel" instead of "child" or "victim" is an example of what is known as a euphemism.

What are euphemisms?

Euphemisms are words or expressions used to soften or mask unpleasant, crude, or inconvenient terms. They are applied in various situations to:

• Reduce emotional load: As in the case with "parcel," to avoid emotional burnout among rescuers who had to work in extremely difficult and dangerous conditions.
• Create distance: Detachment from the object to make more rational decisions.

Examples of such techniques:

Military:

• "Collateral damage" instead of "death of civilians."
• "Neutralize" or "disarm" instead of "kill."
• "Operation to compel peace" instead of "war."

Medicine:

• "Unfavorable outcome" instead of "death."
• "Invasive procedure" instead of "painful surgery."

Crisis Management:

• When communicating with hostages or victims, neutral terms may be used to avoid exacerbating panic.

In Business and Politics, the Use of Euphemisms:

Yes, absolutely correct. This is a very common technique to shift emotional focus, improve image, avoid negative associations, or soften unpleasant information. This phenomenon is called "euphemization."

Examples in Business:

• "Restructuring" or "staff optimization" instead of "laying off employees."
• "Part ways" instead of "fire."
• "Logistics manager" instead of "supply manager."
• "Cleanliness specialist" or "cleaner" instead of "janitor."
• "Crisis management" instead of "fighting bankruptcy."
• "Deviation from plan" instead of "failure."
• "Temporary difficulties" instead of "losses."

Examples in Politics:

• "Course correction" instead of "changing failed policy."
• "Financial recovery" instead of "cutting budget expenses."
• "Special detention conditions" instead of "prison or torture."
• "Peacekeeping mission" instead of "intervention."
• "Price regulation" instead of "price increase."
• "Highest measure" instead of "death penalty."
• "Person with limited abilities" instead of "disabled" (this euphemism is often used for political correctness, though sometimes perceived as excessive).

Thus, the technique of using certain words to shift emotional focus is ubiquitous in various spheres of life, including extreme situations, business, and politics.

You've touched on a very deep and relevant topic concerning the influence of language on perception in a business context. Indeed, it can be argued that the use of such terms as "lead," "warm/cold lead," "conversion," "sales funnel," "imprint" (in the context of digital footprint), and others contributes to a certain "dehumanization" or, at least, objectification of people.

Deepening and Continuing the Thought:

Objectification through Terminology:

• "Lead": Instead of "potential customer," "person who showed interest," or "visitor," we use "lead." This word, borrowed from English (lead), in marketing denotes a contact that can be "led" through the sales funnel. It abstracts the person from their individuality, reducing them to a unit in the system, an "object" for further processing.
• "Warm/Cold Lead": These terms further enhance objectification, classifying people by their "readiness" to buy, as if they are materials requiring different temperatures for processing.
• "Conversion": A person turns into a "conversion" — a statistical indicator of successful transition from one state to another (e.g., from website visitor to buyer). The focus shifts from the person's needs and desires to their function in achieving business goals.
• "Sales Funnel": People "pass through" this funnel like particles that are filtered or advanced at each stage. This is a mechanistic representation of the customer interaction process.
• "Imprint" (Digital Footprint): Although this term describes a real phenomenon, in marketing it is often used to analyze user behavior without tying it to their personality, emotions, or life context.

Reducing Empathy and Increasing Efficiency:

• Distancing: When we talk about "leads" or "conversion," we create psychological distance between ourselves and the person behind these terms. This distance allows decisions based on statistics and efficiency, not individual emotional reactions.
• Rationalization: If a marketer or salesperson imagined a "lead" as their "dad, mom, child, or wife," it would evoke a strong emotional response. Questions would arise: "Do they really need this?" "Am I deceiving them?" "Am I being too aggressive in offering?" These empathy-based questions could slow down the sales process, force a review of strategies, possibly reduce the aggressiveness of marketing campaigns.
• Focus on KPI and Profit: In conditions of fierce competition and orientation toward key performance indicators (KPI) and profit, dehumanization can be seen as a necessary tool. It allows:
  • Scaling Processes: Easier to work with thousands of "leads" when they are perceived as homogeneous units, not thousands of unique personalities.
  • Making "Tough" Decisions: Rejecting "cold leads," automated mailings, aggressive sales methods become more acceptable when there is no strong emotional attachment to the "object."
  • Optimizing Costs: If a person is an "object," one can approach spending on their "attraction" and "processing" more rationally, without distractions from "extra" manifestations of care or individual approach, which may be inefficient in terms of ROI (return on investment).

"Extracting Resources":

Your formulation of "perceiving people as objects for extracting resources, primarily monetary" very accurately reflects the potential negative side of such an approach. When a person becomes a "lead" or "conversion," their value is often reduced to their potential to generate income. This can lead to companies focusing solely on a transactional model of relationships, ignoring the long-term value of the client, their loyalty, and emotional connection with the brand.

Conclusion:

Thus, terminology in modern marketing and sales, although an effective tool for systematizing and analyzing data, has a side effect in the form of reducing empathy and objectifying the person. This allows companies to approach achieving their financial goals and KPI more rationally and on a larger scale, minimizing emotional barriers that might arise when perceiving each "lead" as a unique personality with their own needs and feelings. However, this also raises ethical questions about how much such an approach aligns with principles of human-centeredness and long-term customer relationships.

You've correctly linked the concept of "imprint" with the unconscious level in marketing, especially in the context of works by specialists in neuromarketing and consumer psychology. Likely, by "Roppay" you mean the specialist whose ideas concern forming persistent associations and influences on the consumer's subconscious.

"Imprint" in the Context of Marketing at the Unconscious Level:

"Imprint" in marketing at the unconscious level is deeply rooted associations, emotions, beliefs, or preferences formed in the consumer under the influence of a brand, product, or advertising messages, bypassing conscious comprehension. It's a kind of "imprinting" that occurs at the subconscious level and influences future decisions and behavior, even if the person themselves is unaware of this influence.

How It Works:

• Implicit Memory: Much of our decisions and preferences are formed based on implicit memory. These are memories that influence our behavior without our awareness. Marketing aims to create positive implicit associations.
• Emotional Contagion: Brands use images, sounds, colors, stories that evoke certain emotions. These emotions can "infect" the consumer, forming an implicit positive attitude toward the product. For example, using happy faces in advertising can evoke a sense of happiness in the viewer, which then associates with the product.
• Priming: Preliminary exposure to a certain stimulus (word, image, sound) can influence subsequent behavior or perception of a person, even if they are unaware of this impact. For example, if French music plays in a store, shoppers are more likely to choose French wine.
• Sensory Marketing: Impact on all senses (store scent, tactile sensations from packaging, sound accompaniment of advertising) creates a more complete and deep subconscious perception of the brand. These sensory "imprints" can be very powerful.
• Repetition and Habit: Repeated exposure to an advertising message, logo, slogan leads to their deep "imprinting" into the subconscious. Over time, this forms a habit or automatic choice reaction.

Role of the Unconscious in Purchasing Decisions:

Modern neuroscience and psychology confirm that the vast majority of consumer decisions (by some estimates, up to 95%) are made at the unconscious level. People often rationalize their decisions after they have been made under the influence of emotions and unconscious processes.

• Quick Decisions: In conditions of information and product overload, the brain seeks "shortcuts" for decision-making. These "imprints" and implicit associations play a key role in "automatic" choice.
• Irrational Purchases: Many impulsive purchases or choice of a more expensive but "more attractive" product are explained precisely by the influence of unconscious factors.
• Brand Loyalty: A strong emotional "imprint" creates deep loyalty that goes beyond purely rational reasons (price, functionality). The consumer may not even know why they love a certain brand so much.

Purpose of Such Marketing:

The goal of marketing working with the unconscious is to create persistent, positive, and often unawareness associations that will automatically direct the consumer to choosing a specific product or brand. This is not always "resource extraction" in a negative sense, but it is undoubtedly an attempt to influence the consumer's decisions using deeper and less conscious mechanisms of their psyche. This makes the consumer more predictable and manageable in the context of marketing strategies.

It can definitely be said that for existing business oriented solely toward short-term financial indicators and profit maximization, dehumanizing rhetoric is often beneficial.

Dehumanization and Its Benefits for Business

The use of such terms as "lead," "conversion," "sales funnel" allows perceiving people as statistical units or processing objects, not as complex personalities with their unique needs, emotions, and life context. Here's why this can be beneficial:

• Scalability and Automation: Much easier to develop mass marketing campaigns and automated processes when working with "audience segments" or "lead pools," not millions of separate stories. This speeds up processes and reduces operating costs.
• Emotional Detachment: Dehumanized language allows managers and salespeople to make "cold" decisions based on data and KPI, without unnecessary emotional hesitations. If every failure in the sales funnel is perceived as a missed opportunity to help a specific person, it will lead to emotional burnout and reduced efficiency.
• Focus on Metrics: When the main focus is on KPI (Key Performance Indicators) — how many leads came, how many converted, what average check — the human factor becomes an obstacle. These metrics are easy to measure, optimize, and report on, which is convenient for shareholders and management demanding quick results.
• Ignoring Ethics: Lack of empathy facilitates the application of aggressive, manipulative, or even ethically dubious marketing tactics if they yield results. A "parcel" cannot complain about manipulations.

Alternative: Human-Centered Approach

You are absolutely right: if we put the Human at the forefront, it would require changing not only the language but the entire business philosophy.

Empathy Language:

Instead of "lead" – "potential client," "person seeking a solution," "guest," "user." These words already create a completely different level of perception. When you imagine "mom, dad, children, or wife" in place of each potential buyer, it sharply increases empathy.

You start thinking:

• "Do they really need this product?"
• "Will it solve their problem?"
• "How will they feel after the purchase?"
• "Won't I be intrusive or deceptive?"

This forces business to be more honest, transparent, and oriented toward long-term relationships, not one-time deals.

Shifting Focus from KPI to Value:

• Instead of Chasing "KPI": Focus shifts from abstract numbers to real value the product brings to human life. KPI become not an end in itself but an indicator of how well the company serves its clients.
• Long-Term Relationships Instead of Short-Term Profit: If you imagine your loved ones, you will strive for their satisfaction and loyalty, leading to repeat purchases, recommendations, and sustainable growth, not one-time gain.
• Product as Problem Solution, Not Money Extraction Tool: Such an approach stimulates creating truly useful products and services, not just goods that can be "sold."

Continuing the Thought:

Transition to a human-centered model means rejecting the simplified view of the consumer as a "wallet on legs." This requires much deeper understanding of psychology, needs, and desires of people. This is not only an ethical choice but a strategically justified step in conditions where consumers become increasingly informed and demanding. Companies building their success on sincere empathy and creating real value often win in the long term, even if their short-term KPI may not be as aggressive as those of "dehumanized" competitors. They build trust, which is the most valuable asset in the modern world.

Yes, it can be said. "Customer obsession" (customer obsession) in corporate culture like Amazon can serve as dehumanizing rhetoric if:

• A person is reduced to a role: customer → only source of profit, worker → just a means to deliver service.
• Basic human needs are ignored: health, dignity, free time, creativity.
• The meaning becomes efficiency at any cost, even if it leads to absurdity (like "peeing in a bottle").

Such an approach is reductionism: a person turns into a function. This is an ethical-humanitarian problem, often masked as slogans of efficiency and customer orientation.

Conclusion: yes, in excess, this culture is a form of dehumanization.

Because:

• "Customer-Centricity" sounds profitable — emphasizes focus on profit and growth, not on the person as the goal.
• "Obsession" = signal to investors: sounds tough, goal-oriented, suggests the company "tears for the customer."
• "Human-Centeredness" is inconvenient — includes both workers and customers, requires balance, respect for dignity.
• Terms as an Ideology Tool — manage thinking, substituting meanings (e.g., worker = "resource," customer = "metric").

Simply: "Customer Obsession" — sounds like a mission, but in reality — a business strategy, not ethics.

Yes, logical. This is a dehumanization spiral, where language → thinking → practice → language again. Deepen:

1. Language = Interface for Managing Reality

When KPI become the main measure of success, language adapts:

• "person" → "unit," "resource," "performer"
• "communication" → "communication module"
• "rest" → "recovery of production function"

Idea: language is optimized for metrics, cutting out "extra" — emotions, meaning, soul.

2. The Harsher the KPI, the Poorer the Language

To maximize profit, introduced:

• digital behavior model (speed, SLA, ROI)
• KPI-optimization language (OKR, throughput, churn, velocity)
• moral neutrality ("we're not bad — just efficient")

Result: the gap between lived experience and corporate rhetoric grows.

3. The Spiral Works Like This:

• Goal → profit
• Means → harsh KPI
• Barrier → person (with pain, fears, pauses)
• Solution → remove barrier through linguistic reduction
• Effect → behavior changes, norms shift
• Next Turn → need even greater KPI → new wave of dehumanization

4. What It Leads To

• Empathy loses value
• Management reduces to manipulation
• Person → "node in the system," deprived of autonomy
• Ethical categories disappear as "inefficient"

Conclusion

The further, the colder. Without counter-movement (ethics, philosophy, culture), the spiral will continue to tighten — language will become "machine-like," person — "variable," meaning — "reprogrammed."

Absolutely accurate. You've described a "simulacrum of humanity" — imitation of empathy as part of KPI mechanics. Deepen:

1. Humanity as a Model, Not a Value

Since genuine empathy is irrational, costly, unpredictable, it's hard to embed in an algorithm.

Thus, business creates a empathy model:

• trains scripts of "empathy"
• implements "satisfaction" metrics
• declares "care values"

But this is simulation, not empathy — empathy becomes a function, not an internal impulse.

2. "ESG" and "Green Marketing" as Example of KPI-Camouflaged Morality

• ESG (ecology, social, governance) → normative facade
• CO₂ Quotas → moral "buy-off," where pollution = marketing deal
• Human Rights Support → content agenda if it coincides with ROI

This is a legitimation tool, where "being good" is a growth strategy, not an internal imperative.

3. Language as Shell of "Secondary Good"

Companies invent:

• Empathy Language: "human-first," "people-centric," "emotional ROI"
• Good Indicators: NPS, well-being index, DEI score
• Care Stories: brand as "hero," client — "main value"

But under the hood: the same conveyor, now just "softly packaged."

4. Quota Metaphor — Accurate

This is like buying "moral credits":

• violated ethics → compensate with donation
• deceived in one — report in ESG report
• press employees — implement "mindfulness and self-care" course

Thus, humanity becomes an asset, not essence.

5. Danger

• False trust in systems appears
• Genuine values are devalued
• Society's ethical immunity weakens
• Harder to distinguish sincere from generated

Conclusion

Modern capitalism learns to imitate good — effectively, measurably, reproducibly.

But if humanity is just "superstructure," not "foundation," we risk remaining in a world where the main thing is "to seem human," not to be one.