I think as a species, we tend support people who we percieve could or might do something for us in the future. It's not just about rich/poor or race, it's wheth

I think as a species, we tend support people who we percieve could or might do something for us in the future. It's not just about rich/poor or race, it's whether you think the people being rescued could provide future opportunity for you or your group. There's also the question of whether the risk you are taking to rescue someone will be valuable to them. Are you going to risk anything to intervene in a dispute between apparent meth addicts, or move on? The calculation is based on your perception of the quality of their choices leading up to their circumstances. Like if there were the hands in the water of people drowning that you can pull into a boat, when do you grab the one with the possibly-racist tattoo? You rescue small groups of adventurers because they are engaged in a socially valuable activity. The whole point of having search and rescue helicopters to rescue skiiers and hikers is that hikers and skiiers represent people who help themselves, and they are part of the positive group we have organized our society to encourage and incentivize. Some societies encourage and incentivize corruption and exploitation, and so they don't need to rescue hikers unless they can be used to extract favours from foreign governments. There's a limited amount of effort you're going to make to rescue a narco-sub crew because they're a hostile and invasive force that is importing poison, violence, and exploitation into your society. There is a notion of "us," and "not-us," everywhere in the world, and in the case of some rich toursts in a sub, they were still "us." The sadistic glee about these rich people dying in a sub, and the fantasies some people have written about their suffering, makes me wonder who among us would be really worth saving.