Would the zombie apocalypse really bring the bad out of people?

[funyahns]

So every time the idea of a zombie outbreak comes up people say that everyone would be totally mean and violent to one another. They say that is the human way. I just want to point out how utterly false this is. If people were going to backstab and murder without thought in order to survive the human race would not have been able to do the things that it has done. We would have killed ourselves off thousands of years ago. People are a social animal 9/10 people would help you if needed 7/10 would risk themselves in order to do so. So the whole "Its zombie apocalypse changes things" holds little water with me. If anything it would bring some of us closer together. You would have families of non related people sticking together. People would band together in order to protect the children....In fact. Think of how you think of Clem.....and she is not a real person. I would wager most people already consider her Lee's daughter

[thestalkinghead]

you're right, people dont turn bad when everyone around them is dying, people group together and feel like the life of another is just as important there own, England invented the NHS after WWII because we decide that society as a whole should look after each other

[funyahns]

Exactly, some people would prey on the weak of course. But this already happens all the time. Most people are good though. Most people would sacrifice their own well being in order to help a stranger in need.

[Moraledilemma]

Definitely agree with you. That's why I made all the moral my main playthrough, even if they contrast with logic. Humanity shouldn't have to go out the window just because of a zombie apocalypse.

[bghjkl]

This thread is full of hippies.

[Milosuperspesh]

what about crime ? murder? looting ? rape? abuse ? hell even incest...

they all happen with out zombies roaming the streets..

[Goldrock]

anarchy does break lose but its not people who turn bad already bad people are bad especially when they get a foothold people like rick and shane they never really went bad in the series they just hardened up and are willing to do whatever is neccessary to keep their group alive i say shane and rick because well shane didnt have a big part in the comic series unlike he did in the show.

Sad story is after katrina when everyone was pretty much left the city that place is a true excample on what happens in a apocolyptic setting there were kill rooms and rape rooms set up in abandoned bars and whatever was left standing it was some sick crap mainly done by the local gangs and sick basterds.

[jaynasty78]

anarchy does break lose but its not people who turn bad already bad people are bad especially when they get a foothold people like rick and shane they never really went bad in the series they just hardened up and are willing to do whatever is neccessary to keep their group alive i say shane and rick because well shane didnt have a big part in the comic series unlike he did in the show.

Sad story is after katrina when everyone was pretty much left the city that place is a true excample on what happens in a apocolyptic setting there were kill rooms and rape rooms set up in abandoned bars and whatever was left standing it was some sick crap mainly done by the local gangs and sick basterds.

This... once the social structure breaks down people will do whatever it takes to protect the ones they love or are close to. Rick is a cop at first but he changes because the world he lives in. people are a reflection of the world we populate. If everyones live was threatened on a daily basis some would loose their minds, others would take some time but would eventually wind up like shane. (from the show). Thinking hes doing the right thing only to put the rest of the group in danger for his own gain. My only worry would be the people who would want to be leader. In my group there wouldnt be a leader per say. we are in this togeather and we can let the group decide who they want to follow.

[thestalkinghead]

This... once the social structure breaks down people will do whatever it takes to protect the ones they love or are close to. Rick is a cop at first but he changes because the world he lives in. people are a reflection of the world we populate. If everyones live was threatened on a daily basis some would loose their minds, others would take some time but would eventually wind up like shane. (from the show). Thinking hes doing the right thing only to put the rest of the group in danger for his own gain. My only worry would be the people who would want to be leader. In my group there wouldnt be a leader per say. we are in this togeather and we can let the group decide who they want to follow.

i vote we need a leader :p

[magodesky]

A lot of our representations of the apocalypse seem to stem from the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes that mankind's "state of nature" is "nasty, brutish, and short." Of course, Hobbes didn't base his philosophy on any actual evidence, and a lot of anthropological research shows just the opposite to be true. But that's still pretty ingrained in people's thinking.

As for what might actually happen in such a scenario, I'm sure there would be quite a bit of violence at first as people grabbed whatever they could get their hands on to survive. But in the long run, I think you're right that those who would be most successful would be the ones who pulled together rather than turning each other. Humans evolved to work in groups. In a crisis like that, turning against people who might be able to help you is a good way to end up dead.

[JCMcAdams84]

This... once the social structure breaks down people will do whatever it takes to protect the ones they love or are close to. Rick is a cop at first but he changes because the world he lives in. people are a reflection of the world we populate. If everyones live was threatened on a daily basis some would loose their minds, others would take some time but would eventually wind up like shane. (from the show). Thinking hes doing the right thing only to put the rest of the group in danger for his own gain. My only worry would be the people who would want to be leader. In my group there wouldnt be a leader per say. we are in this togeather and we can let the group decide who they want to follow.

The problem with that idea is that there are mainly three types of people, Leaders, people who Think they are leaders and followers. The Followers cannot tell the other two apart and the folks that think they are leaders are the "dictator" types and will kill the people who really can be good leaders if they get in the way.

From the game you see this too. Lee is a clear leader he just doesn't want the trouble, Larry and Kenny both think they are leaders but are hardline dictators and Katjaa, Ben, Mark, Carley/Doug are all followers. Lilly is one of those rare people somewhere between the first two sometimes a good leader, other times not so much.

So the way people behave (for good or ill) as a whole is largely defined by who leads them, a real good leader or a dictator.

Edit: As an aside, sometimes those people like Lilly are worse to have then the "think they are leaders" folks because of their inconsistency.

[Motordead]

I'm inclined to agree with you.. at first. People will help out each other, even the bandits that we see in the game. They all gathered at first for one thing, survival. As months go on the food supply gets smaller, people will start to get sick, stress will build and people will snap. Than they will realized something, no one can stop them from doing whatever the hell they want, why can't they take the last of all the food? Why does this other guy think hes entitled to it?

Our humanity is all that sets us apart from savages, but how long can we hold onto it after an apocalyptic crisis starts? Weeks? Months? Years? Or just until we are starving away and you see a car full of supplies and food. Do you take it to feed the children and yourselves? Or leave it for the other family who went to find gas?

[ruairi46]

I can easily see good groups been split up for seperate decisions leading to bloodshed.

[ozzmann]

There are only 2 types of people in this world, Predator and Prey, which are you?

[thestalkinghead]

There are only 2 types of people in this world, Predator and Prey, which are you?

im the one that helps the winner :cool:

[HanoverFist]

Yeah sorry guys, your fellow man will kill your dog and burn down your house to cook it. He'll shoot you, kill your wife and your child for a twinkie.

[thestalkinghead]

you guys know we weren't given civilisation to us by aliens right, we may not me perfect, but we made the civilised world ourselves, why do people think we wouldn't rebuild it?

[magodesky]

He'll shoot you, kill your wife and your child for a twinkie.

Well, at least one guy would (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1vYj0E2Hr0&feature=player_detailpage#t=16s).

[thestalkinghead]

Well, at least one guy would (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1vYj0E2Hr0&feature=player_detailpage#t=16s).

that is funny, but if you watched the film you would know he totally wouldn't

[kirby18]

I assure you in case of a zombie apocalyse, 80% of us will become greedy, selfish, unlawfull things that dont give a damn what happens to anyone besides themselves. I am not a pessimist but a realist and based on my life experiences, we all have dark sides that society forces us to cover up. By that i mean we are naturally evil people in this day and age.

As for me, I would be the exact opposite and its great if you think or say you will too but I KNOW that most people if not almost all will not be willing to rely and most importantly help others. In other words most will become lilly or larry. I think lee is a pretty unrealistic character.

[thestalkinghead]

I assure you in case of a zombie apocalyse, 80% of us will become greedy, selfish, unlawfull things that dont give a damn what happens to anyone besides themselves. I am not a pessimist but a realist and based on my life experiences, we all have dark sides that society forces us to cover up. By that i mean we are naturally evil people in this day and age.

As for me, I would be the exact opposite and its great if you think or say you will too but I KNOW that most people if not almost all will not be willing to rely and most importantly help others. In other words most will become lilly or larry. I think lee is a pretty unrealistic character.

being realistic, i know i would need help to survive, and in return for that help i would help them, and that is the basis for civilisation

[kirby18]

being realistic, i know i would need help to survive, and in return for that help i would help them, and that is the basis for civilisation

like someone else noted in the thread, this is the way it would start but logically after a month or so, all hell would completely break loose in a "every man for himself" type environment. Food will be extremely scarce, weapons will be scarce, there will be no gas for transportation, and there will be more and more walkers. many will remain in their groups and what not, but chances are there will be something that goes wrong in the group. Whether it be conflict of decisions, the group might get too big, etc

[Rommel49]

So every time the idea of a zombie outbreak comes up people say that everyone would be totally mean and violent to one another. They say that is the human way. I just want to point out how utterly false this is. If people were going to backstab and murder without thought in order to survive the human race would not have been able to do the things that it has done. We would have killed ourselves off thousands of years ago. People are a social animal 9/10 people would help you if needed 7/10 would risk themselves in order to do so. So the whole "Its zombie apocalypse changes things" holds little water with me. If anything it would bring some of us closer together. You would have families of non related people sticking together. People would band together in order to protect the children....In fact. Think of how you think of Clem.....and she is not a real person. I would wager most people already consider her Lee's daughter

80% of statistics are made up. :p Anyhoo...

It'd depend on how bad things became. To a big extent, people would become harsher and more violent to another. We tend to be nice to one another today because we're fairly comfortable and we can afford it. If somebody falls on hard times, sure, you might loan them five bucks if they ask for it; but what if they ask you to cover their rent or other living expenses? Odds are you'd say no.

Sad fact is, people are mean and violent to one another even today. Nevermind in a disaster scenario.

The stakes are much higher for one thing. For example, say somebody steals food from you today, no big deal right? You just head down to the grocery store and pick up food to replace it - if we're looking at a scenario where even millenia-old technologies like agriculture can't provide food anymore? You could very likely end up dead.

You see it all the time with the civilizations of yesteryear: The Spartans way of life basically revolved around warring with their neighbors or preparing for it (they even went so far as to kill their own kids if they weren't considered "fit"), the Mongol Empire slaughtered an estimated 40 million people basically by hand and built monuments from the severed heads of their enemies... even "enlightened" civilizations like the Romans were regularly invading and conquering their neighbors while keeping hundreds of thousands of people in brutal slavery, we just tend to forgive that because they built cool monuments.

Hell, last I checked, there's still some question about whether or not Neanderthal man was driven to extinction by our ancestors.

We wouldn't necessarily be that bad with people withinin our own groups, but people outside them? I wouldn't make any bets.

[thestalkinghead]

80% of statistics are made up. :p Anyhoo...

It'd depend on how bad things became. To a big extent, people would become harsher and more violent to another. We tend to be nice to one another today because we're fairly comfortable and we can afford it. If somebody falls on hard times, sure, you might loan them five bucks if they ask for it; but what if they ask you to cover their rent or other living expenses? Odds are you'd say no.

Sad fact is, people are mean and violent to one another even today. Nevermind in a disaster scenario.

The stakes are much higher for one thing. For example, say somebody steals food from you today, no big deal right? You just head down to the grocery store and pick up food to replace it - if we're looking at a scenario where even millenia-old technologies like agriculture can't provide food anymore? You could very likely end up dead.

You see it all the time with the civilizations of yesteryear: The Spartans way of life basically revolved around warring with their neighbors or preparing for it (they even went so far as to kill their own kids if they weren't considered "fit"), the Mongol Empire slaughtered an estimated 40 million people basically by hand and built monuments from the severed heads of their enemies... even "enlightened" civilizations like the Romans were regularly invading and conquering their neighbors while keeping hundreds of thousands of people in brutal slavery, we just tend to forgive that because they built cool monuments.

Hell, last I checked, there's still some question about whether or not Neanderthal man was driven to extinction by our ancestors.

We wouldn't necessarily be that bad with people withinin our own groups, but people outside them? I wouldn't make any bets.

you are right, i definitely think there would fighting but there would be groups of survivors, its human nature to be in a social group, i don't think there has ever been a sustained "every man for himself" period of time in human history

[JCMcAdams84]

80% of statistics are made up. :p Anyhoo...

Sad fact is, people are mean and violent to one another even today. Nevermind in a disaster scenario.



When the earthquake hit Japan and there was nearly a nuclear disaster along with it there were no riots, no murders. People acted calmly and went into stores and bought supplies. Some people even bought only what they need and didn't over stock. Many people interviewed, when asked why they bought so little, said it was because everyone needed water and such so why would they take all of it?

In America and most of Europe, yes most people might become jerks, we are want it now get it now, anything goes people, but in some parts of the world people still have civility. In some parts of the world in fact they live life as if it's post ZA now in many ways, scares food, poor living conditions and dirty water. Small communities and little contact with the outside world. In areas of South American and Africa, in the outskirts of Afghanistan and India and some parts of South East Asia people already live with many of the hard ships you would face in the ZA and for every Rwanda or Uganda there are a dozen other nations in just as much if not more poverty that don't end up being lead by mad men and murders, where there are not hit squads driving the roads every night.

you guys know we weren't given civilisation to us by aliens right, we may not me perfect, but we made the civilised world ourselves, why do people think we wouldn't rebuild it?

This is right, we got to were we are by proving what many of you are saying wrong. The Black Plague is the perfect example, it hit the whole world (did you know that?) we mostly hear about its effect in Europe which had a lot of cities fall apart but just as many held together by not giving in to the idea you all say "all people" would. And in Asia and Africa we barely even read of the effects because so few area feel into unrest and violence. People can and do live civilized lives during hard times even in parts of the world that we in the "west" call the third world, or uncivilized.

[Eric Northman]

you're right, people dont turn bad when everyone around them is dying, people group together and feel like the life of another is just as important there own, England invented the NHS after WWII because we decide that society as a whole should look after each other

But, in a world where the bad times aren't going to stop and the resources are dwindling, people will stop looking out for others are start looking out for themselves. That is until a group comes together to organize survivors and get them moving towards a common goal (if and when such a thing happened).

[Red Panda]

Without society, things will go bad. Look at Somalia, which is probably as close to anarchy as we get in these times. Or look at Iraq right after we invaded. Look at Afghanistan. Look at post Katrina at the people that stuck around. Bottom line: shit just gets real.

[Rommel49]

When the earthquake hit Japan and there was nearly a nuclear disaster along with it there were no riots, no murders. People acted calmly and went into stores and bought supplies. Some people even bought only what they need and didn't over stock. Many people interviewed, when asked why they bought so little, said it was because everyone needed water and such so why would they take all of it?

In America and most of Europe, yes most people might become jerks, we are want it now get it now, anything goes people, but in some parts of the world people still have civility. In some parts of the world in fact they live life as if it's post ZA now in many ways, scares food, poor living conditions and dirty water. Small communities and little contact with the outside world. In areas of South American and Africa, in the outskirts of Afghanistan and India and some parts of South East Asia people already live with many of the hard ships you would face in the ZA and for every Rwanda or Uganda there are a dozen other nations in just as much if not more poverty that don't end up being lead by mad men and murders, where there are not hit squads driving the roads every night.

It's not really applicable, however; in the Japanese case, in an apocalypse scenario you're looking at the distinct possibility that the government ain't coming back.

It's also different standard of civilization/culture in places like Japan, not necessarily a better one; let's not forget that even in relatively modern history, Japanese soldiers from WWII who ran around for a couple of decades murdering civilians in the Phillipines received a hero's welcome upon their return (while the guy that surrendered after deciding the war was lost got shunned), or that they recently had a Prime Minister that bowed at the gravesite of guys we convicted of war crimes in WWII. They never really acknowledged wrongdoing in China or North Korea during that war (Japanese textbooks up until atleast a few years ago still referred to Korean rape victims as "comfort women", and still might), etc.

This is right, we got to were we are by proving what many of you are saying wrong. The Black Plague is the perfect example, it hit the whole world (did you know that?) we mostly hear about its effect in Europe which had a lot of cities fall apart but just as many held together by not giving in to the idea you all say "all people" would. And in Asia and Africa we barely even read of the effects because so few area feel into unrest and violence. People can and do live civilized lives during hard times even in parts of the world that we in the "west" call the third world, or uncivilized.

The period during the Black Plague also saw more than its fair share of violence and wars, as well as groups like the Flagellants killing priests and Jews... and let's not forget that the Mongols may have intentionally spread that plague in the first place in places like Crimea and Constantinople since they had a tendency to fling diseased corpses at their enemies on the other side of a city wall.

[Master of Aeons]

I think one of the important things being overlooked is that while not everyone succumbs to being a bad person, there are a small percentage of people who will use any opportunity to act on things they haven't been able to. If someone's always wanted to kill their boss and rape someone they know, the moment the apocalypse begins and they can get away with it, they will. Even if that's a pretty small amount of people who go crazy the moment society isn't telling them not to, they will be an immediate threat and do a lot of damage. Others may even follow their example because of mob mentality or due to fear.

While there may be more heroic or weak willed survivor candidates in the zombie apocalypse world, these crazies will be at the forefront. And the more damage they do, the more people will in turn do as they do.

[JCMcAdams84]

It's also different standard of civilization/culture in places like Japan.

The point I was making was exactly that. Don't look at it from a culture perspective. Get your mind out of the western, get it now, mentality and look at it from a human perspective.

My first post on this topic summed it up. Most people behave as they are expected to. It comes down to what they think people around them expect and what they are lead to expect from others. In America and most of Europe things might fall apart at first because we have taught people that's what happens, it's okay to be that way in emergence, and so that's how they will act, in other parts of the world (heck even in other parts of America) it would be different. My point is that a person who expects everyone to pick up guns and kill would probably do that, not because they are a bad person, because I'm sure you're not and you've voiced this idea, but just because they are doing what is expected. However, order would be restored, it might take years but it will happen... or we'll all go extinct.

[Bearcules]

There have been studies that have looked at how people react when someone tells them to do something in a gray area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment), or in us vs them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) environments, and social conformity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments). There are reasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility) for them to be as afraid of the living as they are of the dead.

[Master of Aeons]

He hates me! He caught me! Man is good!

[Ledge_End]

He hates me! He caught me! Man is good!

He was horny so he dropped him.... man is evil! :D

[Cyreen]

"...the Lord of the Flies hung on his stick and grinned. At last Simon gave up and looked back; saw the white teeth and dim eyes, the blood – and his gaze was held by that ancient, inescapable recognition."

We are neither good nor evil. We are what any given situation demands in order to survive or not as we choose. People are unpredictable, ask any cop responding a domestic violence complaint.

[Ninnuendo]

"You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other."

Joker is absolutely right. Morals, ethics, kindness, all these things are unnecessary luxuries in a fight for survival. Even in the society we have now, there exists a competitiveness that goes beyond what's deemed acceptable and that's purely for financial gain. When the prize is survival itself, nothing else matters. Ethics are of no value to a dead man.

[thestalkinghead]

"You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other."

Joker is absolutely right. Morals, ethics, kindness, all these things are unnecessary luxuries in a fight for survival. Even in the society we have now, there exists a competitiveness that goes beyond what's deemed acceptable and that's purely for financial gain. When the prize is survival itself, nothing else matters. Ethics are of no value to a dead man.

morals aren't something civilisation invented, they may have refined them, but they are part of our basic instinct as a social animal, eg. murder isn't just evil or illegal it's the opposite of our basic instinct to preserve the species, sure sometimes our other instincts override the one that is against killing our own species, but more than we like to think is just instinct rather than thought

[JabbaDaHuttX7]

It's not really applicable, however; in the Japanese case, in an apocalypse scenario you're looking at the distinct possibility that the government ain't coming back.

It's also different standard of civilization/culture in places like Japan, not necessarily a better one; let's not forget that even in relatively modern history, Japanese soldiers from WWII who ran around for a couple of decades murdering civilians in the Phillipines received a hero's welcome upon their return (while the guy that surrendered after deciding the war was lost got shunned), or that they recently had a Prime Minister that bowed at the gravesite of guys we convicted of war crimes in WWII. They never really acknowledged wrongdoing in China or North Korea during that war (Japanese textbooks up until atleast a few years ago still referred to Korean rape victims as "comfort women", and still might), etc.


Hope you don't think that's still applicable to them today.

[JabbaDaHuttX7]

morals aren't something civilisation invented, they may have refined them, but they are part of our basic instinct as a social animal, eg. murder isn't just evil or illegal it's the opposite of our basic instinct to preserve the species, sure sometimes our other instincts override the one that is against killing our own species, but more than we like to think is just instinct rather than thought

I really don't think humans as a species generally consider killing one of their own as opposite to their instincts. As long as they're not part of the same community or don't risk losing their freedom and getting looked down upon, they seem to be OK with it in a them vs. us scenario: wars, law enforcement/crime, gang wars, whatever.

[Ninnuendo]

morals aren't something civilisation invented, they may have refined them, but they are part of our basic instinct as a social animal, eg. murder isn't just evil or illegal it's the opposite of our basic instinct to preserve the species, sure sometimes our other instincts override the one that is against killing our own species, but more than we like to think is just instinct rather than thought

Morals & ethics are a social contract maintained by majority and the rule of law, I don't try to kill you as long as you don't try to kill me. In a situation where law is gone and humanity is competing against itself for resources, that social contract breaks down because it's no longer viable to sacrifice or compromise. Even in large groups with an illusion of community and looking after each other, eventually that system will break down due to the lack of resources. Social animals are only social for as long as it benefits them, once the perception becomes that you're betting off hunting on your own, society goes out of the window.

[JabbaDaHuttX7]

"You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other."

Joker is absolutely right. Morals, ethics, kindness, all these things are unnecessary luxuries in a fight for survival. Even in the society we have now, there exists a competitiveness that goes beyond what's deemed acceptable and that's purely for financial gain. When the prize is survival itself, nothing else matters. Ethics are of no value to a dead man.

Ironic, considering the movie proved Joker wrong. :P

[JCMcAdams84]

"You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other."

Joker is absolutely right. Morals, ethics, kindness, all these things are unnecessary luxuries in a fight for survival. Even in the society we have now, there exists a competitiveness that goes beyond what's deemed acceptable and that's purely for financial gain. When the prize is survival itself, nothing else matters. Ethics are of no value to a dead man.

The funny part about you using this quote is that the Joker's "proof" of this is wrong, the people in the two boat don't kill each other.

[Ninnuendo]

Ironic, considering the movie proved Joker wrong. :P

Firstly it was a movie.
Secondly, they would have all died if the detonator had worked.
Thirdly, everyone dying would than act as a warning to whatever followed. The next time, the button would have been pressed.

[thestalkinghead]

Morals & ethics are a social contract maintained by majority and the rule of law, I don't try to kill you as long as you don't try to kill me. In a situation where law is gone and humanity is competing against itself for resources, that social contract breaks down because it's no longer viable to sacrifice or compromise. Even in large groups with an illusion of community and looking after each other, eventually that system will break down due to the lack of resources. Social animals are only social for as long as it benefits them, once the perception becomes that you're betting off hunting on your own, society goes out of the window.

other animals don't have law, and even thought they sometimes kill each other they don't just wipe themselves out of existence and that is a basic instinct of preserving the species, same with us

[Ninnuendo]

other animals don't have law, and even thought they sometimes kill each other they don't just wipe themselves out of existence and that is a basic instinct of preserving the species, same with us

Given a short food supply, the weak will be left to die and then eaten, then the group and social structure breaks down due to infighting.

[JCMcAdams84]

Firstly it was a movie.
Secondly, they would have all died if the detonator had worked.
Thirdly, everyone dying would than act as a warning to whatever followed. The next time, the button would have been pressed.

Firstly, yeah movies work that way.
Secondly, that only shows that one person who is crazy can kill a bunch of people who aren't, not that most people are crazy
Thirdly, unless everyone knew them not pushing the button did then most people would... not push the button because they would assume the Joker had rigged it to kill both boats making it more likely that they would not push the button.
Fourthly, even though most movie and such show that people are base animal, most real world example prove that idea wrong. Most times it is a small minority of bad people killing and looting and a bunch of normal people doing nothing and an equally small minority of good people standing up to the bad. Most people are inherently inactive or good.

[JCMcAdams84]

Given a short food supply, the weak will be left to die and then eaten, then the group and social structure breaks down due to infighting.

This does not happen, real world example abound that disprove this, from the times of the Roman Empire to today. Shorting of food supplies almost always historically leads to a stronger social structure and a reinventing of community. It's the break down of moral uniformity that kills civilization not hunger or sickness.

[thestalkinghead]

Given a short food supply, the weak will be left to die and then eaten, then the group and social structure breaks down due to infighting.

and then we wipe ourselves out of existence? i don't think so, you are just very pessimistic, not realistic about the human race

[Ninnuendo]

* Reads above *

Urgh. If you're going to quote me, at least get the context right.

It may be a film but the idea is the same. Competition leads to a fight for survival and if you think people will choose ethics above living, you're naive.

Yep it's the breakdown of moral uniformity that kills societies, glad you agree, but I was talking about the animal kingdom.

Nope we don't fully wipe ourselves out of existence, the combination of lack of resources and societal breakdown thins the herd down to what the planet can sustain. That's not really what this thread is about.
The question is, would a zombie apocalypse lead to the breakdown of society and the answer, without a shadow of a doubt, is yes.

[thestalkinghead]

* Reads above *

Urgh. If you're going to quote me, at least get the context right.

It may be a film but the idea is the same. Competition leads to a fight for survival and if you think people will choose ethics above living, you're naive.

Yep it's the breakdown of moral uniformity that kills societies, glad you agree, but I was talking about the animal kingdom.

Nope we don't fully wipe ourselves out of existence, the combination of lack of resources and societal breakdown thins the herd down to what the planet can sustain. That's not really what this thread is about.
The question is, would a zombie apocalypse lead to the breakdown of society and the answer, without a shadow of a doubt, is yes.

well its hard to say exactly what this thread is about, but the title at the moment is will it bring out the bad in people and i dont think it would make good people bad, and i dont think it would turn people into monsters maybe make people tough and a bit cold but not bad

[magodesky]

I think some people here are wrongly assuming that people not turning on each other is necessarily based on some innate sense of morality or nobility. I don't believe that's the case. I agree that humans are essentially selfish creatures. But the real question is, what strategy will best allow people to achieve their self interests?

In modern society, we've kind of created a culture where people can get ahead by trampling on others. So we have a lot of people doing awful things to each other. In an apocalypse scenario like in TWD, you're basically talking about going back to a society based on hunting and gathering, maybe some small-scale farming. Which, despite common thinking, there's little anthropological evidence to support the idea that such cultures are the savages that our stereotypes make them out to be. In fact, cooperation is quite important. Not because, "Hey, I'm such a good guy that I'm going to take care of everyone because that's the right thing to do." It's because, "My survival depends on everyone in the group working together. So it makes no sense to turn on them because I'd only be making life that much more difficult for myself."

Even between groups, going around attacking everyone isn't a particularly smart idea. Sure, there's no law to prevent you from killing someone. But by the same token, there's nothing to prevent that guy's buddies from getting together and doing the same to you. Okay, maybe your group is tough enough that they might be able to take the first people they cross. Maybe even the second or the third. But sooner or later, you're going to cross the wrong people and end up dead. Which is why antagonizing everyone you meet isn't really a good long-term survival strategy.

There is a good chance you'd have some fighting over food at first because most people wouldn't know how to find food in the wild and the existing food supply would be very limited. But ultimately, those who survived would be the people who learned how to provide for themselves. And at that point, there's little reason to fight over food. "Food" wouldn't actually be in short supply. Farmed food would be. But there's edible plant and animal life practically everywhere once you know what you're looking for. That's one of the great advantages of be omnivores. The whole world is a big buffet.

I also find it hard to believe that the only reason people aren't constantly attacking each other is simply because we have laws telling us not to. It's exceedingly rare for someone to commit murder just for the lulz. Most people never even consider it, and for those that are sufficiently motivated enough to try to kill someone, the law isn't much of a deterrent. It's not like we'd all run out and go on a killing spree if there was no pesky law telling us we shouldn't do that.

Now I suspect there would be quite a bit of violence for a time while people adapted to their new situation. But when the dust settled, I think anyone clinging to that strategy would ultimately end up getting themselves killed. In the long run, those who managed to survive and thrive would be those who learned how to cooperate. From an evolutionary point of view, teamwork has always been humans' biggest advantage when it comes to survival. I don't see abandoning that strategy when things are at their worst working very well.

[thestalkinghead]

I think some people here are wrongly assuming that people not turning on each other is necessarily based on some innate sense of morality or nobility. I don't believe that's the case. I agree that humans are essentially selfish creatures. But the real question is, what strategy will best allow people to achieve their self interests?

In modern society, we've kind of created a culture where people can get ahead by trampling on others. So we have a lot of people doing awful things to each other. In an apocalypse scenario like in TWD, you're basically talking about going back to a society based on hunting and gathering, maybe some small-scale farming. Which, despite common thinking, there's little anthropological evidence to support the idea that such cultures are the savages that our stereotypes make them out to be. In fact, cooperation is quite important. Not because, "Hey, I'm such a good guy that I'm going to take care of everyone because that's the right thing to do." It's because, "My survival depends on everyone in the group working together. So it makes no sense to turn on them because I'd only be making life that much more difficult for myself."

Even between groups, going around attacking everyone isn't a particularly smart idea. Sure, there's no law to prevent you from killing someone. But by the same token, there's nothing to prevent that guy's buddies from getting together and doing the same to you. Okay, maybe your group is tough enough that they might be able to take the first people they cross. Maybe even the second or the third. But sooner or later, you're going to cross the wrong people and end up dead. Which is why antagonizing everyone you meet isn't really a good long-term survival strategy.

There is a good chance you'd have some fighting over food at first because most people wouldn't know how to find food in the wild and the existing food supply would be very limited. But ultimately, those who survived would be the people who learned how to provide for themselves. And at that point, there's little reason to fight over food. "Food" wouldn't actually be in short supply. Farmed food would be. But there's edible plant and animal life practically everywhere once you know what you're looking for. That's one of the great advantages of be omnivores. The whole world is a big buffet.

I also find it hard to believe that the only reason people aren't constantly attacking each other is simply because we have laws telling us not to. It's exceedingly rare for someone to commit murder just for the lulz. Most people never even consider it, and for those that are sufficiently motivated enough to try to kill someone, the law isn't much of a deterrent. It's not like we'd all run out and go on a killing spree if there was no pesky law telling us we shouldn't do that.

Now I suspect there would be quite a bit of violence for a time while people adapted to their new situation. But when the dust settled, I think anyone clinging to that strategy would ultimately end up getting themselves killed. In the long run, those who managed to survive and thrive would be those who learned how to cooperate. From an evolutionary point of view, teamwork has always been humans' biggest advantage when it comes to survival. I don't see abandoning that strategy when things are at their worst working very well.

well put, that's what i mean

[Rommel49]

morals aren't something civilisation invented, they may have refined them, but they are part of our basic instinct as a social animal, eg. murder isn't just evil or illegal it's the opposite of our basic instinct to preserve the species, sure sometimes our other instincts override the one that is against killing our own species, but more than we like to think is just instinct rather than thought

The question is "would people be meaner and more violent", not "would we rape and kill ourselves to extinction" - I don't think anyone's claiming the latter would happen (I'm not), but the former? Almost certainly, because we've seen it happen. Animals may not drive their own species to extinction, but that doesn't stop them from being right bastards to each other; chimps will literally rip apart their young and eat them. In the case of our own species, it's not like the cannibalism provision in the "Code of the Sea" was created and invoked for when things were going just fine and dandy.

Competition over scarce/dwindling resources would almost certainly become violent at some point. People within the same group would probably be decent to one another, when two different groups encounter each other after the shit's hit the fan, that's a different story, particularly if there's a big disparity in strength between those two groups. It was certainly true in the past when people weren't so fat and happy; to use the example again, there's the Mongol Empire which killed an estimated 40 million people primarily with things like swords, spears, and bows... at a point in time when the population was under half a billion people, seriously, they basically killed one out of every 10 people on the planet.

Hope you don't think that's still applicable to them today.

Everything I listed happened within the past decade or so, e.g. the case of the Prime Minister paying his respects at the gravesite of guys that were convicted of war crimes? That was within the past six years or so. Things like refusing to acknowledge wrongdoing with regards to China and Korea in WWII? Still ongoing last I checked, and still a sticky widget for those countries.

[thestalkinghead]

i think the history of my own country (England) is basically what would happen but with the added advantage of modern technology and farms everywhere, if you were in TWD world and you somehow brought a tribe of celts from the past in the TWD world they would think everything was brilliant with zombies only being a minor inconvenience compared to all the luxuries the modern world had left behind

[Bearcules]

There is a good chance you'd have some fighting over food at first because most people wouldn't know how to find food in the wild and the existing food supply would be very limited. But ultimately, those who survived would be the people who learned how to provide for themselves. And at that point, there's little reason to fight over food. "Food" wouldn't actually be in short supply. Farmed food would be. But there's edible plant and animal life practically everywhere once you know what you're looking for. That's one of the great advantages of be omnivores. The whole world is a big buffet.

As westerners it is difficult to grasp the concept of scarcity. Floods, droughts, pests are very real. Even with established societies, people are killing over land, food, money, and even water. It's a romantic idea that people will change once 'the dust settles' but that idea is a bit naive.

[funyahns]

Humanity survived for a long time before there was much civilization to speak of. The idea that everything would go south is wrong. Most people would have trouble shooting another human being, that would not change. If we were all going to take advantage of each other and murder each other ever our friends then we would not have made it this far into out history.

[Irishmile]

People overreact if they have to wait for fast food... Put people in worse more stressful situations and YES.. they do turn to crap...

Its interesting in a zombie scenario because it sort of knocks humans off the top of the food chain... and you would have to start living in fight or flight modes.. The difference between humans and other prey is that our brains are wired to have feelings of guilt, and think in terms of morality.... Everyone has different definitions of that though.

[Cyreen]

People overreact if they have to wait for fast food... Put people in worse more stressful situations and YES.. they do turn to crap...

I agree, I think the survivor factor in a pandemic of any sort given the attitude of entitlement that exists in North America is particularly scary.

[AceStarr]

Yes it would look at hurricane Katrina i was in the Navy when i got sent over there to help with relief efforts. You had people in communitys blocking off sections to their apartment complex or houseing area. Even killing there own neighbors because of color. They even said a serial killer was killing women during those days. So after seeing how people reacted and even the Government not helping in a timely manner im 100 percent sure a zombie apoc would bring the worst out in people!!!!!

[Rommel49]

Humanity survived for a long time before there was much civilization to speak of. The idea that everything would go south is wrong. Most people would have trouble shooting another human being, that would not change. If we were all going to take advantage of each other and murder each other ever our friends then we would not have made it this far into out history.

That's not what was claimed though; to reiterate, you simply questioned the idea that modern people would become mean and violent, and it's a certainty we would - it's a documented historical fact. That's a far cry from becoming violent enough to render the entire species extinct. Even then, there's the whole concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) that the Cold War revolved around. The whole point of the idea was that even if the Russians could kill everyone in the U.S., we'd atleast take them and everyone they loved screaming into a nuclear hell with us and vice versa.

Sad fact is, our history is chock full of violent, barbarous times and a caring, modern western soceity is the exception, not the rule to the timeline of human history. We've produced the body counts and atrocities throughout history to prove it... Hell, the primary reasons those historical body counts weren't higher was because slaves were more useful than corpses and when people were invaded, they violently opposed their invaders and that attacker lacked the knowledge or means to actually kill everybody they wanted to (otherwise, they would've killed or enslaved everybody). Our ancestors said as much themselves, to quote Xenophon: "do not grudge employing all the power at your command; excess of victory never caused any conqueror one pang of remorse".

Even then, the fact is that humanity has actually already set its own progress back quite a bit, during our fits of murder and mayhem. The burning of the Library of Alexandria, or the destruction of the House of Wisdom (along with pretty much every library in Baghdad) when the Mongols invaded and chucked every book they could find in the city into the Tigris river (which ran black with the ink for months after the fact). Hell, at the time in question, Baghdad was actually one of the intellectual centers in the world for things like science, mathematics, cosmopolitan thought, etc. - they never really recovered.

People are downright bastards to each other when they want (or need) to be, there's no reason to assume that's going to change if the world should shit the bed.

[WowMutt]

Would the zombie apocalypse really bring the bad out of people?

Absolutely!

If something like a ZA actually happened, the world as we know it now would change very quickly into a world or survival of the fittest.
People would find themselves forced to do things they wouldnt normally do and without the consequences of law, people would be free to do whatever they feel they need to do and justify it by calling it 'surviving'.

[Bashtee]

It's easy to be judgemental from our standpoint, but imagine yourself in such an extreme situation. There wouldn't be much of good or bad choices, most of them would turn grey.

Let's involve the game some more. I'm sure that in the same situation, most of the players would have just killed the brothers and would have taken the food supplies from the car - without a second thought. After what happend to Mark and what they forced you to do with Larry? I'm even sure most of us would have stabbed Danny a couple more times, just to be sure. Taking chances, that one of them might survive this and come after the group for revenge? Or sending the raiders straight to you?

The question if an apocalyspe would bring out the bad out of people is therefore obsolete. Rape, violance, cannibalism, all of it would happen somewhere, it does now and it will especially if there are no laws and those, who enforce it.

[Cyreen]

I can promise I will never eat people.

[Rommel49]

I can promise I will never eat people.

And I can promise I'll never have a bad thought or say a four letter word. That doesn't make the promise worth anything though. Try convincing me of it when you're actually starving, when every movement (including even swallowing) is torture due to muscle atrophy (because your own body will effectively cannibalize itself to try and keep you alive) and things like fungal infections start cropping up in places such as your throat because your body can no longer fight them off.

I'm sure there's plenty of people who promised they'd never eat another person, then conveniently happened to forget that promise when the chips were actually down.

[Cyreen]

I can promise I will never eat people.

[PuhChewyChomp]

It would bring out the best in me. By the best, I mean I was created to kill zombies.

[Master of Aeons]

I can promise I will never eat people.

You're eating someone now!

He was horny so he dropped him.... man is evil! :D

YES.