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

[JCMcAdams84]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by JabbaDaHuttX7

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]

Originally Posted by Ninnuendo

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]

Originally Posted by thestalkinghead

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]

Originally Posted by Ninnuendo

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]

Originally Posted by Ninnuendo

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]

Originally Posted by Ninnuendo

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

well put, that's what i mean

[Rommel49]

Originally Posted by thestalkinghead

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.

Originally Posted by JabbaDaHuttX7

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]

Originally Posted by magodesky

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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'.