Would the zombie apocalypse really bring the bad out of people?
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
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
they all happen with out zombies roaming the streets..
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.
i vote we need a leader
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.
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.
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?
im the one that helps the winner :cool:
Well, at least one guy would.
that is funny, but if you watched the film you would know he totally wouldn't
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
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
80% of statistics are made up.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
He was horny so he dropped him.... man is evil!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.