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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!!
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.
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'.
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.
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.
I'm from New Orleans...I experienced Hurricane Katrina the Storm and the Aftermath, there were people who were helpful and banded together when shit really got bad after the storm but they were many more who weren't so nice, most of the police abandoned the city, the bridges that led out to other parishes/counties (for those who don't know what parishes are) were blocked by national guards and cops from other parishes with SHOOT TO KILL ORDERS from the GOVERNOR, it was 100 degrees plus 100% humidity in august, no lights nor water no food throughout the region, spanning miles in a major city, 85% of the city was flooded---days before the storm when "humanity" was "civil" there WAS crime and thugs but there also was the rule of law, checks and balances...BUT once KATRINA came through for a night---she was gone the next DAY, what was left was the AFTERMATH a MAN MADE problem that lasted for over 2 weeks before rescue in a major city that turned to a post apocalyptic waste land in one DAY so 2 weeks felt like forever--people went bat shit CRAZY not all of us...but the REALITY of the situation was pushing it---seeing babies dead in the streets, old people and just PEOPLE fucked up like that-PITCH BLACK at night hearing screams and guns shots going off constantly, with buildings burning, dark sky scrappers---it was surreal--you had militias shooting whatever MOVED-you had GUN CONFISCATIONS by the U.S Marshalls (those people who they held their AK-47's and GUNS on and houses they kicked in to arrest people who had provisions and weapons to protect themselves, your RIGHTS no longer was upheld, you think rights are violated on an average day...in a event like the AFTERMATH of Hurricane Katrina, your rights are just laughable) it was SICK----the people the day before who would rob you, rape you, and worst had a free TICKET to Disney land---there was some horrific shit taking place the media did NOT cover it all, so all this TALK about "people" being so "nice" is speculation with some truth. but for the most part there are MANY EVIL FUCKS as GOOD and when the GOOD are pushed they SNAP and people SNAPPED! sleeping in a dark convention center that was so beautiful the day before became a giant TOILET and sweat shop, every man for himself( at least the people who were by themselves) those who had their families stuck together, those who needed help were lucky to get it...but mainly it was NOT a fun thing to go through...sorry to break it to ALL of YOU who think a Apocalyptic event would bring out the BEST in people are fooling yourselves(some what) YES! there were people during Katrina that HELPED each other, depends on what part of the city you were in, some people did things they never thought they would do the day before when they were at work and going about their daily routines--the NEWS said they were "looters"---they were looters,YES! but there was also scavengers to getting provisions to eat and medicine--(all the things people take for granted went away in a blink of an eye, it's scary how when our "THINGS" WHEN their washed away--shit gets BAD from there) So to all the people who think a "ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE" would be FUN need only add hurricane Katrina to the mix-MINUS the STORM-take the AFTERMATH added with zombies....people DO lose it without ZOMBIES so imagine an event with them?! I get all the altruism I really DO I remained as hopeful as I could during hurricane Katrina--and trust me it was HARD the aftermath lasted for a long time beyond 2 weeks, the city and region was chaotic for almost a year, until shit started coming back on line....so NO! people WON'T be as KIND as you think--look at the prison system in the U.S with the most people in jail than anywhere in the WORLD...one thing that didn't happen during the AFTERMATH of HURRICANE KATRINA was the prisoners were mostly evacuated---many got away though! ANYWAY!!! a Zombie Apocalypse WON'T be fun...it would be WORSE than ALL the zombie movies and media to say it would be REAL!
I think the best one that can describe your condition is the "dead frontier" lore,since there are 4 pockets of survivor groups who provide safe haven for those who need help despite the leaders background before the outbreak
Comments
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.
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.
and then we wipe ourselves out of existence? i don't think so, you are just very pessimistic, not realistic about the human race
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
You're eating someone now!
YES.
I'm from New Orleans...I experienced Hurricane Katrina the Storm and the Aftermath, there were people who were helpful and banded together when shit really got bad after the storm but they were many more who weren't so nice, most of the police abandoned the city, the bridges that led out to other parishes/counties (for those who don't know what parishes are) were blocked by national guards and cops from other parishes with SHOOT TO KILL ORDERS from the GOVERNOR, it was 100 degrees plus 100% humidity in august, no lights nor water no food throughout the region, spanning miles in a major city, 85% of the city was flooded---days before the storm when "humanity" was "civil" there WAS crime and thugs but there also was the rule of law, checks and balances...BUT once KATRINA came through for a night---she was gone the next DAY, what was left was the AFTERMATH a MAN MADE problem that lasted for over 2 weeks before rescue in a major city that turned to a post apocalyptic waste land in one DAY so 2 weeks felt like forever--people went bat shit CRAZY not all of us...but the REALITY of the situation was pushing it---seeing babies dead in the streets, old people and just PEOPLE fucked up like that-PITCH BLACK at night hearing screams and guns shots going off constantly, with buildings burning, dark sky scrappers---it was surreal--you had militias shooting whatever MOVED-you had GUN CONFISCATIONS by the U.S Marshalls (those people who they held their AK-47's and GUNS on and houses they kicked in to arrest people who had provisions and weapons to protect themselves, your RIGHTS no longer was upheld, you think rights are violated on an average day...in a event like the AFTERMATH of Hurricane Katrina, your rights are just laughable) it was SICK----the people the day before who would rob you, rape you, and worst had a free TICKET to Disney land---there was some horrific shit taking place the media did NOT cover it all, so all this TALK about "people" being so "nice" is speculation with some truth. but for the most part there are MANY EVIL FUCKS as GOOD and when the GOOD are pushed they SNAP and people SNAPPED! sleeping in a dark convention center that was so beautiful the day before became a giant TOILET and sweat shop, every man for himself( at least the people who were by themselves) those who had their families stuck together, those who needed help were lucky to get it...but mainly it was NOT a fun thing to go through...sorry to break it to ALL of YOU who think a Apocalyptic event would bring out the BEST in people are fooling yourselves(some what) YES! there were people during Katrina that HELPED each other, depends on what part of the city you were in, some people did things they never thought they would do the day before when they were at work and going about their daily routines--the NEWS said they were "looters"---they were looters,YES! but there was also scavengers to getting provisions to eat and medicine--(all the things people take for granted went away in a blink of an eye, it's scary how when our "THINGS" WHEN their washed away--shit gets BAD from there) So to all the people who think a "ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE" would be FUN need only add hurricane Katrina to the mix-MINUS the STORM-take the AFTERMATH added with zombies....people DO lose it without ZOMBIES so imagine an event with them?! I get all the altruism I really DO I remained as hopeful as I could during hurricane Katrina--and trust me it was HARD the aftermath lasted for a long time beyond 2 weeks, the city and region was chaotic for almost a year, until shit started coming back on line....so NO! people WON'T be as KIND as you think--look at the prison system in the U.S with the most people in jail than anywhere in the WORLD...one thing that didn't happen during the AFTERMATH of HURRICANE KATRINA was the prisoners were mostly evacuated---many got away though! ANYWAY!!! a Zombie Apocalypse WON'T be fun...it would be WORSE than ALL the zombie movies and media to say it would be REAL!
I think the best one that can describe your condition is the "dead frontier" lore,since there are 4 pockets of survivor groups who provide safe haven for those who need help despite the leaders background before the outbreak