Post Disaster Movie Humanity Discussion

[Fr8monkey]

---

We have all seen a disaster movie where the world is nearly destroyed and is saved at the last minute or has only a handful of survivors. Whether the Earth's going topsy-turvy (2012), a devastating plague (Twelve Monkeys), alien invasions (War of the Worlds), technology-gone awry (Terminator) or Bruce Willis blows up the asteroid with 2 seconds to spare... This is not to discuss the implausibility of the physics or reality of the film themselves; just the lasting repercussions. Here is the question.

How do you think mankind would react realistically to near extinction?

Would we realize our humanity and put our cultural differences aside or would it be "Whew, that was close!" and go back to treating each other like crap?

[Bill Phil]

Humans are idiots. I'm an idiot, you're an idiot, Bob over there is an idiot... Not to be rude. But it's the truth. When humanity loses its civilization or gains it, humans will be humans.

I hope that when the apocalypse happens humanity will get its much needed kick in the groin. Finally being people, helping each other out. But people always divide into groups too small...

[kerbiloid]

Of course, the survived remains of humanity would put our cultural differences aside and establish modesty and justice all over the world.

Every tribe. Over all others.

[FishInferno]

I think that different scenarios would result in different results. For example, a plague. I think it would very much be like in Dawn of the Apes, where most of the world is wiped out, the governments are shut down, and after a brief period of anarchy there are small pockets of survivors.

At first, people are crap to each other, but then they realize "oh crap, if we keep fighting there wont be more humans"

[Kibble]

It'll probably be pretty much the same as when there weren't very many humans on Earth to begin with.

[Tex]

I actually think that a good example of how this works is the game Rust-

Now, before you stop me I'd like to point out that, yes, while it is still a video game, it's kinda interesting to see how players respond to being dropped in a post-apocalypse nuclear wasteland and have to fend for themselves. It's like a model of humanity's starting over: You have to craft your own tools, weapons, shelters, and defend them from other people who may band together in an attempt to steal your things. I find that Rust may just be a pretty decent example of human behavior in that type of situation. People will band together, but most people will attempt to dominate the surrounding groups of survivors that don't follow the same patterns.

Eh, probably doesn't have much to do with movies, but it's still humans post-apocalypse.

[razark]

It'll probably be pretty much the same as when there weren't very many humans on Earth to begin with.

Except large areas of the planet are now full of people that wouldn't have the first clue how to survive. Probably the most capable survivors would be those from areas where subsistence farming with very little dependence on technology is a major way of life.

[Brethern]

I actually think that a good example of how this works is the game Rust-

Now, before you stop me I'd like to point out that, yes, while it is still a video game, it's kinda interesting to see how players respond to being dropped in a post-apocalypse nuclear wasteland and have to fend for themselves. It's like a model of humanity's starting over: You have to craft your own tools, weapons, shelters, and defend them from other people who may band together in an attempt to steal your things. I find that Rust may just be a pretty decent example of human behavior in that type of situation. People will band together, but most people will attempt to dominate the surrounding groups of survivors that don't follow the same patterns.

Eh, probably doesn't have much to do with movies, but it's still humans post-apocalypse.

Except you're missing one key point,

It's a video game, people know it's a game and know that they can do what ever they want.

Personally I think if something really happened the first 48 hours would be the most telling, within it the most violence is going to happen the most people are going to die and things are going to change the most after it the smart people. Ergo the ones who didn't attempt to reenact their left 4 dead fantasies are going to be left, then things are probably going to look as they were 150 years ago.

[Kibble]

Except large areas of the planet are now full of people that wouldn't have the first clue how to survive. Probably the most capable survivors would be those from areas where subsistence farming with very little dependence on technology is a major way of life.

I think one or two generations is enough to get us back on track. A lot of people will die because of lack of wilderness experience, but some people will live, and some is enough for a resourceful animal like Homo sapiens. Though it would probably be the saddest thing to ever happen on the Earth, as we steadily (and quickly) lose language, culture, and art. Fifty thousand years of progress wasted!

[razark]

I think one or two generations is enough to get us back on track. A lot of people will die because of lack of wilderness experience, but some people will live, and some is enough for a resourceful animal like Homo sapiens. Though it would probably be the saddest thing to ever happen on the Earth, as we steadily (and quickly) lose language, culture, and art. Fifty thousand years of progress wasted!

Once the canned food in the grocery stores runs out, and people can't travel far beyond the current location, vast numbers of them will die. Disease will spread. Modern society is not ready for that. While I'm sure there will be some survivors in modern areas, there are people whose lives would not change very much, if at all. Remember, we live in a world where you can read about man walking on the moon, while flying hundreds of miles per hour, miles above the earth and there are people who have never, and will never, flush a toilet.

[Kibble]

Once the canned food in the grocery stores runs out, and people can't travel far beyond the current location, vast numbers of them will die. Disease will spread. Modern society is not ready for that. While I'm sure there will be some survivors in modern areas, there are people whose lives would not change very much, if at all. Remember, we live in a world where you can read about man walking on the moon, while flying hundreds of miles per hour, miles above the earth and there are people who have never, and will never, flush a toilet.

Wasn't claiming a lot of people, probably most, survivors of the catastrophe will die in the aftermath. But there was en evolutionary bottleneck where just ten thousand people existed on the planet. I think ten thousand people can survive and find each other. Actually when civilization is reestablished thousands of years later (since there will probably be lots of different isolated groups around the world, instead of one single group from Africa) we might have become a very diverse species, physically and culturally.

[EdFred]

The Rednecks, Amish, and Tribal people will rule the world - or what's left of it.

[FishInferno]

Once the canned food in the grocery stores runs out, and people can't travel far beyond the current location, vast numbers of them will die. Disease will spread. Modern society is not ready for that. While I'm sure there will be some survivors in modern areas, there are people whose lives would not change very much, if at all. Remember, we live in a world where you can read about man walking on the moon, while flying hundreds of miles per hour, miles above the earth and there are people who have never, and will never, flush a toilet.

Remember that this scenario assumes that something had already wiped out tons of people, probably pretty rapidly. So there wouldn't be lots of people to begin with. If you take away the threat of other humans, I think that more people would survive because they still have shelter (abandoned cities) and reasonable weapons (until ammo runs out).

If people were able to restore limited electricity, more people would have a shot of surviving. Not because of the luxuries that power brings, but because if we lost power, there would be tons of panic and anarchy would take hold.

[razark]

But there was en evolutionary bottleneck where just ten thousand people existed on the planet.

Yes, but those ten thousand post-Toba people knew how to live in that world. How good are you at starting a fire without matches? Can you tell the edible berries from the poisonous ones? Take down an antelope with a spear? Care for a sick child without antibiotics? Those are the skills that most of us lack that would be needed to survive.

I think ten thousand people can survive and find each other.

I have no doubt that a number of populations of significant size would survive. If they have the correct set of skills, they might even be able to continue surviving. However, without modern technology, they are going to have a very hard time finding and maintaining communication between groups.

I think that more people would survive because they still have shelter (abandoned cities) and reasonable weapons (until ammo runs out).

If people were able to restore limited electricity, more people would have a shot of surviving.

Cities tend to be poor for growing food, and most people lack the knowledge of how to do it. Same for running most modern technology such as the power grid. Transportation technology would eventually break down, which means you can't move food from one area to another, even if there's someone capable of growing it. The survival of modern type people depends on a hell of a lot of stuff they don't understand.

Edited March 27, 2015 by razark

[dryer_lint]

Near-Extinction event (minor disease, non-global nuke war, etc. wiping out a good portion of humanity but not all of it):

Mass panic for several weeks to several months. People mob the grocery stores. People try to hide in bunkers. The government tries to set itself back up, but the government is still run by people. Eventually, people form gangs or tribes, etc. and grow them into what you could probably call the new countries (or at least nations). Leaders are chosen. Some vague, new government is set up. People begin to settle down. Basically, it's the start of civilization again. It seems like it would go slowly, but you have to remember that even if infrastructure has been destroyed, we still have knowledge of technology. As long as there's enough people left, each country would end up with a few electricians, scientists, programmers, farmers, etc. It would be devastating, but it wouldn't take too long to rebuild. And of course, one of the tribe-countries tries to take over the world but is stopped by Resurrected 'Murica with their nukes. The world realizes their mistake, and as in World War Two, diplomacy improves and the Post-Apocalyptic UN is set up.

I hope.

-----

Extinction event (zombie plague, global thermonuclear war, etc. shredding humanity to pieces and leaving only a dozen survivors):

We're dead in this scenario. We're pretty much screwed. With a dozen survivors left and the world irradiated or zombified, you'd better hope you find a bunker full of people at the last moment. Even when the dozen survivors realize they're the only ones and stop killing each other, there's no technology left like in the last scenario. Your chances of having a scientist or engineer in the group is small. The group is probably hiding out somewhere on a desert island where the zombies or the nukes haven't killed them yet, and they're trying to "repopulate the earth". I don't think this will work out. http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3653 explains this better than my wall of text ever could. People will start going crazy fast. The dozen survivors will end up committing suicide or starving. Here lies humanity, RIP.

Nuclear war sucks.

-----

Unaffected (last minute asteroid explosion, spy saves humanity from doomsday device, etc. resulting in a scare but no damage):

There would be some damage and global panic, but mostly it would get posted online and CNN would discuss it for a month or so. Alright, maybe the asteroid would result in some future asteroid-interception system being built.

But mostly CNN.

-----

I spent fifteen minutes of my life writing that. Enjoy.

[Tex]

Except you're missing one key point,

It's a video game, people know it's a game and know that they can do what ever they want.

Aha, but I respond with the argument that Hey, it's the end of the world! We can do whatever we want now, there's no more rules!

Maybe the majority won't immediately devolve into complete murderous chaos like Rust, but also consider the Walking Dead, and the protagonist's devolution into feeling less regret about taking not just zombie lives, but harmful human lives as well.

[Kibble]

Yes, but those ten thousand post-Toba people knew how to live in that world. How good are you at starting a fire without matches? Can you tell the edible berries from the poisonous ones? Take down an antelope with a spear? Care for a sick child without antibiotics? Those are the skills that most of us lack that would be needed to survive.

My point was that we'll learn how to survive. Each successive generation will have more survivors as the first makes mistakes and is bad at stuff, but learn things to teach to the next generation. They'll teach the same (and more) lessons to their children, and before you know it we'll be right at home in our natural habitat. And hunting antelope is (relatively) simple for a physically fit human. There's a reason we conquered the world!

I have no doubt that a number of populations of significant size would survive. If they have the correct set of skills, they might even be able to continue surviving. However, without modern technology, they are going to have a very hard time finding and maintaining communication between groups.

So? As long as one big-enough group survives, then we aren't extinct. If more groups than that form, awesome - but they don't need to stay in contact, if they even know about each other.

[Frybert]

Assuming human survival was still possible, I would imagine the world would continue on as it has.

[razark]

My point was that we'll learn how to survive. Each successive generation will have more survivors as the first makes mistakes and is bad at stuff, but learn things to teach to the next generation. They'll teach the same (and more) lessons to their children, and before you know it we'll be right at home in our natural habitat. And hunting antelope is (relatively) simple for a physically fit human. There's a reason we conquered the world!

My point is that I have very little hope that any of those survivors will last long enough to breed the next generation, let alone pass on any knowledge they may have, unless they already possess the skills needed for a hunter/gatherer or subsistence agriculture lifestyle. I'm not talking about spending a week or a month camping. I'm talking about shifting an entire way of life to one that people simply are not familiar with anymore.

What crops are suited to grow in your area? When do you plant them? When do you harvest them? How do you tend them while they are growing? How many acres do you need to plant to ensure enough food for X people? How do you store the seed so that it is ready for planting? How do you get the water to the crops if the rains don't come? How do you tend the livestock? Where do you get the livestock and seed? How do you keep the cattle alive over winter? How do you preserve the food with no refrigeration?

Those are the questions that would matter.

So? As long as one big-enough group survives, then we aren't extinct. If more groups than that form, awesome - but they don't need to stay in contact, if they even know about each other.

I was responding to your point that those survivors would be able to find each other. If you're abandoning that point, then I agree.

[Fr8monkey]

I hate to be that one person; but considering humanitys past, I have little hope people will start getting along anytime soon... disaster or not.

Humans have been killing and hating each other since we lived in caves; and it is just going to continue.

[Brethern]

Aha, but I respond with the argument that Hey, it's the end of the world! We can do whatever we want now, there's no more rules!

Maybe the majority won't immediately devolve into complete murderous chaos like Rust, but also consider the Walking Dead, and the protagonist's devolution into feeling less regret about taking not just zombie lives, but harmful human lives as well.

There's a huge difference between killing to take someones supplies and killing a threat, normal humans should realize that the odds of them getting impaled vlad style goes up if they act like a jerk.

[Kibble]

I was responding to your point that those survivors would be able to find each other. If you're abandoning that point, then I agree.

Oh I meant in thousands of years when they invent radio.

As for those various questions you posed, I don't know the answers. But we'll figure it out - nature is our species' natural habitat.

[Tex]

There's a huge difference between killing to take someones supplies and killing a threat, normal humans should realize that the odds of them getting impaled vlad style goes up if they act like a jerk.

I agree completely, but I'd also like to share a sort of personal story in rebuttal. And to those who read it, please don't laugh! I mean, it sounds pretty funny, but It's something true.

When I started playing Rust, I had the toughest time learning how to survive. There were so many things to do, and though I did have some friends help me learn the ropes of how to do basic survival (we had a little tribe of us three) it was the other players, the more experienced ones, that would sometimes kill us, threaten in the chat, all that standard video game nonsense.

However, I noticed that whenever I thought about striking back, or perhaps even of finding some player that was even less experienced than I, to take their things so I could advance myself, the thought terrified me. I can't explain it- I've played CoD and L4D and Counter Strike and all sorts of games where you kill people indiscriminately. Killing a virtual player meant little to me, but in Rust I simply didn't think I could do it. Not only that, my friends (also gamers with histories similar to my own) also thought that it would be super wrong to do, like it was a real evil to kill someone in Rust. We mostly kept to ourselves.

After playing the game for a month, we grew tired of hiding and scavenging, and again considered the possibility heavily. We decided that we would try it, killing a player and stealing their resources to add to our collection. Long story short, it was one of my friends that did it first, killing a player under the pretense of friendly trading. His back was turned as he was shot by my friend, and we learned he had killed him through the Skype chat. I can't quite say for sure what my second friend was thinking, but I know that I felt horrible even then from the virtual life that was taken for our group's own betterment.

It was a short time later that it was my turn to kill for the group. It was a similar setup- We'd find a lone player, offer to trade, and I would go to facilitate the trade with our supplies. Of course, I didn't bring anything with me besides my armor, a pistol, and several clips of ammunition. I didn't intend to come back empty-handed, or injured.

I traveled to the player's outpost, a simple wooden shelter. As he opened the door and fetched supplies from the crate, I drew my pistol and took three shots. His body ragdolled hilariously as he dropped to the ground as my heart raced. In a rush, I grabbed his materials, raided the rest of his supply chest, and made a run for it. In real life, I looked down at my arms and found that I was physically shaking from the experience, and my voice had a slight waver as I told my friends through Skype what I had done.

I'll remind you that I still can't explain why I felt this way- I dunno why I was shaking, why the murder would've felt so different than the other times I'd killed in video games. It just felt horrid.

Eventually, however, the game went on. I logged more and more hours in the game, and I noticed that my group was changing subtly. As the time went on, and we grew more experienced, we felt less guilty about the murder and the stealing. It was a game, sure, but we killed and stole to support ourselves where gathering was insufficient, or boring. We grew our operations, moved around, and became quite proficient at breaking and entering, killing people and stealing their goods before their reinforcements showed up. Each time I shot somebody, every time I took another life made up of code and textures, I still felt a pang in my heartstrings to remind me what I was doing. Over time, I learned to work with it, and continued the business. Even when my group got into a huge firefight with a rival gang, with huge quantities of materials on the line, it's an experience that is completely out of this world.

I'm not trying to promote Rust or anything, this is just my story. I used Rust as an example in this thread because I felt it was some kind of analogue, and there were plenty of stories just like mine, but I hadn't heard them. I usually killed them before I learned who they were. That's what I became, a raider, a bandit that new players are warned of. And to this day I continue this lifestyle in the game, just because it's what I know best.

Just a little idea of the mental processes, that's all

[Kibble]

I guess thats how people become serial killers

[razark]

Oh I meant in thousands of years when they invent radio.

Ah.

As for those various questions you posed, I don't know the answers. But we'll figure it out - nature is our species' natural habitat.

The problem is that you only have a limited amount of time to figure it out; if you don't get the crops planted at the right time, there's going to be a lot fewer people to try again next year. Hopefully, you'll get it figured out before the local "tribe" become too small to sustain itself.

It's a major set of problems to overcome. Civilization has changed our way of life, and most people have lost the knowledge that used to be commonplace. People have a lot more knowledge than we did ten thousand, two thousand, even one hundred years ago. That knowledge, however, has become so specific that it is very hard for an individual person to keep a useful general base of knowledge about how their life works. The question I have is: When do we become so dependent on technology that we cannot survive a societal collapse? Have we passed that point already? I'd argue that parts of human society already have.