Post-ZA Society Standards: What Wine Goes With Bob...?

AwesomO4000 · January 4, 2016

Slight change of - or more accurately an addition of (since, as previously noted, the food one also interests me) - topic:

Brought over from the "Start to Finish" episode thread:

Even when Morgan was alone and let the Wolves live, it can be argued that his act while alone did endanger and even resulted in the death of others.

My issue with the show is they have not given Morgan's stance a fair chance if you will. They put his stance in light of people who are vicious and unrepentant yet they have not really put Rick/Carol's stance to the test where they killed someone they shouldn't have. Even with Karen and David, Carol still had an out because they were infected, infectious and it was implied that they were beyond the point of no return. They have killed and only killed the right people while all we've seen from Morgan is him allowing the (obviously) wrong people to live.

As you said, what Carol did at the prison is a morally gray area for the show. Whether the writing for Carol was just sloppy or a choice by the writers in this last episode is questionable, but she certainly came off as the "wrong" party, and Morgan in general is supported by the show, given again his solo episode.

The code that is followed by Morgan is also the morally ethical one for the world in which we live. What Carol, Rick, and others have had to do (or felt they had to do) is applicable within the relatively new situation of the ZA, which is why Morgan's doesn't require as much defense in the story. We the viewers are more likely to see it as the code of choice for us. But we don't live under the conditions presented by the show.

The comment that I had over there and wanted to expand upon here is that I think in some ways morality and code might be looked at as different. In terms of Morgan, he has a "code." As I mentioned in the episode thread, a code often involves a stance no matter what, while morality can have behavior changing to fit the situation. I used the example of a priest taking confession. The code is that what someone confesses is not repeated. If someone confesses murder, it could be argued that keeping silent about that might not be considered "moral," but how does that "morality" stack up against the code that the priest lives by? Which is more important?

My question there was given the inflexibility of codes and the fact that there is no other "society" to pick up any slack, should people even have such rigid codes at all and is having such a code the potentially "immoral" thing (rather than the code itself)?

As for the grey area question concerning Carol and Rick, I agree their situations haven't been muddied perhaps as much as Morgan's. But again due to the "code" question, maybe the "morality" of it is less the point, because couldn't it be argued that Morgan breaking his code might be potentially just as bad character-wise at this point now that he's given it? Maybe these extreme situations are a test of Morgan's "code" and so far - according to the show perhaps - he is "winning" by sticking to it in the face of such odds where it might be the easy way out to cave and not follow the code.

Perhaps a more muddied example of the Carol/Rick side might be Carl. His shooting of the kid who was surrendering was very much more muddied than any of Carol or Rick's situations, and Carl was later shown to change his behavior accordingly and do the more "moral" thing in response. However that didn't exactly go too well for him either, so I think what happens in the future with Carl - if the show ever decides to delve back into his emotional and moral character arc - will be more of a morality test for the show. It might be illuminating to see how what Carl does in the future is presented by the show, and maybe that might be a better barometer for comparing with Morgan's code.

I myself would like to dump some of the Alexandriaite's stories and get back to some Carl - and Carl and Michonne and/or Rick - stories myself.

rab01 · January 4, 2016

After reading this, it occurred to me: the 10-square-mile-per-person hunting-gathering estimate I referenced is based on current fish and game population estimates. With an assumed decimation of 90% of the human population, I wonder... how much there might be a corresponding increase in wild game and plant populations, since their competition with humans (viable habitats, lack of hunting to control population growth, etc.) is so drastically decreased? If there were such a population explosion, I think it would be reasonable to expect animal/plant densities per square mile would increase - which translates into a reduction in the number of square miles required per person, as each square mile would yield greater harvests without depletion.

Just a thought.... ;)

Some random googling got me various textbooks that claim that the population density varied from over a person per square kilometer (3 people per square mile) to a tenth that in places like the Kalahari desert. So, I think the cite you found was too pessimistic ---

“According to historical and ethnographic studies, the density of hunter-gatherer populations has ranged from an estimated 1.15 inhabitants per square kilometer for the Amerinds of pre-conquest western North America, to 0.15 inhabitants per square kilometer registered in the 1960s among the Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert of Botswana in southern Africa.” The difference must be due to habitat. [Lee 1968, quoted in Our People, Our Resources web page]"

"On average, population density is less than 1 person per square kilometer (fewer than 3 people per square mile). Variations in population density among hunter–gatherer societies are determined in part by net primary production. In productive tropical rain forests the population density of hunter–gatherers can exceed 1 person/km2. Population densities often are less than 0.1 people/km2 (0.3 people/mi2) in less productive ecosystems, such as boreal forests."

Google tells me that Georgia has over 59k square miles so should be able to comfortably support way more than the scattered remnants of humanity that we've seen. I get that life in the ZA would suck (and that I'd be dead within a week) but for people who are comfortable hunting and fishing, there shouldn't be a food shortage.

Nashville · January 4, 2016

Some random googling got me various textbooks that claim that the population density varied from over a person per square kilometer (3 people per square mile) to a tenth that in places like the Kalahari desert. So, I think the cite you found was too pessimistic ---

Quite possibly. I also encountered multiple cites - and intentionally chose one of the most conservative, for a couple of reasons:

One doesn't become an effective hunter-gatherer instantly; Daryl, for example, didn't acquire his mad critter-killin' skillz overnight. :) In truth, Daryl is really not all that unique among rural Southern males in hunting prowess; it's fairly common among poverty-pocket rural communities where they hunt not for sport, but to put food on the table. When TWD shows Daryl slipping through the woods and knocking down everything in sight, however, it tends to totally gloss over the YEARS of training and practice by which Daryl attained his hunting acumen. For most of the post-ZA hunting newbies, there's going to be a learning curve involved - and at least initially during that educational process, their efficiency is going to be low (or, more specifically, LOW ;). Which implies necessity for a wider range of hunting territory than would be required by a more experienced hunter.
I also leaned towards the conservative estimate to preserve objectivity. My family comes from such a rural community as I earlier described; therefore, I have a definite personal bias towards the hunter-gatherer ethic. I've done both farming and hunting, and believe me when I say hunting is BY FAR the easier of the two, given proper training and experience - although there's much less variety in the results. So if I make it to the post-ZA intact, I'm hunting. :)

“According to historical and ethnographic studies, the density of hunter-gatherer populations has ranged from an estimated 1.15 inhabitants per square kilometer for the Amerinds of pre-conquest western North America, to 0.15 inhabitants per square kilometer registered in the 1960s among the Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert of Botswana in southern Africa.” The difference must be due to habitat. [Lee 1968, quoted in Our People, Our Resources web page]"

IHMO the pre-conquest range requirements citation corresponds pretty directly to what my earlier suppositions about post-ZA animal populations flourishing in the absence of humans, and therefore reducing the amount of sustenance territory needed per person - so it's nice to see someone else thinking along the same lines. ;)

maystone · January 5, 2016

This is a great conversation you have going on here, guys. I have a question and a probably incorrect supposition. Question: How many people would it take to sustain a hunter/gatherer enclave? I would imagine there would be a minimum and a maximum number to keep it viable, but I'm not sure what that would be. Supposition: The number of participants isn't as important to the success of a group that chooses to loot (in the early days, at least). As time went on and found items became more scarce, more people would mean the possibility of a wider search, but it would also mean that more goods overall would have to be found to keep everyone alive. And then we're back to wondering what wine goes with Bob.

paigow · January 10, 2016

post-ZA animal populations flourishing in the absence of humans...

What happens to scavenging animals such as buzzards, etc. that might feed on "tainted meat"?? Will they introduce the virus throughout the food chain?

Bongo Fury · January 10, 2016

What happens to scavenging animals such as buzzards, etc. that might feed on "tainted meat"??

They've shown dogs eating walkers on the show, but unlike Z Nation, TWD has never shown zombie animals. So in this universe, walkers are a human only issue.

qtpye · January 12, 2016

I imagine that for those who do survive, life expectancy would be low. Very few people would make it to their forties. Also, infant mortality probably would be around 50 percent, so not that many children born into the ZA would make it to adulthood.

We might be plunged into a dark ages unless learning and knowledge can somehow be preserved and passed down to future generations.

Nashville · January 12, 2016

I imagine that for those who do survive, life expectancy would be low. Very few people would make it to their forties. Also, infant mortality probably would be around 50 percent, so not that many children born into the ZA would make it to adulthood.

Historically speaking, that's not really that much of a change. In the U.S., for example, average male life expectancy didn't exceed 50 until the early/mid 1910s. It's only been within the past century that life past 50 became the norm vs. the exception, and that primarily on account of improved nutrition management, medical treatment and preventative care - three rings noticeably vacant in the ZA circus. Even disregarding the threat posed by gutgluttons, it would be reasonable to expect the collapse of the healthcare system infrastructure to imply a decrease in life expectancies back down to the 30s or 40s.

We might be plunged into a dark ages unless learning and knowledge can somehow be preserved and passed down to future generations.

MIGHT be? :)

We've all heard the term "Dark Ages" before; it's a somewhat hyperbolic (and definitely Eurocentric) term for the time period of relative educational, cultural and economic devolution in Europe between the fall of the Roman Empire and the start of the Italian Renaissance. Even at its worst, however, the Dark Ages were never truly "dark" - not in a global sense, anyway. Life in civilizations outside Europe (China/Asia, the Middle East, Egypt/Africa, etc.) continued to prosper and advance. Trade interaction with these cultures trickled into Europe and helped pull it out of its decline - light from the outside dispelling the dark, so to speak.

This won't be the case in the ZA, however; all indications we've been given at present are that it's a global killer. Which means this time there won't be any illumination dispelling a dark interior from outside, because there is no Outside - just isolated glowing embers of remaining technology pockets in the vast ash of the firepit formerly known as Human Society On Planet Earth.

Barring intervention by either (a) a prepper-style Bank Of All Human Knowledge complete with tools for worldwide dissemination/training/execution, or (b) philanthropically-inclined aliens:

The coming Age won't be Dark; it will be totally Black.
It will last for years - decades, almost surely; centuries, maybe; millennia, possibly - perhaps forever, in terms of continued human participation on Planet Earth.
Without the essential elements for support (power, raw materials, industrial manufacturing capacity, shipping, etc.) for an extended period of time, all technology will eventually fail. Sure, you can hook a generator to a windmill or water wheel and keep the lights going for a while - but what good will that generator be when your last light bulb burns out, or the motor burns up in your last power tool? At that point, the descent into barbarism truly begins.

If humankind does find a way to outlive the zombies and claw its way back out of the Black Ages, what are the odds its society, its technology - its language, even - would mirror that of ours? In which case, even if there were a Bank Of All Human Knowledge sitting in front of them, how would future humans even know how to access it? Even if books somehow magically managed to not rot away, or metal plates not to rust or corrode, would Futureman be able to read them? Think computers a thousand years in the future will still be using the same CD/DVD formats - IF they use them at all?

In short (I know, I know, too late), how to create a modern-day Rosetta Stone - and just as importantly, ensure it is recognized as such?

paigow · January 13, 2016

In short (I know, I know, too late), how to create a modern-day Rosetta Stone - and just as importantly, ensure it is recognized as such?

The only way out is a Terminator style temporal loop that changes the timeline...improved odds of success because zombies cannot pass through the time machine...no living tissue, etc...cheating with future knowledge to make sure a time machine is built before ZA occurs.

Nashville · January 13, 2016

The only way out is a Terminator style temporal loop that changes the timeline...improved odds of success because zombies cannot pass through the time machine...no living tissue, etc...cheating with future knowledge to make sure a time machine is built before ZA occurs.

Nah, that's taking the easy way out. :>

Surely if we can come up with a way to communicate with extraterrestrials, we can figure out a way to do so with our own human successors.

paigow · January 13, 2016

Nah, that's taking the easy way out. :>

Surely if we can come up with a way to communicate with extraterrestrials, we can figure out a way to do so with our own human successors.

Build a group of "soldier" cyborgs programmed to kill the undead. Build another group of "worker" cyborgs that can keep the utilities and factories running. Build another group of "teacher" cyborgs that retain critical knowledge - e.g. there are no quarter pounders with cheese in Paris - and speak multiple languages.

Nashville · January 13, 2016

Build a group of "soldier" cyborgs programmed to kill the undead. Build another group of "worker" cyborgs that can keep the utilities and factories running. Build another group of "teacher" cyborgs that retain critical knowledge - e.g. there are no quarter pounders with cheese in Paris - and speak multiple languages.

...and name it Skynet? ;>

I have some ideas on the subject - but I have to get up EARLY early for work tomorrow, so I'll try to collect some thoughts tomorrow evening.

rab01 · January 13, 2016

Historically speaking, that's not really that much of a change. In the U.S., for example, average male life expectancy didn't exceed 50 until the early/mid 1910s. It's only been within the past century that life past 50 became the norm vs. the exception,

We've all heard the term "Dark Ages" before ...

Barring intervention by either (a) a prepper-style Bank Of All Human Knowledge complete with tools for worldwide dissemination/training/execution, or (b) philanthropically-inclined aliens:

The coming Age won't be Dark; it will be totally Black.

It will last for years - decades, almost surely; centuries, maybe; millennia, possibly - perhaps forever, in terms of continued human participation on Planet Earth.

Without the essential elements for support (power, raw materials, industrial manufacturing capacity, shipping, etc.) for an extended period of time, all technology will eventually fail. Sure, you can hook a generator to a windmill or water wheel and keep the lights going for a while - but what good will that generator be when your last light bulb burns out, or the motor burns up in your last power tool? At that point, the descent into barbarism truly begins.

In short (I know, I know, too late), how to create a modern-day Rosetta Stone - and just as importantly, ensure it is recognized as such?

Even in 1910, most people lived past 50 once you made it out of infancy. If you were 20, you could expect on average another 40 years of life. So, if the ZA stabilizes to the level of walled communities, you can have a decent portion of the community to pass on knowledge. That, however, doesn't change your basic point - can society "rebuild" or do they essentially have to start over and how to leave behind something to jump start the process.

It's an idea that Larry Niven played with in a SF book called The Mote in God's Eye. Part of the book includes

an alien race that is prone to periodic collapses of its civilization built museums as examples for the savages that survived the fall of civilization to discover.

They built museums in areas far away from cities with examples of the entire technology base from axeheads through fusion reactors and included books in various media. (I tagged who built the museums and why because it might be a little spoilery.)

If something like the ZA hit now, how far would the survivors fall before stabilizing and beginning to rebuild? We're going to keep arabic numerals so math will always be easier than it was for the Greeks and Romans. People will understand the concepts behind the iron age but will people be able to recognize iron ore in the ground? Will they need that skill with all of the discarded metal left over from the fall? How much herbal knowledge will they have? (Personally, I can't even tell edible and poisonous mushrooms apart so I'd be no help in rediscovering pharmacology.) One big advantage that they'd probably have is that every city has one or more large libraries and those libraries probably would not be looted. ... The biggest stumbling block might be lack of domesticated animals - how many horses, cattle and oxen survive the ZA? Farming is godawful hard work but imagine trying to do it purely on human labor ...

Edited January 13, 2016 by rab01

Nashville · January 14, 2016

Even in 1910, most people lived past 50 once you made it out of infancy. If you were 20, you could expect on average another 40 years of life. So, if the ZA stabilizes to the level of walled communities, you can have a decent portion of the community to pass on knowledge.

You are correct; an average is nothing more than a single number which provides a baseline, but gives no detail of - or accounting for - the various skewing factors hidden behind it.

You cited one such factor: higher infant mortality rates, which would skew from the average toward the older end of the scale.

There are other factors, however, which skew in the opposite direction. One such example is the extended lifespan historically accorded membership in the wealthy upper class vs. the less-well-off middle and lower classes. The ability to afford better education translates to opportunities for less risky and physically debilitating careers, while better diet and access to medical care combine to extend the wealthy person's life expectancy past that of his/her more impoverished neighbors. Not meaning to mix cross-generational metaphors here, but an average lifespan of 50 fairly directly implies that for every Mr. Potter who makes it to his 80s, there are two or three George Baileys who didn't live to see 40.

Not arguing your point - agreeing with it, in fact - but pointing out it cuts both ways. The average, although imperfect, comes the closest to taking multiple skewing factors into account.

That, however, doesn't change your basic point - can society "rebuild" or do they essentially have to start over and how to leave behind something to jump start the process.

IMHO the answer to that question is totally dependent upon:

The depth of society's decline toward barbarism. A relatively shallow descent = better chances for retention of significant information = greater likelihood of societal re-organization along historically "familiar" lines = better chances for re-assimilation of retained/recorded knowledge. Contrariwise, a significantly deeper descent could result in greater opportunity for societal and linguistic changes - which could retard both comprehension and applicability of any pre-descent recorded information within the context of the resulting New World Order.
The rebound time between descent and re-ascension. Two or three generations would be a minor hiccup, historically speaking; older generations of pre-descent survivors could still be alive to inform and educate younger generations. Two or three centuries would be significantly more problematic, but not insurmountable; the older generations would be gone - but if they instilled a tradition of some degree of education in the basics (reading, writing, math) in younger generations, then their successors would still have the foundation for utilization of written records. A millennia or two, though - when practical education has devolved into meaningless ritual, and books long ago rotted out of their binders and the pages turned into dust...?

It's an idea that Larry Niven played with in a SF book called The Mote in God's Eye. Part of the book includes

an alien race that is prone to periodic collapses of its civilization built museums as examples for the savages that survived the fall of civilization to discover.

They built museums in areas far away from cities with examples of the entire technology base from axeheads through fusion reactors and included books in various media. (I tagged who built the museums and why because it might be a little spoilery.)

If something like the ZA hit now, how far would the survivors fall before stabilizing and beginning to rebuild? We're going to keep arabic numerals so math will always be easier than it was for the Greeks and Romans. People will understand the concepts behind the iron age but will people be able to recognize iron ore in the ground? Will they need that skill with all of the discarded metal left over from the fall? How much herbal knowledge will they have? (Personally, I can't even tell edible and poisonous mushrooms apart so I'd be no help in rediscovering pharmacology.) One big advantage that they'd probably have is that every city has one or more large libraries and those libraries probably would not be looted. ...

This correlates directly to my aforementioned statements regarding rebound time.

Books do have a limited -ah- shelf life, so to speak. ;)

The longer the rebound time gap before society once again recognizes books as useful things, the less likely the books themselves will still exist in a usable state.

Also, there's nothing intrinsically sacred about humankind's current methods of mathematical record and presentation. Remember - before the aforementioned Dark Ages, Roman numerals were the norm. It wasn't until Europe began crawling out of its abyss that the mathematical works of Middle Eastern scholars began trickling in and supplanting the old Roman-entrenched systems.

The biggest stumbling block might be lack of domesticated animals - how many horses, cattle and oxen survive the ZA? Farming is godawful hard work but imagine trying to do it purely on human labor ...

I've done farming before, which is why I set my mind to being the first person in my family's history to complete college. :) In terms of physical labor demands, farming SUCKS - and until you've experienced it for yourself, you have no real conceptual basis for comprehension of the extreme degree of suckage.

Maintaining a supply of domesticated farm animals would be difficult, insofar as we've already seen how easily range-restricted animals are little more than eventual zombie fodder.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Nashville

Nashville · January 23, 2016

Ok, another subject - relationships.

Glenn and Maggie's "marriage", technically speaking, consisted of nothing more than a ring exchange.

During the throes of the ZA, I would expect informal pairings and common-law marriages to be the norm.

Assuming human society reached some form of stable survival plateau, however, would formal social relationships such as marriage be reinstated?

Or would they be discarded as anachronistic fripperies of a bygone era?

paigow · January 24, 2016

Ok, another subject - relationships.

Glenn and Maggie's "marriage", technically speaking, consisted of nothing more than a ring exchange.

During the throes of the ZA, I would expect informal pairings and common-law marriages to be the norm.

Assuming human society reached some form of stable survival plateau, however, would formal social relationships such as marriage be reinstated?

Or would they be discarded as anachronistic fripperies of a bygone era?

If Bill Maher survived the ZA, he would be the one quoting Edward G. Robinson: "Where's your Messiah...now??" The bigger question hinted at is : If the majority of survivors are atheists, will "religion" be marginalized? Including moral judgements on fidelity/ infidelity/ monogamy/ polygamy.

Nashville · January 25, 2016

Hmmm...

Well...

If all remaining survivors are people of little faith (FPP) or no faith at all (atheists), then the argument could be made that the ZA is actually the Rapture in disguise....

;)

Irishmaple · January 25, 2016

I guarantee you the moment you establish a settlement a missionary from the Jehovah's Witness or Mormon church will knock on your door, tent flap or piece of plastic sheeting. I have lived in two countries and a bunch of different neighbourhoods, and missionaries regularly appear no matter where I am.

rab01 · January 25, 2016

Ok, another subject - relationships.

Glenn and Maggie's "marriage", technically speaking, consisted of nothing more than a ring exchange.

During the throes of the ZA, I would expect informal pairings and common-law marriages to be the norm.

Assuming human society reached some form of stable survival plateau, however, would formal social relationships such as marriage be reinstated?

Or would they be discarded as anachronistic fripperies of a bygone era?

Some type of relationship that helps protect and raise children while also holding and transferring property makes sense to me so I think marriage in some form survives. But there is still an extremely high death rate in a post-ZA world and that could leave you with people being widowed and remarrying every few years. The best format I've read about for dealing with that is line marriage - a form of group marriage that continues over time by bringing in new husbands and new wives who share everyone's responsibility to raise all the children of the marriage.

paigow · January 28, 2016

The best format I've read about for dealing with that is line marriage - a form of group marriage that continues over time by bringing in new husbands and new wives who share everyone's responsibility to raise all the children of the marriage.

One benefit of monogamy is keeping the gene pool diverse. Of course, if the gender/ age distribution of survivor groups is skewed, inbreeding will be inevitable unless other groups can be found. Line marriage looks like it would accelerate the inbreeding process while improving child care.

rab01 · January 28, 2016

One benefit of monogamy is keeping the gene pool diverse. Of course, if the gender/ age distribution of survivor groups is skewed, inbreeding will be inevitable unless other groups can be found. Line marriage looks like it would accelerate the inbreeding process while improving child care.

It's actually the reverse. Line marriage would promote genetic diversity because you can't marry any of your brothers or sisters so you have to look farther afield for mates. *shrug* But who knows because I don't think it's ever been practiced outside the realms of fiction and theory.

praeceptrix · February 19, 2016

Medieval historian here, doing my best to avoid going all-out lecture mode on the inaccuracy of the term "Dark Ages" (short version: Petrarch invented the phrase as part of the self-conscious superiority of the Italian Renaissance over what came before. Aside from a few really grim centuries (5th - 7th), as the Western Roman Empire evolved into the Germanic successor states, it is no longer used. And, frankly, I wouldn't use it even for that period, as learning did not completely disappear.). Oops, that wasn't very short. Sorry!

Back to the ZA: once we lose the ability to use computers, most knowledge stored electronically will likely be lost (with the rapidly changing technology, we are already losing knowledge stored on outdated systems -- anyone tried reading a 5 1/2 inch floppy lately?). Books, on the other hand, last a lot longer than you might expect. Not cheapo 1950s paperbacks; those have already disintegrated for the most part. But any decently made book stored in a more or less hospitable environment (i.e. not used as fuel for fires, nor left out in the rain & snow) will survive in somewhat readable condition. I have worked with 13th century documents -- on paper, not parchment -- which, in spite of the bug damage, were readable. The ZA survivors will have a much easier time than I did, as they will be working from printed editions, not late 13th century notarial hand!

Nashville · February 19, 2016

Medieval historian here, doing my best to avoid going all-out lecture mode on the inaccuracy of the term "Dark Ages" (short version: Petrarch invented the phrase as part of the self-conscious superiority of the Italian Renaissance over what came before. Aside from a few really grim centuries (5th - 7th), as the Western Roman Empire evolved into the Germanic successor states, it is no longer used. And, frankly, I wouldn't use it even for that period, as learning did not completely disappear.). Oops, that wasn't very short. Sorry!

Yeah, that's a rabbit hole it's hard to go down into without getting at least a little pedantic. On the other hand - inaccurate and academically discredited as it is, when you say "Dark Ages" non-academics have at least something resembling a clue as to what you're talking about. ;)

Back to the ZA: once we lose the ability to use computers, most knowledge stored electronically will likely be lost (with the rapidly changing technology, we are already losing knowledge stored on outdated systems -- anyone tried reading a 5 1/2 inch floppy lately?). Books, on the other hand, last a lot longer than you might expect. Not cheapo 1950s paperbacks; those have already disintegrated for the most part. But any decently made book stored in a more or less hospitable environment (i.e. not used as fuel for fires, nor left out in the rain & snow) will survive in somewhat readable condition. I have worked with 13th century documents -- on paper, not parchment -- which, in spite of the bug damage, were readable. The ZA survivors will have a much easier time than I did, as they will be working from printed editions, not late 13th century notarial hand!

Slightly old fart that I am, I love a well-put-together book, and have little doubt they could survive a societal "dip" of a few centuries - but what about a decline spanning a thousand years or more? Which raises several other questions:

What media could survive millennia of neglect in a usable form? Best I've been able to come up with would be engraved platinum tablets encased in ultrastable glass - maybe lucite or something similar, but that could carry with it potential for cyanobacterial degradation.
How to store the media in such a manner to guarantee its survival to a time when it could be useful again? If the storage location is too accessible it could be damaged by the elements, or by barbaric elements unaware of or indifferent to its value; too inaccessible, and it may never be found. How to guarantee security of the media until society has re-attained a level of societal and cultural maturity sufficient to appreciate its value?
Assuming the media survived - how to guarantee future generations would be able to read it? Present-day languages may be extinct, or altered to a unrecognizable degree unrelatable to the language of the archived media. In short - how to construct a Rosetta Stone?

Edited February 19, 2016 by Nashville

AngelaHunter · February 21, 2016

Quote
the argument could be made that the ZA is actually the Rapture in disguise....

Never forget the cautionary tale from 6 Feet Under: "Premature raptures may be hazardous to your health."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LXuNpF6NVg

diebartdie · March 2, 2016

Let's talk about wealth! When our heroes encountered ASZ, they found an extremely wealthy community. Those people were so wealthy instead of worrying about starving, they were literally leaving perfectly good food to rot outside (Carol's casserole). Instead of learning how to keep the solar grid running and the water filtration system working, they were having a book club (and the book club was not reading and discussing anything relevant like Grey's Anatomy or the Foxfire books, they were reading something entertaining like Wicked). Instead of learning how to most effectively slay zombies and wolves, they were playing video games of killing zombies and wolves. Instead of learning how to sharpen knives, they were creating owl sculptures. So incredibly wealthy they had at least one dog as a pet instead of using it as a patrol animal (or eyeing it as a meal). No wonder the Wolves wanted to burn them down.

Now our heroes have met the Hilltop Gang, people who have taken wealth to a whole new level. If the ASZ were middle class, Hilltop are the 1% and their wealth is most easily exemplified in the cow situation. It was mentioned the Hilltoppers have milk to drink and turn into butter and cheese. In order to have that, they have to have at a minimum one cow and one bull and a lot of land to graze those animals on. Realistically they would need much more than 1 & 1 plus they need to have enough wherewithal to keep the walker population knocked down to a minimum which would be a constant struggle considering how loud cows can be.

Wealthy civilizations would have the dual problems of barbarians at the gate and walkers too. That set the stage for an opportunist like Negan (nothing spoiler, this was explained by Jesus in the most recent episode). It is safe to assume Negan is both a thrill seeker and a lazy bastard. Negan would rather threaten you and take your shit than he would like to go out and get his own shit or grow his own. Wouldnt that be diminishing returns though? The demoralization that a community like ASZ or Hilltop would feel after repeatedly giving away 1/2 of their hard earned stuff would push many back into the despair they probably felt before the safety of ASZZ or Hilltop so production would fall eventually causing to total collapse.

Couple things I wanted to touch on regarding some posts in this thread. The preservation of knowledge....well, have you read A Canticle for Leibowitz? I ended up really not digging that book but the idea of a group of people dedicated to preserving human knowledge is an intriguing one and I would love to read a book like that but set 500 years after the ZA with a group of atheists doing the preserving which brings me to.....

The bigger question hinted at is : If the majority of survivors are atheists, will "religion" be marginalized?

We're all born atheist right now in reality so I think the ZA would finally kill religion. Which brings me to.....

Some type of relationship that helps protect and raise children while also holding and transferring property makes sense to me so I think marriage in some form survives.

Not sure if you actually meant it like this or not but piss off if you think women and children are property. The ZA would be such a drastically weird world I think things like monogamy by choice and marriage by choice would be very rare. In teh ZA women are often time stronger, more capable and more lethal than men (for example, Carol single handedly rescued our heroes from Terminus and then a few weeks later did the same thing against the Wolves. You think she's going to be some man's chattel? Yeah fuck off.)

Wealth means something different to the ZA survivors than it does to us sitting in our homes watching TWD on basic cable eating doritos and drinking guiness. Religion is meaningless particularly in a world where a child has to murder his own mom before her corpse reanimates (zombie Jesus would not be a joke in the ZA...and I dont mean Hilltop Jesus). Marriage is meaningless in a world where a cut on your foot leads to an infection you cant fight off because there are no more antibiotics. The ZA would be the worst thing to happen and be the best thing to happen too, at least from an ecological POV.

edit to add yes I am a misanthrope....."what?"

Edited March 2, 2016 by diebartdie

Nashville · March 3, 2016

Let's talk about wealth! When our heroes encountered ASZ, they found an extremely wealthy community. Those people were so wealthy instead of worrying about starving, they were literally leaving perfectly good food to rot outside (Carol's casserole). Instead of learning how to keep the solar grid running and the water filtration system working, they were having a book club (and the book club was not reading and discussing anything relevant like Grey's Anatomy or the Foxfire books, they were reading something entertaining like Wicked). Instead of learning how to most effectively slay zombies and wolves, they were playing video games of killing zombies and wolves. Instead of learning how to sharpen knives, they were creating owl sculptures. So incredibly wealthy they had at least one dog as a pet instead of using it as a patrol animal (or eyeing it as a meal). No wonder the Wolves wanted to burn them down.

It's been my impression ever since the ASZ "welcome party" that many of the ASZHats were determined to be (for lack of a better term) willfully innocent/ignorant of the effects of the ZA. Their coping mechanism was denial - hence the parties, the book clubs, and the wasteful use of other resources. Conservation and/or rationing would have required acknowledgement of the fact that trucks weren't still making their regular deliveries to the Piggly Wiggly down the street. A continuing pattern of wasteful behavior denies that acknowledgement. Such behavior is selfish as fuck, considering those who go out in The World to scavenge for supplies have to work twice as hard to compensate for the squandering of the fruits of their labors - but there ya go.

Couple things I wanted to touch on regarding some posts in this thread. The preservation of knowledge....well, have you read A Canticle for Leibowitz? I ended up really not digging that book but the idea of a group of people dedicated to preserving human knowledge is an intriguing one and I would love to read a book like that but set 500 years after the ZA with a group of atheists doing the preserving which brings me to.....

We're all born atheist right now in reality so I think the ZA would finally kill religion.

Yeah, I read Canticle - back when Carter was President, so pardon me if I'm a trifle vague on the specifics. :)

I remember liking the writer's style, but not caring too much for the story. Given that humanity had basically risen en masse to destroy all forms of recorded knowledge, I didn't put much stock in the notion of churches being considered sacrosanct repositories. Actually, considering the society Miller described, I would have expected the opposite to be a logical progression. Just as their outrage at science's role in creating the devastation led to destruction of almost all forms of recorded knowledge, I would have expected a similar destructive backlash against a Church who preached about the love of a God who so totally deserted his children. But hey, maybe that's just me. :)

Which brings me to.....

Some type of relationship that helps protect and raise children while also holding and transferring property makes sense to me so I think marriage in some form survives.

Not sure if you actually meant it like this or not but piss off if you think women and children are property. The ZA would be such a drastically weird world I think things like monogamy by choice and marriage by choice would be very rare. In teh ZA women are often time stronger, more capable and more lethal than men (for example, Carol single handedly rescued our heroes from Terminus and then a few weeks later did the same thing against the Wolves. You think she's going to be some man's chattel? Yeah fuck off.)

Pardon me for interjecting here, but I didn't get that take-away at all. I think rab01 was delineating two prospective benefits of continuing marriage:

Protecting and raising children - although I think unmarried parents could do this just as ably as married parents.
Holding and transferring property. My impression was reference to disposition of property/inheritance, not spousal/child classification as property/inheritance.

In terms of property disposition I could see some value to marriage - but only if one assumes society reverts back to the notion of individual property ownership, and so far we haven't seen much of this. The housing arrangement in the ASZ seems more geared toward establishment of individual "personal spaces", not actual transfer of property titles.

In a society where such extreme communal effort is required for simple survival, everything still belongs to the community - even that which had been previously distributed for personal use. Using the ASZ for an example: if the community requirements dictated that one of the occupied houses in the ASZ was required to do double duty - day clinic, for example - do you really see the current occupant sitting on the front porch with a shotgun and threatening to shoot anybody who attempts to cross the threshold? Unless said occupant was totally self-sufficient in every aspect of life, I don't see it; his/her continued existence depends upon the same people being rebuffed. Doing so would shirk the community duty of support for the common welfare.

There may come again a day where property rights - and associated rights of inheritance - are once again an issue; I don't see it coming around again, though, for a VERY VERY LONG time. So I personally don't see that specific point as a very strong support for the notion of the institution of marriage. YMMV

diebartdie · March 3, 2016

In a society where such extreme communal effort is required for simple survival, everything still belongs to the community - even that which had been previously distributed for personal use.

Nashville, have you read The Twelve? Not going to get into the plot of this book but I mention it because there is a scene where someone who dies, all their possessions are taken to a big warehouse and everything sorted into different categories, the idea being that eventually someone else would need those shoes or that bedding, etc. I could see that being the way of the world for some societies (the smarter ones anyway) in the ZA because you're right of course, in the ZA there will be no more deliveries to Piggly Wiggly (if anyone is reading this and has never lived in or been down south, a "Piggly Wiggly" is the name of a grocery store chain), there will be no new nikes, so many things would go away forever unless held and passed on to the community. So that's more or less socialism right there. Not saying Feel the Bern or anything but....

Nashville · March 3, 2016

Nashville, have you read The Twelve? Not going to get into the plot of this book but I mention it because there is a scene where someone who dies, all their possessions are taken to a big warehouse and everything sorted into different categories, the idea being that eventually someone else would need those shoes or that bedding, etc. I could see that being the way of the world for some societies (the smarter ones anyway) in the ZA because you're right of course, in the ZA there will be no more deliveries to Piggly Wiggly (if anyone is reading this and has never lived in or been down south, a "Piggly Wiggly" is the name of a grocery store chain), there will be no new nikes, so many things would go away forever unless held and passed on to the community. So that's more or less socialism right there. Not saying Feel the Bern or anything but....

I haven't read that book, but thanks for the recommend. I do seem to remember reading/hearing something about it - is this a standalone novel, or part of a series?

ETA: And I'd say Bernie would be proud of CDB and the ASZ - democratic socialism in action. :)

Edited March 3, 2016 by Nashville

diebartdie · March 3, 2016

Nashville, it is the second book in a series, the first is The Passage, the third book will be out later this year and I eagerly await it!

mandolin · March 3, 2016

Nashville, it is the second book in a series, the first is The Passage, the third book will be out later this year and I eagerly await it!

I'm doing a re-read right now of The Passage and then The Twelve. SO EXCITED.

rab01 · March 4, 2016

Nashville - thanks for the shout out and yes, I meant those as two completely separate benefits of families.

Sure, unmarried people are perfectly fine raising kids but when there is a huge chance that at least one parent will die within a few years of birth, it is helpful to have some institution like marriage to formalize the insertion of another parent as the new parent (whether mom or dad). "My mom's friend" is not as stable as "my dad" or "my step-dad." Think about the feeling of this week's episode when Jesus said that he was waiting for "your mom and dad" to Carl and now take it another step further -- I would love to see that bond/relationship solemnized in some way at a future date (yeah, call me a romantic but if Michonne has decided that Rick is good enough for her, I want to see a ZA wedding.)

As for the maintenance and transfer of property -- even if the society has paramount claim over critical items, individuals still need to own some of their own stuff or assholes like Hilltop's leader start acting like they own it all. The best way society has yet figured out to preserve and pass that property to the next generation is the family unit.

Diebartdie -- Of course women aren't chattel and lord I'd hope that a ZA wouldn't resurrect that disgusting aspect of prior societies. That said, in the Walking Dead-verse there are a lot of hints that women are being treated exactly that way by some of the groups. Not everyone is going to be a Michonne or a Carol. (Hell, no one is -- those two are essentially super heroes plopped into a Zombie movie). Some men and some women will survive but won't be much good at fighting. Families are often one of the structures that protect the physically weaker. (Yes, they can also be havens for secret abuse but that's sadly true for lots of human institutions.) So, yes, on balance I'd think that families would mitigate some of those darker human impulses.

I guess the way I see it is that a ZA would be so devastating that when people pick up the pieces they will fall back on things that worked in the past (even if they didn't work all that well). Families might be changed radically by the ZA but think that families will still exist and that people will try to recreate familiar patterns if they can.

Also, diebartdie -- I'm really not sure how you could read support for monogamy into a post about the theoretical benefits of line marriage ;)

Edited March 4, 2016 by rab01

Nashville · April 5, 2016

From the "Last Day On Earth episode thread - quoted for context and reference:

Negan's arrival is ushering in the new era of Feudalism. Which is the only way humans can survive in an apocalyptic world. Feudal systems then feudal territories then feudal states. Then the wars then the oligarchies then the Monarchs. The slow slog back to democracy.

The one thing the Walking Dead seems to have gotten right, I do not know if it was by accident or plan. But in times of great upheaval and crisis. People say they are pledging their support or loyalty to a cause or group or way of life. When in reality they are pledging their loyalty to a person. The center if you will.

Totally totally agree. In the microcosm of the ZA, humans are re-enacting a few thousand years of social evolution in an extremely compressed time scale - and that historic trend has always been toward coalescence::

Individuals.

Tribes/communities.

Fiefdoms/nation-states.

Kingdoms/nations.

With CDB merging with the ASZ and extending recruiting efforts, Alexandria was already pursuing its own course towards conversion from Step 2 to Step 3.
Negan just did it faster.

I have to disagree. Not that we are seeing the emergence of Feudalism - that's absolutely what's happening, and it makes sense.

But Feudalism in the West emerged gradually from the long, slow collapse of the Roman Imperial system. There wasn't a single "fall," in spite of the widespread but wildly inaccurate historiography that used to be taught in school. At least one person claimed the title Emperor of the Romans at any given time between 27 BC and 1806. But as the economy and trade collapsed the central government ceased to be able to fund a standing military and functioning bureaucracy, and over a period of centuries the system evolved into a hierarchical system of feudal relationships based on mutual obligation. So the trend hasn't always been towards coalescence - just like European history, the feudalism of the Saviors has emerged due to the collapse of the central authority.

It's strange that TWD and the 100 are set in the same spot, post-apocalyptic Greater Washington. I can see the world of TWD evolving into the quasi-feudal tribal society of the 100's Grounders in roughly 100 years. Lexa (named for Alexandria but based out of Annapolis) is in some ways just a less abrasive and more attractive Negan, still not above killing a member of your tribe

(the Ice Queen)

in order to force you to toe the line and join her coalition. One's a hero, one's a villain, but two sides of the same coin. I don't exactly like Negan, but I suspect he does believe he's saving the world.

Nashville · April 5, 2016

I have to disagree. Not that we are seeing the emergence of Feudalism - that's absolutely what's happening, and it makes sense.

But Feudalism in the West emerged gradually from the long, slow collapse of the Roman Imperial system. There wasn't a single "fall," in spite of the widespread but wildly inaccurate historiography that used to be taught in school. At least one person claimed the title Emperor of the Romans at any given time between 27 BC and 1806. But as the economy and trade collapsed the central government ceased to be able to fund a standing military and functioning bureaucracy, and over a period of centuries the system evolved into a hierarchical system of feudal relationships based on mutual obligation.

True, in terms of historical reference; not likely to be true in the case of a ZA, however. :)

We have no historical reference for a zombie apocalypse - thank god - but every indicator we have (including the TWD's own timeline) strongly forecasts that where it took the Western Roman Empire over a century to grind to a halt, our modern globalized society would achieve the same level of collapse (or worse) in a month or less. And that is different - as severe as the difference between the driver of a car going down the interstate taking his foot off the gas and letting the car coast to a gradual stop versus locking 'em up and screeching to an abrupt, sliding, tire-shredding halt. In the lock-em-up car, metaphorically speaking, anything fragile in there is getting trashed.

Same with societies. As the massive Roman bureaucracy ground to a relatively slow drawn-out halt, alternate societal structures had time to evolve (or devolve, as the case may be) and take the place of what had gone before. No such luck to be had in a ZA, however; everything stops at once, and stops FAST, and the (un-)lucky survivors are left to cobble together whatever they can on the fly.

One advantage the post-ZA survivors would have, however, is the benefit of history - knowing what different sustainable societies mankind has previously achieved, the benefits/drawbacks of each, what works in a given societal context and what does not. So it makes sense the post-ZA cadres could establish in months or a couple of years what previously took centuries.

So the trend hasn't always been towards coalescence - just like European history, the feudalism of the Saviors has emerged due to the collapse of the central authority.

Trends are subject to deviation - the collapse of the Roman Empire being a prime example.

To draw a biological parallel:

All evolutionary growth is attained through mutation - deviation in the form of developing new traits or enhancing existing ones to see what does/doesn't enhance an organism's ability to survive and thrive. Not all mutations work, however. Some mutations fail and kill their host - in which case the net effect is identical to reversion/devolution, as pre-mutation versions of the organism thrive in the mutation 's absence.

The Roman Empire was such a deviation/mutation. It thrived for a while but ultimately failed, and in its absence the pre-Empire societal and governmental structures re-emerged. Eventually, however, society once again "outgrew" the old feudal structures and advanced beyond them (albeit in a different direction than before). The end result (to date, anyway)? The globalized economy and society of today - which I believe nobody could honestly deny is the most universally coalesced social structure in the history of mankind on Earth.

that one guy · April 6, 2016

The Roman Empire was such a deviation/mutation. It thrived for a while but ultimately failed, and in its absence the pre-Empire societal and governmental structures re-emerged. Eventually, however, society once again "outgrew" the old feudal structures and advanced beyond them (albeit in a different direction than before). The end result (to date, anyway)? The globalized economy and society of today - which I believe nobody could honestly deny is the most universally coalesced social structure in the history of mankind on Earth.

I'll take the bait because that's what I do. And also because I disagree with virtually all of this. Rome was incredibly successful, it didn't so much fail as continually evolve and transform according to changing conditions. Feudalism evolved out of the absorption of invading tribes into the imperial system, first as foedorati and later as something that looked more like a familiar medieval lord and vassal system. Rome didn't "fall" in 476, in fact a strong argument could be made that it reached its height in the 550s under Justinian. Odoacer, the ill-fated Ostragoth leader who sacked Rome and deposed the Western Emperor, was killed at a banquet in an incident similar to the Red Wedding on GOT - his hosts, Theodoric and Clovis, stabbed him to death and had his armies slaughtered in a surprise attack by "allies." Theodoric and Clovis were then granted the title of Roman Consul by the Eastern Emperor, who had ordered the hit. Clovis was a Germanic tribal leader who unified Gaul and adopted the Roman language, religion and law - he is remembered as the first King of France but he would be surprised to hear that, as he was very much the feudal vassal of the Emperor at Constantinople who fell over himself to please the Gallo-Roman elite and portray himself as a Roman.

Subsequently plagues, wars, and the loss of Syria and North Africa to the Islamic Caliphate reduced the empire to a shadow of its former self, but central authority didn't really die out completely in the West for several more centuries, when conflict over control of the Church between Eastern and Western Emperors resulted in the Great Schism between Catholic and Orthodox, and the Investiture Controversy immediately followed with the Western Church depriving the Emperor of the power to make key appointments and control key territories. This plunged the West into chaos - the Crusades were in part an attempt by the Church to send the a bunch of warring nobles to their deaths, and also to curry favor with the Eastern Emperor in hopes that it could lead to a reunification. Things did not go as planned, and in fact it was Crusaders who sacked Constantinople and effectively ended central authority in the East. But by this point it was the early 1200s - that's a pretty successful run, and considering how much of recorded history passed between Ceasar Augustus and the Fourth Crusade, it's difficult to consider the Empire an anomaly or a failure. And things didn't really revert to the way they had been before - it's more that out of self-preservation, the central authority had to cede more and more power to "nobles," be they urban elites or tribal leaders. Some elements of the Empire, from the widespread use of Romance languages to the persistence of the Church as a powerful institution - became permanent fixtures of the landscape.

The part of this that's relevant to TWD is that Negan seems to preserve his empire the same way the Romans did - but incorporating his enemies into his system. He seems like a "bad guy," but Rick would murder everyone at this point - Negan kills one person, and tells the rest of the group, "you work for me now." That's how he has so many people. He doesn't have one group that large, he's got a hierarchy of groups of survivors that either he's attacked, or that have attacked him, but if they're willing to pay tribute and admit his authority, he brings them on board rather than destroying them. Foedorati were allowed self government in exchange for taxes and troops. Rick's like a Visigoth chieftain who's going to have to play ball or Negan will sic the other chieftains on him. I don't know who he was before the ZA, but I'm assuming he's building this order up from total anarchy. I'm more convinced by what we saw in Atlanta, where local law enforcement became essentially a gang.

But I don't really believe that a rapid, total collapse of society in the manner shown by TWD is possible, and the failure of Fear the Walking Dead to show it, in addition to being deeply disappointing, also convinces me that the showrunners can't convincingly show how society could be overrun by an enemy too stupid to get past a locked door. Whether we are going through the first few decades of a centuries-long collapse of the current world system remains to be seen. Certainly climate change, the dependence of the economy on non-renewable resources, the concentration of wealth and the collapse of the middle class, the disintegration of the family, and the permanent urban fiscal crisis are threats to the sustainability of world order. But fear that we are in the early stages of collapse is probably responsible for the popularity of post-apocalyptic fiction. That, and the fact that the globalized economy and society of today brings with it a lack of meaning and identity, a void which causes many people to long for the collapse of civilization and the resulting simplification and clarity of purpose.

Nashville · April 6, 2016

that one guy - An excellent historical discourse, to be sure. A question, though...

I'll take the bait because that's what I do. And also because I disagree with virtually all of this. Rome was incredibly successful, it didn't so much fail as continually evolve and transform according to changing conditions. Feudalism evolved out of the absorption of invading tribes into the imperial system, first as foedorati and later as something that looked more like a familiar medieval lord and vassal system.

"Absorption" differs from "coalescence" exactly how...? :)

I was under the impression both denoted disparate parts merging and adapting to create a greater whole.

The part of this that's relevant to TWD is that Negan seems to preserve his empire the same way the Romans did - but incorporating his enemies into his system. He seems like a "bad guy," but Rick would murder everyone at this point - Negan kills one person, and tells the rest of the group, "you work for me now." That's how he has so many people. He doesn't have one group that large, he's got a hierarchy of groups of survivors that either he's attacked, or that have attacked him, but if they're willing to pay tribute and admit his authority, he brings them on board rather than destroying them. Foedorati were allowed self government in exchange for taxes and troops. Rick's like a Visigoth chieftain who's going to have to play ball or Negan will sic the other chieftains on him. I don't know who he was before the ZA, but I'm assuming he's building this order up from total anarchy. I'm more convinced by what we saw in Atlanta, where local law enforcement became essentially a gang.

But I don't really believe that a rapid, total collapse of society in the manner shown by TWD is possible, and the failure of Fear the Walking Dead to show it, in addition to being deeply disappointing, also convinces me that the showrunners can't convincingly show how society could be overrun by an enemy too stupid to get past a locked door. Whether we are going through the first few decades of a centuries-long collapse of the current world system remains to be seen.

While I agree with you something on the order of 10^8 percent on my level of disappointment with the FTWD writers, I must disagree on the jeopardy factor involved. Zombies don't need brains enough to figure out how to get IN a locked door; they just need numbers, and enough patience to wait around until YOU unlock the door of your own volition and come OUT.

Simple illustration:

Pretend you just looked out your window and saw some decidedly corpse-looking creature devouring your neighbor's dog.
Run to a room in your house - any room, doesn't matter which, you pick - and lock the door.
Okay now - you're safe in your locked room. Take a look around. How much food you have in here? How much water? Got a toilet?

If you're like most folks, you'll be unlocking the door yourself in under a week.

But even if the locked door in question is your front door, you have the run of the entire house, and you're a hardcore prepper with 1,000 gallons of water in basement tanks and a year's worth of MREs stacked in the garage, it doesn't matter.

It will all eventually run out.

You will have to unlock the door, go outside, and find more.

Certainly climate change, the dependence of the economy on non-renewable resources, the concentration of wealth and the collapse of the middle class, the disintegration of the family, and the permanent urban fiscal crisis are threats to the sustainability of world order. But fear that we are in the early stages of collapse is probably responsible for the popularity of post-apocalyptic fiction. That, and the fact that the globalized economy and society of today brings with it a lack of meaning and identity, a void which causes many people to long for the collapse of civilization and the resulting simplification and clarity of purpose.

You left out ISIS. ;>

Scribbles · April 17, 2016

Are you the type of person who treats the quarter of a tank mark as empty and tops off as a habit or who waits till the dial/digits read E? Do you buy enough food for a couple of days meals, mix it up with some staples from a wholesale club in volume but other bits "fresh" or keep on hand a couple of weeks (or more) of foods just in case? Having endured more than my fair share of a variety of natural disasters, I have seen how quickly things go downhill and how reliant far too many people are on services and conveniences, and what happens when disruptions occur. If people have any warning the stores clear out of bread, milk, batteries and so forth days before the event. Close up observing an evacuation will open your eyes to people and panic.

I have seen the abandoned lines of cars at gas stations, been far too close to looters and the fires that mayhem brings, and other phenomena that seems to inevitably follow disruptions. As bad as whatever the disaster may be, the real problem always seems to come from how people respond. I have seen people be great, others be awful, and some mean well but lack skill/knowledge and be dangerous.

One premise of TWD that I struggle to buy into is the whole idea that once they saw Noah's neighborhood they continued toward DC on the assumption it might be better there. I get the idea of going to take Noah home, but nothing about counting on DC to be safer, more prepared or so forth makes any common sense. They evacuate the "important" sorts to Nebraska or other places because DC is a metro area with all the predictable problems. I am very familiar with the areas between Georgia and DC, and would not migrate north in this scenario. I have been in both a urban and rural environment in a disaster, and without doubt I prefer rural, it isn't even a close call. They were told the military bases had fallen in Georgia and they saw Atlanta. Nope, no way sane folks should figure DC would be better.

One other note: given when they film we wont see it but ZA plus snow/ice could make for some sights. Zombies on ice slicks...slogging through snow...

SimoneS · April 18, 2016

I don't know where to put this so I decided to post here. When Rick first met Deanna, she told him that the military evacuated millions of people from Virginia and I presume from the other major cities since we know that they bombed Atlanta and other major cities (just confirmed on FTWD). I cannot help wondering where are all these people? Millions of people with the military and a shell of a government should be able to get the emergency radio communications up and running if they could not the satellites to work. Have they all become walkers? I could see these communities breaking down with diseases and deaths causing people to turn within them, but still hard to believe that millions and millions of people could not survive in some form.

Edited April 18, 2016 by SimoneS

Nashville · April 18, 2016

Are you the type of person who treats the quarter of a tank mark as empty and tops off as a habit or who waits till the dial/digits read E? Do you buy enough food for a couple of days meals, mix it up with some staples from a wholesale club in volume but other bits "fresh" or keep on hand a couple of weeks (or more) of foods just in case? Having endured more than my fair share of a variety of natural disasters, I have seen how quickly things go downhill and how reliant far too many people are on services and conveniences, and what happens when disruptions occur. If people have any warning the stores clear out of bread, milk, batteries and so forth days before the event. Close up observing an evacuation will open your eyes to people and panic.

I fill up as soon as the gas gauge gets between 3/8 and 1/4, because I know what it's like to be caught running on fumes in a hostile environment.

I buy groceries for two weeks at a shot, because I know what it's like to be cut off from Outside for a week or more at a time.

I prefer fresh food, but I also keep my pantry stocked with 1-2 month's worth of canned goods.

I have filters on the water taps, but I also keep a few cases of water in the house and every vehicle.

I was raised by country folk who grew up in the Depression/WWII days; their emphasis was always on self-sufficiency and minimizing waste.

You don't kill it unless you're going to eat and/or use it - but once you do, you eat/use ALL of it.

"Sportsmen hunters" are neither.

Catch-and-release is not fishing, it's fish-annoying.

And when things are going good is the BEST time to get ready for when things go bad.

I have seen the abandoned lines of cars at gas stations, been far too close to looters and the fires that mayhem brings, and other phenomena that seems to inevitably follow disruptions. As bad as whatever the disaster may be, the real problem always seems to come from how people respond. I have seen people be great, others be awful, and some mean well but lack skill/knowledge and be dangerous.

One premise of TWD that I struggle to buy into is the whole idea that once they saw Noah's neighborhood they continued toward DC on the assumption it might be better there. I get the idea of going to take Noah home, but nothing about counting on DC to be safer, more prepared or so forth makes any common sense. They evacuate the "important" sorts to Nebraska or other places because DC is a metro area with all the predictable problems. I am very familiar with the areas between Georgia and DC, and would not migrate north in this scenario. I have been in both a urban and rural environment in a disaster, and without doubt I prefer rural, it isn't even a close call. They were told the military bases had fallen in Georgia and they saw Atlanta. Nope, no way sane folks should figure DC would be better.

My youth was split between city and country, and one of the primary impressions which has never left me is that people who live most/all their lives in medium-to-large U. S. cities have very fuzzy notions about the difference between necessities and luxuries:

They view electricity as a survival requirement, without considering the millennia that humankind existed without electric power prior to the past century or so.
But then they build thousands of shelters which require electricity to maintain a habitable space, and in doing so succeed in converting a luxury into a quasi-necessity.
These same people, however, routinely flush toilets or run faucets without ever giving a thought about the infrastructure requirements necessary to deliver that water, or how they would live if that delivery system ever stopped working for a week or more.

And if you want a better example of rural superiority over urban in a crisis, just let the lights go out for an extended period of time.

In the city, looters will be kicking in doors within an hour; in the country, that just means everybody goes to bed earlier.

I don't know where to put this so I decided to post here. When Rick first met Deanna, she told him that the military evacuated millions of people from Virginia and I presume from the other major cities since we know that they bombed Atlanta and other major cities (just confirmed on FTWD). I cannot help wondering where are all these people? Millions of people with the military and a shell of a government should be able to get the emergency radio communications up and running if they could not the satellites to work. Have they all become walkers? I could see these communities breaking down with diseases and deaths causing people to turn within them, but still hard to believe that millions and millions of people could not survive in some form.

I'm fairly certain this has been discussed fairly extensively previously - but that discussion predated the existence of this thread, so helifino where it is. So here we go again: :)

U. S. population is currently estimated to be something in excess of 323 million.
Even if 99% of the population died off within the first year, that would leave some 3.2 million people rattling around.
Take out 50% of those survivors the second year, and you still have 1.6 million folks with a pulse.
The continental United States consists of about 3.1 million square miles, which would average out to a little more than one survivor per square mile.
Population wouldn't be that evenly spread, however. The highest initial death tolls would logically be in areas with the highest population concentrations - and since those initial deaths would occur when the communications infrastructure is still at its highest operating capacity, I think it would be reasonable to assume (a) people in those areas would engage in mass exoduses, and (b) people outside those areas would avoid them.
Lone wolf survivalist types notwithstanding, human nature tends toward cooperative socialization.

So yeah, there still should be a bunch of people floating around out there, and some of them are likely to be in sizable clusters.

Not necessarily anywhere near as dense as pre-ZA - but enough to form community structures, and possibly to barter skills.

Scribbles · April 18, 2016

I don't know where to put this so I decided to post here. When Rick first met Deanna, she told him that the military evacuated millions of people from Virginia and I presume from the other major cities since we know that they bombed Atlanta and other major cities (just confirmed on FTWD). I cannot help wondering where are all these people? Millions of people with the military and a shell of a government should be able to get the emergency radio communications up and running if they could not the satellites to work. Have they all become walkers? I could see these communities breaking down with diseases and deaths causing people to turn within them, but still hard to believe that millions and millions of people could not survive in some form.

Evacuations result in clusters of closely confined people, the exact conditions that in the early stages of the disaster create exponentially increasing transmission. Millions become thousands very quickly. The ZA, like any person to person infectious disease, in the earlier stages is a time for people to refrain from large groups. "Strength in numbers" is not so true earlier on when numbers exasperate the issue. Those who evacuated en masse probably didn't fare well, as indicated by images of highways, military bases, hospitals, schools, arenas and so forth indicated in show.

In such horrific conditions it is sad but true that who survives may matter ultimately more than how many. Who equals particular skill sets, the loss of which may render even the most advanced tech and equipment useless. Front line workers in the situations often have much needed skills but are placed at the greatest risk. Some skill sets are very rare. The show tries to demonstrate this to some extent with the emphasis on medical professionals, Reg being an architect and so forth. Arguably the most dangerous time was the earliest stages of the disaster and odds of survival increased over time with the dispersal of people over larger areas. However, with enough time the tide turns and strength does come in numbers. The show has done a fair job of showing this.

Nashville · April 18, 2016

In such horrific conditions it is sad but true that who survives may matter ultimately more than how many. Who equals particular skill sets, the loss of which may render even the most advanced tech and equipment useless. Front line workers in the situations often have much needed skills but are placed at the greatest risk. Some skill sets are very rare. The show tries to demonstrate this to some extent with the emphasis on medical professionals, Reg being an architect and so forth.

THIS is the blade which cuts sharpest - acquiring a balance between those who know, and those who do. An electrical engineer may thoroughly understand the theoretical intricacies of restoring a sizable chunk of the national power grid, but without practical knowledge might not have a clue as to how to put it into effect. A lineman for the power company may not have a clue about the generation systems delivering the wattage with which he's working, but he knows how to hook up a feed line off a power transformer without blowing himself off the damn pole.

Irishmaple · April 22, 2016

I can't speak for other cities but in Toronto when the power goes out civilians stand in the intersection directing traffic, the traffic respects the attempt and, in the summer, other civilians bring water and snacks for the volunteers. During the major power out of 200whatever there were no reports of trouble in the city. Same during the last ice storm. I'll grant you, it's hard to work up the enthusiasm to riot or loot during an ice storm, but the power out cascade was during the summer and I still remember stores giving away free ice cream and neighbours standing around chatting. A friend of mine was trapped in the subway for a couple of hours without incident and, when it was their turn to evacuate, people helped each other. City people are capable of rising to crappy situations too.

nodorothyparker · April 22, 2016

I remember Deanna saying that the military had evacuated the area. She didn't elaborate at all and I assumed we were supposed to think most of those people didn't make it. Given how well we've seen any military operations go in this franchise and that it's a pretty standard trope of apocalypse fiction that the first thing city dwellers are going to do in any societal breakdown/evacuation situation is immediately die, it doesn't feel like a far stretch.

In reality, if you took a whole lot of people out of their homes with basic sanitation and protection from the elements and put them on the road or into packed camps, a lot of people are quickly going to become susceptible to sickness or disease. You have to be able to manage and feed all those people. You have to have potable water and some form of hygiene. And as we've seen more than a few times in this universe, all it takes it is one or two family members trying to hide their bitten or turned loved ones and suddenly your safe haven is a death trap.

Rather than copy and paste Nashville's entire post, I'll simply second it. I was raised in the country but have lived most of my adult life in cities. I'll admit I'm as guilty as most city dwellers of not always keeping the pantry fully stocked or always keeping the gas gauge at at least half a tank. I do better than a lot of my neighbors and usually have at least some dry and canned goods on hand, but it's not even in the same ballpark as my very rural parents who probably wouldn't notice if the nearest town fell into a sinkhole for at least a couple of months. I'm out of the habit of growing most of my own food and among the first to be calling the power company when the lights go out because my kids have no frame of reference for that sort of thing and can be horribly annoying about it. While I don't want to make any sort of blanket statement saying we're all too soft to live through a crisis, I can acknowledge that the convenience of having everything right here means I don't have to think further than how long the bread and milk I bought today will last unless I just want to, which also means if the world somehow ends and the grocery store is gone by Sunday we're shit out of luck unless I'm willing to go foraging with all the inherent risks that would come along with that. I can acknowledge that my kids are probably screwed because their idea of a crisis is being out of pizza rolls and me being unwilling to go to the store right now to do anything about it.

Edited April 24, 2016 by nodorothyparker

Nashville · April 23, 2016

While I don't want to make any sort of blanket statement saying we're all too soft to live through a crisis, I can acknowledge that the convenience of having everything right here means I don't have to think further than how long the bread and milk I bought today will last unless I just want to, which also means if the world somehow ends and the grocery story is gone by Sunday we're shit out of luck unless I'm willing to go foraging with all the inherent risks that would come along with that. I can acknowledge that my kids are probably screwed because their idea of a crisis is being out of pizza rolls and me being unwilling to go to the store right now to do anything about it.

This is an excellent clarification of the point I was trying to make - and I sincerely hope nobody was taking it as a "country folk are better than city folk" slam.

For today's urban consumers, our globalized production and transport economy has resulted in the widest selection of foods and products ever available in the history of mankind - and that's generally a good thing. Until the past couple of decades or so, food options for previous generations were generally limited to what was produced and shipped in from the local region. The only exceptions were specialty items like coffee, cocoa, beans, etc. - items which could be dry-shipped long distances. In contrast, many of today's born-and-bred city shoppers have no concept of the term "in season"; modern refrigeration and shipping technologies mean grapes, strawberries, bananas, oranges, etc. are never out of season.

Everything has trade-offs, however, and reliance on a globalized food supply is no exception:

The increased overall urbanization of America PLUS increased dependence upon international food sources have resulted in a drastic reduction in the small-farm-for-local-sale segment of the nation's agricultural producers. Most farms in America now are either small family subsistence farms, or mass-production megafarms focused on international trade. The local produce farmer has virtually disappeared from the landscape, except for the odd appearance at a farmer's market. Their former local grocer clients now largely buy from international suppliers - and without a market to sell to, the small production farm has largely going the way of the dodo.
Much like factories, groceries dependent upon shipment of international produce have adopted a just-in-time supply paradigm; this allows stores the greatest latitude in delivering the freshest produce and reducing spoilage waste. The flip side of this coin, however, is stores have shallower inventory resources to pull from in the event of any interruption in the delivery chain.

...all of which means when the delivery chain fails, the entire urban food supply system collapses in very short order.

Urban dwellers are adapted to the environment in which they live - and it's a simple fact that this environment is less robust in terms of self-sustainability.

Irishmaple · April 24, 2016

I think many of these points are valid yet seem to me valid only to the North American experience. I'm from Ireland and emigrated from economic necessity. I know how to make do with less. My room mate is South American. My neighbours are Russian, Portuguese, Chinese, Korean, from the Middle East and the Caribbean. Most of us are accustomed to living in family groups and a communal experience rather than the more nuclear family units of North Americans. Many of us have recreated that here. I am not related by blood to my Canadian family. We adopted each other.

As to self sufficiency, I agree it would be challenging but city people are not universally divorced from their food chain. Legally it's a grey area but people here raise chickens in their back yards. People have vegetable gardens. There is plenty of green space that could be turned over to gardening in the event of disaster, and people with the interest and knowledge to make it happen. I acknowledge no-one can live on tomatoes but I see container gardens on the condo balconies around me. People are engaged.

As to useful skills, scavenge a wool store and I can crochet you a blanket or knit you a scarf for warmth. A friend of mine knits socks and swears she can teach me. Those stitch-and-bitch sessions are teaching the skills to younger men and women. I taught my 23 year old nephew. We may be in Canada but we won't freeze come the apocalypse!

Edited April 24, 2016 by Irishmaple

Nashville · April 25, 2016

I think many of these points are valid yet seem to me valid only to the North American experience.

In terms of my specific bullets, you're absolutely correct; as I stated in the first bullet, I was addressing the implications of increased overall urbanization in America. :)

As to self sufficiency, I agree it would be challenging but city people are not universally divorced from their food chain. Legally it's a grey area but people here raise chickens in their back yards. People have vegetable gardens. There is plenty of green space that could be turned over to gardening in the event of disaster, and people with the interest and knowledge to make it happen. I acknowledge no-one can live on tomatoes but I see container gardens on the condo balconies around me. People are engaged.

Agreed; however I still think it reasonable to postulate the higher the degree of urbanization (in the U. S. or elsewhere), the fewer resources for self-sustenance in the event of extended support system collapse. Three primary points immediately leap to mind:

Not enough green space. As cities approach a "super city" or major metropolitan class, the trend has historically been toward an increase in high-volume housing and business structures without a corresponding increase in green space. In fact, I believe the opposite to be true; existing green space is frequently cannibalized to support increased development.
Too many mouths to feed. The relatively higher population densities necessarily dictates every square foot of green space which is available has to feed more people. Folks in Orléans, for example, would have an easier time of it in the ZA than folks in Paris; Orléans' population density is about 1/5 that of Paris. According to Wikipedia, Paris has 421 parks covering over 3,000 hectares - enough to feed approx. 300,000 people - to service a city population of over 2.2 million.
Decreased tolerance for agricultural production lead time. Even if all the citizens in (for example) Paris decided to all pull together in a massive collective agricultural conversion effort, it would still be minimum 2-3 months before any new gardens showed significant production; how many Parisians would starve to death in the interim? And that's assuming the ZA (or whatever calamity) is considerate enough to schedule its eruption at the start of the growing season; an outbreak of winter walkers, and the City of Lights is well and truly screwed.

Not meaning to pick on Paris per se. :) Just using it to illustrate my thesis: wherever located, areas of extremely high urbanization necessarily have a higher dependence on external support mechanisms, which necessarily translates to a correspondingly lower capacity for self-support.

And I have a soft spot for Orléans - my sister was born there . Army brats. :)

Irishmaple · April 25, 2016

To clarify, by North Americans I was referring to those born on the continent as opposed to those of us who moved here from a different country and culture, bringing our historical baggage, life experiences and mindsets with us. Aside from World War Z, it seems the ZA will be contained in North America! I will be on the last flight back to Ireland.

Numbers definitely work against long term city survival. I imagine the majority of citizens will evacuate or die, leaving those of us immersed in popular culture to our own devices. A significantly smaller population should help enormously. I can only hope one of my green-thumbed neighbours survives because I am death to plants. I'm allergic to trees and everything else just hates me. The growing conditions in Toronto are a challenge all their own. Winter is long. I know my neighbours use glass houses and heavy plastic but still.

I think there is hope though. Toronto, and I imagine, other cities have become conscious of preserving green space and are moving to infill builds: old factory sites, parking lots and other dead space is being repurposed. Developers are putting in green roofs and solar panels. Residents have hobby gardens. There are chicken people and beekeepers and, since I've lived in hipster neighbourhoods, artisan everything. I think it may be possible for city to become self-sustainable on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis. I do have a vested interest. I grew up in the country and would not go back for love or money!

piequinn35 · April 25, 2016

I can't speak for other cities but in Toronto when the power goes out civilians stand in the intersection directing traffic, the traffic respects the attempt and, in the summer, other civilians bring water and snacks for the volunteers. During the major power out of 200whatever there were no reports of trouble in the city. Same during the last ice storm. I'll grant you, it's hard to work up the enthusiasm to riot or loot during an ice storm, but the power out cascade was during the summer and I still remember stores giving away free ice cream and neighbours standing around chatting. A friend of mine was trapped in the subway for a couple of hours without incident and, when it was their turn to evacuate, people helped each other. City people are capable of rising to crappy situations too.

In Vancouver, BC, when traffic lights go out, 4 way stop goes in effect.

Too Late Kev · April 25, 2016

In Vancouver, BC, when traffic lights go out, 4 way stop goes in effect.

That's a great idea. In Massachusetts, that situation is a free-for-all. Don't wait for someone to let you go; it'll be a while.

Irishmaple · April 25, 2016

Same in Toronto. A fair number of people seem unfamiliar with the procedure. I gave up driving as soon as I realized that if TPTB gave me a license to drive they'd give one to anybody. I was a horrendous driver: lead-footed, quick-tempered and hostile. The city is a better place with me off the road.

Sign In

Post-ZA Society Standards: What Wine Goes With Bob...?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

nodorothyparker

nodorothyparker

diebartdie

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment