PopSyndicate.com

So after the zombie apocalypse hits and the limbs go flying, providing you still had a choice, would you choose to survive on your own or seek out others to band with?

I suppose on your own you have that whole independence thing, only having to take care of yourself and immediate family who you can (hopefully) trust to watch your brain splattered back and have your best interests at heart. Plus, unless you breed as rabbits, your numbers should be relatively low thus requiring less supplies, reduced baggage and ideally fewer things to worry about as you fend off hoards of the dead.

Then again there is some safety in numbers, more hands on deck could speed tasks up and should Bub and co. break in to your fortified location other survivors could (unintentionally) act as cannon fodder while you make your escape. Alas trust will have to be earned and risks often taken but at least the weight of survival won’t be resting solely on your shoulders dragging you to hell. 

As much as my inner-overlord would want to organise survivors into a communities I don’t think I would want the risk of teaming up with someone with plans as big as mine! As my mother once said, I don’t play nice with other children so I’d be better off on my own at first, perhaps drifting between groups as and when needed.

Well, I’ll put it this way.

  Have you ever seen an attractive woman who’s out on the town with a group of friends that are - how shall I put this… - what a more shallow and superficial person would deem “less attractive” by comparison?

  It doesn’t take a Freudian analysis to conclude that “attractive woman” is attempting to boost her appearance by comparison to her surroundings.

  When you’re dealing in a pack, you need to ensure - as unethical and horrible as this sounds - that there’s someone “expendable” should the situation require it.

Remember, you don’t have to outrun the zombie… just your fellow survivors. ;-)

Now, in an ideal situation, you would surround yourselves with people that you can trust. You would hunt in packs for supplies initially, but extend your “footprint” through expansion of your stronghold and regimented extermination of the undead as your “long-term” plan. In this expansion, supplies would be acquired through simple consumption of the newly-cleared area.

Going “lone” is a short-term gameplan that can only end in disaster, as:

a) there’s always someone stronger than you out there…

b) you can only stay awake/aware for so long…

c) I believe that the human psyche can only take isolation for so long.

To that last point, how long until living alone isn’t living anymore and you jump headfirst into the mouths of a shambling horde?

Some interesting points there Cypherpunk. I guess I chose the Lone Wolf option due to it reflecting on my real life preferences as well. For some reason I get a weird buzz from being alone in wild situations, sure nothing as big as a zombie outbreak, but I’ve had tendencies of dumping myself into completely foreign countries with zero language skills, no contacts and little funds just for the thrill of having to survive. You mentioned some very good problems with taking that approach but perhaps the selfish side of me doesn’t want the responsibility of having to take care, or at least concern myself, of others. Not saying I’m an evil bastard in real life or anything like that, just that if the shit hits the fan and the cards are on the table, I may only want to, or at least be able to, look out for myself.

Do you think though people would be able to work together for the greater good of survival or is the selfish instinct too prevalent in us?

Would I be cheating here if I replied “it depends”? ;-)

... because I think it really does.  Let’s take the Dawn of the Dead 2004 crew as an example, which we’ve talked about in this forum before (see “You’re in the Mall. Now what?” @ http://www.popsyndicate.com/forums/viewthread/2594/ ).

You had a ragtag bunch that - because this was a movie that had to follow a script with a 3-act story arc - was doomed from the onset.

But if I had that particular group going into this situation?

Well, I pretty much detailed what I’d do in the aforementioned thread.  The thing is… that crew and most other portrayed in the genre fail more out of plot and design than what would happen in real life.

Sure, you’re going to run into the occasional “Steve” that thinks pulling their weight is beneath them… but my solution for that is simple:

Duct tape a pork chop to his naked ass (too much?) and dangle him over the wall as bait while you’re deploying your Long Pokey Sticks. That’ll get his head on straight and in the moment.

See, I think in such a situation (be it undead horde, unfriendly aliens, or - taking our queues from M. Night - the wind…), survivors will dump the class system and understand that it’s us vs. them. And that there’s a LOT more of them.

All of this being said, if I’m away from my family come the outbreak, I’m as good as dead. Not because I would really rely on them, but I would be out and moving instead of being secure and hidden. So here’s to hoping it *is* the wind, where being alone actually works in your favor!

I have to go with Cypherpunk here.

Cypherpunk - 30 June 2009 01:45 PM

See, I think in such a situation (be it undead horde, unfriendly aliens, or - taking our queues from M. Night - the wind…), survivors will dump the class system and understand that it’s us vs. them. And that there’s a LOT more of them.

You’ve put some real thought into this Cypherpunk, it’s really making for some interesting reading, thanks man.

I think natural disasters can sort of give us an insight into somewhat expected human behaviour, while it may not produce the “us vs. them” mindset that could come with a physical enemy of sorts its interesting to watch how people will (or not) overcome their differences in the face of a common threat. Has anyone on here been through a natural disaster with experiences to share?

The class system is an interesting point though, here in the UK I think it would still exist in some shape or form. The London bombings during the Second World War spring to mind where, according to relatives who were there, people in the air raid shelters would from a basic hierarchy where your accent, profession and standing would dictate your place in the shelter. Of course a zombie outbreak could make things completely different but I don’t see that dumb old colonial mentality being dropped that easily. It’s still viable in a lot of people today sadly.   

What is the class system like over in the States?

Well, a lot of these scenarios are very much “what I would do”, which absolutely assumes that we would have a say - if not outright dictate - how things would work in the given survival scenario.

The sad truth is that those of us who have things well planned and are actually capable are more than likely going to be outvoted or ignored by those that still believe in the “normalcy” of the established class system.

Take my “mall” plan in the aforementioned thread as an example here: do you really think that people are going to say “Sure Chris, I’ll join on for sentry duty and let you shave my head”?

Most people will default to looking toward more conventional authority figures, such as uniformed personnel (ie., police, fire, military, et al), or elected leaders, and I quite frankly doubt that most will follow a software developer without question when I start handing out telescopic painters pole with knifes fastened to the end and tell them to man a post!

Now, in a situation where no apparent authority figures exist, the leadership role is often defined through one of two scenarios: by brute force, or through group consensus that mirrors election.

Brute force… well, there’s a time and a place for that, but in using force to gain a leadership position you are bound - no matter how well the scenario plays out - to make at least one enemy.

Group consensus, at least as far as I’m concerned, relies on proper implementation of situational leadership techniques. Knowing when to direct, coach, support, and eventually delegate to fellow survivors will eventually build trust and mutual respect. And from that respect, you reap the benefit of being able to act without hesitation toward a greater goal.

... sorry. To bring this back to the topic of this thread, I firmly believe that if you are in a situation where you have an already established base and stronghold, then implementing your survival plan will go without any relatively big hitches. If you find yourselves - as I fear even the most acute and prepared of us would - joining a more established and stronger survivor party, you’re pretty much at the mercy of the established class system therein.

Well, since Brother D and Miss Bren keep saying they are coming to my house when the SHTF, I guess I will be more of a pack hunter. It’s kind of in my nature to take care of those around me anyways. As much as I would like to think I’m an a**hole, I have a hard time saying no to my fellow man when in need.

Late, tired, rambling - but here goes.

Couple of additional thoughts:

Americans: The people who have bought hundreds of thousands of Snuggies. https://www.getsnuggie.com/flare/next

To quote a Twitter friend who bought one “I look like a derelict Gumby in this thing.”

The class system in America is wealth. With the dead rising, that’s all gone in a giant booming flush.

Brute force sounds so…. crude. How about Cloutage? Are we currently alive? Yes. Have the decisions made sense so far? Yes. Is my giant steroid-laden friend here going to twist your head around backwards if you keep giving me a case of the ass? Yes.

Packing up with the great teaming of masses of America will require strong interpersonal skills, a keen judge of character, and a dash of sociopath-y to keep the herd in line and productive.

I think in this poll/discussion we’ve not fully sussed out the option of Warbanding. Sure, you have to construct a Thunderdome, and you have to keep Meth Tweekers in line, but hey, it’s never dull. Allow me to unleash my inner Genghis-Randy here. Helpful quotes to motivate folks:

“I’m sorry, was that your Husband I just catapulted over the wall?”

“I don’t have to outrun anyone if you’re kneecapped. Play nice, now.”

“Terror, now is not the time for rape. Oh look, a squirrel!! (***BANG***)”.

“You’re about one sentence away from going into the light, you know that, right?”

“Chuck, I see where you want to go with this, and I’m glad we had a chance to confab. I really want to wish you the best (***BANG***). Anyone else have any questions?”

“It’s not megalomania, if most of the people around you Really ARE expendable.”

“TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES!!!”

Much as I love Cypherpunk’s stratagems, I lack basic faith in humanity, once the lavalamps go dark, and the PS3s are still and quiet. Are his plans brilliant? Yes, but try convincing someone with an overblown sense of self-importance to take leadership and or guidance. So, I’d vote for Warbanding. Get a strong core group of survivors. Remember DotD 1978? Savini and company were having fun in the apocalypse.

Lead by force of personality, power-behind-the-throne, or force of force. Those that have value, are protected. Those that don’t are trained up to speed, or cut loose if they choose to brook authority.

Remember, you never ever have to make an enemy of another man. Should it look like your paths are diverging, nudge him along to his final reward.