It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will your Humanity get you killed in a planet-wide survival situation?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
This was brought up in another thread lately, so to prevent bringing that thread off-topic, we can discuss it here.

The premise is that society breaks down all of a sudden, be it zombies, asteroid impact, the aftermath of a nuclear war, a terrible disease, Aliens came and destroyed most of us and left, or anything else you want to imagine so long as the outcome is 90-95% of human population is gone.

Scenario 1:
~ You're all by yourself
~ You have no idea if any of your family or friends are alive
~ You're currently within the boarders of a large city and so have a choice to enter it or to go out into the country side

Scenario 2:
~ You're are in a small group of around 6
~ You feel as though you have the strongest leadership skills. The others simply follow your moves (but don't directly acknowledge you as 'leader')
~ Your group is made up of some family members, and some people you've never met until recently
~ You're currently within the boarders of a large city and so have a choice to enter it or to go out into the country side

Scenario 3:
~ You're in a large community of nearly 100 people
~ You're appointed as leader of this community
~ The community consists of family, friends, as well as random individuals
~ The community is enclosed by decently strong walls (it would take great effort to enter the community, even by force, but not impossible to break through)

In each one of these scenarios, what is your opinion on how valuable a sense of Humanity is? Will 'too much humanity' even get you killed?

For the sake of this argument, 'Humanity' is defined by virtue: valuing love, kindness, generosity, friendliness, truthfulness.


edit on 30/1/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147



Humanity is a society based construct.

It is pure hubris to think we are not animals, with animal instincts.

While we do have the capacity to be more...we are, at the core, what we are.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
What do you mean by a "sense of humanity." Do you mean how compassionate you are? Do you mean how peaceful a nature you have? By itself that phrase simply means an awareness of other people.

In your scenarios you have the person chosen as a leader. Why would they choose you if your "sense of humanity" was such that you only said, "Gee, I hope you're okay." Leaders are well-spoken and have a "sense of purpose." which is probably more important than being a nice guy.
edit on 1/30/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
What do you mean by a "sense of humanity." Do you mean how compassionate you are? Do you mean how peaceful a nature you have? By itself that phrase simply means an awareness of other people.


For the sake of this argument, 'Humanity' is defined by virtue: valuing love, kindness, generosity, friendliness, truthfulness.


originally posted by: schuyler
In your scenarios you have the person chosen as a leader. Why would they choose you if your "sense of humanity" was such that you only said, "Gee, I hope you're okay." Leaders are well-spoken and have a "sense of purpose." which is probably more important than being a nice guy.


Yes, that is precisely the conflict within the OP. Should a leader, or a person in 'survival mode' have a sense of humanity?
edit on 30/1/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
IMO, humanity in such a situation is doing what it takes to get as may of your people through alive as you can. Compassion must encompass the group as much as the individual and you have to weigh that in the balance.

There are a lot of things we take for granted as compassion today because society can afford those resources.

However, let's say your small group is confronted with a contagion. Society has broken down. There are no sterile plague units and no one knows for sure if you are immune or have simply been lucky in avoiding infection. If someone in your group gets exposed or strangers appear with a sick person, you, as leader, have a responsibility to consider that. Sure, you *might* be immune which explains your survival thus far, but then again, you might not and have no way of knowing.

What is best? Modern rules of compassion dictate that you take in the person, but survival rules are somewhat different. There are so few of you that you can't afford to take that chance. You likely have to turn your back on that person no matter how much your heart might bleed.

It is arguably more compassionate to put the needs of the healthy ahead of the needs of the sick or potentially sick in those circumstances.

In the realm of limited resources, your small group can only support so many before they risk dying off themselves. You have to think about how much you can extend those before you put your group's health and well-being at risk. If you impact them negatively too much, then your own ability to forage and/or grow, hunt or otherwise generate new resources to support yourselves is reduced.

Again, you are in a situation where compassion may be to take of those you can and know and trust over those you do not know who may in the end be no asset to you in return for your aid.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Great post! That's a very accurate analysis on the situation. I can pretty much agree on all points



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

Yes, that is precisely the conflict within the OP. Should a leader, or a person in 'survival mode' have a sense of humanity?


Only if it is good for the group. The real issue is survival. If you accept your plight as a leader, then you have the health of the group to consider (in 2 and 3). Your primary issues are food and shelter and protection for the group. Discussing the finer points of democracy is not going to be on the top of your to-do list. It's all about survival of the fittest.

If having a "sense of humanity" promotes group survival, then sure. If it does not, then it doesn't belong. For example, if you refuse to take up arms to defend your group from a more aggressive one intending to deprive you of resources, and perhaps your lives, because this offends your "sense of humanity," then your group dies. If this were to happen, then you just earned yourself a Darwin Award.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Hey Ghost!!
Kewl thread.


I think, the more people you're dealing with...the less 'humanity' is going to help.
If you're alone you're vulnerable, but you only have yourself to look after. Humanity could be you vs another person. Then survival will take precedence over humanity....or the raging empath will give up and die (from humanity).

With a small group, especially if any of them already know and trust you...you might be able to direct them using humanity as your strongest tool for cooperation.

But 100 people or more? A bigger group means the likelihood of a larger percentage who may challenge your leadership. Also that many people is likely to be harboring a few sociopaths/psychopaths who will use ZERO humanity.

Sorry...hammered that out fast, so hope it makes sense.
jacy



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
For two seasons, there was a short-lived show on Discover called The Colony that attempted to simulate these situations with a group of people. They were put in a simulated survival footing. We found it interesting to watch how a varied group of people had to handle getting along on limited resources trying to figure out how to extend their resources with what was locally available to them.

One of the most interesting dynamics in the first show was the interactions between the actual rocket scientist and the largely uneducated handyman. At first, there was nothing but contempt, but then they realized that while the cocksure rocket scientist thought he knew it all about how to build and what to build, he had no practical experience with actually having to build ... which is what the handyman had spent over 20 years having to do. So the handyman wasn't telling him his ideas were bad, only impractical as written, and once they got together with theory and practicality, they found they could respect each other and get along despite their huge educational differences.

And the colony prospered. They built a solar cell powered car, shower, a water filtration system, and several other things.
edit on 30-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

yea the first season of coloy was cool, but honestly what are the odds of having not only rocket scientists in the team, but other scientists and engineers as well??

I think in scenario 2, the unit is small enough to move about unnoticed or ignored as they move into the outer parts of the city if they listen to you as a leader without question. Hopefully leader has some basic tactical mindset he can apply. However in this situation, any and all encounters should and must be treated as a threat and checked. You only have under ten people, losing a single person to a slight in going emo would be a massive loss in potential.

Scenario 3 already has a community, therefore already has a command and security structure to defend the leader. Even if there are psychos in the mix, chances are a handful are already being utilized in security. I would still deal with any approached from the outside as a threat, however there should be quarantine area for those who wish to join the community, and their provisions confiscated and added to the inventory. Give the individual 1 week in confinement while keeping them fed, adequately socialized (an attempt to analyze and maintain their mind). If they play ball, after 1 week the individual may be released into community with an assigned task, as well as close guard, and forbidden from leaving the compound for a period of 3 months. Our community, our rules.

Now this scenario 3 approach by me only applies to individuals or groups under 8 people, who WANT to join. Those who are merely passing by will get no freebies. If they are not trading, or the group is like ten or larger, they best just keep moving. They decide to get pushy, I am sorry to say some will have to get some harsh treatment, and then have their supplies confiscated. They issue threats will be terminated on site.

Scenario 1 is simple, MAD MAX meet Rick from walking dead (season 3 on).



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
No.
I am highly adaptable and accept the power of the situation.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I saw a video docu-drama on just this subject, but I can't for the lofe of me remember where I saw it. With experts in their field giving the supposed options or more to the fact your only option when dealing with these scenarios.
A couple of examples. In a city electricity would be gone and this leads to no water as the water stations need electricity to function. The ONLY scenario was to leave the city (for better water and food foraging) but hundreds or even thousands will be doing the same thing. When food gets scarce you'll HAVE to eat anything, including pets. The experts found that people were very squeemish about eating their pet. But quite alright eating their neighbours pet.
One must also remember that when food gets really, really scarce people will resort to eating you as you are just meat on the hoof so to speak.
If you want to survive it's dog eat dog world. You WILL have to kill if it means you surviving or them.
The most inportant factor is water. You can survive weeks without food but only a few days without water. As a side note from an expert, if you don't eat for a couple of weeks drinking water can kill you. You must eat a small meal before drinking.
All of these things are covered in this video but I can't find it, maybe some-one else on here can remember it. But please watch it if it can be found as it will open your eyes to what you have to do to survive.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

spose if i were to go out like that, upholding the virtues of humanity would be the way to do it.
edit on 30-1-2016 by DOCHOLIDAZE1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AmericanRealist

I think you need a probationary period. All of a newbies' coming in goods are added to the group stores but a tally is kept for reference. During the probation, the newbie works hard along with the group in like at the needed group tasks just like everyone else. So long as equal effort is put in, all is good.

At the end of the probation, everyone meets to decide if the newcomer stays. Harmony is important. Not everyone has to like the new one, but everyone has to agree that we can all get along and that the newcomer carries his or her weight. Similarly, the newcomer has to decide he or she wants to continue on.

If things are all good, then it's good. If we decide to part ways, then the tally of goods is cut back out to the newcomer ... unless the newcomer has generally not carried his or her weight. Then they may not receive what was put in.

These terms will be carefully explained at the start before they agree to probation. They may simply decide to a trade and move on scenario.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Humanity is most important inside the group. Treat each other with humanity inside the group.
If you treat outsiders the same way, you will be eaten.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I don't understand what these three scenarios have to do with humanity as you've defined it.

The virtues you've listed sound like they would be helpful to survival and maintaining good living conditions.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Well put. It's definitely not an 'all or nothing' situation, at least with groups. Unless you're running a dictatorship I suppose



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

thats kind of what I said. But forget the democracy BS, if i am their leader they better be trusting mine and my security councils judgement. They want to complain about voting they can turn their ass around into the wasteland and try to find what once was a Democratic Republic and see if they can vote there.

If the community becomes so large in population from growth and expansion, then sure maybe at that point I would yield leadership to a more formal traditional representation (doubtful
) . I would just disappear into the ranks of enforcers and security at some point though if the community is doing that well.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

In each of those situations, valuing humanity will likely keep you alive, so long as you don't value it more than your own safety. A human cannot live alone for long. At least, not much more than survive.

There are obviously going to be exceptions....but all of us lack skills. All of us need morale. All of us need someone to watch our back. And if you don't have that...you're screwed.

And, given the way humanity is...you need as many of these friends as you can get, or a larger group of friends may end up killing all of you for your stuff.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Ghost147

I don't understand what these three scenarios have to do with humanity as you've defined it.

The virtues you've listed sound like they would be helpful to survival and maintaining good living conditions.


It would only be useful if the rest of the world wasn't also in survival mode. Being kind and generous to everyone makes you an incredibly vulnerable target.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join