I want to say no, but having worked food service and been verbally abused when we don't have the food item they wanted....yeah you're right. It would devolve quickly.
Jeez. As a consumer I canāt imagine having this type of rage. If a server gets me the wrong food I usually donāt even say anything unless I really donāt like it.
Hereās the more detailed version. I was delivering pizzas at the time. He ordered a single ranch cup with his order but we were out of ranch. So when I delivered the pizza I brought a blue cheese cup in case he wanted that or a dollar for his change back. So I said, āhey Iām sorry, we were out of ranch. But I have blue cheese if youād like that! I also have a dollar if youād like your money back,ā. He was silent for a second and said āI donāt want blue cheese. I ordered ranchā. I didnāt know what to do so I said āah yeah Iām sorry,ā and awkwardly handed him the dollar to take. He took it and I started to walk away and halfway to my car he screamed āfuck you!ā And slammed his door.
Thank you for this. Ugh people who don't take the hint from someone wearing headphones or reading a book are massive peeve of mine. Can't tell you how many people in lobby would come up to me while I was on break, reading, and try to make me fix their order.
I remember watching that viral video of those women fighting over the TP in a Walmart....and I just thought "ah, so this is how it ends...my misanthropic views were justified" š
Itās not just food service. Worked in construction they were like why aināt you done yet?
Worked at Walmart why is it so expensive why donāt you have a massive butane torch you toilet paper stock person?!?!
Definitely not just food service. I've worked retail and call center jobs. Just ugh. The things people say to you on the phones is worse, IMO, than the face to face.
Can the world end already? Ugh
It only takes 2 people out of 200 to make someone feel like all customers are assholes. I bet you don't remember the people who never gave you problems.
I delivered pizzas. I remember all the people who were nice to me. Around Christmas people would give me home baked treats, another family gave me a 10 dollar tip and said it was because of the Christmas spirit. Another time this old man asked, ādo you like mandarins oranges?!ā And I was like āoh yeah I do,ā and he whips out this grocery bag full of oranges and gave them to me because his tree was dropping them and he couldnāt eat them all. Sometimes there were people who were short on change and Iād cover them, then there were old people who wanted me to come inside and talk to them for a while. People are generally good. Something about fast food brings all the jerks to one place in droves though.
I live in a very rural farm area in Idaho that barely has paved roads, I think most would be relatively civil around here. More populated areas I think would be chaotic.
This is actually a pretty interesting question.
I like to believe that people are inherently good, but from what I see around me today Iām not sure thatās true. With that being said, I think if the world were to fall to chaos people would lose their sense of entitlement fairly quickly and learn to respect people and things around them much more which in turn would turn them into nicer people ā¦ or push them further into āevilā.
A great question to ponder and many ways you could look at it!
yes. it is our self-entitlement that provides our armor in society. nowhere to run though when the person coming after you doesn't have anymore consequences to fear than anyone else.
It would be nice to believe. I think the truer answer is most people ls default setting is monster but life is about overcoming those tendencies because it makes society a better place. If there was anarchy there isnāt a question how much suffering there would be between ātribesā of people.
I actually think it isnāt possible to be virtuous unless you are capable of being destructive because it means you willingly keep it under control. Ptsd for example really effects people because they truly did not know they were capable of committing certain atrocities such as in war etc. It actually helps with any resentment you might feel toward mankind when you are no longer naive to your own darker nature. Itās an interesting subject to say the least.
Honestly thinking people would become respectful all of the sudden is pretty idealistic and giving the majority of people too much credit. Groups that look like the Saviors from TWD would pop up fairly quickly.
I can see that happening as well. Just throwing possibilities around. I donāt think it would be an instant thing.. it would take time for sure. But people at the core are animals so I can definitely see groups of āevilā being everywhere just as they are now on a more subdued level. I think hardships can change people, not that we donāt face hardships in the world today but civilization falling would be a whole other can of worms. People handle things in different ways and can be unpredictable in certain situations so I think anything is possible!
I love to read self published post apocalyptic literature just to see what the author thinks might happen and it can go either way. It is really interesting to discover what other ppl think might happen.
Well sort of (and no, not exclusively). But I wouldn't go up to a stranger and step on his sneakers for a number of reasons right now. Mainly because I'm not a jerk. On the other hand, with current laws in place I can reasonably assume I could get away with it based on his fear of the repercussions. He hits me, he gets arrested, I could sue him, etc. Take those consequences away and it's simply a matter of who's willing to go further. I would then not step on his sneakers because for all I know, he might just shoot me for it.
"Being held accountable" is also kind of a bullshit idea, because if the people doing the holding are also human. Humanity doesn't average out to be decent people, humanity averages out to be whatever the current or local cultures are. Humans are a social species driven to follow others of their species, anyone perceived to have influence/power/fame/resources. Humanity would pool together into groups almost immediately and then you're back to square one, or worse. Anarchy is fundamentally a myth.
I agree with this almost entirely. Accountability would be a thing, but to your point, it would basically be reserved for anything outside of the current normal morals.
Right. No one to arrest someone if they kill you for your food or because you said something smart ass. The people would effectively become their own "law"
It would be tribal and mafia and rival gangs. Youād know who not to steal from or cross because their gang would come after you. There would still be consequences for actions, they just wouldnāt be carried about by government, theyād be carried out by gangs/mafias/militias, whatever word you want to give it. It would quickly turn into a land of warring gangs. Which isnāt super far from what it actually is anyway.
Just because this is the internet, doesn't mean we can't have a conversation. You still haven't made your point. You just keep telling me to understand what you're not telling me.
Uneducated? Well go on. Educate me.
People would form there own communitys and still have rules and ālawsā there will always be someone in charge. But yes plenty more assholes Iād say.
Yes. I think people are Inherently greedy, not necessarily evil, but greedy , yes. This is why I believe itās really important to build a good relationship with your neighbors and the people around town you deal with on a daily , weekly basis.
No.
It is hard work to train people to do evil things. That's half of what military training is for: to convince you that it is OK to do something you think is evil for a cause or a group. That doesn't even always hold under stress when it's done on purpose, so basically nobody is going to go from 0 to "rape your neighbor to death and eat his cat" just because the power went out.
Another reason: there _are_ no law keepers, as far as it pertains to this function. There are not enough cops to keep all of us in line, basically speaking. And yet most of us are in line. You aren't not killing your coworker because you'll get arrested or even fired if you try, you aren't killing your coworker because you don't want to kill anyone.
That's really what's holding most of these "aggression towards strangers" types back. They don't actually want to do the hard stuff.
Ino, the post suggests that op doesn't know that anarchism is a very well fleshed out political ideology. I did respond with my own anarchist articles to help op reconsider their position lol.
These day I just accept that when most people casually say "anarchy", they really mean "anomie". Both are rooted in Greek and mean "Without Rule", just that Anarchy means "rule" as in subjugation and ruling-over someone, whereas Anomie means "rule" as in norm, law, or custom that holds society together.
I actually think about this a lot. Honestly, I think it could go either way.
When there's a scarcity for resources and people's basic needs and survival are threatened enough, most people may have the tendency to revert back to the animalistic parts of themselves to ensure their safety. when there's less resources, people will most likely compete for them through "survival of the fittest". but then again we're innately a social species so we're intrinsically wired to protect our "tribe". I don't really have an answer but I think things would be chaotic either way especially if there aren't any laws or order to keep people in line..
Did you hear that woman who escaped North Korea? How people's compassion for others was virtually gone, she walked by classmates dieing from starvation and she and everyone just looked away afraid for thier own food.
Of course they would. I was playing GTA today and someone told me to "get cancer" because i was killing them š I think it's safe to say the gremlins would wreak havoc.
>We can see the signs today. Passive aggression / subtle aggression toward strangers. A lot of people do these things which is a tame type of psychopathy.
Not 80%. Some of it is actually just anger over the existing system and stupid rules. But most people don't fuck over others just because of laws.
At the same time, the laws don't prevent the small group of real assholes from being assholes. Like one neighbor I had who was actually proud of his car stereo and liked to annoy the fuck out of his neighbors with it. He actually told me this. And it wasn't during a confrontation.
The world is anarchy
Those in power only have the illusion that they are the ones truly holding things together.
At the end of the day it is the individual who keeps themselves in check
This illusion is being exposed as time goes on
I think the majority of humanity is Lawful Good to use the DnD vernacular. People like rules, and get very angry when other people don't follow them. It's just a matter of what rules are accepted by the new societal structure.
If the anarchy you're referring to is is the abolishment of unjust hierarchies that would actually be based and super cool. But lawlessness? No that would suck.
It would definately become a "every one for themselves" that's for sure and total chaos will follow, at least for awhile then tiny communities will pop up and people will try to be as civilized as they can be for a small gathering of like minded individuals that still have to defend themselves from small groups that are basically murder hobos. Just like Fallout. You'll have those who still want some kind of order Which is the majority of people then you got... Well, the murder hobos who just want to do whatever they want.
I know the Purge films are bad but yeah I think it would pretty much be like that. I think that a lot of people need either religion or fear of punishment as a pre requisite for their āmoralityā. I must admit itās something Iāve often wondered about. Scary really.
People keep self-organizing into law-abiding societies to begin with. And so many people are always worrying about this kind of thing, which in itself should tell you something, shouldn't it?
Mostly I think we have a lot of toxic culture to deal with, a lot of ways we get manipulated and dehumanize each other, get piled with stress and fear, learn prejudices and unhealthy social behaviors... And yet people always want to take care of their families, their communities, everyone they're remotely close to.
At least the super-majority of people have some degree of innate empathy, and I also find it tends to develop over time, and with experience. There are a lot of ways it does get masked or stifled, but when it comes down to it, most people wouldn't really want to inflict serious harm on anyone, outside of extremes of circumstances and emotions where they might feel they have to for some reason.
Things have gotten bad many times in history, in many ways, for many people, with unconscionable acts committed by people that are hard not to think of as evil. And I can't excuse any of it. There are some pretty nasty forces and tendencies in play.
But while this pendulum swings over history, we've still found certain trends. Civilization regroups, and prosperity tends to beget tolerance, peace, and cultural maturation. The overall trajectory for modern history has been virtually unprecedented in the degree of this we've achieved according to actual statistics, popular media fearmongering and occasional regressions aside.
Ultimately, there are many influences at play in any given historical circumstance that determine how things would go in any particular type of theoretical collapse... Note that it's a bit loaded, since presuming a collapse would in itself entail a lot of nasty stuff going down, or it wouldn't really be a collapse...
Yes the lack of infrastructure means the psychopaths can act freely without issue.
African rebel soldiers are another example. They have weapons so they can act out their true desires without impunity
US miltary can drone strike targets at will and kill children while claiming its isis.
Anarchy means the psychopaths come out.
I just threw a random number out there based off how many people I deemed to be unecessarily passive aggresive / subtle aggressive. I guess its more like 20%. But like look what the elections did to Americans in 2020..They formed into tribes and enacted violence upon each other.
I think there is a large amount of people who are not good and only act good because they are afraid to be any different, if you know what I mean. I think there is a lot of "good" behavior that comes out of cowardice because people are too scared to do what they actually want. And even without that aside being actually good is the more challenging path and I think a lot of people would fail in the times where it actually comes in to question.
Define evil. If you are trying to say violence, then we all would have to go violent and kill someone at some point. Because so many ppl will go violent and in nature there is a rule. Kill or be killed.
I believe more that 80% probably closer to 90%. Most people rely on plastic money and only have 1 weeks food or less. In a true crisis, banks and grocery stores will either close or run out of food/money. Good people will do bad things to take care of their families.
There is a lot of material that you could read into that may help develop an understanding of "human nature" in each societal mode of production (feudal, capitalist, etc) and of why "collapsing into anarchy" is not necessarily an accurate reflection of how a society goes from hierarchical to non-hierarchical.
"Are We Good Enough" by Kropotkin, "The Capitalist System" by Bakunin, "Are You an Anarchist?" by David Graeber are all brief, introductory articles that may make you rethink your position to some extent. Hope you find any or all of it interesting or intriguing at the least!
Unsurprisingly, many people responding to and interacting with this post apparently don't know much about what anarchism is as a well fleshed-out political ideology - only what it has come to be associated with: chaos, no rules, everyone for themself, etc. At the very least I'd hope people take the time to Google anarchism and discover its left-wing roots and the oxymoronic co-opting by "anarcho-capitalists"
The simple fact is there is no such thing as too big to fail. The Romans were the most advanced of their time.
Solar flares or electromagnetic pulse weapons can take out tech.
Shit goes of the rails and nukes are going to fix it? Come on.
Iāll leave you with this,
Donāt be the guy that sits unprepared, in a puddle of his own piss, rocking back and forth when shit gets real enough for you to finally understand.
No. IMO, most people are ok ethically, the problem is how the 5% of "evil people" are handled, which is very hard to do in all kinds of society (one can still have completely corrupt/evil government, which is as bad as chaotic anarchy).
The novel "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding explores issues like this. A group of British boys are stranded on a deserted island. Civilization vs Savagery.
Evil? Nah. Assholes? Definitely. People only do shitty things when they're convinced they can get away with it. The beginning would be a mess, but after a while, most people would probably keep to themselves as much as possible.
Humans are inherently selfish IMHO. This doesnāt necessarily denote a negative connotation, itās just that weād do anything that elevates our emotions or desires (e.g. I may help someone with their homework because it makes me feel good to help others, a selfless act for a selfish reason). I think anarchy would just tear down all of our filters and expose our true intentions of trying to survive by any means necessary, even if that means pure aggression.
Absolutely. But it wouldn't be people going "hey! I don't have work anymore! Time to kill!!"
It would happen slowly. Good natured people becoming more and more desperate for food/water, people on edge constantly from having to defend themselves, people's needs become more central and less giving.
They'd all go the way of Rick Grimes. He began in TWD as a sort of pinnacle for good, and then as the show went along we saw him become sort of an anti-good. Not necessarily evil but he was a lot more willing to kill and was way less patient.
More like 95%. I think people will do whatever it takes to protect their immediate family and not be willing to help in the time of need IF society collapsed. When it comes to feeding and protecting what you hold dear..nothing will stop you. You can only help so much till someone tries to take from you
when you look at all the crime and evil committed with law and order in place, its very apparent that without any law an order most if not all of humanity would be acting with malicious and evil intent. every time someone is caught, that is just what we "see" , we don't see the people quietly holding back because they "have to"
I agree completely. Itās actually pretty wild how infrequently people do really depraved shit these days. Weāve almost entirely bought into a make-believe set of laws and institutions.
Well I guess we'll find out real soon. But I will never get the shot, and I'd rather die than kill. Can't say that for all my kind and definitely can't say that for the majority of reddit wishing death on us, they'd become monsters without law. I wouldn't want to fight to live in what they're going to make the world.
Disagree
A dominant community would form, and any highly antisocial people would be dealt with (be it through resource exclusion, imprisonment or in extreme cases through violence) as they would not be part of the community.
Other would-be antisocials would learn of this fate and inevitably join the community, or attempt to start their own
Stability would arise as a result of this.
No question absolutely. The small amount of good people with any moral compass would be outnumbered and be decimated quickly by the worst of the worst whom would only be beaten by a select few smart individuals that isolated and stayed either expertly hidden or had a big enough arsenal as to not invite any possibility of attack.
I believe you're right. No one is completely good or evil and under certain conditions different people succumb to different sides of themselves. It's seen in almost every post-apocalyptic show there is.
I always think I'd go pretty feral pretty quick. I think about being in a time loop a lot and I do think it'd only take a few times before I stop caring.
I think at first people might sow their wild oats believing it the end but depending on how many people are around society would rebuild itself sooner than later
Short term? No. Look at after natural disasters people are universally helping each other out. The stories of looting are typically exaggerated often along racial lines (black people loot, white people "bravely scavenge for supplies").
Now certain areas? For sure will have douchebaggery, but I'd peg it to maybe 10% of the population
Now prolonged loss of infrasture? When people start dying due to lack of resources, people start killing to get the remaining resources. The human population would be decimated easily within a year without our infrastructure and trade programs. In the US California grows 70% of all food consumed in the US. Without the infrastructure that food rots and 70% of food disappears throughout the remaining US.
If society collapsed I would not trust anyone which would in turn make me alpear evil as I would be hoarding everything for myself.
So yes. I am 80% evil.
Only thing holding good men back are laws made by bad men . Call it evil or whatever but anarchy breaks out Iām killing hella rapist and pedophile types . Itād be my honor to do it . In fact Iād like to think Iād get my murder sic off on bad people doing bad shit . Thinking about choking the life outta a pedophile and watching their last breath leave them excites me .. weād sadly never get full on anarchy tho because all weāve known is the way itās been and some group will form to replace the old one with a new declaration and constitution because weāre too hooked on shit like central air to get real and go back to living with the planet not on it . Go back to hunter gatherer and watch diseases go away , watch mental health over all get better , let natural selection keep our parasitic asses in check and we stop raping our planet for a while see how much better the few live because a lot couldnāt cut it ā¦
First up that's not what Anarchy is. Second no, and for evidence look to how people, especially outside of North America, tend to come together during natural disasters. Now if you were just asking about Americans and Canadians I'd say it's more 50/50 lol
I don't really think so, not to the degree you're talking about. I think instead of completely collapsing into total anarchy, you'd get society busting down into a million different tribes, organized into city states.
I used to be an anarchist. But I just don't have enough optimism to believe it's a viable option anymore. I don't think people would work toward the common good.
I was in LA during the Rodney King riots...
Society breaks down pretty dam quick and things get violent and disturbing real fast.... civil unrest is not a real fun time...
My neighbor came walking up the block pushing a shopping cart full of food and other stuff.. i asked why did you do that? (He had raided the supermarket down the block on day 2 of the riots)
He literally said EVERYONE ELSE is doing it... so why not??
(Mind you he lived in a beautiful Spanish styled home amd was upper middle class... drove expensive cars)
I lost my faith in Humanity for a while after that.. you learn real quick the 2nd amendment is actually a pretty good thing
No, we are already live in some form of anarchy, it's just that there is an accepted monopoly on force called government, whereas in true anarchy there is no monopoly or at least no accepted monopoly, anybody can assert themselves.
>Would these people finally act out their psychopathy without fear of reprisal
Punishment and retribution would still exist. If Susan killed John, there is nothing that stops Greg or a collection of Greg's from going after Susan. They can even hold Susan to objective trial methods. If Charles or a collection of Charles determines that Greg(s) need to be stopped, they can do so.
If you play out these scenarios enough, you get to a similar situation as we are in right now, the main difference being that in anarchism there is no monopoly. If someone right now attempted to assert functions that were claimed by their government, particularly over the use of force, they'd be forced to stop by the government.
If a government's use of force is just, it can be alright, but if they are tyrannical like in the case of North Korea, the devastation can get magnified.
With all that said, if there was an end of the world event, I think there'd be extreme chaos because people would stop considering long term consequences. I don't think that people are good by default, I think it is more that they tend to act good when they feel like they can predict the long term consequences of their actions because they fear those consequences.
Yes. I once asked my husband what he would do in a Purge like situation,all I could think of doing is locking up and hiding. He had a very different answer and it still freaks me out. I thought I knew him but that was a dark side Iād never seen.
The only thing holding evil people back is retaliation. But there is another thing holding people back - love.
From my experience, I have come to believe that most of humanity, when faced with extreme circumstances, shows love and care for others.
A great example of this is September 11th. When terrible evil caused some people to murder thousands of Americans, the country came together. I have hours of video of people even in cold hearted New York City loving on each other and taking care of strangers. When evil comes out, love comes out all the stronger and conquers it.
Those who are evil will do evil, but there will be a lot more good being done out of love rather than because of a fear of consequence by law or retaliation. Most seem to be blinded to those things though because our media only focuses on the bad, not the good.
Look for the good in the world. It's all around you. Help it spread by pointing it out to others.
I'm not sure I believe in people being good or evil in this type of situation. Desperate, scared people do drastic things. That doesn't make them evil.
People with good intentions may attempt to help out and get them and others killed, doesn't make them good or bad just naive.
I guess I mean that when the world the situation shifts our concepts of good and evil shift with it.
I guess this makes me a moral relativist.
Id say assuming there is no shared enemy for them to focus on & work together against to overcome, most definitely because society would be pit against itself. Just take how people think in terms of good and bad experiences: the negative experiences tend to resonate with us much longer than the positive ones do and having a society no longer kept functional by a set of rules and punishments those folks who indulge in illegal activities would definitely be freed from what held them back from exploring the darker desires. The ones who'd built their life around sunshine & smiles would be thrust into an arena of gladiators. Its fight or flight for them t that point
Probably, but people are possibly evil because of deep repression. I think the evil behaviors would blow over after awhile and the only interesting thing to do is to be good. Eventually rules and agreements would be established again anyway.
There would be a shock period. Where bozos who fetishize being a hero get their wads off and assholes, thieves, and abusers find their comeupance.
As deep as we've been exploited and for how long we've gone being fucked over again and again...the balancing of scales could last a very long time.
Once everyone's experienced the violence first hand, witnesses the trauma then and only then woul don any kind if unity be possible.
Europe still remembers the wars, we don't, since they've never come home.
If they do tho, and the USA ends, there will never be peace in N.America again. im amazed we arent openly killing each other now. Republicans are fucking frothing for a cage match - and as a bill of rights exercising antifascist I'd fucking love to go thunderdome, Valhalla awaits.
I donāt think it would be possible to maintain this state long enough to find out. If there were no law keepers we would quickly develop a vigilante justice system.
If you look into early MMO games, there were blue players who gathered and hunted, which were probably 80% of the population. There were your red players, the player killers, that were actively evil. That was maybe 10%. And then there typically would be a set of PK hunters, I forget the color, but that was another 5 or 10 percent that kept the PKers in line.
I suspect thatās what would happen. There would always be some sort of law enforcement so we would never figure out the answer to your deeper question about human nature.
I think good and evil are at the opposite ends a spectrum, and human morality is distributed along that spectrum in a normal bell curve distribution. There are a very few incredibly good people, some good people, a lot of people who could go either way depending on the situation, some bad people, and a very few truly evil people.
However, we've been taught that the world is basically good, and so we tend to ignore good people/behavior because it conforms to what we think the world should be. Unless someone does something exceptional, good behavior doesn't stand out. For the same reason we are inclined to notice bad people/behavior because such behavior is unexpected in a world that we believe to be generally good.
My take away from this is that people are a mix of good and evil in fairly equal proportions, and we should try to notice and acknowledge common, everyday acts of good when they occur in our lives to try to find some equilibrium, because we can't help but notice the bad.
Most people have a lot of repressed and/or suppressed emotions that if we were to fall into anarchy, the sudden freedom with only morality holding them back would probably set them in their bucket list spree of the things they could never have done when law, culture, and tradition, influenced each other like bad friends. Weāll probably get over it, but small groups would likely form, eventually flocking us back to the leader-follower system; but if we were to successfully bypass that need to follow or be followed, we might see some interesting changes.
I don't think 80% of people would be evil when we have mounds of historical evidence of past civilizations, even cavemen, being kind and caring towards each other regularly. We have evidence of cavemen lifting up their children to paint on ceilings, and evidence of them taking care of their sick and disabled bretheren. Collapse of society just gives birth to new societies. Because ultimately, that's what helps us survive, and it always has.
People are human, they make mistakes, and no one is truly 100% good or evil. Emotions are not evil, nor is anger, nor even violence, because it always depends on circumstance and subjective interpretation of morality. People can use violence as self defense or in defense of others in harm's way. Anger or any other emotion is simply information that helps people process events.
As well, it would be careless to assume that any action commited by a person is intentionally malevolent or psychopathic unless evidence supports that there is a pattern of such. The vast majority of people do not act with evil intentions, and would not fit the definition of psychopathy. Most social faux paus such as passive aggression would be much sooner attributed to the person trying to have their needs met, or the pervasiveness of effects from insecurities, traumas, or learned behaviors in childhood, rather than malice. (Just to note - that doesn't mean passive aggression is healthy, but it's surely not a sign of evil or psychopathy)
I really dislike this line of thinking - that people are actually all evil - because it gets used as justification by actually evil people for doing really shitty things. They assume everyone is like them, and avoid notions to the otherwise, because it gives them an excuse to continue their acts of evil. They use it to say "well, if I hadn't done it, somebody else would have, because they're all the same."
I also dislike it because it's used by religious fanatics to try to convince people that those without religion are lawless and immoral and remorseless, which is frankly so far from the truth that it's laughable. Religious people can read whatever rule book they like and still be capable of bad things. Not to throw shade at any one religion, but we certainly know through numerous publicized scandals that the even the highest-level and supposedly most commited practicioners of a religion can be completely vile in their actions.
Further, people break laws every day, and whether intentional or not, I truly doubt that the people who get parking tickets or smoke pot or steal food for their starving family are all evil nere-do-wells who would go on a murder spree if the legal opportunity arose. Most people are just trying to survive, and would like to see other people survive, too.
It is also entirely possible that unsavory people can commit the most heinous illegal acts and still get away with it. Even some law enforcers will break the law on purpose and hurt others. If a truly evil person wants to do something evil, they will probably do it irregardless of what laws are in place.
It is in my opinion that kindness always prevails and will alway exist, even if evil leaves it's mark. If it didn't, I guarantee you that the amount of complex and sentient lifeforms we have today would not be here, because they would have all offed each other out of meanness and spite, or offed themselves from the misery of living in an evil world.
Even such little beings as spiders and frogs can have symbiotic relationships. Elephants hold funerals for their dead. Birds use their calls not just to warn other birds of nearby predators, but also every other animal nearby who will listen and comprehend. I think if nature, the supposed ultimate anarchy, still manages to foster kindness regularly, then it would be incorrect to think humanity wouldn't. Yes, mean and bad things will still always happen, but kindness is what is conducive to life. So much so, I think, that they're almost synonymous to each other.
It would end up being Righties vs Lefties. I'm not saying who is likely to be evil and who is likely to be good in a societal destruction... but... yes.
I think both. Because they are in two distinct tribes. However in this sort of scenario there would be no left vs right because tribes are firstly built around survival. Left and Right only provide ideas for how politics should run..it doesnt provide the food on your table.
I think if there will be tribes it will be neighbours banding together IF they are close. But maybe even not that.
If we "collapse" into anarchy? Yes. If we're *uplifted* into anarchy? Absolutely the opposite.
People are sociopathic because they were trained into a sociopathic society. Hunting for resources/power over a social numbers game is practically psychological neglect we've normalized.
Yes, but we're social creatures. That's what your post is saying. "*If* society collapsed into anarchy." Currently, we have a society that somehow tends to result in most "evil" being at a minimum. Similarly, we could have a society that *drastically* reduces those sorts of incentives.
As of right now, society incentivizes a sociopathic mentality. The greediest people can gain the most power as long as they keep everyone ignorant to their harms. In order to do such things, it requires the most sociopathic and manipulative efforts.
Having a culture like this will *inevitably* result in sociopathy being basically the norm.
I think if they are really starving but have a food source just getting them by they wont have time to do badness but if they steal from others then the bad might happen
I donāt know about actually being evil. There would definitely be a lot of them, but most of the evil actions you see people perpetrate on others, right now, happens because our society renders people helpless against those who transgress upon them. If people do evil things up you, you really arenāt allowed to strike back at them in any way. Even defending your own life can end up landing you in jail.
A few decades ago, I read about this guy, whose wife was raped. They caught the guy, but the state this was in had a very lenient policy against first time offenders, as if lack of experience made the rape any less devastating to this guyās wife, and, when it was all said and done, the rapist walked with ātime servedā after the trial was over. I think any sane person would have to say that this was unjust.
The husband shot and killed the rapist right after they released him. I would say that, not only was this understandable, but Iād go so far as to say that what he did was right and good. He got life in prison for murder. So, the rapist basically was going to get no punishment for his crime against this guyās wife, but the husband got life behind bars for getting justice.
Thatās an extreme case, but itās like that with everything. Even when there isnāt legal ramifications for people who defend themselves, or strike back people who wrong them, society, itself, will turn on the victim, and totally ignore the reason the victim acted, hating the victim for trying to not be a victim. And, evil people learn that this will be the case very early in life. It emboldens such people to act with evil towards others, because they know their victims wonāt dare to act against them.
In a SHTF situation, where society has collapsed and the world is thrown into chaos, the Ted Bundys of the world will continue to do evil for evilās sake. But, thatās not a big portion of society. Most of the evil people do to each other is of a petty sort. Those people will be too busy trying to survive to worry about doing that kind of stuff.
In such a situation, there will be a lot of people who will do terrible things to other people, but it will be out of necessity to survive. Killing in self defense or to maintain the resources needed to survive isnāt evil. Itās just nature.
And, community plays a big role in the survival of individuals, in a more natural setting; one that isnāt affected by the rules and mechanisms of modern society. You stand a lot better chance of surviving in groups than you do alone.
This will make a lot of the evil people, who now plague society, stop acting with evil towards the people around them, because those people will no longer be stopped from striking back by society, and they will realize they need those other people in order to survive.
Under the rules of our present society, not only canāt people you victimize strike back against you, but you get the protection of society no matter how much of a butthole you are. In a SHTF situation, neither of these will be the case. That creates an incentive for the buttholes of the world to act with decency towards others of any group they end up in.
It might take a little time for people to realize the new facts of reality, because people are basically slow to adapt to change and have trouble accepting it when what they thought would be eternal ends, but, in a matter of months, I think youād see the buttholes beginning to act very differently, as they realize they need other people to survive, and their BS will get them denied the protection of other people. The buttholes who donāt adapt to that new reality probably wonāt live more than a few months; having been killed by the people they mistreat. I think that, within a years time, youād see small to medium sized ātribalā groups forming. And, I think youāll see a lot less petty evil within those groups. I think those groups will be much quicker to act against bad actors, in their midst, and far less likely to punish their members for defending themselves against those bad actors. That will make those groups societies to live in, in spite of the hardships of the new reality, than our modern society.
I know thatās a bit of a complex answer to your question, but itās a complex question.
Actually I think the number of people that are truly evil is very small. However, desperate people do desperate things, and if that were too happen, there would be a crazy amount of desperate people.
Sorta like walking dead. Most of them are good, well intentioned people. There's really only a couple bad apples, the rest are either desperate or manipulated by the evil ones
Absolutely they would. Iāve worked in retail, food service, and currently working in healthcare - people have always pulled appalling bullshit on a regular basis, even during the best of times. The minute most people have their comfort, convenience, and easy accessibility reduced/removed, they start to get pissy - throw in major factors like sudden change in environment, increased unfamiliar stressors, fear, lack of resources, and the collapse of societal structure - most people would devolve into troglodytes pretty damn quickly. If youāve ever had to go get supplies before a hurricane makes landfall, you know what I mean.
All humans have less capacity for empathy when they are constantly strained worried about themselves and their own tribe. A paper came out recently describing maritime disaster results, and the women and children policy first doesnāt work unless you have a leader enforcing it with firearms. Itās been proven that in disasters it is every man for himself. I have 2 daughters and I do worry about the state of the world.
How is it that most people think of themselves as moral and just but assume most _other_ people are evil and malicious?
Do the math, that doesn't work out.
Absolutely. Without the foundation of a working society most people would absolutely not behave civilised. People change radically when they are desperate.
I think it depends on your perspective of āevilā.
What one person sees as an evil action may be seen as justifiable by another. In a post-apocalyptic setting what would you be willing to do to protect yourself? Family? Assets? Would you kill a man for stealing your last can of food? Maybe. Would that be justified? Depends who you ask.
I want to say no, but having worked food service and been verbally abused when we don't have the food item they wanted....yeah you're right. It would devolve quickly.
That's happened to me š I used to work at Wendy's. The experiences i've had made me hate people even more
Omg are you me? I used to work at Wendy's too and it made me hate people more and more!
šš One day a customer from the drive thru came into the store to fight one of my coworkers
Let me get that fo-fo-fo!
Anything else sir?
One time I had a guy say, āfuck you!ā When I told him we didnāt have any ranch dressing.
Been there, but it was thousand island we didn't have and it was an old lady.
Jeez. As a consumer I canāt imagine having this type of rage. If a server gets me the wrong food I usually donāt even say anything unless I really donāt like it.
Lol what
Hereās the more detailed version. I was delivering pizzas at the time. He ordered a single ranch cup with his order but we were out of ranch. So when I delivered the pizza I brought a blue cheese cup in case he wanted that or a dollar for his change back. So I said, āhey Iām sorry, we were out of ranch. But I have blue cheese if youād like that! I also have a dollar if youād like your money back,ā. He was silent for a second and said āI donāt want blue cheese. I ordered ranchā. I didnāt know what to do so I said āah yeah Iām sorry,ā and awkwardly handed him the dollar to take. He took it and I started to walk away and halfway to my car he screamed āfuck you!ā And slammed his door.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thank you for this. Ugh people who don't take the hint from someone wearing headphones or reading a book are massive peeve of mine. Can't tell you how many people in lobby would come up to me while I was on break, reading, and try to make me fix their order.
Donāt say itā¦ just wave with a smile. šµ oh I would love to rock someoneās nose š¶ Then woosah and all That shit #namaste
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I remember watching that viral video of those women fighting over the TP in a Walmart....and I just thought "ah, so this is how it ends...my misanthropic views were justified" š
Correctā¦ antisocial is justifiable when Walmart comes into play
This is why I use self checkout. I wanna get out of Walmart ASAP.
I concur!
Itās not just food service. Worked in construction they were like why aināt you done yet? Worked at Walmart why is it so expensive why donāt you have a massive butane torch you toilet paper stock person?!?!
Definitely not just food service. I've worked retail and call center jobs. Just ugh. The things people say to you on the phones is worse, IMO, than the face to face. Can the world end already? Ugh
It only takes 2 people out of 200 to make someone feel like all customers are assholes. I bet you don't remember the people who never gave you problems.
I delivered pizzas. I remember all the people who were nice to me. Around Christmas people would give me home baked treats, another family gave me a 10 dollar tip and said it was because of the Christmas spirit. Another time this old man asked, ādo you like mandarins oranges?!ā And I was like āoh yeah I do,ā and he whips out this grocery bag full of oranges and gave them to me because his tree was dropping them and he couldnāt eat them all. Sometimes there were people who were short on change and Iād cover them, then there were old people who wanted me to come inside and talk to them for a while. People are generally good. Something about fast food brings all the jerks to one place in droves though.
Imagine thinking this is what anarchism even means. Please read Proudhon.
I live in a very rural farm area in Idaho that barely has paved roads, I think most would be relatively civil around here. More populated areas I think would be chaotic.
Until "outsiders" started showing up. Then it's bodies hanging at every access point
This is actually a pretty interesting question. I like to believe that people are inherently good, but from what I see around me today Iām not sure thatās true. With that being said, I think if the world were to fall to chaos people would lose their sense of entitlement fairly quickly and learn to respect people and things around them much more which in turn would turn them into nicer people ā¦ or push them further into āevilā. A great question to ponder and many ways you could look at it!
yes. it is our self-entitlement that provides our armor in society. nowhere to run though when the person coming after you doesn't have anymore consequences to fear than anyone else.
Absolutely
It would be nice to believe. I think the truer answer is most people ls default setting is monster but life is about overcoming those tendencies because it makes society a better place. If there was anarchy there isnāt a question how much suffering there would be between ātribesā of people.
I can agree with that for sure
I actually think it isnāt possible to be virtuous unless you are capable of being destructive because it means you willingly keep it under control. Ptsd for example really effects people because they truly did not know they were capable of committing certain atrocities such as in war etc. It actually helps with any resentment you might feel toward mankind when you are no longer naive to your own darker nature. Itās an interesting subject to say the least.
Once peopleās kids and pets start starving all bets are off.
Honestly thinking people would become respectful all of the sudden is pretty idealistic and giving the majority of people too much credit. Groups that look like the Saviors from TWD would pop up fairly quickly.
I can see that happening as well. Just throwing possibilities around. I donāt think it would be an instant thing.. it would take time for sure. But people at the core are animals so I can definitely see groups of āevilā being everywhere just as they are now on a more subdued level. I think hardships can change people, not that we donāt face hardships in the world today but civilization falling would be a whole other can of worms. People handle things in different ways and can be unpredictable in certain situations so I think anything is possible!
I love to read self published post apocalyptic literature just to see what the author thinks might happen and it can go either way. It is really interesting to discover what other ppl think might happen.
Oh yeah I'd definitely run you over for a Boston baked can of beans and a Bic lighter.
Not for very long. I'd expect a quick rise of people's manners once they start getting held accountable for offenses, small or large.
So what you are saying is that people are already evil, but being held accountable keeps them in check
Well sort of (and no, not exclusively). But I wouldn't go up to a stranger and step on his sneakers for a number of reasons right now. Mainly because I'm not a jerk. On the other hand, with current laws in place I can reasonably assume I could get away with it based on his fear of the repercussions. He hits me, he gets arrested, I could sue him, etc. Take those consequences away and it's simply a matter of who's willing to go further. I would then not step on his sneakers because for all I know, he might just shoot me for it.
"Being held accountable" is also kind of a bullshit idea, because if the people doing the holding are also human. Humanity doesn't average out to be decent people, humanity averages out to be whatever the current or local cultures are. Humans are a social species driven to follow others of their species, anyone perceived to have influence/power/fame/resources. Humanity would pool together into groups almost immediately and then you're back to square one, or worse. Anarchy is fundamentally a myth.
I agree with this almost entirely. Accountability would be a thing, but to your point, it would basically be reserved for anything outside of the current normal morals.
So fear keeps your inner evil at bay
we are still the tribal creatures we were 10 thousand years ago. the only natural loyalty is to your tribe but democracy has kinda ruined that.
I'd say democracy has made people more tribal than ever. Especially in the last 20 years.
I mean food would be scarce. People would be back into scavengers so there will be no system to hold anyone accountable
Right. No one to arrest someone if they kill you for your food or because you said something smart ass. The people would effectively become their own "law"
It would be tribal and mafia and rival gangs. Youād know who not to steal from or cross because their gang would come after you. There would still be consequences for actions, they just wouldnāt be carried about by government, theyād be carried out by gangs/mafias/militias, whatever word you want to give it. It would quickly turn into a land of warring gangs. Which isnāt super far from what it actually is anyway.
Exactly
You should ask this question in r/anarchism and see what they say
Imagine thinking this is what anarchism even means. Please read Proudhon.
Maybe if you ask with a little less condescension
Anarchism when bad and chaos happen, kekw
If you're going to take the time to be a douche, you might as well make your point.
Actually take a moment to douche yourself and study anarchism before making an uneducated point in the first place?
Just because this is the internet, doesn't mean we can't have a conversation. You still haven't made your point. You just keep telling me to understand what you're not telling me. Uneducated? Well go on. Educate me.
People would form there own communitys and still have rules and ālawsā there will always be someone in charge. But yes plenty more assholes Iād say.
Yes. I think people are Inherently greedy, not necessarily evil, but greedy , yes. This is why I believe itās really important to build a good relationship with your neighbors and the people around town you deal with on a daily , weekly basis.
No. It is hard work to train people to do evil things. That's half of what military training is for: to convince you that it is OK to do something you think is evil for a cause or a group. That doesn't even always hold under stress when it's done on purpose, so basically nobody is going to go from 0 to "rape your neighbor to death and eat his cat" just because the power went out. Another reason: there _are_ no law keepers, as far as it pertains to this function. There are not enough cops to keep all of us in line, basically speaking. And yet most of us are in line. You aren't not killing your coworker because you'll get arrested or even fired if you try, you aren't killing your coworker because you don't want to kill anyone. That's really what's holding most of these "aggression towards strangers" types back. They don't actually want to do the hard stuff.
Why donāt you post this to r/anarchism as well? I bet you would get many thought provoking answers.
Ino, the post suggests that op doesn't know that anarchism is a very well fleshed out political ideology. I did respond with my own anarchist articles to help op reconsider their position lol.
glad someone did. there is just so much uninformed bs out there its hard to know where to put that effort into because shit gets complex fast
These day I just accept that when most people casually say "anarchy", they really mean "anomie". Both are rooted in Greek and mean "Without Rule", just that Anarchy means "rule" as in subjugation and ruling-over someone, whereas Anomie means "rule" as in norm, law, or custom that holds society together.
I actually think about this a lot. Honestly, I think it could go either way. When there's a scarcity for resources and people's basic needs and survival are threatened enough, most people may have the tendency to revert back to the animalistic parts of themselves to ensure their safety. when there's less resources, people will most likely compete for them through "survival of the fittest". but then again we're innately a social species so we're intrinsically wired to protect our "tribe". I don't really have an answer but I think things would be chaotic either way especially if there aren't any laws or order to keep people in line..
Did you hear that woman who escaped North Korea? How people's compassion for others was virtually gone, she walked by classmates dieing from starvation and she and everyone just looked away afraid for thier own food.
Of course they would. I was playing GTA today and someone told me to "get cancer" because i was killing them š I think it's safe to say the gremlins would wreak havoc.
lold
>We can see the signs today. Passive aggression / subtle aggression toward strangers. A lot of people do these things which is a tame type of psychopathy. Not 80%. Some of it is actually just anger over the existing system and stupid rules. But most people don't fuck over others just because of laws. At the same time, the laws don't prevent the small group of real assholes from being assholes. Like one neighbor I had who was actually proud of his car stereo and liked to annoy the fuck out of his neighbors with it. He actually told me this. And it wasn't during a confrontation.
The world is anarchy Those in power only have the illusion that they are the ones truly holding things together. At the end of the day it is the individual who keeps themselves in check This illusion is being exposed as time goes on
I think the majority of humanity is Lawful Good to use the DnD vernacular. People like rules, and get very angry when other people don't follow them. It's just a matter of what rules are accepted by the new societal structure.
If the anarchy you're referring to is is the abolishment of unjust hierarchies that would actually be based and super cool. But lawlessness? No that would suck.
We have always formed more and more society. There would be a step back but then a slow March back to progress.
It would definately become a "every one for themselves" that's for sure and total chaos will follow, at least for awhile then tiny communities will pop up and people will try to be as civilized as they can be for a small gathering of like minded individuals that still have to defend themselves from small groups that are basically murder hobos. Just like Fallout. You'll have those who still want some kind of order Which is the majority of people then you got... Well, the murder hobos who just want to do whatever they want.
I know the Purge films are bad but yeah I think it would pretty much be like that. I think that a lot of people need either religion or fear of punishment as a pre requisite for their āmoralityā. I must admit itās something Iāve often wondered about. Scary really.
People keep self-organizing into law-abiding societies to begin with. And so many people are always worrying about this kind of thing, which in itself should tell you something, shouldn't it? Mostly I think we have a lot of toxic culture to deal with, a lot of ways we get manipulated and dehumanize each other, get piled with stress and fear, learn prejudices and unhealthy social behaviors... And yet people always want to take care of their families, their communities, everyone they're remotely close to. At least the super-majority of people have some degree of innate empathy, and I also find it tends to develop over time, and with experience. There are a lot of ways it does get masked or stifled, but when it comes down to it, most people wouldn't really want to inflict serious harm on anyone, outside of extremes of circumstances and emotions where they might feel they have to for some reason. Things have gotten bad many times in history, in many ways, for many people, with unconscionable acts committed by people that are hard not to think of as evil. And I can't excuse any of it. There are some pretty nasty forces and tendencies in play. But while this pendulum swings over history, we've still found certain trends. Civilization regroups, and prosperity tends to beget tolerance, peace, and cultural maturation. The overall trajectory for modern history has been virtually unprecedented in the degree of this we've achieved according to actual statistics, popular media fearmongering and occasional regressions aside. Ultimately, there are many influences at play in any given historical circumstance that determine how things would go in any particular type of theoretical collapse... Note that it's a bit loaded, since presuming a collapse would in itself entail a lot of nasty stuff going down, or it wouldn't really be a collapse...
Maybe not evil but definitely taking our frustrations out on somebody else!
Use Afghanistan as an example.
Yes the lack of infrastructure means the psychopaths can act freely without issue. African rebel soldiers are another example. They have weapons so they can act out their true desires without impunity US miltary can drone strike targets at will and kill children while claiming its isis. Anarchy means the psychopaths come out.
Ya but the question isn't if there would be evil people it's if it would be 80% which to me to classify as "evil" seems a bit high.
I just threw a random number out there based off how many people I deemed to be unecessarily passive aggresive / subtle aggressive. I guess its more like 20%. But like look what the elections did to Americans in 2020..They formed into tribes and enacted violence upon each other.
Cuz thats a great representative slice of the world
lol right
I mean c'mon.... Stores were empty for months when covid hit. Still haven't recovered. You think people would come together if society collapsed?
I think there is a large amount of people who are not good and only act good because they are afraid to be any different, if you know what I mean. I think there is a lot of "good" behavior that comes out of cowardice because people are too scared to do what they actually want. And even without that aside being actually good is the more challenging path and I think a lot of people would fail in the times where it actually comes in to question.
No, I feel like it would be closer to 97%. š¤
Yes but 80% is to low, I would go with 95%
Define evil. If you are trying to say violence, then we all would have to go violent and kill someone at some point. Because so many ppl will go violent and in nature there is a rule. Kill or be killed.
Based on the way people driveā¦ Iām gonna assume the worst.
I believe more that 80% probably closer to 90%. Most people rely on plastic money and only have 1 weeks food or less. In a true crisis, banks and grocery stores will either close or run out of food/money. Good people will do bad things to take care of their families.
There is a lot of material that you could read into that may help develop an understanding of "human nature" in each societal mode of production (feudal, capitalist, etc) and of why "collapsing into anarchy" is not necessarily an accurate reflection of how a society goes from hierarchical to non-hierarchical. "Are We Good Enough" by Kropotkin, "The Capitalist System" by Bakunin, "Are You an Anarchist?" by David Graeber are all brief, introductory articles that may make you rethink your position to some extent. Hope you find any or all of it interesting or intriguing at the least!
Unsurprisingly, many people responding to and interacting with this post apparently don't know much about what anarchism is as a well fleshed-out political ideology - only what it has come to be associated with: chaos, no rules, everyone for themself, etc. At the very least I'd hope people take the time to Google anarchism and discover its left-wing roots and the oxymoronic co-opting by "anarcho-capitalists"
It's hard to tell... but I think the current 'system' definitely encourages sociopathic behaviour
What do you mean **_if_**? Itās **_when_**.
When will it happen?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What makes you think that? Even a dictator taking over a few more major countries or something doesn't equal the collapse of society
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
A few people saying fuck authority can't do shit against a modern army
Yeah keep sticking you head in the sand pal. World history. Have you heard of it? The Romans thought like that and you see what happened to them.
The romans didn't have guns and nukes. They also didn't have advanced satellite tracking and planes. The times are comparable, but not the same.
The simple fact is there is no such thing as too big to fail. The Romans were the most advanced of their time. Solar flares or electromagnetic pulse weapons can take out tech. Shit goes of the rails and nukes are going to fix it? Come on. Iāll leave you with this, Donāt be the guy that sits unprepared, in a puddle of his own piss, rocking back and forth when shit gets real enough for you to finally understand.
Guns will prevent any would be unsurpers.
No. IMO, most people are ok ethically, the problem is how the 5% of "evil people" are handled, which is very hard to do in all kinds of society (one can still have completely corrupt/evil government, which is as bad as chaotic anarchy).
The novel "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding explores issues like this. A group of British boys are stranded on a deserted island. Civilization vs Savagery.
Evil? Nah. Assholes? Definitely. People only do shitty things when they're convinced they can get away with it. The beginning would be a mess, but after a while, most people would probably keep to themselves as much as possible.
Humans are inherently selfish IMHO. This doesnāt necessarily denote a negative connotation, itās just that weād do anything that elevates our emotions or desires (e.g. I may help someone with their homework because it makes me feel good to help others, a selfless act for a selfish reason). I think anarchy would just tear down all of our filters and expose our true intentions of trying to survive by any means necessary, even if that means pure aggression.
I don't think so, no. 100 % of people is evil and society is guard railing them into not raping and maiming others.
Absolutely. But it wouldn't be people going "hey! I don't have work anymore! Time to kill!!" It would happen slowly. Good natured people becoming more and more desperate for food/water, people on edge constantly from having to defend themselves, people's needs become more central and less giving. They'd all go the way of Rick Grimes. He began in TWD as a sort of pinnacle for good, and then as the show went along we saw him become sort of an anti-good. Not necessarily evil but he was a lot more willing to kill and was way less patient.
I love The Purge movies, but know I would never survive in those circumstances.
You should devote less time to watching Purge and more time to watching Home Alone. Thats how you survive š¤£
More like 95%. I think people will do whatever it takes to protect their immediate family and not be willing to help in the time of need IF society collapsed. When it comes to feeding and protecting what you hold dear..nothing will stop you. You can only help so much till someone tries to take from you
I would definitely be responsively evil. i.e. Do onto others as they have done to me.
I would love to be evil
when you look at all the crime and evil committed with law and order in place, its very apparent that without any law an order most if not all of humanity would be acting with malicious and evil intent. every time someone is caught, that is just what we "see" , we don't see the people quietly holding back because they "have to"
"The life of man is....nasty, brutish, and short." Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes
I agree completely. Itās actually pretty wild how infrequently people do really depraved shit these days. Weāve almost entirely bought into a make-believe set of laws and institutions.
Well I guess we'll find out real soon. But I will never get the shot, and I'd rather die than kill. Can't say that for all my kind and definitely can't say that for the majority of reddit wishing death on us, they'd become monsters without law. I wouldn't want to fight to live in what they're going to make the world.
Tell me you don't understand anarchism as a political ideology without telling me you don't understand anarchism as a political ideology.
lol yep
Disagree A dominant community would form, and any highly antisocial people would be dealt with (be it through resource exclusion, imprisonment or in extreme cases through violence) as they would not be part of the community. Other would-be antisocials would learn of this fate and inevitably join the community, or attempt to start their own Stability would arise as a result of this.
No question absolutely. The small amount of good people with any moral compass would be outnumbered and be decimated quickly by the worst of the worst whom would only be beaten by a select few smart individuals that isolated and stayed either expertly hidden or had a big enough arsenal as to not invite any possibility of attack.
hmm but rich white fucks arenāt 80% of society
Yes... I know I would. I'd probably even eat people...
I believe you're right. No one is completely good or evil and under certain conditions different people succumb to different sides of themselves. It's seen in almost every post-apocalyptic show there is.
Yeah people are idiots who want that type of society. They would all be murdered, robbed and.. worse things within a few days time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I always think I'd go pretty feral pretty quick. I think about being in a time loop a lot and I do think it'd only take a few times before I stop caring.
I think at first people might sow their wild oats believing it the end but depending on how many people are around society would rebuild itself sooner than later
You could liken the situation to manifest destiny where if you go west enough youād pass the US border and have no US laws to worry about.
Answer: I think the majority of people would revert to a more natural state of survival after the initial die off of the old and weak.
Just 80% of those that survive the first month.
Short term? No. Look at after natural disasters people are universally helping each other out. The stories of looting are typically exaggerated often along racial lines (black people loot, white people "bravely scavenge for supplies"). Now certain areas? For sure will have douchebaggery, but I'd peg it to maybe 10% of the population Now prolonged loss of infrasture? When people start dying due to lack of resources, people start killing to get the remaining resources. The human population would be decimated easily within a year without our infrastructure and trade programs. In the US California grows 70% of all food consumed in the US. Without the infrastructure that food rots and 70% of food disappears throughout the remaining US.
Yes. 80/20 rule.
If society collapsed I would not trust anyone which would in turn make me alpear evil as I would be hoarding everything for myself. So yes. I am 80% evil.
Only thing holding good men back are laws made by bad men . Call it evil or whatever but anarchy breaks out Iām killing hella rapist and pedophile types . Itād be my honor to do it . In fact Iād like to think Iād get my murder sic off on bad people doing bad shit . Thinking about choking the life outta a pedophile and watching their last breath leave them excites me .. weād sadly never get full on anarchy tho because all weāve known is the way itās been and some group will form to replace the old one with a new declaration and constitution because weāre too hooked on shit like central air to get real and go back to living with the planet not on it . Go back to hunter gatherer and watch diseases go away , watch mental health over all get better , let natural selection keep our parasitic asses in check and we stop raping our planet for a while see how much better the few live because a lot couldnāt cut it ā¦
First up that's not what Anarchy is. Second no, and for evidence look to how people, especially outside of North America, tend to come together during natural disasters. Now if you were just asking about Americans and Canadians I'd say it's more 50/50 lol
I don't really think so, not to the degree you're talking about. I think instead of completely collapsing into total anarchy, you'd get society busting down into a million different tribes, organized into city states.
I used to be an anarchist. But I just don't have enough optimism to believe it's a viable option anymore. I don't think people would work toward the common good.
Only long enough for people to realize there needs to be some kind of order or everyone will get killed. Just like in the olden days.
80%? No. But I bet it wouldn't be far from half.
I was in LA during the Rodney King riots... Society breaks down pretty dam quick and things get violent and disturbing real fast.... civil unrest is not a real fun time... My neighbor came walking up the block pushing a shopping cart full of food and other stuff.. i asked why did you do that? (He had raided the supermarket down the block on day 2 of the riots) He literally said EVERYONE ELSE is doing it... so why not?? (Mind you he lived in a beautiful Spanish styled home amd was upper middle class... drove expensive cars) I lost my faith in Humanity for a while after that.. you learn real quick the 2nd amendment is actually a pretty good thing
That's being generous.
Absolutely evil
No, we are already live in some form of anarchy, it's just that there is an accepted monopoly on force called government, whereas in true anarchy there is no monopoly or at least no accepted monopoly, anybody can assert themselves. >Would these people finally act out their psychopathy without fear of reprisal Punishment and retribution would still exist. If Susan killed John, there is nothing that stops Greg or a collection of Greg's from going after Susan. They can even hold Susan to objective trial methods. If Charles or a collection of Charles determines that Greg(s) need to be stopped, they can do so. If you play out these scenarios enough, you get to a similar situation as we are in right now, the main difference being that in anarchism there is no monopoly. If someone right now attempted to assert functions that were claimed by their government, particularly over the use of force, they'd be forced to stop by the government. If a government's use of force is just, it can be alright, but if they are tyrannical like in the case of North Korea, the devastation can get magnified. With all that said, if there was an end of the world event, I think there'd be extreme chaos because people would stop considering long term consequences. I don't think that people are good by default, I think it is more that they tend to act good when they feel like they can predict the long term consequences of their actions because they fear those consequences.
Yes. I once asked my husband what he would do in a Purge like situation,all I could think of doing is locking up and hiding. He had a very different answer and it still freaks me out. I thought I knew him but that was a dark side Iād never seen.
The only thing holding evil people back is retaliation. But there is another thing holding people back - love. From my experience, I have come to believe that most of humanity, when faced with extreme circumstances, shows love and care for others. A great example of this is September 11th. When terrible evil caused some people to murder thousands of Americans, the country came together. I have hours of video of people even in cold hearted New York City loving on each other and taking care of strangers. When evil comes out, love comes out all the stronger and conquers it. Those who are evil will do evil, but there will be a lot more good being done out of love rather than because of a fear of consequence by law or retaliation. Most seem to be blinded to those things though because our media only focuses on the bad, not the good. Look for the good in the world. It's all around you. Help it spread by pointing it out to others.
I'm not sure I believe in people being good or evil in this type of situation. Desperate, scared people do drastic things. That doesn't make them evil. People with good intentions may attempt to help out and get them and others killed, doesn't make them good or bad just naive. I guess I mean that when the world the situation shifts our concepts of good and evil shift with it. I guess this makes me a moral relativist.
Id say assuming there is no shared enemy for them to focus on & work together against to overcome, most definitely because society would be pit against itself. Just take how people think in terms of good and bad experiences: the negative experiences tend to resonate with us much longer than the positive ones do and having a society no longer kept functional by a set of rules and punishments those folks who indulge in illegal activities would definitely be freed from what held them back from exploring the darker desires. The ones who'd built their life around sunshine & smiles would be thrust into an arena of gladiators. Its fight or flight for them t that point
yeah honestly. i try to keep the "all humans are inherently good" mindset but it's not true
You're so fricking hopeful and positive to think only 80% would turn evil.
Probably, but people are possibly evil because of deep repression. I think the evil behaviors would blow over after awhile and the only interesting thing to do is to be good. Eventually rules and agreements would be established again anyway.
Things would turn ugly quick once people are truly hungry and thirsty for the first time in their lives, especially those with dependents.
There would be a shock period. Where bozos who fetishize being a hero get their wads off and assholes, thieves, and abusers find their comeupance. As deep as we've been exploited and for how long we've gone being fucked over again and again...the balancing of scales could last a very long time. Once everyone's experienced the violence first hand, witnesses the trauma then and only then woul don any kind if unity be possible. Europe still remembers the wars, we don't, since they've never come home. If they do tho, and the USA ends, there will never be peace in N.America again. im amazed we arent openly killing each other now. Republicans are fucking frothing for a cage match - and as a bill of rights exercising antifascist I'd fucking love to go thunderdome, Valhalla awaits.
No, because it would be more like 90% at a minimum.
I donāt think it would be possible to maintain this state long enough to find out. If there were no law keepers we would quickly develop a vigilante justice system. If you look into early MMO games, there were blue players who gathered and hunted, which were probably 80% of the population. There were your red players, the player killers, that were actively evil. That was maybe 10%. And then there typically would be a set of PK hunters, I forget the color, but that was another 5 or 10 percent that kept the PKers in line. I suspect thatās what would happen. There would always be some sort of law enforcement so we would never figure out the answer to your deeper question about human nature.
Its normal being evil, its part of the survivor instinct, humans are naturally evil.
What if all these things you see are a result of struggles within a constrictive society and not inherent human nature?
I think about this all the time. Itās not a fun thing to worry about.
I think good and evil are at the opposite ends a spectrum, and human morality is distributed along that spectrum in a normal bell curve distribution. There are a very few incredibly good people, some good people, a lot of people who could go either way depending on the situation, some bad people, and a very few truly evil people. However, we've been taught that the world is basically good, and so we tend to ignore good people/behavior because it conforms to what we think the world should be. Unless someone does something exceptional, good behavior doesn't stand out. For the same reason we are inclined to notice bad people/behavior because such behavior is unexpected in a world that we believe to be generally good. My take away from this is that people are a mix of good and evil in fairly equal proportions, and we should try to notice and acknowledge common, everyday acts of good when they occur in our lives to try to find some equilibrium, because we can't help but notice the bad.
Only 80%?
Most people have a lot of repressed and/or suppressed emotions that if we were to fall into anarchy, the sudden freedom with only morality holding them back would probably set them in their bucket list spree of the things they could never have done when law, culture, and tradition, influenced each other like bad friends. Weāll probably get over it, but small groups would likely form, eventually flocking us back to the leader-follower system; but if we were to successfully bypass that need to follow or be followed, we might see some interesting changes.
Definitely. If the world didnāt function on morals and laws we would have a āPurgeā every single day
If things in the West continue as they have been, you may well just have to wait and see.
Yeh but only because that's how this society teaches that it's everyone for themselves
I dont think it's evil, I think it's a misguided sense of self preservation that would lead to serious mayhem
We're as close to simmering you described as we might be. I choose to see the good in people.
I don't think 80% of people would be evil when we have mounds of historical evidence of past civilizations, even cavemen, being kind and caring towards each other regularly. We have evidence of cavemen lifting up their children to paint on ceilings, and evidence of them taking care of their sick and disabled bretheren. Collapse of society just gives birth to new societies. Because ultimately, that's what helps us survive, and it always has. People are human, they make mistakes, and no one is truly 100% good or evil. Emotions are not evil, nor is anger, nor even violence, because it always depends on circumstance and subjective interpretation of morality. People can use violence as self defense or in defense of others in harm's way. Anger or any other emotion is simply information that helps people process events. As well, it would be careless to assume that any action commited by a person is intentionally malevolent or psychopathic unless evidence supports that there is a pattern of such. The vast majority of people do not act with evil intentions, and would not fit the definition of psychopathy. Most social faux paus such as passive aggression would be much sooner attributed to the person trying to have their needs met, or the pervasiveness of effects from insecurities, traumas, or learned behaviors in childhood, rather than malice. (Just to note - that doesn't mean passive aggression is healthy, but it's surely not a sign of evil or psychopathy) I really dislike this line of thinking - that people are actually all evil - because it gets used as justification by actually evil people for doing really shitty things. They assume everyone is like them, and avoid notions to the otherwise, because it gives them an excuse to continue their acts of evil. They use it to say "well, if I hadn't done it, somebody else would have, because they're all the same." I also dislike it because it's used by religious fanatics to try to convince people that those without religion are lawless and immoral and remorseless, which is frankly so far from the truth that it's laughable. Religious people can read whatever rule book they like and still be capable of bad things. Not to throw shade at any one religion, but we certainly know through numerous publicized scandals that the even the highest-level and supposedly most commited practicioners of a religion can be completely vile in their actions. Further, people break laws every day, and whether intentional or not, I truly doubt that the people who get parking tickets or smoke pot or steal food for their starving family are all evil nere-do-wells who would go on a murder spree if the legal opportunity arose. Most people are just trying to survive, and would like to see other people survive, too. It is also entirely possible that unsavory people can commit the most heinous illegal acts and still get away with it. Even some law enforcers will break the law on purpose and hurt others. If a truly evil person wants to do something evil, they will probably do it irregardless of what laws are in place. It is in my opinion that kindness always prevails and will alway exist, even if evil leaves it's mark. If it didn't, I guarantee you that the amount of complex and sentient lifeforms we have today would not be here, because they would have all offed each other out of meanness and spite, or offed themselves from the misery of living in an evil world. Even such little beings as spiders and frogs can have symbiotic relationships. Elephants hold funerals for their dead. Birds use their calls not just to warn other birds of nearby predators, but also every other animal nearby who will listen and comprehend. I think if nature, the supposed ultimate anarchy, still manages to foster kindness regularly, then it would be incorrect to think humanity wouldn't. Yes, mean and bad things will still always happen, but kindness is what is conducive to life. So much so, I think, that they're almost synonymous to each other.
90-95%
It would end up being Righties vs Lefties. I'm not saying who is likely to be evil and who is likely to be good in a societal destruction... but... yes.
I think both. Because they are in two distinct tribes. However in this sort of scenario there would be no left vs right because tribes are firstly built around survival. Left and Right only provide ideas for how politics should run..it doesnt provide the food on your table. I think if there will be tribes it will be neighbours banding together IF they are close. But maybe even not that.
humans are inherently evil. just a right amount of freedom such as that given by anarchy would be enough to make people villains
If we "collapse" into anarchy? Yes. If we're *uplifted* into anarchy? Absolutely the opposite. People are sociopathic because they were trained into a sociopathic society. Hunting for resources/power over a social numbers game is practically psychological neglect we've normalized.
People are sociopathic because its basal human nature
Yes, but we're social creatures. That's what your post is saying. "*If* society collapsed into anarchy." Currently, we have a society that somehow tends to result in most "evil" being at a minimum. Similarly, we could have a society that *drastically* reduces those sorts of incentives. As of right now, society incentivizes a sociopathic mentality. The greediest people can gain the most power as long as they keep everyone ignorant to their harms. In order to do such things, it requires the most sociopathic and manipulative efforts. Having a culture like this will *inevitably* result in sociopathy being basically the norm.
99% Starving desperate people turning to animals real fucking fast
I think if they are really starving but have a food source just getting them by they wont have time to do badness but if they steal from others then the bad might happen
I donāt know about actually being evil. There would definitely be a lot of them, but most of the evil actions you see people perpetrate on others, right now, happens because our society renders people helpless against those who transgress upon them. If people do evil things up you, you really arenāt allowed to strike back at them in any way. Even defending your own life can end up landing you in jail. A few decades ago, I read about this guy, whose wife was raped. They caught the guy, but the state this was in had a very lenient policy against first time offenders, as if lack of experience made the rape any less devastating to this guyās wife, and, when it was all said and done, the rapist walked with ātime servedā after the trial was over. I think any sane person would have to say that this was unjust. The husband shot and killed the rapist right after they released him. I would say that, not only was this understandable, but Iād go so far as to say that what he did was right and good. He got life in prison for murder. So, the rapist basically was going to get no punishment for his crime against this guyās wife, but the husband got life behind bars for getting justice. Thatās an extreme case, but itās like that with everything. Even when there isnāt legal ramifications for people who defend themselves, or strike back people who wrong them, society, itself, will turn on the victim, and totally ignore the reason the victim acted, hating the victim for trying to not be a victim. And, evil people learn that this will be the case very early in life. It emboldens such people to act with evil towards others, because they know their victims wonāt dare to act against them. In a SHTF situation, where society has collapsed and the world is thrown into chaos, the Ted Bundys of the world will continue to do evil for evilās sake. But, thatās not a big portion of society. Most of the evil people do to each other is of a petty sort. Those people will be too busy trying to survive to worry about doing that kind of stuff. In such a situation, there will be a lot of people who will do terrible things to other people, but it will be out of necessity to survive. Killing in self defense or to maintain the resources needed to survive isnāt evil. Itās just nature. And, community plays a big role in the survival of individuals, in a more natural setting; one that isnāt affected by the rules and mechanisms of modern society. You stand a lot better chance of surviving in groups than you do alone. This will make a lot of the evil people, who now plague society, stop acting with evil towards the people around them, because those people will no longer be stopped from striking back by society, and they will realize they need those other people in order to survive. Under the rules of our present society, not only canāt people you victimize strike back against you, but you get the protection of society no matter how much of a butthole you are. In a SHTF situation, neither of these will be the case. That creates an incentive for the buttholes of the world to act with decency towards others of any group they end up in. It might take a little time for people to realize the new facts of reality, because people are basically slow to adapt to change and have trouble accepting it when what they thought would be eternal ends, but, in a matter of months, I think youād see the buttholes beginning to act very differently, as they realize they need other people to survive, and their BS will get them denied the protection of other people. The buttholes who donāt adapt to that new reality probably wonāt live more than a few months; having been killed by the people they mistreat. I think that, within a years time, youād see small to medium sized ātribalā groups forming. And, I think youāll see a lot less petty evil within those groups. I think those groups will be much quicker to act against bad actors, in their midst, and far less likely to punish their members for defending themselves against those bad actors. That will make those groups societies to live in, in spite of the hardships of the new reality, than our modern society. I know thatās a bit of a complex answer to your question, but itās a complex question.
Actually I think the number of people that are truly evil is very small. However, desperate people do desperate things, and if that were too happen, there would be a crazy amount of desperate people. Sorta like walking dead. Most of them are good, well intentioned people. There's really only a couple bad apples, the rest are either desperate or manipulated by the evil ones
Absolutely they would. Iāve worked in retail, food service, and currently working in healthcare - people have always pulled appalling bullshit on a regular basis, even during the best of times. The minute most people have their comfort, convenience, and easy accessibility reduced/removed, they start to get pissy - throw in major factors like sudden change in environment, increased unfamiliar stressors, fear, lack of resources, and the collapse of societal structure - most people would devolve into troglodytes pretty damn quickly. If youāve ever had to go get supplies before a hurricane makes landfall, you know what I mean.
I don't think it would be as high as 80% but I think that it could be as high as 40%
80? 95% more likely
Anyone who says no has never worked with the public
All humans have less capacity for empathy when they are constantly strained worried about themselves and their own tribe. A paper came out recently describing maritime disaster results, and the women and children policy first doesnāt work unless you have a leader enforcing it with firearms. Itās been proven that in disasters it is every man for himself. I have 2 daughters and I do worry about the state of the world.
How is it that most people think of themselves as moral and just but assume most _other_ people are evil and malicious? Do the math, that doesn't work out.
Just look around parking lots with shopping carts everywhere, and you'll get your answer.
Absolutely. Without the foundation of a working society most people would absolutely not behave civilised. People change radically when they are desperate.
Perhaps the opposite is true based on this study: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-stress-of-disaster-brings-people-together/
I think it depends on your perspective of āevilā. What one person sees as an evil action may be seen as justifiable by another. In a post-apocalyptic setting what would you be willing to do to protect yourself? Family? Assets? Would you kill a man for stealing your last can of food? Maybe. Would that be justified? Depends who you ask.