This is where we conceptualise things such as the mental and emotional landscape of the apocalypse. Apocalypse thinking is the place we explore some of the more taboo subjects such as religion and theocracy into an apocalyptic political structure. This is more a blogging place than a information page.
Zombies, the path to a new golden age
The zombie has been described as a symptom of social anxiety (Todd K. Platts: Sociology Compass (2013): 7, 547–560, 10.1111/soc4.12053). Platt’s posits that differing films have depicted different underlying themes. For example Dawn of the dead in a shopping mall can be seen as a commentary on the consumer culture, night of the living dead as depicting racial commentary.
There have been suggestions that the zombie genre depicts a social anxiety that is reflective of terrorism, the attack on the world trade centre on the 11th of September (9/11) and fear of contagion after the SARs outbreaks. This may be true but there are other commentaries we feel are not explored in regards to what may attract some fans of the genre. In this we submit that many of the fans of zombie films are hankering for a reset button on the world.
An aspect of the majority of the zombie apocalypse films is the depopulation of the planet by way of the contagion and the zombies as result and carrier of said contagion.
In essence it is a world without the rules, restrictions and cultural norms associated with a society of rules and hierarchal control. No government, no military and no law enforcement may be seen as a way to freedom from a system that appears to many to constrain their freedom.
The zombie becomes the vehicle for depopulation and also creates an evolutionary pressure to remove those from society seen as weak. The weak, foolish and lazy become zombies through their failings as potential survivors while the viewer imagines themselves as survivor material and superior to the majority due to certain virtues and values they believe they hold.
For example those who are also fans of firearms and weapons may see themselves as having a skill set that makes them more able to survive the zombie apocalypse as opposed to anti-gun proponents who they envisage as unable to fight to survive.
The gun proponent in this can see not only that the carrying of guns as essential but the ability to shoot as virtuous and good. Compared to the current situation that supresses the average person from carrying a firearm generally and does not otherwise hold the ability to use a firearm as a virtue.
The same can be applied to archers, knife aficionados and similar persons who see their skills as zombie survival virtues. In this the viewer can see a place in the post apocalypse world where they have value and in some instances respect and admiration.
It is human nature to seek respect and admiration so this is not to suggest these people are currently not worthy, merely that they may seek greater respect and recognition for their ideology regarding the possession of weapons.
As such for the person who believes in a right to carry weapons they see the apocalypse as a reset button where the current regime that restricts their desire to have and carry weapons taken down and a world that embraces their belief taking its place.
So for these people it could be said that the zombie apocalypse would foster a world that is suited to them. In this they would enjoy the fact that the carrying of a weapon would be essential to survival and thus they would be in the majority not the minority, they would be self-selected survivors through evolutionary pressure based on their skills sets and respected for this.
It is not just the weapons fans who would find the new world post apocalypse somewhat appealing. Those who merely seek to be left alone and reject the greater population and government control of their lives would be attracted to the zombie apocalypse.
The potential hermit survivor would be attracted the idea that government with its rules, regulations and taxes would be gone. They could enjoy solitude or a small population existence by virtue of the depopulation of the world. Their privacy would be protected by the presence of zombies between themselves and other centres populated by survivors. Given travel in the zombie landscape will be a dangerous endeavour these person would be fairly comfortable in knowing visitors are not expected. The lack of law and hierarchy control means that they could discourage visitors without censure, violently if required.
In this there is a very individualistic theme to those who may prosper in the zombie aftermath and it can be suggested they might even enjoy it.
Imagine you struggle daily with debt, overcrowding, lack of access to the cultural aspects of luxury and easy living. Come the zombies you don’t have debt and the ghostly fear of some corporation taking your possessions is gone. The rich and poor are equal as the cultural trappings of luxury might be lying around to be picked up but they have no value in the zombie world.
Overcrowding is a thing of the past although where survivors are required to fort up this may become a future issue.
Human value in the zombie world is not who they were born to or where they were born; it’s their ability to survive. It’s a simpler way of life in that you live another day you are a success story. Currently being successful is based on jobs, relationships, material possessions, notoriety or fame. All this is gone and the more primitive aspects of the human condition are again the primary virtues.
In this we consider the characters of the Walking dead. The character of Daryl Dixon in the current world would be called a “Redneck” or “Trailer trash” or any number of terms of derision. In the current world the value of this character is limited in that his skill sets are not those which are recognised by society as a whole as being virtuous and good.
Of course as a skill set applicable to the zombie apocalypse they are outstanding as they are applied to survival. Thus the lower end of the cultural value is promoted to the higher end of the cultural value as a survivor.
So we believe that those who feel trapped or restrained by the current societal constraints would possible find at least a romanticised future in a post zombie apocalypse world.
Apocalyptic Love
Don’t worry dear reader; we won’t be discussing my former wife which was a situation which fell into the apocalyptic category of relationships. This discussion is on the subject of finding love in the apocalypse when the number of prospective partners is limited.
I believe it was the chaps on Torres v Zombies who first introduced me through their podcast to the idea of, “Apocalypse hot”. Essentially in the absence of choice and comparative units our perception of “hotness” in a prospective partner will change. Essentially persons we may not find attractive now in a world spoilt for choice will become more desirable as a result of there being less choice.
Strangely enough a simplistic economic theory sort of explains this phenomenon. The supply and demand curves, where demand is high and supply is low the buyer will pay a premium price. Where supply is high and consequently demand is low a lower price is paid. Please note this is a crap economic theory but it is useful.
Where supply is low and demand is high the price in the realm of hot potential partners is more in line with what you will accept in regards to attractiveness. If there is not person available in the “hot” category as you perceive it then you have to either settle or go without. This could be evolutionary in that we don’t seek the hot mate to breed with but we choose the fittest mate. Hot does not always equate to fitness.
As such we find we are attracted to the best available rather than the imagined better option. So come the apocalypse you are going to find yourself limited in the availability of mates. Therefore you, they or both will be settling for the fittest rather than the hottest.
Another aspect of the depopulation of the planet by way of zombie virus will be a possible unequal distribution of potential partners.
In this it may be that predominantly males survive meaning in a single pair bonding scenario males are going to miss out. Alternately it might be predominantly females who survive also leading to the pair bond issue.
Little imagination is required to come to the idea that in an unequal distribution scenario that there will be conflict for the attention of potential partners. We have it now on your average Friday night at the club with boys going rough to impress girls.
Therefore we could find ourselves settling for less than we ordinarily would and then fighting to impress said potential partner. Not only fighting to impress but there are always those who would take what they want and unfortunately humanity has not shown it refuses to treat people as property. In the case where there are those who would take you have to fight to keep your partner.
Some cultures have embraced different cultural norms to the single pair bond commonly found in the western Christian influenced culture. The typical western culture is a monogamous marriage of two persons only.
The Mormon’s for a while indulged in polygamous marriages allowing men to marry multiple women. This is nothing new since multiple cultures have allowed men multiple wives. Even the Old Testament bible talks about multiple wives.
So in a scenario of limited men and multiple women there is potential for multiple bonds rather than just pair bonds. An issue that develops is of course whether this is more a male dominance situation treating women as property or playthings rather than an arrangement for the benefit of all involved.
The same goes for a lack of females where the female enters into a relationship with multiple males. This isn’t unheard of but is a less common occurrence of polygamy. Again the question is whether it is a power situation and if there is also the person as property issue.
Either way we believe that in seriously unequal distribution of potential partners there is going to be conflict and unfortunately a high probability of people, traditionally women, being treated as property and spoils of war.
There is going to have to be a serious paradigm shift in relation to morality and cultural relationship structures when there is a huge difference in gender distributon.
How hard would it really be to put down the ones you love?
Now seeing a dead person is not a normal thing for the majority of people in the street. Seeing a corpse in general is considered a confronting thing to experience. I have seen a few corpses in my time including finding the body of my former housemate after see had committed suicide in the house we shared.
Seeing a loved one after they have passed away is likely to be even more confronting. Not only do you have grief to deal with but they don’t look quite right. You want to think they are sleeping but you know they are not.
In the throes of grief the situation is not remotely easy to deal with without the added thoughts that would come in a zompoc.
In a zompoc you don’t have the luxury of grief as we currently know it and experience it. There would be no opportunity to cry and mourn immediately; you have a job to do. Alas that job is to ensure your dear departed loved one is safe.
After the funeral service a week after my father’s passing I started to return to a semi normal way of thinking and living a life. I was able to put my mind to things zombie again and to consider the big question posed in this discussion, could I have put my father down to ensure he did not come back?
Looking back I think that in the circumstances of necessity I might have been able to do it. I know my siblings could not have as they appeared more deeply in the throes of grief than I. I can only say I might have been capable as it would have been so very hard to do.
As a culture we have rituals associated with death that we cling to as a way to deal with the grief and loss associated with the passing of a loved one. In the early stages of zompoc we will still seek to follow those rituals but not be in a position to do so.
Later maybe we will create new rituals but at first we will remain wedded to the ways we know. That is probably going to lead to lot of people being bitten in the beginning as they can’t break from the traditions and respect for the body of a loved one.
Let’s be honest in that the body of a loved one is nothing more than the shell they once inhabited. Be you of faith we can agree the body isn’t the person, just the shadow of who we knew when they lived.
Yet we struggle to treat a body with anything but respect. We refer to interfering with a corpse as a desecration and it’s fairly safe to say the majority of people would be uncomfortable in damaging the body of a loved one.
As such I think putting down a loved one is going to be damned hard to do given the grief and our cultural abhorrence of departing from rituals and the sanctity of the body.
When considering cultural rituals I am referring to the developed western world as opposed to other countries where bodies are treated with less reverence and more practicality.
Individual rights post apocalypse
We hold the opinion that there is a high likelihood that in a post-apocalyptic landscape that life will initially devolve from the structured community and society we currently enjoy to a form of anarchy and chaos.
In this there is anticipated to be a period of pure individualism or small group individuality that is primarily concerned with survival of the individual or small group. If humans follow the herd instinct and seek to gather in greater numbers they will need to develop some form of community regulation to operate in a peaceable way.
The survivor as an individual is going to have faced the anarchy and have learnt to survive with a possible focus on self-reliance and individuality. This means they have not been controlled by the usual constraints against the power to do as the survivor pleases.
Consider that rules are the construct of societies and thus during a period of anarchy there are no rules. There is technically no such thing as murder, robbery or private property. It is a case of the strong being able to impose their will on the less strong. Thus anything goes and everyone has the right to hold firearms, kill people or take what they want. The only constraint on an individual’s exercise of autonomy is the ability of other to impose their will onto the survivor.
In this situation it is legal based on a powerful autonomous individual to impose slavery onto another person.
What is commonly forgotten in the debates as to individual liberty is the fact that it is society that protects individual liberties. No society then the individual must ensure they are powerful enough to protect their liberty. This becomes ironic sometimes when individualists rage against the governments for infringing their liberty when without the government there would be no liberty.
Regardless of that tangential discussion it becomes apparent that societies are going to be formed with the purpose of defending one group of individuals against another group of individuals. Both groups are going to want to impose their liberties onto others while maintaining their own liberty.
Where these liberties are of a similar nature then there is a chance the groups will merge. Where the groups are different based on such things as ideology or religion then they are going to conflict. The historical precedent would be the issue of slavery. In this there was a belief that persons who were not white were not actually human and as such had no rights or liberty. In this the white societies could impose this ideological viewpoint onto the non-white people and thus slaves became normal.
Slavery actually predates the more modern version of slavery based on colour however the more recent example is a useful one.
Therefore it is likely that protection of individual liberty from ideologies imposed by others will require strength. In this likely the strength that will be found in a larger group. As we have previously discussed this means rules and organisation. In particular this will require the loss of pure individualism for a limited liberty as part of the body politic.
Currently individual rights are found described in various documents that demonstrate the agreement between the government and its people. The American constitution has its Bill of Rights, Canada the charter and the United Nations also has some charters.
Without these rights enshrined in some agreed from they really don’t exist. We can argue about inherent human rights as a result of being a human but without a manner to protect these rights from others then they are of no worth.
So to ensure rights and individual liberty in a post-apocalyptic society there needs to be an agreement between the people and the body politic put in place to protect the people. Keep in mind the Bill of Rights isn’t a magical document that just appeared one day. It was drafted by people to be an underpinning principle of the government to be formed.
Thus the society will need to come to some sort of agreement about what are rights to be protected by the government and what aspects of individualism are to be surrendered. This will include agreement on the scope of government function and its relationship with individuals.
Thus we hold the opinion that in the absence of a society that comes to these agreements that rights are only something that exist in the strong who can protect their own rights. Noting of course the strong are in a position to impose their will onto others at the expense of what the others may believe are their rights.
Will there be currency in a post apocalyptic scenario?
Currency is a medium of exchange. In this we use currency as the medium by which we exchange goods and services between parties. It has no true value in and of itself but acts to facilitate exchanging value between parties. Obviously the currency we use now would be of limited or no value or use as a medium of exchange. It would be laying around and available to anyone who picked it up. Yet in the zompoc it would be nothing but paper, plastic and metal discs.
In the early stages it can be hypothesised that resource scarcity will not be too big an issue with the reduction in population and stuff laying around for the taking. This however is only a limited window of open access to resources as they will eventually be consumed and or become perished.
Eventually people will be required to produce goods and services to meet their needs. Growing food, hunting, harvesting and animal husbandry will all be goods or services required to sustain individuals. Other services such as medical knowledge and personal services will be something of value to exchange. Other goods such as weapons and ammunition will also be goods that increase in value as they become more scarce.
In a post apocalyptic transaction barter would obviously be the first option to exchanging goods and services. If I have ammunition and want bacon and another person has bacon and wants ammunition then we would be inclined to come to an agreed rate of exchange of ammunition for bacon. Once agreed I would hand over the agreed amount of ammunition and they would hand over the agreed amount of bacon. So far we are both happy.
The problem arises when one party want the product the other party has but does not possess the product the other party wants. It is this situation that has been the downfall of the barter system. I could find out what the other party did want, find some third person with that product and barter my product for the third persons product then barter that product to original person I want product from. This could become a whole series of transactions to finally get what I wanted in the first place.
However with a medium of exchange and the consent of all parties to the medium I can exchange currency for goods and the person who provides goods to me can exchange the currency I provided them for the goods they want.
The main message we are raising here is "the consent of all parties to the medium". I don't have to accept currency now as a medium of exchange. I can happily require that people pay me in beer instead of money in exchange for my goods or services as a form of barter. The other person must then exchange their currency (if they aren't brewers) for beer and then swap the beer for my goods and services. If the other party does not want to do that then they are free to decline to trade with me.
It is therefore our belief that there will be at some point in the development of societies after the fall of the zombies a need for the society to create a unit of exchange to facilitate trade among the members of the society will arise. This belief is based on the system of barter being too cumbersome to operate with any form of efficiency.
There is a further reason which is a much less popular reason, taxation. Yep we also think that as society develops there will also be a need for a type of taxation. The reason for this belief is that the development of society requires the development of a form of central organisation of the society at least in areas of shared security and resolution of disputes.
Take for example shared security. Imagine we have 100 people in a community and we need to build a wall to keep the zombies out. Who builds the wall? Do some volunteer for the duty while others do not? Do some give their labour for the benefit of those who do not? before we answer the equity question we have something interesting happening with everyone building the wall. We have taxation in action. The right to enjoy the security of the wall must be paid for and it is paid for by the medium of exchange being labour.
Even if everyone is required to give their labour how is it equitable that some will invariably work harder than others? Note that the difference in ability to work may not be intentional but the result of the young and strong and old and less strong. Is the doctors time best spent making cement or treating the injuries of workers? So far just building a wall has become a nightmare of organising and unfairness.
Therefore the contribution required in building the wall can be balanced out by way of taxation. Everyone contributes to the construction of the wall without having to actually work on the wall. This is of ben
The human mind is an amazing and intricate thing and the study of psychology is the sort of thing the budding survivor should take time to consider.
We aren't suggesting that the survivor should pop out and do a couple of years of intensive university study to become a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Merely that having a knowledge of what may occur in regards to the human mind in the apocalypse and disaster scenarios can be very helpful in understanding how people may act and react.
Recently on the Zombieteers Podcast a question posed by a listener ZombieGunslinger was addressed. This question was in relation to how would you manage or deal with a person you discovered didn't fit into your group post apocalypse.
The Zombieteers answered this in a few ways along with Mad Mock however we believe that the answers were mostly correct if you consider things from the perspective we currently hold as to people and our own behaviours based on our non-apocalyptic experiences. The argument we raise here is that basing an answer on our current perceptions is likely to lead to an incorrect conclusion. A faulty assumption means that any conclusion reached must also be considered potentially faulty.
This post is not designed to address the question of what to do with a person in a group who isn't suitable. That question is only raised to highlight why psychology in the apocalypse should be considered more deeply so to avoid the pitfall of faulty assumptions.
The first stage in this consideration is noting that there are a lot of myths around regarding how people will act post apocalypse. One of the big myths which is discussed by Paul Gantt and Ron Gantt in their paper published in the Journal of Professional Safety in 2012 is the myth of panic.
In this paper Gantt et al suggest that research into peoples action in disaster scenarios does not tend towards antisocial and individualistic behaviours. In fact it is suggested that in a disaster people will develop a greater sense of shared purpose and solidarity amongst group members and a greater incidence of selfless acts. They refer to research by another researcher that points to most thinking about disasters overlooks the fundamental aspect of the human condition in that we are social animals.
Dooms Dave of the Z-Poc nation related a story in episode titled, "We will NEVER forget" which we submit supports the proposition that rather than being antisocial, survivors will act in a social manner. The description of acts of strangers to others in the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Centre in the United States shows a coming together rather than a separation of people.
Therefore we hold the opinion that Gantt et al are correct in their conclusion that people in disaster scenarios are more likely to act in rational and pro-social ways than the common belief that they will act in anti social and self-interested manners.
As such we believe that given the human predilection to be a social animal and in disaster scenarios are likely to act to the individuals detriment for the benefit of group and family. Any question of group dynamics and leadership must be reviewed considering that social cohesion may be of more importance than individual considerations.
Therefore as cohesion may be of greater value in the apocalypse group than the individual then leadership must also address the need for cohesion within the group rather than individual desires and needs. Another reason that cohesion in the group may be of more value to the group than the individuals needs is in relation to social isolation. The fear of social isolation may also impact the behaviour of individuals as they may seek to avoid being abandoned and isolated by the few survivors around them.
Social isolation is known to lead to very serious and clear health impacts including an increased potential for suffering depression. The lone wolf survivor may find that they are ok on their own in relation to supplies and physical needs but the lack of human interaction and shared experience will have adverse effects on health.
Again we suggest that the fact humans are in essence social creatures and pack animals that group dynamics where the options are to be part of a group or alone will mean people will be more inclined to act in a way so as to maintain membership within the group. Thus our normal way of considering how a group will act in the zombie infested ruins of society must change to consider it may well be more a case of people banding together rather than seeking to fulfil individual needs.
Thus the question of people who may not fit into your group may be less of a problem. The current scenario we base our opinions on has the option of just finding another group in a fairly easy way. As simple as switching Facebook groups. Come zombies trying to eat your brains and the fact they have eaten most everyone else's may create a situation for an individual that the fear of abandonment may be a greater incentive to conform to group needs and norms than we currently would do.
Although we cannot confirm it one interesting aspect of the debate the writer has seen on the subject is the debate was taking place on social media sites. This could actually be something of interest in that the casual nature of social media interactions and friendships may be hindering the idea of social isolation coming to the fore as it is a medium many use to avoid social isolation.
In all our position is that the survivor is going to be concerned with avoiding social isolation and would be more likely to be a person inclined to work towards common goals within a group to avoid such isolation.
The writer in his travels has heard a lot about the mindset of the person who contemplates disaster and makes preparation for the possibility of said disaster. There are many myths out in the ether that survivalists and preppers are just crazy people who either have some grand conspiracy complex or are the ultimate pessimists waiting for the end times.
We are not going to state that people who have paranoid conspiracy theories don’t exist and are not part of the preppers or survivalists community. To deny this would be to deny the Doomsday Preppers reality television debacle which shows a few people who could be considered in that category.
Another myth is that preppers and survivalists are all pessimistic and are waiting for the worst to happen. Again we can’t deny that pessimists exist within the ranks.
What we do believe is that the conspiracy and pessimist mindsets are as prevalent in the community as in the general population. There is no data to support this belief however by examining what we see as the mindset that drives the prepper survivalist community it is not all that different to the general community.
To consider this matter we begin by examining not what makes a prepper or survivalist but what might influence the general community to not prepare.
There are a lot of disaster preparation departments from countries all around the globe who promote preparation for disaster. In the United States of America FEMA and the CDC promote disaster preparation and having the resources for disasters to hand. In Australia there has been a similar push to public awareness about preparation for disaster. Where the writer lives even the electricity suppliers have television adverts promoting storm awareness and preparation.
Although being survivalists we at Zombie Survival Australia hold the opinion that preparation for disaster is something everyone should do and that being prepared helps the individual and the community. We expect that help for the individual should be fairly simple idea to understand to the average reader. Having gear and options to deal with the challenges of a disaster will benefit the individual and make their lot more comfortable at least.
For the community it can mean the prepared individuals have resources to share should that be their desire thus helping others. It may also reduce the drain on disaster resources. The prepared person may not require the community disaster relief to the same degree as the unprepared because they have food and water.
Even though being prepared is likely to be of benefit to the individual and community it seems that those who prepare are the minority. We speculate there are couple of reasons for this.
The first reason is optimism. The optimist is likely to think that preparation is not necessary because it won’t happen to them. This is a cognitive bias in that the same persons are potentially going to have insurance policies for the event the bad things in life happen. They are optimistic that it won’t happen or if it does it won’t be bad. Alternately there is optimism in the government bodies to offer relief and assistance.
Part of the optimism issue is the majority of people have never suffered a natural or manmade disaster of community scale. We see them on the television and in the media but they are usually a long way away. We see car crashes and house fires commonly and thus tend to insure against those even if the risk isn’t much greater for a house fire in our own homes compared to a cyclone or flood.
So we are optimistic and also not aware of the statistical potential for disaster to strike. Even those in bushfire areas don’t often prepare thinking the fire departments and rural fire services will come and protect their properties.
The prepper and survivalist can also be optimistic but the optimism is tempered with prudence. It isn’t optimism that it won’t happen and if it does all will be ok. The optimism is in hoping the worst isn’t going to happen and a realisation that if you are not prepared in some manner then you will be a greater victim than if prepared.
The next reason is what we term the, “don’t think about bad things syndrome”. Now this is bizarre to say the least. Society in the new millennium is something that could be categorised as the time of fear. It seems we are afraid of everything all the time. We are told to be afraid of terrorists and religious extremists, governments and their power, stranger danger with our children to name a few.
We demand harsh penalties for those who might hurt our children and our armed forces invade countries to attack terrorist groups and their supporters. Yet the majority can’t throw a few items into a bag and have it handy in case disaster strikes. In this it seems to be an externalisation of our fears and placing the power to do something onto governments and government authorities. It’s externalising our responsibility to look out for ourselves.
We want things done for us by our governments such as the protection from the bad things so we don’t have to think about them ourselves. We don’t want to think about the bad things happening to us and what we can do to protect ourselves. We want it done for us.
In some ways this is a form of community entitlement and apathy that is not shared by the prepper or survivalist. In this the prepper and survivalist is more likely to think about the bad things and to take responsibility for their own wellbeing. Possibly this is a more independent manner of thought than the norm and maybe linked to a distrust of government authorities and their ability to act to protect or support the people governed.
The final reason we wish to discuss is the money involved in preparation. There is a myth that preparation is expensive and a waste of resources as the resource is placed on standby rather than used now.
We think that a very effective bug out bag can be built by anyone and it need not be overly expensive. Yes some of us have dammed expensive rigs but they are for our own enjoyment and top shelf is nice but not the essential. A SIG water bottle is nice and robust to own but a plastic bottle of water is still a bottle of water and will quench thirst just as well as water carried in the $30 SIG bottle.
A kitchen knife will cut things just like a tanto cold steel knife will cut things. One may be nicer to hold, more robust and easy to maintain but in the end something that cuts is something that cuts. A shard of broken glass will cut things.
So there is possibly a belief that a bug out bag (the most basic of the disaster preparations) has to be something super special. There are those who sell readymade bags of very high quality but we think there is a market for bug out bag contents of the very cheap variety. There may be a market for just a package of things that the person can put in a bag of their own. Even if the kit included a a massively cheap and simple satchel bag to carry with the useful contents in it.
This is not to offer disrespect to the readymade bags on the market. They are great items and serve an excellent purpose. We just wish there was a more budget option so to promote that preparation does not need to be very expensive.
Preparation involves a number of facets. One is the mental preparation. It can be a simple matter of thinking about a potential problem and what can be done to address that problem.
One of the concerns regarding the Zombie Apocalypse is the idea of being in constant alert mode. In this the survivor will be in a situation where they cannot relax or let their guard down. This may entail being in constant movement in the case of fleeing or being on guard against attack.
In all it means that the survivor gets no rest for an extended period of time.
Sleep deprivation is one of the possible consequences of being on constant guard against zombies or others. A night of sleep deprivation can lead to impairment of cognitive function. For the purposes of this discussion we consider cognitive function to be the ability to process information and make decisions based on that information. The longer the survivor goes without sleep the greater will be the impairment of cognitive function.
A further issue is that of the micro sleep. These are momentary periods where the survivor will in fact fall into a sleep state. These can be only for seconds but when on guard could be difference between the zombie biting the survivor or being avoided. The use of stimulants such as caffeine can assist in maintaining alertness in the face of sleep deprivation however this can only be sustained for a short time and eventually the stimulants will not be effective.
Avoiding sleep deprivation is the best option to avoid the effects of sleep deprivation. Obviously the survivor must adapt to the environment and if it is one which makes relaxing and not being on guard and awake impossible then eventually the zombies will wear the survivor down and likely get a bite in.
By putting your mind to ways to avoid having to be on guard all the time before the zombie come will be the best option so as to be prepared with ideas that might be usable in a survival situation.
A few ideas we have considered involve hiding places and being comfortable.
Hiding places involves finding a spot that you can hide in and also be safe from attack. Climbing a tree and tying yourself in place could put you out of the reach of zombies looking around for a feed while also avoiding falling out of the tree while sleeping.
Hammocks can be a way of finding a high tree hiding place and enjoying comfort and safety. Net hammocks can be a light and small addition to a bug out bag for this purpose. Hiding behind closed doors or on the roof of a house can also offer a safe place to take a break out of harm’s way.
Both rooftops and trees can have the downside of being open to view by others.
In all we are suggesting that the solo survivor give serious thought to the use of stealth and avoidance so as to be able to find time and safety to obtain sleep. Groups can assist each other with the sharing of the load in regards to being on watch.
A trick the writer used when undertaking the Oxfam Trail walker challenge (Point to point 100km walk within a 48 hour period) was to use caffeine laced sports gels such as those used by cyclists. These are useful in that you can use the caffeine stimulant as well as have some energy from the carbohydrates. Staying awake while also being on the move saps your awareness and as such a little caffeine on the go with a touch of energy helped.
Rest is the best option in the long run as reduced awareness is highly likely to lead to increased opportunity for mistakes and being eaten by zombies.
This is more of a conjecture discussion than anything of any real substance. Over the last few weeks we have been listening to some new podcasts as well as our old favourites. There is nothing in particular that seems to have encouraged speculation by your writer; more the general discussions have sparked an idea for speculation.
The subject is reinvention of yourself based on your environment.
We wander through our daily, weekly and yearly lives and we all tend to act within a given set of behavioural parameters. We know basically how our close friends and family will react in a given known situation based on our prior experience.
We say known because the Zompoc really is an event of such catastrophic proportions that it is an unknown.
If you have a partner you can guess to a certain degree how they will react in the event you forget their birthday or they get fired from their job. Your experience with the behavioural parameters of the person means such a guess will likely be fairly accurate. The reason is you will have observed or experienced that persons reaction to other things and this has led to you knowing the behavioural parameters.
The Zompoc though is going to be off the scale for behavioural parameters. As such we and the people we know and are going to be facing things that we have never previously encountered or in some instances even contemplated.
We have no proof of manner in which to verify our hypothesis that it is almost impossible to make any sort of educated estimate as to how we will actually behave in the Zompoc environment. All the parameters of normal experience will be exceeded. We will not only be grieving the loss of loved ones, something we may have experienced, but the possible loss of all our loved ones. Death, destruction and possible isolation as well as the loss of any and all our normal societal norms will be gone.
The environment we know in a civilised society will have gone and we will be in a place that will have only existed in our imaginations.
This is one of the reasons the writer enjoys watching zombie movies and zombie subculture in general. It helps to create a way to imagine the unimaginable. It offers a way to consider how we will reinvent ourselves as people and personalities in such a foreign environment.
We believe that a disaster of the Zompoc type would be on a scale so extreme that we can only guess at the people we will have to become. The people we are now are unlikely to survive in such an environment.
The writer presents himself as an example. For me meat is something that comes from a supermarket in polystyrene packaging. Intellectually we know it comes from animals but we prefer the fiction of polystyrene. Obviously this would be a luxury not available in the zompoc. The writer will have to reinvent himself to lose the non-violent aspects of the personality so as to be able to kill animals for meat and other products.
The writer also avoids fighting with other humans on a physical level. In fact the only fighting I do is in controlled martial arts bouts. These are not fights in anger although they are training for same and we seek to win the bout by besting an opponent. However come Zompoc we imagine that the need to fight and hurt other people will exist. Such a need could be as severe as the need to kill another human being, something we have never even contemplated with any level of seriousness.
Thus a reinvention will be required. We believe that we can only consider the person we would need to become so that there is less issue in having to actually become that person in the event of zompoc. In essence we must train our minds to contemplate those things we currently find abhorrent and distasteful.
Water purification has become a bit of a hot button topic. Funny how something that in general is a basic discussion topic has become something else. It has become the catalyst for a dispute among groups as to groups providing information that may not be of the highest quality. In this a group has apparently put out information on the subject of purifying water for survival that appears to be not exactly accurate or even all that helpful.
In the interests of disclosure the writer has not been able to keep up to date with the dispute possibly due to posts being put up then removed while the time zones meant the writer slept.
Z-Poc Nation did a discussion piece on the subject and provided some of their version of the events with input from Jake from Zombease. The writers engagement with all the facts of the dispute aren't material to the following discussion. The following is not concerned with how the dispute was managed or undertaken.
What peaks the writers interest is more a case of the question I think anyone who is being held to account might ask, "Who are you to question me?"
For some back ground it appears the main contention began with a discussion about the subject of water purification. The advice provided discussed the boiling of water on a campfire. The debate became heated and confused as Facebook discussions are want to be.
In this discussion it was reported by the Z-Poc Nation that the matter commenced with some internet trolling by people who are motivated for there to be good information out there. We don’t condone the action of trolling however if a person elects to do so it their choice and we don’t seek to censor people.
The main bone of contention in the beginning appeared to be the recommendation that water be boiled for 20 minutes to remove impurities then filtered to remove ash that may have been introduced in the boiling process. The problem that the writer noted in this particular debate was the parties debating may have been debating at cross purposes. In this there may have been some issue in relation to defining terms being used.
It is essential in even asking the questions to ensure clarity in the questions. This particular instance seemed to involve the party being questioned having difficulty in communicating their meaning or in some instances understanding the questions or intent of some questioners. Some of the debate referenced a particular word but no one had clearly defined what they meant when they used the word. The word that the writer spotted causing issue was the word, “Remove”.
As the writer enjoys clarity in communication we will digress to discuss the subject of purification and look at how this could become an argument of a circular nature.
In Wikipedia under the heading “Water Purification” they refer to water purification as, “…the process of removing undesirable chemicals, biological contaminants, suspended solids and gases from contaminated water.” As can be seen the term “Remove” features prominently in the definition.
The lay definition of remove is to physically separate a contaminant from water so that you take dirty water, remove the contaminant through a process leaving you with two or more separate things being a contaminate in place A and water without contaminate in place B.
The idea of boiling water to remove biological contaminants is that boiling water does not physically remove the contaminant. It can kill the biological contaminant rendering it no longer dangerous as a biological contaminant. The actual dead biological contaminant and any by-products of said contaminant will remain in the water.
This is not to suggest that boiling is not an effective and efficient method of making water fit for consumption. Merely this is to explain that the term remove needs to be clearly defined in a debate about cleaning water.
The Wikipedia explanation fits where you are discussing the removal of dangerous contamination from the water in the form of killing biological contaminants thus rendering them harmless and the water fit to drink. The lay definition fits where you are removing the residual dead biologicals and any by-products.
One interesting matter that was raised was the subject of boiling water then filtering. This was a matter of contention in that some preferred filtering then boiling and some suggested boiling then filtering. For clarity this discussion only considers using a filtering system to remove suspended particles and possibly some biological contaminants. The use of distillation is not considered as that is a very different process to the simple filtering and boiling process.
The filtering process is one that is designed mainly to remove particulate matter. Biological contaminants can be caught by filters as the biological contaminant may be large enough to be caught in the filters or bonded to an activated filtering ingredient. Some biologicals may still get through filters being too small to be captured by a filter.
As such the use of a method to kill the biological so it causes no harm to the consumer is very important. This is where boiling comes in. Water heated to 100 degrees Celsius is capable of killing a high number of biological contaminants. The period of time is suggested to be one minute at sea level. As water boils at a lower temperature in an area of reduced air pressure (at altitude) it is recommended this period of time be extended to 3 minutes if you are at altitude.
Boiling water for a longer period is not going to kill more biologicals merely offer the consumer greater confidence they have boiled the water. There is no real harm in boiling longer than the recommended time except for using up scarce fuel to do the extra boiling. It’s further a waste of time and in some scenarios such as the zompoc it can extend the danger time of light and smoke when being stealthy is the better option.
In regards to filtering before or after, this is really a personal choice. If you are using both methods arguments can be made for before or after. If there’s a chance you will introduce contaminates in the process of boiling such as ash then it would be more efficient to filter after the boiling process. Filtering hot water is not recommended for most filters so you must allow time for the water to cool.
There could be an advantage in the process of filtering may remove dead biologicals but given the idea that the boiling is to kill biologicals that would have gotten through the filters in the first place, well they will probably get through any way. Filtering before means you are boiling cleaner water and this may assist in keeping your equipment clean.
In all water should at the very least be boiled so as to kill off the biological contaminants as they can be extremely dangerous to human health. A bit of mud may make it unsavoury but not necessarily dangerous.
So what we appear to have is a person who is giving bad advice and failing to communicate in a manner so as to repair poor advice or even address the bad advice issue.
The question remains in the other parties mind, "Who are you to question me?"
This brings us to the subject of giving advice. The initial advisor who gave the particular advice gave advice that others found to be lacking. The only way that the survival community is going to get the best advice to budding survivors is by producing the best advice and filtering bad advice out of the information marketplace. Removal is through some type of review process. Since anyone can jump on a computer and hand out advice without sanction or penalty for bad advice the potential for bad advice is high.
The fact there are no sanctions for crap or even downright dangerous advice the option for review is essential. The review will thus involve people holding advisors to a high standard and calling out bad advice.
Unless someone is plain sociopathic, putting out bad advice should not be intentional but should be the result of ignorance, laziness of misunderstanding. Regardless of the intentions bad advice is getting out there and is misleading budding survivors.
This is where there should be a form of ethics in the provision of advice. If you advise something you need to understand that you are influencing that person. You may influence opinion, action or understanding. Such influence can lead to a person following your advice and suffering the consequences of that advice.
Using the water purification theme, imagine someone is advised that there was no need to purify water when the water is sourced from a stream fed by snow melt at the snow line. Ordinarily this water is at less risk of biological contaminants than water taken from a river downstream from a human settlement. Although at less risk it is not a “No Risk” situation.
In this example we will put a dead goat in the water upstream and our budding survivor elects to not take precaution by purifying the water, picks up a nasty bug from the dead goat flavoured water and dies a horrible agonising death.
To the writers thinking the blame for the death can be attributed at least in part to bad advice. Thus ethically the survival advisor had a duty to ensure that they gave the best of advice so that budding survivor who followed or was influenced by that advice did not suffer harm.
In meeting this duty the advisor should ensure the quality of the advice is of the highest standard. If the advice is based on assumptions then declaring the assumption is important to give the person being advised the best chance to be informed. For example saying the Katana is the best weapon come zompoc needs to be clarified at the least by stating this assumes you have a real Katana and not a wall decoration.
The survival advisor needs to avoid making assumptions about the knowledge of the budding survivor and understand that the audience may not know things the advisor considers everyone knows. Using the Katana example again, it is clear to many that a real Katana and a decoration Katana are different but to a complete novice this may not be clear. To them if it looks like a sword it’s a sword. They may not realise that decorative units come with poor quality metal and pin tines.
The highest standard also involves doing some research. Fact checking needs to be undertaken at the least. Talking about using the addition of chemicals to water for purification might be sound advice, ensuring you are talking about the correct chemical is great advice. Getting the name of the chemical wrong, well you can imagine the possible consequences.
Another area of research is to ensure your advice is up to date. The first aid student will be well aware that the recommendations for CPR (cardio pulmonary resuscitation) changes on a fairly regular basis as we learn more. Checking your advice to ensure its up to date is the responsible thing to do so that the audience gets only the best.
Recommending something without clarification or comment can be as bad if not worse than giving poor advice yourself. Be cautious with endorsements. You may not necessarily endorse someone else’s work but by linking to an article without providing comment as to if it is good, bad indifferent or other has the potential to lead persons to think it is endorsed.
Be active in correcting bad advice. Those who would offer advice should also take it upon themselves to ensure that not only is their own advice good but to vet any advice they endorse and further to seek to correct bad advice.
We are human so misunderstanding is possible. Jake over at Zombease is a prime example of someone who is well versed in the subject, does excellent research and takes a lot of time to ensure he provides the best information. Yet he also reviews his articles after publication to ensure they are up to date with the latest information. If an article is found wanting he will review and correct any misunderstanding as fast as possible. This is a shining example of a good advisor and taking responsibility for giving advice.
Zombease shows that you can be one of the best advisors but still make mistakes. You become a great advisor if you take a leaf from the Zombease book and ensure corrections and updates keep your advice and information of the highest quality.
Therefore Zombie Survivor Australia holds the position that the actions by the survival community in calling out bad advice and poor communication of information are an ethical good. Such is an example of the review process in action and if undertaken in such a way as to promote good information and prevent the bad information from causing harm.
In this GSa believes there is a responsibility on everyone who gives advice to ensure they give only the best they possibly can.
One last thing that is important but not yet discussed is the subject of ignorance. To admit ignorance is to show the knowledge that something is unknown. There is no failing in not knowing something; there is virtue in admitting not knowing something.
Here at Zombie Survivor Australia we don’t know anything about snow, blizzards or surviving in a situation where snow is the major feature of the environment. We are located in Queensland Australia and have never even seen snow beyond the television and crushed ice beverages.
Therefore anything we might have to say on the subject will be pure conjecture. Sure we could research the subject and obtain information for reliable sources. Yet our level of ignorance is so great that we could not apply anything beyond blind conjecture in relation to considering the references on the subject.
Thus GSA is ignorant and will not at this time be giving any advice on the subject of snow. We may if inclined provide links to reliable and rusted sources of information but such will be one the proviso that we can’t make an informed assessment of the materials, only that we believe the source is reliable. Even then we don’t like to do it.
As a further comment ZSA does endorse other sources of information on the "Other Places to look" page. These endorsements are based on the writer being an ongoing listener to the podcasts and reader of the blogs. To date advice that may influence a budding survivor in a survival situation has been good or where not as great, does no harm. As for any political statements made these aren't advice and political, sexual or other opinions are just that, opinions.
In all the budding survivor should be sceptical and test things to ensure they achieve what they seek to achieve.
(Picture - Statue of the Greek Goddess Themis which stands outside the Queensland Courts complex in Brisbane Australia- Source Wikipedia)
An episode of Z-Poc Nation discussed the issue of post-apocalyptic crime. The discussion began with punishments after an informal polling of listeners suggested that execution was a common penalty considered. The discussion then considered how to find a person guilty and also what would constitute crimes after the zombies confuse the society we known and begin nibbling on people.
In the end it appears the system suggested was a system similar to what is currently in place in many western countries.
This system appeared to be one that involved having set laws legislated by a leader or the group in general, a system of finding guilt and a system of penalty which involved a range of penalty and the discretion to apply a penalty based on the circumstances of the case.
This little discussion is partly a response to the episode. It is also a consideration of the issues that formulating rules, monitoring the rules and enforcing some type of response to a breach of the rule in the zombie apocalypse will entail.
The first issue is what number of people are we looking to apply rules to and the political structure of that group. Obviously the smaller the group and more either democratic or unstructured the group the simpler managing crime and punishment issues will be.
In a small group it is not an odious task to have a group meeting to consider an act of wrongdoing and to have the group decide as a collective what to do. Where the group lacks structure and parties are free to go as they please this is even simpler.
This is not to suggest the decision making process is simple, far from it. If you have ever tried to get a group of diverse people to decide on a single thing you will know it can be tricky. Where it can involve penalties that could be of the capital punishment type, then you have a serious decision to make and that isn’t going to be easy.
It is simple in that you do not require any structure in place to protect the individual from the executive exercise of power by a ruling entity. You also don’t need police forces or courts. Merely get everyone together and decide guilt and then decide penalty if required.
Hopefully the group is clever enough and in a good enough place mentally to make wise decisions.
Therefore we believe that the most efficient manner to deal with crime and punishment in a small group is to formulate, monitor and enforce rules as a whole group. This avoids the exercise of power by an individual or small faction to the disadvantage of others. It also acts to remove personal interest and biases from leaving such decisions to a leader.
Once the numbers of survivors within a group get larger it will not be practical or even possible to hold group meetings. The decision making related crime and punishment questions will require there be a structure of law
and law enforcement.
Jurisprudential questions as to the source of law
This is where things get just a little more than difficult in discussing what we might find or be inclined to choose in the apocalypse as the source of our law.
When the writer was at university this was the course on jurisprudence that was the toughest course; jurisprudence is a philosophy course on law. The lecturers seemed to speak a language different to the language the average person used and even different from the legal language used elsewhere in the legal courses.
One of the big problems the group of survivors are going to face is where does law come from? What underpins the laws we have and how is it that that idea underpinning the law is the right idea.
This is often where consideration of the variety of laws and their enforcement within the international circumstance is illustrative. An Australian may consider an Indonesian law insane but the Indonesian believes it perfectly rational. The same applies in the reverse direction where the Indonesian will wonder what’s wrong with the Australian who does not support what the Indonesian sees and an eminently sensible law.
From a cultural perspective both the Australian and the Indonesian are right. The Australian tends to base their law on the Australian Constitution and to a degree the heritage of being a former British colony. Indonesia has its own constitution we assume which will be a different document. Some laws we know are highly influenced by the Koran and the fact that Indonesia is one of the largest Muslim countries.
Thus in our example countries have different sources of law which affects how the view the laws.
The difference of opinion can be linked to a degree to the difference in the perceived morality question. The question here is whether law and morality is one and the same thing. We submit that they are not the same thing and that seeking to impose morality by way of law is not a good idea.
Morality is not an objective fact it is an subjective opinion and is subject to variation and change.
Using the Australia Indonesia example the moral action perceived by the Indonesian of sentencing former Muslims to prison for changing religion may not be considered a moral action by the Australian.
Therefore morality is not universal. Laws need to try being more universal than morality and ethics based on the potential for there to be a difference of what is moral.
For example for some people it is not moral to have sexual intercourse with a person to whom you are not married. Thus if we make a law that states this then we have the governing body deciding that 2 or even 3 people cannot engage in consensual sexual activities. Such a law would make wife swapping illegal or otherwise subject to sanction under the law. This is not to suggest everyone runs out and indulges, merely to show that a portion of the population would be prevented from engaging in a consensual activity because others had deemed it immoral.
There are instances where morality will coincide with the law. A prohibition on unlawful killing is a fairly standard rule across the world. This is considered from a number of moral standpoints to be a proper interpretation of the sanctity of human life and or the theological belief that life and the ending of same is not the realm of humans.
Therefore if morality isn’t required for there to be a law and it isn’t a good idea to legislate morality then where does the law come from?
There have through history been a number of sources of law. Theology has commonly been one of the big sources of law with the Koran and the Bible being sources of law. In these it has been the priesthood who has stated the law and also been those who enforced and decided guilt.
As can be appreciated both books are considered by their followers to be the inerrant word of the creator. Both books suggest a moral code but the differences as to the actual parts of the code are quite different in places.
As such if you wish to operate your group of survivors as a theocracy then a holy book can easily be a source for your morality as well as your law. We don’t recommend it but if your group wants it then that’s their choice.
As long as they allow those who do not want to be bound by your theocracy to leave its fine. Of course this is based on the writers morality that states that a person should be free to practice religion and also be free from having a religion imposed on them. The writer will happily lead revolution and insurrection against a theocracy but that's a person choice.
If you want to separate religion and the law you will be seeking a different underlying source for your law. For some this is merely done by way of social contract theory.
Social Contract Theory is one where a person gives up some of their rights to enjoy the protection and membership of the community. In this there is no objective morality and a person may do as they please however the community decides what is the most useful laws to have and the person agrees to abide by them and suffer the penalty if they do not.
This explains how a person is a member of the community but it does not source the law for the community.
In this we believe that it will be for the community to decide why they need law. If we consider law as a way to regulate relationships and the actions of members of the community for the benefit of the community as a whole
we are looking at social utility theory.
This is the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
If your group is thinking like this then law will be about benefiting the community as a whole. It will seek to minimise disruption within the community and will impose rule and sanction over the individuals.
This is a type of system that does not encourage the individual and does not protect the individual’s rights. In fact it may of benefit to the community to require its members to stay and not seek out alternate places to live and be governed.
People will start to say, “I have the right to leave and to seek my own fortune and favour elsewhere if I want”. This starts to get into the individual rights. Do people actually have an inalienable right to be free?
This starts to consider human rights as a source of your laws. Of course there is no charter of human rights or constitutional rights that hasn’t been drawn up by people. Thus the whole source of law is really just a discussion as to what do you use to legitimise the laws you make.
One line that reverberates in the writers mind is the Latin phrase, “Lex Injusta non est lex” which means, “An unjust law is no law at all”. This is often cited for by those who rail against an oppressive law that denies the person or people what they believe to be their human rights.
The Nuremberg trials were a common example of this type of reasoning. In this there were instances where a person would be ordered to do an act which was considered an atrocity and a highly wrong act. The placing of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals into the gas chambers is considered by most to be a war crime.
Yet for a German soldier to disobey an order was a crime. Therefore many soldiers stated that they acted in obeisance of lawful orders and genuine laws and sent people into the gas chambers. In this we must go back to the source of law and is there something higher than the law such as human rights as a circumstance of being a human?
Without going into the exact philosophies of naturalism or utilitarianism or for those who are masochists, post modernism, we merely ask that the survivor give long and hard thought to what they want to use the rules to do and if they think what bases their ideas of what is justice and what injustice is.
As a survivor making a law you need to consider whether at some point someone may cry, “Lex injusta non est lex” at the law and on what basis such a cry would be made.
Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely
Also think about in whom you will place the power to make law, decide guilt and enforce law.
The normal western democratic systems work on a system of checks and balances to protect against power being concentrated in too small a group or in the hands of an individual. This led to the government making the law, the court deciding guilt and imposing penalty and the police enforcing the law.
This is designed to prevent power being abused. Alas using the previous example the power was concentrated in people who then used it to try annihilating another people. The law was a legitimate law passed by the proper authority, enforced by the proper body. The courts decided guilt and penalty. Yet the majority of people will state that the holocaust was a crime against humanity even though it was all legal in Germany.
Thus the survivor legal minds will want to remember that checks and balances are required and that power can and does corrupt. If you would not like to be the one who is subject to the exercise of bias and prejudice then be damn sure the law cannot be used to exercise any bias or prejudice as you could be next.
Equality under the law
This is one of the checks and balances used to avoid corruption. This is where everyone is subject to the same rules.
This is a matter that comes to mind as a result of comments during the Z-Poc nation episode where it was discussed as to how you would feel about capital punishment where it were your son who were the person guilty of the capital crime.
As leader, you and your family are subject to the same rules as everyone where your system has equality under the law.
If you do not have equality under the law then there is a difference between those who are immune and those who are not. This is a feature of Monarchies and dictatorships where the leader is immune from the same standards as the general populous.
If the leader were not subject to equality under the law then the child may be excused by the leader. How this would affect the leaders standing is questionable and likely to lead to revolution.
What purpose does law serve?
Why do we have laws now let alone when we have scattered survivors and settlements and in-between a pile of undead trying to bite your arse?
Law can be described as a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced in order to control behaviour. This can be the behaviour of the individual or the government. The governing of behaviour can acts a restriction
on one party to enact the protection of another party.
For example a law that states that unlawful killing is illegal and not permitted act to restrain the prospective killer and protect the prospective victim. It is not a complete protection but it makes the potential killers aware that behaviour that involves unlawful killing will not be tolerated by the greater community and that penalty and or sanctions may be applied to those found guilty of unlawful killing.
Other laws can be to protect people from the negligence of people. The example used in the podcast was in relation to a community that is fortressed and a person forgets to lock the gate. The act of forgetting to lock the gate means that zombies enter the community and kill people. The argument raised is that the community needs to be protected from people’s negligent acts or omissions.
In this the community is setting out a code of behaviour to not only refrain from doing something but to obey a rule that requires you do something.
In all the law is seeking to control behaviours to prevent harm to its citizens perpetrated by other citizens. This expands out to protect people from theft and assault.
Law can also act to restrict the actions of people to prevent them injuring themselves. This is an area of law that can be very strongly argued by people as being beyond the role of the governing body and interfering with individual liberty.
Seat belt laws and helmet laws are commonly cited examples of laws to protect the individual from themselves.
One of the more common arguments in favour of these laws is the argument from resources. In this it is commonly held that seat belts reduce the incidence of serious injury in vehicle collisions. Yet the party harmed is the person who elects to not wear the seat belt. Thus from an ordinary perspective the victim is the person who self-inflicts the injury by not wearing the belt.
Yet in a community it can be argued that injury to a member of the community has an impact on the resources of the community. Countries with social medicine programs will have a clear case that the self-inflicted injury is one the community must pay for through increased costs because the seat belt was not worn.
For countries such as the United States this is also a resource issue given that emergency rooms cannot turn anyone away and thus the resources are used even if a bill is eventually presented to a person they may go into medical bankruptcy and never return the resource.
The same applies to insurance where the increased bill is then passed onto the shareholders as smaller dividends and may affect premiums.
Thus laws are used for the utility of the community at large and the application of resources.
What things should laws cover?
There is no straight answer to a question of this type. It is going to be based on the community and how it sources the law and what it perceives as matters worthy of controlling.
At the least we would anticipate any group that is large enough to need laws will seek to control killing, assault and private property.
We expect that most communities will just adopt the previous regime of law and run with that. It has the elegance of not being complicated and having some of the more important areas covered.
Punishments will obviously be adapted to suit the circumstances.
Punishment and Penalty
This is the area we anticipate will be the most varied from the pre-apocalypse regimes. Much of what will influence penalty will be dependent on the community structure, size and membership. Add to this the resources of the community will also influence penalties.
Currently in Australia the ultimate penalty is indefinite incarceration. The convict is sentenced for an offence falling under the indefinite incarceration laws and then prior to the convicts release date the government makes an application to extend the convicts sentence by a year.
In this it is argued the convict poses too great a risk to the community to be released. This can then happen every year after the person has actually completed their sentence.
The writer does not agree with this law in Queensland but that’s not the subject of the discussion.
Capital punishment in the form of execution is no longer practiced in Australia. The strongest sentence is life imprisonment which is equal to 25 years (not the actual life span of a person). After 25 years the person may in some instances be subject to indefinite detention.
Obviously places like Texas in the United States of America have capital punishment as does Indonesia.
Some countries retain punishments of whipping people and mutilating people such as cutting off hands which is practiced in Saudi Arabia.
One of the big questions come the apocalypse will be whether capital punishment becomes preferred as it is simpler than using resources to detain someone in a form of imprisonment or whether the life of a survivor will be considered more valuable due to the lack of survivors in general.
One of the alternates to capital punishment by execution is exile. This could merely just be execution by zombie where the person is thrown out to survive outside of a fortified position. It could also be a way of removing the threat the person poses the community and gives them a chance at surviving.
As there are so many variables it is difficult to properly imagine the options as they will change with circumstances.
Another form of penalty is restitution. This where the guilty party is required to compensate the victim for the loss they have caused. Currently this is done by way of being required to pay the victim money. This may be possible by way of taking the guilty persons possessions and giving them to the victim.
Of course if the guilty person has nothing then there is nothing to compensate the victim.
Community service is another option open to the community. This is requiring the guilty party to compensate the community as a whole by way of unpaid labour. This is in some ways technically a form of indenture.
We don’t advocate slavery or the ownership of human beings. We do advocate people paying a debt to the community by way of labour. In this we submit it should be personal labour so that it is the actual guilty party who performs the act of contrition.
One of the commenters for the podcast suggested this option. The comment was along the lines of the guilty party by their action volunteered for the dirty jobs.
In regards to a community and penalty we think that community service is a good option. It gives the community benefit from the punishment in the form of labour and allows the guilty party to earn forgiveness by performing the community service.
One thing to always keep in mind is that whatever law you make, if you have equality under the law and you or a family member is found guilty, then you will be subject to the penalty.
Who makes the law, decides guilt and enforces the law?
This last section is more a political discussion reiterating the previous discussion about separating the maker, decider and enforcer of law to prevent abuse of power.
The law maker will be the community. How it does so will depend on the political arrangements. Representative democracy will see laws made by the representatives. A council of elders will see the elders make the decision. A single warlord, yep the warlord will decide.
The next is the court system. How will the guilt of a person be established? This here a system of deciding if a person accused of breaching the law is guilty of the accusation or not. The courts also determine the penalty to be imposed.
In a small group everyone can sit in judgement and agree to a penalty. Where the group is larger we expect the task will be delegated. Putting the power of guilt or innocence into a person’s hands is a lot of power.
The jury system although massively flawed does spread the responsibility for deciding guilt or innocence into more hands and not in one person’s hands.
An option in communities is to have a panel of citizens selected to sit in judgement and impose penalty where required. Rules of how they do this would be a good idea to ensure consistency across all cases.
Lastly enforcement is commonly the area the police cover. They investigate crimes on behalf of the community and bring accused persons before the tribunals of judgement. Police who can investigate and judge can lead to the police holding too much power. Again the concern is that power corrupts.
Police therefore must be subject to the law and not have the power to convict without some check and balance
applied.
The apocalypse legal world is going to be very interesting. For the writer its more interesting than the political structures but not by much.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary at Merriam-webster.com defines politics as follows.
1
a : the art or science of government
b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2
: political actions, practices, or policies
3
a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)
b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession
c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4
: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5
a : the total complex of relations between people living in society
b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics> <ethnic politics>
As can be seen from this comprehensive definition is politics is about relationships and interactions between people and is concerned about competition for benefit. Power, recognition, resources and organisation are all things that people will compete for in the realm of politics. Even the simple family unit will include politics as the members compete and there is a structure of power.
Morality and ethics are even matters which become the realm of politics in circumstances where the body politic with power can enforce or impose definitions of morality and ethics onto subject people.
As such an understanding of politics and basic political types and structures is important. This is extra important where the terminology for politics has become faded and jaded through the political machinations of political figures.
An example is the association of Socialism = Evil which came out of the cold war and the fear of communism. The socialism = evil is a straw man logical fallacy where the person promoting such a view has created a straw man caricature of a type that is evil. The same can be applied to dictatorships, theocracies and democracies. Do not make the mistake of comparing a political structure to an operational political system that has been labelled as an example of the system. This article is about theory not the failed or successful practical application of theoretical political systems.
The idea here is that the survivor considers options for organising themselves and other survivors in the form of a political system. Then adapt to suit the particular needs.
In thinking about political systems the survivor must first consider the basic units that make up any system. These units are known as people. Without people competing for resources and or benefit you don’t have a political system. Ok we admit this isn’t quite true as we see politics in a non-human setting. Wolf packs and horse herds are examples where there is a political structure. Yet given we don’t have easy communication between species we can just constrain our discussions to humans.
The first consideration is the development of gatherings of people starting with the Lone Wolf, the solo survivor. The apocalypse individual is likely to be a very different individual to what we know in our standard westernised first world society. We say the lone wolf because if a person cannot exist as a Lone Wolf for at least a short period of time then they are likely not going to survive anyway.
It has been argued that surviving will require a lot of luck and could involve so much random chance that the most prepared people and the most skilled at survival may not make it. This argument has merit on an individual basis. Take a prepared budding survivor and an unprepared person and put them side by side. Although the budding survivor might improve the odds of their survival through preparation and training this will be of no assistance in a chance event.
Chance events such as catching an airborne variant of the disease in the initial outbreak because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time travelling home from work is a chance event that will not recognise all the training. The unprepared person may just be lucky and be in a place that is safe, secure and stocked. No skill in survival gave them the initial chance to survive. To continue to survive will require that they develop the apocalypse survival skill set or they are human hamburger as some point.
It has been suggested that the apocalypse survivor will be a more self-oriented mindset than the common community mindset we see in organised society. The survivor will also have experienced anarchy and horror. This can only affect the perception of resource competition. We disagree that survivors will be individualistic rather than community centric. This is discussed elsewhere and should be considered if the budding survivor wishes to make a serious study of post Zompoc interactions.
The development of human societies is a useful way to consider what the development of human societies into the apocalypse may look like and what political systems will guide them.
Assumptions
In this discussion we make a number of assumptions. The first of our assumptions is the zompoc is going to decimate the human population and reduce it to a small percentage of the original population.
If the population decline is only small percentage such as 30 to 40 percent of original population we believe that there will be very little fundamental change in the political organisation. Alternately if there is a fundamental change, given the larger population, humanity will go directly to one of the later phases in the organisation of people discussed below.
Once the initial anarchy of the pandemic is over governments can re-establish even in the absence of the original government members. Much like the first overthrow of British rule, the USA may again create a new political structure quickly that is similar to the old structure as they overthrow the zombie hoard.
The second assumption is that the pandemic will not be geographically constrained. In this we assume that the infection rate for Sydney will be the same rate as for Alice Springs. Where you are will only have a small impact on the infection rates.
The third assumption is infection survival will be fairly consistent across the population. In this we expect that where it is an airborne viral pathogen then the percentage of infected persons will be the same regardless of geography and of those infected the death rate will be about the same. We accept this is not a great assumption due to the idea that remote areas may be able to isolate themselves from the spread of the pathogen thus will be a statistical anomaly in the infection rates.
If the zombie infection is transmitted by way of bite and or blood transfer from infected to non-infected the assumptions relating to regional transmission will become problematic. Thus for the purposes of this discussion the transmission is assumed to have led to a scattering of the survivors and a drastic reduction in population.
The development of political structures
There is a correlation between population density and political structures. The more people you have the more complex the political system required to manage the resource competition.
Family Unit
The first of the political structures we see is the family unit. This is the simple grouping of persons who are directly related to each other genetically (or in this rather mixed world recognised by the members of the unit as being linked in a manner similar such as adopted and blended families).
Leadership in the family unit is commonly based on the most powerful family member taking the role. Religious persons may be inclined to suggest that it is the man of the house who is the most powerful and as such should be leader. This isn't necessarily the case as grandmothers and mother figures can be and often are the most powerful within the family structure. In particular the Gypsy cultures are commonly matriarchal and very effective. (side note: the writer believes that the gypsy tribes and other nomadic cultures may in fact be the most successful survival cultures but this is to be explored in separate discussion).
The family unit is a small unit that we would not expect to be much greater than 20 persons. Come Zompoc and the potential contagion killing 99 out of a 100 family units of this size is unlikely. We anticipate based on nothing but conjecture that the family unit will be at maximum 10 persons.
This group is primarily concerned with the survival of the group as a whole and also will be concerned with the survival of individual members. This group should maintain cohesion even where it is absorbed into a larger community.
It will be an influencing factor in the politics of larger groups however is such a basic unit further discussion is not warranted. The dynamics of the family unit is one the reader should understand from experience as a member in their own unit. the infinite variety means an in-depth study of this unit beyond mention is beyond the scope of the article.
Small team / Squad
This is a small group comprised of survivors possibly being a number up to 20 persons who are not a family unit. This is the common example of survivors seen in the pop culture where a diverse group of people find each other but are too small a number to require any formalised leadership.
In the Dawn of the Dead remake we see a small group of survivors who are only linked by the fact they are not actually dead yet. No formal structure exists in regard to leadership although there are attempts by members of the group to guide the group to collective goals.
The Walking Dead approaches this situation differently with it beginning with a lack of leadership and common purpose using group decision making. Later the group decision making is abandoned and a leadership role is undertaken by Rick. Torres v Zombies coined the Ricktatorship to describe this leadership.
The pop culture suggests this small group or squad is the most likely scenario for Zompoc and the politics of Zompoc. We therefore believe that a study of leadership in small groups is an important study for the budding survivor. We will be addressing leadership styles and techniques separately to this discussion.
Bands
This a slightly larger group than the Squad. This is likely to resemble a loose collective of family units or squads. These groups tend to not be organised in any true sense of the word as each adult member tends to be equal to an other. The differences are usually in the skills or influential ability to communicate.
Given the survival goal will be shared and that the majority of people will be familiar with there being a political structure in larger groups this is an unlikely situation. Further the need to organise protection and resources suggests this just wouldn't work unless all members of the society were essentially self sufficient.
It could operate but once numbers get large enough there is a need to control behaviours of the individual for the benefit of a group. Eventually there are going to be rules. Bands tend to have understandings rather than rules. Bands also tend to be less limited in that a family unit of squad can leave the band and go elsewhere.
There is however an example of the band sizing and structure in the Walking Dead Season three in the prison and the council. this isn't clearly explored and to be honest seems a poor choice as many persons are still taking action independent of the council. Thus more of an understanding than rules
Tribes
At last, a political structure. Essentially with the tribe we have reached a population density where the population requires a level of control so as to prevent the population from disintegrating. This is going to involve the development of a way to settle disputes and to decide and promote activities for the benefit of the tribe as a whole.
The tribe can also be thought of as a large village. In all it is the density of population potentially in the 50 to 1000 range that starts to create a need for political structure.
Populations in excess of 1000 start to be more in line with multiple villages and organisations of villages.
City states
This is where we start to talk about civilisation in regards to historical references. These were populations in the 5000 plus range. These were the societies that truly needed organisation and political structure to ensure disputes could be settled to avoid carnage. further a population of that level is going to need organisation to ensure resources can be obtained and applied to the population as a whole.
This number of people and the individuals rights can easily be subrogated to more powerful people without some form of organisation to protect those rights. Remember that a revolution against a dictator is an organisation and a political body in itself.
After this point you start to develop into structures we commonly see now with small town governance and governance of countries.
Why Bother?
This is a legitimate question and we would hope the budding survivor would ask this question. Why bother building governments and rules and laws when Zompoc is upon us?
As westerners we take a lot of things for granted. One of those is the collective protection we enjoy being a member of a society. There are things which we as a society need to keep functioning as a society that can only be achieved by collective action.
Collective action is what creates roads, bridges, hospitals and schools that can be applied to the benefit of the whole community. It is possible to privatise these things and there are many examples of this with Toll Bridges and toll roads. Many things can be independent of any form of rule but this is not reliable in that some services would never be operated at a profit but are required anyway.
The rule of the strong and the rule of the powerful is what would normally come out of anarchy and no collective action by people. Without rules and at some stage law the powerful will not have any collective force opposing them and their ability to act at whim. Any organised resistance to bandits is in fact the development of rules and law. In this the collective has stated that the actions of bandits is against the rules and is to be resisted and punished.
The fact we live in western countries subject to rule of law is often forgotten. Countries with out such laws and the enforcement of same end up like Somalia in the Early 90's being run by gangs and bands headed up by warlords. The average citizen was purely at the mercy of these gangs and warlords. Rape of women and murder of people was common place. So common that it was unremarkable for a person to be robbed, raped, mutilated or killed. that is life without law. It isn't pretty and remember that the average warlord or gang leader tended to lead very brutal and short lives.
We recommend that the Zompoc survival student consider how politics and governance after the majority of the population gets eaten will look. Having an idea what to expect and why collective action can be of benefit will lead to better decision making in regards to groups.