Timeline for Would the members of an online imageboard (or any community) be able to build a post-apocalytic society upon their reputation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nov 29, 2016 at 10:52 | vote | accept | Z.. | ||
Nov 11, 2016 at 18:01 | comment | added | Francesco | @andreirom it was a joke :-) | |
Nov 11, 2016 at 13:30 | comment | added | Francesco | Exactly, what do you mean with "real lives"? :-) | |
Nov 10, 2016 at 21:46 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | Nice, +1 - especially for the bit about survival. People will be desperate post-apocalypse. Very few people are that desperate on an internet. It's easier to control yourself when you have less of an emotional and physical stake in things. | |
Nov 10, 2016 at 21:19 | comment | added | AndreiROM | @katamori - to be clear, I'm not saying that a community can't come together, thrive, defend themselves, and eventually grow into a stronghold which imposes its morality and laws on everyone else. But you're basically looking at the dark ages at that point - city states, and roaming bands of killers who want to take your stuff. You need a strong, well armed population, and a core of determined, leaders with the knowledge to motivate them. A bunch of teenagers who met online are probably not it. | |
Nov 10, 2016 at 21:16 | comment | added | AndreiROM | @katamori - for sure, a community will pull together in the face of adversity. A church congregation will, depending on their culture, head over to help the group. HOWEVER, that's because they share a culture, beliefs, and trust one another. This is all about communal trust. Read up on that. However, things escalate when another group comes along, likes what you have, and wants to take it. How are you going to stop them? Going back to the survivalists, they probably have guns, and a propensity to use them. Again, civilized niceties are a luxury you can't afford at that point. | |
Nov 10, 2016 at 21:14 | comment | added | Z.. | What about religious organizations? Those are usually not primarily, sometimes even not at all militaristic. Mighty principles + food for the starving + shelter for the poor + mutual help = stability. Or am I wrong? I mean, at this point, assume that for me and us, the basic needs are solved. I'm wondering about expansion. | |
Nov 10, 2016 at 21:12 | comment | added | AndreiROM | @katamori - a group of survivalists, or militia types might indeed band together under the situation you're describing. They know each other, share the same values, and know they will defend one another. But a bunch of nerds (yes, me included), who like to discuss programming issues and balloon-whales are not going to be in any position to accomplish these things. As for humanitarian aid, the issue here is scope. I meant all those things in a very selfish way. Water, food, and shelter for me and mine, not for you and yours. | |
Nov 10, 2016 at 21:11 | comment | added | Z.. | Minor fixing, though: And you're worried about humanitarian aid? How about just finding food, water, and a place to sleep? - by the former, I meant the latter. I'm aware that every community starts by providing help for each other. | |
Nov 10, 2016 at 21:11 | comment | added | Z.. | 1: lack of trust -> what about serious times of need? Sure, you won't travel from say, the middle of Minnesota to some random village in France, but if you're a bit closer? Also, what if your loved ones betray you? Chaos and war bring the worst out of people. 2: lack of means -> assume human communication lasts for about 24 hours, between the first and the last strike. That may be enough to mark a gathering point, right? No communication is needed afterward. It would be, but not mandatory. 3: lack of realism - very true consideration, I think it's gonna be a separate question on its own. | |
Nov 10, 2016 at 21:09 | history | edited | AndreiROM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1029 characters in body
|
Nov 10, 2016 at 21:03 | history | answered | AndreiROM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |