Notices
Results 1 to 58 of 58
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Ascended

Thread: So, you've survived the Zombie apocalypse . . .

  1. #1 So, you've survived the Zombie apocalypse . . . 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    . . . Populations have crashed to a tenth of what they were, food supplies are running low, people have resorted to banditry and lawlessness. Chaos. You and a number of men in your town group together to try to lead humanity back into the light.

    You have a number of high priority tasks that are very labour intensive - farming, shelter building, ditch digging, security patrols etc. Mains electricity is off and you only have a finite amount of petrol and food

    What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?

    Democracy? If so which form? Town council elected by the camp? Or town council run by you and your men?
    Town sheriff? I.e dictator in all but name?
    How do you force people to engage in the dirty, tiring work that are essential for your town to survive?


    As your camp improves, you get refugees wanting to join, but you only have limited rations and can not feed them all.

    How do you decide who to let in and who not to let in?

    Do you keep out the weak and elderly? The disabled?
    Under what conditions do you let people in? On the condition that they dig the ditches in exchange for food? I.e a return to slavery in all but name?
    Do you allow in large groups of men who are a different race/culture/religion to your own? The cultural differences may end in disagreements about how the town should be run - i.e they may have strong opinions on capital punishment that you don't share, or may want to introduce social rules that cause conflict within the town.

    Do you allow in ex-bandits? They would help in the defence of the town, but may try to take it from you by force?
    Other towns will try to steal your food and resources, what do you do? These are desperate times, they are hungry people but you have no food to spare. Do you attack them in their village or do you hope your walls and ditches can keep them out?
    If you do attack them, how do you stop them becoming a threat in the future? Slaughter them? Install a friendly leader and enforce your own style of government on them (i.e conquer and colonise)?

    As your town further progress, you need to encourage population increase so you can farm, build and patrol more. The bigger you are, the safer you are from hostile towns, and the more resilient you are from disease and natural disasters.
    How do you encourage women to have more babies?
    Do you reduce the age of consent? Do you allow polygamy? Do you restrict their rights and their availability to do certain jobs? Do you provide more rations and better shelter as a reward for having babies?


    What I am interested in, is how much of your 21st Century principles would get abandoned in such a situation. I oppose slavery today, but would I be willing to entertain it if it meant it helped my town and my family to survive? I oppose capital punishment, but with no prisons or wardens, how do you punish people who commit serious crime?


    Last edited by SE15; August 3rd, 2012 at 11:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    (What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?)
    Democracy of course. A form were there are often elections, and no person could be a leader forever. I think I would choose a system were the was a sheriff and mayor ex.ex.


    (As your camp improves, you get refugees wanting to join, but you only have limited rations and can not feed them all. How do you decide who to let in and who not to let in?)
    I think I would go by morals and character, this way perhaps the group would be more stable.


    (Do you keep out the weak and elderly? The disabled? ex.ex.ex.)
    No. And I would let in all races. But I would like a rule, were if you did not pull your weight and try your best, you were kicked out.


    (Do you allow in ex-bandits? They would help in the defence of the town, but may try to take it from you by force?)
    Yes and for sure, but only those who had respect.


    (Other towns will try to steal your food and resources, what do you do?)
    Use military strategy. Build a fort in a elevated location, and clear all cover around the fort for a great distance. ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.

    I would also use the military strategy, of trying to convert our enemies, into our own people. This way there would be no violence, and our group would become more powerful.




    (How do you encourage women to have more babies?)
    Just have enough males around, reproduction happens naturally.

    (Do you reduce the age of consent?)
    No, but if absolutely needed, I would let the young people make those choices. I personally like a very high age of consent.

    (Do you allow polygamy?)
    No, No, and hell No.


    You asked,
    What I am interested in, is how much of your 21st Century principles would get abandoned in such a situation. I oppose slavery today, but would I be willing to entertain it if it meant it helped my town and my family to survive? I oppose capital punishment, but with no prisons or wardens, how do you punish people who commit serious crime?


    I seems I have kept most of my 21st century principles in your thread.

    And I would never allow slavery to return. Slavery breeds cruelty and dis-honor. I believe no one was as evil as slave holders, Nazis, and the KKK. And I believe being evil puts you at a disadvantage. And slave holders, Nazis, and the KKK were also insane, stupid, and dumb.

    But perhaps I would use capital punishment, on certain dangerous males. If you were to let them leave, they may find others like themselves, and then come back.
    But I actually feel the same way about capital punishment today, but I am (against) capital punishment today for one reason. That reason being, innocent people are regularly killed.


    This is a very interesting thread, and I was feeling good, until I got to the part of capital punishment. Why????


    But like I said nice thread, thanks for letting me in it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?)
    Democracy of course. A form were there are often elections, and no person could be a leader forever. I think I would choose a system were the was a sheriff and mayor ex.ex.


    (As your camp improves, you get refugees wanting to join, but you only have limited rations and can not feed them all. How do you decide who to let in and who not to let in?)
    I think I would go by morals and character, this way perhaps the group would be more stable.
    How does this work in a democracy? Do you have a tribal council and vote somebody off the island for low moral character? If you've seen Survivor, you know those tribal councils can get rather political. It's not always based on merit.

    (Do you keep out the weak and elderly? The disabled? ex.ex.ex.)
    No. And I would let in all races. But I would like a rule, were if you did not pull your weight and try your best, you were kicked out.
    How do you know if somebody is trying their best?

    (Do you allow in ex-bandits? They would help in the defence of the town, but may try to take it from you by force?)
    Yes and for sure, but only those who had respect.


    (Other towns will try to steal your food and resources, what do you do?)
    Use military strategy. Build a fort in a elevated location, and clear all cover around the fort for a great distance. ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.

    I would also use the military strategy, of trying to convert our enemies, into our own people. This way there would be no violence, and our group would become more powerful.




    (How do you encourage women to have more babies?)
    Just have enough males around, reproduction happens naturally.

    (Do you reduce the age of consent?)
    No, but if absolutely needed, I would let the young people make those choices. I personally like a very high age of consent.
    Letting young people make the choice means there is a very low age of consent.
    (Do you allow polygamy?)
    No, No, and hell No.
    Then the government will be in people's bedrooms deciding who can sleep with whom. Right?
    You asked,
    What I am interested in, is how much of your 21st Century principles would get abandoned in such a situation. I oppose slavery today, but would I be willing to entertain it if it meant it helped my town and my family to survive? I oppose capital punishment, but with no prisons or wardens, how do you punish people who commit serious crime?


    I seems I have kept most of my 21st century principles in your thread.
    Not really. You would judge people on their moral character, and banish them if you didn't like them or you didn't think they work hard enough. You'd lower the age of consent. And you'd have the government monitoring people's sexual habits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    You should watch the movie "Defiance" with Daniel Craig. It's the movie version of a historical example of a group of people facing a situation not too different.

    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    .

    What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?

    Democracy? If so which form? Town council elected by the camp? Or town council run by you and your men?

    In a smaller group of people it's actually easier to run a perfect democracy than in large groups. You can hold a town meeting every week and vote on points of order and law.


    Town sheriff? I.e dictator in all but name?
    The group would need a strong leader, but if that guy acts like a dictator in the sense of defying the will of his people, he would no longer have anyone to rule. Everyone would just go their separate ways.

    How do you force people to engage in the dirty, tiring work that are essential for your town to survive?
    The group decides how to divide that up. If a person refuses to do the share that was decided upon for everyone to do, then probably they also forfeit their rations.

    Do you keep out the weak and elderly? The disabled?
    Those people may be surprisingly useful at doing menial tasks. Probably they'd be willing to cook and such.

    Under what conditions do you let people in? On the condition that they dig the ditches in exchange for food? I.e a return to slavery in all but name?
    Do you allow in large groups of men who are a different race/culture/religion to your own? The cultural differences may end in disagreements about how the town should be run - i.e they may have strong opinions on capital punishment that you don't share, or may want to introduce social rules that cause conflict within the town.

    Nothing stops you from starting multiple communities. If you've got different ethnicities that disagree about how things should be run, then by all means let them form a separate community.

    It's not like there's any shortage of space for them to settle in.



    As your town further progress, you need to encourage population increase so you can farm, build and patrol more. The bigger you are, the safer you are from hostile towns, and the more resilient you are from disease and natural disasters.
    How do you encourage women to have more babies?
    Do you reduce the age of consent? Do you allow polygamy? Do you restrict their rights and their availability to do certain jobs? Do you provide more rations and better shelter as a reward for having babies?


    What I am interested in, is how much of your 21st Century principles would get abandoned in such a situation. I oppose slavery today, but would I be willing to entertain it if it meant it helped my town and my family to survive? I oppose capital punishment, but with no prisons or wardens, how do you punish people who commit serious crime?
    Ultimately I don't see how population increase would ever be a good idea. Even if civilization has fallen, you'll probably be able to find at least one book on chemistry or mechanical engineering. Even a horse drawn harvester is going to be more effective than trying to beat hapless prisoners into working for you with hand tools (usually you can't trust a slave with machinery).

    More babies means more mouths to feed, and food will likely be the most scarce of all commodities.

    Even the possibility of slave labor would not be valuable enough to spare additional food for slaves that are likely to want to revolt (and contribute to your security problems.) You're better off if you simply don't take any prisoners.


    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post

    (Do you allow in ex-bandits? They would help in the defence of the town, but may try to take it from you by force?)
    Yes and for sure, but only those who had respect.


    (Other towns will try to steal your food and resources, what do you do?)
    Use military strategy. Build a fort in a elevated location, and clear all cover around the fort for a great distance. ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.

    I would also use the military strategy, of trying to convert our enemies, into our own people. This way there would be no violence, and our group would become more powerful.
    I disagree with this. You can't take it for granted that a group that has failed to breach your walls on the first attempt won't succeed in coming up with a way to do so on the second attempt. You have to focus on simply insuring they don't get a second chance in the first place

    You have to retaliate the first time an attempted invasion happens. Either wipe them out, or hurt them so badly they'll be terrified to come back and have to deal with you again (the second option has the advantage that it can lead to having a reputation among bandits.)






    This is a very interesting thread, and I was feeling good, until I got to the part of capital punishment. Why????


    But like I said nice thread, thanks for letting me in it.
    You would probably never have the resources to stock and maintain a prison. You either have to kill people who act out or use corporeal punishment (like a whip), or nothing. If you send them away, you can't be sure they won't come back with a band of bandits, and tell them the weaknesses in your defenses.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    I would become a ruthless dictator and lead the population with threat of violence. Rule people with an iron fist. The remaining people would get delusions of grandeur and try to form some sort of government. There is only space for one ruler. One king and dictator. Anyone that gets ideas of resurrecting democracy would be done away with.

    Long live Pyokovania! Long live the king! Vive la roix!
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Living in a rural area like I do, I see farms all around me. The main focus after a zombie attack would be getting those up and running again. So we'd need lots of guns, and people who wanted to come together and defend the storehouses, as well as be mobile enough to take on anyone who attacks ppl in the fields (since that's a very wide area.)

    I think most of the bandits would starve out after a little while. It's just a matter of getting that far. Once we've got agriculture back up and running, we might have enough excess produce to make biodiesel out of it, and that would give us a few operating vehicles. We could mount guns on them, and use them as our mobile strike force.

    Anyway, that's the plan for the long run. Over the short term, we'd just need to have enough food to hold out somewhere fortified and wait until the bandits start dying.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    "What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?"

    The fairest will of course be democracy, but it is hard to reach a political equilibrium when so much is at stake. Everyone will have different and conflicting interests, and they may not even respect the outcome of the democratic process. History has shown that it is not easy at all to establish a functioning democracy from a state of anarchy. This is something we should think about.

    I would treat the town as a militia and run it like a military unit. This is not to say that we should disregard human rights and basic human decency. We should still make sure we keep our most admirable attributes, but we have to recognise that we probably need harsher laws than we have in times of peace.

    Yes, I'd consider reintroducing capital punishment. Yes, I think we should put someone in charge who can really run this shit.

    Regarding how to choose this leader, in fact I don't think we should have a single leader, but maybe two leaders. We need separation of powers, and they have to be in charge of sufficiently different aspects of the town so that they don't struggle for power. One would be in charge of defence and security, and they will be elected by the combatants. The other would be voted for by the non-combatants (women, the young, disabled and the elderly) and be put in charge of logistics and finance. This is emphatically NOT a "fair" system because we do stratify the society depending on their capabilities (ie their relative merits, producing some form of meritocracy), but I think it is a general truism that not everyone is as qualified to vote for who's the best fighter and who's the best administrator. Everyone voting on everything just adds on unnecessary political tension and inefficiency.

    Next is education. We need to educate everyone on how to manage the economy and how to fight, and education is a very crucial aspect that we will often overlook. The combatants will need to have an understanding of how everyone is fed, the health status, the inventory, etc, and similarly the non-combatants need to know what kind of enemy we are facing and the ammo stock, etc. But yet we should still keep their specialisation. We cannot have a concentrated group of people with specialised knowledge of how things work because they will end up running the whole town in the long run. There has be some form of mobility between the combatant and non-combatants. We need to keep their roles sufficiently intertwined such that they are opposing yet complementary forces. The diffusion of knowledge is extremely important in balancing the power structure in the society, more so than any laws we can set up. People will die and we need new generations of trained individuals to take up their roles. This social mobility and continuity is very crucial in the long-run.
    Last edited by arkofnoah; August 5th, 2012 at 10:00 PM.
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?)
    Democracy of course. A form were there are often elections, and no person could be a leader forever. I think I would choose a system were the was a sheriff and mayor ex.ex.
    Who would be eligible to vote in your elections? Everyone, including newcomers? Should the ditch diggers and cooks have a say in who is best to lead the camp?

    I do like the idea of a split leadership, but I would model it on the Roman Senate myself - with two consuls serving limited terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (As your camp improves, you get refugees wanting to join, but you only have limited rations and can not feed them all. How do you decide who to let in and who not to let in?)
    I think I would go by morals and character, this way perhaps the group would be more stable.
    Whose morals and how would you judge them? By 'morals' do you mean "culture"?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (Do you keep out the weak and elderly? The disabled? ex.ex.ex.)
    No. And I would let in all races. But I would like a rule, were if you did not pull your weight and try your best, you were kicked out.
    I don't see how that could work in reality, and certainly not in a democracy with full suffrage. I think you ned a 'strongman' character to enforce such a policy

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (Do you allow in ex-bandits? They would help in the defence of the town, but may try to take it from you by force?)
    Yes and for sure, but only those who had respect.
    How would you judge them to have true respect?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (Other towns will try to steal your food and resources, what do you do?)
    Use military strategy. Build a fort in a elevated location, and clear all cover around the fort for a great distance. ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.

    I would also use the military strategy, of trying to convert our enemies, into our own people. This way there would be no violence, and our group would become more powerful.
    So you would not consider offensive military strategy? You would hope that your walls hold out forever? How would you try to convert your enemies? Handing over precious rations in order to make friend would make you look weak and actually effect the real strength of your camp. You may also encourage them to continue attacking

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (How do you encourage women to have more babies?)
    Just have enough males around, reproduction happens naturally.
    It does, but very many women will not want to raise a child in such conditions. Many will terminate their pregnacies rather than go through labour with no medicine and limited medical equipment.

    To sustain your town, you would need a birthrate much higher than we currently have in the west, and would be looking for 5-6 births per woman? How would you encourage Western women to have more babies in worse conditions?


    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (Do you reduce the age of consent?)
    No, but if absolutely needed, I would let the young people make those choices. I personally like a very high age of consent.
    So if a middle-aged man was to date a 14 year old (for eg), you would be happy?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (Do you allow polygamy?)
    No, No, and hell No.
    If you think that the men of your town would be involved in many activities that impact on the length of their lives (both military and the back breaking labour), you may have a poor male-to-female ratio

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And I would never allow slavery to return. Slavery breeds cruelty and dis-honor. I believe no one was as evil as slave holders, Nazis, and the KKK. And I believe being evil puts you at a disadvantage. And slave holders, Nazis, and the KKK were also insane, stupid, and dumb.
    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the KKK were evil, but I am not proposing a race-based slave system. Perhaps it would help if I called them "indentured servants"? Or "serfs"? People who are at the bottom rung, and will remain there. They will have to do as they are told, and they are told to do the most back-breaking and labourious work on penalty of severe punishment

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But perhaps I would use capital punishment, on certain dangerous males. If you were to let them leave, they may find others like themselves, and then come back.
    But I actually feel the same way about capital punishment today, but I am (against) capital punishment today for one reason. That reason being, innocent people are regularly killed.

    This is a very interesting thread, and I was feeling good, until I got to the part of capital punishment. Why????
    Would it be a jury trial who condemns people to death? Or a "Judge Dredd" type situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But like I said nice thread, thanks for letting me in it.
    No problem. I think it's an interesting thought experiment. I think it's all well and good arguing that the Greeks and Romans were "evil" for having capital punishment, or for holding slaves, but we view the world with our 21st C eyes. I'm not sure that you can 'enforce' 21st C morals onto a 1st Century world. Our morals evolved over time and are products of their environments

    Personally, I would style my camp on the Roman Senate model. A 'leadership' class, a 'civilian' class and a 'slave' class. I think that system provides the best way for the camp to progress and survive the early decades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=Harold14370;342032]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?)
    Democracy of course. A form were there are often elections, and no person could be a leader forever. I think I would choose a system were the was a sheriff and mayor ex.ex.



    How does this work in a democracy? Do you have a tribal council and vote somebody off the island for low moral character? If you've seen Survivor, you know those tribal councils can get rather political. It's not always based on merit.

    How do you know if somebody is trying their best?


    (Do you reduce the age of consent?)
    No, but if absolutely needed, I would let the young people make those choices. I personally like a very high age of consent.
    Letting young people make the choice means there is a very low age of consent.
    (Do you allow polygamy?)
    No, No, and hell No.
    Then the government will be in people's bedrooms deciding who can sleep with whom. Right?
    Not really. You would judge people on their moral character, and banish them if you didn't like them or you didn't think they work hard enough. You'd lower the age of consent. And you'd have the government monitoring people's sexual habits.


    I guess I mean kick out all the a. holes, and those who are not team players.

    How do I know if some one is doing their best? I would not, and I guess people could manipulate and avoid work.

    But life has made me believe the following. If you put many/most people in a household, that loves and respects them. And that person is happy, and does not feel cheated in life. And that person gets proper rest and food. That person will do their part, and help to keep that household doing well.

    And I just do not like the culture of religious polygamy, especially since only the men get the multiple wives. If an equal amount of woman had 4 husbands, I would not mind it. And I also despise polygamy were only the wealthy men get multiple wives.

    But there are also real couples in America, were a group of 3 are in a long term sexual group. (And these groups do not bother me), because it happens naturally.



    These religious polygamists say, God told their profit "men should have several wives." Do you think God actually told their profit this??

    What if 150 years from now, most of America are multiple wife Mormons, like the real life tv show "Sister Wives"?
    And what happens when they get a new profit, that God is having conversations with?
    What if God tells the new profit "all people must become servants of the men with the most wives"?

    Gorillas and walruses naturally have polygamy, but we are human beings.

    And while just reading about religious polygamy, I learned that many people from the past and present, consider religious polygamy to be like slavery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    .

    What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?

    Democracy? If so which form? Town council elected by the camp? Or town council run by you and your men?
    In a smaller group of people it's actually easier to run a perfect democracy than in large groups. You can hold a town meeting every week and vote on points of order and law.
    You are right in the sense that it's easier to get people to vote, but it's no easier to get people to agree. There will always be disagreements. Would you accept it if you and your men (the founders) had lost a vital vote due to the votes of newcomers and ditch diggers? A vote that impacts on the very survival of the camp?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    .
    Town sheriff? I.e dictator in all but name?
    The group would need a strong leader, but if that guy acts like a dictator in the sense of defying the will of his people, he would no longer have anyone to rule. Everyone would just go their separate ways.
    The guy would still have his men though, the core group. Would people really leave a successful town? If the dictator produces results? Will people leave a town with food, water, (limited) medicine and relative security because they don't get to vote? I don't think so myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    How do you force people to engage in the dirty, tiring work that are essential for your town to survive?
    The group decides how to divide that up. If a person refuses to do the share that was decided upon for everyone to do, then probably they also forfeit their rations.
    So mob rule?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Do you keep out the weak and elderly? The disabled?
    Those people may be surprisingly useful at doing menial tasks. Probably they'd be willing to cook and such.
    I agree with that, but you only need so many cooks. Your group will naturally produce some old and disabled people who could do the menial tasks. You would not need to allow more people in to do those tasks. So would you explicitly exclude them?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Under what conditions do you let people in? On the condition that they dig the ditches in exchange for food? I.e a return to slavery in all but name?
    Do you allow in large groups of men who are a different race/culture/religion to your own? The cultural differences may end in disagreements about how the town should be run - i.e they may have strong opinions on capital punishment that you don't share, or may want to introduce social rules that cause conflict within the town.
    Nothing stops you from starting multiple communities. If you've got different ethnicities that disagree about how things should be run, then by all means let them form a separate community.

    It's not like there's any shortage of space for them to settle in.
    Space would not be a problem, but finding the 'right' space would be. One with clean water, decent shelter, good arable land which is easy to defend. People would not want to start from scratch. And if they do, they would not look kindly on the town who "kicked them out". You would be setting up a future rival

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    As your town further progress, you need to encourage population increase so you can farm, build and patrol more. The bigger you are, the safer you are from hostile towns, and the more resilient you are from disease and natural disasters.
    How do you encourage women to have more babies?
    Do you reduce the age of consent? Do you allow polygamy? Do you restrict their rights and their availability to do certain jobs? Do you provide more rations and better shelter as a reward for having babies?


    What I am interested in, is how much of your 21st Century principles would get abandoned in such a situation. I oppose slavery today, but would I be willing to entertain it if it meant it helped my town and my family to survive? I oppose capital punishment, but with no prisons or wardens, how do you punish people who commit serious crime?
    Ultimately I don't see how population increase would ever be a good idea. Even if civilization has fallen, you'll probably be able to find at least one book on chemistry or mechanical engineering. Even a horse drawn harvester is going to be more effective than trying to beat hapless prisoners into working for you with hand tools (usually you can't trust a slave with machinery).

    More babies means more mouths to feed, and food will likely be the most scarce of all commodities.

    Even the possibility of slave labor would not be valuable enough to spare additional food for slaves that are likely to want to revolt (and contribute to your security problems.) You're better off if you simply don't take any prisoners.
    More people is always better. Even from a cold evolutionary viewpoint, it would weed out the 'weaker' people and leave you would a group more resiliant to disease, to starvation, to the cold. More people = more farmers, more soldiers, more workers. The bigger base of civilians you have, the more "thinkers" your group can afford. The type of people who can administer the towns and engage in activities that result in less direct benefits - educating the young for eg.

    Finding a chemistry book will do you only limited good as practical science is built on a huge supply chain that would be unavailable to you - you may know the theory of refining oil for eg, but doing it would be a different matter.

    Lets say, for the sake of argument, that your group does not stumble accross a book detailing how to make a horse drawn harvester

    Also, I am not convinced that slaves would want to revolt. If you had the choice of hard work resulting in food, water & shelter for you and your family, or risking life outside the walls of the camp, what would you choose? I don't think there would need to be a guard whipping them to work. There would be no incentive to work them to death. I am reminded of the POW camps in south Asia. They were in such deep jungle, that the prisoners had a better chance of survival in the camp than outside it. IIRC, many did not bother with walls.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (Do you allow in ex-bandits? They would help in the defence of the town, but may try to take it from you by force?)
    Yes and for sure, but only those who had respect.


    (Other towns will try to steal your food and resources, what do you do?)
    Use military strategy. Build a fort in a elevated location, and clear all cover around the fort for a great distance. ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.ex.

    I would also use the military strategy, of trying to convert our enemies, into our own people. This way there would be no violence, and our group would become more powerful.


    I disagree with this. You can't take it for granted that a group that has failed to breach your walls on the first attempt won't succeed in coming up with a way to do so on the second attempt. You have to focus on simply insuring they don't get a second chance in the first place

    You have to retaliate the first time an attempted invasion happens. Either wipe them out, or hurt them so badly they'll be terrified to come back and have to deal with you again (the second option has the advantage that it can lead to having a reputation among bandits.)

    This is a very interesting thread, and I was feeling good, until I got to the part of capital punishment. Why????


    But like I said nice thread, thanks for letting me in it.
    You would probably never have the resources to stock and maintain a prison. You either have to kill people who act out or use corporeal punishment (like a whip), or nothing. If you send them away, you can't be sure they won't come back with a band of bandits, and tell them the weaknesses in your defenses.
    I agree with that. Attack would be risky though, and is not gauranteed to pay off. It would have to be planned well,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And I just do not like the culture of religious polygamy, especially since only the men get the multiple wives. If an equal amount of woman had 4 husbands, I would not mind it. And I also despise polygamy were only the wealthy men get multiple wives.

    But there are also real couples in America, were a group of 3 are in a long term sexual group. (And these groups do not bother me), because it happens naturally.

    These religious polygamists say, God told their profit "men should have several wives." Do you think God actually told their profit this??

    What if 150 years from now, most of America are multiple wife Mormons, like the real life tv show "Sister Wives"?
    And what happens when they get a new profit, that God is having conversations with?
    What if God tells the new profit "all people must become servants of the men with the most wives"?

    Gorillas and walruses naturally have polygamy, but we are human beings.

    And while just reading about religious polygamy, I learned that many people from the past and present, consider religious polygamy to be like slavery.
    So if polygamy was 'natural' and not religious, would you allow it in your camp?

    You sound as though you would not let mormons into your camp? Are there any other cultures you would not want to allow in?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    You asked,
    Who would be eligible to vote in your elections? Everyone, including newcomers? Should the ditch diggers and cooks have a say in who is best to lead the camp?

    (After being in the group for 3 months, anyone could vote. Read on to see the MAJOR benefits of this)


    You said,
    I do like the idea of a split leadership, but I would model it on the Roman Senate myself - with two consuls serving limited terms.

    (I like the idea of split leadership too, because one leader alone could make a mistake.)


    You asked,
    Whose morals and how would you judge them? By 'morals' do you mean "culture"?

    (I would judge them by their respect of the people around them.)


    You said,
    I don't see how that could work in reality, and certainly not in a democracy with full suffrage. I think you ned a 'strongman' character to enforce such a policy

    (Thats why I said I would have a elected sheriff.)


    You asked about bandits,
    How would you judge them to have true respect?

    (Their respect.)



    You asked,
    So you would not consider offensive military strategy? You would hope that your walls hold out forever? How would you try to convert your enemies? Handing over precious rations in order to make friend would make you look weak and actually effect the real strength of your camp. You may also encourage them to continue attacking

    (I would like many plans for offensive military strategy, and the manufacturer of many weapons. And great defensive structures. But I would like much surveillance and many spies.)

    (To bring enemies into my group I would advertise well, and try to get all decent and honorable people to join my group.)


    You said/asked,
    It does, but very many women will not want to raise a child in such conditions. Many will terminate their pregnacies rather than go through labour with no medicine and limited medical equipment. To sustain your town, you would need a birthrate much higher than we currently have in the west, and would be looking for 5-6 births per woman? How would you encourage Western women to have more babies in worse conditions?

    (Early Americans who lived on farms had huge numbers of children. If the couples knew that having many babies, was important to their group, I believe most of them would do it.)


    You asked,
    So if a middle-aged man was to date a 14 year old (for eg), you would be happy?

    (No, I would give him capital punishment. After he was dead I would be happy.)



    You said,
    If you think that the men of your town would be involved in many activities that impact on the length of their lives (both military and the back breaking labour), you may have a poor male-to-female ratio

    (I dont think that matters, because if there are single woman men will come.)



    you said/asked,
    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the KKK were evil, but I am not proposing a race-based slave system. Perhaps it would help if I called them "indentured servants"? Or "serfs"? People who are at the bottom rung, and will remain there. They will have to do as they are told, and they are told to do the most back-breaking and labourious work on penalty of severe punishment

    (I believe this is cruel and dis-honorable, and I believe that puts one at a disadvantage.)



    You asked,
    Would it be a jury trial who condemns people to death? Or a "Judge Dredd" type situation?

    (A jury and laws.)



    You said/asked,
    Personally, I would style my camp on the Roman Senate model. A 'leadership' class, a 'civilian' class and a 'slave' class. I think that system provides the best way for the camp to progress and survive the early decades.[/QUOTE]


    (This is were your group falls into civil war.)
    (Your slave class will want to join my group, because your slaves would have full rights in my group.)
    (And history has shown that armed slaves, and armed former slaves, are some of the greatest warriors in all of history. And my group would have lots of weapons to give them.)


    (Your thread just keeps on getting better.)
    Last edited by chad; August 7th, 2012 at 12:02 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    [I guess I mean kick out all the a. holes, and those who are not team players.
    Then it's not a democracy after all. It's a chadocracy.
    How do I know if some one is doing their best? I would not, and I guess people could manipulate and avoid work.

    But life has made me believe the following. If you put many/most people in a household, that loves and respects them. And that person is happy, and does not feel cheated in life. And that person gets proper rest and food. That person will do their part, and help to keep that household doing well.
    It's not a family, it's a town. Life has made me believe there are a lot of slackers who will take advantage of you.
    And I just do not like the culture of religious polygamy, especially since only the men get the multiple wives. If an equal amount of woman had 4 husbands, I would not mind it. And I also despise polygamy were only the wealthy men get multiple wives.

    But there are also real couples in America, were a group of 3 are in a long term sexual group. (And these groups do not bother me), because it happens naturally.



    These religious polygamists say, God told their profit "men should have several wives." Do you think God actually told their profit this??

    What if 150 years from now, most of America are multiple wife Mormons, like the real life tv show "Sister Wives"?
    Why pick on the Mormons? They don't even practice polygamy any more except a few splinter groups. How about Muslims? I guess you'd ban Muslims from your town.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You asked,
    Who would be eligible to vote in your elections? Everyone, including newcomers? Should the ditch diggers and cooks have a say in who is best to lead the camp?

    (After being in the group for 3 months, anyone could vote. Read on to see the WINING benefits of this)
    You said,
    I do like the idea of a split leadership, but I would model it on the Roman Senate myself - with two consuls serving limited terms.

    (I like the idea of split leadership too, because one leader alone could make a mistake.)

    You asked,
    Whose morals and how would you judge them? By 'morals' do you mean "culture"?

    (I would judge them by their respect, and service towards woman and children.)
    I meant how would you judge them before you let them in?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You said,
    I don't see how that could work in reality, and certainly not in a democracy with full suffrage. I think you ned a 'strongman' character to enforce such a policy

    (Thats why I said I would have a elected sheriff.)
    I meant a dictator 'strongman', not one that would need to win support from the population. If a slacker is semi-popular in the camp, an elected sheriff may not risk evicting him for fear of losing an election. Would the 'sheriff' really want to risk banishing the 'mayor's' son for example?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You asked about bandits,
    How would you judge them to have true respect?

    (Their respect of woman and children.)
    Again, I mean before you let them in, before you allow them to vote

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You asked,
    So you would not consider offensive military strategy? You would hope that your walls hold out forever? How would you try to convert your enemies? Handing over precious rations in order to make friend would make you look weak and actually effect the real strength of your camp. You may also encourage them to continue attacking

    (I would like many plans for offensive military strategy, and the manufacturer of many weapons. And great defensive structures. But I would like much surveillance and many spies.)

    (To bring enemies into my group I would advertise well, and try to get all decent and honorable people to join my group.)
    You are being far too vague, I need specifics. Who is decent? What would be considered 'honourable' in this world?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You said/asked,
    It does, but very many women will not want to raise a child in such conditions. Many will terminate their pregnacies rather than go through labour with no medicine and limited medical equipment. To sustain your town, you would need a birthrate much higher than we currently have in the west, and would be looking for 5-6 births per woman? How would you encourage Western women to have more babies in worse conditions?

    (Early Americans who lived on farms had huge numbers of children. If the couples knew that having many babies, was important to their group, I believe most of them would do it.)
    Early Americans were both (1) very religious (and thus did not contemplate abortion in high numbers) and (2) used to giving birth in such conditions. Modern, western women are less religious and are not used to giving birth by themselves. You can not simply will 16th Century attitudes onto modern women

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You asked,
    So if a middle-aged man was to date a 14 year old (for eg), you would be happy?

    (No, I would give him capital punishment. After he was dead I would be happy.)
    You would kill the man even if the girl consented and was happy? How high would your age of consent be in this post-zombie world btw?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You said,
    If you think that the men of your town would be involved in many activities that impact on the length of their lives (both military and the back breaking labour), you may have a poor male-to-female ratio

    (I dont think that matters, because if there are single woman men will come.)
    It's a gaurantee that men will come, but those men may not be respectful or of the right morals to be allowed into your camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    you said/asked,
    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the KKK were evil, but I am not proposing a race-based slave system. Perhaps it would help if I called them "indentured servants"? Or "serfs"? People who are at the bottom rung, and will remain there. They will have to do as they are told, and they are told to do the most back-breaking and labourious work on penalty of severe punishment

    (I believe this is cruel and dis-honorable, and I believe that puts one at a disadvantage.)
    How so?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You asked,
    Would it be a jury trial who condemns people to death? Or a "Judge Dredd" type situation?

    (A jury and laws.)
    So a 2 month trial during which two dozen people are off work duty? Or would you severely reduce the burdon of proof to allow for faster trials?

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    You said/asked,
    Personally, I would style my camp on the Roman Senate model. A 'leadership' class, a 'civilian' class and a 'slave' class. I think that system provides the best way for the camp to progress and survive the early decades.
    (This is were your group falls into civil war.)
    (Your slave class will want to join my group, because your slaves would have full rights in my group.)
    (And history has shown that armed slaves, and armed former slaves, are some of the greatest warriors in all of history. And my group would have lots of weapons to give them.)
    Nope, your group would be far too focussed on politics, on laws and rules and social rights to prioritise the safety of your group. Despite your desire for 'honourable people', your camp would be mob-rule and would descend into everyman for himself. Factions would form and people would gang up on their political rivals to get them banished for made up srimes - i.e "not pulling their weight". Your camp would be full of my spies - they'd be allowed in no question, and could vote after 3 months. They'd sow discontent and encourage rivalry between your two leaders. They'd whisper into the ears of your fighting men, who would be sick of taking their turn at ditch digging, and being led by political opportunists. Your camp will splinter and I'll take the your resources with ease. Not that your camp would be good at administering your resources, you would be too busy voting on the age of consent, and how many wives a man can have
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Living in a rural area like I do, I see farms all around me. The main focus after a zombie attack would be getting those up and running again. So we'd need lots of guns, and people who wanted to come together and defend the storehouses, as well as be mobile enough to take on anyone who attacks ppl in the fields (since that's a very wide area.)

    I think most of the bandits would starve out after a little while. It's just a matter of getting that far. Once we've got agriculture back up and running, we might have enough excess produce to make biodiesel out of it, and that would give us a few operating vehicles. We could mount guns on them, and use them as our mobile strike force.

    Anyway, that's the plan for the long run. Over the short term, we'd just need to have enough food to hold out somewhere fortified and wait until the bandits start dying.
    You didn't really answer any of my questions. I'm less interested in how you survive, and more in how you organise yourselves. Which principles you would be willing to sacrifice for the good of the camp

    PS - The bandits won't die out completely. They will forage and steal and plunder and some may eventually take to farming, but they won't simply die out. Potential bandits will 'always' exist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah View Post
    "What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?"

    The fairest will of course be democracy, but it is hard to reach a political equilibrium when so much is at stake. Everyone will have different and conflicting interests, and they may not even respect the outcome of the democratic process. History has shown that it is not easy at all to establish a functioning democracy from a state of anarchy. This is something we should think about.

    I would treat the town as a militia and run it like a military unit. This is not to say that we should disregard human rights and basic human decency. We should still make sure we keep our most admirable attributes, but we have to recognise that we probably need harsher laws than we have in times of peace.

    Yes, I'd consider reintroducing capital punishment. Yes, I think we should put someone in charge who can really run this shit.

    Regarding how to choose this leader, in fact I don't think we should have a single leader, but maybe two leaders. We need separation of powers, and they have to be in charge of sufficiently different aspects of the town so that they don't struggle for power. One would be in charge of defence and security, and they will be elected by the combatants. The other would be voted for by the non-combatants (women, the young, disabled and the elderly) and be put in charge of logistics and finance. This is emphatically NOT a "fair" system because we do stratify the society depending on their capabilities (ie their relative merits, producing some form of meritocracy), but I think it is a general truism that not everyone is as qualified to vote for who's the best fighter and who's the best administrator. Everyone voting on everything just adds on unnecessary political tension and inefficiency.
    An interesting system. So would the military leader deal with all things military and the civilian leader everything else?

    Who would determine how much rations the militiamen get?

    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah View Post
    Next is education. We need to educate everyone on how to manage the economy and how to fight, and education is a very crucial aspect that we will often overlook. The combatants will need to have an understanding of how everyone is fed, the health status, the inventory, etc, and similarly the non-combatants need to know what kind of enemy we are facing and the ammo stock, etc. But yet we should still keep their specialisation. We cannot have a concentrated group of people with specialised knowledge of how things work because they will end up running the whole town in the long run. There has be some form of mobility between the combatant and non-combatants. We need to keep their roles sufficiently intertwined such that they are opposing yet complementary forces. The diffusion of knowledge is extremely important in balancing the power structure in the society, more so than any laws we can set up. People will die and we need new generations of trained individuals to take up their roles. This social mobility and continuity is very crucial in the long-run.
    I agree with that, though I am concerned about how you go about educating all the people on the various roles. You would only have a limited amount of 'spare' time (i.e those away from your core duties of farming, foraging, building, soldiering etc). Also, with everyone becoming a semi-expert, they will all have their own views about how best to progress. Won't this lead to political factions and infighting within the camp?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    .

    What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?

    Democracy? If so which form? Town council elected by the camp? Or town council run by you and your men?
    In a smaller group of people it's actually easier to run a perfect democracy than in large groups. You can hold a town meeting every week and vote on points of order and law.
    You are right in the sense that it's easier to get people to vote, but it's no easier to get people to agree. There will always be disagreements. Would you accept it if you and your men (the founders) had lost a vital vote due to the votes of newcomers and ditch diggers? A vote that impacts on the very survival of the camp?
    It would be time for them to go their separate ways.

    There should always be a rule in place that anyone who wants to leave is free to do so. The founders could simply threaten to leave. If the rest want to forcibly stop them, then it's time for blood to spill. If the rest can live without them, then it's up to the founders to decide what they think is best for themselves. Shall they stay and endure the outcome, or leave and start over?

    You can't always have everything you want.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    .
    Town sheriff? I.e dictator in all but name?
    The group would need a strong leader, but if that guy acts like a dictator in the sense of defying the will of his people, he would no longer have anyone to rule. Everyone would just go their separate ways.
    The guy would still have his men though, the core group. Would people really leave a successful town? If the dictator produces results? Will people leave a town with food, water, (limited) medicine and relative security because they don't get to vote? I don't think so myself.
    I see what you're driving at. A few men who are the core founding members (the ones who make the town a success), and everyone else is basically just a guest (less necessary)?

    I think when the next battle comes, you're going to want every able bodied person you can get to fight as a group. Numbers = power in combat. You're better off treating everyone as an equal so long as they're able to contribute something in combat. Otherwise you'll end up with a small group of people who are willing to fight to the death, and a whole bunch of other people who really aren't. The more enfranchised your group is, the more they'll fight as a team.

    Even if not all are able to fight equally well, they can still equally risk their lives. You never know who among the group is going to be the one that pulls your broken body off the battle field to save your life. It's best to assume it could be anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    How do you force people to engage in the dirty, tiring work that are essential for your town to survive?
    The group decides how to divide that up. If a person refuses to do the share that was decided upon for everyone to do, then probably they also forfeit their rations.
    So mob rule?

    Yes. Exactly. Mob Rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Under what conditions do you let people in? On the condition that they dig the ditches in exchange for food? I.e a return to slavery in all but name?
    Do you allow in large groups of men who are a different race/culture/religion to your own? The cultural differences may end in disagreements about how the town should be run - i.e they may have strong opinions on capital punishment that you don't share, or may want to introduce social rules that cause conflict within the town.
    Nothing stops you from starting multiple communities. If you've got different ethnicities that disagree about how things should be run, then by all means let them form a separate community.

    It's not like there's any shortage of space for them to settle in.
    Space would not be a problem, but finding the 'right' space would be. One with clean water, decent shelter, good arable land which is easy to defend. People would not want to start from scratch. And if they do, they would not look kindly on the town who "kicked them out". You would be setting up a future rival
    You could both cooperate in building the second community, then allow each person to decide individually which one they want to live in. Worst case, share a single water supply, but have a subdivision between two "parts of town".




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    As your town further progress, you need to encourage population increase so you can farm, build and patrol more. The bigger you are, the safer you are from hostile towns, and the more resilient you are from disease and natural disasters.
    How do you encourage women to have more babies?
    Do you reduce the age of consent? Do you allow polygamy? Do you restrict their rights and their availability to do certain jobs? Do you provide more rations and better shelter as a reward for having babies?


    What I am interested in, is how much of your 21st Century principles would get abandoned in such a situation. I oppose slavery today, but would I be willing to entertain it if it meant it helped my town and my family to survive? I oppose capital punishment, but with no prisons or wardens, how do you punish people who commit serious crime?
    Ultimately I don't see how population increase would ever be a good idea. Even if civilization has fallen, you'll probably be able to find at least one book on chemistry or mechanical engineering. Even a horse drawn harvester is going to be more effective than trying to beat hapless prisoners into working for you with hand tools (usually you can't trust a slave with machinery).

    More babies means more mouths to feed, and food will likely be the most scarce of all commodities.

    Even the possibility of slave labor would not be valuable enough to spare additional food for slaves that are likely to want to revolt (and contribute to your security problems.) You're better off if you simply don't take any prisoners.
    More people is always better. Even from a cold evolutionary viewpoint, it would weed out the 'weaker' people and leave you would a group more resiliant to disease, to starvation, to the cold. More people = more farmers, more soldiers, more workers. The bigger base of civilians you have, the more "thinkers" your group can afford. The type of people who can administer the towns and engage in activities that result in less direct benefits - educating the young for eg.

    [/quote]


    More people is better when it comes time to fight. It's worse if you aren't able to get your agricultural production up and running right away. Even if you do get it up and running, there will be a practical limit to how much land you can farm before you get too spread out to protect your workers from outside attacks.

    No matter how you look at it, your community has a finite carrying capacity.



    Lets say, for the sake of argument, that your group does not stumble accross a book detailing how to make a horse drawn harvester
    If there is not one single person skilled in the art of making harvesters, then we're not talking about the USA. It must be some other country. At least half of the men in the USA alive today would know how to build something like that if they needed to.


    Also, I am not convinced that slaves would want to revolt. If you had the choice of hard work resulting in food, water & shelter for you and your family, or risking life outside the walls of the camp, what would you choose? I don't think there would need to be a guard whipping them to work. There would be no incentive to work them to death. I am reminded of the POW camps in south Asia. They were in such deep jungle, that the prisoners had a better chance of survival in the camp than outside it. IIRC, many did not bother with walls.
    Individuals who stay for that reason are not accurately called "slaves". It's more appropriate to call them "serfs". No need to beat them. Just deny them food if they don't work, and threaten to send them away if they cause problems.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (How do you encourage women to have more babies?)
    Just have enough males around, reproduction happens naturally.
    It does, but very many women will not want to raise a child in such conditions. Many will terminate their pregnacies rather than go through labour with no medicine and limited medical equipment.

    To sustain your town, you would need a birthrate much higher than we currently have in the west, and would be looking for 5-6 births per woman? How would you encourage Western women to have more babies in worse conditions?
    Or you just need a constant influx of refugees.


    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And I would never allow slavery to return. Slavery breeds cruelty and dis-honor. I believe no one was as evil as slave holders, Nazis, and the KKK. And I believe being evil puts you at a disadvantage. And slave holders, Nazis, and the KKK were also insane, stupid, and dumb.
    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the KKK were evil, but I am not proposing a race-based slave system. Perhaps it would help if I called them "indentured servants"? Or "serfs"? People who are at the bottom rung, and will remain there. They will have to do as they are told, and they are told to do the most back-breaking and labourious work on penalty of severe punishment
    Honestly, if you're worried about attack from the outside your walls, the worst thing you can do is foster any kind of serious discontent inside your walls. It would just be dumb.

    There's virtually zero chance their labor would be valuable enough to justify the costs. You've got all this machinery around you. Automobiles left over in working condition, houses still not demolished.... etc. ... Sure you have no gas to power them, but you could improvise basic pull-by-horse machinery from the wreckage.

    The people around you have died, but most of their possessions remain.

    As for chemistry, it doesn't take a full on Chemistry degree to make biodiesel out of vegetable oil, so long as you have a handbook of some kind to work from. Just raid the local library while everyone else is out looting the stores. You probably won't get too much competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But perhaps I would use capital punishment, on certain dangerous males. If you were to let them leave, they may find others like themselves, and then come back.
    But I actually feel the same way about capital punishment today, but I am (against) capital punishment today for one reason. That reason being, innocent people are regularly killed.

    This is a very interesting thread, and I was feeling good, until I got to the part of capital punishment. Why????
    Would it be a jury trial who condemns people to death? Or a "Judge Dredd" type situation?
    Pretty much. Due process is a luxury. You'd have to run things much more fast and loose if you're barely cobbling a functional village together. Just call it to a community vote. If 66% of the population wants the guy dead, you kill him. If he's innocent, then too bad. A lot of innocent people are dying all around you every day outside your walls.

    If the vote is only 51%, then he's banished. (Which is just about as good as dead.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Military Government. If you want the right to have a say in what goes on you must serve in the towns militia. The model is closest to a Republic With a council and a senior council member. Think Heinlein's blueprint in Starship Troopers.
    Anyone wanting to join best have something they can contribute to the group to make the whole better. If you cannot contribute at least manual labor then you are SOL.
    Anyone attempting to raid and steal from my town would be met with force and then their home base would be subsequently raided and a scorched earth policy would then be in effect. Anyone taken during such a raid would become a slave and forced to do menial labor. Those who perform well and exhibit good behaviour would eventually be allowed to join the community and eventually even take a wife. Punishment would be draconian, from flogging and banishment to execution. depending on the crime.
    Women would be granted extra rations and benefits during pregnancy. Polygamy would be allowed but very close ties on bloodlines would be maintained to prevent inbreeding. Age of consent would be lowered to 16. at this point you are an adult and all the rights and responsibilities inherent with said title become yours.
    Last edited by dmwyant; August 6th, 2012 at 07:55 PM. Reason: Typo
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I would have agreed with you up until this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    Anyone taken during such a raid would become a slave and forced to do menial labor. Those who perform well and exhibit good behaviour would eventually be allowed to join the community and eventually even take a wife.
    What is everyone's fixation with slaves? They serve no useful purpose. They're the absolute worst extreme of all possible security risks. They're sleeping inside your walls and they hate you. How foolish/greedy would you have to be to want to keep them around?

    It's got to be just some kind of lust to dominate someone. I can't fathom any other reason. The purpose has to be emotional in nature.


    A better use for your enemies would be to boil the corpses and make biodiesel out of the grease. Then you could use your farm machinery again for a few days. Corpses don't seek revenge (well...... unless they become zombies I guess.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    You'd have to simplify no doubt, but I don't think there would have to be an compromise on principles.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    [I guess I mean kick out all the a. holes, and those who are not team players.
    Then it's not a democracy after all. It's a chadocracy.
    How do I know if some one is doing their best? I would not, and I guess people could manipulate and avoid work.

    But life has made me believe the following. If you put many/most people in a household, that loves and respects them. And that person is happy, and does not feel cheated in life. And that person gets proper rest and food. That person will do their part, and help to keep that household doing well.
    It's not a family, it's a town. Life has made me believe there are a lot of slackers who will take advantage of you.
    And I just do not like the culture of religious polygamy, especially since only the men get the multiple wives. If an equal amount of woman had 4 husbands, I would not mind it. And I also despise polygamy were only the wealthy men get multiple wives.

    But there are also real couples in America, were a group of 3 are in a long term sexual group. (And these groups do not bother me), because it happens naturally.



    These religious polygamists say, God told their profit "men should have several wives." Do you think God actually told their profit this??

    What if 150 years from now, most of America are multiple wife Mormons, like the real life tv show "Sister Wives"?
    Why pick on the Mormons? They don't even practice polygamy any more except a few splinter groups. How about Muslims? I guess you'd ban Muslims from your town.


    Last night I was going to tell you here, it was not a chadocracy. But I realize now it was. I expected everyone to follow my specific ideals and beliefs, and thats not right, and its un-American.


    You said, "It's not a family, it's a town. Life has made me believe there are a lot of slackers who will take advantage of you."

    Maybe you have never seen the other side of the tracks. I was about homeless for a year, when I was 21 years old. And I lived in a homeless shelter for about a month. I also grew up in New Orleans, and I have spent many years, very close to low income black and white Americans. So I have spent a lot of time around Americans, who many consider to be slackers, and welfare takers.

    And I feel that most of the people, that are considered slackers, are just Homo sapiens that have been cheated, and greatly misunderstood.


    About 40% of all homeless American men, are veterans of Americas wars. Are these people slackers or American hero's?
    Facts and Figures: The Homeless . NOW on PBS


    And about Black American, Indian American, and dirt poor white American Welfare cases,
    If tomorrow a government program came around, that gave these welfare recipients a 40 hour per week job, with a nice house and nice car, cable tv and a BBQ pit, along with enough money to pursue ones hobbies. This would cause welfare to just about vanish. Welfare is not its recipients fault, welfare is caused by racism, unthinkable poverty, having no transportation, lack of jobs, and bad government.



    Why do I pick on the Mormons? Because many people like myself, consider their life style to be female slavery.
    How would you like it, if your 18 year old daughter, was given orders by a filthy Mormon priest, that it is her duty to God, to become a 50 year old mans 5th wife?
    I personally want people like Andrew Jackson, Annie Oakley, and Wesley Hardin, to get near these American Mormon polygamist men.

    I also feel Mormon polygamy is not equal rights for woman. Americas laws state woman have the same rights as men.
    Were is this the Mormon wife with 5 husbands?



    How about Muslim polygamy? I dont like their sole male polygamy either, but at least their system is very old, and more natural than the Mormons.

    But after all of what America has done to the Arabs, and how America just went to Iraq, and killed 100,000 innocent Iraqi people for nothing.
    The only thing I want to tell any Muslim is this, "I am sorry."
    Last edited by chad; August 7th, 2012 at 04:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    .

    What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?

    Democracy? If so which form? Town council elected by the camp? Or town council run by you and your men?
    In a smaller group of people it's actually easier to run a perfect democracy than in large groups. You can hold a town meeting every week and vote on points of order and law.
    You are right in the sense that it's easier to get people to vote, but it's no easier to get people to agree. There will always be disagreements. Would you accept it if you and your men (the founders) had lost a vital vote due to the votes of newcomers and ditch diggers? A vote that impacts on the very survival of the camp?
    It would be time for them to go their separate ways.

    There should always be a rule in place that anyone who wants to leave is free to do so. The founders could simply threaten to leave. If the rest want to forcibly stop them, then it's time for blood to spill. If the rest can live without them, then it's up to the founders to decide what they think is best for themselves. Shall they stay and endure the outcome, or leave and start over?

    You can't always have everything you want.

    That is not going to make the camp prosper is it? Constantly splitting due to disagreements.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    .
    Town sheriff? I.e dictator in all but name?
    The group would need a strong leader, but if that guy acts like a dictator in the sense of defying the will of his people, he would no longer have anyone to rule. Everyone would just go their separate ways.
    The guy would still have his men though, the core group. Would people really leave a successful town? If the dictator produces results? Will people leave a town with food, water, (limited) medicine and relative security because they don't get to vote? I don't think so myself.
    I see what you're driving at. A few men who are the core founding members (the ones who make the town a success), and everyone else is basically just a guest (less necessary)?

    I think when the next battle comes, you're going to want every able bodied person you can get to fight as a group. Numbers = power in combat. You're better off treating everyone as an equal so long as they're able to contribute something in combat. Otherwise you'll end up with a small group of people who are willing to fight to the death, and a whole bunch of other people who really aren't. The more enfranchised your group is, the more they'll fight as a team.

    Even if not all are able to fight equally well, they can still equally risk their lives. You never know who among the group is going to be the one that pulls your broken body off the battle field to save your life. It's best to assume it could be anyone.
    Indeed, you would want numbers on your side. So would people really leave a 'successful' camp if their needs were being looked to? Would they really care about 'democracy' so much?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    How do you force people to engage in the dirty, tiring work that are essential for your town to survive?
    The group decides how to divide that up. If a person refuses to do the share that was decided upon for everyone to do, then probably they also forfeit their rations.
    So mob rule?
    Yes. Exactly. Mob Rule.
    Terrible idea. The majority viewpoint is not always the right one


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Under what conditions do you let people in? On the condition that they dig the ditches in exchange for food? I.e a return to slavery in all but name?
    Do you allow in large groups of men who are a different race/culture/religion to your own? The cultural differences may end in disagreements about how the town should be run - i.e they may have strong opinions on capital punishment that you don't share, or may want to introduce social rules that cause conflict within the town.
    Nothing stops you from starting multiple communities. If you've got different ethnicities that disagree about how things should be run, then by all means let them form a separate community.

    It's not like there's any shortage of space for them to settle in.
    Space would not be a problem, but finding the 'right' space would be. One with clean water, decent shelter, good arable land which is easy to defend. People would not want to start from scratch. And if they do, they would not look kindly on the town who "kicked them out". You would be setting up a future rival
    You could both cooperate in building the second community, then allow each person to decide individually which one they want to live in. Worst case, share a single water supply, but have a subdivision between two "parts of town".
    Now you are just being naive. People do not behave like that in the real world


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    As your town further progress, you need to encourage population increase so you can farm, build and patrol more. The bigger you are, the safer you are from hostile towns, and the more resilient you are from disease and natural disasters.
    How do you encourage women to have more babies?
    Do you reduce the age of consent? Do you allow polygamy? Do you restrict their rights and their availability to do certain jobs? Do you provide more rations and better shelter as a reward for having babies?


    What I am interested in, is how much of your 21st Century principles would get abandoned in such a situation. I oppose slavery today, but would I be willing to entertain it if it meant it helped my town and my family to survive? I oppose capital punishment, but with no prisons or wardens, how do you punish people who commit serious crime?
    Ultimately I don't see how population increase would ever be a good idea. Even if civilization has fallen, you'll probably be able to find at least one book on chemistry or mechanical engineering. Even a horse drawn harvester is going to be more effective than trying to beat hapless prisoners into working for you with hand tools (usually you can't trust a slave with machinery).

    More babies means more mouths to feed, and food will likely be the most scarce of all commodities.

    Even the possibility of slave labor would not be valuable enough to spare additional food for slaves that are likely to want to revolt (and contribute to your security problems.) You're better off if you simply don't take any prisoners.
    More people is always better. Even from a cold evolutionary viewpoint, it would weed out the 'weaker' people and leave you would a group more resiliant to disease, to starvation, to the cold. More people = more farmers, more soldiers, more workers. The bigger base of civilians you have, the more "thinkers" your group can afford. The type of people who can administer the towns and engage in activities that result in less direct benefits - educating the young for eg.

    More people is better when it comes time to fight. It's worse if you aren't able to get your agricultural production up and running right away. Even if you do get it up and running, there will be a practical limit to how much land you can farm before you get too spread out to protect your workers from outside attacks.

    No matter how you look at it, your community has a finite carrying capacity. [/QUOTE]


    More people is better all round. Even when food is scarce, the more people you have, the more succesful you will be at foraging, hunting and farming.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post


    Lets say, for the sake of argument, that your group does not stumble accross a book detailing how to make a horse drawn harvester
    If there is not one single person skilled in the art of making harvesters, then we're not talking about the USA. It must be some other country. At least half of the men in the USA alive today would know how to build something like that if they needed to.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Also, I am not convinced that slaves would want to revolt. If you had the choice of hard work resulting in food, water & shelter for you and your family, or risking life outside the walls of the camp, what would you choose? I don't think there would need to be a guard whipping them to work. There would be no incentive to work them to death. I am reminded of the POW camps in south Asia. They were in such deep jungle, that the prisoners had a better chance of survival in the camp than outside it. IIRC, many did not bother with walls.
    Individuals who stay for that reason are not accurately called "slaves". It's more appropriate to call them "serfs". No need to beat them. Just deny them food if they don't work, and threaten to send them away if they cause problems.
    Meh, it's a semantic difference surely? Slave or serf, same thing in reality. A labour force with very few rights who are effectively 'owned' by the camp
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (How do you encourage women to have more babies?)
    Just have enough males around, reproduction happens naturally.
    It does, but very many women will not want to raise a child in such conditions. Many will terminate their pregnacies rather than go through labour with no medicine and limited medical equipment.

    To sustain your town, you would need a birthrate much higher than we currently have in the west, and would be looking for 5-6 births per woman? How would you encourage Western women to have more babies in worse conditions?
    Or you just need a constant influx of refugees.
    Which is something you can not rely upon

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And I would never allow slavery to return. Slavery breeds cruelty and dis-honor. I believe no one was as evil as slave holders, Nazis, and the KKK. And I believe being evil puts you at a disadvantage. And slave holders, Nazis, and the KKK were also insane, stupid, and dumb.
    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the KKK were evil, but I am not proposing a race-based slave system. Perhaps it would help if I called them "indentured servants"? Or "serfs"? People who are at the bottom rung, and will remain there. They will have to do as they are told, and they are told to do the most back-breaking and labourious work on penalty of severe punishment
    Honestly, if you're worried about attack from the outside your walls, the worst thing you can do is foster any kind of serious discontent inside your walls. It would just be dumb.
    I agree. But what 'serious' discontent are you referring to? The slaves/serfs would be better in the camp than outside it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    There's virtually zero chance their labor would be valuable enough to justify the costs. You've got all this machinery around you. Automobiles left over in working condition, houses still not demolished.... etc. ... Sure you have no gas to power them, but you could improvise basic pull-by-horse machinery from the wreckage.

    The people around you have died, but most of their possessions remain.

    As for chemistry, it doesn't take a full on Chemistry degree to make biodiesel out of vegetable oil, so long as you have a handbook of some kind to work from. Just raid the local library while everyone else is out looting the stores. You probably won't get too much competition.
    It's not that simple. The zombies caused utter chaos. People panicked, closed borders, fought eachother. Power stations shut down, gas mains ruptured, fires engulfed entire towns (no fire brigade to put them out). Shops, warehouses, gun stores, libraries, museums all ransacked and burnt, books soaked from rain and snow.

    No Deus ex machina's in my thread please


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But perhaps I would use capital punishment, on certain dangerous males. If you were to let them leave, they may find others like themselves, and then come back.
    But I actually feel the same way about capital punishment today, but I am (against) capital punishment today for one reason. That reason being, innocent people are regularly killed.

    This is a very interesting thread, and I was feeling good, until I got to the part of capital punishment. Why????
    Would it be a jury trial who condemns people to death? Or a "Judge Dredd" type situation?
    Pretty much. Due process is a luxury. You'd have to run things much more fast and loose if you're barely cobbling a functional village together. Just call it to a community vote. If 66% of the population wants the guy dead, you kill him. If he's innocent, then too bad. A lot of innocent people are dying all around you every day outside your walls.

    If the vote is only 51%, then he's banished. (Which is just about as good as dead.)
    So mob-rule in matters of law as well?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    Military Government. If you want the right to have a say in what goes on you must serve in the towns militia. The model is closest to a Republic With a council and a senior council member. Think Heinlein's blueprint in Starship Troopers.
    Anyone wanting to join best have something they can contribute to the group to make the whole better. If you cannot contribute at least manual labor then you are SOL.
    Anyone attempting to raid and steal from my town would be met with force and then their home base would be subsequently raided and a scorched earth policy would then be in effect. Anyone taken during such a raid would become a slave and forced to do menial labor. Those who perform well and exhibit good behaviour would eventually be allowed to join the community and eventually even take a wife. Punishment would be draconian, from flogging and banishment to execution. depending on the crime.
    Women would be granted extra rations and benefits during pregnancy. Polygamy would be allowed but very close ties on bloodlines would be maintained to prevent inbreeding. Age of consent would be lowered to 16. at this point you are an adult and all the rights and responsibilities inherent with said title become yours.
    Now that's a camp that would do well
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [quote=se15;342192]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post


    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    you said/asked,
    personally, i would style my camp on the roman senate model. A 'leadership' class, a 'civilian' class and a 'slave' class. I think that system provides the best way for the camp to progress and survive the early decades.
    (this is were your group falls into civil war.)
    (your slave class will want to join my group, because your slaves would have full rights in my group.)
    (and history has shown that armed slaves, and armed former slaves, are some of the greatest warriors in all of history. And my group would have lots of weapons to give them.)
    nope, your group would be far too focussed on politics, on laws and rules and social rights to prioritise the safety of your group. Despite your desire for 'honourable people', your camp would be mob-rule and would descend into everyman for himself. Factions would form and people would gang up on their political rivals to get them banished for made up srimes - i.e "not pulling their weight". Your camp would be full of my spies - they'd be allowed in no question, and could vote after 3 months. They'd sow discontent and encourage rivalry between your two leaders. They'd whisper into the ears of your fighting men, who would be sick of taking their turn at ditch digging, and being led by political opportunists. Your camp will splinter and i'll take the your resources with ease. Not that your camp would be good at administering your resources, you would be too busy voting on the age of consent, and how many wives a man can have



    I desire to slightly change my government from the beginning. After reading Harolds post, I realized I may have taken too much power for myself.
    My governments laws, are the same as Americas laws at the time it happens. This way most Americans will join my group, because it is the way they are all used to living.

    And your slave class wants to join my group, and I believe you are nervous about this. Thats why your last remarks to me, were not as clear, concise, and rational as all your previous remarks.


    My group is not focused on politics, laws, rules, or social rights. My group is focused on not becoming members, of your slave class.

    Most people in my group are not gun, knife, and death loving people. They are football fans, and they dont like people trying to kill them. They fear your group more than anything.

    85% of all tax paying law abiding Americans are in my group. And we still sing Americas national anthem. Many of them are trained soldiers, and they need and want to kill your group. Many of us are scared your group will kill our families, and the only thing they live for is to stop your group.




    Draw- A contest ending without either side winning.

    I offer, and would like a draw.
    Last edited by chad; August 7th, 2012 at 11:53 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I desire to slightly change my government from the beginning. After reading Harolds post, I realized I may have taken too much power for myself.
    My governments laws, are the same as Americas laws at the time it happens. This way most Americans will join my group, because it is the way they are all used to living.
    And that right there is your biggest flaw; you are trying to live a 21st century life in 5th Century conditions

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And your slave class wants to join my group, and I believe you are nervous about this.
    That's not a worry in the slightest. My 'slaves' will be people of no discernable skill other than their brute strength. They will not be doctors, or engineers or even farmers. Pre-zombie attack they would have been your city dwellers, working as waiters, road sweepers, taxi-drivers, office workers, art graduates etc who have no 'outdoors' experience. They would be people who would struggle to survive outside the camp and would be thankful to be in a place that provides them food, shelter, water and relative security. These people do not know how to run a camp, and do not deserve to vote on how it is run


    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    My group is not focused on politics, laws, rules, or social rights. My group is focused on not becoming members, of your slave class.
    You would have killed a man for dating a 14 year old. You would outlaw polygamy.
    You would have wasted far too much time debating social issues like those, that you wouldn't be well prepared for winter.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Most people in my group are not gun, knife, and death loving people. They are football fans, and they dont like people trying to kill them. They fear your group more than anything.


    They have nothing to fear from my group, unless they try to steal our resources. We will not conquer other villages unless they try to attack us.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    85% of all tax paying law abiding Americans are in my group. And we still sing Americas national anthem. Many of them are trained soldiers, and they need and want to kill your group. Many of us are scared your group will kill our families, and the only thing they live for is to stop your group. Even the old woman in my group have razor sharp spears, ready to stick your group when they come near the children.


    85% of all tax paying law abiding Americans are dead. Zombies ate them. Singing will not protect you from the cold, from hunger, from disease. It will not make the slackers get off their backsides.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Draw- A contest ending without either side winning.

    I offer, and would like a draw.


    We can live in peace. But I will actively recruit your best and brightest. I will offer them more rations, less back breaking labour and many wives (). They will have full rights after 3 years service in either the militia or the civilian department (for the engineers, the experienced farmers, butchers, teachers etc). By the time they come full citizens, your camp would disintegrate under the burden of people moaning about their rights
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    [I guess I mean kick out all the a. holes, and those who are not team players.
    Then it's not a democracy after all. It's a chadocracy.
    How do I know if some one is doing their best? I would not, and I guess people could manipulate and avoid work.

    But life has made me believe the following. If you put many/most people in a household, that loves and respects them. And that person is happy, and does not feel cheated in life. And that person gets proper rest and food. That person will do their part, and help to keep that household doing well.
    It's not a family, it's a town. Life has made me believe there are a lot of slackers who will take advantage of you.
    And I just do not like the culture of religious polygamy, especially since only the men get the multiple wives. If an equal amount of woman had 4 husbands, I would not mind it. And I also despise polygamy were only the wealthy men get multiple wives.

    But there are also real couples in America, were a group of 3 are in a long term sexual group. (And these groups do not bother me), because it happens naturally.



    These religious polygamists say, God told their profit "men should have several wives." Do you think God actually told their profit this??

    What if 150 years from now, most of America are multiple wife Mormons, like the real life tv show "Sister Wives"?
    Why pick on the Mormons? They don't even practice polygamy any more except a few splinter groups. How about Muslims? I guess you'd ban Muslims from your town.



    “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.”
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    Thank you for allowing me to see, that all of my dreams are not beautiful. But I wish they were.
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=SE15;342512]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    you said,
    85% of all tax paying law abiding Americans are dead. Zombies ate them. Singing will not protect you from the cold, from hunger, from disease. It will not make the slackers get off their backsides.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Draw- A contest ending without either side winning.

    I offer, and would like a draw.
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    [/SIZE]

    We can live in peace. But I will actively recruit your best and brightest. I will offer them more rations, less back breaking labour and many wives (). They will have full rights after 3 years service in either the militia or the civilian department (for the engineers, the experienced farmers, butchers, teachers etc). By the time they come full citizens, your camp would disintegrate under the burden of people moaning about their rights




    Cannibal zombies? F. that.
    I believe your group controls the zombies, so someone is coming to kill your groups leaders.
    Last edited by chad; August 13th, 2012 at 01:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore arkofnoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah View Post
    "What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?"

    The fairest will of course be democracy, but it is hard to reach a political equilibrium when so much is at stake. Everyone will have different and conflicting interests, and they may not even respect the outcome of the democratic process. History has shown that it is not easy at all to establish a functioning democracy from a state of anarchy. This is something we should think about.

    I would treat the town as a militia and run it like a military unit. This is not to say that we should disregard human rights and basic human decency. We should still make sure we keep our most admirable attributes, but we have to recognise that we probably need harsher laws than we have in times of peace.

    Yes, I'd consider reintroducing capital punishment. Yes, I think we should put someone in charge who can really run this shit.

    Regarding how to choose this leader, in fact I don't think we should have a single leader, but maybe two leaders. We need separation of powers, and they have to be in charge of sufficiently different aspects of the town so that they don't struggle for power. One would be in charge of defence and security, and they will be elected by the combatants. The other would be voted for by the non-combatants (women, the young, disabled and the elderly) and be put in charge of logistics and finance. This is emphatically NOT a "fair" system because we do stratify the society depending on their capabilities (ie their relative merits, producing some form of meritocracy), but I think it is a general truism that not everyone is as qualified to vote for who's the best fighter and who's the best administrator. Everyone voting on everything just adds on unnecessary political tension and inefficiency.
    An interesting system. So would the military leader deal with all things military and the civilian leader everything else?

    Who would determine how much rations the militiamen get?
    Yes the military leader will be in charge of military, and the civilian leader the economy. However each group will have veto power on each under certain conditions (such as after holding a referendum).

    I think micro-issues like how we ration out the food, water and medical supplies will not have an easy solution. Obviously we can't feed the military too well while starving the civilians, but equally obviously the military will need more food than the civilians because they are spending more energy guarding the town from zombies and bandits.

    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arkofnoah View Post
    Next is education. We need to educate everyone on how to manage the economy and how to fight, and education is a very crucial aspect that we will often overlook. The combatants will need to have an understanding of how everyone is fed, the health status, the inventory, etc, and similarly the non-combatants need to know what kind of enemy we are facing and the ammo stock, etc. But yet we should still keep their specialisation. We cannot have a concentrated group of people with specialised knowledge of how things work because they will end up running the whole town in the long run. There has be some form of mobility between the combatant and non-combatants. We need to keep their roles sufficiently intertwined such that they are opposing yet complementary forces. The diffusion of knowledge is extremely important in balancing the power structure in the society, more so than any laws we can set up. People will die and we need new generations of trained individuals to take up their roles. This social mobility and continuity is very crucial in the long-run.
    I agree with that, though I am concerned about how you go about educating all the people on the various roles. You would only have a limited amount of 'spare' time (i.e those away from your core duties of farming, foraging, building, soldiering etc). Also, with everyone becoming a semi-expert, they will all have their own views about how best to progress. Won't this lead to political factions and infighting within the camp?
    It is absolutely worthwhile to allocate some people from both the military and civilian class to be teachers at any point in time (perhaps on rotation basis), and this reduction in manpower will be a form of long-term investment to build a stronger community. Firstly by having military and civilian classes interact with each other, it will further emphasise the mobility between the two "classes". I cannot stress the importance of sociopolitical mobility enough because it will make or break this stratified system I'm proposing. We have to enforce this tradition from the very beginning, when we split off the population into the combatant class and non-combatant class, because history has shown that if we leave society as it is, the chasm between the social classes will always widen.

    Secondly, by having a semi-expert population who knows what's going on, everyone becomes the watchmen. An intelligent society is a far scarier force to take on than one with more firepower, and a well educated society will provide the strongest check and balance for the leading class and is the best way to deter oppression, because the leaders will be outwitted should they try anything funny.

    Regarding whether there will be political factions and infighting, there will definitely be, but as long as we avoid violence, such discourse is not necessarily bad.

    I would also like to introduce the idea of what I called a "prototype culture". Through education we must not only pass on technical knowledge, but we have to teach them values and ideologies such as regards for human rights and laws, as well as enforce certain traditions such as mutual teaching, about virtues and teach them why we can achieve more with a society that is free of violence. We need to create a culture, and culture can be created. Successful enterprises have good corporate cultures and we can take a leaf out of their book. But emphatically this culture cannot be dogmatic and rigid, but must be constantly revised and rethought, hence I call it a prototype culture because it's only good as a starting point but never an end point.
    Last edited by arkofnoah; August 7th, 2012 at 01:30 PM.
    Blog
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    . . . Populations have crashed to a tenth of what they were, food supplies are running low, people have resorted to banditry and lawlessness. Chaos. You and a number of men in your town group together to try to lead humanity back into the light.

    You have a number of high priority tasks that are very labour intensive - farming, shelter building, ditch digging, security patrols etc. Mains electricity is off and you only have a finite amount of petrol and food

    What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?

    Democracy? If so which form? Town council elected by the camp? Or town council run by you and your men?
    Town sheriff? I.e dictator in all but name?
    How do you force people to engage in the dirty, tiring work that are essential for your town to survive?
    Well if 'I' had the choice for the governance of 'my' town I declare myself defacto leader until the immediate crisis had passed and such time as a more suitable replacement could be found, the last thing you need in the middle of a crisis is conflict over leadership. You need a clear structure and chain of command. So I would as quickly as possible try to assess the relevant skills of the town and appoint people to be in charge of certain areas of responsibility. However this would only be a temporary state of affairs for the period until the town/camp is secure and food and water sources have been established. At which point a ruling council of a combination of the most popular and most qualified people should be installed with then general populous approval to have final responsibility for major decisions. The council could then appoint people for key areas of responsibility and install it's own chain of command and a leader that is only subservient to the ruling council.

    As for getting people to work, assessment of their abilities will be the first task then finding the correct way of motivating them must be employed, not one single method will be effective for everyone. With a veiw that willing workers would way out perform forced labour the correct form of motivation is very important, also skill training will be crucial, there are certain essential skills that must be maintained and ensuring that no single person is the only one with that knowlegde should be a priority.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post

    As your camp improves, you get refugees wanting to join, but you only have limited rations and can not feed them all.

    How do you decide who to let in and who not to let in?

    Do you keep out the weak and elderly? The disabled?
    Under what conditions do you let people in? On the condition that they dig the ditches in exchange for food? I.e a return to slavery in all but name?
    Do you allow in large groups of men who are a different race/culture/religion to your own? The cultural differences may end in disagreements about how the town should be run - i.e they may have strong opinions on capital punishment that you don't share, or may want to introduce social rules that cause conflict within the town.

    Do you allow in ex-bandits? They would help in the defence of the town, but may try to take it from you by force?
    The decision about who to let in has to come down to survival, you cannot place morality above survival, survival must come first. That said however if it is possible to let more people in by sharing rations without people starving then as many as possible should be let in. They should be let in on a skills basis of who has the most needed skill to contribute at that time. Also people should be let in on a voluntary basis there should be no effort or attempt at slavery.

    If they are weak or disabled is irrelevant if they have required skills, race, creed colour again irrelevant, top priority skills. All people let in must agree to abide by town/camp rules regardless of own feelings as a condition of entry.

    Yes you let in ex bandits, but keep an eye on them.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Other towns will try to steal your food and resources, what do you do? These are desperate times, they are hungry people but you have no food to spare. Do you attack them in their village or do you hope your walls and ditches can keep them out?
    If you do attack them, how do you stop them becoming a threat in the future? Slaughter them? Install a friendly leader and enforce your own style of government on them (i.e conquer and colonise)?

    The first thing that is required is intelligence gathering, without good intel it's difficult to plan the correct stratergy, so small reconnaissance would be assembled to assess the setup of any surrounding towns or camps. If the any appear to pose an immediate threat then a good deffensive plan is needed preferably giving the potential thread something to worry about, probarbly using the zombies. Creating an opening in a enermies defences and 'encouraging a large number of zombies through it might prove successful in giving my town/camp the time it requires to build sufficient defences. I would also plan on using zombies for my towns defence, there would be lots of them and just waiting to attack anything alive, they would make good 'attack dogs' for any potential attackers. They would have to be well controlled though in small groups at a time and penned in to a specific area until needed.

    Also one thing that you really think that they would learn in these zombie films, if your travelling around in a zombie filled enviroment is body armour, if they can't bite you then they can't make you a zombie or eat you. For this I would think there should be plenty of sports gear around that should do the job.

    As for other towns or groups becoming a threat well reduction of their populations by pursuading people to leave them and join my town, also non aggression and mutual defence pacts with other leaders. I think the main deterrent should be that the leaders of other towns are fully aware that it will not be in there interest to attack my town.


    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    As your town further progress, you need to encourage population increase so you can farm, build and patrol more. The bigger you are, the safer you are from hostile towns, and the more resilient you are from disease and natural disasters.
    How do you encourage women to have more babies?
    Do you reduce the age of consent? Do you allow polygamy? Do you restrict their rights and their availability to do certain jobs? Do you provide more rations and better shelter as a reward for having babies?
    As expansion becomes possible I think population growth should first be acheived by finding other survivors and providing a safe haven for them. Search parties sent out and radio broadcasts to find others.

    Encouraging a higher birth rate should be done through setting up collective child care where children are looked after in groups, this will enable more freedom for more parents without the 24/7 resposibility of childcare in zombie world. Setting up schools is also a priority.
    I think if you prove good conditions to bring up children and make it easier for parents then they will be less resistant to having children in the first place.
    Lowering the age of consent may allow youger people to have more fun in a world in which their future is uncertain but is counter productive for population growth as the babies of really young mothers have a lesser chance of survival. So maintaining the current age is probarbly more sensible. However the use or availability of contraception should be seriously restricted.

    Polygamy is a very dangerous idea in small communities and would be a ticking timebomb. Whilst it may increase population in the short term the problems this would present for future generations is not worth it. It would present a massive risk that the next generation's potential sexual partners are half brothers or half sisters.

    Also the extra status idea for women who have given birth may be useful as encouragement. Any mother in society should be respected for the fact she is a mother.

    Also with regard to crime and punishment, restricted access to food is one sanction, ultimate sanctions will be periods of/ or total banishment from the town, these will be used as detterent for serious crimes.

    Whilst I think principles or morality cannot compete when in direct competition with the need for survival I do think that if things are planned properly then they can be maintained in most cases. At the very least a system of equality and fairness for all can be installed and should be.
    It is this basic fairness that will ultimately ensure success and that people remain supportive and content.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Polygamy is a very dangerous idea in small communities and would be a ticking timebomb. Whilst it may increase population in the short term the problems this would present for future generations is not worth it. It would present a massive risk that the next generation's potential sexual partners are half brothers or half sisters.
    Kind of curious why you think any of that is a problem, considering polygamy is and has been a very widely practiced by numerous fully successful societies through human history. It does tie to western values--I get that. Don't think it has anything to do with survival.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    . . . Populations have crashed to a tenth of what they were, food supplies are running low, people have resorted to banditry and lawlessness. Chaos. You and a number of men in your town group together to try to lead humanity back into the light.

    You have a number of high priority tasks that are very labour intensive - farming, shelter building, ditch digging, security patrols etc. Mains electricity is off and you only have a finite amount of petrol and food

    What form of government/organisational structure do you choose to run your town?

    Democracy? If so which form? Town council elected by the camp? Or town council run by you and your men?
    Town sheriff? I.e dictator in all but name?
    How do you force people to engage in the dirty, tiring work that are essential for your town to survive?


    As your camp improves, you get refugees wanting to join, but you only have limited rations and can not feed them all.

    How do you decide who to let in and who not to let in?

    Do you keep out the weak and elderly? The disabled?
    Under what conditions do you let people in? On the condition that they dig the ditches in exchange for food? I.e a return to slavery in all but name?
    Do you allow in large groups of men who are a different race/culture/religion to your own? The cultural differences may end in disagreements about how the town should be run - i.e they may have strong opinions on capital punishment that you don't share, or may want to introduce social rules that cause conflict within the town.

    Do you allow in ex-bandits? They would help in the defence of the town, but may try to take it from you by force?
    Other towns will try to steal your food and resources, what do you do? These are desperate times, they are hungry people but you have no food to spare. Do you attack them in their village or do you hope your walls and ditches can keep them out?
    If you do attack them, how do you stop them becoming a threat in the future? Slaughter them? Install a friendly leader and enforce your own style of government on them (i.e conquer and colonise)?

    As your town further progress, you need to encourage population increase so you can farm, build and patrol more. The bigger you are, the safer you are from hostile towns, and the more resilient you are from disease and natural disasters.
    How do you encourage women to have more babies?
    Do you reduce the age of consent? Do you allow polygamy? Do you restrict their rights and their availability to do certain jobs? Do you provide more rations and better shelter as a reward for having babies?


    What I am interested in, is how much of your 21st Century principles would get abandoned in such a situation. I oppose slavery today, but would I be willing to entertain it if it meant it helped my town and my family to survive? I oppose capital punishment, but with no prisons or wardens, how do you punish people who commit serious crime?

    Nice thread.
    Last edited by chad; August 10th, 2012 at 05:41 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    In a smaller group of people it's actually easier to run a perfect democracy than in large groups. You can hold a town meeting every week and vote on points of order and law.
    You are right in the sense that it's easier to get people to vote, but it's no easier to get people to agree. There will always be disagreements. Would you accept it if you and your men (the founders) had lost a vital vote due to the votes of newcomers and ditch diggers? A vote that impacts on the very survival of the camp?


    It would be time for them to go their separate ways.

    There should always be a rule in place that anyone who wants to leave is free to do so. The founders could simply threaten to leave. If the rest want to forcibly stop them, then it's time for blood to spill. If the rest can live without them, then it's up to the founders to decide what they think is best for themselves. Shall they stay and endure the outcome, or leave and start over?

    You can't always have everything you want.

    That is not going to make the camp prosper is it? Constantly splitting due to disagreements.

    Your primary concern is military security. So long as the splits are amicable, you can still combine forces when you're under attack. That's the important thing. You need to maximise the cooperation of your military forces.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    I see what you're driving at. A few men who are the core founding members (the ones who make the town a success), and everyone else is basically just a guest (less necessary)?

    I think when the next battle comes, you're going to want every able bodied person you can get to fight as a group. Numbers = power in combat. You're better off treating everyone as an equal so long as they're able to contribute something in combat. Otherwise you'll end up with a small group of people who are willing to fight to the death, and a whole bunch of other people who really aren't. The more enfranchised your group is, the more they'll fight as a team.

    Even if not all are able to fight equally well, they can still equally risk their lives. You never know who among the group is going to be the one that pulls your broken body off the battle field to save your life. It's best to assume it could be anyone.
    Indeed, you would want numbers on your side. So would people really leave a 'successful' camp if their needs were being looked to? Would they really care about 'democracy' so much?

    They probably wouldn't leave. But that's not what matters. Democracy fosters the easiest cooperation, with the smallest percentage of your efforts having to go into law enforcement. The closer you get to an egalitarian free society, the higher the percentage of your population you can dedicate to field work.

    If you want to have slaves, then you also have to have task masters who stand around not working while they supervise the slaves. You've got to have gun men on duty at all times to prevent insurrection - people who could have been working also.

    Both the quality of work, and the total quantity of work being done will plummet, because your workers are both malcontent with their position (so doing the absolute minimum that won't get them bullwhipped) and less numerous (because of the task masters who are being kept out of the labor pool.)




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    The group decides how to divide that up. If a person refuses to do the share that was decided upon for everyone to do, then probably they also forfeit their rations.
    So mob rule?

    Yes. Exactly. Mob Rule.
    Terrible idea. The majority viewpoint is not always the right one
    Neither is the dictator's viewpoint. I'm sorry to break this to you, but there is no such thing as a viewpoint that always arrives at the right conclusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Space would not be a problem, but finding the 'right' space would be. One with clean water, decent shelter, good arable land which is easy to defend. People would not want to start from scratch. And if they do, they would not look kindly on the town who "kicked them out". You would be setting up a future rival
    You could both cooperate in building the second community, then allow each person to decide individually which one they want to live in. Worst case, share a single water supply, but have a subdivision between two "parts of town".
    Now you are just being naive. People do not behave like that in the real world
    People can cooperate almost perfectly over a short length of time (such as just long enough to set up a second community). They just can't do so over the long run.

    Howevr, there's no need for them to do so over the long run. Once the communities have separated, that cooperation ends. Basically both groups would have to come to an agreement about how much labor each one would dedicate to the new settlement, and then honor it. Both groups want to continue doing business with each other later on. At a minimum they're going to want to be able to count on each other the next time a group of bandits rolls through the area. Probably they'll also want to be able to trade. So there's actually quite a lot of incentive to honor the deal.

    Even the worst criminals will honor a deal if they value your participation and think that doing otherwise would disrupt their ability to deal with you in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post



    More people is better when it comes time to fight. It's worse if you aren't able to get your agricultural production up and running right away. Even if you do get it up and running, there will be a practical limit to how much land you can farm before you get too spread out to protect your workers from outside attacks.

    No matter how you look at it, your community has a finite carrying capacity.

    More people is better all round. Even when food is scarce, the more people you have, the more succesful you will be at foraging, hunting and farming.
    That's not really true. Whether farming or foraging, you'll always run into the problem that you can only range out so far from your central settlement before the travel times make it simply impractical to range any further. That means you have limited real estate. This is especially true if you don't have automobiles.

    For a farm of any given size, there is a certain optimal number of workers, and exceeding that number will not add any more production. It simply won't. After you've got fooding growing on every square yard of the field, you can't fit more grain into that space even with a million workers. You just have to sit back and wait for nature to do its part. Any extra workers would just be standing around holding their pitch forks and trying to "look busy."

    Foraging has the same basic problem. There's only so much area you can practically scavenge from. (That's why hunter gatherer societies don't form into tribes of infinite size. After the carrying capacity of the area they hunt has been exceeded by their population, the tribe splits to create two villages that have two hunting areas. There's no reason to think that dynamic would be different in a post apocalypse situation. )
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (How do you encourage women to have more babies?)
    Just have enough males around, reproduction happens naturally.
    It does, but very many women will not want to raise a child in such conditions. Many will terminate their pregnacies rather than go through labour with no medicine and limited medical equipment.

    To sustain your town, you would need a birthrate much higher than we currently have in the west, and would be looking for 5-6 births per woman? How would you encourage Western women to have more babies in worse conditions?
    Or you just need a constant influx of refugees.
    Which is something you can not rely upon
    If the society that you create is so functional, I would think it would be the one thing you could most rely upon. Just send out a few recruiters to find scared pockets of survivors huddling together in less functional villages, and bring them to you. "If you build it, they will come."

    However, I have to admit that in the long run it will be important to replenish your young population, so the current population don't all just grow old and then lose the ability to continue working (which would probably cause your society to fail.) The refugees who come to you will probably be other survivors, meaning that their age will depend on how long ago the apocalypse started. So as time progresses, even the refugees who come to you will continually be getting older and older.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    And I would never allow slavery to return. Slavery breeds cruelty and dis-honor. I believe no one was as evil as slave holders, Nazis, and the KKK. And I believe being evil puts you at a disadvantage. And slave holders, Nazis, and the KKK were also insane, stupid, and dumb.
    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the KKK were evil, but I am not proposing a race-based slave system. Perhaps it would help if I called them "indentured servants"? Or "serfs"? People who are at the bottom rung, and will remain there. They will have to do as they are told, and they are told to do the most back-breaking and labourious work on penalty of severe punishment
    Honestly, if you're worried about attack from the outside your walls, the worst thing you can do is foster any kind of serious discontent inside your walls. It would just be dumb.
    I agree. But what 'serious' discontent are you referring to? The slaves/serfs would be better in the camp than outside it.
    They might not want to destroy your village or even leave, but I'm sure they'd love to stage a coup and overthrow the leadership so they could stop having to be slaves. Even if that's all they want, they're still a security risk.

    Bandits probably also wouldn't want to destroy your village. Just exact tribute, or periodically pillage it, or take over and rule it and reduce all the incumbent citizens to being their serfs.

    Now, just think if one of those groups of bandits decides to strike a deal with your slaves, and offers to give them freedom if they help overthrow your village?


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    There's virtually zero chance their labor would be valuable enough to justify the costs. You've got all this machinery around you. Automobiles left over in working condition, houses still not demolished.... etc. ... Sure you have no gas to power them, but you could improvise basic pull-by-horse machinery from the wreckage.

    The people around you have died, but most of their possessions remain.

    As for chemistry, it doesn't take a full on Chemistry degree to make biodiesel out of vegetable oil, so long as you have a handbook of some kind to work from. Just raid the local library while everyone else is out looting the stores. You probably won't get too much competition.
    It's not that simple. The zombies caused utter chaos. People panicked, closed borders, fought eachother. Power stations shut down, gas mains ruptured, fires engulfed entire towns (no fire brigade to put them out). Shops, warehouses, gun stores, libraries, museums all ransacked and burnt, books soaked from rain and snow.

    No Deus ex machina's in my thread please
    So you're saying that all of the citizens, every single last one without exception, were imbeciles, and not even one of them thought to go raid a library and conserve some books at the outset of the apocalypse?

    I guess I didn't realize we had to stay within such an unlikely framework.

    Also you're ignoring the sheer number of books there are in the USA. The random probability that every single last one of them would all have been destroyed, or the buildings that housed them destroyed is about that same as the random probability that every last human being would already have died by now. Indeed it's actually smaller because books don't need to eat to live. If a human being can't find shelter, then a human being also (most likely) dies.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But perhaps I would use capital punishment, on certain dangerous males. If you were to let them leave, they may find others like themselves, and then come back.
    But I actually feel the same way about capital punishment today, but I am (against) capital punishment today for one reason. That reason being, innocent people are regularly killed.

    This is a very interesting thread, and I was feeling good, until I got to the part of capital punishment. Why????
    Would it be a jury trial who condemns people to death? Or a "Judge Dredd" type situation?
    Pretty much. Due process is a luxury. You'd have to run things much more fast and loose if you're barely cobbling a functional village together. Just call it to a community vote. If 66% of the population wants the guy dead, you kill him. If he's innocent, then too bad. A lot of innocent people are dying all around you every day outside your walls.

    If the vote is only 51%, then he's banished. (Which is just about as good as dead.)
    So mob-rule in matters of law as well?
    Yes. Mob rule all around. It's the most efficient, and quite frankly you plain can't afford to spare any efficiency.

    Democraticly made decisions are self enforcing because whoever lost the vote knows they would be outnumbered if they tried to fight about it instead of just obeying it.
    Last edited by kojax; August 9th, 2012 at 01:51 AM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Polygamy is a very dangerous idea in small communities and would be a ticking timebomb. Whilst it may increase population in the short term the problems this would present for future generations is not worth it. It would present a massive risk that the next generation's potential sexual partners are half brothers or half sisters.
    Kind of curious why you think any of that is a problem, considering polygamy is and has been a very widely practiced by numerous fully successful societies through human history. It does tie to western values--I get that. Don't think it has anything to do with survival.
    I think if you look at polygamous aminal communities, you often find that many of the males have to leave to find mates when they reach maturity, so unless your planning on setting up your town with a much greater ratio of females or your expecting many of your males to have to accept and practise celibacy then polygamy is a bad idea a long term recipe for trouble.

    Also it messes up the idea of equality and may very well lead to discord and problems that break up your town in the long run.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I think you're forgetting I lived in a polygamous society, where for the most part the men seldom left their native birth towns unless forced to by war--they were Muslim and most strongly followed their custom of only the wealthy males taking more than one wife. Such arrangements might even improve overall birth success, because every women is matched to a man who can support them, with far fewer women, and presumably their babies, tied to husbands who can't support them.

    Also it messes up the idea of equality and may very well lead to discord and problems that break up your town in the long run.
    As I said, that's a Western idea of its effects, and one you might want to preserve, just based on that idea--but it has little to do with survival.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think you're forgetting I lived in a polygamous society, where for the most part the men seldom left their native birth towns unless forced to by war--they were Muslim and most strongly followed their custom of only the wealthy males taking more than one wife. Such arrangements might even improve overall birth success, because every women is matched to a man who can support them, with far fewer women, and presumably their babies, tied to husbands who can't support them.

    Also it messes up the idea of equality and may very well lead to discord and problems that break up your town in the long run.
    As I said, that's a Western idea of its effects, and one you might want to preserve, just based on that idea--but it has little to do with survival.
    Well in that case I defer to to my more knowledgeable friend on the subject, that said I don't think everyone in the town would be happy about it though.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    In a smaller group of people it's actually easier to run a perfect democracy than in large groups. You can hold a town meeting every week and vote on points of order and law.
    You are right in the sense that it's easier to get people to vote, but it's no easier to get people to agree. There will always be disagreements. Would you accept it if you and your men (the founders) had lost a vital vote due to the votes of newcomers and ditch diggers? A vote that impacts on the very survival of the camp?


    It would be time for them to go their separate ways.

    There should always be a rule in place that anyone who wants to leave is free to do so. The founders could simply threaten to leave. If the rest want to forcibly stop them, then it's time for blood to spill. If the rest can live without them, then it's up to the founders to decide what they think is best for themselves. Shall they stay and endure the outcome, or leave and start over?

    You can't always have everything you want.

    That is not going to make the camp prosper is it? Constantly splitting due to disagreements.
    Your primary concern is military security. So long as the splits are amicable, you can still combine forces when you're under attack. That's the important thing. You need to maximise the cooperation of your military forces.
    That's the issue I have, I don't think any such split would be amicable. I don't see how it could be - in the real world, with real people, with real emotions. Having to start a camp from scratch (even with 'help') would be no laughing matter

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I see what you're driving at. A few men who are the core founding members (the ones who make the town a success), and everyone else is basically just a guest (less necessary)?

    I think when the next battle comes, you're going to want every able bodied person you can get to fight as a group. Numbers = power in combat. You're better off treating everyone as an equal so long as they're able to contribute something in combat. Otherwise you'll end up with a small group of people who are willing to fight to the death, and a whole bunch of other people who really aren't. The more enfranchised your group is, the more they'll fight as a team.

    Even if not all are able to fight equally well, they can still equally risk their lives. You never know who among the group is going to be the one that pulls your broken body off the battle field to save your life. It's best to assume it could be anyone.
    Indeed, you would want numbers on your side. So would people really leave a 'successful' camp if their needs were being looked to? Would they really care about 'democracy' so much?

    They probably wouldn't leave. But that's not what matters. Democracy fosters the easiest cooperation, with the smallest percentage of your efforts having to go into law enforcement. The closer you get to an egalitarian free society, the higher the percentage of your population you can dedicate to field work.

    If you want to have slaves, then you also have to have task masters who stand around not working while they supervise the slaves. You've got to have gun men on duty at all times to prevent insurrection - people who could have been working also.

    Both the quality of work, and the total quantity of work being done will plummet, because your workers are both malcontent with their position (so doing the absolute minimum that won't get them bullwhipped) and less numerous (because of the task masters who are being kept out of the labor pool.)
    Egalitarian societies don't exist in the real world. Many will claim to be egalitarian, but there will always be class and privilege. Maintaining a true egalitarian society is not simple either. You would also need manpower to ensure it works, the bureaucracy involved in ensuring people are treated equally and have right of complaint would be tiresome and not to the camps benefit.

    The men overseeing the 'slaves' would be foremen, responsible for ensuring good work. But they would not be responsible for camp discipline. Militia would not need to stand guard over the 'slaves' as they wouldn't want to leave the camp (you yourself have admitted)

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    The group decides how to divide that up. If a person refuses to do the share that was decided upon for everyone to do, then probably they also forfeit their rations.
    So mob rule?

    Yes. Exactly. Mob Rule.
    Terrible idea. The majority viewpoint is not always the right one
    Neither is the dictator's viewpoint. I'm sorry to break this to you, but there is no such thing as a viewpoint that always arrives at the right conclusion.
    Of course not, but mob rule is often times contradictory and selfish. People want more money spent on schools but no one ever votes for tax increases for eg.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Space would not be a problem, but finding the 'right' space would be. One with clean water, decent shelter, good arable land which is easy to defend. People would not want to start from scratch. And if they do, they would not look kindly on the town who "kicked them out". You would be setting up a future rival
    You could both cooperate in building the second community, then allow each person to decide individually which one they want to live in. Worst case, share a single water supply, but have a subdivision between two "parts of town".
    Now you are just being naive. People do not behave like that in the real world
    People can cooperate almost perfectly over a short length of time (such as just long enough to set up a second community). They just can't do so over the long run.

    Howevr, there's no need for them to do so over the long run. Once the communities have separated, that cooperation ends. Basically both groups would have to come to an agreement about how much labor each one would dedicate to the new settlement, and then honor it. Both groups want to continue doing business with each other later on. At a minimum they're going to want to be able to count on each other the next time a group of bandits rolls through the area. Probably they'll also want to be able to trade. So there's actually quite a lot of incentive to honor the deal.
    That sounds lovely in theory, but history would show that that just isn't the way things work. History is littered with wars, battles and campaigns. In the long run, your two camps would go to war for supremecy. Fear of bandits would not unite them for long, they need something more than that to unite them

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    More people is better when it comes time to fight. It's worse if you aren't able to get your agricultural production up and running right away. Even if you do get it up and running, there will be a practical limit to how much land you can farm before you get too spread out to protect your workers from outside attacks.

    No matter how you look at it, your community has a finite carrying capacity.

    More people is better all round. Even when food is scarce, the more people you have, the more succesful you will be at foraging, hunting and farming.
    That's not really true. Whether farming or foraging, you'll always run into the problem that you can only range out so far from your central settlement before the travel times make it simply impractical to range any further. That means you have limited real estate. This is especially true if you don't have automobiles.

    For a farm of any given size, there is a certain optimal number of workers, and exceeding that number will not add any more production. It simply won't. After you've got fooding growing on every square yard of the field, you can't fit more grain into that space even with a million workers. You just have to sit back and wait for nature to do its part. Any extra workers would just be standing around holding their pitch forks and trying to "look busy."

    Foraging has the same basic problem. There's only so much area you can practically scavenge from. (That's why hunter gatherer societies don't form into tribes of infinite size. After the carrying capacity of the area they hunt has been exceeded by their population, the tribe splits to create two villages that have two hunting areas. There's no reason to think that dynamic would be different in a post apocalypse situation. )
    You are describing a benefit of population increase, not a negative. When our camp has exhausted the food from our little area, I would encourage us to spread out further, to set up other 'hunting areas' and the like. The outposts would start small, and would benefit from the security the main camp could provide, and (most importantly) they would still consider themselves to be "SE15-ian". Eventually, the outposts would grow to become their own indicidual camps, who would share a similar background, philosophy and hierarchy as the original. They would have no problem trading with like minded people

    But if you fail to encourage population growth, you are left with but one camp, with the possibility of having no camp nearby as a 'natural ally'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If the society that you create is so functional, I would think it would be the one thing you could most rely upon. Just send out a few recruiters to find scared pockets of survivors huddling together in less functional villages, and bring them to you. "If you build it, they will come."

    However, I have to admit that in the long run it will be important to replenish your young population, so the current population don't all just grow old and then lose the ability to continue working (which would probably cause your society to fail.) The refugees who come to you will probably be other survivors, meaning that their age will depend on how long ago the apocalypse started. So as time progresses, even the refugees who come to you will continually be getting older and older.
    You can only rely on refugees in the beginning, and even then, you can not rely on their quality. They may be the ones excluded from outher towns for being weak, old, lazy or downright criminal.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I agree. But what 'serious' discontent are you referring to? The slaves/serfs would be better in the camp than outside it.
    They might not want to destroy your village or even leave, but I'm sure they'd love to stage a coup and overthrow the leadership so they could stop having to be slaves. Even if that's all they want, they're still a security risk.

    Bandits probably also wouldn't want to destroy your village. Just exact tribute, or periodically pillage it, or take over and rule it and reduce all the incumbent citizens to being their serfs.

    Now, just think if one of those groups of bandits decides to strike a deal with your slaves, and offers to give them freedom if they help overthrow your village?
    It's not likely to happen. As I've said, these are people who would not survive outside of the camp. I doubt they would replace their current leaders - who provide security, food, water, shelter - with a bunch of bandits. Better the devil you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    There's virtually zero chance their labor would be valuable enough to justify the costs. You've got all this machinery around you. Automobiles left over in working condition, houses still not demolished.... etc. ... Sure you have no gas to power them, but you could improvise basic pull-by-horse machinery from the wreckage.

    The people around you have died, but most of their possessions remain.

    As for chemistry, it doesn't take a full on Chemistry degree to make biodiesel out of vegetable oil, so long as you have a handbook of some kind to work from. Just raid the local library while everyone else is out looting the stores. You probably won't get too much competition.
    It's not that simple. The zombies caused utter chaos. People panicked, closed borders, fought eachother. Power stations shut down, gas mains ruptured, fires engulfed entire towns (no fire brigade to put them out). Shops, warehouses, gun stores, libraries, museums all ransacked and burnt, books soaked from rain and snow.

    No Deus ex machina's in my thread please
    So you're saying that all of the citizens, every single last one without exception, were imbeciles, and not even one of them thought to go raid a library and conserve some books at the outset of the apocalypse?

    I guess I didn't realize we had to stay within such an unlikely framework.

    Also you're ignoring the sheer number of books there are in the USA. The random probability that every single last one of them would all have been destroyed, or the buildings that housed them destroyed is about that same as the random probability that every last human being would already have died by now. Indeed it's actually smaller because books don't need to eat to live. If a human being can't find shelter, then a human being also (most likely) dies.
    It's almost as unlikely as a zombie apocalypse, but you seem fine with that

    In this particular zombie apocalypse, people rated food, water, weapons etc higher than books. Libraries (like most public buildings) were used and ultimately destroyed in the war against zombies

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But perhaps I would use capital punishment, on certain dangerous males. If you were to let them leave, they may find others like themselves, and then come back.
    But I actually feel the same way about capital punishment today, but I am (against) capital punishment today for one reason. That reason being, innocent people are regularly killed.

    This is a very interesting thread, and I was feeling good, until I got to the part of capital punishment. Why????
    Would it be a jury trial who condemns people to death? Or a "Judge Dredd" type situation?
    Pretty much. Due process is a luxury. You'd have to run things much more fast and loose if you're barely cobbling a functional village together. Just call it to a community vote. If 66% of the population wants the guy dead, you kill him. If he's innocent, then too bad. A lot of innocent people are dying all around you every day outside your walls.

    If the vote is only 51%, then he's banished. (Which is just about as good as dead.)
    So mob-rule in matters of law as well? [/quote]

    Yes. Mob rule all around. It's the most efficient, and quite frankly you plain can't afford to spare any efficiency.[/QUOTE]

    Disctatorship would be more efficient . . no need for a vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Democraticly made decisions are self enforcing because whoever lost the vote knows they would be outnumbered if they tried to fight about it instead of just obeying it.
    Not at all. People break the law all the time, and people will always protest what they consider an injustice - especially if they can get away with it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think you're forgetting I lived in a polygamous society, where for the most part the men seldom left their native birth towns unless forced to by war--they were Muslim and most strongly followed their custom of only the wealthy males taking more than one wife. Such arrangements might even improve overall birth success, because every women is matched to a man who can support them, with far fewer women, and presumably their babies, tied to husbands who can't support them.

    Also it messes up the idea of equality and may very well lead to discord and problems that break up your town in the long run.
    As I said, that's a Western idea of its effects, and one you might want to preserve, just based on that idea--but it has little to do with survival.
    I have to agree with Chris here, polygamy would not work well in the long run. In a post-apocalypse world - where everyman has to do his 'duty' (be it military, or labour) there would not be any 'rich' men in the normal sense. Each would be just as likely to be struck down by disease, infection or accident/violence as any other. In a post-apocalyptic polygamous society, the death of one man may well mean he has left 3 wives and a dozen children behind, for the 'state' to look after. He would have no wealth to leave to them, to ensure they can survive. The camp as a whole would need to take them on, which may well reduce overall survival rates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    ...there would not be any 'rich' men in the normal sense. Each would be just as likely to be struck down by disease, infection or accident/violence as any other.
    I disagree. There will be richness based on many criteria--amount of goods, alliances with others, skill sets, and finally health. People will also not be just as likely to be struck down--again age, prior conditions, past accidents and possibility of new accidents depending on what role you play in the new group. I wouldn't want it either, but only because I don't think it's part of the values I'd want in a "new society," I don't think there's a strong survival argument that can make against it, especially in the face of overwhelming historical evidence of successful societies in demanding conditions that practiced it. I'd say much the same about slavery, strick assignment of jobs without choice, preemptive anialation and stealing of children from competing tribes--we know they work and often damn well, but I'd reject most of them purely from a Western ethical standpoint--not try to make a weak arguments that they might not increase survival to fit our particular Western bias. I'd hold that human rights, have their own intrisic values and should be followed regardless of minor changes to survival odds. "Live free or Die," is more than words.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; August 9th, 2012 at 11:25 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post

    That is not going to make the camp prosper is it? Constantly splitting due to disagreements.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Your primary concern is military security. So long as the splits are amicable, you can still combine forces when you're under attack. That's the important thing. You need to maximise the cooperation of your military forces.
    That's the issue I have, I don't think any such split would be amicable. I don't see how it could be - in the real world, with real people, with real emotions. Having to start a camp from scratch (even with 'help') would be no laughing matter
    I don't understand why everyone in your imaginary world has to act like imbeciles. The science forum itself recently split into www.thescienceforum.com and www.thescienceforum.com. I don't think the members who split off hate everyone's guts here. They just didn't want to stay. They wanted to run things differently and perceived that the management of this site wasn't going to change the things they wanted different.


    A camp run by rational, and not-so-emotional people will get further than a camp run by emotional children who get mad about everything. Another word for rational, and less emotional would be "mature". People who are "mature" have an easier time organizing because they can resolve disagreements by logical debate instead of just yelling loudly at each other, or resorting immediately to violence.

    If a camp were started by an immature man-child, or were to be inhabited by too many such people, then probably the emotionally mature people would band together and leave to form their own camp somewhere else, and simply not invite the others to come along.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    They probably wouldn't leave. But that's not what matters. Democracy fosters the easiest cooperation, with the smallest percentage of your efforts having to go into law enforcement. The closer you get to an egalitarian free society, the higher the percentage of your population you can dedicate to field work.

    If you want to have slaves, then you also have to have task masters who stand around not working while they supervise the slaves. You've got to have gun men on duty at all times to prevent insurrection - people who could have been working also.

    Both the quality of work, and the total quantity of work being done will plummet, because your workers are both malcontent with their position (so doing the absolute minimum that won't get them bullwhipped) and less numerous (because of the task masters who are being kept out of the labor pool.)
    Egalitarian societies don't exist in the real world. Many will claim to be egalitarian, but there will always be class and privilege. Maintaining a true egalitarian society is not simple either. You would also need manpower to ensure it works, the bureaucracy involved in ensuring people are treated equally and have right of complaint would be tiresome and not to the camps benefit.

    The men overseeing the 'slaves' would be foremen, responsible for ensuring good work. But they would not be responsible for camp discipline. Militia would not need to stand guard over the 'slaves' as they wouldn't want to leave the camp (you yourself have admitted)

    Absolutely, perfectly, infinity perfect egalitarian societies don't exist, no. But there are plenty of societies where nobody has a legally defined lower status than another (like slaves and free-people.) You can easily arrive at an approximately egalitarian society. Nobody's saying it has to be perfect.

    In many tribes of Indigenous Americans the chief of the tribe didn't actually have the right to force anyone to do anything. The tribe as a whole made all decisions and the chief merely officiated over the process. The smaller your group is, the easier it is to achieve that.



    Terrible idea. The majority viewpoint is not always the right one

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Neither is the dictator's viewpoint. I'm sorry to break this to you, but there is no such thing as a viewpoint that always arrives at the right conclusion.
    Of course not, but mob rule is often times contradictory and selfish. People want more money spent on schools but no one ever votes for tax increases for eg.

    Those problems get smaller when the community gets smaller. They never become an absolute zero problem, but they can become tolerably small and easy to adjust for.

    It helps if everyone believes in a common set of ethics. Like if they're all from the same basic culture, or follow a similar religion. Then they come to agreement more easily, and individuals feel things are more "fair". That's one reason why you'd want to divide into separate villages when faced with strong disagreements. It's better to have two very functional but small societies rather than one highly disfunctional large one.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    People can cooperate almost perfectly over a short length of time (such as just long enough to set up a second community). They just can't do so over the long run.
    ...
    That sounds lovely in theory, but history would show that that just isn't the way things work. History is littered with wars, battles and campaigns. In the long run, your two camps would go to war for supremecy. Fear of bandits would not unite them for long, they need something more than that to unite them
    But you concede that the peace would last long enough to successfully build the second community?

    Fear of bandits would unite them for as long as bandits were known to exist in the area. If a few months passed with no sightings, then maybe they'd be at each others' throats again.

    I doubt they'd want to kill one another though. Probably their wives and children will have had enough of that. If they really can't get along, then one or the other of the groups would probably just pull up stakes and march off to a faraway place rather than risk death by shooting at one another.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    More people is better when it comes time to fight. It's worse if you aren't able to get your agricultural production up and running right away. Even if you do get it up and running, there will be a practical limit to how much land you can farm before you get too spread out to protect your workers from outside attacks.

    No matter how you look at it, your community has a finite carrying capacity.

    More people is better all round. Even when food is scarce, the more people you have, the more succesful you will be at foraging, hunting and farming.
    That's not really true. Whether farming or foraging, you'll always run into the problem that you can only range out so far from your central settlement before the travel times make it simply impractical to range any further. That means you have limited real estate. This is especially true if you don't have automobiles.
    ........
    You are describing a benefit of population increase, not a negative. When our camp has exhausted the food from our little area, I would encourage us to spread out further, to set up other 'hunting areas' and the like. The outposts would start small, and would benefit from the security the main camp could provide, and (most importantly) they would still consider themselves to be "SE15-ian". Eventually, the outposts would grow to become their own indicidual camps, who would share a similar background, philosophy and hierarchy as the original. They would have no problem trading with like minded people

    But if you fail to encourage population growth, you are left with but one camp, with the possibility of having no camp nearby as a 'natural ally'
    Ok. That makes more sense. If they're dividing into separate communities, then their carrying capacity will continue to expand as well.

    However I'd still advise against it unless you have a way to make more guns and other essential tools. If when you started you had 100 rifles and 100 men to fire them, then expanding your population and creating more outposts would mean those rifles have to get spread out among the outposts. Your better off gathering all of those rifles in one place so you've got one super-secure fort, rather than several weaker forts that could be attacked one at a time by bandits.

    On the other hand, if there's a machinist in the group, and if you're able to find machining tools, and maybe this guy was a small arms armorer in the Marines Corp or something so he knows how to make a basic rifle from scratch, then certainly expanding your numbers would increase your security.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post

    You can only rely on refugees in the beginning, and even then, you can not rely on their quality. They may be the ones excluded from outher towns for being weak, old, lazy or downright criminal.
    Good point, actually. The zombies would have killed most of the useful people a long time ago, or they'd already be in villages that valued them.






    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I agree. But what 'serious' discontent are you referring to? The slaves/serfs would be better in the camp than outside it.
    They might not want to destroy your village or even leave, but I'm sure they'd love to stage a coup and overthrow the leadership so they could stop having to be slaves. Even if that's all they want, they're still a security risk.

    Bandits probably also wouldn't want to destroy your village. Just exact tribute, or periodically pillage it, or take over and rule it and reduce all the incumbent citizens to being their serfs.

    Now, just think if one of those groups of bandits decides to strike a deal with your slaves, and offers to give them freedom if they help overthrow your village?
    It's not likely to happen. As I've said, these are people who would not survive outside of the camp. I doubt they would replace their current leaders - who provide security, food, water, shelter - with a bunch of bandits. Better the devil you know.
    I think for that to be true, they'd have to be reasonably well treated. If they're poorly treated, then the devil they don't know well enough to hate yet is probably very inviting. At a minimum, it has to be possible for their treatment to get worse, or they won't be afraid of it getting worse.

    However, if they had the prospect of reducing their masters to slaves - so they get to be the ones getting served instead of serving....... I think you're underestimating the power of greed.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    There's virtually zero chance their labor would be valuable enough to justify the costs. You've got all this machinery around you. Automobiles left over in working condition, houses still not demolished.... etc. ... Sure you have no gas to power them, but you could improvise basic pull-by-horse machinery from the wreckage.

    The people around you have died, but most of their possessions remain.

    As for chemistry, it doesn't take a full on Chemistry degree to make biodiesel out of vegetable oil, so long as you have a handbook of some kind to work from. Just raid the local library while everyone else is out looting the stores. You probably won't get too much competition.
    It's not that simple. The zombies caused utter chaos. People panicked, closed borders, fought eachother. Power stations shut down, gas mains ruptured, fires engulfed entire towns (no fire brigade to put them out). Shops, warehouses, gun stores, libraries, museums all ransacked and burnt, books soaked from rain and snow.

    No Deus ex machina's in my thread please
    So you're saying that all of the citizens, every single last one without exception, were imbeciles, and not even one of them thought to go raid a library and conserve some books at the outset of the apocalypse?

    I guess I didn't realize we had to stay within such an unlikely framework.

    Also you're ignoring the sheer number of books there are in the USA. The random probability that every single last one of them would all have been destroyed, or the buildings that housed them destroyed is about that same as the random probability that every last human being would already have died by now. Indeed it's actually smaller because books don't need to eat to live. If a human being can't find shelter, then a human being also (most likely) dies.
    It's almost as unlikely as a zombie apocalypse, but you seem fine with that

    In this particular zombie apocalypse, people rated food, water, weapons etc higher than books. Libraries (like most public buildings) were used and ultimately destroyed in the war against zombies
    Why would that happen? If you know how to mix diesel and fertilizer to make bombs..... then you have bombs. If you know how to purify water then you have water. If you know how to mix gun powder, then you'll always be able to come up with rudimentary ammunition for a shot gun or something to fire (perhaps with some modification.)

    Surely some people would look past the very split second of time they were in, and realize they're going to need more bullets later.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Yes. Mob rule all around. It's the most efficient, and quite frankly you plain can't afford to spare any efficiency.
    Disctatorship would be more efficient . . no need for a vote.
    Efficient dictatorships are a total myth. No such dictatorship exists anywhere on Earth at this time.

    Countries run by dictators always spend inordinate amounts of their GDP on police and military to ensure the public won't be able to revolt, and also just for the dictator himself to be able to spy on all of his administrators. (So they can't arrange a coup or assassination.)

    Do you think Joseph Stalin's KGB machine was cheap to run? Do you think he never worried that the head of the KGB might just have him assassinated and take his place? Many dictators resort to massively overpaying their administrators in order to ensure loyalty, giving out inordinate amounts of tax money so their administrators can live lavish and comfortable lives. (Hoping they'll be too comfortable to want to change rulers.) Others just terrorize their administrators so they'll be in constant fear for their life (which leads to having horribly incompetent administrators because nobody wants the job.)

    But, no matter how you run it, it's never as efficient as an egalitarian democracy. What effort you save in arriving at a decision, you lose twice over when it comes time to implement it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't understand why everyone in your imaginary world has to act like imbeciles. The science forum itself recently split into www.thescienceforum.com and www.thescienceforum.com. I don't think the members who split off hate everyone's guts here. They just didn't want to stay. They wanted to run things differently and perceived that the management of this site wasn't going to change the things they wanted different.
    The world is imaginary, but it is populated by 'real' people and many real people act like imbeciles. You can not compare starting a new forum to starting a new camp. The emotions would be magnified 100times.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    A camp run by rational, and not-so-emotional people will get further than a camp run by emotional children who get mad about everything. Another word for rational, and less emotional would be "mature". People who are "mature" have an easier time organizing because they can resolve disagreements by logical debate instead of just yelling loudly at each other, or resorting immediately to violence.

    If a camp were started by an immature man-child, or were to be inhabited by too many such people, then probably the emotionally mature people would band together and leave to form their own camp somewhere else, and simply not invite the others to come along.
    Later on in this thread, you accuse me of underestimating people's greed. I think you are guilty of that - and of underestimating other emotions - when you try to suggest that a camp which forcibily splits woud be on friendly terms.

    [QUOTE=kojax;343317]
    [quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Absolutely, perfectly, infinity perfect egalitarian societies don't exist, no. But there are plenty of societies where nobody has a legally defined lower status than another (like slaves and free-people.) You can easily arrive at an approximately egalitarian society. Nobody's saying it has to be perfect.
    Where are these societies on the historical time frame? I would imagine that they all were post-industrial?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In many tribes of Indigenous Americans the chief of the tribe didn't actually have the right to force anyone to do anything. The tribe as a whole made all decisions and the chief merely officiated over the process. The smaller your group is, the easier it is to achieve that.
    Sorry, but I simply don't buy into the 'Noble Indian' myth.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    People can cooperate almost perfectly over a short length of time (such as just long enough to set up a second community). They just can't do so over the long run.
    ...
    That sounds lovely in theory, but history would show that that just isn't the way things work. History is littered with wars, battles and campaigns. In the long run, your two camps would go to war for supremecy. Fear of bandits would not unite them for long, they need something more than that to unite them
    But you concede that the peace would last long enough to successfully build the second community?
    No I don't. People would question why they are splitting their resources, and spending time and effort building a second camp, when there are bandits about.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Fear of bandits would unite them for as long as bandits were known to exist in the area. If a few months passed with no sightings, then maybe they'd be at each others' throats again.

    I doubt they'd want to kill one another though. Probably their wives and children will have had enough of that. If they really can't get along, then one or the other of the groups would probably just pull up stakes and march off to a faraway place rather than risk death by shooting at one another.
    I think you oversimplify the effort needed to start a camp from scratch

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Ok. That makes more sense. If they're dividing into separate communities, then their carrying capacity will continue to expand as well.

    However I'd still advise against it unless you have a way to make more guns and other essential tools. If when you started you had 100 rifles and 100 men to fire them, then expanding your population and creating more outposts would mean those rifles have to get spread out among the outposts. Your better off gathering all of those rifles in one place so you've got one super-secure fort, rather than several weaker forts that could be attacked one at a time by bandits.
    It's a danger I agree, but it's a risk worth taking. Even if you don't arm the outposts and (worse case scenario) your men are murdered by bandits, what have you lost? You had already reached your 'carrying capacity' so would not have been able to feed those men for long any way. You took a gamble that needed to be taken, one which (if it came off) would make your camp much more secure in the long run.

    Realistically, the bandits wouldn't murder everyman in the outpost. You would arm the outpost lightly, but most of your arms would stay in the main camp, which you would use like a medieval castle - station troops there and send them out in fast moving, heavily armed raids against bandits. Quick strikes and then retreat to the safety of the castle. In severe attacks, it would be the place where your outpost men would flee to for safety

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    On the other hand, if there's a machinist in the group, and if you're able to find machining tools, and maybe this guy was a small arms armorer in the Marines Corp or something so he knows how to make a basic rifle from scratch, then certainly expanding your numbers would increase your security.
    That would be very lucky, and statistically unlikely
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    ...there would not be any 'rich' men in the normal sense. Each would be just as likely to be struck down by disease, infection or accident/violence as any other.
    I disagree. There will be richness based on many criteria--amount of goods, alliances with others, skill sets, and finally health.
    Most of that is 'wealth' which you can not pass on to your dependents. Once the man died, it is probably that his alliances will not be as strong, and it's definate that his skills and health would disappear. His goods would provide for his family for only a limited amount of time. After that, they would be on their own, and a burden to the camp


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    People will also not be just as likely to be struck down--again age, prior conditions, past accidents and possibility of new accidents depending on what role you play in the new group.
    I meant statistically speaking. A man with many wives is just as likely to catch an infection a man with one wife. Unless you try to artificially limit polygamy to those men who do not undertake risky work - cooks? - then it won't work. Even the camp leader would not be immune from accidents or acts of violence


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I wouldn't want it either, but only because I don't think it's part of the values I'd want in a "new society," I don't think there's a strong survival argument that can make against it, especially in the face of overwhelming historical evidence of successful societies in demanding conditions that practiced it.
    I would be interested to hear about those societies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'd say much the same about slavery, strick assignment of jobs without choice, preemptive anialation and stealing of children from competing tribes--we know they work and often damn well, but I'd reject most of them purely from a Western ethical standpoint--not try to make a weak arguments that they might not increase survival to fit our particular Western bias. I'd hold that human rights, have their own intrisic values and should be followed regardless of minor changes to survival odds. "Live free or Die," is more than words.
    That's very principled of you. You accept that slavery would improve your survival chances and you would reject it from an ethical viewpoint
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    What could you possibly acheive through slavery that couldn't be acheived by having a properly motivated willing work force, also if it came to defending the camp a willing work force would be far more desirable than slaves, how could you trust them? Also the prospect of revolution that could occur at any time from slaves would be a significant risk factor to survival that wouldn't exist with a willing work force.
    epidecus likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't understand why everyone in your imaginary world has to act like imbeciles. The science forum itself recently split into www.thescienceforum.com and www.thescienceforum.com. I don't think the members who split off hate everyone's guts here. They just didn't want to stay. They wanted to run things differently and perceived that the management of this site wasn't going to change the things they wanted different.
    The world is imaginary, but it is populated by 'real' people and many real people act like imbeciles. You can not compare starting a new forum to starting a new camp. The emotions would be magnified 100times.
    Failed real people act like imbeciles. Successful real people act mature. Do you want this to be a camp that's lead by failures? If it's a failure then who really cares how they run it?

    I'll go back to one of your earlier questions:

    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post

    How do you decide who to let in and who not to let in?

    Do you keep out the weak and elderly? The disabled?
    Under what conditions do you let people in? On the condition that they dig the ditches in exchange for food? I.e a return to slavery in all but name?
    Do you allow in large groups of men who are a different race/culture/religion to your own? The cultural differences may end in disagreements about how the town should be run - i.e they may have strong opinions on capital punishment that you don't share, or may want to introduce social rules that cause conflict within the town.

    Do you allow in ex-bandits? They would help in the defence of the town, but may try to take it from you by force?
    Other towns will try to steal your food and resources, what do you do? These are desperate times, they are hungry people but you have no food to spare. Do you attack them in their village or do you hope your walls and ditches can keep them out?
    If you do attack them, how do you stop them becoming a threat in the future? Slaughter them? Install a friendly leader and enforce your own style of government on them (i.e conquer and colonise)?
    The answer to this question is: you only let in mature people. After a brief period of interaction, mature people usually do not have a hard time recognizing immaturity in others. They also do a good job of recognizing other mature people. Those who are governed by their emotions instead of their minds would be excluded from the outset. This can happen one of two ways.

    1) - A group of mature people form a camp and never allow immature people in in the first place.

    or

    2) - A mixed group forms, and after a short time the mature people get fed up with all the idiocy and decide to leave to form their own camp elsewhere. Being the mature people that they are, they don't hold a grudge. Unlike my other example of a camp simply splitting, in this case they also don't ask for or receive any help in setting up their second camp. In fact, they would probably move far enough away as to be out of contact with the first camp.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    A camp run by rational, and not-so-emotional people will get further than a camp run by emotional children who get mad about everything. Another word for rational, and less emotional would be "mature". People who are "mature" have an easier time organizing because they can resolve disagreements by logical debate instead of just yelling loudly at each other, or resorting immediately to violence.

    If a camp were started by an immature man-child, or were to be inhabited by too many such people, then probably the emotionally mature people would band together and leave to form their own camp somewhere else, and simply not invite the others to come along.
    Later on in this thread, you accuse me of underestimating people's greed. I think you are guilty of that - and of underestimating other emotions - when you try to suggest that a camp which forcibily splits woud be on friendly terms.
    Maybe so, but in this case the logic is different. It's not emotional. It's practical. Historically, whenever a society allows one group to be totally victimized by another, what usually happens is that the victimization doesn't stop with the first set of concessions. At first, you're just working all day in the field while a task master "organizes" your efforts, singling you out for torture if he doesn't think you put in enough effort. The odds that it will stop there are very small, however.

    If food ever becomes short, you quickly find out that you're last in line to eat. Many people who were forced into servitude aboard boats at sea in the 1800's ended up becoming food for the other sailors when supplies ran out. They called it "long pork".

    If you have an attractive daughter, it's likely that the task master will invite her to his tent for the evening. (Knowing full well she doesn't really have a choice, of course).

    At what point would the servitude simply become so intolerable that a person might prefer to try his/her luck outside the camp? What does the leadership do, if they've become accustomed to their service and all of a sudden the slaves express a desire to leave? Do they let them go, or kill a few as an example?





    [quote]
    [QUOTE=kojax;343317]

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Absolutely, perfectly, infinity perfect egalitarian societies don't exist, no. But there are plenty of societies where nobody has a legally defined lower status than another (like slaves and free-people.) You can easily arrive at an approximately egalitarian society. Nobody's saying it has to be perfect.
    Where are these societies on the historical time frame? I would imagine that they all were post-industrial?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In many tribes of Indigenous Americans the chief of the tribe didn't actually have the right to force anyone to do anything. The tribe as a whole made all decisions and the chief merely officiated over the process. The smaller your group is, the easier it is to achieve that.
    Sorry, but I simply don't buy into the 'Noble Indian' myth.
    That is unfortunate. For the most part it's still true in the areas of Chiapas, Mexico where a lot of indigenous people still practice tribalism.

    It only works because the villages are so small. I'm not trying to suggest that these people have some higher character or being. They just don't need inequality. Inequality is really just another word for "bureaucracy" or "specialization". Leaders of groups often need to isolate themselves in some manner from the rest so their decisions can be made impartially or more callously. In a small tribe, however, it's not practical for that much specialization to happen. Everyone needs to be available to do every job.

    In a small enough group, even the chief may have to work in the field sometimes. If you've only got 35 or fewer able bodied men, you can't spare one to work exclusively as the "planner".


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Ok. That makes more sense. If they're dividing into separate communities, then their carrying capacity will continue to expand as well.

    However I'd still advise against it unless you have a way to make more guns and other essential tools. If when you started you had 100 rifles and 100 men to fire them, then expanding your population and creating more outposts would mean those rifles have to get spread out among the outposts. Your better off gathering all of those rifles in one place so you've got one super-secure fort, rather than several weaker forts that could be attacked one at a time by bandits.
    It's a danger I agree, but it's a risk worth taking. Even if you don't arm the outposts and (worse case scenario) your men are murdered by bandits, what have you lost? You had already reached your 'carrying capacity' so would not have been able to feed those men for long any way. You took a gamble that needed to be taken, one which (if it came off) would make your camp much more secure in the long run.

    Realistically, the bandits wouldn't murder everyman in the outpost. You would arm the outpost lightly, but most of your arms would stay in the main camp, which you would use like a medieval castle - station troops there and send them out in fast moving, heavily armed raids against bandits. Quick strikes and then retreat to the safety of the castle. In severe attacks, it would be the place where your outpost men would flee to for safety
    In that event, the maximum area you can extend to is still limited by the area you can reach with your mobile cavalry. If you can't build multiple castles, then you can't reach out to an unlimited distance.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    On the other hand, if there's a machinist in the group, and if you're able to find machining tools, and maybe this guy was a small arms armorer in the Marines Corp or something so he knows how to make a basic rifle from scratch, then certainly expanding your numbers would increase your security.
    That would be very lucky, and statistically unlikely
    Yeah. I agree it would. The closest I think a group could realistically hope to get would be building black powder weapons. You might be able to improvise some muskets by finding strong pipes and clogging one end or something. Probably someone in the group would at least know how to mix gun powder.

    On the other hand, those people who have that skill set are more likely to have survived longer.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    What could you possibly acheive through slavery that couldn't be acheived by having a properly motivated willing work force,
    Pyramids?



    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    also if it came to defending the camp a willing work force would be far more desirable than slaves, how could you trust them? Also the prospect of revolution that could occur at any time from slaves would be a significant risk factor to survival that wouldn't exist with a willing work force.
    A better description of my 'slaves' would be 'serfs' or 'indentured servants'. They would be a willing workforce to a degree, as they would consist of people unlikely to survive outside the camp. They would not vote or decide on important matters, but they would be fed, watered and sheltered. They wouldn't have a choice about what work they do, when they do it or for how long. The only choice they would have, would be to live in the camp as labourers, or outside it as beggars.

    Most would stay and most would defend the camp, as realistically, any camp capable of attacking another would probably treat it's people no better than I treat mine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    The world is imaginary, but it is populated by 'real' people and many real people act like imbeciles. You can not compare starting a new forum to starting a new camp. The emotions would be magnified 100times.
    Failed real people act like imbeciles. Successful real people act mature. Do you want this to be a camp that's lead by failures? If it's a failure then who really cares how they run it?

    Imbeciles fail and the mature succeed. Problem is, you never know if you are an imbecile or are mature until the end. By that time, it's too late to change. How things are run, has a massive impact on the overall success/failure of a society.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'll go back to one of your earlier questions:
    The answer to this question is: you only let in mature people. After a brief period of interaction, mature people usually do not have a hard time recognizing immaturity in others. They also do a good job of recognizing other mature people. Those who are governed by their emotions instead of their minds would be excluded from the outset. This can happen one of two ways.

    1) - A group of mature people form a camp and never allow immature people in in the first place.

    or

    2) - A mixed group forms, and after a short time the mature people get fed up with all the idiocy and decide to leave to form their own camp elsewhere. Being the mature people that they are, they don't hold a grudge. Unlike my other example of a camp simply splitting, in this case they also don't ask for or receive any help in setting up their second camp. In fact, they would probably move far enough away as to be out of contact with the first camp.
    1 - That's impossible. Even mature people have their bias's, and the 'immature' will always sneak in. If your difinition of mature is those who are governed by their minds and not their emotions, then you are not looking for people, but robots.

    2 - You are back to starting from scratch again. This would not be an inviting prospect, even for the mature. In fact, I would say that the mature would recognise just how big a gamble it is, and would most likely think against it.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Maybe so, but in this case the logic is different. It's not emotional. It's practical. Historically, whenever a society allows one group to be totally victimized by another, what usually happens is that the victimization doesn't stop with the first set of concessions. At first, you're just working all day in the field while a task master "organizes" your efforts, singling you out for torture if he doesn't think you put in enough effort. The odds that it will stop there are very small, however.

    If food ever becomes short, you quickly find out that you're last in line to eat. Many people who were forced into servitude aboard boats at sea in the 1800's ended up becoming food for the other sailors when supplies ran out. They called it "long pork".

    If you have an attractive daughter, it's likely that the task master will invite her to his tent for the evening. (Knowing full well she doesn't really have a choice, of course).
    I would never condone rape. I could easily paint you a picture of your sheriff or mayor or another elected official with power inviting attractive girls into his tent for the evening (knowing full well she doesn't really have a choice). It's rather silly to suggest that my society would be the only one where cannabalism and rape are a possibility

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    At what point would the servitude simply become so intolerable that a person might prefer to try his/her luck outside the camp? What does the leadership do, if they've become accustomed to their service and all of a sudden the slaves express a desire to leave? Do they let them go, or kill a few as an example?
    That would be a problem, but any reasonable leader would know the limits people can be pushed to, and to never go that far. Any that do would suffer a rebellion I agree, but a rebellion is not an inevitability. A good leader would guard against it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Sorry, but I simply don't buy into the 'Noble Indian' myth.
    That is unfortunate. For the most part it's still true in the areas of Chiapas, Mexico where a lot of indigenous people still practice tribalism.

    It only works because the villages are so small. I'm not trying to suggest that these people have some higher character or being. They just don't need inequality. Inequality is really just another word for "bureaucracy" or "specialization". Leaders of groups often need to isolate themselves in some manner from the rest so their decisions can be made impartially or more callously. In a small tribe, however, it's not practical for that much specialization to happen. Everyone needs to be available to do every job.

    In a small enough group, even the chief may have to work in the field sometimes. If you've only got 35 or fewer able bodied men, you can't spare one to work exclusively as the "planner".
    I have never heard of those people. I would be interested in reading about them, and specifically, how they run their society/elect leaders

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In that event, the maximum area you can extend to is still limited by the area you can reach with your mobile cavalry. If you can't build multiple castles, then you can't reach out to an unlimited distance.
    As every outpost succeeds and expands, it in turn becomes more fortified. It may never have the security of a 'castle' (as guns would be a limiting factor) but it could be armed with makeshift weapondary making it an unattractive target for bandits and hostile groups


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    On the other hand, if there's a machinist in the group, and if you're able to find machining tools, and maybe this guy was a small arms armorer in the Marines Corp or something so he knows how to make a basic rifle from scratch, then certainly expanding your numbers would increase your security.
    That would be very lucky, and statistically unlikely
    Yeah. I agree it would. The closest I think a group could realistically hope to get would be building black powder weapons. You might be able to improvise some muskets by finding strong pipes and clogging one end or something. Probably someone in the group would at least know how to mix gun powder.

    On the other hand, those people who have that skill set are more likely to have survived longer.
    Maybe, maybe not. A zombie is as likely to eat a person who knows about black-powder as one who doesn't. Such knowledge would not be an advantage to survival until very near the end of the zombie attack.
    Last edited by SE15; August 13th, 2012 at 10:39 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    With the greatest respect I would say the jury is still out on this issue of whether or not slave labour is responsible for the construction of the pyramids, most of the evidence I have seen has led me to believe it is more likely that they were constructed by free men, some of whom were very skilled craftsmen.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    ^ Sea turtles mate
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'll go back to one of your earlier questions:
    The answer to this question is: you only let in mature people. After a brief period of interaction, mature people usually do not have a hard time recognizing immaturity in others. They also do a good job of recognizing other mature people. Those who are governed by their emotions instead of their minds would be excluded from the outset. This can happen one of two ways.

    1) - A group of mature people form a camp and never allow immature people in in the first place.

    or

    2) - A mixed group forms, and after a short time the mature people get fed up with all the idiocy and decide to leave to form their own camp elsewhere. Being the mature people that they are, they don't hold a grudge. Unlike my other example of a camp simply splitting, in this case they also don't ask for or receive any help in setting up their second camp. In fact, they would probably move far enough away as to be out of contact with the first camp.
    1 - That's impossible. Even mature people have their bias's, and the 'immature' will always sneak in. If your difinition of mature is those who are governed by their minds and not their emotions, then you are not looking for people, but robots.
    Indeed. The most successful people are robots when it counts, and people only when there's nothing important at stake.

    As far as immature people sneaking in, that is indeed a problem, but a short lived one. Immature people usually reveal themselves for what they are very quickly because they just can't help it. They have too little self control.



    2 - You are back to starting from scratch again. This would not be an inviting prospect, even for the mature. In fact, I would say that the mature would recognise just how big a gamble it is, and would most likely think against it.
    I think they would see it as a bigger gamble to stay.

    If you know and trust the people you're working with, that they can be robots when it counts, then the fact there are fewer of you is less important than the fact you're no longer putting your own life in the hands of an imbecile every day, or some hot headed moron who might do something rash and get you killed.

    At least the dangers outside the gates can be addressed with reason and common sense. Trying to get a bunch of emotional children to coordinate and work with you requires something more akin to magic.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Maybe so, but in this case the logic is different. It's not emotional. It's practical. Historically, whenever a society allows one group to be totally victimized by another, what usually happens is that the victimization doesn't stop with the first set of concessions. At first, you're just working all day in the field while a task master "organizes" your efforts, singling you out for torture if he doesn't think you put in enough effort. The odds that it will stop there are very small, however.

    If food ever becomes short, you quickly find out that you're last in line to eat. Many people who were forced into servitude aboard boats at sea in the 1800's ended up becoming food for the other sailors when supplies ran out. They called it "long pork".

    If you have an attractive daughter, it's likely that the task master will invite her to his tent for the evening. (Knowing full well she doesn't really have a choice, of course).
    I would never condone rape. I could easily paint you a picture of your sheriff or mayor or another elected official with power inviting attractive girls into his tent for the evening (knowing full well she doesn't really have a choice). It's rather silly to suggest that my society would be the only one where cannabalism and rape are a possibility
    I agree that small groups run by a highly charismatic individual often end up the way you're suggesting. There are lots of small religious cults in the USA where the leader sleeps with the followers' daughters, or even takes multiple wives.

    The problem is that, if your slaves know that their status as a slave guarantees such mistreatment, then they have little or nothing to lose by leaving the settlement and throwing them self at the mercy of bandits. If the bandits are greedy instead of just outright psychopaths, then they might happy to have some new slaves.

    There's a saying "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." People are naturally motivated to be more optimistic than they should be about change.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    At what point would the servitude simply become so intolerable that a person might prefer to try his/her luck outside the camp? What does the leadership do, if they've become accustomed to their service and all of a sudden the slaves express a desire to leave? Do they let them go, or kill a few as an example?
    That would be a problem, but any reasonable leader would know the limits people can be pushed to, and to never go that far. Any that do would suffer a rebellion I agree, but a rebellion is not an inevitability. A good leader would guard against it.
    The problem is that the leader has underlings who he can't totally control. Few if any autocratic leaders in history have ever been able to rule without an "inner circle" of people who share their "untouchable" status.

    Autocracy is really the art of pleasing "some of the people all of the time". You could think of it as micro-democracy, because the small group of ruling elite who support him always have the power to override the single autocratic ruler's will and win.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In that event, the maximum area you can extend to is still limited by the area you can reach with your mobile cavalry. If you can't build multiple castles, then you can't reach out to an unlimited distance.
    As every outpost succeeds and expands, it in turn becomes more fortified. It may never have the security of a 'castle' (as guns would be a limiting factor) but it could be armed with makeshift weapondary making it an unattractive target for bandits and hostile groups
    That plan at least makes more sense. With great enough numbers, you could make up for the lack of firepower.

    I'm actually starting to agree with you on this point. If your central group has ideals that make them a better group to live among than the bandits, then growing your numbers and then using your larger army to exterminate the bandits would be a good way to rebuild society.

    If your society is allowing really awful things like slavery, however, then I really don't see how the citizens would be inspired to want to perpetuate it. You have to capture their imagination with higher ideals if you want them to continue building.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    On the other hand, if there's a machinist in the group, and if you're able to find machining tools, and maybe this guy was a small arms armorer in the Marines Corp or something so he knows how to make a basic rifle from scratch, then certainly expanding your numbers would increase your security.
    That would be very lucky, and statistically unlikely
    Yeah. I agree it would. The closest I think a group could realistically hope to get would be building black powder weapons. You might be able to improvise some muskets by finding strong pipes and clogging one end or something. Probably someone in the group would at least know how to mix gun powder.

    On the other hand, those people who have that skill set are more likely to have survived longer.
    Maybe, maybe not. A zombie is as likely to eat a person who knows about black-powder as one who doesn't. Such knowledge would not be an advantage to survival until very near the end of the zombie attack.
    One thing going for them is it's likely that if they are a gun smith, they would also have a lot of guns at their house.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    1 - That's impossible. Even mature people have their bias's, and the 'immature' will always sneak in. If your difinition of mature is those who are governed by their minds and not their emotions, then you are not looking for people, but robots.
    Indeed. The most successful people are robots when it counts, and people only when there's nothing important at stake.

    As far as immature people sneaking in, that is indeed a problem, but a short lived one. Immature people usually reveal themselves for what they are very quickly because they just can't help it. They have too little self control.
    Successful people are unemotional about unemotional things - business, moving house, changing jobs, getting a mortgage etc. But they are emotional about emotional things - they cry, they laugh, they feel sad etc. Being 'forced' from your home/camp is a VERY emotional thing, and even the most mature would react emotionally. Being in touch with your emotions is a good thing, and makes you a better person.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    2 - You are back to starting from scratch again. This would not be an inviting prospect, even for the mature. In fact, I would say that the mature would recognise just how big a gamble it is, and would most likely think against it.
    I think they would see it as a bigger gamble to stay.

    If you know and trust the people you're working with, that they can be robots when it counts, then the fact there are fewer of you is less important than the fact you're no longer putting your own life in the hands of an imbecile every day, or some hot headed moron who might do something rash and get you killed.

    At least the dangers outside the gates can be addressed with reason and common sense. Trying to get a bunch of emotional children to coordinate and work with you requires something more akin to magic.
    It sounds as though you are slowly coming to the realisation that allowing everyone to have their say in the running of a camp (mature and imbecile alike) is not always for the greater good.

    Bringing this back to my original post: How do you decide who to let in and who not to let in? It's interesting that you are suggesting that you would exclude certain people (the immature) from your camp


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I would never condone rape. I could easily paint you a picture of your sheriff or mayor or another elected official with power inviting attractive girls into his tent for the evening (knowing full well she doesn't really have a choice). It's rather silly to suggest that my society would be the only one where cannabalism and rape are a possibility
    I agree that small groups run by a highly charismatic individual often end up the way you're suggesting. There are lots of small religious cults in the USA where the leader sleeps with the followers' daughters, or even takes multiple wives.
    The problem is that, if your slaves know that their status as a slave guarantees such mistreatment, [/quote]

    But it wouldn't would it? Rape and cannibilism would be equally possible in our society as it would be in mine. I would say that rape would be more likely in yours, as power would be spread out to many different people.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    then they have little or nothing to lose by leaving the settlement and throwing them self at the mercy of bandits. If the bandits are greedy instead of just outright psychopaths, then they might happy to have some new slaves.

    There's a saying "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." People are naturally motivated to be more optimistic than they should be about change.
    There is also the saying, better the devil you know. Fear of the outsider is very powerful in closed communities (as any camp in such a time would essentially be)

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    That would be a problem, but any reasonable leader would know the limits people can be pushed to, and to never go that far. Any that do would suffer a rebellion I agree, but a rebellion is not an inevitability. A good leader would guard against it.
    The problem is that the leader has underlings who he can't totally control. Few if any autocratic leaders in history have ever been able to rule without an "inner circle" of people who share their "untouchable" status.

    Autocracy is really the art of pleasing "some of the people all of the time". You could think of it as micro-democracy, because the small group of ruling elite who support him always have the power to override the single autocratic ruler's will and win.
    My camp would have an inner circle - made up of the camp founders to begin with. It would then expand (or not) depending on who proves themselves capable in the camp. I have no problem with the idea that they could topple the leader. In fact, I embrace it. A micro-democracy based upon the camp's best and brightest would fare better than a mass democracy of survival-novices

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    As every outpost succeeds and expands, it in turn becomes more fortified. It may never have the security of a 'castle' (as guns would be a limiting factor) but it could be armed with makeshift weapondary making it an unattractive target for bandits and hostile groups
    That plan at least makes more sense. With great enough numbers, you could make up for the lack of firepower.

    I'm actually starting to agree with you on this point. If your central group has ideals that make them a better group to live among than the bandits, then growing your numbers and then using your larger army to exterminate the bandits would be a good way to rebuild society.

    If your society is allowing really awful things like slavery, however, then I really don't see how the citizens would be inspired to want to perpetuate it. You have to capture their imagination with higher ideals if you want them to continue building.
    Survival itself would be the inspiration. The 'slaves'/'serfs' survived in a land they had very little chance of surviving in previously. Expansion would also provide them with the chance of moving up the social ladder. After spending X years in a post-apocalypse world, some would have aquired skills that the new outposts would need. They would know a little about how/when to plant seeds, to dig wells, to build walls, how to defend fixed positions etc. These men would be experienced and valued in the new outposts. They would be the new camps' founders, and form a new 'inner circle' in that outpost.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. A zombie is as likely to eat a person who knows about black-powder as one who doesn't. Such knowledge would not be an advantage to survival until very near the end of the zombie attack.
    One thing going for them is it's likely that if they are a gun smith, they would also have a lot of guns at their house.
    Yes, I suppose so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    There's a saying "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The trouble with slavery is that you're giving one person absolute power over another. You can't honestly expect that to work out well.

    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    then they have little or nothing to lose by leaving the settlement and throwing them self at the mercy of bandits. If the bandits are greedy instead of just outright psychopaths, then they might happy to have some new slaves.

    There's a saying "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." People are naturally motivated to be more optimistic than they should be about change.
    There is also the saying, better the devil you know. Fear of the outsider is very powerful in closed communities (as any camp in such a time would essentially be)
    That's true of cults, or any environment with heavy indoctrinization. I think North Korea comes close to that as well. It would require tremendous xenophobia, and control of information.

    How would you control information that well? What prevents the slaves from learning about the general character of the bandits that are known to occupy their area? Would they never, ever have the chance to talk with a single person who had had dealings with those bandits?



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    That would be a problem, but any reasonable leader would know the limits people can be pushed to, and to never go that far. Any that do would suffer a rebellion I agree, but a rebellion is not an inevitability. A good leader would guard against it.
    The problem is that the leader has underlings who he can't totally control. Few if any autocratic leaders in history have ever been able to rule without an "inner circle" of people who share their "untouchable" status.

    Autocracy is really the art of pleasing "some of the people all of the time". You could think of it as micro-democracy, because the small group of ruling elite who support him always have the power to override the single autocratic ruler's will and win.
    My camp would have an inner circle - made up of the camp founders to begin with. It would then expand (or not) depending on who proves themselves capable in the camp. I have no problem with the idea that they could topple the leader. In fact, I embrace it. A micro-democracy based upon the camp's best and brightest would fare better than a mass democracy of survival-novices
    The main problem is that such inner circles rarely manage to create the right filter. In order to stay in power, you need mean, violent people to enforce your edicts upon the unwilling majority. Those people become your inner circle. Instead of the "best and the brightest" you're more likely to end up with the "worst and the most violent".

    And once those people are your inner circle, they're going to want to have slaves. They're also going to want to get laid.

    Also, usually the "best and the brightest" don't want autocratic power anyway. They prefer to focus on what they're good at (like science or engineering or something) instead of trying to run the day to day affairs of others' lives.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    As every outpost succeeds and expands, it in turn becomes more fortified. It may never have the security of a 'castle' (as guns would be a limiting factor) but it could be armed with makeshift weapondary making it an unattractive target for bandits and hostile groups
    That plan at least makes more sense. With great enough numbers, you could make up for the lack of firepower.

    I'm actually starting to agree with you on this point. If your central group has ideals that make them a better group to live among than the bandits, then growing your numbers and then using your larger army to exterminate the bandits would be a good way to rebuild society.

    If your society is allowing really awful things like slavery, however, then I really don't see how the citizens would be inspired to want to perpetuate it. You have to capture their imagination with higher ideals if you want them to continue building.
    Survival itself would be the inspiration.
    I don't think you'll find that any society in all of the whole history of planet Earth ever found mere survival to be inspiring. Only ideals inspire.

    The 'slaves'/'serfs' survived in a land they had very little chance of surviving in previously. Expansion would also provide them with the chance of moving up the social ladder. After spending X years in a post-apocalypse world, some would have aquired skills that the new outposts would need. They would know a little about how/when to plant seeds, to dig wells, to build walls, how to defend fixed positions etc. These men would be experienced and valued in the new outposts. They would be the new camps' founders, and form a new 'inner circle' in that outpost.
    Upward mobility is a good step. But it requires meritocracy, and while you mention that concept a lot, you have yet to propose any kind of mechanism to enforce it.

    In a society that allows slavery, the "best and the brightest" are the most highly sought after slaves. You see this today in brothels around the world. The people who kidnap, coerce, or defraud those women into ending up as sex slaves aren't busy going after ugly women.

    The ugly and the stupid are less sought after, so they become the slavers.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    british columbia
    Posts
    6
    im pretty sure in canada way over 1 tenth of the population is already self reliant, and lives in extreme remote and iscolated areas so im gonna go out on a limb here and say we're better off then anywhere else. CANADA FTW
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Zombie diseases - Help needed!
    By Hubert J. Farnsworth in forum Biology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: May 6th, 2012, 08:34 AM
  2. Dutch goverment warns for zombie apocalypse
    By redhaven in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2012, 10:08 PM
  3. The Zombie Survival Guide: Recorded Attacks, by Max Brooks
    By Omphalos in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 1st, 2009, 11:03 PM
  4. Zombie Dogs
    By (In)Sanity in forum Biology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 26th, 2005, 10:02 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •