Post-apocalypse · 8:53pm Sep 3rd, 2014
I felt like doing another blog because reasons. Boredom mostly...
I won't lie, this is another subject that I've thought about after reading an article on Cracked a while ago, but to avoid being called out for it (more than usual, anyway), I'll only cite the sources they cited:
In retrospect, I'll probably catch hell for that second link as well, but whatever...
This kinda ties in with my blog about "realism" and whatnot, but I'll be a bit more specific here. A few things have been bothering me a bit recently about the whole "post-apocalypse" genre, especially with everyone wanking to the ten-billionth variation of the "zombie apocalypse" that came out in either book, video game, TV series, or movie format... or even all four. There is also that very popular fanfic out there, one that many of you might be familiar with, not to mention its countless spinoffs, all of which involve nukes and Equestria and war and something...
First of all, what is up with this idea that, immediately after the apocalyptic event, the remnants of society all devolve into a bunch of lying, stealing, and murdering beasts that stab each other in the back every chance they get? Aside from just setting up cheap contrast to the heroes (and maybe a few side characters), all of whom are "purehearted do-gooders" that have only one or two controversial moments at most, what kind of sense does this make? What sort of "social commentary" or whatever is this trying to get across? The aftermath of a gigantic "the world got fucked"-event is probably the last kind of environment where a good chunk of humans are going to go "welp, time to screw over everyone else." And even if some of them do, they will almost certainly not survive for long. To be honest, it sounds far more likely for a developed society to contain a ton of members that leech off the rest.
The whole thing doubly makes no sense when it comes to ponies, by the way, who are infinitely less murder-happy than humans, at least as far as the canon is considered. And before you'd argue that it could be the "Hearth's Warming Eve story repeating itself," do remember that the conflict in that case was between three separate tribes. It wasn't ponykind as a whole falling apart, because up to that point it was never united in the first place. Instead, it was three separate societies that were (presumably) united on their own, but could not find a way to work together. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to assume that ponies might resort to violence, even excessive violence, but all evidence in the canon suggests that, when it comes to how they act toward each other, they are far more inclined to help than to fight. Any external threats, on the other hand... 
This is the kind of detail most of these stories overlook, and thus tend to lose me. Why would the members of a once united society start murdering each other simply because there's no more phone service or whatever? Why would the society even break apart in the first place, instead of trying to reform as fast as it can? I can imagine that the remnants of two different nations that were at war might decide to continue said war, even after an insanely destructive part of it has ended, except history has already shown what will really happen in such a case.
Of course, once we get to the point that new societies develop, then some of them start fighting, it's a different story altogether. In the "immediate post-apocalypse," however, the factions that keep fighting can be expected to become extinct very soon. If anything, once you crawl out of your bunker or vault or whatever, any survivors you find will probably be the most peaceful hippies in the universe.
The second one is just a bit of a rant against "nuclear apocalypse" stories, though you could extend this to almost any story that features some really destructive event (meteor, volcano, giant sun-fart, etc.) Most (if not all) of them feature at least one section where we "explore the ruins," i.e whatever is left after the bombs fell. One might see a few collapsed skyscrapers, countless demolished buildings, but overall a discernible "skeleton" of what was once a proud metropolis that fell victim to the nuclear holocaust.
What is my problem with that? Well, there was a documentary way back in 1982 that described what just a single one megaton bomb would do to London, then mentioned (at around 21:40) what a realistic nuclear attack might be like on such a major city:
"Up to thirty large and medium-sized weapons..."
To avoid going into another extremely long discussion, let me just say this: in a world where most of humanity (or ponykind) is wiped out in a nuclear war, don't expect to find any ruins. At all. Having seen what one bomb can do, I wouldn't be surprised if even the underground portions of large cities were to be vaporized in an all-out attack...
NOTE: obviously, this does not involve cities that were destroyed by other means, ones which perhaps don't take such a heavy toll on infrastructure. The point here is that "nuclear war aftermath" stories tend to seriously underestimate the damage caused by nuclear weapons. Don't believe me? Look up pictures of what Hiroshima looked like after getting "only" a 16 kT bomb dropped on it...
So it's closer to Fallout. Because when it comes to quasi-crossovers, who cares about realism!
2425171
A ton of zombie apocalypse stories do it too. In fact, every kind of apocalypse story does it.
"Oooh, look! Finally, some regular people, just like ourselves. We're safe now, guys! Time to rebuild the world we lost."
*1 minute later*
"Shit! They're trying to kill us and take all our stuff! Run!"
The "realism" I lack here is the idea that an apocalyptic event transforms a significant chunk of the survivors into a freaking "mongol horde" or whatever, while the rest of society seems to dissolve into a bunch of tiny, xenophobic communities. This is kinda hard to imagine when all of its members used to live in a united and functioning society. Of course, one can invent good explanations, but most stories just seem to go "because apocalypse" and leave it at that...
2425171
2425244
That's the quote for our site, bro.
In all seriousness though, 'because apocalypse' is a stupid excuse. Mental breakdowns and PTSD are good examples for going wacko and killing things. Not because of a single event/reason.
2425323
Not even that, I'm afraid...
On the other hand, and this is something a lot of people overlook about conflicts that are going on today, people do tend to resort to violence when all other options related to their survival have run out, at least from their perspective.
"No job? No food? No safety? Foreigners threatening to attack? Time for me to grab a gun..."
However, there is a huge difference between this and the "post-apocalypse bandits" we tend to see in stories. The former can almost immediately be solved by sharing with them what they need, while the latter rob and kill "just because."
2425355
I can understand that. Hell, the latter could be solved by sharing - but that wouldn't make a good storyline!
2425364
Indeed. But "realistic" (or "plausible," if you prefer) doesn't necessarily mean "boring." I mean, it actually took two world wars until Europe decided "sharing is caring" is a better strategy. It certainly wasn't a boring time, to put it lightly...
2425374
Heh. Violence is funny.
2425244
I read an interesting zombie apocalypse manga where most of the issue was from military refusing to violate orders, civilians avoiding social taboos--and not understanding what was happening--with politicians being very unwilling to let anyone shoot each other.
Due to restrictive gun laws, the heaviest weapons survivors had were, generally speaking, paintball guns and makeshift melee weapons.
Zombies themselves were rather odd, as they didn't... think they were zombies. I mean, sure, they shambled around and ate people. But they'd roughly follow their usual schedules. Businessmen would go into homes and stand around in the bedroom late at night--though not necessarily their own--and the like.
Most of the suspense came from the fact that the protagonist was actually schizophrenic, and at times had issues telling the difference between zombies and his own hallucinations. His situational inability to take things as seriously as he should of, along with being one of the few people around with a gun, social awkwardness, and poor physical ability kept things rather tense.
He was rather prone to going all wild with fantasies of excessive violence and killing all the zombies and being a hero, but it never really worked out, due to, ya know, schizophrenic shut in with no social skills.
Also, one of the antagonists tore his penis off at one point, which was rather amusing*.
*The infection was really fucking weird, especially when the reader got the weirdly surreal PoV of the zombies. In one case, a middle aged woman ripped the head off of one of her victims then threw it in a garbage bin while mumbling about her lazy husband never taking out the trash. It's like. They aren't mindless--though some are--, and they aren't usually malevolent. They tend to just kind of be incredibly dangerous sleepwalkers or shambling corpses under lucid dreams... That have an instinctive urge to sink their teeth into the throat of people.
It's one of the few post-apocalypse series I enjoyed, as the culture and nature of the people was rather realistic, while still being somewhat unsettling despite being a zombie apocalypse story.
2425598
Interesting indeed. Already it sounds like a rather unconventional take on the whole zombie issue, to the point that I suspect the "zombies" are metaphorical only (I haven't read it, though, so I'm probably wrong about this).
When it comes to post-apocalypse, I think one of my favorites is Peace on Earth (the 1939 version). While it may be somewhat naive, I think it does a good job representing people's attitude toward war after one as costly in human life as the First World War. I also enjoy the subtle morbidness in it, i.e the cute little animals living in homes made from helmets and near lampposts made form bayonets...
2425805
Probably... Hell, one of the scenes actually has the protagonist sitting in the back of a taxi with an infected couple that are slowly changing into zombies while the driver is oblivious... Along with the couple themselves, who start becoming oddly obsessed with affection, verbally and physically, then start making out... then eating each other while the protagonist tries to convince the driver to stop the Taxi so he can get out.
I could give you a link if you wanted.
Also, nothing about what you described sounds subtle.
2425870
Go ahead.
Subtle in comparison to the more blatant visuals and plot elements, e.g trench warfare somehow wiping out all of humanity...
2425912
"The war escalated past mere bullets. We dug trenches so deep that the opposing forces had no possible way to attack... we'd never expect they would retaliate by digging a trench deep enough to split the world in half."
2426172
Touché...
Have you watched/read the Walking Dead? I've watched a couple seasons of the show and I find it to be a pretty realistic take on the zombie apocalypse (even though zombies aren't scientifically possible, but whatever). I think it highlights really well that nobody would do things they would normally do in non-zombied society because they're suddenly ripped from it and thrown into a foreign, violent world. In the show you can see the extreme stress that their circumstances put the characters in, and it makes sense that a lot of them make dumb, shortsighted decisions that screw each other over, just to feel safer.
I do think that the zombie stuff has gotten out of hand in the past few years, but I personally feel that the stories with a group of people working together to rebuild society are the unrealistic ones. If I was watching people get their guts ripped out and having to kill used-to-be-people every day to survive? I might find the line between zombies and other people to blur a bit, too. If I wasn't eaten by patient zero, that is. I would totally manage that somehow, now that I think about it.
Also, yes, post-apocalypse when it comes to ponies is tough for me to read, too. I can't buy into the idea that ponies have the same vices that humans do. Not for a second.
2426292
I think the zombies being a common enemy would be far more likely to galvanize humanity into working together rather than make them do dumb shit to each other. Just think of what happened to smallpox in the 19th and 20th centuries. Humanity managed to band together and eradicate an infectious disease that has harassed them for millennia up to that point. I imagine zombies wouldn't be any less convincing as a reason to make a group effort...
2426397
Smallpox wasn't an apocalypse though, it never completely destroyed society, did it? Sure, society gradually formed over those millenia, but it's that sudden pull from civilization to desolation that I think doesn't allow for cool-headed decisions/movements.
Maybe I just don't have enough faith in humanity, though. I also think the capitulation of government and laws would have a severe effect on people's morals. This guy puts it really well.
2426292
Zombies are scientifically possible.
Also, I feel the need to state that 'science' is in no way synonymous with 'objective reality'.
2426441
Murder is legal. We either call it "declaring war on another nation," or "letting certain people get away with it" (such as members of the law enforcement or medicine, for example).
No, but so far it was one of the closest thing we've had to "common enemies of humanity" throughout our history, aside from maybe malaria and the bubonic plague. Oh, and guess what the former brought about, despite the gargantuan death toll (which some consider to be akin to an "apocalypse" in Europe)? The end of the feudal system.
Also, what I'm trying to get at is that people will instinctively try to re-establish many of the things these governments tried to uphold as quickly as possible, even if the governments themselves were to have failed, simply because those allow society to function at all. And since they grew up in such a society, why want to throw it away all of a sudden? If nothing else, they'd just "try again," perhaps with a better approach. On the other hand, groups that let every member get away with anything can hardly be expected to survive, let alone function.
In other words, there may indeed be people left after the apocalypse who will come to the conclusion that the whole world has turned into a giant "free for all," but it won't be long before a sort of "natural selection" weeds them all out.
But hey, you've read my story where such things get mentioned, so you already know my stance on this...
2426754
Science is still based overwhelmingly on empirical evidence that researchers pray will coincide with their theories. So, yes, "science" is a heavily subjective view of reality, but it is also the approach that at least tries to accumulate as much evidence as possible. Even if the interpretations can end up varied, the effort is at least there.
That said, "zombies" could be scientifically possible, but only ones very much unlike the kind most famous in pop culture.
2426906
I'm well aware of what science is.
Fortunately, good intentions and other abstract concepts don't magically cause something to suddenly refute my point of science, and the results of it, not being synonymous with a completely objective reality.
Going into technicality is quite frankly just insulting.
2426909
I never mentioned "good intentions." By "effort," I mean people do work, regardless of intentions or even results. In school, I was told the very first scientific view of the world was a greek person saying "everything is made of water." It may not be accurate, but it is a first step.
As for the technicality, it's just me thinking aloud.
Also, isn't science basically the pursuit of an objective view of reality?