It’s a reoccuring theme in fiction where a group of people are trapped on an island or are otherwise isolated from civilization. Inevitably, they resort to some sort of primitive, tribal state. Things start out utopian enough for awhile, but ultimately things go very wrong and end in an orgy of insanity, violence and canibalism.
Is that really true though? If we stuck a hundred dopers on an island somewhere, would we create a workable community or would we be wearing each other’s skins as overcoats within the week.
In the Andes Mountains crash the book/movie Alive was based on, the survivors managed to pull together and get themselves rescued.
OTOH, the Hurricane Katrina disaster turned New Orleans into something out of Mad Max (or more accurately, Waterworld). There was, however a large existing criminal element beforehand.
I believe all people are inherently good. In such a situation though, I think much would depend on how many people were isolated together. Too few and you have a resource problem. Too many and you may get some bad apples (which at some point, in my beliefs, were good).
It depends on the people for one thing; a hundred civilized people are more likely to descend into squabbling and break up, with relatively little violence; a hundred criminals would be more like to start stabbing each other. It also matters on whether or not they are trying to get along, I think; if everyone is just shortsightedly trying to look out for themselves things will go to hell faster than if it’s a bunch of hippy types who want to start a commune.
However, probably the most important factor is numbers. The evidence is that humans like other primates have a natural size limit for a group; roughly 200 people IIRC ( sometimes called the “monkeysphere” ). That’s apparently the number range where people’s abilities to keep track of social relationships is exceeded without artificial aids like a government. Communes and anarchic tribes and such can last indefinitely below that number; if they grow larger they need to either impose an organization or they collapse.
I think it’s going to depend on how desperate the situation is…and the make up of the people involved as well as the size of the group. But I think that, in general, the ‘orgy of insanity, violence and canibalism’ in fiction is a bit overblown…unless we are talking about really big groups in really screwed up situations. While those things do happen, I think that a lot will depend on the group dynamics and how bad the situation is. One of humanities strengths is pulling together to get through desperate situations, after all.
To paraphrase Monty Python, on the desolate beach of the desert island they were forced to eat 'luci…and there was much rejoicing.
I think it would depend on which 'dopers we are talking about. There are some who I think would do well in such a situation…and some that wouldn’t. If I were to choose a group of people to be stranded with on some gods forsaken island though it probably wouldn’t be a bunch of 'dopers though.
And the group who were snow bound in the Donor Pass didn’t go completely off the deep end either…though they did have to resort to cannibalism. There are more instances (this is my guess, mind) of people pulling together than of doing a Lord of the Flies type thingy. Again though it’s going to depend on the situation and the people involved. A key is going to be if a leader type emerges…and actually knows what the hell s/he is about wrt getting the group through the situation.
I think that the really bad things that happened in NO stemmed more from the pressure cooker situation a really large group of people were put in due to the failures of the government, especially at a local level. You simply can’t put a really large group of people into something like the Super Dome without some kind of structure…or all hell is going to break loose. If we are talking about really big groups in really desperate scenarios though…yeah, you are going to get Mad Max type situations. The size of the group is going to make a big difference.
I’m very curious how you reconcile this with your general contempt for large groups. I know what you’re talking about I’ve heard that before, and I am not challenging you. I really would like to hear what your thoughts are about the ability of larger organizational models to avoid committing violent atrocities. Might be beyond the scope of this thread though.
I think it would all depend upon access to resources. Also, as a friend of mine likes to say, “A room is held hostage by the craziest person in it.”
If there is no hope of rescue and that is understood, then that is probably helpful. The sense of purpose that can come from trying to be rescued can be binding in a scenario where there is a lack of resources. In a situation where the hope of rescue is out of people’s minds but there are plentiful resources, they can work together. If there are scarce resources and no hope of being rescued, well people are gonna die by each other’s hands.
They don’t, exactly. What they DO do is keep a large society running in the first place. To the extent they prevent atrocities, they do it by preventing general chaos and collapse.
