Anart today said You seemed to have missed the point that WE are the 200 people in the forest... so, how do WE do it correctly so 'the garbage' doesn't start again? I would suggest that giving up before we begin, with a negative attitude, wouldn't be the way to go... Wink
Shijing replied
if we make the assumption that the 200 people in the forest are us (forum members), then that simplifies a lot of things. Thanks for clarifying that as an underlying assumption, Anart, it makes it a lot easier to brainstorm about the questions we have been asked.
The assumption that the 200 people are forum members makes a huge difference in the line the discussions have already taken, and are likely to take, and is one that I, and many others it appears from their responses, did not infer from the original description of the 200 people in the woods scenario. Interestingly enough to me at least, that the proposed creators of this new world were forum members was
my very first understanding of Laura's proposal in the first scenario at the very beginning of this thread, and one for which I wrote a detailed discussion but did not post because the discussion had quickly evolved to scenario 2 that appeared to require discussion of strangers dealing with survival and avoid the ponerological elements that are bound to appear--which I have addressed below and will post before going back to the discussion (scenario 4?) that it is forum or other somewhat enlightened humans who are creating a new world.
Here is the post that I prepared
before Anart's point was made that we the Forum members are the 200:
The fact that this thread has generated so much discussion so quickly is in itself a point of interest—the topic of survival appears to be just below the surface for most of us. This is understandable considering the world changes we’ve witnessed and have been predicated for us by the very reliable Cs.
Scenario 1 in this thread asked us to imagine creating an STO society and generated a lot of interesting discussion that I think can be summed up by what Buddy said:
In the absence of the poisoning of ponerology I believe human beings will naturally cooperate and trust each other, producing and exchanging what others need, and receiving what they need in return, within an environment of cooperation and trust.
Regardless of the details of what this society would actually look like, the point is without the toxic effects of ponerology innate human goodness would find a way to prevail over the difficulties of creating a community together.
But for all practical purposes this scenario is a moot point, as Scenario 2 asked us to imagine we are stranded in a survival situation—200 people in a woods with nothing but our wits and good will to survive with, which I think is the more likely situation many of us will find ourselves in.
A realistic look at this situation is pretty grim—I’m in agreement with treesparrow’s reply # 197 in that even the most basic needs would be nearly impossible to meet.
treesparrow 197:
Going back to the very basic needs, say, getting a fire started, would this be so easily achieved? If a member of the group was a smoker and had a lighter or matches and dry wood was available, then, all well and good. But if not what then? If another member wore glasses they could to used to focus sun rays on dry tinder to get a fire going. Again, assuming both dry tinder and sufficient sunshine were available. But if not, what then? If the group had a member with some knowledge of survivalist techniques and knew how to rub some sticks together to create fire, again, all well and good. But if not what then? I guess what I'm trying to point out is that even the most (seemingly) simple sort of task may not be so easy to carry out. Sorry if I'm beginning to be a bit of a wet blanket here - I'll stop.”
I will continue with the wet blanket ideas because I think that would be the reality: A lot of people mentioned prioritizing finding food—where? When was the last time you had a good look around the woods by your house—or any woods? How much “food” did you see? Yes many things are edible out there but how many people can recognize them, or find them, or even find water? Even well armed, skilled modern hunters have a hard time finding something to kill. Resources for 200 would be gone in any given area before the need to build any kind of shelter other than branches over the head for the night arose. It is likely people would need to make smaller groups and go in different directions to find enough resources of any kind to survive—which brings up all the leadership problems that have been well discussed so far by many forum members that I won’t repeat them here.
If understanding the reality of human survival situations is desired then I recommend several readings, both speculative fiction and nonfiction historical:
Fiction: (“Unlike reality, fiction has to make sense.” ?? Twain?)
“The Road,” by Cormac McCarthy, is one IMHO everyone here should read as I think it is an accurate portrayal of what would happen if the lights went out one day in our present day (pathologically dominated society).
“The Lord of the Flies,” a classic speculation on human behavior in a survival situation (read the reviews on Amazon or Wiki)
The Stand, by Stephen King, is long, very wordy, but has some very relevant ideas.
There are many other novels and films that reveal well thought out discussion of human behavior in survival situations—google or research “dystopia” books or films.
For nonfiction I think we should be familiar with survival situations like the Donner party stranded in the American west in a mountain pass for the winter, the soccer team whose plane crashed in the Andes, and historical journals describing survival in new world situations like at Jamestown VA in 1607, or Mary Rowlandson’s narratives describing surviving in the wilderness with her Native American captors.
Assuming we survive an initial situation and need to build a more permanent society we might look at how the fundamentalist Amish manage without electricity etc., or how aboriginal groups, and subsistence level farmers are surviving.
The shock of suddenly being stranded in a survival situation is going to knock people out of their normal modes of behavior—some will withdraw and stay in a nonfunctioning place, others will be motivated to take action for their own and others survival and some will be motivated only for their own well being and try to take power and resources where they can. So the struggle will be twofold: one to find a way to get immediate needs met in nature, and two to avoid the take-over by the pathological minority witch will surely be represented in the 200.
Going without food for 24 or 36 hours even, creates major changes in brain chemistry. Forty eight hours without food, in the cold, and wet will reveal passions and behaviors, both for the good and bad, that are almost impossible to imagine with a full stomach and warm feet hence I think the research into readings of people who have actually been there is useful.
Now we come to a third incarnation of this discussion:
Laura wrote: Now, I'm going to leave aside some of the questions that have been raised for the moment and ask this one:
Can society be structured like a family? Like a macrocosmic human body?
Fascinating—yes—in some ways it already has as many societies, with varying degrees of success, already have adult leaders, division of work among the able, care for the elderly, infirm and children by some members of the “family,” although there are not many societies out there that I have seen that maintain the emotional bonds to each other that families maintain, and not all of the bonds that hold families together are positive, so families in this 3D reality are not likely in reality to provide anymore models of healthy functioning behaviors than any other group dynamic, in my cynical opinion.
Can society be structured like a macrocosmic human body? Sure. Some people would be like the head or the higher cognitive processes and be the leaders, teachers, scientists; others would maintain the bonds, the goodwill, the positive emotions of the body and would be the caregivers, healers, and artisans; others would spend more time doing the physical labors like the muscles and bones do. Others would be in communications like the nervous system, the mouth, ears, eyes, and parts of the brain. Like the various parts of the body, there would be those who are responsible for food processing, energy generation and waste disposal. Spiritual leaders may be represented by pineal gland and different chakras.
Like the body, a society must work together to get its diverse physical needs met, fight off disease (ponerology), sustain, and reproduce itself. With the proper encouragement we have seen that the body can heal itself as long as too much overt trauma has not been inflicted on it. Can human society heal itself from its present trauma brought on by the pathological elements injected into it from the Fall and 4DSTS influences, or have we sustained too much trauma? This discussion can’t help but generate as many questions as answers. My guess to the last question—can we survive and heal ourselves/--brings me back to the first scenario—that with a predominately STO orientation we might. Again like Buddy said: In the absence of the poisoning of ponerology I believe human beings will naturally cooperate and trust each other, producing and exchanging what others need, and receiving what they need in return, within an environment of cooperation and trust. So in all these survival situations identifying and dealing with the psychopathic elements that exists appears to be the common thread.
shellycheval
