'Survivors' by Terry Nation British TV series 1975-19

[melatonin]

Quite disappointed with how easilly Charles has given power over to Greg, i expected more of a struggle.

I'm a little over half-way through the 2nd season and it's interesting that Charles and Greg represent two diametrically opposed value's and perceptions. Greg really does embody that authoritative mindset, whereas Charles is much more about letting the community and it's members 'find their feet' in their own way. Is it surprising then that Greg would inevitably start to usurp control? ;)

Well, this is it... i never got that impression from Charles earlier in the series. If i remember rightly, he was very forceful when Greg met him first time around (With the 2 women).

I miss Abby Grant. I think she was the best people person. If i was in the group id be far more happy with her making the final desicions.

 

[Corvus]

I watched series one and I find some actions at the end of the series totally illogical like in the episode 12 when there are those 3 men hunting them for gas. Firstly there was this one men they accepted totally without suspicion when he came and saw they have gas. even when someone find it suspicious that he did not have anything with him then a rifle, no belongings with him and he was traveling for days. Never heard that saying to kids: Do not trust the strangers.

Secondly when Greg was in the barn he captured their leader and got Jenny back in that way, but let him go. Of course they will come after them again. He could kept him as hostage and demand the other two give their weapons. He would got their weapons and they would have to go. Nobody would get hurt. Thirdly, these three guys would know that something isn't right with truck because he was not driving it and they knew it was broken when they captured Jenny. Totally bad script and unrealistic story.

And in the episode 13 Abby got into power struggle with Greg and decides to leave, then comes back after meeting Garland. I find it funny because like someone said in the youtube comments she needed a sex and was right back to job. And in the episode 1 of series 2 fire breaks up in one room and instantly it captures other rooms and whole castle. I know fire spreads fast but not so fast, and not so fast that others would not be alarmed at time and got out. To be realistic they could probably stopped the fire in that one room where the kids were.

 

[Aeneas]

Just saw the link about the survivors series. I remember bits of it being shown when I was growing up, but was way to young to appreciate it. I look forward to watching after reading some of the feedback here and also in the light of what could soon become close to reality.

 

[nicklebleu]

Have started Season 2 ... interesting, if also a bit unrealistic scenario.

However the moral dilemmas one is faced with in such situations are quite tremendous, much food for thought.

And then also the question, what kind of society do we want to build on the ruins of the old? Clearly the old psychopathic element is still in charge (Samantha, the politician; the biologist searching for a vaccine etc.). What can we do, must we do, to keep them out of positions of power? How would we have to organize the communities to work well and be fair? Obviously democracy doesn't work, it ends in a dictatorship of the manipulated many over the few. Maybe we need to look to the ancients for answers and study their societal structure to get clues.

And I am sure many of you would have already done that ...

 

[LQB]

The original series ends with the formation of a provisional government and the beginnings of some central authority. But in doing so, they never ask the question, "what went wrong with the old one?". Throughout the episodes they continually demonstrate an inability to identify psychopaths and disturbed characters until significant damage has been done - and even then - they do not recognize them for what they really are. So, in the end, they are doomed to repeat the same. Just another cycle of the same.

Overall, that is my takeaway - probably unintended.

 

[nicklebleu]

The original series ends with the formation of a provisional government and the beginnings of some central authority. But in doing so, they never ask the question, "what went wrong with the old one?". Throughout the episodes they continually demonstrate an inability to identify psychopaths and disturbed characters until significant damage has been done - and even then - they do not recognize them for what they really are. So, in the end, they are doomed to repeat the same. Just another cycle of the same.

Overall, that is my takeaway - probably unintended.

That is precisely my impression ... just more of the same!

And for me the question remains, how to recognise and keep psychopaths at bay - before they have weaselled their way into a community and taken over the running of it. To me it seems, that only a preformed community of like-minded individuals, aware of psychopathy would stand a chance of fending them off.

 

[LQB]

The original series ends with the formation of a provisional government and the beginnings of some central authority. But in doing so, they never ask the question, "what went wrong with the old one?". Throughout the episodes they continually demonstrate an inability to identify psychopaths and disturbed characters until significant damage has been done - and even then - they do not recognize them for what they really are. So, in the end, they are doomed to repeat the same. Just another cycle of the same.

Overall, that is my takeaway - probably unintended.

That is precisely my impression ... just more of the same!

And for me the question remains, how to recognise and keep psychopaths at bay - before they have weaselled their way into a community and taken over the running of it. To me it seems, that only a preformed community of like-minded individuals, aware of psychopathy would stand a chance of fending them off.

In the case of a small tribe (in the past), it would be the tribal elders that make the judgement and the sentence would be banishment or death. A part of what I wrote recently to a blogger:

Let’s take an example from simpler times. Think of a small tribe of 20-25 individuals. They survive by relying on each other and everyone works for the benefit of the whole – they are human and always rise to the aid of one another and the tribe. Every 2-3 generations is born a genetic psychopath among them. This individual learns very quickly in youth that he is not like the others. He learns to mimic emotions and expressions - to seem like the others - and becomes adept at maintaining this mask. He feels nothing but his own self-interest and finds ways to further that self interest such as shirking his tribal responsibilities, avoiding work wherever possible, and creating division among the tribe in hopes of commanding power and maybe even leadership. He wants the tribe to serve him. The tribal elders become alarmed and recognize the threat to their delicate tribal balance. They recognize (much later than the psychopath) that he is not like the rest of them and displays no honest human qualities. The elders agree and decide that this individual must be banished or put to death. Those genes will not be passed on.

I went on to say that today, we have no equivalent of the functions of the elders at the top of the chain.

So I agree with you - you have to start over somehow with the knowledge, do the filtering, and decide how to contain the threat. I don't think there is any way to "fix" what we have today. But destruction (in one form or another is coming) and those remaining have the chance to implement the knowledge.

 

[Laura]

Not only do we not have elders, most people live as parts of huge, impersonal groups where a machiavellian type can hide. Paul Babiak says that in companies, troubles and problems sprout up around psychopaths like mushrooms after a rain. I guess that's one way to get a clue. But we've learned, also, that a good one can make it look like the trouble is coming from someone else, an innocent party.

 

[LQB]

Not only do we not have elders, most people live as parts of huge, impersonal groups where a machiavellian type can hide. Paul Babiak says that in companies, troubles and problems sprout up around psychopaths like mushrooms after a rain. I guess that's one way to get a clue. But we've learned, also, that a good one can make it look like the trouble is coming from someone else, an innocent party.

Absolutely! Here is another part of that letter I wrote:

After 35 years in the Aerospace business, I can tell you that I watched more than a few of them climb the backs of truly good managers to achieve positions of power and continue up the corporate chain. They left destruction in their wake in the form of stress, heart attacks, psychological disorders, and broken programs. The worst though, is what flows downward through the organization in time – perverted policies/procedures and programs of “ethics” and “diversity” that are little more than mind-control (and designed to achieve the opposite of what they openly profess on the surface). The majority of workers can’t see it and become seriously damaged as they accept the role of authoritarian followers.

The experience I related above is an example of a process that has been going on for a very long time in the Western (modern) world, and probably for millennia everywhere. The bulk of the population gradually becomes damaged and they lose connection with the defining human characteristics. Their actions become increasingly pathological as they participate in hurtful behavior and belief systems, and they begin to erode those connections that really make them human. This blurs the line between the psychopath and the human making it much easier for the psychopath to hide behind the “mask of sanity”.