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

[Beau]

I've seen the first 10 episodes, and while the 9th one, Law and Order, is especially frustrating and facepalm-y, I was just as frustrated at the 10th episode when Greg and Paul meet the guy on the road who's like a traveling salesman or something, with his van full of goods. I couldn't believe that they gave him directions right to where they were living! After everything that they have been through so far, you'd think they would start to be uber-cautious when meeting new people and not give them directions exactly where they live. I was wondering why they just didn't meet him at a neutral location, buy his goods, and then bring them back to their place after the guy left. It just didn't make any sense to me to lead him right to your very nice castle-like abode. And of course this horrible decision ends up costing them. I can understand at first being a little too trustworthy and being burned by it, that's a little more understandable, but they've all been through the ringer and you'd think with experience they'd know better than to do what they did. And then even when they let him in the house, they leave him alone in a room for a while, totally trusting that he's just a nice guy. I couldn't understand it one bit, if you have a stranger in your house do you just leave him alone and not keep an eye on him? It just seems like totally wrong behavior. Even in the "normal world" right now I wouldn't do that.

 

[seek10]

I've seen the first 10 episodes, and while the 9th one, Law and Order, is especially frustrating and facepalm-y, I was just as frustrated at the 10th episode when Greg and Paul meet the guy on the road who's like a traveling salesman or something, with his van full of goods. I couldn't believe that they gave him directions right to where they were living! After everything that they have been through so far, you'd think they would start to be uber-cautious when meeting new people and not give them directions exactly where they live. I was wondering why they just didn't meet him at a neutral location, buy his goods, and then bring them back to their place after the guy left. It just didn't make any sense to me to lead him right to your very nice castle-like abode. And of course this horrible decision ends up costing them. I can understand at first being a little too trustworthy and being burned by it, that's a little more understandable, but they've all been through the ringer and you'd think with experience they'd know better than to do what they did. And then even when they let him in the house, they leave him alone in a room for a while, totally trusting that he's just a nice guy. I couldn't understand it one bit, if you have a stranger in your house do you just leave him alone and not keep an eye on him? It just seems like totally wrong behavior. Even in the "normal world" right now I wouldn't do that.

I watched the first 13 episodes. I got the same impression of not being cautious when inviting new persons. Probably they don't know How ?. How many hits they get, they seems to be less cautious in inviting the strangers, though they are cautious for the life stock. Yes, "Law and Order " episode is frustrating. It is interesting to note that the people who want the suspect to be abandoned far away at first switched to Execution later as if they don't want to go against the authority.

 

[Gwenllian]

The unmistakable faith in government, law enforcement, money (fractional banking is even touched upon), a political system with a leader (king), flag and all is so depressing. I thought I was going mad afterwards.
How keen people seemed to be to return to the old system despite their lessons and hardships and their hard earned independence. If something good came out of a disaster of these proportions surely it would be our independence, self-reliance and confidence? But without looking at the mistakes of the past they adopt the old system without even batting an eye.

I don't see from where does hope for better system with this kind of men in this world comes from. If history is lesson, and if teaches that after numerous cataclysms people emerged again with sts hierarchical societies which were based on level of cruelty, coldness and lust the individual was ready to take to attain higher positions in the pyramid, then there's nothing new really. You can't expect from men with no inner insights or knowledge, consciousness to act positively when his life force is concentrated on selfish needs. How can that person be not selfish then. You can not expect from people that are mechanical in nature to not react in the same way when building a society, thinking and acting. Only thing they know is their years old programs that dominate them, here and there there is a spark that becomes overshadowed with personal fears and selfish needs. They do not see the alternative for their existence. STS is everything that exists for them.

But when people suffer shocks to their systems couldn't those be a catalyst for change, if they have access to at least some knowledge?
That is what I would expect, but I could be wrong of course.

I wasn't aware of the Work when I started therapy more than a decade ago. I suffered a shock, when I realised that I had become my mother and that I had to change. And I did with the right help at the time. I was still mechanical, but slightly less, because I was observing myself, emotions, thoughts, sensations. And I could steer away from crippling anxiety that made it almost impossible for me to leave the house.
I can imagine that some people after the WWII were still more open to change due to the shocks they had sustained. That is why over here people did not want a census in the seventies. The wounds were still too fresh. That has changed of course.

 

[Regulattor]

One thing, out of few, bothers me much when watching how things are developing as time goes by. That's the use of arms. In just few weeks after plaque receded it was shown that pathological persons would be the first to implement some kind of quasi societal structure resembling previous system on the bases of proclaimed marshal law thus giving them power to control remaining supplies and organizing armed guards and court-martial style judgment and execution.

But it's also clear that our "heroes" have to use guns also in order to survive. And here I have a raising question. Should in case of similar event in real life an STO seeking person or candidate rely on weapons?
I'm strongly opposed to use of guns of any kind lead by the saying "Live by the sword - die by the sword", but if you're faced with clear and present danger of being robed or killed or to protect family member, friend or who ever might be in such a danger, do you have "obligation" or "duty" to use arms if available to deter or defend your self or other?

We saw in some episodes, but that's more pronounced as we go further along, that Greg and rest of the crew at first didn't carry guns nor use it, but latter on few occasions they would be dead or robbed if they didn't defend themselves with use of guns. Yes, they could avoid much of those situations if they ware aware of possible consequences and think more carefully before, but you just can't anticipate all the possibilities.

I know that it's going to be preprogrammed reaction of ponnerized society to arm in order to protect themselves when state structure collapses and who ever does not have some kind protection would be sitting duck, but how to cope with this dilemma?

 

[loreta]

I think that in a situation like a big world cataclysm people will try to survive, to eat specially. And they will be very tired, like the people after the WWII, and time is harder after the war, hunger I mean. So people will accept anything to eat. That's why I think that this series, even if it asks many interesting and important questions, is to "clean". Maybe a little idealized. Violence will be extreme, many sort of movements will want to take power, and few, with arms, will want to control food and water. Little communes will be at danger, will need to protect themselves. War will not end and war will continue between groups. People will be more controlled, it will be easier because the number of people will be lesser. And if the world cataclysm is nuclear... that's another story.

 

[Rabelais]

After watching the entire 2008 re-make, I finally received the 1975 box set about two weeks ago. I am now into series 3. What the producers of the 2008 remake did was pretty bad. They completely missed the essence of the original (intentional?) and produced a series that is virtually unrecognizable, aside from sharing the same title name and basic premise, and the characters of Greg and Abby.

Yesterday I saw the chapter Power and Order. I was very angry with the attitude of Mr. Greg. I don't like him, he is really an authoritarian type of man. And Abby also is very authoritarian. Both of them are characters that I don't like anymore.

As the series progresses, Greg, Abby, et al, seem to slowly come to grips with the larger reality of the situation. Greg suffers guilt and remorse for his act in Law and Order. Keep watching. Also, the episodes are created by various writers whose treatment of the characters is noticeably different. The most obvious being old Hubert. He is a drunken rascal in the earlier shows, expected to screw up whatever he does, and later he becomes somewhat more level headed and dependable... depending on the writer of each episode.

I've watched the first three episodes, and not that it was intentional on the part of the producers, but did chuckle a bit when I noticed that most all of the survivors were smokers. I have not looked for the 2008 version, but wondered if the smoking had been cut. With the anti-smoking campaigns in full swing, I suspect no smoking in the newer production.

There is smoking in both versions, but in the 2008 version it is minimal and treated with the taboo factor we have all come to expect. In the older version it is taken for granted, as it was during the era in which it was produced.

It seems that there is a major shift in the thinking and goals of some of the survivors after they learn of the plan of the Norwegian balloon man. I am curious to see how that plays out in the end.

Much as I do when I am reading a really good book and nearing the end, I am slowing down the episode watching and trying to make it last. Savoring it as it were. It is very difficult to find media which is thought provoking and entertaining all at the same time.

Edit - fix typo

 

[Mrs. Peel]

I watched the first 13 episodes. I got the same impression of not being cautious when inviting new persons. Probably they don't know How ?. How many hits they get, they seems to be less cautious in inviting the strangers, though they are cautious for the life stock. Yes, "Law and Order " episode is frustrating. It is interesting to note that the people who want the suspect to be abandoned far away at first switched to Execution later as if they don't want to go against the authority.

Well, you have to remember too, it's a TV show, and if everyone did the "smart" thing it could get pretty boring, and that's bad for ratings. ;)

 

[Mrs. Peel]

I know that it's going to be preprogrammed reaction of ponnerized society to arm in order to protect themselves when state structure collapses and who ever does not have some kind protection would be sitting duck, but how to cope with this dilemma?

In the current TV series "Revolution," there is a small band of travelers who are searching for one of the main character's (a girl named Charley) brother who has been taken by the militia. Along the way, they run into one of the militia who attacks then. After a fight, Chrley's uncle Miles gets ready to kill the man, but Charley begs her uncle to spare him. Miles doesn't want to, but he does. They lock him up in an abandoned boxcar and go on their way. The man escapes from the boxcar and later is intstrumental in another attack against the group. Miles tells Charley he should have killed him when he had the chance.

Then there is a situation where Charley has to shoot a man to save the group. She has a flashback to when she was a child right after the power went out, and her mother and father were acosted by a man who wanted to steal their wagonload of food. Her father had a gun and told the man not to take the food but the man said he knew the dad wouldn't shoot, so he started off with the wagon of food. The dad kept telling him to stop but the man didn't, and the dad wavered and couldn't shoot and let him go. Next thing you hear a gunshot and the man falls to the ground. Turns out, the mother shot him and saved their food. So then Charley goes ahead and kills the man in the present.

I don't think we know what we would do until faced with the situation. To do harm to another just for self preservation does seem wrong, but what if by staying alive yourself, you can later help others?

 

[meta-agnostic]

I managed to finish the the whole original run. Pretty breathtaking but with a few writing hiccups here and there. Episode 9, "Law and Order" is also what got me before reading this thread. Both hopelessly frustrated and hopelessly intrigued after watching that one. Not sure if the 2008 re-make is worth bothering with after reading some of the comments here, but if I ever do watch it I'll be glad I saw the original first.

On the question of violence in self-defense, I know this is a touchy subject, but would it likely make a difference if the person/people being defended against are just normal people put in a desperate situation or clearly remorseless psychopaths? I expect this will put our powers of discernment fully to the test, but there will likely be many situations (as there were on the show) where we have to keep our guard up to see what we are dealing with but eventually are able to come to terms of agreement with other parties. Surely normal people will not be interested in perpetrating as much violence as possible if they can get their needs met without it. Once individuals have proven themselves beyond a reasonable doubt to be remorseless psychopaths and are putting you in moral [I mean mortal! interesting typo] peril, is the world really going to miss them?? In an unclear situation where action has to be taken, perhaps try to only injure a limb?

 

[Mrs. Peel]

On the question of violence in self-defense, I know this is a touchy subject, but would it likely make a difference if the person/people being defended against are just normal people put in a desperate situation or clearly remorseless psychopaths?

Well, if taken by surprise, there may not be time to determine their "orientation" before you have to react in self-defense. It really is a tough call, at least IMO.

 

[meta-agnostic]

On the question of violence in self-defense, I know this is a touchy subject, but would it likely make a difference if the person/people being defended against are just normal people put in a desperate situation or clearly remorseless psychopaths?

Well, if taken by surprise, there may not be time to determine their "orientation" before you have to react in self-defense. It really is a tough call, at least IMO.

I agree. And there are endless mental permutations one could run on the subject. If you are threatened by surprise, do you aim to kill your attackers? If you only aim to maim, in a post-apocalyptic environment you may be consigning them to a slow, perhaps agonizing death. If the parties can be negotiated with then it may work to surrender, but if they are psychopaths then they may torture you before killing you. But, armed with higher knowledge, you would theoretically not be afraid to die and would be willing to risk death to attempt to kill them and/or escape. Or just endure the torture if you're into that sort of martyrdom. Doesn't hurt to mull through it all in your mind, but I don't think any of us know what we would do unless/until we are faced with these situations.

 

[Carl]

On the issue of violence, I have just watched episode 10.

They were under constant attack by a dangerous psycho, killing their livestock and threatening to bomb their house, is there really any other way to defend yourself in that situation?. I mean, you could just sneak up on his caravan, put a bullet in his head and be done with it, instead of suffering attack after attack, living in fear trying to keep your humanity intact by non violence (when this man clearly had no humanity). But there is obviously something totally wrong with this if we are tying to polarise toward STO. It seems to be an almost unresolvable dilemma, until you see it from a bigger perspective.

Had they played it strategically (i.e. had they applied Knowledge), the man would never have known where they lived. If he did find them, he would not be invited inside to snoop around for fugitives being harbored, and naturally blabbermouth kids would certainly not be allowed to wander out and chat with the 'enemy'.

So if Knowledge Protects, then that is because we can apply our knowledge in order to avoid ever being put in a position where you have to kill somebody to protect your own/others' lives. Is shooting an attacker dead an example of knowledge protecting? I think not.

Easier said than done of course, but maybe, provided we have pure intent, the events we experience will be guided away from violence and allow us to network without a gun constantly pointed at our heads? I am reminded of Gurdjieff's account of leaving Russia with his group when things were going downhill. He had a series of unlikely gifts of good luck, which allowed him to leave the area unmolested and avoid coming into violent confrontations. His intent was pure, he had a mission to complete and sincerely wanted to share his knowledge and try to wake up humanity.

This could be wishful thinking and is very abstract, but it is the only way that I can see to solve this problem of violent attackers besides packing guns and blades everywhere you go.

 

[meta-agnostic]

Thanks Carlise. That helps me put it in a better perspective.

I don't own a gun and have no plans to acquire one, but it's tough to get rid of the idea that if push came to shove, if it was do or die and I at least had some non-firearm weapon, I "won't back down". Especially if it means fighting for a world not so full of psychopaths who would kill everyone else or more likely enslave them if given the chance. I'm sure I'm still reckoning with levels of programming here. But the broader picture we need to grasp is to use knowledge to avoid ever ending up in a situation where violence would be necessary for survival, either for clear self-defense or otherwise. I'm not worried about it either way, but I think watching this series has made us all think more about it. Hopefully we'll find ourselves far enough along to end up in a reality where avoiding violence is possible, and the drama we experience will be much more rewarding than what we see in this series.

 

[Gwenllian]

Some people spoke here about the need to know about first aid. Yesterday I received the SAS Survival Handbook. Sixty pages or so are dedicated to first aid. Nothing about epilepsy, I am afraid. Topics are a.o. heavy bleeding, burns, fractures, sprains and emergency childbirth.

I will write more about it in the 'Preparedness' thread.

 

[Ollie]

Some people spoke here about the need to know about first aid. Yesterday I received the SAS Survival Handbook. Sixty pages or so are dedicated to first aid. Nothing about epilepsy, I am afraid. Topics are a.o. heavy bleeding, burns, fractures, sprains and emergency childbirth.

I will write more about it in the 'Preparedness' thread.

What is more important than having the information is having applied practical knowledge of First Aid - the need to undertake a course of First Aid. I've done this in the past, and as many people have said, fortunately you rarely get to practice it, and knowledge fades, unless it is refreshed it it goes away (well in my case), and techniques change with time.

On the subject of violence, many 'survival books' speak of the need to act first if confronted in a one-to-one situation where someone is a threat to your life and safety (these situations deal with non-firearm cases).

This may help or not.

Mariana, which of the SAS Survival Handbooks have you got, the first one is good, in the second, Urban Survival Handbook, the author appears to have been 'got at' and everything is couched in 'authoritarian regulations' and doing what the 'authorities' recommend as 'good practice', as opposed to living and surviving by your wits.