NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm writing a story and I am at a scene where various people are voicing differing opinions on an important issue. I would like, and hopefully its allowable to, get the opinions of people here so that when I write the scene it will sound more real.

Ok so imagine this:
People on an archaeological dig unearth a dormant strain of bacteria along with the early humans they were looking for. It spreads through infected scientists and becomes worldwide epidemic.
There is a hidden government research center working on cure. They do not find it until at least 40-50% of world pop. is already gone. They have no facilities for mass production or distribution. They had originally been planning to ship cure to CDC when found but even though they do their best to get it there it arrives too late. So they vaccinate all of their people and dependents, maybe a few strangers who were nearby and button up the facility to ride out the epidemic and the ensuing chaos. Afterwards they are all healthy and they have more intact tech than 95% of the world so they are the ones rebuilding civilization. They have a chance to do things their way and in a big meeting they ask for opinions on what they should be aiming towards.
If you were there and at that meeting to determine the tone for the new society what would you want? What differences or similarities?

I would stand up on a table and proclaim, "the land is not the property of any man, but belongs to all of us!" I think that would solve a lot of problems that would have arisen.

i would sugjust that you go out and try to harvest as much dna as they could so that in 40 years everyone was not related

One philosopher said that the people should determine what the roles (or jobs) should be before they know which role or job each individual would take.

HEHEHE, the Omega man. (kind of).

Anyway, I would go looking for the nearest stash of booze, and spend the rest of my days drunk, thereby avioding the enormity of what had actually happened.

Remember:

"A man who oppresses his own people is like a man who will eat his own leg to stay alive."

I'm guessing to divide the place into subsections with their own ruling force.

I'm writing a story and I am at a scene where various people are voicing differing opinions on an important issue. I would like, and hopefully its allowable to, get the opinions of people here so that when I write the scene it will sound more real.

Ok so imagine this:
People on an archaeological dig unearth a dormant strain of bacteria along with the early humans they were looking for. It spreads through infected scientists and becomes worldwide epidemic.
There is a hidden government research center working on cure. They do not find it until at least 40-50% of world pop. is already gone. They have no facilities for mass production or distribution. They had originally been planning to ship cure to CDC when found but even though they do their best to get it there it arrives too late. So they vaccinate all of their people and dependents, maybe a few strangers who were nearby and button up the facility to ride out the epidemic and the ensuing chaos. Afterwards they are all healthy and they have more intact tech than 95% of the world so they are the ones rebuilding civilization. They have a chance to do things their way and in a big meeting they ask for opinions on what they should be aiming towards.
If you were there and at that meeting to determine the tone for the new society what would you want? What differences or similarities?



I would stress acceptance for all those outside our little bio-sphere of happyness, and emphazize a liberal view in the re-construction of the world, learning from our mistakes (ex. I'd start off with alternative energy). Sounds like a cool story, good luck.

One philosopher said that "nothing can be moved, since to be moved it must be taken out of the place in which it is and put into the place where it is not, which is impossible because all things must always be in the places where they are."
(Diodorus)

I won't be in the meeting. No me and Lord Humungous will be scouring the land for all the Juice, wrist mounted crossbows, and bondage gear we can find. Then we're coming for the rest of you poor sods.

Hope you like serving the "Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla."

I would say "Let's put out the word to anyone who can get here to us that we have survived and have this tech and are trying to rebuild. Let's invite all the survivors we can find to join us, because we need the diversity, or we are likely to be so inbred in a couple of generations that our society here will collapse. Let's use what we have to save as many people as we can, because even if we are brilliant scientists, to rebuild society, we need farmers and carpenters and garbage men and weavers and writers and cooks and fishermen and a thousand other skills that we excluded from our little group when we closed the doors. Let's not assume that simply because we were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time when this plague hit that we are capable of rebuilding and surviving on our own. Let's also remember that the ones who will be able to save all of us are the ones who will get their hands dirty and actually do the physical work of growing food, maintaining the trucks to move the food to us, burying the enormous number of bodies, rebuilding the collapsed infrastructure, and so on."

If I were in that position, I would want to create a society in which every person is offered equal opportunity regardless of their parentage - I would want to ensure that every person had the opportunity to have a good education and that the amount of money a person's parents had would have no bearing whatsoever on the quality of that education. I would ensure that everybody had the opportunity, should they so choose, to upgrade their education at any point in their lives. I would have laws enacted that prevented people from making money off of the backs of others, and would try to ensure that the amount of money a person makes is directly proportional to how hard they work, their level of experience, their level of education, and the amount of responsibility and accountability that the job entails, while still keeping salaries reasonable - Nobody should be making more than 4-500k per year, nor should anybody who is working full-time be making less than 30k per year. Freeloaders would not be tolerated - labour laws would allow for such people to be fired, and they would receive minimal support until they demonstrated that they are capable and willing to become productive members of the workforce. To encourage enterprise, every small business would automatically be incorporated, and individuals would not be financially accountable if the business went bankrupt - banks would still be able to decide who to give their loans to for starting up businesses, and would simply have to be a bit more careful with their money.

I think I'll stop there. Basic premise is a true capitalism with equal opportunity for everybody, you have to work for what you make, and there are reasonable limits on incomes. This means the market will be more controlled than free, but will ensure that everyone essentially gets what they deserve to be making.

I think (based on what I've seen here on NS), the most interesting conversation would be between the rugged individualists (libertarians) and the altruistic collectivists (socialists/commies), as far as future plans would go.

I won't be in the meeting. No me and Lord Humungous will be scouring the land for all the Juice, wrist mounted crossbows, and bondage gear we can find. Then we're coming for the rest of you poor sods.

Hope you like serving the "Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla."

It was definetely funnier the first time you posted it. :p

I think you'd better start with figuring out a way of getting rid of well over 5500 million decomposing bodies...assuming about 5% survival rate, each survivor has some 20 non-suvivors to bury. Hmm, come to think of it, burning them may be the better option...

I would suggest dividing the world equally between everyone except for one person (or several people at the meeting if everyone alive is at it) at the meeting and let them rule the way they want, and let the people choose which place they like best, and the one guy that didn't territory would make sure that no one declares war on eachother or refusing to coroperate.

There's another example of a situation like this, to make it slightly more interesting.

You are in a mission of colonists to another planet. Although you have lots of equipment to help deal with whatever problems you might encounter, such as enviromental suits, terraforming equipment, mining tools and so on - no body knows what to expect. Every colonist has their own possibly useful skill, but depending on the conditions of the planet some groups will have to work harder than others - if it's a rocky planet, the miners will have the most important job, if it's an ocean planet, those skilled in aquatic terraforming are most useful, and so on. How would you suggest resources be divided up according to whose work is most important, bearing in mind you might be almost useless on the planet or one of the most important workers?


The idea is since you are effectively in a totally objective position, there being a chance for you to be really lucky or unlucky in your starting position, you should get a system of government which is as fair as possible, in your eyes.

I'd like to thank everybody who has posted or will post their ideas here.
Although I hope more people will post.

Ok so imagine this:
People on an archaeological dig unearth a dormant strain of bacteria along with the early humans they were looking for. It spreads through infected scientists and becomes worldwide epidemic.
There is a hidden government research center working on cure. They do not find it until at least 40-50% of world pop. is already gone. They have no facilities for mass production or distribution. They had originally been planning to ship cure to CDC when found but even though they do their best to get it there it arrives too late. So they vaccinate all of their people and dependents, maybe a few strangers who were nearby and button up the facility to ride out the epidemic and the ensuing chaos. Afterwards they are all healthy and they have more intact tech than 95% of the world so they are the ones rebuilding civilization. They have a chance to do things their way and in a big meeting they ask for opinions on what they should be aiming towards.
If you were there and at that meeting to determine the tone for the new society what would you want? What differences or similarities?
will there be survivors... people infected but still alive? perhaps creating a gap between two types of people. thus you have the Haves and the Have-nots.

some might push for the rise of the feudal system...
others might see the infected people as slaves (especially if the higher brain functions are gone)
the techs may get a 'god' complex. giving rise to a new family of gods.

Realistically tho. depending on how many survive, you will have a genetic resource problem thus doing away with the traditional family units may be suggested. creating as much combinations of genes to rebuild the human race. Thus you may see either...
1) mariarchial society where women rule.
2) Patriarchial Society where women are restricted in their jobs to help preserve the gene pool (keep them safe)

if there are surviving infected people and animals, then the need for a military would also be reconized, thus a 'warrior' class may evolve (perhaps from the strangers that were near by.) thus you have the educated and the warrior class.

and all this can start by a 'Division of labor' since it won't be a couple of decades to get civilization back on it's feet.

Can you possibly post the story I've very interested in reading what you have so far :D

Sorry, I don't have an opinion. Except for this post. But you know what I mean.

will there be survivors... people infected but still alive? perhaps creating a gap between two types of people. thus you have the Haves and the Have-nots.

some might push for the rise of the feudal system...
others might see the infected people as slaves (especially if the higher brain functions are gone)
the techs may get a 'god' complex. giving rise to a new family of gods.

Realistically tho. depending on how many survive, you will have a genetic resource problem thus doing away with the traditional family units may be suggested. creating as much combinations of genes to rebuild the human race. Thus you may see either...
1) mariarchial society where women rule.
2) Patriarchial Society where women are restricted in their jobs to help preserve the gene pool (keep them safe)

if there are surviving infected people and animals, then the need for a military would also be reconized, thus a 'warrior' class may evolve (perhaps from the strangers that were near by.) thus you have the educated and the warrior class.

and all this can start by a 'Division of labor' since it won't be a couple of decades to get civilization back on it's feet.

No infected survivors. All left are either naturally immune or among the very,very few who lived through it. It also only affected humans. You and others make good points about genetic resource problems and I will be addressing them in the story. They will definitely try to bring survivors to them.

Does anyone have any opinions about changes to marriage law?

I can post it when I am done if that is allowed.

We'd re-do the agricultural revolution, and start the whole bloody shabang all over again if you ask me.

Ok but what changes would you like to make?
Hard Currency?
Polygamy or Polyandry?
Would you want to encourage couples to have children?
Universal Sufferage?
Democracy, Monarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, Socialism?

Ok but what changes would you like to make?
Hard Currency?
Polygamy or Polyandry?
Would you want to encourage couples to have children?
Universal Sufferage?
Democracy, Monarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, Socialism?

Man, there would be nothing like this, you would have to start from scratch. The entire industrial sector would be unneccesary, and proffesionals (i.e. job holders) would not be needed either (for a while). I think many would find it happier to live outside the machine for a few thousand years. Division of labor, when it started and how it was set up would be the single most important event.

And if we had to do it all over again, with some minor (time-wise and philisophically speaking) changes I'd do it the same way, forever and ever.

Changes: less nationalism, greater respect for authority.
Not letting society give into ones' base desires.
And fix the language: the langauge we use partially determines how we think. I'd like Italian or Latin.

"Okay, guys, we survived the disaster. We are the last in the world, but we need to guarantee nothing like this ever happens again. There are several things we must do.

I am writing down each of our names on slips of paper and placing them in this late Victorian pith helmet that washed up on the beach. We shall draw two names at random.

These two must fight each other to the death. The rest of us will place bets, using whatever few personal possessions or articles of clothing we have.

Everyone who wins the bet will be purged. Their newly won possessions will be distributed equally amongst our society.

We will then each make up an official sounding title for ourselves and present them anonymously. The 14 coolest-sounding official titles will be kept, and the people who proposed these titles will assume said positions. Every other person will be enslaved.

Each year, the best-behaving slave will be allowed to make up his or her own new, improved official-sounding title and join the ruling elite. This incentive will keep the slaves in their place.

When there are no longer enough slaves to work and support our society (which probably won't happen for several generations), the entire leadership must be forced to fall into violent civil war. The victorious coalition cannot consist of more than 7 officials. Slaves will be exempt from fighting.

From these 7 officials, repeat the process of a slave promotion every year.

When the slaves can no longer support the society again (which shouldn't be too much longer than the last time it happened), the officials and slaves must engage in physical class struggle until one side is destroyed completely.

Then we will have utopia. Now, I need one of you to select two names at random from this pith helmet . . ."

At first it'll be communal and patchy.

Eventually it'll end up the same as it is now. Why? Because there's still too many stupid people!

Unless they only save the upper class intellectuals/scientists/philosophers etc. Oh, and NO movie stars. Then can we build a new utopia.

Well while disease plays no favorites anyone who survives the aftermath would be almost certain to have at least some intelligence and common sense.

"Okay, guys, we survived the disaster. We are the last in the world, but we need to guarantee nothing like this ever happens again. There are several things we must do.

I am writing down each of our names on slips of paper and placing them in this late Victorian pith helmet that washed up on the beach. We shall draw two names at random.

These two must fight each other to the death. The rest of us will place bets, using whatever few personal possessions or articles of clothing we have.

Everyone who wins the bet will be purged. Their newly won possessions will be distributed equally amongst our society.

We will then each make up an official sounding title for ourselves and present them anonymously. The 14 coolest-sounding official titles will be kept, and the people who proposed these titles will assume said positions. Every other person will be enslaved.

Each year, the best-behaving slave will be allowed to make up his or her own new, improved official-sounding title and join the ruling elite. This incentive will keep the slaves in their place.

When there are no longer enough slaves to work and support our society (which probably won't happen for several generations), the entire leadership must be forced to fall into violent civil war. The victorious coalition cannot consist of more than 7 officials. Slaves will be exempt from fighting.

From these 7 officials, repeat the process of a slave promotion every year.

When the slaves can no longer support the society again (which shouldn't be too much longer than the last time it happened), the officials and slaves must engage in physical class struggle until one side is destroyed completely.

Then we will have utopia. Now, I need one of you to select two names at random from this pith helmet . . ."

Thats just WEIRD man.

Survival of the fittest.

That's it. Simple.

No socialist bs.

If people want to congregate into groups and work together to survive, great, but laws just tend to complicate things.

Get outta here with that "Everyone needs to have the same" crap. That is just talk from someone who has chosen not to make their own.

Well Thanks everyone. I think I have enough now.