Most of us probably wouldn't make it. Even if we were immune. - The Stand (1994) Discussion

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

Well, I am glad to see that you are recovering, Mr C. I hope your remaining recovery goes well.

You raise a very valid point. In the book, (and in my book as well) the problem is that people are isolated and the medical people will have mostly died off during the time that the epidemic is still going. This will be a problem for the survivors in either scenario. The best examples I can think of in either story, are the cases of Mark Braddock, (the Mark in The Stand who I referred to in the post you mentioned) and Stu's broken leg, and in my story there is a boy who has an imporperly healed fracture of his arm. In both cases, they were treated by doctors but much later than they should have been, and there was surgery involved that would not have been necessary had the fracture been treated promptly and properly.

While my story does not have a 'no great loss' chapter, I do go into the problems of not having doctors around when they are needed, and that is a major selling point for the survivors to move to Kansas, as that area has medical care.

One area where my story differs from The Stand is in the disposition of the dead. In The Stand, it is the job of a specialized group of people, while in my story it is more of a community effort.

Again, I wish you a speedy recovery.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

Thanks Gary. I'm on the mend. As you know recovery takes time and it's measured in small things. In the past few days I've been able to sleep on my side after having to lay flat on my back for the past several weeks. Small things like that. As I find myself able to do more and more "mundane" acts I know I'm getting better. You've heard this before , but you just don't know what you take for granted until you can't do it.

Surviving in a post-apocalyptic world would require a real change in how you do things. For example all those daredevils and jackass folks wouldn't last very long. The folks who have the ability to look and evaluate would probably be better suited for survival. Mind you I am not saying that they would avoid the action, but they would be better at weighing the pros and cons.

But that's just my opinion.

reply

[–] bluegenie2 11 years ago

I just happened upon this blog the other day, and I think it may apply here too.

http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/when-does-looting-become-scavenging/

I was interested if there was any news of looting during the 9/11 attacks. I never found an answer but I did find that article/blog.

"Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans" - John Lennon

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

I was interested if there was any news of looting during the 9/11 attacks. I never found an answer but I did find that article/blog.

To the best of my knowledge, there was no looting after 9/11, as the authorities kept a very visible presence then and I don't think anyone would have take too kindly to looters. It was too localized, centered just around ground zero.

Now hurricanes and tornadoes are a different story, as their radius of destruction is much more widespread, hence the police and the NG have much wider areas to watch.

Mr C, do you agree with this?

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

You can find looting and lawless behavior at many disasters, but you can also find cooperation and sanity. Everyone is focused on what happened in New Orleans after Katrina rolled through. But there were other areas hit just as hard (if not worse) and people didn't descend to savagery. Heck there were areas in New Orleans where people worked together. My family and I lived through the North American Ice Storm of 1998. Millions without power and large areas were dark. People didn't go ape-s*** crazy. Why? Beats me. Maybe because of politics, world viewpoints or something.

I think that it's always a good idea to have some stuff put away. And not just food, water, medical and guns, but spare wood, tools etc. You just never know when you might have to rely on yourself, but don't assume that people are going to go berserk at the drop of a hat either. In 1977 ,during the New York City Blackout, there was much lawless behavior, but there were also many examples of people coming together and helping each other. Of course nobody wants to talk about those incidents. Therein lies the problem with the so-called Preppers. On the surface it's not a bad idea to have some stuff put away for the unexpected disaster. But if it's truly a TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) situation then there is simply no way one can stash enough away to survive and you will need to work with others. Lone wolves don't make it - despite our love of Mad Max and Shane. In reality you have to have others. The simple villager has a better chance. People help you and you help them. Many of the Preppers seem to believe they'll be able to go it alone. They won't. I don't care how fortified you are if the attackers are determined and willing to take the losses they will take the castle. Just read your military history. Better to be part of a village.

Anyway I drifted a little there. Disaster management is a challenging activity. Any large disaster is challenging. Lots of work and I guarantee that no matter what is done there will be critics on all sides who won't be happy with how the disaster is managed. It's all politics now days.

reply

[–] sticksstoneswwiv 11 years ago

There was looting after 911, although it was very limited as the area was so tightly head by the authorities. Also cases of apartments broken into.
It is also possible that the shock of 911 was enough to stop even worse scumbag.

Never really got much reporting, but it was mentioned in the papers at the time say a line in an article.

for example:
http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/wtc_looting.html

After a natural disaster there is looting, but I doubt everyone is out to grab a new TV many people simply have no running water or food and just trying to survive.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

There was looting after 911, although it was very limited as the area was so tightly head by the authorities. Also cases of apartments broken into.
It is also possible that the shock of 911 was enough to stop even worse scumbag.

Never really got much reporting, but it was mentioned in the papers at the time say a line in an article.

for example:
http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/wtc_looting.html

After a natural disaster there is looting, but I doubt everyone is out to grab a new TV many people simply have no running water or food and just trying to survive.

All right; I'll concede your point that there was looting after 9/11, but I will also hazard a guess that it was contained within a very limited geographic area, (the area around Ground Zero) and was not spread throughout either NYC or, for that matter, Manhattan.

This is different from what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. True, you did see people taking bread, and milk, but I seem to recall seeing them take TV's, jewelry, liquor, etc, as well. In addition, looting is also very common after a riot, and these people from I have seen will take luxury items almost exclusively.

reply

[–] kenneth-85 11 years ago

This is a pretty old thread, but I happen to be browsing the board while watching on netflix & in case anyone else is still interested, I will share my experience.

I lived in Harlem during 9/11, on Frederick Douglass Blvd. @ 149th street. Most of that neighborhood was still burnt-out shells of buildings in 2001. I was late for work & we got a call from my sister-in-law telling us to turn on the news. We had no TV, but turned on the radio, then headed to the roof of our apt. building, from where we could see the smoke.

Later we went down to the street and wandered the neighborhood a bit; Harlem was cordoned off into sections (by now I think it was 1-1:30ish), we were not allowed to pass below 145th street or cross through the park to Edgecombe. Clearly NYPD, Nat'l Guard, or whoever they were feared that, with the bulk of the forces downtown, looting would break out in the more sparsely patrolled poor neighborhoods, especially given the level of fear in the city. I've heard similar stories from poor Brooklyn neighborhoods, but it seems only very specific poor neighborhoods were targeted for this kind of lockdown.

The article linked to speaks specifically of the shops in the WTC mall being looted by people with legitimate access. I remember that article, I wonder whatever happened with those cases, how many went unsolved.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

The article linked to speaks specifically of the shops in the WTC mall being looted by people with legitimate access. I remember that article, I wonder whatever happened with those cases, how many went unsolved.

Probably most of those cases went unsolved.

In any event, I found your post interesting. Thanks for posting.

reply

[–] mrnocal 11 years ago

Very interesting topic. How are we individually prepared for something almost unthinkable as The Stand puts forth?
We have become spoiled by technology, medicine, law enforcement, fire fighters, industry, etc. How many today would know how to grow food rather than just buy it at the local supermarket, and keep it fresh without freezers and refrigerators? How many could start a fire without a match or a lighter? Would the common cold become a disabling disease without Kleenex and Nyquil?

About 6 years ago I also had kidney stones. When it hit I had no clue what was wrong. I thought my appendix burst or something, the pain was so unbearable. The pain was so bad I just wanted to die (much like when I get a really bad migraine), yet with the knowledge of medicine available I wanted to live. If medical help didn't exist I think I'd lean more towards wanting to just die.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

As I've gotten older and have begun to experience health issues like Kidney Stones I've started to look at historical personages with a different eye.

Imagine living five hundred years ago and all you have for pain is alcohol and (maybe)a few highly addictive naturally recurring pain killers. So you are in pain which effects your mood and you are unable to sleep all that much. You spend much of your awake hours drunk and/or stoned.And even while intoxicated the pain is still effecting you. Now imagine that you are in charge of a kingdom, dukedom etc and are required to make life and death decisions while impaired by booze and pain.

Is it any wonder why some of those individuals come down to us as half-crazed at times? Not all of them were experiencing physical difficulties of course, but it's hard to say how many of them weren't. That type of information was often considered to be a state secret since the physical condition of a leader was directly connected to the health of the government/kingdom/empire. So it's possible that some of the more bizarre acts and behavior was due to chronic pain, substance abuse or untreated mental illness.

It's my opinion based on personal experience that untreated physical pain can also cause a type of mental illness after a period of time.

Ian McShane as Al Swearengen in "Deadwood" played a character that suffered from kidney stones and drank heavily as a way to deal with the pain. As a result a dangerous man was made even more dangerous. His character was often shown as being in real pain and he was already not a very nice man. It was McShane's portrayl that got me thinking about such things.

reply

[–] KatrinaW 11 years ago

Very interesting topic. How are we individually prepared for something almost unthinkable as The Stand puts forth?

We have become spoiled by technology, medicine, law enforcement, fire fighters, industry, etc. How many today would know how to grow food rather than just buy it at the local supermarket, and keep it fresh without freezers and refrigerators? How many could start a fire without a match or a lighter? Would the common cold become a disabling disease without Kleenex and Nyquil?

Great questions, and I think the human race as a whole is definitely not prepared for something as unthinkable as a superflu plague or similar.

Firstly, lack of modern medicine is a huuuuuuuge issue! The "No Great Loss" chapter is one of my absolute favorites in the book; as discussed, it deals with what happens to the 10% of the superflu survivors who just couldn't cut it, for various reasons, after the epidemic had wiped out almost everyone else.

While there were various methods of death among these survivors (suicide, massive drug overdose, a man running himself to death, stupidity), it's the injury-related deaths (the poor little boy who fell down the well, etc.), and deaths like Mark's appendicitis, that are the most scary to me, because most could have been prevented if there were not only doctors/hospitals around, but anyone else nearby to help the victims just after they were injured.

As to the issue of food; as Glen Bateman pontificated, it was summertime, and everyone's gardens were growing well by the time Captain Trips hit. That meant a full season of veggies, etc., for the survivors, as well as the large amount of animals that survived. Next year, things might re-seed and grow again, no problem. And so on, for at least a little while.

But for the non-gardeners, and more helpless folks, the supermarkets are full of food, but even cans and boxes of things expire and go stale within a few years. Plus, I'm sure all of the supermarkets were very hard to enter, due to the large amounts of rotting meat and dairy products. The mind just boggles!

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

When you really look at such a scenario there is no way we (Humanity) can be prepared for such an event. The scale would be so massive as to be unimaginable.

A few years ago I attended a three day training seminar on emergency management. It was for all emergency services to include doctors, national guard and so on. One of the speakers was a doctor who had worked for several years with Doctors Without Borders and the Pasteur Institute. He had first hand experience with outbreaks. During one of our lunch-breaks I spoke with him. I'll never forget what he told me.

Basically the secret of stopping an outbreak is isolating and controlling movement of the population. The research and treatment is important, but if it's real bad you've got to get the spread of the disease under control before anything else. I know duh bit it was still kind of disturbing hearing it from a doctor.

If the disease is real bad you do what you can to make the infected comfortable, but don't spend a lot of resources trying to "cure" the worst of the cases. Deal with the bacteria/virus and dispose of the dead rapidly - after a select few are autopsied. That's how an outbreak is managed.

It sounds pretty brutal actually. If it's big enough - say 2 or 3 percent of the population you're in a for a real whopper of a crisis. He said in historical cases in which 7 - 10 percent of the population was infected things were stretched to the breaking point.

Twenty-five to thirty percent of the general population can bring everything to a halt for awhile.

So 99%? I don't think we can ever be ready for such an event.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

Another thing to be prepared for, Mr. C, is like I mentioned in my story, the sinking feeling of despair when you realize that almost all of the medical people are gone as well. I'm not just talking about doctors; I'm talking nurses, EMT's, PA's, cops, firemen; the whole first-responder ball of wax.

Unless they realize very early what they are dealing with, they are not likely to take the necessary precautions, and they will succumb in large numbers.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

You're right Gary. I've mentioned on other sites that in most (almost) world destroying scenarios I would probably not make it. My job puts me on the front lines (so to speak) along with all the other emergency service folks. The odds wouldn't be in my favor. Now in the case of a CT scenario I suppose you could say that many of the immunes who were emergency services would get killed off in the chaos of the collapse.

reply

[–] katieexoxo 11 years ago

sorry, but ur kind of stupid.
u said that u were strong and healthy during ur teen period. if u paid attention in ur history class, u would know that life expectancy 100 years from now and earlier was up to 25-30 years. the +difference today is due to the modern medicine. so ofc we would make it. especially young ppl. even if they die at 30, their kids will survive and so on

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

sorry, but ur kind of stupid.
u said that u were strong and healthy during ur teen period. if u paid attention in ur history class, u would know that life expectancy 100 years from now and earlier was up to 25-30 years. the +difference today is due to the modern medicine. so ofc we would make it. especially young ppl. even if they die at 30, their kids will survive and so on

I don't think you have paid attention to this thread or considered the topic as carefully as you believe you have.

I'm well aware of the fact that life spans have increased dramatically in the past century and a large part of that is due to modern medicine as well as improved hygiene,health codes, enclosed sewers,improved dental care,clean water, pest control,not keeping livestock in our houses,immunizations,germ theory,the 911 emergency phone number,and so on and so forth. All products of a modern, technological society. In 1910 (approximately) the average life span for males in the United States was between 47-50 years of age. Now the average life span for males is over 70 years of age. So you see I have paid attention.

But the whole point of this thread is that in a post-apocalyptic world all those things and more would be gone. Yes the survivors who have an advantage at first, but eventually the medications would get old (and I'm talking about stuff like aspirin and anti-histamines and not just the more potent prescription meds) and nobody would make more, the hospitals would not re-open, there would be no police, fire or paramedics to respond to an emergency, no dentists to deal with cavities (which can lead to some bad health issues to include infection of one's heart if left untreated),roads would decay and there would be no repair crews, rivers would over-run, there would be no large scale planting of crops, no electricity,no oil being pumped and refined,no central air and heating,no mosquito abatement districts and so on.

My "stupid" point is that we are products of the modern world and have no idea how much it is keeping us alive and how so many of our ailments are now just viewed as inconvenience instead of life threatening. I can think of several situations as a child in which I might have never made it to adulthood, but thanks to this modern civilization something as simple as a tetanus shot kept me alive when I stepped on a rusty nail. No tetanus shots in the PA world and your off-spring will live in that world. As would you. Life would become very uncomfortable and then much shorter.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done. But we and our descendents would find ourselves in a very different situation.

So did you understand my response. Did I break it down enough for you. Or was I just too "stupid"?

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

A little more explanation about the dentist remark. There is a guy here in my city who had a infected tooth (toothache is how he described it) who refused to go to a dentist. Eventually the infection spread to his heart and caused his heart to stop. He underwent an emergency open heart surgery and they eventually got the infection under control. But his heart stopped long enough that he sustained brain damage. I first met that guy about eight years ago. After he told me about his experience I was flabbergasted. I had never thought that a "simple" toothache left untreated could lead to such a dire outcome. Just a little thing and something many of us don't even think about in this day and age. But in a PA world......well that would be a different situation indeed wouldn't it? How many dentists are going to be around. Sure you could do the work yourself (See Tom Hanks,"Castaway"), but there would still be the very real risk of infection.

No I think I'll take this world of ours-warts and all.

reply

[–] sugarpuffextreme 11 years ago

A little more explanation about the dentist remark. There is a guy here in my city who had a infected tooth (toothache is how he described it) who refused to go to a dentist. Eventually the infection spread to his heart and caused his heart to stop. He underwent an emergency open heart surgery and they eventually got the infection under control. But his heart stopped long enough that he sustained brain damage. I first met that guy about eight years ago. After he told me about his experience I was flabbergasted. I had never thought that a "simple" toothache left untreated could lead to such a dire outcome. Just a little thing and something many of us don't even think about in this day and age. But in a PA world......well that would be a different situation indeed wouldn't it? How many dentists are going to be around. Sure you could do the work yourself (See Tom Hanks,"Castaway"), but there would still be the very real risk of infection.

No I think I'll take this world of ours-warts and all.

I read a (russian I think) sci-fi novel once that was titled "the most important" or something similar. It was a post apocalyptic novel with an ongoing quest in finding some very important person.

Who or what he was was never revealed until the very end when they found him. He was a dentist and he was indeed the single most important person for this character because of his toothache.

The pain from toothaces (and possible outcomes) are NO joke.

reply

[–] katieexoxo 11 years ago

they would find themselves in the same situation as our ancestors. the life expectancy would drop to the same level as before, thats it. probably not that low.

world is not going to end bc ppl 40+ cant get the same level of medical assistance they do now.

ur just overdramatizing bc of some personal experience u had at age 40, age at which u should be already dead if u lived around 1700-1800

did u know that all the junk food we eat now makes us stronger? in my city they have to increase the timeframe after which they are allowed to dig up corpses bc the corpses nowadays don't rot that fast, and are almost perfectly preserved by the chemicals from the food they ate when they were alive

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

Yeah okay. Thanks for stopping by.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

One thing to keeep in mind is that one of the main reasons for the increase in life expectancy of today versus a century ago is the decrease in infant mortality. For example, if you have two people, one of whom lives to the age of 80 and the other one dies at two, the average (mean) life span of the two of them is going to be around forty years. The arithmetic mean of the two people is found by adding their ages, and dividing the sum by two.

Granted that there were other factors, but the high infant mortality was one of the reasons for the low life-expectancy of the population as a whole. If the person survived past infancy, the chances were fairly good that a long life-span awaited them.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

You're right Gary. My point (and evidently was missed by the other poster) is that our lives would become very uncomfortable and many things that in the past that would have eliminated those not as healthy or lucky would quickly come into play. We've been able to subvert natural selection (is that the right word?) but in a post Captain Trips world natural selection would come screaming back with a vengance.

reply

[–] Razar_C-1 11 years ago

Quite honestly, if there is a post-apocalyptic event, I think our generation is going to have the easiest time living in it.

As shown in the movie, the free-zone survivors get the electricity back on, and the vegas crew are even able to get jets prepped for take-off, etc...

Thus my point becomes; We have people living now who work with this stuff (modern tech) and who -to a degree- understand it. The new/ next generation after an apocalypse will not. What few skills and knowledge are able to be passed down will provide diminishing returns, bringing me back to my initial assertion that our generation will have the easiest time living in a PA world.

Eventually, our jets, our factories, our power plants... really, the vast majority of our manufacturing concerns will become monuments to our descendants of the might and magic wielded by us -their ancestors-.

I expect that eventually, after a few generations, things will bottom out and then start getting better, as people learn to make do with what they have and ingenuity experiences a revival. Hell, it's even possible that there might remain a small smattering of tribes -here and there- who perfectly preserve the knowledge of how to use and maintain the modern conveniences that we now take for granted.

But no matter what happens, I believe that the generation that experiences a post apocaplyptic event will have a far better time of it than those who follow. So if that day ever comes, don't feel pity for what you've lost. Pity those who will come after you.

Peace

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

So you're saying if an apocalyptic setting was to occur within the next couple of years eventually our generation would become known as the "Ancients" or possibly "The Road Builders" (or something equally grand sounding) to our descendents. Interesting.

reply

[–] svenbergdolmo 11 years ago

First of all I would like to say that I really enjoyed reading this conversation. I have got some remarks that I would love to read your opinion on.

For starters, I would like to know if you are being sarcastic in your reply to Razor, Jefbecco? Second and third generation survivors calling first generation survivors "Ancients" doesn't sound farfetched at all. Consider the post-Roman era Europeans. They regarded the Romans (and Greeks before them) as " the Ancients" and "Road Builders". Heck, we still call them "the Ancients" to this day!

I don't think it would have the same positive connotation though. As an apocalyptic event such as the plague portrayed in 'the Stand' is almost certainly to be intentionally caused by humans (directly through spreading the disease on purpose, or indrectly by irresponsible behaviour as is portrayed in the book/movie), the people that would come after us would probably hate our guts for destroying the world.

As to the remarks by Razor regarding the survivability of the first generation post-apocalyptic survivors: I think you are to positive in your assessment of our qualities as a species as a whole. Sure, some people know how to operate (a small) part of a hydroelectric plant. Other people will know how to sow and harvest crops or to perform an appendectomy. Will enough of these people survive to actually accomplish these feats? I am quite sceptic. They would have to group together in order to get things done. I don't believe in miracles, so I doubt there would be spiritual guides (Flagg and Mother Abagail) to acconplish this accumulation of people to 1 place. I think most people would be shell-shocked (like Rita and the Monster Shouter in the novel) and unequiped to survive the post-apocalyptic mainly due to the shock of losing everything they've ever known. Also, most people in modern day Western states work in some sort of service delivery and do not have basic survival skills. These people will also die quickly (especially seeing as that most developped countries are situated in the Northern Hemisphere in lattitudes that guarantee harsh winters). Also consider, the people that are needed the m,ost in this scenario (doctors, technicians etc.) are not especially the kinds of people I would associate with possessing survival skills (although I might be generalizing a bit here) These issues, plus the point Jefbecco raised about medical care, will ensure that only a handful of survivors will be left. If they somehow form small societies they might be able to survive. There will be far to few people with skills that matter to actually jumpstart modern civilization. I think a scerario as portrayed in the novel 'Earth Abides' is more likely; people will try to rebuild civilization, only to realise that this is impossible. After a while the group that is followed in the novel stops living of the past (canned foods, using guns etc) and starts to re-discover humanity's lost skills (hunting for food, using bows and arrows etc.). This allows them to thrive once more.

Just my 2 cents. I am interested in reading your reply.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

A good post. It's always nice to read posts by individuals who are actually thinking and trying to contribute to the discussion.

I was being sincere - not sarcastic. Perhaps (initially) the first generation (or two) following such an apocalyptic event might not have generous feelings towards us, but time changes things and information can become myth. I could see descendents in a few centuries looking at the ruins of our world with a very different eye. Similar to say how Western Europeans viewed the remains of the old Western Roman Empire during the time of Clovis or Charlemagne. Something of a love hate relationship.

Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the Romans by the Pope on 12/25/800 and it was a big deal even though the last western Roman emperor (Romulus Augustulus) had been deposed by Odoacer in 476 - almost 325 years earlier. So even though it was the Romans who killed Christ (and Western Europe was now Christian) the title of Emperor was still a big deal. The same thing could happen in our world......uh time. Of course with obvious differences.

reply

[–] fkelleghan 11 years ago

Jefbecco, and others, I see a lot of sensible thought here.

(I'm also glad you avoid the trolls).

Specifically in the case of THE STAND, the survivors headed for places where resources were rich. I would, too. I would also head for places where other people gathered, although King shows us some scary alternatives.

As I live on the lower coast of East Florida, I could probably survive; but I would miss society.

What gets me, though, is that any virus will not kill 100% of its potential victims, and King showed that good and bad will survive it.

Well, he's a damn good writer, and he produces some damn good conversations!

I have enjoyed all your thoughts here.

Science first! And information: also first!

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

Glad you have enjoyed it.For the most part this message board is pretty low key and remarkably troll free. We might not be as active as others, but as a result we're more adult.

reply

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

Glad you have enjoyed it.For the most part this message board is pretty low key and remarkably troll free. We might not be as active as others, but as a result we're more adult.

I agree with Mr C. here; this is one of the more polite and troll-free boards on this whole website.

reply

[–] KatrinaW 11 years ago

Specifically in the case of THE STAND, the survivors headed for places where resources were rich. I would, too. I would also head for places where other people gathered, although King shows us some scary alternatives.

I've often thought that I'd head for Newport, Rhode Island (at least for the warmer months), and hole up in one of the Mansions. Probably the Vanderbilt's "The Breakers", the biggest/most beautiful.

Of course, I'd be lonely for people and civilization, too, so I'd end up trying to find others. It's just the way humans are built.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

I think I would go for the Astor house next door. While not as spectacular it's actually more practical as a house and it's just more comfortable to me.

reply

[–] Razar_C-1 11 years ago

Heh

I'll start with the end of your post:

After a while the group that is followed in the novel stops living of the past (canned foods, using guns etc) and starts to re-discover humanity's lost skills (hunting for food, using bows and arrows etc.). This allows them to thrive once more.

That's exactly what I meant when I said:

things will bottom out and then start getting better, as people learn to make do with what they have and ingenuity experiences a revival.

Despite that, though, I think you're right about the enormous loss of life. I expect that the first few years will be the worst. But after -I'd guess- about five years, most of the masses would have died off, and those who are left are the survivors. It's these people who I think will have the easiest time of it.

I mean, for these people (assuming that they've formed small communities of like-minded people) then they'll be able to interact with the remains of the modern world far better than their descendants. For example, if there are cars or generators that are being used by this community, then only that 1st generation will have 1st hand knowledge of how to fix the kinds of commonplace problems that might crop up. They'd know how to find "new" spark plugs or siphon petrol, charge a car battery, possibly even replace seals or gaskets.

While they might be able to show their children to perform similar tasks, the children will not grow up surrounded by cars and won't absorb the knowledge that such familiarity brings. I'd expect that by the 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation, no one would even believe that cars could move themselves. Hell, they'll probably look at cars and think that their ancestors used them as mobile shelter devices that were pushed/ pulled about...

That's just one example off the top of my head, but the general idea is that our generation lives with this stuff every day. Thus we're familiar with it as a fact of life. Post-Apocalypse, however, that knowledge would diminish with every passing generation, until all our modern conveniences become artifacts of mystery.

Just another example off the top of my head: Medicine. Assuming it's at least 5 years after an apocalyptic event, and assuming that there are small communities of people banded together trying to survive, if there's a doctor amongst such a community, s/ he'd be able to diagnose and treat people with what medicines they could scavenge. But it's unlikely s/ he could properly and thoroughly train a replacement, so when he/ she dies, the quality of medical care would start a downhill slide, right down to the point where 3rd or 4th generation survivors would be shaking chickens and performing exorcisms to try treating apendicitis or kidney stones or even chicken pox, etc...

Anyway, I hope that was easier to follow than my 1st post, but I can't help feel I've just convoluted it further...

Peace

-- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most...

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

I think much would depend on if the survivors can keep literacy alive. The big difference between survivors in this time and those who were left in western Europe after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire is literacy is common and books are plentiful. The books are full of information. I don't think the survivor's progeny would slide back to some type of Neolithic civilization. That there would be some backsliding would be inevitable, but I don't think the scenario that happens in "Earth Abides" is correct. Stewart has the grandchildren living like our ancestors did 5,000 years before. In just three generations? No I don't think so.

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

I think much would depend on if the survivors can keep literacy alive. The big difference between survivors in this time and those who were left in western Europe after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire is literacy is common and books are plentiful. The books are full of information. I don't think the survivor's progeny would slide back to some type of Neolithic civilization. That there would be some backsliding would be inevitable, but I don't think the scenario that happens in "Earth Abides" is correct. Stewart has the grandchildren living like our ancestors did 5,000 years before. In just three generations? No I don't think so.

The problem there is that so much of "literacy" now depends on computers and other forms of technology that would be inaccessible. I expect a lot of bloggers and tweeters and such today don't really have an understanding that ALL of their earth-shaking wisdom they've "contributed" simply disappears if someone pulls a plug, or maybe just doesn't renew a domain. Let alone a collapse of electrical structure for the people who SUPPLY that information, let alone being able to READ it.

reply

[–] tseymour-52-354701 11 years ago

This is kind of late, but I have to say I agree for two good reasons.

1. A from-scratch cooking blog titled "How to Reheat Food Without a Microwave." Don't people know this?! Guess not, if they're under 40.

2. My neighbor, an intelligent, educated adult, pointed to my tomato plants and asked, "What are those, apples?"

I've reluctantly reached the conclusion that a month without grocery stores and electricity would kill most of the population of industrialized nations. Makes the End of the World genre a little scarier.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

I agree. I often find myself going on calls that simply leave me flabbergasted. It's mind-blowing what people will call 911 for. While there are always true emergencies many of the callers are just idiotic incompetents.

I've gone on 911 calls because somebody wants a ride to the grocery store. People haven't paid their electrical bill and expect the cops to take care of it.

Their car won't start (in their driveway) and evidently think that cops are mechanics. No longer want a dog and want the police to transport it to the animal shelter and (my favorite) I once had a guy call 911 because after he had gotten home with his takeout Chinese dinner he discovered that the restaurant had forgotten to give him hot mustard and sesame seeds. He wanted to file a theft report. Never-mind getting back into his car and driving the fourteen blocks to the restaurant to get his mustard and seeds. He really thought that calling 911 was a viable option.

The whole time I was dealing with that guy I kept think to myself "When the Zombie Apocalypse begins you're going to be a zombie appetizer."

reply

[–] tseymour-52-354701 11 years ago

Off-topic somewhat, my mother-in-law was a 911 operator. Her favorite was the caller who didn't like the neighbor's flowers, and wanted the cops to come out and make them plant something else. Your average zombie would be smarter than that.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

You bet.

reply

[–] sara-wilson-iii 11 years ago

Off-topic somewhat, my mother-in-law was a 911 operator. Her favorite was the caller who didn't like the neighbor's flowers, and wanted the cops to come out and make them plant something else.

WHAT?!?!?

I love trolls, they taste like chicken.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

Yes indeed. Just a couple weeks ago we had a lady in one of those electric "scoot-abouts" call 911. She was on the sidewalk and people had their sprinklers hitting the sidewalk. So rather than drive down onto the street (there was a driveway ramp next to her) and travel the twenty feet to the next driveway ramp (avoiding the water) she sat there for 40 minutes waiting for us to get there and turn off the water for her.

This stuff happens far more than most average people know or can imagine.

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Yes indeed. Just a couple weeks ago we had a lady in one of those electric "scoot-abouts" call 911. She was on the sidewalk and people had their sprinklers hitting the sidewalk. So rather than drive down onto the street (there was a driveway ramp next to her) and travel the twenty feet to the next driveway ramp (avoiding the water) she sat there for 40 minutes waiting for us to get there and turn off the water for her.

This stuff happens far more than most average people know or can imagine.

I just about start each day reciting to myself, "Remember, most people have an IQ of 100 or less, by definition." Which extrapolates in many directions, but that's the most concise phrasing I've come up with.

What can get pretty scary is when you stop and really think about that for any length of time.

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

I agree. I often find myself going on calls that simply leave me flabbergasted. It's mind-blowing what people will call 911 for. While there are always true emergencies many of the callers are just idiotic incompetents.

I've gone on 911 calls because somebody wants a ride to the grocery store. People haven't paid their electrical bill and expect the cops to take care of it.

Their car won't start (in their driveway) and evidently think that cops are mechanics. No longer want a dog and want the police to transport it to the animal shelter and (my favorite) I once had a guy call 911 because after he had gotten home with his takeout Chinese dinner he discovered that the restaurant had forgotten to give him hot mustard and sesame seeds. He wanted to file a theft report. Never-mind getting back into his car and driving the fourteen blocks to the restaurant to get his mustard and seeds. He really thought that calling 911 was a viable option.

The whole time I was dealing with that guy I kept think to myself "When the Zombie Apocalypse begins you're going to be a zombie appetizer."

For me, the prizes have to go to the drug sellers and buyers who call the police because they paid for crack or pot or whatever but didn't receive it, or what they got wasn't good enough, etc. "He ripped me off! Go get him!"

reply

[–] Plissken_1996 11 years ago

True. And when I was in the service, I remember hearing about an infantry survival course in which the recruits were left to fend for themselves out in the woods for 4 weeks. The only food they ate was what they could catch or forage for........the average recruit lost over 30 pounds by the end. And these were trained individuals, not your average clueless civilian.

In a post-apocalyptic world, pretty much everyone would be a goner by the next full moon.

§ Humans! You're not worth the flesh you're printed on! §

reply

[–] efigalaxie 10 years ago

I think there would be some significant back sliding. To me, the one most of you are wrong about is medicine. Yes, modern medicine goes away for awhile. However, I think medicine up to and including the penicillin class of antibiotics survive.

In a Stand situation with 99% dead, It would take a millennium to recover.

I think electricity survives on remnants long enough for us to figure out how to tap natural resources. I think generators powered by steam locomotive type engines are easily doable.

Enough food remains for a 1% population to survive for a long time. Crops will grow wild. Animals will become plentiful.

HOWEVER!!!!! The Stand is an unrealistic depiction. See the saving grace IS 99% dead!!!

Lets look at a situation such as an EMP attack such as that depicted in William Forstchen's 'One Second After.' In THAT scenario, 99% of the population survives an attack that takes out the electrical grid and the logistics system. In this scenario, the population is reduced by 90% after a year due to disease, violence, starvation.

In King's scenario - everything is left waiting to be picked up.
In Forstchen's scenario - it's mostly damaged beyond repair and most resources are consumed.

reply

[–] FilmWatchingPerson 9 years ago

Answering the OP, I've had kidney stones once. It would have passed after a while even without medical treatment, though the pain was something else. I've seen the pain of kidney stones compared to childbirth. I didn't want to die during it, even before they gave me pain killers (the only treatment I had).

Answering this post, medicine would be largely gone, but a good proportion of the population would likely still survive long enough to reproduce and keep the population going.

efigalaxie's post makes a very good point about different types of apocalypse. If everyone dies off suddenly, there are a lot of resources left behind. I imagine that I could probably retrieve enough food from a hypermarket to last the rest of my life (though it wouldn't all be very palatable in future decades). Let me raid the seed banks of gardening stores, find out where orchards are etc., and there would be loads for me to eat.

If something crashes the environment but leaves the population around, the world would be stripped clean. Not just of human prepared food, but anything edible.

Personally I think that the main thing that would prevent me from surviving an apocalypse would be that I don't think I'd necessarily be a winner if it came down to gangs and a fight with other humans for survival. I also wouldn't have it in me to leave people behind even if they were problematic. Though, I'd probably adopt a stealth mode and see how far that got me.

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 9 years ago

The last couple times the I had multiple stones in my kidney and a couple of them were too large to pass. So the doctor went in with a laser. Cut the stones up and pulled out the fragments. If you can't pass the stone and it gets lodged inside of your plumbing you're looking at some real pain and an infection. Just a few decades ago doctors had to cut into your kidney to remove the stones. Not anymore. It's things like that that make me appreciate the modern world.

reply

[–] ronaldt49 9 years ago

Don't know current Kidney Stone procedures, but as recently as the 1970s one was cut from backbone to belly button for removal of stones. This happened to a friend who was in hospital at same time I was there for gall bladder surgery. I was hospitalized for a week after surgery and out of work for 6 weeks.

I had many stones and don't know if Lapriscopy would have been an option assuming it was even available at the time!

As for my survival in this thread's situation, I am currently on low dose blood thinners, so storing as much of these close to my dosage would be a priority. And baby aspirin would not do it for me. From talking to CVS pharmacist I have learned tablets range from 1-28 MG tablets. So many combinations would get me by for a long time! Just have to be very careful about wounds.

Dialysis users would be in a world of hurt. A lot worse than I would be!!

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 9 years ago

Yes the last two times I've been scoped. In 2003 the doctor used Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. However three years ago I underwent kidney surgery and I was cut open just like you described. Took me six weeks to recover as well.

reply

[–] NoahBody 10 years ago

On the plus side it would rid of of the leaches of society whose only success in life is breading another generation to leach off the productive members.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jefbecco-1 10 years ago

You are pretty *beep* at Edgy, Cool Internet Tough Guy. You should find a shtick more up your alley, like Mentally Handicapped Third Grader Who Can't Keep His Finger Out of His Butt.

Wow. Totally uncalled for. I think I'm going to ignore you. Bye bye.

reply

[–] pufnstuff 9 years ago

If The world ended in any meaningful way like in the Stand or The Walking Dead I would likely just kill myself after awhile. I require some very specific drugs to stay alive, some of which go bad over time, so I would have at most a year or two of life left, depending on availability. Lack of my anti-rejection meds, in particular, would result in a VERY painful death.

OTOH, I could easily commit suicide peacefully and without pain with some of the drugs I have to hand, so doing so sooner rather than later would have its appeal.

This signature really brings the room together, Does It Not?

reply

[–] Jefbecco-1 9 years ago

It's a double-edged sword for you pufnstuff. Modern medicine keeps you alive, but if the system collapses you go with it. Reminds me of one of the characters in Pat Frank's classic post-apocalyptic nuclear war novel "Alas Babylon". The female protagonist's mother is a Type II diabetic. Within a short while there is no more power and the insulin goes bad because there are no working refrigerators. She goes into a coma then dies. I first read that novel in 1980 when I was twelve years old. It shook me. I had never thought about how dependent our modern world is on electricity which runs the ubiquitous fridge which keeps insulin viable. It was the beginning of me looking at the connections of our modern world.

reply

[–] ronaldt49 9 years ago

I heard a story from 9/11 of groups of wheelchair bound employees being instructed to remain at certain locations up in both Towers and someone would be along to assist in their evacuations. We know how that worked out, don't we.

If you are wheelchair bound, DON'T work in upper levels of high-rise buildings unless you can somehow move yourself without your wheelchair!!!

Read notices posted in elevators usually near the control panel!
In emergencies, elevators are for emergency use by firemen, policemen and other emergency rescue personnel ONLY!

You may have gotten your job due to your handicap, but in emergency situations, you will probably wish you had called in sick that day!! I'm betting those people left in those assigned areas did!

reply

[–] gary_overman 8 years ago

Here is something else for us to think about. What is a very common item that we use every day in various forms, for tasks such as cleaning, storing and communication that very few of us know how to make?

So, after an apocalyptic event, it would likely be in very short supply.

It is paper. King even alludes to this in the DT series.

reply