The beginning of the world

[Clarakore]

If the world ended and there were survivors, so it didn't truly end just society as we know it did, how will the new world, the new societies look like or how would you want them to look like?

[Coffey]

No national banking... Or banking whatsoever.

Scrap money, go back to trading, farming etc. You learn to do something and you trade with others. No goverment, no policing. People who cause problems you just get rid off.

I also think there should be no "social" religions. If you beleive in a religion, keep it to yourself unless asked about it. No religious buildings etc. it just divides people and causes problems. Poeple and can beleive or evne worship what they want behind closed doors as long as it does affect others.

This is how I would want it.

[GoldenWolf]

The new world order, all we have to is destroy the current one.

http://www.gematrix.org/?word=1552

http://www.gematrix.org/?word=3041

Edited July 12, 2012 by HavocWing

[232]

It would begin as a state of anarchy. And then groups would start to form together with leadership.

These groups get bigger and so on, join with others or even destroy other groups.

Starting with a barter system of trade and eventually moving up to forms of currency once the groups get big enough. With the currency starting as something valuable and slowly moving to something less so as the 'groups' get bigger.

Given enough time you end up exactly where we are now. With large governing bodies over large amounts of people and borders on maps.

How I would like new societies to look like would be impossible as human greed will always win.

[Heiko]

I agree with what 232 said. History will repeat itself. Humans will always want to have an easy life, that's why they created machines.

If I was one of those survivors I'd start building tools to make hunting and harvesting easier. But it doesn't end there. I'd remember the old life whith all that luxury e.g. TV, internet, electricity. I'd want to have all that, so I (as an engeneering student) would start to rebuild all these things in some way or another. And now everybody wants to have electricity and TV and internet again. So we need a lot of energy. Where do we get that from? Building new unlasting energy supplies which'd cause new wars to break out and so on...

[Charlie Prime]

How I would like new societies to look like would be impossible as human greed will always win.

This is not true. Greed is an animal instinct like lust and jealously which moral humans can learn to overcome. Greed has always existed, and always will. Greed is no excuse for bad behavior.

A peaceful society could be realized in one hundred years if only three generations of children were taught to live by the Non-Aggresson Principle.

The first step is to stop hitting children.

[Charlie Prime]

So we need a lot of energy. Where do we get that from? Building new unlasting energy supplies which'd cause new wars to break out and so on...

It does not follow that there will be wars just because people want energy to run technology. That is a false dilemma.

[+and-then]

This is not true. Greed is an animal instinct like lust and jealously which moral humans can learn to overcome. Greed has always existed, and always will. Greed is no excuse for bad behavior.

A peaceful society could be realized in one hundred years if only three generations of children were taught to live by the Non-Aggresson Principle.

The first step is to stop hitting children.

Yet even though humanity has wanted or at least talked of wanting peace forever.... we still have none. We actually seem incapable of it - looking only at the evidence.

[Paradigm2929]

Here is the problem with peace: you need unrest in order to have peace.

We have become conditioned to a point of blindness on this idea, this idea that in order to understand one aspect or one idea you must also understand the opposite of the aspect or idea in question.

Take hot and cold for example: During the Summer we live in certain high temperatures and certain low temperatures seem refreshing to us. However, during the Winter those same certain low temperatures are uncomfortable to us and the certain high temperatures end up being comforting.

This being said, without unrest we would not understand what peace was. If unrest was eliminated from the societies of the earth, then we would cease to grasp the concept of what peace really is because we would know no other state of being.

[ShadowSot]

Society would probably start over, but we probably would no longer rely on fossil fuels like oil.

Not because of any nobel reason, but simply due to how difficult it now is to get to oil pockets.

Otherwise, there will be differences but you'd see something analogous to previous collapses and reemergence of civilization.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

simply put, we'd be screwed. There isn't tne easily accessible resources such as tin and iron there used to be which the last time around ensured the success of an industrial revokution or even a surviving society - no iron means no metal arrow heads etc.

[Englishgent]

simply put, we'd be screwed. There isn't tne easily accessible resources such as tin and iron there used to be which the last time around ensured the success of an industrial revokution or even a surviving society - no iron means no metal arrow heads etc.

There would be sufficient scrap metal around to build any kind of weapon you wanted.

[Englishgent]

This is not true. Greed is an animal instinct like lust and jealously which moral humans can learn to overcome. Greed has always existed, and always will. Greed is no excuse for bad behavior.

A peaceful society could be realized in one hundred years if only three generations of children were taught to live by the Non-Aggresson Principle.

The first step is to stop hitting children.

I disagree. There will never be a peaceful society because there are always those who never want peace for whatever reason. What should we do. Lower ourselves to their standards by killing anyone who appears to have violent tendancies?

I might also add that when I was at school the cane was still regularly used. I had the pleasure of this type of corporal punishment on more than one occasion for petty and minor school misdemeanours. If I was naughty as a child I was smacked on the rear end (until I learnt to run faster than my mum). This did not make me a violent individual. In fact I am quite the opposite.

However, this is not a debate on whether or not an unruly child should be physically punished so sorry to go off topic

[daavin]

There would be sufficient scrap metal around to build any kind of weapon you wanted.

Yes but would you have the skills and resources to transform scrap metal into things like arrow heads there is a lot of energy needed to smelt and reforge steel. Not to mention coal is not as easy to find anymore for your forge you would have to mine it or barter for it.

[Englishgent]

Yes but would you have the skills and resources to transform scrap metal into things like arrow heads there is a lot of energy needed to smelt and reforge steel. Not to mention coal is not as easy to find anymore for your forge you would have to mine it or barter for it.

The end of the world would not necessarily mean that everything we had previously made would be destroyed. I am sure it would be possible too find tools etc which had survived. Any tools could be used to make arrows heads...hacksaw blades, files etc. Also, one also could utilise the right shape of scrap metal for spear heads and such like. You would not need smelt and reforge metal. We would stand a better chance of survival with what is left behind than our ancestors did, who had to make things from scratch.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

There would be sufficient scrap metal around to build any kind of weapon you wanted.

For a while. It took humanity 3000+ years last time around to get from "ugg, me love cave" to "a double-cheeseburger, large fries and a soda". Scrap metal lasts <100 years.

It'd take us more then a hundred years to drag ourselves out of whatever chaos we'd find ourselves in let alone rebuild societies to a bronze age standard.

[Clarakore]

What about the little things? I think families would have to rely more on each other. In our earliest hunter gathering days the concept of privacy did not really exist. Who knows if the sense of self did or if a group consciousness existed. Even the creation of walls meant the erosion of the group and rise of the self. Threre really was a great danger to be separated from your group, an animal could get you alone. People were always in each others view.

Would something like that be possible to emerge again or are we too embedded in our egos to ever return to tighter family bonds where relying on others equals survival and not equals doom.

I hear the theory that as a species we only made it this far due to cooperation and altruism. Competition is a newer animal that appeared during the stage after the hunter gatherers, when we decided to make tribes, gaining more security but losing more freedom. The fairy might be a symbol of the earliest stages of mankind for iron is deadly to them and that way of life because iron is what is behind laws and land division and thus power which leads to greed. Will we ever return to innocence?

Are there any other little things that might change in humanity if we had to reboot the world?

If instruments survive I recommend that the Windows startup chime be the official human anthem.

[media=]

[/media] Edited July 15, 2012 by Lookitisoneofthosepeople

[Solo Kind]

Firstly, We are all embedded with an animal instict to survive. A greater portion of the initial survivers would perrish. Those that helped and banded together would learn that segrigation would be a key part in surviving, Clans, Climate, Starvation.

Its unlikely we would evolve much from what we already knew before. From surviving members. Each would have abilities and skills. Hunting, Motherhood, Fighting, inginuaty ect. Seperate clans/groups of course would have their own ideals. And so we would just rebuild from what we once had.

Now, If their where a minute small number of survivers. Say 10 or less. Things could More then likely be a whole nother story.

Iif anything to do with Microcrap was an Anthum. I would see that as a Religion And would avoid it like the plague.

Edited July 15, 2012 by TridentAA

[zombeikiller]

For a while. It took humanity 3000+ years last time around to get from "ugg, me love cave" to "a double-cheeseburger, large fries and a soda". Scrap metal lasts <100 years.

It'd take us more then a hundred years to drag ourselves out of whatever chaos we'd find ourselves in let alone rebuild societies to a bronze age standard.

except there will still be guns and ammo bows and arrows. books will still be here. where also smarter then people back the.

there will be good leaders and evil leaders. raiders and normal people also those crazy cannables.

our lifes may change but war never changes. the instinct to survive and procreat will always be there. in the end we will rebuild but will as a people learn from our past orwill we follow the same path again. those are what i think this is.

[Clarakore]

So if just 10 people survive it is inevitable that those 10 war among themselves? Or do we have to wait for a generation or two when there exists 100 people? Just trying to grasp the economy of scale where we turn from cooperation to competition.

What if just 2 survive, you and a lover, or you and a family member? Help each other or war? If help then what number is needed to tip the scales to war?