just a thought
2007-11-25 14:17:07 · 12 answers · asked by H 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
"if" don't we have enough reality to create without fear?
2007-11-25 14:48:15 · answer #1 · answered by Old guy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was a television series back in the 70's (?) called "The Survivors" and it was based upon just that - a laboratory worker accidentally dropped a glass flask containing a deadly virus which was then carried by air and boat travellers all over the World.
Survivors had to go right back to basics and regroup into "clans" - the most prized members of the groups were once again the older members with experience of how to manage without shops - people with knowledge of skills like spinning, weaving, skinning animals, herbal medicines, defence. No transport, of course, except a captured horse - if someone hadn't eaten them all first.
There were groups of thugs who took everything they could.
It was quite a thought provoking series leaving you wondering how many skills you had yourself which would enable you to survive and be a valued member of a group trying to recapture civilisation. Think about what you could offer? Can you sew, cook using a haybox, know how to skin a rabbit, make fire, make weapons to defend yourself, grow food. If you found a deserted "everything" shop and could only use what you could carry, what would you consider vital for existence?
Pretty thought-provoking. Have a star!
2007-11-26 03:51:48 · answer #2 · answered by Veronica Alicia 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think King had it correct, in some ways, in "The Stand." If one or two people in each town survived, it wouldn't make sense for them to forage among the waste, in solitude. They'd have to unite into some kind of city-state. They'd get the power going and have plenty to eat for a few years. Then they'd have to get started farming.
It's entirely possible that people of different societal attitudes would form different city-states. Not necessarily so contrasted as in "The Stand," but maybe one more theocratic than the other.
2007-11-25 22:39:37 · answer #3 · answered by Todd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well...as this world is supposedly ever increasing in population, I think that somehow, we'd continue to live, attempt to find an antidote to the virus, and remember the event a bit like the Poppy day... I'm not sure otherwise...
2007-11-27 07:26:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mass extinction would be a bad thing. The world is starting to sort itself out. Resetting it would put us back to the start. Not only that but 6 billion people would die.
It would take 3000 years to come back, if we did because the population would be spread out all over the world.
2007-11-25 22:32:38 · answer #5 · answered by lister_larger 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Adam & Eve pair create the continuing of world
2007-11-26 06:50:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
more money for the rest of us?
heh. but no.
they'd probably, like gee said, go back to hunting and gathering, since there's not enough people to support the lifestyle back then
though, because people constantly build new things and take animals' and plants' habitats, i doubt there'd be enough animals and plants to survive on
2007-11-25 22:32:20 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sales of Paracetomol would rocket.
2007-11-26 05:43:08 · answer #8 · answered by los 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's see...Read Revelations. It will give you a hint.
Probably be the best thing that would happen.
2007-11-25 22:33:30 · answer #9 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably those who exist with least now would become most successful then.
Ergo those who exist with most now would probably be least successful then.
2007-11-25 22:56:31 · answer #10 · answered by Freddy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
have you read The Stand by Stephen King
2007-11-25 22:21:20 · answer #11 · answered by sheilasays 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋