Two portrayals of the future that are often used in fictional stories are either a totalitarian regime, where a single and powerful governing entity utterly controls all aspects of life and anyone who opposes it is punished very harshly (an excellent example of this scenario being George Orwell's 1984); or a post-apocalyptic scenario, in which warfare has devastated the planet, leaving it a barren wasteland where no functioning government exists, civilized society has collapsed, resources are scare, and violence is frequent (some well-known examples of this scenario being Waterworld,Terminator, or Mad Max). These scenarios are polar opposites of each other, but are both equally undesirable to people in our current world, which is (relatively) free of warfare and strife and has mostly democratic governments, but I wonder which scenario most people would choose, if they were forced to choose between the two of them, so I shall start a thread to discuss the subject.
I myself would most likely choose the post-apocalyptic wasteland, because, despite the near-constant risk of being killed, such a scenario might actually be fun and enjoyable. As long as a person has a group with a strong sense of companionship (perhaps from five to ten people), food/resources, weapons, a vehicle, and fuel for that vehicle, they may have a chance of survival and have a fun and entertaining time going about their daily lives, with no rules or responsibilities to hinder them from doing whatever they desire. I cherish my personal freedom and sense of individual identity, so I could never survive in a totalitarian regime, but I believe that I possess sufficient survival skills to survive in a barren wasteland (with a group, of course; I know that I would not last very long alone), and whatever skills I either lack will be quickly developed out of necessity.
What does everyone else have to say about this subject? Which of those two negative scenarios would you prefer, and why?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
The first option is what we are heading too. This is what happens when government becomes too powerful and unchecked. That being said, I still prefer the first over the second. At least you are given the choice, "join us if you want to live."
Well, a totalitarian regime most likely isn't going to be going out of it's way to make my life hell. I mean, unless we're stipulating that it's ruled by a mustache twirling clone of Hitler, or something. Sure, they're a bit nutty in the steps they take to secure their power, but one could conceivably live a reasonably comfortable life under their rule.
I'd prefer a post-apocalyptic wasteland. I would prefer having to struggle for my life daily for my survival than to lose my free will, as in 1984. My free will is who I am. Without it, how can I be me? And if so, isn't that a fate worse than death?
With the way the ecology is going, we're probably gonna get the second one too.
There is some correlation between ecological disaster and tightening of policies and/or loss of control of parts of a sovereign country. Somalia is a good example. They had a drought and famine followed by the election of the ICU, which dissolved as the hardliners lost control, and the country descended into chaos. The dictatorship of Siad Barre was followed by the soft dictatorship of the TFG and a free-for-all outside Baidoa.
I would think Totalitarian Dystopia would win on the grounds that in the Totalitarian Dystopia, you're not in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. In other words, to me, it's a matter of one problem being solvable, and the other not. The totalitarian dystopia can be overthrown. But if you're in a world that's been turned into a desert or under nuclear winter or something else that ruins the environment, that's pretty permanent.
However, if the point of this thread is to make it a binary choice between freedom and hardship, or opulence but lack of freedom, I guess I'll choose the wasteland, although that's a hard choice.
I would think Totalitarian Dystopia would win on the grounds that in the Totalitarian Dystopia, you're not in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. In other words, to me, it's a matter of one problem being solvable, and the other not. The totalitarian dystopia can be overthrown. But if you're in a world that's been turned into a desert or under nuclear winter or something else that ruins the environment, that's pretty permanent.
However, if the point of this thread is to make it a binary choice between freedom and hardship, or opulence but lack of freedom, I guess I'll choose the wasteland, although that's a hard choice.
I think it depends on the type of dystopia. If we have something like 1984 where there are one to three powers and they have a stranglehold on their people, there's a good chance that if the state were to collapse due to widespread dissent/civil war/insurgency, then you would have the apocalyptic wasteland. If we have a more anonymous dystopia like A Clockwork Orange (something like the soft despotism of Tocqueville), then the government may transition. I dunno, you could make the argument that Alex and his droogies ARE an apocalyptic wasteland.
If I was skilled survivalist, I'd take the wasteland, but I am unfortunately more sheep than wolf. I take the dystopia on the grounds that I can survive in it, albeit at a large cost. Heck, if the dystopian shift waits long enough maybe I can put my future degree to work making cheap porn for the proles or work in a propaganda machine. If the dystopia becomes too soul-crushing for me to justify my continued existence in it, I can always exercise the option to take my own life.
There's always the chance I get ground up in the political machinery, but I think my odds are better at skirting those treads than etching out a livable niche in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
I guess it would depend somewhat on what this totalitarian government would look like. Would it be similar to 1984 where everyone lives in fear, or would it be like Brave New World where the government uses constant pleasure to pacify everyone into submission?
Either way, I'd probably pass on living under a totalitarian regime. Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.
The "barren wasteland" is the deal breaker for me. I can work with "government is gone for some reason and people live on their own". You can learn to farm, forage, etc. That's how we've lived and I'm sure we can adapt.
But a barren wasteland? Oh boy.
Though, in honest thought, barren wasteland is probably still better than 1984 world. In 1984 world you can literally die without any warning, or (worse) be imprisoned and tortured for no reason. At least in a wasteland death will come swiftly.
I have a reasonable amount of survival knowledge as well as relevant skills (hunting, fishing, shelter building, fire starting) so I would personally opt for the wasteland.
Smart answer: Depends. What kind of regime? Can it be effectively resisted? Are we assuming it's evil enough to be worth resisting in the first place (Dr. Doom-ish)? How habitable is the wasteland: radiation, temperature, plant life? Does it cover a set area or is it global? I need more information before I can make this call.
Dumb answer: I love Fallout.
The problem with the totalitarian regime is in recognizing how bad it is. If you're someone who was living in that system, how would you know if it was "bad" or not? And if you were able to recognize it, would other people as well? I guess that's probably getting too specific for the question at hand.
The wasteland is definitely portrayed as more "fun" in movies and such, more danger, action and adventure. This scenario shares a lot of similarities with the "wild west" in my mind, which is heavily romanticized by modern media. Assuming that survival is actually possible (ie food and water are obtainable) it's not surprising that many people would choose this option. I think I would too.
To me this poll is asking if I'd rather be beaten and tortured to death or if I'd rather die of dehydration and starvation. Not really sure which to vote for...
Post-Apocalyptic Wasteland. I take wasteland to mean that civilization has collapsed and formal structures of government are no more. Survivability really depends on the reason for the apocalypse. Anyway, less people is what's best for the Earth anyway. If we don't destroy ourselves something else will. Probably some sort of super virus.
I still don't get why people gloss over the portrayals of a dystopian future where people choose to live a meaningless life. Examples include Brave New World, The Giver and, Fahrenheit 451.
Anyway, if it is a binary question, then I guess that would depend on your where strength lies. If strength lies in intelligence, then probably the first choice. If strength lies in physical fitness, then second probably better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
- H. L. Mencken
No hesitation, Totalitarian Dystopia. As long as you either
A- Keep your head down and do as you are told. You will be fine. Dont be overly physically fit so your drafted into the Dictators Army though.
B- Have few enough moral problems about joining the engine of state oppression, and becoming an informant/enforcer/other tool of the regime.
C- Politics is an option, but if your not a sycophant, be careful, as random purges could quickly be the end of you.
A Post Apocalyptic Wasteland sounds great, until you realize that Movies and Video games have turned them into something they are not. I also blame survivalist and zombie apocalypse literature in the US for this. A Wasteland would be awful, it wouldnt be some land of freedom of action, it would be humans reduced to their most basic goals. Kill, Eat, Shelter, Mate. Everyday would be a constant, brutal fight for survival.
Those that pic the wasteland. Are you able to kill. Are you able to kill someone who doesn't need to die except that they have food and you do not. do you know where to find clean water, how to make a fire. Do you know natural defensive positions and how to make a camp with an effective defensive perimeter. Are you ready to see your friends and comrades die one by one as the utter horror that is a collapsed civilization destroys everything that you know and love. The end result of a Post-Apocolyptic Wasteland isent fallout or the walking dead. There will be no heroes. If your lucky you die in the bombed out ruins of a walgreens, putting a pistol in your mouth as you sob for the memories of those who have died before you. If your unlucky, you end up as dinner or a slave to some warlord.
Yeah, Totalitarian Nightmare everyday.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nyarlathotep must all things be told
for he is the messenger between the spheres
and the traveler between the realms of the living and the dead.
He shall summon forth the ancient ones
and wake them from their deathly slumber
then shall the elder signs be shattered. Trade Thread
No hesitation, Totalitarian Dystopia. As long as you either
A- Keep your head down and do as you are told. You will be fine. Dont be overly physically fit so your drafted into the Dictators Army though.
B- Have few enough moral problems about joining the engine of state oppression, and becoming an informant/enforcer/other tool of the regime.
C- Politics is an option, but if your not a sycophant, be careful, as random purges could quickly be the end of you.
A Post Apocalyptic Wasteland sounds great, until you realize that Movies and Video games have turned them into something they are not. I also blame survivalist and zombie apocalypse literature in the US for this. A Wasteland would be awful, it wouldnt be some land of freedom of action, it would be humans reduced to their most basic goals. Kill, Eat, Shelter, Mate. Everyday would be a constant, brutal fight for survival.
Those that pic the wasteland. Are you able to kill. Are you able to kill someone who doesn't need to die except that they have food and you do not. do you know where to find clean water, how to make a fire. Do you know natural defensive positions and how to make a camp with an effective defensive perimeter. Are you ready to see your friends and comrades die one by one as the utter horror that is a collapsed civilization destroys everything that you know and love. The end result of a Post-Apocolyptic Wasteland isent fallout or the walking dead. There will be no heroes. If your lucky you die in the bombed out ruins of a walgreens, putting a pistol in your mouth as you sob for the memories of those who have died before you. If your unlucky, you end up as dinner or a slave to some warlord.
Yeah, Totalitarian Nightmare everyday.
It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
I would probably be one the people a Totalitarian Regime would rather kill or imprison for trying to start a rebellion or speak poorly of those in poor. I would take the wasteland any day I at least have some survival experience and enjoy hunting, trapping and fishing.
I myself would most likely choose the post-apocalyptic wasteland, because, despite the near-constant risk of being killed, such a scenario might actually be fun and enjoyable. As long as a person has a group with a strong sense of companionship (perhaps from five to ten people), food/resources, weapons, a vehicle, and fuel for that vehicle, they may have a chance of survival and have a fun and entertaining time going about their daily lives, with no rules or responsibilities to hinder them from doing whatever they desire. I cherish my personal freedom and sense of individual identity, so I could never survive in a totalitarian regime, but I believe that I possess sufficient survival skills to survive in a barren wasteland (with a group, of course; I know that I would not last very long alone), and whatever skills I either lack will be quickly developed out of necessity.
What does everyone else have to say about this subject? Which of those two negative scenarios would you prefer, and why?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Art is life itself.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
There is some correlation between ecological disaster and tightening of policies and/or loss of control of parts of a sovereign country. Somalia is a good example. They had a drought and famine followed by the election of the ICU, which dissolved as the hardliners lost control, and the country descended into chaos. The dictatorship of Siad Barre was followed by the soft dictatorship of the TFG and a free-for-all outside Baidoa.
However, if the point of this thread is to make it a binary choice between freedom and hardship, or opulence but lack of freedom, I guess I'll choose the wasteland, although that's a hard choice.
I think it depends on the type of dystopia. If we have something like 1984 where there are one to three powers and they have a stranglehold on their people, there's a good chance that if the state were to collapse due to widespread dissent/civil war/insurgency, then you would have the apocalyptic wasteland. If we have a more anonymous dystopia like A Clockwork Orange (something like the soft despotism of Tocqueville), then the government may transition. I dunno, you could make the argument that Alex and his droogies ARE an apocalyptic wasteland.
There's always the chance I get ground up in the political machinery, but I think my odds are better at skirting those treads than etching out a livable niche in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Either way, I'd probably pass on living under a totalitarian regime. Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.
But a barren wasteland? Oh boy.
Though, in honest thought, barren wasteland is probably still better than 1984 world. In 1984 world you can literally die without any warning, or (worse) be imprisoned and tortured for no reason. At least in a wasteland death will come swiftly.
Dumb answer: I love Fallout.
The wasteland is definitely portrayed as more "fun" in movies and such, more danger, action and adventure. This scenario shares a lot of similarities with the "wild west" in my mind, which is heavily romanticized by modern media. Assuming that survival is actually possible (ie food and water are obtainable) it's not surprising that many people would choose this option. I think I would too.
Anyway, if it is a binary question, then I guess that would depend on your where strength lies. If strength lies in intelligence, then probably the first choice. If strength lies in physical fitness, then second probably better.
- H. L. Mencken
French Duel Commander
WBR Kaalia of the Vast WBR
RUG Maelstrom Wanderer RUG
A- Keep your head down and do as you are told. You will be fine. Dont be overly physically fit so your drafted into the Dictators Army though.
B- Have few enough moral problems about joining the engine of state oppression, and becoming an informant/enforcer/other tool of the regime.
C- Politics is an option, but if your not a sycophant, be careful, as random purges could quickly be the end of you.
A Post Apocalyptic Wasteland sounds great, until you realize that Movies and Video games have turned them into something they are not. I also blame survivalist and zombie apocalypse literature in the US for this. A Wasteland would be awful, it wouldnt be some land of freedom of action, it would be humans reduced to their most basic goals. Kill, Eat, Shelter, Mate. Everyday would be a constant, brutal fight for survival.
Those that pic the wasteland. Are you able to kill. Are you able to kill someone who doesn't need to die except that they have food and you do not. do you know where to find clean water, how to make a fire. Do you know natural defensive positions and how to make a camp with an effective defensive perimeter. Are you ready to see your friends and comrades die one by one as the utter horror that is a collapsed civilization destroys everything that you know and love. The end result of a Post-Apocolyptic Wasteland isent fallout or the walking dead. There will be no heroes. If your lucky you die in the bombed out ruins of a walgreens, putting a pistol in your mouth as you sob for the memories of those who have died before you. If your unlucky, you end up as dinner or a slave to some warlord.
Yeah, Totalitarian Nightmare everyday.
for he is the messenger between the spheres
and the traveler between the realms of the living and the dead.
He shall summon forth the ancient ones
and wake them from their deathly slumber
then shall the elder signs be shattered.
Trade Thread
It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath