The moral decay is an interesting facet, and while I haven't read the book, I can't help but imagine that it is arguing for the existence of a sort of prisoners dilemma situation, albeit in a way deliberately designed to shock.
The foundation of the argument I think, is that to a certain degree, the social norms and behaviors that are bes…
The moral decay is an interesting facet, and while I haven't read the book, I can't help but imagine that it is arguing for the existence of a sort of prisoners dilemma situation, albeit in a way deliberately designed to shock.
The foundation of the argument I think, is that to a certain degree, the social norms and behaviors that are best suited to survive and thrive in modern society, become a liability when modern society is stripped away, and people are left in the anarchic period before a new society arises. I don't necessarily agree with the foundation, but it is a very prevalent trope, and even if a lot of media doesn't have the protagonist engage in this reasoning, the antagonists very much do.
I think the author seeks to shock the reader a bit with the protagonist characters swapping from no murder to yes murder at the drop of a hat. Because here is the prisoners dilemma reasoning. If you accept the premise that behavior under society is a liability in the apocalypse, then whoever drops their societal hangups the fastest is most likely to survive and thrive, oppressing those who still adhere to social norms and killing them and taking their stuff. That all makes you the most well equipped to survive, from a pure numbers and resources perspective.
On the other hand, those lack of social norms are just as great a liability in civilized society. Consider if they found a cure to save the grass, the British government stabilized, and got it's shit together, how exactly they are going to be handling the murderers, rapists, and cannibals who didn't even end up needing to do all that. So most people, would probably try to hedge their bets, and not cast off societal norms so quickly, trusting in the power and momentum of the state to resurge and get their shit together, saving them from the threat of social persecution at the expense of a few uncomfortable weeks. Or put another way, imagine if during Covid-19 people expected the collapse of the government, and decided to start looting and pillaging stores and committing crimes, under the assumption that the first ones to break taboo are the most likely to survive in the long run. Imagine their shock and dismay when the US does not fall, and Uncle Sam casts a baleful eye upon them.
The issue also pops up even if the government fully falls and anarchy descends. Because humans are fundamentally social creatures, and the state is the most tried and true mechanism for violence we have. So even if the government falls in the apocalypse, and we get anarchy for a year, if somebody pulls together enough people to start a new community, say 3000 people, well 3000 people are going to decisively wipe out a group of 20 murderous cannibal looters, and probably crucify them for their trouble.
To be more succinct, it seems the argument that underlies a lot of these tropes is thus. Societal norms are a liability in anarchy(not the political system). Those who cast them off first in anarchy are best equipped to survive, those who adhere to them are worst equipped. But, our sense of morality formed by society dissuades us from casting them off too quickly. And even worse, those who have cast off societal norms are ill-equipped for the end of anarchy and will likely be punished.
So even if we take morality out of the equation and go with cold amoral logic, the best option is to hedge one's bets and wait as long as you can for anarchy to dissipate, and then left with no choice but to preserve one's life, get to the stealing and cannibalism, which conveniently has the least impact on one's moral fiber. Of course, if you expect anarchy to reign forever, that the disease is incurable, the crops unsalvageable, the world irrecoverably irradiated, then perhaps jumping into moral depravity is the most logical option. But it does rather make some assumptions about the future.
I feel the need to clarify that I personally don't agree with the foundation of the argument in the first place, just want to muse about the trope.
The moral decay is an interesting facet, and while I haven't read the book, I can't help but imagine that it is arguing for the existence of a sort of prisoners dilemma situation, albeit in a way deliberately designed to shock.
The foundation of the argument I think, is that to a certain degree, the social norms and behaviors that are best suited to survive and thrive in modern society, become a liability when modern society is stripped away, and people are left in the anarchic period before a new society arises. I don't necessarily agree with the foundation, but it is a very prevalent trope, and even if a lot of media doesn't have the protagonist engage in this reasoning, the antagonists very much do.
I think the author seeks to shock the reader a bit with the protagonist characters swapping from no murder to yes murder at the drop of a hat. Because here is the prisoners dilemma reasoning. If you accept the premise that behavior under society is a liability in the apocalypse, then whoever drops their societal hangups the fastest is most likely to survive and thrive, oppressing those who still adhere to social norms and killing them and taking their stuff. That all makes you the most well equipped to survive, from a pure numbers and resources perspective.
On the other hand, those lack of social norms are just as great a liability in civilized society. Consider if they found a cure to save the grass, the British government stabilized, and got it's shit together, how exactly they are going to be handling the murderers, rapists, and cannibals who didn't even end up needing to do all that. So most people, would probably try to hedge their bets, and not cast off societal norms so quickly, trusting in the power and momentum of the state to resurge and get their shit together, saving them from the threat of social persecution at the expense of a few uncomfortable weeks. Or put another way, imagine if during Covid-19 people expected the collapse of the government, and decided to start looting and pillaging stores and committing crimes, under the assumption that the first ones to break taboo are the most likely to survive in the long run. Imagine their shock and dismay when the US does not fall, and Uncle Sam casts a baleful eye upon them.
The issue also pops up even if the government fully falls and anarchy descends. Because humans are fundamentally social creatures, and the state is the most tried and true mechanism for violence we have. So even if the government falls in the apocalypse, and we get anarchy for a year, if somebody pulls together enough people to start a new community, say 3000 people, well 3000 people are going to decisively wipe out a group of 20 murderous cannibal looters, and probably crucify them for their trouble.
To be more succinct, it seems the argument that underlies a lot of these tropes is thus. Societal norms are a liability in anarchy(not the political system). Those who cast them off first in anarchy are best equipped to survive, those who adhere to them are worst equipped. But, our sense of morality formed by society dissuades us from casting them off too quickly. And even worse, those who have cast off societal norms are ill-equipped for the end of anarchy and will likely be punished.
So even if we take morality out of the equation and go with cold amoral logic, the best option is to hedge one's bets and wait as long as you can for anarchy to dissipate, and then left with no choice but to preserve one's life, get to the stealing and cannibalism, which conveniently has the least impact on one's moral fiber. Of course, if you expect anarchy to reign forever, that the disease is incurable, the crops unsalvageable, the world irrecoverably irradiated, then perhaps jumping into moral depravity is the most logical option. But it does rather make some assumptions about the future.
I feel the need to clarify that I personally don't agree with the foundation of the argument in the first place, just want to muse about the trope.