https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchoPacifism/comments/1h6m2eg/pacifism_in_post_apocalypse/
created by Wise-Mango-1486 on 04/12/2024 at 17:41 UTC
6 upvotes, 3 top-level comments (showing 3)
Imagine the world in which all systems of authority have collapsed and the human race has been greatly thinned out. Specifically in a post nuclear landscape. Do you think maintaining a pacifist philosophy would be effective for survival? How would pacifism look in a world where people are struggling and desperate to survive?
Comment by --Anarchaeopteryx-- at 05/12/2024 at 05:23 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
You could get two human beings in a room together and still have a system of authority. I presume you mean institutional authority would have collapsed. In any case, I would hope that in the wake of a nuclear apocalypse, there would be substantial awareness among survivors as to the cause, and so in that case there ought to be a rise in anti-nuclear pacifism ☮ specifically.
Pacifism is a position based on ethics moreso than survival. Yet if everyone followed it, survival would be a given.
So, would pacifism be effective for survival? In and of itself, sure, Pacifism could certainly set a strong foundation of cooperation and productivity. Violence begets violence, and in a post-collapse society, further acts of destruction could be severe setbacks for humanity. Pacifism could & should create long lasting peace and stability, of course.
So Pacifism could do great on its own. The real problem then, is assholes. Could a pacifist faction defend itself from Mad Max style raiders, militarized cartels, or a paramilitary wannabe-government? Well, probably not. Although it's important to note that Pacifism in general does not exclude self-defense, or even martial skill (ie, warrior monks).
If I was making a worldbuilding project, I would have an explicitly anarcho-pacifist faction/community. But real life doesn't have clean borders like fiction. If there was an actual organized group of pacifists in post-apoc world, they would probably interact and trade with decent people who aren't staunchly pacifist themselves, and then it becomes mutually beneficial for decent non-pacifists to defend the Pacifists if need be. In a community, pacifists may gravitate to food production or medicine, and the non-pacifists would be more interested in guard duty.
And while it's a terrible situation to be in, exile and relocation would also be an option for pacifists. History has many examples of groups who have survived despite getting pushed around by more aggressive groups. Or, pacifist groups eventually get assimilated into the dominant faction/ideology (even if it's blatantly contradictory).
Comment by SimplyTesting at 04/12/2024 at 19:21 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
adversity incentivizes cooperation. this is the 'natural state of man'. it's when people have sufficient resources that they start to fight over them. think about it like a fission reaction: the reaction grows in size until it consumes all of the material and only then does it fizzle out.
Comment by Anton_Chigrinetz at 05/12/2024 at 00:06 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Yes and no.
Yes - because, somehow having forgotten about slitting each other's throats, humans would find a way to thrive by helping each other.
No - because humans never do that. Humans need to evolve in order to stop thinking about exploiting and/or hurting one another. That's the reason why communism will never work: you cannot build the society without hierarchy.