The end of the world as we know it…

On Quora, there are a lot of interesting responses to this question: Pandemics: If society started collapsing due to a global pandemic killing more than half of the world’s population within a year or two, what would you do when you realized what was really happening? – Quora. There are a number of detailed, well-thought-out answers that represent a gamut of responses to a cataclysmic event.

With all the apocalyptic literature I read, I of course have thought about what I would do if society started collapsing around me. I have seen many scenarios presented in books, most of them not at all appealing. Women, in particular, have a tough time in these situations. Very few of these books show people cooperating to try to rebuild society, or at least help each other get through the crisis. Although that may be the most likely scenario, it doesn’t make for a very exciting story.

One aspect I think we overlook about post-collapse survival is how much work it would be. We really don’t have any idea anymore how much labor is involved just in producing enough food to sustain us through a year, for instance. The last post-apocalyptic book I read, Into the Forest by Jean Hegland, gave a good accounting of the work involved in raising a garden, canning food, keeping out pests and gathering wild plants. Sometimes people seem to fantasize about the collapse of society enabling them to live a simpler life and return to the land, but I don’t think they take into account the never-ending drudgery of it. That’s why we invented all these machines and systems in the first place.

I personally think society would only collapse in an absolute worst-case scenario, such as all-out nuclear war. Based on history, people tend to pick up the pieces and keep progressing. The Black Death, for instance, was a major catastrophic event, but Europe survived it and even thrived afterward.

Today, I think we would turn to the very things that we fear oppress us in order to save us: science and technology. We have the ability to use science to understand the world around us and develop technological solutions to fill our needs. We won’t lose that if there were a global pandemic or some other catastrophe. There may be a period of chaos, but I believe it would be temporary. Unless we somehow wipe ourselves out completely, I think we humans will continue to move forward.

Read what other people think on Quora.

We heart (destroying) New York…

This is an interesting article, but I think it misses some important points about why moviemakers and writers love to destroy New York City. As one commenter points out, New York is a symbol of not only American power but of human achievement. Destroying one of our greatest cities symbolically resets civilization back to zero.

But New York is also a great setting for an apocalypse from a storyteller’s point of view. Any survivors are going to be believably diverse in terms of age, education, class, ethnicity, etc., so you have a lot of choices when it comes to characters. A destroyed NYC is going to be scary, eerie and hazardous, but it’s not going to be that hard to find the basics, such as food, clothing and equipment. And getting off the island is an adventure in itself. I always go back to one of the scariest scenes in fiction, Larry Underwood making his way through a Lincoln Tunnel full of cars and corpses in The Stand. The movies Escape From New York and The Dark Knight Rises capitalize on the difficulties in escaping the city, which allows for much more tension than an apocalypse in Los Angeles or Chicago, where you can simply drive away. 

Read: Big Apple Apocalypse: 200 Years of Destroying New York City | Paleofuture.

Apocalypse vs. Dystopia: Some Definitions

Cover of "The Children Of Men"

Cover of The Children Of Men

I have noticed that two sub-genres frequently get confused: the dystopian story and the post-apocalyptic story. While these two areas of future storytelling may overlap, they don’t mean the same thing at all. So let’s define some terms, shall we?

We’ll begin with apocalypse. An apocalyptic story is one that depicts the end of modern human civilization as we know it, usually due to some cataclysmic event. A nuclear war, a meteor impacting the Earth, a zombie uprising, a 99 percent fatal epidemic — all of these things can usher in the apocalypse. A post-apocalyptic story concerns itself with what happens after that apocalyptic event, whether immediately following it or far, far in the future.

Often what happens is the rise of new societies. These societies may sometimes be dystopias. A dystopia is the opposite of a utopian society. Utopias are pretty much perfect, providing for the needs of all of their citizens. Dystopias, on the other hand, are usually oppressive, totalitarian and violent.

Utopian and dystopian societies do not have to arise out of an apocalyptic event, however. 1984 and Brave New World are both classics of the dystopian sub-genre that do not depict an apocalypse. Or take, for example, The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, which is often mis-classified as post-apocalyptic. In that novel, a fundamentalist Christian group overthrows the current government and establishes a totalitarian society that enslaves women. Although environmental degradation has caused widespread infertility, no true apocalypse takes place. In fact, the primary point of view of the novel is of a future society looking back on this time in history.

Compare that with The Children of Men by P.D. James (or the movie based on it). In that case, although the apocalypse has not yet occurred, it is anticipated, because every person has lost the ability to reproduce and no children have been born in a generation. The novel could even be classified as pre-apocalyptic in that sense. This situation has directly created a dystopian government, which took power to enforce order on the growing chaos and anarchy occurring ahead of the apocalypse. So The Children of Men is an apocalyptic novel, whereas The Handmaid’s Tale is not, even though the subject matter is similar.

Sometimes the dystopian society is the cause of the apocalyptic event. This is the case in Margaret Atwood’s companion novels Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood. The futuristic society she depicts is overwhelmingly consumerist, with a huge gap between rich and poor. One character takes it upon himself to engineer a virus to wipe out humankind and start all over again from scratch.

While I enjoy dystopian novels of all kinds, I am most interested in those dystopias that directly arise from an apocalyptic event. There are numerous examples of these, which may be why the two terms are so often confused. One I recently finished reading was The Gate to Women’s Country by Sheri S. Tepper. After a devastating war, a society of walled cities based on ancient Greece arose. The cities are governed by women, while the men are forced to live outside the city walls as soldiers. Another good example is Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang by Kate Wilhelm, where the human survivors rely on cloning to reproduce. The cloned generations gradually change, losing their individuality and other essential human qualities, and oppressing anyone who differs from the norm.

Or if it’s a post-apocalyptic utopia you’re looking for, you might try Always Coming Home by Ursula K. Le Guin. Set in the far future California, it depicts an agrarian, idyllic society. Although they have access to technology — computer networks that survived the pre-apocalyptic civilization record their stories and occasionally provide information — they maintain an pre-Industrial Age way of life. Such an idealized lifestyle certainly seems unattainable without an apocalypse to first wipe the slate clean and allow us to start all over — and do it right this time.

What Would You Do?

Filmmakers sought to implement bleak scenery a...

Image via Wikipedia

In most post-apocalyptic stories, there comes a time when one or more of the characters — usually minor ones — opt to take the “easy way out.” Suicide, in other words. This seems only natural. When faced with an uncertain future filled with terror, hunger and the constant possibility of a violent, painful death, suicide seems like a viable option. Except in the stories, it’s not intended to be one. The characters who opt for suicide are not the ones we’re supposed to identify with.

But I do. When I read The Road, the character I most identified with was the wife, who took a gun and walked off into the woods rather than continue to live in the charred cinder that was once her world. In The Passage, a couple waits until their children are old enough to take care of themselves before opting out of their brutal lives spent worrying about vampire invasions every second. And on the season 1 finale of The Walking Dead television series, the characters are given a choice: quick, painless death by explosion or go back into the zombie-infested wasteland with only the things they are carrying. I know what I’d pick.

But then again, I am not a survivalist. I don’t stock up on toilet paper or spend my weekends practicing my crossbow skills. I freely admit that I enjoy the creature comforts of the 21st century. Who knows what any of us would choose to do when thrust into extreme circumstances like that? We haven’t really had to test our ingrained survival instinct.

Or our sense of hope. For that’s what the characters who choose to go on represent: hope. What was left in Pandora’s box after the ills of the world escape. Hope that there is something better ahead — if not for us, then at least for those who come after us — is what motivates us to keep on struggling even in the most extraordinary situations. Hope is what inspires us that no matter how bad things get, we can find a way. Hope is our humanity.

And hope is the essence of what many of these post-apocalyptic stories we tell ourselves are really all about.

What is the Pre-apocalypse?

EMP-SFM (5)

Image via Wikipedia

You’re probably familiar with the term post-apocalyptic as applied to fiction and movies. Post-apocalyptic stories take place in a world after an apocalyptic event has occurred and civilization has collapsed. But here’s a new one on me: pre-apocalyptic fiction.

The pre-apocalypse would be similar to what I call “last days” stories. By using the term last days, I expect the story to meet two specific conditions: 1) the characters know that the earth is going to end; and 2) there will be no post-apocalypse. Whatever event is going down, no one is going to survive it. I could only think of two examples — the book On the Beach and the movie Last Night — that fulfill both these conditions and qualify as true “last days” stories, but I haven’t done much research yet and could probably dig up more in this sub-genre.

The pre-apocalypse, according to i09, depicts the time leading up to the apocalyptic disaster, but survival may be possible, or the event itself may still be averted. This is where the conflict comes from. The most obvious example of a pre-apocalypse story is the Terminator series, which keeps posing the question of whether the overthrow of humans by sentient machines is inevitable, or whether the actions of the characters who know what the future will be can actually change that future. Along similar lines is the film Twelve Monkeys, in which a time-traveling Bruce Willis is charged with gathering information about the engineered virus that wiped out most of humanity. Once in the past, he tries to prevent the apocalypse from ever occurring but fails — or perhaps his attempts to avert the disaster are necessary for it to actually take place. Again, the question of whether the future is fated is not comfortably resolved.

I haven’t done a lot of delving into this sub-genre yet. Living in uncertain times, as we do, with so many threats facing us, it’s no wonder that apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction has been so popular lately. Probably, the number of pre-apocalyptic stories will also increase along with our sense that the world is rapidly sliding into the void.

On the other hand, there have probably always been people who felt certain they were living in the last days, that the end was drawing nigh and only they were smart enough to see it. I feel like that myself some mornings when I read the news, especially with our leaders trying so hard to ignore climate change and its possible dire consequences. Yet somehow that great disaster never quite arrives. In my own memory, Y2K — which was supposed to bring about the collapse of a civilization overly dependent on computer technology — was a dud, and I don’t think much of anything is likely to happen on December 21, 2012, except it will probably be warmer than the previous year.

Still, it only takes once.

The Cycle of Collapse

Diamond says Easter Island provides the best h...

Image via Wikipedia

The “apocalypse” can refer to the end of the natural world, but it usually doesn’t — at least, not in the stories we are constantly telling about it. After the world literally ends, there’s not much left to say, is there? In fact, I can only think of two examples off the top of my head of this kind of “last days” story in fiction, when all life ceases to be: On the Beach by Nevil Shute, in which radioactive fallout from a devastating nuclear war kills all animal life on Earth; and Last Night, a film about the Earth’s last six hours before it is destroyed by either a meteor or the sun going supernova (the movie doesn’t specify). In both cases, the story is about how the characters, who know the end is coming, deal with that knowledge and live out their last days. (There is a whole sub-genre of “dying Earth” stories, as well, but these are typically set far in the future and depict a gradual end, rather than an abrupt one.)

More often, apocalyptic stories assume there will be at least a few survivors.  The apocalyptic event is not “the end of the world,” as the cliche goes, but rather the collapse of human civilization due to some catastrophe. Those who do survive must start all over again from zero. Usually, this struggle for survival is what the story is actually about, and the apocalypse is just the means to getting there.

We’ve seen these collapses of civilizations in our history. Examples include the Anasazi of the American Southwest, the Indus civilization, the Mayan civilization and the extremely isolated society on Easter Island. This last example serves as a microcosm of societal collapse due to environmental destruction. Over time, the islanders cut down all the trees on Easter Island. This led to soil erosion, making agriculture more difficult, and with no wood, the islanders could not build boats for fishing. The population plummeted: a mini-apocalypse. (For more on this subject, see the book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond.)

In fiction, one of the most memorable portrayals of civilization collapse is in The Mote in God’s Eye, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. In this case, the civilization is alien, not human. The collapse was always caused by war, brought about by the pressures of overpopulation, and always resulted in total decimation. Survivors rebuilt society, which inevitably led to another collapse. Because the cycle continually repeated itself despite all efforts to prevent it, the aliens became fatalistic and even developed a class of worker whose sole job was to ensure the survival of all knowledge so that civilization could be rebuilt after the next collapse.

The natural world seems to operate on cycles. Day and night, the seasons, the “circle of life,” in which death and decay lead to birth and growth, are all familiar to us. Even the universe itself may be caught in a continual cycle of destruction and rebirth. In human history, we can see how a pattern in how civilizations grow rapidly, reach a zenith, and then either decline or collapse. If an apocalypse does occur, but there are survivors left to start all over again, it seems logical to assume that the cycle would begin again as well, leading to yet another apocalypse. And another. And another. Unless we can find some way to break the cycle, which may mean changing our basic human nature.

Why the Apocalypse?

The Revelation of St John: 4. The Four Riders ...

The Revelation of St John: 4. The Four Riders of the Apocalypse (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Human beings are fascinated by beginnings and endings. Every culture has an origin story to explain how humans came to live on Earth in the first place. And many cultures make apocalyptic predictions about how we’ll go out as a species. In contemporary times, there are enough apocalyptic books and movies to deserve their own genre. Artists and musicians tackle apocalyptic themes as well. Why does the idea of apocalypse — the end of the world as we know it — fascinate us so much?

Rarely do the apocalyptic events in these stories bring about the absolute end, though. Some remnants of humankind usually survive to rebuild. We sometimes forget that we constructed the cultures in which we live, that we made up all the rules that govern our lives. A catastrophic event is an opportunity to wipe the slate clean, to press the restart button. Whoever survives gets the chance to start from zero and rewrite all the rules. And the apocalypse enables us at one fell swoop to solve the massive problems that confront us. Humankind is forced to return to the basics of survival, perhaps making our lives more meaningful — or at least more interesting. It’s an appealing fantasy.

But our fascination with the apocalypse is more than just a fantasy about starting over. I think, at its roots, exploring the possible scenarios for the end of human civilization gives us a way to confront our own mortality. We each face a personal apocalypse. We don’t know when or how it will come, or what — if anything — comes afterward. Just as each of our lives has a beginning and an ending, so it seems that the human race should have one too. Imagining that ending possibly makes it easier to  accept our own endings.

Utopia or dystopia?

Any society left following an apocalyptic event — assuming there is more than one survivor — generally has a choice of forming itself into a dystopian or utopian society. In a dystopia, life is generally miserable and the people are oppressed, enslaved, poor and/or violent. A utopia, on the other hand, is an ideal society with a perfect socio-politico-legal system, where everyone is happy and all needs are met.

Not surprisingly, there are many more novels and movies about dystopias than about utopias. Jo Walton, in her review of Kim Stanley Robinson’s utopian novel Pacific Coast, explains why better than I can:

The problem with utopias is that they don’t change, and because in science fiction the world is a character, the world has to change. You can write a story set in utopia, but it has to be a small scale story of love and softball, because when you’ve got there, there’s nowhere to go.

The same issues that make utopias poor subject matter for novels might also make them rather boring places to live. Consider the utopian future of Star Trek: adventurous people had to take off for the farthest reaches of the universe just to find a little excitement.

Another caution is that one person’s utopia will certainly be another’s dystopia. A true utopia cannot be built by forcing everyone to conform to one person’s vision, because that would certainly require oppression, no matter how covert.

In the present, we live in neither a utopia nor a dystopia, and this will probably always be true, no matter what happens. Both are idealized — and simplified — visions of society. But if the population were dramatically reduced, it might be that much easier to impose a dystopia or utopia, at least for a brief time.

The soft apocalypse…

We have so many ways to end civilization now that we’ve had to break them down into sub-categories. According to io9, here are the types of apocalypses we might expect:

  • hard apocalypse — “The living will envy the dead.” (Think The Road, Mad Max, Terminator)
  • soft apocalypse — It’s over, but it still goes on. (Think World Made by Hand, Earth Abides)
  • happy apocalypse — It might be over, but now we’ve got something better. (Think Always Coming HomeEcotopia and various other utopias.)

The article, “Welcome to the Soft Apocalypse,” lists media that you might enjoy if you favor the middle ground.

And then there’s the cozy catastrophe, where apparently you get to ride out the apocalypse in a comfortable country house.

Wry write stories about the apocalypse?

 

English: Author Margaret Atwood attends a read...

English: Author Margaret Atwood attends a reading at Eden Mills Writers’ Festival, Ontario, Canada in September 2006. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Personally, I think it’s because the “what if” scenario of the apocalypse story is irresistible to many writers.

A commentator at Tor.com believes it’s because writers have been given a special gift, to imagine the end, and it is their duty to warn all of us what may happen via their fiction. At least, he posits that this is why Margaret Atwood has written her apocalyptic novels Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood.

Here’s a quote:

If I’m right, I believe it presents writers with a challenge: if part of who I am is my ability to see the end of the story and to tell that story, am I living up to that precious gift? Am I looking as I ought, as I am capable? Am I telling the stories that matter? Am I living for short-term story—quick success—or the really big win—our survival?