Not really, middle East has little to no freedom, south America has more homicide per capita with the worst being in el Salvador/ Colombia/ and the shitshow Venezuela, Europe is probably the most xenophobic area there is with more now Nazi groups and populist leaders where you get discriminated against for being a different shade of white, quality of living is way better than most of Africa and the well off parts just abolished apartheid in the 1990's, then you have asia with some of the most repressive governments in the world with China/North Korea/Cambodia/Thailand and even the Democratic parts such as Japan aren't all the great as Japan has strict laws against immigration that would put trumps Mexico wall to shame
TheAverage Avverix First off, don't take YT comments too seriously :P Secondly, fair points. But America's consumerism, capitalism, nationalism, egocentrism and tendency to destroy other countries (Korea, Vietnam, most of Middle East) is very bad. Thirdly, not sure where you're getting the "Nazi xenophobic Europe" from... That's not true. Besides, I've seen much worse from the US of A.
The Gaming Snake people will turn on each other that say the bombs have dropped and after there is the radiation what will kill more probably more then the bombs did. The radiation will also kill a lot of the crops and then you also count in the nuclear winter what will kill like all crops, people will want food and water and if someone else have some food and they have the weapons then why not take it by force.
Matt E An EMP cannot affect the entire continental North America, so unless you're speaking of a coordinated attack by a foreign power, that scenario is not possible. In a coordinated attack, there would be a huge effort to get people to turn off their devices, as that can protect many electronic systems. The worst hit would be the cellular phone/data networks, as it isn't easy to entirely shut a modern smartphone completely off - some phones still broadcast a "here I am" signal to the network, even if the phone is powered down.
Wrong. You are comparing Regional disaster outcomes to full-blown National ones for Global ones where help is not coming. It's different when you have an isolated event that is responded to in Mass. If the crap hit the fan on a national or global scale help would not come resources would dwindle and people would fight tooth and nail for what remains. There's an equal amount of social psychological research which contradicts all of the lovey dovey stuff you claim.
This idiot is only giving an example of people still having a lifeline outside a disaster area having access to resources. In a true apocalypse, the supply chain gets cut and its dog eat dog for survival and people will be real violent and vicious.
That does not mean he is wrong. Science has no analogue for a large scale grid down in current times. Historically, the closest comparable we have might be the plague. Communities still worked together, people will work together, yes there will be between group problems but those will get less with time as groups come together to create economies of scale. I think you are way out of your reach to say he is wrong, you have no evidence to say its wrong, to say it is questionable is reasonable. You claim other research but do not provide. Large groups will be the groups that survive the best as groups will grow over time or be lost. This is borne out by history, which is a better predictor in this case than social psychology.
Depends what kind if Apocalypse. If everyone knows they will die it could be very unpredictable. Don't find this video very accurate from a social perspective.
Well, everyone knows we will die. Everything that lives dies. In a way, we're all living a personal apocalypse that ends with our death. But most people use this as an excuse to overcome the negativity and try to make something good out of their lives.
Agreed. Also does an Apocalypse even require that we know it's coming? I mean they tend to in stories because otherwise there's not story "things were normals then everyone died from -insert disaster to end the world here-" but it's as likely that something terrible could end us with no one knowing (some sort of major accident or freak natural disaster all at once) or at least very few people (as in the case with some things related to military action).
A lot of the situations talked about in the video were ones where the danger had ended...its easier to feel empathy and want to help your fellow human when you dont think your life is on the line. Then again, I'm one of those antisocial people, so I might be biased.
Right, all these examples are of unaffected people helping survivors of tragedy. When everyone is affected at once and limited resources mean not many will survive the aftermath, priorities change.
You mean the same Bible that plagiarized the origin tales of societies that were around centuries before it was written? The same Bible that contradicts itself and is contradicted by proven science? That fairy tale? As for the "end times" , Every generation has it's own doomsayers predicting the end of the world. EVERY generation since the beginning of civilization. They are all proven wrong, just as this generation will be.
This is a fundamentally flawed video. In a real apocalypse no one will be coming to help you, all the events you cited always had somebody to come help
All the more reason to help each other. If civilization collapses, there will be conflict, but the conflict will be between groups, not individuals. People will band together with those they trust and like. The people in the groups will work together for a common goal, and will come to each other's aid. Conflict will arise as the groups start competing for territory. In other words, less Walking Dead, and more Feudal Europe.
Bloody heart15 nice point, all the examples was something that happened to a relatively small group of people, for a better example of an apocalypse type state would be Germany after world war 1, it was one for all. But still people wanted to come together and be apart of something, even if that something was hurting another group of people. So maybe an accurate description of the apocalypse would be similar to that in media such as the walking dead, with groups of people coming together to survive, even at the expense of other unknown groups.
I DO see people banding together for security and pooling resources ....welcoming a doctor into the fold and an armed badass etc ...I'd be all over THAT ....though I honestly would be selective of the kind of people I hitched my wagon too ....it would be a sociopath's dream and I would steer far from that type.....ones that wanted to control everyone's thinking etc....
I feel this would apply more to a post-apocalyptic civilization rather than during the crisis. Of course this depends on a multitude of factors like type of crisis, how the society functioned pre-apocalypse, who takes the mantle of leading/governing, what resources remain, etc.
my 7 month old daughter had heart surgery and we started a go fund me page. I had loss time at work and expenses started to pile. People were willing to help, people i didnt know. Her health has taken a turn for the worst and she will only be with us for short period of time. People became aware of this and they wanted to do more for us. Human kindness is within us all. Empathy drives us to help those in need. I believe if we could care for one another all the time rather then just in emergencies this world could become a greater place.
Those examples weren't even close to a global apocalypse. And even if they were representative, it only supports the philosophy of The Walking Dead. The characters do stick together but only in their own groups.
I can verify this first hand. In 2011 a tornado hit my city, tearing a swathe through its center. My neighborhood was damaged, but still standing. The major problem was the ten day power outage, during which everyone on our block smelled our grill and brought over the food from their homes to be cooked. We feasted ourselves and enjoyed company from neighbors everyday until normalcy was restored.
Albin0gh0st yea, im sure it would be completely the same if those same neighbors knew that fema or any other aid was never going to come, power was never again going to be restored, and their homes would never be rebuilt, 3/4s of the people they know are dead, grocery stores are already looted and there will never be any deliveries to them for the foreseeable future, the rest of the world is on the same boat, they would have to live on whatever they already have or could get their hands on. im sure you would have used up your charcoal/propane on them if you knew it was the last youd ever be able to buy with money. Theres a difference between disaster and apocalypse.....apocolypse being about 1000x worse obviously, and human-history changing..... unless you consider like the black plague or the last ice age or something, we haven't gone through an apocalypse, so theres really no way to know how people would react, but i can more or less assure you it wouldn't be the same as your tornado experience.
Jen Tuesday As a counter to that, working in a group increases everyone's survival rate. It's human instinct to band together. After all we are social animals.
Albin0gh0st its also human instinct, and animal instinct in general to protect your family and survive at any cost. If the situation ever becomes dire enough for that to mean stealing, or even killing to keep your kids alive, do you honestly think people, faced with no other choice, would choose their humanity/empathy/the golden rule/YOUR life over their kids or even their own survival? Think again.
It might come to that, yes, but having an entire tribe of looters and fighters would yet again be a massive improvement. More people means a more diverse set of skills and more people to handle construction or other projects. One family wouldn't be as likely to betray a tribe of twenty families.
If an asteroid was going to kill everyone in a month, I would confess and just lay out my heart to everyone I know and love. Or, at least, that's what Iike to think.
This video proves me right even more. Many people don't understand why I do not watch TV at all, not even news. It's perfectly explained in this video. Thank you so much.
Our government has betrayed us so many times. Vilify our government and the russians who hacked our electoral system. Our vocal minority is not nearly big enough in any fair election to have elected him and we have objective proof that our electronic voting system was compromised by russian hackers. I'm with you, America needs to burn so the good that's left can start to rebuild a nation that cares for it's people more than greed and power.
"People love to help their fellow humans". 1)Building a wall 2)Banning those "fellow humans" 3)Threatning kids' future not challenging climate change 4)Pursuing wars when and where it is unnecessary 5)Asking for tons of bucks to let them go to surgery. Mmm... I truly believe that the reaction towards certain events strongly depends on the event itself. You talked about 9/11. People all over the world were heartbroken but they kept going on with their lives or do their best to help People in need with organized schedule, they seemed tough in front of tragedies. But if we speak about an apocalypse in its True meaning, and an apocalypse that potentially will harm the entire planet or most of it, I think that 99% of humans would first and foremost care about theirselves and their acquaintances, then maybe yell, run, scream... Reaction would be mixed
Larry Berry 1)To keep off drugs and criminals 2)TEMPORARY muslim bans 3)Pulled US off climate regulation to focus on improving infrastructure 4)What war? He has relinquished international relationship like never seen before 5)???
Arnan 1) Drugs are made here too, and the vast majority of illegal immigrants come here by plane and overstay their visas. Walls wouldn't stop that. 2) It's still banning fellow humans. None of it makes sense, and it's illegal to ban people based on religion. Group justice is wrong. 3) We can and should do both. We don't need coal plants, we need to outpace China as a leader in clean energy. Pulling out of the accord kills jobs in clean energy. if you want to sacrifice something, why not military spending? just a fraction of that going to infrastructure would be huge. 4) He's pissing off our allies and weakening our connections by giving out their secrets. This can lead to war. 5) He's talking about the AHCA whose motto is you have to be wealthy to afford coverage. screwing poor Americans.
Arnan I am not a big fan of USA (nor of their presidents, in general). This one especially confirms my opinion. Bullying EU leaders shows only US typical wacko, freezing international deals by pursuing a love-hate relationship with Russia. Also, this deceived idea of freedom and democracy that leads you to fight every single bastard in town... Please. I cannot imagine that those people originally came from my continent. Evidently, evolution is still a work in progress, cavemen
I would call my two daughters if I knew the Earth was about to be destroyed. I would tell them how much I've always loved them and how happy I am that we had even this much time together.
Looney's like that will be among the first to find a quick and painful death and a shallow grave. Good people don't like to be threatened and will cooperate together if only to remove a common threat.
You're basing this 'looters will win' opinion on what exactly? Fictional narratives? That's what I thought. According to observation and science, pro-social groups band together, forming tribes who work together to ensure survival. Sure, those who _choose_ to act anti-socially (which science says would be a tiny proportion) would exist, but would be excluded from the tribes. Going commando and being an individual "wolf" surrounded by "sheep" makes for a great *story,* but a crappy survival strategy.
Trace Dominguez, Very much how I see it as well. The looney's wouldn't worry me much. Much more worrisome would be the father of 2~3 kids with zero supplies, absolutely desperate, and carrying a gun. Very tough situation.
Question, in all of the tragedies depicted there were three groups of people: 1) Those directly affected by the tragedy, 2) Those indirectly affected by the tragedy (friends, family, property owners, etc.) and 3) those who were not affected by the tragedy at all, and in most of the scenarios (not all), it was those who were not affected by the tragedy or those indirectly affected that pitched in to help the ones that were directly affected by said tragedy, now my question is, how would this play out in an apocalyptic scenario in which the entire human race becomes a part of the first group, everyone is directly affected, would the reaction of the people still likely be similar to the ones depicted in the scenarios given in the video?
@@amypendergrass6461 after becoming 3 years more wise, I take that comment back. No Domino's pizza at the end of the world. I'll probably just watch the mushroom cloud with my GF until it's shock- and heat wave destroy us.
Same thing happened on 911. people exited the building in a calm and orderly fashion, and helped one another get down the stairs and out of trapped areas.
Actually here due to the extreme influx of predictive programming that has been ever present on social media, television, and cinema throughout the last few years. It's starting to get scary. God bless you and keep you.
the ironic thing is "keep calm and carry on" was intended for an apocalyptic scenario. The posters were made in 1940 and didn't surface until this century.
Epic, He'd leave you in a second if it didn't mean profit for him. You're drinking his cool-aid my friend. Mark my words, he'll be out of office by choice before his term is up. If you voted for him, you voted for a man with no business leading others.
this shows the power of the ego, our set of habitual patterns, and how if you shift your focus from ego you'll behave more "spiritual" automatically. meditation is shown to do just that: help us shift focus away from habit patterns and into a higher frame of reference.
One thing you forget is that after the disasters featured in the video people knew help was coming. In a global scale disaster there won't be anyone to send help. People would fend for themselves and do whatever it takes to protect their loved ones.
Video: Here's a bunch of studies and examples of people acting benevolent in times of danger You: Nah, my zombie tv show is more realistic #lonewolf #edgelord
Similiar thing happened in the London Grenfell Tower fire last week as far as comming together. There were so many donations of food and clothing that donations had to be turned away by the temporary shelters. Though I do have to agree with other posts here that say an apocalypse where resources are scarce will be much different than a localized incident where others can make easy sacrifices to help a few.
Stories depict in need of desperation the worst of us. I am glad to know Science has our backs, because as humans we will push the limitations and succeed.
Yes I recall how wonderfully kind and controlled the people of New Orleans were after 4 days of no assistance after the hurricane. Kindness will only last until the supplies run out ,then human survival takes over.
During a flood near my village (Punjab, Pakistan), a farmer with his 10 sheep was stuck on a land piece of about 100-meter square. The place was near Indian border and an Indian helicopter use to visit him weekly providing foods and medical aid to him and his sheep. Similarly, after the earthquake in Kashmir, Pakistan army was providing aid to villages in Indian occupied Kashmir and Indians was doing vice versa. As a side note, Pakistan and India has been involved in 3 major and numerous minor wars with each other. Also in Kashmir they use to fire and kill each other on daily basis.
I was working factory maintenance when a production unit exploded and caught fire. There were alarms ringing and people quickly travelling past me to escape the building. I couldn't resist; I grabbed my full-face respirator and went straight for the affected area to see what I could do to help. It's true, there's something that comes out in some people during disasters and other scenarios in which we feel the need to be effective and assist others. Almost like an instinct.
We may be initially altruistic because everyone would be suffering from shock. However, one thing humans are very good at is adapting to the situation and make it more "normal". I think that eventually after the shock dies down and people have time to figure out exactly what "groups" they want to belong to, the fight for resources will begin against other groups.
if tragedy makes people more friendly, the people in South Sudan are really nice to each other now that they have finally won their independence from sudan.
It depends on the means of the apocalypse. If it comes by a pandemic that kills 90% or more of the population, we'll be in the situation regarding human capital that we were in a few hundred years ago. Having the ethical sense we do now, not to mention the technical knowledge, I imagine the begin of the recovery would be quite peaceful, even if starting from a remarkably lower standard of living than today. However, if the apocalypse comes by an EMP, nukes or something that wipes out material capital like infrastructure, machinery, and so forth - everything that makes us productive enough to support the current population at a good and improving standard of living - suddenly, competition for goods becomes so severe that the peaceful means of competing like bidding with prices is superseded by force. Cooperation will always be more productive than coercion long term, but as long as the immediate matters more than tomorrow, conflict and death will likely ensue - until a kind of balance is regained where in cooperation takes hold again for it's inherent benefits.
Jared Diamond's book Collapse is probably a better indicator of what an "apocalypse" might look like. I think how well people treat each other depends a lot on access to food (the collapse of some Polynesian societies on remote islands might be good examples).
the disaster's that he stated, people knew that there was an end to them, that eventually everything would go back to normal or close to it, but what happens when people realize there is no end to the disaster, that it is a fend for themselves.
people are always expecting the worst from others, but that's not the case. in an apocalypse, we probably would work together because that's how we've survived for so long
People replied positively because they're in a good situation to help, they know that once the disaster is over (very temporary) they'll go back to standard living. But if the entire world fails, economy fails, no one has money and everyone loses in the end and there is no positive in sight, people will generally keep to themselves until food/resources run low then they'll be forced to find more. Maybe we'll form communities and try to come out good, but overall its a whole different story than temporary disasters.
Whenever there's a flood or hurricane I always hear stories of people sharing their generators to help people charge their phones, or sharing their food and water.
Hey Trace! Would've liked a bit more talk on circumstance. In my opinion, the studies and behaviors you mention are not fully representative of an apocalypse. In talking about people helping after specific disasters, they helped once the threat was gone and they would give resources (time, energy, food, shelter, etc) that were not critical to their own survival, as they knew they could replenish them later on. In an apocalypse where neither of said resources are guaranteed, people could be less willing to offer them. Also, the videogame did show unexpected behavior, but it's still a simulation that people wouldn't take as seriously as their own lives in that moment. Not saying that your assessment is false, I agree real people are kind and social and wouldn't expect a full on Walking Dead situation, but just curious if you could find studies or scenarios that more closely resemble a situation that people helped even if their own status was insecure. Love the show! Watch every episode! Love from Mexico City.
All this is relative to the fact that things will be better in time and that is something to look towards. An Apocalypse suggests infrastructural breakdown to the point where it will no longer exists but must either be completely restarted or replaced.
The blackout in New York of 1977 is a whole different story my friend. Also, After Hurricane Katrina many people from outside New Orleans wanted to help. but those inside the Orleans had a whole different idea. They started to fight and raid. If there was a global apocalypse there won't be many people trying to help you because they're too busy trying to survive themselves. only a very few can cooperate during these tragic times. the majority will run, raid, or worse.
Could I please ask what video game the researchers watched people play? Because my experience with post apocalypse games has a basic formula: Get lots of guns and gear. See other player. "Friendly! Friendly! Friend-" Death by Bandit.
I honestly don’t think it would be that calm . I’m not a scientist but i still feel that there would be chaos. Yeah people would help others but most wouldn’t.
The only problem is that none of the examples you mentioned can be by any stretch of the imagination considered an apocalypse. I think it will be a little bit of both assistance and chaos.
When I was living in Miami I survived an office fire and Hurricane Andrew a Category 5 hurricane. the type of behavior I witnessed is total contradiction with what scientists are predicting. What I saw was extreme selfishness, lack of caring, lack of sharing, subhuman behavior, looting, hoarding and preying on the weak.
Whenever there`s a shortage of anything, people shove each other out of the way to get what they want. You can`t convince me that we`d all help each other out in an apocolypse.
Not even close. You fail to point out that every point your making is based off of statistics about people's behavior in the current "no apocalypse" society. If there was really suddenly few people, little food, etc and it went on for months, people would be truer to their harsher natures. Just my opinion though, I hope youre right
this is the most positive video i have come by in a long time from a news/sci channel. Right now all the TV channels are filled with so much hatred and negativity...
An apocalypse is not comparable to a local event. What Seeker is describing is the short transition from society to anarchy. People are benevolent when they don't feel like their life is in imminent danger. If you are threatened by a deadly virus, starvation or dehydration the concept of society is irrelevant. People form groups of different sizes. If 99% of humanity is wiped out only the strongest do survive.
in a terrorist attacks, natural disasters or something similar people tend to help each other but i don't know who will be willing to help who if all the oil on earth would be gone or drinking water decreasing...
The big difference between the 9-11 and all the different cases is that they were all local. An apocalyptic event is wide spread. During 9-11, Katrina and all the others there were more people unaffected and had the ability to help. In a wide spread event there is no one that doesn't need help and few will be able to give it
we cannot compare catastrophic events to apocalypse events as catastrophe effects only a particular region of people, whereas apocalypse effects the entire mankind,where there would be global scarcity of food and essentials.the best comparison of apocalypse would be 'Death Island deportation' incident where victims resorted to cannibalism!
the difference is that in all those situation a small percent of the people were in trouble and the people who were well of helped the people who were in trouble. in an apocalypes everyone will be in trouble so I doubt there would be as much willingness to help each other.
Maybe people help people when all they have to give is what they don't need, or give time. If helping other people meant giving food when your family is starving is unlikely. Giving time when you don't know if your family is sage as well
when people find out there is no law for u to call. the people that come out wont be so helpful. the crime rate is high now with law enforcement . just think about it if people knew there was no punishment for what they done.
This terrifies me if what's killing us is a pandemic. I have to ask myself: Would wanting to help the people around me be what gets me killed? Would wanting to find my loved ones be what takes me too long to get out of a dangerous area?
I can see this being the case. If there was an apocalyptic event I already know my extended family of cousins, aunts, and uncles would all try to get together.
I don't think comparing a cinema fire or an attack confined to a certain area is comparable to a total societal collapse worldwide which would not have any government safety net to come help.
a LOT of people would die theres just no way around it. The important thing is that anyone left alive after the worst has blown over would eventually work together.
What about Black Fridays? People died getting a tv, so imagine short supply of food.
Oh that's just stupid Amerifats. The rest of the world is good.
pretty much all countries are shit, America is one of many
TheAverage Avverix Yeah, but America is much worse than the majority.
Not really, middle East has little to no freedom, south America has more homicide per capita with the worst being in el Salvador/ Colombia/ and the shitshow Venezuela, Europe is probably the most xenophobic area there is with more now Nazi groups and populist leaders where you get discriminated against for being a different shade of white, quality of living is way better than most of Africa and the well off parts just abolished apartheid in the 1990's, then you have asia with some of the most repressive governments in the world with China/North Korea/Cambodia/Thailand and even the Democratic parts such as Japan aren't all the great as Japan has strict laws against immigration that would put trumps Mexico wall to shame
TheAverage Avverix First off, don't take YT comments too seriously :P
Secondly, fair points. But America's consumerism, capitalism, nationalism, egocentrism and tendency to destroy other countries (Korea, Vietnam, most of Middle East) is very bad.
Thirdly, not sure where you're getting the "Nazi xenophobic Europe" from... That's not true. Besides, I've seen much worse from the US of A.
It depends what happens if there is a nuclear war and food is short people will get aggressive to get more.
No IT depends on people to people
The Gaming Snake people will turn on each other that say the bombs have dropped and after there is the radiation what will kill more probably more then the bombs did.
The radiation will also kill a lot of the crops and then you also count in the nuclear winter what will kill like all crops, people will want food and water and if someone else have some food and they have the weapons then why not take it by force.
Tywin Lannister people were aggressive during the American recession. Take away their money and they will go mad. This video is all bullshit.
Matt E
An EMP cannot affect the entire continental North America, so unless you're speaking of a coordinated attack by a foreign power, that scenario is not possible. In a coordinated attack, there would be a huge effort to get people to turn off their devices, as that can protect many electronic systems.
The worst hit would be the cellular phone/data networks, as it isn't easy to entirely shut a modern smartphone completely off - some phones still broadcast a "here I am" signal to the network, even if the phone is powered down.
Tywin Lannister 'food is short people ' and 'short people will get aggressive to get more'
Wrong. You are comparing Regional disaster outcomes to full-blown National ones for Global ones where help is not coming. It's different when you have an isolated event that is responded to in Mass. If the crap hit the fan on a national or global scale help would not come resources would dwindle and people would fight tooth and nail for what remains. There's an equal amount of social psychological research which contradicts all of the lovey dovey stuff you claim.
This idiot is only giving an example of people still having a lifeline outside a disaster area having access to resources. In a true apocalypse, the supply chain gets cut and its dog eat dog for survival and people will be real violent and vicious.
Didn’t expect to see you here Canadian prepper
A surprise to be sure but a welcome one
That does not mean he is wrong. Science has no analogue for a large scale grid down in current times. Historically, the closest comparable we have might be the plague. Communities still worked together, people will work together, yes there will be between group problems but those will get less with time as groups come together to create economies of scale. I think you are way out of your reach to say he is wrong, you have no evidence to say its wrong, to say it is questionable is reasonable. You claim other research but do not provide. Large groups will be the groups that survive the best as groups will grow over time or be lost. This is borne out by history, which is a better predictor in this case than social psychology.
Depends what kind if Apocalypse. If everyone knows they will die it could be very unpredictable.
Don't find this video very accurate from a social perspective.
Well, everyone knows we will die. Everything that lives dies.
In a way, we're all living a personal apocalypse that ends with our death. But most people use this as an excuse to overcome the negativity and try to make something good out of their lives.
Agreed. Also does an Apocalypse even require that we know it's coming? I mean they tend to in stories because otherwise there's not story "things were normals then everyone died from -insert disaster to end the world here-" but it's as likely that something terrible could end us with no one knowing (some sort of major accident or freak natural disaster all at once) or at least very few people (as in the case with some things related to military action).
Jesus said no one can know the time that I will return
A lot of the situations talked about in the video were ones where the danger had ended...its easier to feel empathy and want to help your fellow human when you dont think your life is on the line. Then again, I'm one of those antisocial people, so I might be biased.
Cindy Rose Jesus prolly didnt exist and the bible sucks
Play GTA 5 online and you'll see what the apocalypse will be like
Wallie561 lmao
🤣🤣
Lol
🤣🤣
your studies are based off of tragic events. id imagine an actual apocalypse people would react differently.
Right, when there is no access to food and water, shit gets real, like New Orleans after Katrina.
The key word here, "love ones".
Right, all these examples are of unaffected people helping survivors of tragedy. When everyone is affected at once and limited resources mean not many will survive the aftermath, priorities change.
Narom Ngin and apocalypse would be considered a tragic event
You mean the same Bible that plagiarized the origin tales of societies that were around centuries before it was written? The same Bible that contradicts itself and is contradicted by proven science? That fairy tale?
As for the "end times" , Every generation has it's own doomsayers predicting the end of the world. EVERY generation since the beginning of civilization. They are all proven wrong, just as this generation will be.
"You'd think it's all chaos but no most people respond positively and kindly"
Coronavirus: hah you sure about it that?
Who’s here after the coronavirus ?
Me
Me
Mee
Meh
Are you a time traveler? It's three months after your post and it's still not "after" coronavirus ....
LOL..... sure this may be true for a few weeks. When there is no food left, it will be every man from himself.
CyberCanadian and due to the freedom people may take advantage of that
So food saves the day. As long as their enough food. We are okay
This is a fundamentally flawed video. In a real apocalypse no one will be coming to help you, all the events you cited always had somebody to come help
All the more reason to help each other. If civilization collapses, there will be conflict, but the conflict will be between groups, not individuals. People will band together with those they trust and like. The people in the groups will work together for a common goal, and will come to each other's aid. Conflict will arise as the groups start competing for territory. In other words, less Walking Dead, and more Feudal Europe.
Bloody heart15 nice point, all the examples was something that happened to a relatively small group of people, for a better example of an apocalypse type state would be Germany after world war 1, it was one for all. But still people wanted to come together and be apart of something, even if that something was hurting another group of people. So maybe an accurate description of the apocalypse would be similar to that in media such as the walking dead, with groups of people coming together to survive, even at the expense of other unknown groups.
I DO see people banding together for security and pooling resources ....welcoming a doctor into the fold and an armed badass etc ...I'd be all over THAT ....though I honestly would be selective of the kind of people I hitched my wagon too ....it would be a sociopath's dream and I would steer far from that type.....ones that wanted to control everyone's thinking etc....
Bloody heart15 Jesus will help us
I feel this would apply more to a post-apocalyptic civilization rather than during the crisis. Of course this depends on a multitude of factors like type of crisis, how the society functioned pre-apocalypse, who takes the mantle of leading/governing, what resources remain, etc.
my 7 month old daughter had heart surgery and we started a go fund me page. I had loss time at work and expenses started to pile. People were willing to help, people i didnt know. Her health has taken a turn for the worst and she will only be with us for short period of time. People became aware of this and they wanted to do more for us. Human kindness is within us all. Empathy drives us to help those in need. I believe if we could care for one another all the time rather then just in emergencies this world could become a greater place.
Those examples weren't even close to a global apocalypse. And even if they were representative, it only supports the philosophy of The Walking Dead. The characters do stick together but only in their own groups.
Potato sometimes battling other groups for shelter or supplies. season 3 was a good example of that.
I can verify this first hand. In 2011 a tornado hit my city, tearing a swathe through its center. My neighborhood was damaged, but still standing. The major problem was the ten day power outage, during which everyone on our block smelled our grill and brought over the food from their homes to be cooked. We feasted ourselves and enjoyed company from neighbors everyday until normalcy was restored.
Albin0gh0st yea, im sure it would be completely the same if those same neighbors knew that fema or any other aid was never going to come, power was never again going to be restored, and their homes would never be rebuilt, 3/4s of the people they know are dead, grocery stores are already looted and there will never be any deliveries to them for the foreseeable future, the rest of the world is on the same boat, they would have to live on whatever they already have or could get their hands on. im sure you would have used up your charcoal/propane on them if you knew it was the last youd ever be able to buy with money.
Theres a difference between disaster and apocalypse.....apocolypse being about 1000x worse obviously, and human-history changing.....
unless you consider like the black plague or the last ice age or something, we haven't gone through an apocalypse, so theres really no way to know how people would react, but i can more or less assure you it wouldn't be the same as your tornado experience.
Jen Tuesday As a counter to that, working in a group increases everyone's survival rate. It's human instinct to band together. After all we are social animals.
Jen Tuesday Also, we were using wood from the damaged trees after we ran out of charcoal on day two.
Albin0gh0st its also human instinct, and animal instinct in general to protect your family and survive at any cost. If the situation ever becomes dire enough for that to mean stealing, or even killing to keep your kids alive, do you honestly think people, faced with no other choice, would choose their humanity/empathy/the golden rule/YOUR life over their kids or even their own survival? Think again.
It might come to that, yes, but having an entire tribe of looters and fighters would yet again be a massive improvement. More people means a more diverse set of skills and more people to handle construction or other projects. One family wouldn't be as likely to betray a tribe of twenty families.
"clementine, pull the trigger"
😭😭😭😭
@@josephmccarthy886 why?
@@KangJangkrik its from the walking dead game... we don't joke about this. ok?
What happenes if daily seeker changes its name again? The apocalypse will definitely happen.
We are in an apocalypse, but it is a slow and not very dramatic one that will show us it's worst long after we can do anything to correct it.
Oh well, life sucks
Fraser Henderson global warming lulz
If an asteroid was going to kill everyone in a month, I would confess and just lay out my heart to everyone I know and love. Or, at least, that's what Iike to think.
Teacherino For Kripperinos Kripperino naah dont worry, Bruce Willis is gonna safe us once again, yippika yay
Hell yeah.
beer and hookers
look up taurid meteor shower ..Its fucking real life armageddon and heading towards earth
@@mwbgaming28 sexy NINJA asian hookers! Be my crew!
This video proves me right even more. Many people don't understand why I do not watch TV at all, not even news. It's perfectly explained in this video. Thank you so much.
we need an apocalypse right now
Justin Mielke it is happening, it's called America lel
Top kek
don't worry, Trump is on it :D !
JNetwork32 yeah well, Trump is starting it lel
Our government has betrayed us so many times. Vilify our government and the russians who hacked our electoral system. Our vocal minority is not nearly big enough in any fair election to have elected him and we have objective proof that our electronic voting system was compromised by russian hackers.
I'm with you, America needs to burn so the good that's left can start to rebuild a nation that cares for it's people more than greed and power.
the world will end... duh...
"People love to help their fellow humans".
1)Building a wall
2)Banning those "fellow humans"
3)Threatning kids' future not challenging climate change
4)Pursuing wars when and where it is unnecessary
5)Asking for tons of bucks to let them go to surgery.
Mmm... I truly believe that the reaction towards certain events strongly depends on the event itself. You talked about 9/11. People all over the world were heartbroken but they kept going on with their lives or do their best to help People in need with organized schedule, they seemed tough in front of tragedies. But if we speak about an apocalypse in its True meaning, and an apocalypse that potentially will harm the entire planet or most of it, I think that 99% of humans would first and foremost care about theirselves and their acquaintances, then maybe yell, run, scream...
Reaction would be mixed
Larry Berry 1)To keep off drugs and criminals
2)TEMPORARY muslim bans
3)Pulled US off climate regulation to focus on improving infrastructure
4)What war? He has relinquished international relationship like never seen before
5)???
5) how will the doctors earn money.
Arnan
1) Drugs are made here too, and the vast majority of illegal immigrants come here by plane and overstay their visas. Walls wouldn't stop that.
2) It's still banning fellow humans. None of it makes sense, and it's illegal to ban people based on religion. Group justice is wrong.
3) We can and should do both. We don't need coal plants, we need to outpace China as a leader in clean energy. Pulling out of the accord kills jobs in clean energy. if you want to sacrifice something, why not military spending? just a fraction of that going to infrastructure would be huge.
4) He's pissing off our allies and weakening our connections by giving out their secrets. This can lead to war.
5) He's talking about the AHCA whose motto is you have to be wealthy to afford coverage. screwing poor Americans.
Boba Bola Universal Healthcare my country has is capable of supporting 60million people. And interventions are not as expensive as in the US.
Arnan I am not a big fan of USA (nor of their presidents, in general). This one especially confirms my opinion. Bullying EU leaders shows only US typical wacko, freezing international deals by pursuing a love-hate relationship with Russia. Also, this deceived idea of freedom and democracy that leads you to fight every single bastard in town...
Please.
I cannot imagine that those people originally came from my continent. Evidently, evolution is still a work in progress, cavemen
I would call my two daughters if I knew the Earth was about to be destroyed. I would tell them how much I've always loved them and how happy I am that we had even this much time together.
This is so beautiful, hope in humanity restored. ❤️
I hope so now...
LMAO
Watching this while hearing about the riots and covid 19
Just wait until someone is hungry and desperate
It's not often that Seeker brings a tear of joy to my eye, but it now happened. Thanks, Trace.
Wow this actually really made me so so happy! I know you´re right and thank you, for sharing this mind lifting information during such crazy times :)
It's the same in wars, people tend to help each other rather than running away and screaming, it is natural because we see others in need.
Until you get one looney who wants to steal your loot and supplies.
Looney's like that will be among the first to find a quick and painful death and a shallow grave. Good people don't like to be threatened and will cooperate together if only to remove a common threat.
bdockett don't waste time digging a grave
sure. thats why when someones is getting robbed right in front of them, they froze. good people.
You're basing this 'looters will win' opinion on what exactly? Fictional narratives? That's what I thought. According to observation and science, pro-social groups band together, forming tribes who work together to ensure survival. Sure, those who _choose_ to act anti-socially (which science says would be a tiny proportion) would exist, but would be excluded from the tribes. Going commando and being an individual "wolf" surrounded by "sheep" makes for a great *story,* but a crappy survival strategy.
Trace Dominguez, Very much how I see it as well. The looney's wouldn't worry me much. Much more worrisome would be the father of 2~3 kids with zero supplies, absolutely desperate, and carrying a gun. Very tough situation.
I hope the apocalypse comes so I don't have to work anymore... because working is more stressful than an apocalypse.
Ever heard of law?
Human working because of the law
When the apocalypse broke out people just need to survive
Thank you for a positive view on the world!
I started to cry watching this. Not a sad cry, but a heart warming cry.
This did not age well
Question, in all of the tragedies depicted there were three groups of people: 1) Those directly affected by the tragedy, 2) Those indirectly affected by the tragedy (friends, family, property owners, etc.) and 3) those who were not affected by the tragedy at all, and in most of the scenarios (not all), it was those who were not affected by the tragedy or those indirectly affected that pitched in to help the ones that were directly affected by said tragedy, now my question is, how would this play out in an apocalyptic scenario in which the entire human race becomes a part of the first group, everyone is directly affected, would the reaction of the people still likely be similar to the ones depicted in the scenarios given in the video?
Who would I call if an asteroid will hit the earth in a month?
Domino pizza, because they will probably give free pizzas
It's the end of the world and you'd choose Domino's?
@@amypendergrass6461 after becoming 3 years more wise, I take that comment back. No Domino's pizza at the end of the world.
I'll probably just watch the mushroom cloud with my GF until it's shock- and heat wave destroy us.
Same thing happened on 911.
people exited the building in a calm and orderly fashion, and helped one another get down the stairs and out of trapped areas.
I know all yall here because of the coronavirus
Actually here due to the extreme influx of predictive programming that has been ever present on social media, television, and cinema throughout the last few years. It's starting to get scary. God bless you and keep you.
@@laurendobbs8941 rigth back atcha good luck in these scary times may God be with you
the ironic thing is "keep calm and carry on" was intended for an apocalyptic scenario. The posters were made in 1940 and didn't surface until this century.
Trump would back away slowly from a madly laughing Steve Bannon as he physically grew to 15 feet tall, feeding on the death that surrounds him
Sounds accurate lmao.
Then Trump turns around and abandons the American people as he runs for his own life.
NA he'd fight for us to the end. Just like obumma
Epic, He'd leave you in a second if it didn't mean profit for him. You're drinking his cool-aid my friend. Mark my words, he'll be out of office by choice before his term is up. If you voted for him, you voted for a man with no business leading others.
Make America Godzilla Again?
This video address what happens in a tragic situation, not a global apocalypse were human survival is on the line. I don't see how the title fits.
Rip Adam west
hamburger The best and only Batman.
Pontifex Then the apocalypse has already begun. Head for the hills, and make sure your emergency preparedness kit is well stocked with booze.
this shows the power of the ego, our set of habitual patterns, and how if you shift your focus from ego you'll behave more "spiritual" automatically.
meditation is shown to do just that: help us shift focus away from habit patterns and into a higher frame of reference.
9/11 was not an apocalypse ffs
It wasn't, however it was seen as one by the people there. For all they knew, it could've been China launching a full scale attack.
One thing you forget is that after the disasters featured in the video people knew help was coming. In a global scale disaster there won't be anyone to send help. People would fend for themselves and do whatever it takes to protect their loved ones.
You just need to watch one episode of the walking dead to know how people will react.
Video: Here's a bunch of studies and examples of people acting benevolent in times of danger
You: Nah, my zombie tv show is more realistic #lonewolf #edgelord
Similiar thing happened in the London Grenfell Tower fire last week as far as comming together. There were so many donations of food and clothing that donations had to be turned away by the temporary shelters.
Though I do have to agree with other posts here that say an apocalypse where resources are scarce will be much different than a localized incident where others can make easy sacrifices to help a few.
We re close
Stories depict in need of desperation the worst of us. I am glad to know Science has our backs, because as humans we will push the limitations and succeed.
I liked my own comment.
Yes I recall how wonderfully kind and controlled the people of New Orleans were after 4 days of no assistance after the hurricane. Kindness will only last until the supplies run out ,then human survival takes over.
During a flood near my village (Punjab, Pakistan), a farmer with his 10 sheep was stuck on a land piece of about 100-meter square. The place was near Indian border and an Indian helicopter use to visit him weekly providing foods and medical aid to him and his sheep. Similarly, after the earthquake in Kashmir, Pakistan army was providing aid to villages in Indian occupied Kashmir and Indians was doing vice versa.
As a side note, Pakistan and India has been involved in 3 major and numerous minor wars with each other. Also in Kashmir they use to fire and kill each other on daily basis.
I was working factory maintenance when a production unit exploded and caught fire. There were alarms ringing and people quickly travelling past me to escape the building. I couldn't resist; I grabbed my full-face respirator and went straight for the affected area to see what I could do to help.
It's true, there's something that comes out in some people during disasters and other scenarios in which we feel the need to be effective and assist others. Almost like an instinct.
We may be initially altruistic because everyone would be suffering from shock. However, one thing humans are very good at is adapting to the situation and make it more "normal". I think that eventually after the shock dies down and people have time to figure out exactly what "groups" they want to belong to, the fight for resources will begin against other groups.
if tragedy makes people more friendly, the people in South Sudan are really nice to each other now that they have finally won their independence from sudan.
It depends on the means of the apocalypse. If it comes by a pandemic that kills 90% or more of the population, we'll be in the situation regarding human capital that we were in a few hundred years ago. Having the ethical sense we do now, not to mention the technical knowledge, I imagine the begin of the recovery would be quite peaceful, even if starting from a remarkably lower standard of living than today.
However, if the apocalypse comes by an EMP, nukes or something that wipes out material capital like infrastructure, machinery, and so forth - everything that makes us productive enough to support the current population at a good and improving standard of living - suddenly, competition for goods becomes so severe that the peaceful means of competing like bidding with prices is superseded by force.
Cooperation will always be more productive than coercion long term, but as long as the immediate matters more than tomorrow, conflict and death will likely ensue - until a kind of balance is regained where in cooperation takes hold again for it's inherent benefits.
this gave me infinite hope:) thanx seeker
Jared Diamond's book Collapse is probably a better indicator of what an "apocalypse" might look like. I think how well people treat each other depends a lot on access to food (the collapse of some Polynesian societies on remote islands might be good examples).
the disaster's that he stated, people knew that there was an end to them, that eventually everything would go back to normal or close to it, but what happens when people realize there is no end to the disaster, that it is a fend for themselves.
people are always expecting the worst from others, but that's not the case. in an apocalypse, we probably would work together because that's how we've survived for so long
NO WHERE TO GO NO WHERE TO RUN
People replied positively because they're in a good situation to help, they know that once the disaster is over (very temporary) they'll go back to standard living.
But if the entire world fails, economy fails, no one has money and everyone loses in the end and there is no positive in sight, people will generally keep to themselves until food/resources run low then they'll be forced to find more.
Maybe we'll form communities and try to come out good, but overall its a whole different story than temporary disasters.
Whenever there's a flood or hurricane I always hear stories of people sharing their generators to help people charge their phones, or sharing their food and water.
Hey Trace! Would've liked a bit more talk on circumstance. In my opinion, the studies and behaviors you mention are not fully representative of an apocalypse. In talking about people helping after specific disasters, they helped once the threat was gone and they would give resources (time, energy, food, shelter, etc) that were not critical to their own survival, as they knew they could replenish them later on. In an apocalypse where neither of said resources are guaranteed, people could be less willing to offer them. Also, the videogame did show unexpected behavior, but it's still a simulation that people wouldn't take as seriously as their own lives in that moment. Not saying that your assessment is false, I agree real people are kind and social and wouldn't expect a full on Walking Dead situation, but just curious if you could find studies or scenarios that more closely resemble a situation that people helped even if their own status was insecure.
Love the show! Watch every episode! Love from Mexico City.
All this is relative to the fact that things will be better in time and that is something to look towards. An Apocalypse suggests infrastructural breakdown to the point where it will no longer exists but must either be completely restarted or replaced.
The rudeness and hatred that people feel so comfortable showing these days makes me think that benevolence will be scarce, if at all.
This gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling, thanks. : )
This is because the people offering their help had help TO give. If it were apocalypse, and everyone was in need, no one would help anyone.
Ya. This is during an ISOLATED disaster. A global disaster where EVERYONE is affected. That would be a different story all together.
3:15, low battery is an absolute must on that list
When I played a post apacolyptic video game I was tied up, striped naked and left for dead in the middle of nowhere.
It seems to me that the concept of Safety In Numbers would be the primary driving force of people grouping together during a disaster.
I thought he was going to say, Seeker needs your donations. So please follow the link in the description. No amount is too small.
Tell me this without power globally, an empty belly and a true fight or flight response.
The blackout in New York of 1977 is a whole different story my friend. Also, After Hurricane Katrina many people from outside New Orleans wanted to help. but those inside the Orleans had a whole different idea. They started to fight and raid.
If there was a global apocalypse there won't be many people trying to help you because they're too busy trying to survive themselves.
only a very few can cooperate during these tragic times. the majority will run, raid, or worse.
Could I please ask what video game the researchers watched people play? Because my experience with post apocalypse games has a basic formula:
Get lots of guns and gear. See other player. "Friendly! Friendly! Friend-" Death by Bandit.
This makes me feel better about humanity.
Yeah, if some bullshit TH-cam video makes you change your mind about humanity, then it's just you being naive.
I honestly don’t think it would be that calm . I’m not a scientist but i still feel that there would be chaos. Yeah people would help others but most wouldn’t.
The only problem is that none of the examples you mentioned can be by any stretch of the imagination considered an apocalypse. I think it will be a little bit of both assistance and chaos.
When I was living in Miami I survived an office fire and Hurricane Andrew a Category 5 hurricane. the type of behavior I witnessed is total contradiction with what scientists are predicting. What I saw was extreme selfishness, lack of caring, lack of sharing, subhuman behavior, looting, hoarding and preying on the weak.
people in good situations helping those less fortunate is all well and good but when everyone is in the same situation that is when shit hits the fan.
This video gave me the chills...
Whenever there`s a shortage of anything, people shove each other out of the way to get what they want. You can`t convince me that we`d all help each other out in an apocolypse.
Not even close. You fail to point out that every point your making is based off of statistics about people's behavior in the current "no apocalypse" society. If there was really suddenly few people, little food, etc and it went on for months, people would be truer to their harsher natures. Just my opinion though, I hope youre right
great comment
this is the most positive video i have come by in a long time from a news/sci channel. Right now all the TV channels are filled with so much hatred and negativity...
An apocalypse is not comparable to a local event. What Seeker is describing is the short transition from society to anarchy. People are benevolent when they don't feel like their life is in imminent danger. If you are threatened by a deadly virus, starvation or dehydration the concept of society is irrelevant. People form groups of different sizes. If 99% of humanity is wiped out only the strongest do survive.
in a terrorist attacks, natural disasters or something similar people tend to help each other but i don't know who will be willing to help who if all the oil on earth would be gone or drinking water decreasing...
liked this video a lot... internet needs more of these.. subscribed
The big difference between the 9-11 and all the different cases is that they were all local. An apocalyptic event is wide spread. During 9-11, Katrina and all the others there were more people unaffected and had the ability to help. In a wide spread event there is no one that doesn't need help and few will be able to give it
we cannot compare catastrophic events to apocalypse events as catastrophe effects only a particular region of people, whereas apocalypse effects the entire mankind,where there would be global scarcity of food and essentials.the best comparison of apocalypse would be 'Death Island deportation' incident where victims resorted to cannibalism!
the difference is that in all those situation a small percent of the people were in trouble and the people who were well of helped the people who were in trouble. in an apocalypes everyone will be in trouble so I doubt there would be as much willingness to help each other.
Maybe people help people when all they have to give is what they don't need, or give time. If helping other people meant giving food when your family is starving is unlikely. Giving time when you don't know if your family is sage as well
when people find out there is no law for u to call. the people that come out wont be so helpful. the crime rate is high now with law enforcement . just think about it if people knew there was no punishment for what they done.
I think the reality would be just as it is now. There would be really good people, striving to help. And really bad people striving to gain.
This terrifies me if what's killing us is a pandemic. I have to ask myself: Would wanting to help the people around me be what gets me killed? Would wanting to find my loved ones be what takes me too long to get out of a dangerous area?
I can see this being the case. If there was an apocalyptic event I already know my extended family of cousins, aunts, and uncles would all try to get together.
I don't think comparing a cinema fire or an attack confined to a certain area is comparable to a total societal collapse worldwide which would not have any government safety net to come help.
What game with 18000 people simulated apocalypse ?
for those who are reading this from the future. Soylent Green is people.
Hi 2 years ago comment ! 👋
a LOT of people would die theres just no way around it. The important thing is that anyone left alive after the worst has blown over would eventually work together.
it depends on the culture, because from the typhoon Haiyan a lot of lootings happen