Most wouldn’t, some still would. The movie (don’t have the fortitude to read the book, the movie was bleak enough) seemed to show that there would still be good people in the end. The hard part is knowing who to trust.
People tend to survive by working together - those with the capacity to form groups and cooperate will do best.
I forgot there was a movie; it’s such an excellent piece of literature it’s hard for me to imagine wanting to watch a movie adaptation. The book is gripping, really - it’s an easy read in that sense.
Either way, the perspective of the book is of a father and son who are essentially on their own. This is just not a realistic basis of long-term survival, especially not with hostile groups to contend with.
I’m not really sure it’s a matter of good or bad people - to be honest the same calculations about who to trust and when to cooperate or break with cooperation exist now, and forms a lot of the political dynamics you see today.
I also think this literature promotes too much a delusional sense of individualist survivalism - this is why I keep harping on the improbability of surviving a situation like in The Road. Go read about conflict zones in the third world and the way society breaks down. Usually gangs cooperate together and do whatever they want. You as an individual might find safety by joining a gang, but if that’s not an option, then escaping is your best bet. This is why conflicts create mass migrations. This is also why people in safe countries should probably be less cruel and more welcoming to immigrants.
I think the point is that you wouldn’t.
Most wouldn’t, some still would. The movie (don’t have the fortitude to read the book, the movie was bleak enough) seemed to show that there would still be good people in the end. The hard part is knowing who to trust.
People tend to survive by working together - those with the capacity to form groups and cooperate will do best.
I forgot there was a movie; it’s such an excellent piece of literature it’s hard for me to imagine wanting to watch a movie adaptation. The book is gripping, really - it’s an easy read in that sense.
Either way, the perspective of the book is of a father and son who are essentially on their own. This is just not a realistic basis of long-term survival, especially not with hostile groups to contend with.
I’m not really sure it’s a matter of good or bad people - to be honest the same calculations about who to trust and when to cooperate or break with cooperation exist now, and forms a lot of the political dynamics you see today.
I also think this literature promotes too much a delusional sense of individualist survivalism - this is why I keep harping on the improbability of surviving a situation like in The Road. Go read about conflict zones in the third world and the way society breaks down. Usually gangs cooperate together and do whatever they want. You as an individual might find safety by joining a gang, but if that’s not an option, then escaping is your best bet. This is why conflicts create mass migrations. This is also why people in safe countries should probably be less cruel and more welcoming to immigrants.