Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

This is in response to various postings on post z-Day civilization from a zombie thread:
A lot depends on the extent of the depopulation. The Great Pestilence of 1348-50, likely carried off Sixty percent of the English in some areas. as they were heavily overpopulated, it was devastating, but in a few years things got sorted out. Relatives were found to take over property and where they could not be found land reverted to the government. People experienced a massive increase in quality of life and nutrition, since there was enough food for everybody for the first time really since the turn of the century. long term, the labor shortage led to higher wages for the survivors, but even longer term, repeated waves of pestilence led to massive economic slow down by the end of the century as the population kept shrinking faster than it could grow. Still, if even 30-40 percent of the population makes it through, it's quite possible we could reestablish the economy along familiar lines, only with smaller numbers.

If we are talking only say a handful of survivors per town and a global epidemic, yes, likely we'll need to cut back to precious metals or bartering, but that assumes no global economy remains and other countries on other continents are approximately as devastated as we are.

Imagine a scenario, where the outbreak proper only hits North America, or even both Americas. I suspect other world powers would make an effort to quarantine and contain. When the infection has burned itself out, we'd be ripe for take over by any one of many world powers or simply UN imposed martial law until we can reestablish. In that case, we'd eventually get sucked back into the world economy one way or another.

The dark ages were that thing that happened after the collapse of Mycenean civilization.

I am guessing that you are making reference to the period between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and about 900 CE, or possibly the early middle ages proper. Medievalists do not use that term because it is inaccurate and misleading, a label the Enlightenment historians slapped on the period before to make themselves feel superior.

Civilization did not collapse with the fall of Rome. People did not forget how to write, though literacy went down. People did not stop using currency. People continued to pass on property through various legal means depending on area, though in some sections of Europe there was temporary disruption as new Kingdoms were established. (Invaders seized property, sure, but they left it to their children, didn't they.) yes, large sections of the aqueduct system were damaged, homes burned, and the secret of cement making and hypocausts lost, but agriculture, pottery, wood and stone working etc. continued.

Some people point to the simplification of Romanesque art as compared to that of the classical period as proof of less advanced culture. The problem with that is, Romanesque style art started under the Four Emporers when the Empire still had centuries to go as a style of state propaganda, showing that the four of them governed east and West as one and spoke with one voice. Christian artists quickly adopted this style to promote the concept that all were one in Christ and that saints could be anyone.

I'm not saying it wasn't really rotten to be standing in the way of invasion, but centers of literacy survived and government would quickly reestablish after it collapsed in an area. If one area lost literacy, people from less damaged areas would eventually show up to keep records and restart literacy.

Human civilization is not as fragile as it often looks. Sure, sections of it get lost, but it's really hard to wipe out all advanced culture in a large region, like say Europe. People like a certain amount of stability and in the long run tend to do what it takes to get it. All you need is a few oasis of relatively intact civilization and you soon get recolonization.