Thread: What would you do as the last person in the world?

You people really don't get. If any of you want to put your convictions to the test, I suggest you try it out: Find a cabin in the woods somewhere. Fill it with all the food and entertainment you can think of (barring other people). Live in it. See how long it takes for the whole experience to become a psychological ordeal. Don't worry, it won't take long.

I don't think I've seen somebody so riled up over a hypothetical! Well, maybe at the end of a couple years/months (weeks would be easy, I've almost done that before) we'd all go crazy and jump off a cliff.

SO WHAT!?

Are you saying the instant you realize you're the last person left you'd eat a bullet? You wouldn't do ANYTHING else first?

Originally Posted by cmind

You people really don't get. If any of you want to put your convictions to the test, I suggest you try it out: Find a cabin in the woods somewhere. Fill it with all the food and entertainment you can think of (barring other people). Live in it. See how long it takes for the whole experience to become a psychological ordeal. Don't worry, it won't take long.

Because no miner, monk, trapper or settler has ever done that?

I imagine few would kill themselves unless they were already unstable. Most would choose to do something to keep them interested in life. That is what the OP is about.

Originally Posted by sivason

Because no miner, monk, trapper or settler has ever done that?

I imagine few would kill themselves unless they were already unstable. Most would choose to do something to keep them interested in life. That is what the OP is about.

The people who do that are self-selected, so they have personalities that are less dependent on other people than the average person. Also, they know that they will see people at some point. In that sense, the experiment I proposed doesn't really work because it can't convey the true sense of being alone forever (insert troll face). But no, I don't think most people would stay positive. Perhaps some sort of survival instinct would prevent suicide for some, but it would be a very miserable experience. The only reason some people can't see this is because they're surrounded by lots of people all the time and constantly thinking "if only I could be alone!". But understand that, although being alone for a few hours or a few days can be very relaxing, being alone indefinitely is not the same thing.

You can't deny millions of years of evolution. For most of human history, being alone = death. There is a very strong innate instinct in every one of us to seek out other people. Some people feel it more strongly than others. For example, I can go days without speaking to anyone, whereas I know people who start to feel uneasy if they go 3 hours without speaking to anyone. But no one can go months or years and still be happy. It's like thinking you can be happy without food or water. It just doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by cmind

The people who do that are self-selected, so they have personalities that are less dependent on other people than the average person. Also, they know that they will see people at some point. In that sense, the experiment I proposed doesn't really work because it can't convey the true sense of being alone forever (insert troll face). But no, I don't think most people would stay positive. Perhaps some sort of survival instinct would prevent suicide for some, but it would be a very miserable experience. The only reason some people can't see this is because they're surrounded by lots of people all the time and constantly thinking "if only I could be alone!". But understand that, although being alone for a few hours or a few days can be very relaxing, being alone indefinitely is not the same thing.

You can't deny millions of years of evolution. For most of human history, being alone = death. There is a very strong innate instinct in every one of us to seek out other people. Some people feel it more strongly than others. For example, I can go days without speaking to anyone, whereas I know people who start to feel uneasy if they go 3 hours without speaking to anyone. But no one can go months or years and still be happy. It's like thinking you can be happy without food or water. It just doesn't work that way.

Sure, most people might descend to madness at some point. But there are always exceptions. Humans may be wired to seek company, but there are always people who managed to defy their evolutionary code. Humans can achieve the most astonishing tasks with enough training and determination. I doubt maintaining their sanity over a lifetime of solitude isn´t one of them.

If you make a statement and claim it to be true for all people in the world, it´s not surprising to find people who disagree with it.

Originally Posted by cmind

But no one can go months or years and still be happy. It's like thinking you can be happy without food or water. It just doesn't work that way.

At least you could adopt all the pandas, chimps and such from the local zoo. You could also have a heard of cattle dogs and teach them to dance.

Aside from asking how on earth you know this:

Originally Posted by cmind

You can't deny millions of years of evolution. For most of human history, being alone = death. There is a very strong innate instinct in every one of us to seek out other people. Some people feel it more strongly than others. For example, I can go days without speaking to anyone, whereas I know people who start to feel uneasy if they go 3 hours without speaking to anyone. But no one can go months or years and still be happy. It's like thinking you can be happy without food or water. It just doesn't work that way.

You do raise a good point. In the spirit of the OP (what would you do? rather than what are you sure would have to happen to you?), I have a feeling that the first thing I would do is understand that I am no longer human.

Since there are no longer humans in existence, all the physical and spiritual support, all the cultural, societal, and governmental norms and traditions that formed and defined the human herd would be no more. In other words, yes, I might still have the DNA and physical makeup of the race that once occupied and defined my world, but everything else about my existence has changed completely. As the last person on earth, I would be a new race of one, set with the challenges and possibilities of defining my entire existence. That actually seems pretty exciting to me, and not a reason to kill myself.

So, in response to the OP, I would set about living a very comfortable life using the virtually unlimited resources available now (as Sivason described somewhere above), and while watching the sun set over the ocean from my Newport mansion, martini in hand, Beethoven playing behind me, I could consider what I would do with my new existence, how I would define it, and how to get as much joy and enlightenment from that existence. There is so much to explore in this universe, I really don't think doing so in a literally solitary life would be all that bad... it could be me, but perfectly alone is not a very scary condition to me... perhaps I'm already crazy?

Oh, and if all of the above is wrong and I did get lonely, I would lean on my LD'ing skills to create a world (or two, or three...) populated with all the DC's and social life I can handle.

Also, if I am the only human left alive, how would I even know I was insane?

cmind,

We are already alone.








(...In a sense anyway.

Many people feel lonely, even in the sea of people which floods the cities of this world. But we're all here. The need for belonging is only the third level of Maslow's pyramid.)

(EDIT) Okay, sorry for being so somber!

wouldn't it be a sunrise in Newport?



I would vote myselff president. Then in a suprise uprising I would overthrow the government and declare my self Emperor of the world. I would then stock pile rocket launchers to defend my title from bears.

^^ Actually, Newport is on a peninsula with a west-facing shore, but good point, as the best mansions face east. So I guess I would admire the pretty colors of sunset over the water (and they are), and not watch the sun. Sunrises would be out of the question, even in a "last man on earth" situation...

I would assume there were a reason for me being the last person alive. So I would wait.

Originally Posted by cmind

You people really don't get. If any of you want to put your convictions to the test, I suggest you try it out: Find a cabin in the woods somewhere. Fill it with all the food and entertainment you can think of (barring other people). Live in it. See how long it takes for the whole experience to become a psychological ordeal. Don't worry, it won't take long.

I actually think that if you had the internet, you would be just fine. Obviously you would have to remove things like forums where people reply but you could read old stuff people wrote. You could for example go read online reviews, find an interesting movie and then go watch it, and then go read what others said about it and compare your thoughts to theirs. You could see people every day on old tv shows. You got all sort of stuff to take your mind off things, like playing games and stuff too. Hell, you can get a dog if you want, or four dogs.

Being all alone stuck on some island, or a cabin in the mountains or in a cell is totally different than being alone with access to everything you want, internet, cable, movies, games, pets, books and whatever you want.

I would commit genocide.

Originally Posted by Whatsnext

I would assume there were a reason for me being the last person alive. So I would wait.

Only interesting response in this entire thread.

Originally Posted by cmind

Only interesting response in this entire thread.

The source of his concern is revealed. If he were the last person who would he be rude too. Dogs don't get trolling and cats just ignore it. Being rude to yourself probably just wouldn't give him what he is looking for.



I would enter all sorts of competions and always take 1st place. Best of show everytime!
Oh, I would embrace the madness. Pumpkin juggling?

Step up your game, sivason. Then I might find your posts to be more interesting.

Originally Posted by cmind

Sorry, but that's the true answer.

Originally Posted by cmind

I love how everyone ignored my post.

Originally Posted by cmind

You people really don't get. [...] See how long it takes for the whole experience to become a psychological ordeal. Don't worry, it won't take long.

Originally Posted by cmind

Only interesting response in this entire thread.

Originally Posted by cmind

Step up your game, sivason. Then I might find your posts to be more interesting.

Do you realize that your posts come off as exceptionally arrogant and narcissistic?
This is a hypothetical situation, circumstances can vary depending on how you interpret it and people's answers can vary depending on how they look at it. Are we talking about an apocalypse that you survived or just a sudden disappearance of everybody? Are you going to consider your confusion concerning the situation or do you assume that it is voluntary? Do you assume that electrical power will stay on or will you take the hypothetical fully realistically? If you want it to be 100% realistic, maybe you'd sooner go insane from the conspiracy theories building up inside of you (knowing that people can't literally disappear, they must have deliberately left you or been abducted by someone/thing - or maybe you were abducted by aliens and now you're in a fake replica of your old world?) than the simple loneliness. Some people might answer it as a "What would the immediate first thing to do be?" question, others might see it as a "What things are possible that aren't possible when others exist?" and some might answer "How would I attempt to survive?" or some might go with "What would the loneliness do to me?". I don't think there is any need for you to stomp on other people's answers just because you think your own is the best one.

EDIT:
I would explore homes.

Like I said, Whatsnext had an interesting thought that no one else did. But yes, sometimes people are correct, and sometimes they know they're correct. That's not a sin, it's just a fact. It's 100% silly to think that you could be happy without other people, or bring them back using lucid dreams. I have lots of experience with lucid dreams, and I can tell you they really don't work that way. This isn't Inception, this is real life.

Originally Posted by cmind

That's not a sin, it's just a fact.

I didn't say you were wrong, I said your posts come off as exceptionally arrogant and narcissistic, and that the "right answer" varies depending on how you look at it. Do you, for example, think that "I would explore homes" and "I would eventually go insane and kill myself" are mutually exclusive? I believe both are true: but I only mentioned the former because that's part of the interesting (IMO) spit-balling that others in this thread are also doing. To me, the interesting bit is not what will become of me eventually, but how I will react to the situation before the end.

If I am the only person left in the world, it's probably my fault. Sorry folks!
(inspired by Maeni, somehow )

The question was not if you could be happy. It was what would you do? If your answer is shoot yourself just say it.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

That's true. But out of interest, how does a hardcore pragmatist such as yourself answer the question when posed in this different light?

Since everything I do concerns other humans in some way, even if I am capable of being isolated for days and don't need to hang out or whatever, I would still think that even in this new light I would have very little to actually do. I would probably just try finding giant stockpiles of drugs (preferably hallucinogens/dissociatives in particular) and just try and learn stuff as much as possible and maybe reading some actually interesting literature or whatever before I die from drug related complications. Otherwise, my hobbies include gaming both on singleplayer and multiplayer games, discussing things on forums, hanging out with my two best and almost only friends (people I would consider friends anyway, not including friendly acquaintances), listening to and playing music, and learning stuff. Whether I'm in direct human contact or not, I'm usually still interacting with humans on some level.

Originally Posted by sivason

Portable generators are everywhere (gas could last the first 10 years or so if you get it from a proper storage tank). You would not need to have a power grid, just one generator. A windmill powerplant only needs greased and solar panals are going to last a very long time, Also a water wheel generator would work fine. . Canned food will still be good for about 100 years or more (just looked it up). Dried survival food would also last you life time. You would have unlimited guns and bullets and no laws to regulate hunting (you could even use a land mine to hunt if you wanted.) Fruit trees and many crops will grow and produce for decades if not centuries.

I can care for myself unless I get cancer or something. I imagine I would try to not do really dangerous things, but anti-biotics, skin stapling guns and everything else would be free for the taking. You can also learn almost any skill from a book.

So, survival would be very easy, unless you are not intelligant. Then it may be a problem.

As far as it being easy to survive, how is finding gas and unlimited guns and bullets and everything going to be possible after a few years? Who is going to be servicing the fuel pumps and delivering them to gas stations? How will the gas not naturally degrade (iirc octane levels drop fairly quickly). Animals would begin scavenging a lot of the food left behind. Things would begin falling apart without regular upkeep fairly quickly, even if you managed to travel far enough to get to a location where almost entirely newly built structures are all that's there. Suppose a natural disaster occurs like tornadoes, high winds, terrible storms, hurricanes, volcano eruptions, landslides, or earthquakes occur in your area and destroy what you are depending on for power. What if there is a drought where you are, or a flood? What if lakes we were pumping to prevent a lot of natural disasters from occurring stop being pumped and you aren't aware it was keeping you safe?

If you play things really smart, and you go out on a regular basis and setup encampments with trucks filled with all kinds of food and survival supplies you scavenged in multiple locations so you aren't screwed if something major happens, you may have an easier time, but what is prudent to do may not be exactly clear until it is too late. All I'm saying is, there is a lot more to this than simply thinking "well I'll just steal a lot of stuff and I'll be good, if I'm not a retard (which I'm not) I should be fine". It wouldn't be that easy. The amount of work seems to be underestimated as well. There still wouldn't be any time to be doing anything than making sure you have a continual supply of things vital for survival, moving all that food and supplies and moving them to encampments would require a lot of physical effort and time. If you opted not to do it, then good look facing any threat nature throws at you, you won't get by moving from walmart to walmart once vehicles get tire rot or rusted out from not moving and the vehicle you are using breaks down and you don't know how to keep fixing it unless you're some mechanic. Mechanical things require all kinds of lubrication and things like that in order to keep running. They also need to be cleaned and maintained. I mean the more ways I think of how something might go wrong, the more ways I have to come up with a lot to keep my original strategy for keeping alive actually working.


Also, the arguments for some people being fine without human interaction. Alright, so there are some that would be fine. Why do you think prisons have solitary confinement as a harsh punishment? It's because it's been proven that isolation from human contact actually makes emotional pain centers in the brain light up. Isolation is pain. Maybe you could get over it, but it would still suck ass and eventually all the negatives would pile up and you would probably stop seeing a point in living.

^^ I think you may have missed the point of the OP, Snoop. The question was more a thought experiment about what you would do if given the opportunity of being perfectly alone in the world than it was a practical question about how you would survive in a world without people.

I can see how you may have been confused or misled, given that the impossibility of being alone or long-term survival seems all a couple people want to talk about. But this thread probably would have gone much better if the OP included a note saying something like "This is not a question about survival, but possibilities," I suppose.

[EDIT: I just noticed that you've already posted here, and are aware of the spirit of the OP. I guess I hadn't realized the subject had been changed; never mind!]

Wow Sageous, reading all those interesting posts, I forgot that was the goal of the thought experiment.

If I had no social constraints, what I would do differently is that I would be a nomad on a never-ending adventure. Living in a society stops me from always moving on because I am committed to the people I love. If I did not have these people I love to anchor me in one place, I would walk and never stop, exploring every corner of this Earth. But obviously, the reason I don't do this is because I do put more value in committing to those I love, so I'm not complaining here