So....

I've read WW:Z a number of times - not sure if I'm going to read it again for the group, mainly because I don't have the fundage to buy it for my iPad at the moment, and I don't want to carry around my hardcover copy.

Anyways, there was a decent discussion re: evil in the Bitter Seeds folder and I figured that we should possibly extend it to the evils discussed within WW:Z.

Now, my title doesn't really mean we have to limit things to the Redeker Plan (wiki link - http://zombie.wikia.com/wiki/Redeker_Pla...) but it's a decent starting point.

One of the interesting things that I saw in WW:Z was an extension of the concept of 'the banality of evil' as introduced by Hannah Arendt in her book on Eichman, back in 1963. So many of the actions taken by humanity over the course of the zombie conflict illustrate that simple banality (the human traffickers moving infected populations, illegal organ transplants, the reluctance of the Indian evacuees to take on "unclean" caste, etc....)

In essence, while the story is about the zombie war and it's aftermath - the undertones are really about human nature, and the stuff we do to each other in times of crisis.

Enough blathering....

DISCUSS!

There's a great non-fiction book called Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland that explores what made rank-and-file soldiers participate in the calculated slaughter of unarmed citizens. Reading that, the question naturally comes up: What would I do?

Of course you can't know, but knowing how obedient I was to authority growing up (and hell, still am), the actions of my hypothetical self terrify me. How compliant would I be if everyone around me was "going along with the plan?" Redeker's plan is horrifying on the face of it, but if it receives widespread support, it becomes easier to get on board.

Also, this made me think of the opening scene of "28 Weeks Later." If you haven't seen it, there's a pretty huge moral decision made, and though you cannot condone it, you can understand it. That's the crux of this, and what's being discussed in another thread, where humans become the monsters in zombie stories: it's logic vs. emotion. Are you willing to lose your humanity to make the rational choice and survive?

The problem with most all "perfect" solutions is how people get lulled into the belief that it is the "only" solution to the problem. Sometimes even obscuring what the actual problem is.

If your goal is to save the top leadership (which you are a member of) then the Redeker Plan sounds like a great solution. Keep everyone in the dark as you sneak away to your own fortified and protected hideaway.

BUT

If your goal is to keep the most alive - why not fully inform everyone? Many people in many different smaller fortifications may work better for overall survival of the greatest numbers.

or

If your goal is to kill the most zombies, find out what attracts zombies to people - synthesize the sight/smell/whatever and position the bait over the nearest volcano/fire/vat of acid

or

If your goal is to save the most people long term then save all the most advanced medical researchers and doctors (not the politicians) and come up with a "cure" for the zombie infection.

or

Any other possible solution. Perfect solutions depend on identifying the real problem that needs o be solved. The Redeker Plan was only the best solution for saving politicians lives - it was not the only possible solution for dealing with the zombie incursion.

aldenoneil wrote: "Also, this made me think of the opening scene of "28 Weeks Later." If you haven't seen it, there's a pretty huge moral decision made, and though you cannot condone it, you can understand it. That..."

An even better example would be The Day of the Triffids, the book that 28 Days Later ripped off. The story begins with a "meteor shower" (possibly a malfunctioning American space weapon) that makes the night sky glow green. The next day, everyone who went out to watch it (which is pretty much everyone on Earth) wakes up blind. The few sighted people face a difficult decision -- do you devote yourself to helping people adapt, shouldering all the jobs that absolutely require sight, or do you say, "Farewell to all that," and head out to the country while the blind die from starvation and dysentery.

Michael wrote: "...

In essence, while the story is about the zombie war and it's aftermath - the undertones are really about human nature, and the stuff we do to each other in times of crisis. "

One of the things I liked about WWZ was the fact that Brooks allowed humanity to rise to the challenge of the pandemic, that many of the vignettes showed the better side of human nature. I read it last year, not long after reading "The Road" and I really couldn't have coped with another realistic look at post-apocalyptic anarchy, so I was grateful.

Taueret wrote: "One of the things I liked about WWZ was the fact that Brooks allowed humanity to rise to the challenge of the pandemic, that many of the vignettes showed the better side of human nature."

..."

That's a great point (which is why I put Moralities in my post title - didn't want to necessarily focus on the evils), one of my favorite vignettes from the book is the relating of the stories of the K-9 corps during the war. The way the K-9 handler talked about his charges is pretty emotionally packed.

Also, the sacrifice that the crew of the ISS went through is a pretty powerful story as well. The idea of staying up there while your insides are slowly destroyed by solar radiation is a little more creeptifying than the idea of being eaten by zombies in a way.

I think the problem I had with the Redeker Plan was that even if the whole population was okay with sacrificing a bunch of people for the surviving group, what would qualify one to be in that surviving group? Regardless of how many statistics you can muster up to decide if a person is smart/pretty/resourceful/leadership-worthy, data does not really mean anything if the person lacks the human spirit.

I think what I'm trying to say is that a most ordinary/average person could have been the most amazing leader/organizer in such a time of need because suddenly they have something to fight for - their lives and helping other uninfected people. So the Redeker plan implementers could really end up with a different kind of zombie - a human that by every test seems to be extraordinary but really is so because of some trained reflex and not because they have the heart.

Also, I don't think that the Redeker warrants any merit at all. Sure, some people will survive, but in the end, if that society needs to sacrifice a majority of their population - the same people that could have helped fight the zombies if the leadership weren't panicking and actually formulating proper plans and educating the people on how to fight - that society is completely screwed anyway. They would start running out of people the more solid waves of zombies you got. In fact, assuming the zombies converted most of their bait instead of feasting, they would get more and more zombies and less and less bait! Instead of running around in circles screaming "We need to save our elite in order for our society to survive!" (what does that mean anyway!), they could have pushed the more experienced fighters towards the front while evacuating people AND educating them on what they should do when they see zombies. The Redeker Plan combines the populace's ignorance, mass hysteria and the ruling people's assumption that at least a small group must survive to ensure that the people who wanted to survive without having to fight for it got their wish.

Enough ranting.

Hilary wrote: "I think the problem I had with the Redeker Plan was that even if the whole population was okay with sacrificing a bunch of people for the surviving group, what would qualify one to be in that survi..."

I love ranting! This is why I really liked WWZ when I read it- so much to think and argue about.