The Zombie Generation: How a pious Mentality and Herd Behavior endorse evil actions (and How It Can Be Different)

Introduction: why good people let injustice pass and tolerate evil

"One of the punishments for those who refuse to participate in public life is that one is eventually ruled by one's inferiors." — Plato, Republic , Book I, 347c

Plato wrote this warning as the concluding part of an argument about what happens as soon as the person with developed insight withdraws from the public sphere: power then falls to those who have no scruples about seizing that power and ruling over others.

That urge, as Plato himself elaborates in Book IX of the Republic , usually stems from an egocentric, erotic desire, much more often than from a profound sense of responsibility to establish a progressive society characterized by compassion, justice, and mercy.

Plato portrays the tyrannical soul as a soul in which Eros reigns. The tyrant rules with a lack of self-control that he subsequently projects onto the entire city.

For the classical Greeks, these themes formed the basis for insights that constituted the core of ethics itself.

According to them, virtue ( aretè ) manifested itself in the polis, in the community, in the active pursuit of the true , the good , the beautiful , and the right .

For Plato, justice ( dikaiosyè ) was the harmonious ordering of soul and city simultaneously: whoever left the city to injustice could not possibly call himself just, no matter how pure his inner world remained.

A few centuries later, the Stoic school shifted ethical virtue entirely to one's own inner world.

For the Stoics, what is "for us to change" ended with one's own judgment, one's own will, and one's own inner reaction; everything lying outside the self, particularly the political order, the fate of others, and the outcome of history, was considered part of adiaphora— "the world of indifference." On an individual scale and in small doses, concentrating on one's own small world sounds liberating, and indeed it is. Very often, too, within organizations, the focus is on the question of "what you can change and what you cannot change" in response to staff indignation regarding absurd organizational decisions.

On a societal scale, this indifferent attitude leads to a guaranteed recipe for decay: the indifferent and their companions deprive themselves of the instrument to address societal ills, and they lose all hope and drive to innovate, for innovation begins with the courage to bring something forth that is born of passion and not of indifference. Passion fuels innovation; indifference breeds despair and powerlessness, and creates an undercurrent of dissidents who do not explicitly state what they are doing.

When Brutus prepared the conspiracy against Caesar, he deliberately excluded his Stoic friends, for he knew that to a consistent Stoic, even a tyrannical leader remains an "elected indifferent one," something about which the wise Stoic need not inwardly get worked up.

A philosophy that thus leaves one's own peace of mind intact while the city sinks into tyranny offers little ground to combat that tyranny, let alone build something new in its place.

It is from precisely that mechanism—virtue folding inward until it is no longer outraged by anything—that a zombie generation grows: people’s morality is limited to taking good care of themselves, while they walk past the injustice playing out right before their eyes, unmoved.

Indifference does not equate to a neutral state, for injustice that one allows to pass remains injustice, no matter how calm one's inner self remains.

Below, I analyze six attitudes that feed this indifference.

1. Herd mentality

What is it?

A person with herd mentality tends to follow the opinion and behavior of the group, even when their own perception suggests otherwise.

This person's motivation is one of laziness and rest. Whoever adapts to the group is rewarded with rest.

Whoever asks an uncomfortable question immediately feels the temperature in the room drop.

How do you recognize it?

You recognize herd mentality by the silence that follows a good, critical question, by the glances people exchange instead of responding, and by phrases like "that's just how things work here" or "let's not make it too complicated," uttered precisely at the moment when the matter actually is complicated.

What does it do?

The herd mentality buys short-term peace: because everyone goes along with the group, no one has to have a difficult conversation, the atmosphere remains pleasant, and the meeting can be concluded on time.

Solomon Asch's famous line experiment demonstrates how strong that urge is. When a group of actors unanimously gave a clearly incorrect answer to a simple visual question, about a third of the participants went along with it at least once, even though they saw with their own eyes that it was wrong.

If the researchers added one other voice that did give the correct answer, that conformity largely collapsed.

The herd therefore needs little to break: only someone who has the courage to be the first to say "no".

What isn't it working?

Herd mentality does not solve the underlying problem.

It makes no one safer, at most temporarily more comfortable, until the problem recurs, unchanged, and often larger.

Absurd example.

Imagine a medieval city council where the mayor solemnly announces that the city wall is being built of parchment, simply because parchment is cheaper than stone.

Everyone nods in agreement.

One council member cautiously asks whether that would withstand a siege.

A silence falls, and someone whispers that he shouldn't bring it up right now, because the mayor has worked hard on it.

The city falls within the week, and amidst the ruins someone says: "Well, no one could have predicted that," even though there was literally a council member who had asked it out loud.

2. Pious mentality

What is it?

The prude mentality is obedience masquerading as wisdom: the systematic avoidance of any conflict, packaged as serenity, higher insight, or "rising above it all."

How do you recognize it?

You recognize it by spiritual or therapeutic language used to avoid having to do exactly anything.

Someone says "I'll let it go," "I don't judge," or "everything happens for a reason" at the moment a situation calls for a concrete response; in doing so, you avoid having to take any action or responsibility for your own behavior.

What does it do?

The prude mentality gives the prude himself a good feeling, because he can feel superior to the conflict, while the actual problem remains intact.

Functionally speaking, that is exactly what a failing system needs to keep failing: no one to put their finger on the wound. Hopefully, this organizational system has hired a rebel who touches the wound often, and can thus bring about a breakthrough. Often, however, that rebel acquires the reputation of being a "traitor" who blows over the prudes' inner "let-go, let-it-be" world.

.

What isn't it working?

A prudish mentality brings no lasting inner peace.

Whoever breathes away a real problem instead of naming it carries it beneath the surface until it returns, usually later, usually harder, and precisely at a moment when it can no longer be ignored.

Absurd example.

Imagine a yoga studio where the fire alarm goes off and smoke fills the room, while the instructor calmly says: "Let us observe this sensation without judgment, and try to breathe away the discomfort."

Everyone remains seated in the lotus position, breathing deeply, while the emergency exit is three meters away. *That* is the prude mentality: spiritual language employed at precisely the moment when something practical and urgent needs to be done.

3. Individualism and the divide-and-conquer mechanism

What is it?

This is the belief that harm befalling another is primarily that person's own problem, until exactly the same pattern turns against you one day , after which the indignation suddenly becomes acute.

How do you recognize it?

You recognize it by phrases like "fortunately that doesn't happen to me" or "he probably had something to do with it," uttered when a colleague is treated unfairly. Also recognizable is what follows: the person who places the blame on the other reacts, often months later, suddenly fiercely and indignantly as soon as the pattern strikes him personally.

What does it do?

Social psychologist Melvin Lerner named the underlying mechanism the just-world belief : people would rather believe that a victim "provoked" something than that the world can be arbitrarily unjust, because that second thought is more terrifying.

John Darley and Bibb Latané documented a related mechanism, the bystander effect : the more people witness injustice, the less likely it is that one of them will intervene, because everyone assumes that someone else will. Together, these two mechanisms lead to the classic divide-and-conquer mechanism : as long as each individual continues to view another's harm as an isolated, separate case, the group remains fragmented, and fragmentation is precisely what a power structure needs to avoid organized resistance and push through its own unjust agenda.

What isn't it working?

Individualism does not offer the protection it promises.

Whoever waits until it is their own turn to become indignant has not secured themselves; they have merely postponed the moment of reaction until past the point where the pattern could still be stopped early.

Absurd example.

Imagine an open-plan office where a colleague sees a lunch disappear from the communal fridge every week, each time someone else's, and each time thinks: " Thank goodness not mine ." Until one Friday, his own carefully prepared sandwich disappears, after which he sends an emotional, two-page email to the entire department about "a culture of respect." Four colleagues reply that they have been saying that for three months.

4. Trauma reactivity versus justified indignation

What is it?

These are two reactions that feel identical from the outside but spring from different sources: one stems from an old, unhealed wound, the other from a real, current injustice. Precisely because both can feel equally intense, they are constantly confused with each other.

How do you recognize it?

Trauma reactivity exhibits the characteristics of what psychology calls emotional reasoning : the assumption that a feeling automatically reflects reality, such as the thought "I feel threatened, so there must be danger," even when the facts do not support this. For example, a curtly worded email from a new manager can be read as an attack simply because a previous manager displayed that pattern.

Justified indignation can be tested against John Stuart Mill's harm principle : is there demonstrable damage, confirmed by more than merely one's own perception? If that is the case, then disapproval is not oversensitivity, but a justified limit.

What does it do?

Trauma reactivity requires self-examination and, where necessary, professional guidance: it is a conditioned protection involving a distortion of reality.

Justified indignation demands a clear boundary, and if necessary, concrete action.

What isn't it working?

Neither justifies completely exonerating someone's behavior. Understanding why someone does what they do—his fear, pressure from above, his own history—provides an explanation, and an explanation is something different from an acquittal.

Daniel Batson demonstrated that empathy and moral judgment are two separate processes; whoever allows them to coincide loses precisely the ability to judge justly.

Absurd example.

Someone who has been bitten by a dog jumps screaming onto the table upon seeing a chihuahua embroidered on a colleague's sweater.

That is trauma reactivity: understandable, but not based on the actual danger of that one little dog.

That same person, on the other hand, remains calm and factual when a colleague presents their work as their own achievement for the fourth time during a team meeting, each time with exactly the same examples, and points this out every single time.

That second one is not a trauma.

That is an established pattern based on facts, and therefore a legitimate boundary crossed.

5. Powerlessness and freezing

What is it?

These are two forms of the same phenomenon:

The feeling that action is futile characterizes powerlessness, and the literal one, namely the physical inability to act when a threat is assessed as inescapable, characterizes freezing.

How do you recognize it?

Powerlessness sounds like "I've already tried, it's no use anyway." Freezing feels physical: delayed reactions, a kind of mental fog, and the feeling of not being fully present in the moment itself.

What does it do?

Martin Seligman demonstrated that repeated, uncontrollable setbacks lead to learned helplessness and a sense of powerlessness : one stops trying, even when a real way out presents itself later.

Stephen Porges described the physical variant of that same mechanism as freezing: when a threat is perceived as inescapable, the body switches via the dorsal vagus complex to a literal shutdown, an ancient survival mechanism that works faster than conscious thought.

What isn't it working?

It does not prove that change is impossible. Both states are learned or conditioned, and therefore in principle reversible, usually precisely by restoring a sense of control and security, something that rarely succeeds without the help of others.

Absurd example.

A mouse walks over the same spot in a maze three times a week and bumps into the same wall every time. On the fourth day, someone finally opens a door further down, but the mouse just stays put, because she has learned that trying is pointless anyway. The door stands open. The mouse stares at the wall until the end of her days.

6. The generation gap within organizations

What is it?

The oldest generations within organizations, partly due to a systematically postponed retirement age, remain in key positions considerably longer than before, while the generation below them—roughly those between thirty-five and fifty—waits for a turnover that fails to materialize. Researchers call this phenomenon gerontocracy : power held by the oldest generation.

How do you recognize it?

To the colleague who has been "almost retiring" for fifteen years and is still the first to shoot down every new proposal. To the position that has been "eventually becoming available" for years without ever actually becoming available. To the forty-something who constantly "needs to gain some more experience," while no one ever asks the sixty-something if he is still sufficiently motivated to keep up with the busy pace of work. And, at least as recognizable to anyone working in a large organization: to the manager who visibly struggles more with new systems, new regulations, or new files than a few years ago, and for whom this is never acknowledged out loud, let alone discussed, because seniority in most organizations still commands respect as a matter of course, even when the person's actual functioning declines physically and mentally.

What does it do — the cognitive dimension.

For decades, the psychology of intelligence has distinguished two types of ability: fluid intelligence , the ability to solve new problems and quickly grasp unfamiliar situations, and crystallized intelligence , the accumulated knowledge and vocabulary.

The Seattle Longitudinal Study, one of the longest-running studies on cognitive aging, shows a consistent pattern: fluid intelligence peaks around the age of twenty and then gradually declines, while crystallized intelligence continues to increase well into the sixties. Knowledge, therefore, grows. Meanwhile, the ability to smoothly grasp a completely new problem slowly erodes, requiring renewal: the courage and acuity to question an old procedure anew rather than repeat it.

Europe is now asking itself this question at the highest level and is finding no convincing answer. Mario Draghi's report on the future of European competitiveness , published in September 2024 at the request of the European Commission, calls the technological gap with the United States and China an existential challenge, with stagnating growth and an urgent need for structural reforms.

The figures cited by the report are merciless: there is not a single EU company with a market capitalization of more than one hundred billion euros that has been founded from scratch in the past fifty years, whereas in the United States, six companies exceed that valuation. Among the structural causes identified by the report itself, alongside fragmentation and overregulation, is demographic aging.

However, the report gets stuck at the level of the population pyramid and never asks the sharper question that flows directly from it: which specific generation is precisely excluded by that aging, and what exactly does Europe lose as a result?

The answer to that question points to one specific group, the held-back middle generation: those who grew up with ICQ and MSN Messenger, and thus as children or teenagers personally experienced the transition from landline to the internet, from the hold tone of a dial-up connection to broadband, from floppy disk to cloud, are highly capable of innovating, but are being deprived of the opportunities.

Research into what is called the "bridge cohort," the generation that, in the words of generational researcher Lindsey Pollak, "lived through the transition from an analog to a digital work environment," describes precisely this mechanism: those who consciously experienced a true paradigm shift and had to learn to function within it build up a practiced adaptability that does not equate to a higher biological fluid intelligence, but functionally resembles it.

This generation had to repeatedly learn to understand a completely new system at an age when the brain was still most receptive to it, and has practiced that skill time and again ever since.

That distinguishes her both from the older generation, which only made the digital transition at a later age, when fluid intelligence was already declining, and from the younger generation, which never knew a "before" and therefore never had to go through the conscious exercise of bridging itself.

Precisely this generation, frequently practiced in change but structurally held back by the gerontocratic bottleneck that the Draghi report measures but does not fathom, is the one that has the most to offer in terms of innovation, and is given the least opportunity to prove it .

So, anyone in Brussels or anywhere else wondering why innovation is failing to materialize can find part of the answer in this paragraph: not because talent is lacking, but because it is systematically placed on the waiting list by whoever manages the waiting list themselves.

What does it do — the psychological dimension.

Maintaining a position of power has a defensive function in addition to an organizational one.

In 2016, researchers Belmi and Pfeffer published a series of experiments in the Journal of Applied Psychology demonstrating that heightened awareness of one's own mortality leads people to more power-seeking behavior, while conversely, holding a position of power reduces the fear of death.

For those growing older, therefore, letting go of a position also means the loss of a mechanism that keeps their own mortality bearable.

For an entire generation encountering suppressed growth, this unconscious behavior is at least as harmful as overt unwillingness, and it may be called so.

On top of all this comes a third problem that exacerbates the first two rather than mitigates them: communication between the two generations is often strained, and this makes each of the above mechanisms harder to discuss rather than easier.

Someone shaped by a different work culture, a different approach to hierarchy, and a different pace of decision-making does not always recognize a direct question about their own performance as a legitimate question, but rather as an attack on authority itself.

Conversely, younger individuals find that cautious, indirect attempts to open up a topic for discussion miss their mark and can be perceived as a manipulative tactic. The result is a conversation that never takes place, even though there is definitely something to say: both sides are simply speaking a language the other does not recognize.

What isn't it working?

It guarantees no stability, and certainly no wisdom.

Political scientist Raul Magni-Berton demonstrated in a comparative overview of democracies that older leaders demonstrably do not perform better than younger ones, and that voters are aware of this as well.

Atella and Carbonari, who investigated the link between aging elites and economic innovation in seven European countries, also concluded that aging elites are structurally less able to embrace new technology. Gerontocracy survives because the structure perpetuates itself and people engage in protectionism of their own position.

Absurd example.

Imagine an organization where the director has been announcing since 2009 that he wants to keep going for "just two more years." Every year, the statutory retirement age is shifted by a few months, and every year he shifts his own announcement along with it, as if it were the same decision.

Meanwhile, in a drawer lies a file belonging to a forty-year-old employee containing a fully developed proposal to replace an outdated process, received in 2019, commented on with "interesting, let's look at this after my retirement," and has not been opened since.

The zombie generation

These six attitudes share one characteristic: none of them presents itself as a moral failure.

Everyone comes with their own comfortable self-image.

The herd calls itself loyal.

The prude calls himself enlightened.

The individualist calls himself sensible, because he "doesn't meddle in anything."

Whoever is powerless or frozen calls themselves realistic.

Anyone who holds a key position for years calls themselves indispensable and prefers to surround themselves with employees who confirm this.

Six alibis, one and the same result: evil passes unhindered, innovation stalls, and no one feels bad about it.

That is precisely the core of the zombie generation : people with a morality that is completely turned inward, focused on their own peace of mind, their own loyalty, their own sense of rightness, and their own survival, and who are therefore blind to what is happening right in front of their noses.

They generally do not have malicious intentions.

They do walk around with headphones on, spiritually or otherwise, just loud enough so they don't have to hear the sound of something collapsing, and step over something that deserved a reaction with a clear conscience every single day.

How it can be done differently

The counterpart to each of these six attitudes rarely requires heroism on a grand scale. Usually, something small, uncomfortable, and spoken at the right moment suffices.

Against the herd, one voice suffices: someone who is the first to say "no" in the meeting room where everyone just nodded.

Asch demonstrated that the rest of the group usually follows that voice, as if there is suddenly room to doubt again.

Against the prude, a concrete test helps instead of a feeling: you may let go of what is truly beyond your control, but what causes demonstrable harm deserves a limit—Mill’s harm principle, not one’s own discomfort, determines which of the two it is.

Against individualism, recognition helps before it is your own turn: the colleague who notices that last week's lunch incident follows exactly the same pattern as this week's, and says so out loud to a second and a third colleague. Van Zomeren's research into collective action shows that precisely the exercise of joint recognition gives people the belief that change is possible, and Erica Chenoweth's research into a hundred years of resistance movements showed that even a small, actively involved minority—in the cases studied around 3.5 percent of a population—systematically proved decisive.

A simple question helps against trauma reactivity, asked before the feeling is translated into action: does this stem from an old wound,

Or is something demonstrably wrong happening here today?

For freezing, a push in the back doesn't help, but rather someone standing beside you until the body itself feels safe enough to move again.

Waiting for a position to become available on its own does not help against the gerontocratic bottleneck, but rather an explicit conversation: taking the file out of the drawer, putting it back on the table, and asking for a date instead of a promise.

Atella and Carbonari's research makes clear that this is not a matter of politeness, but of economic and organizational necessity.

The fact that blocking that flow often happens unconsciously is no reason for leniency; unconscious behavior does not disappear by understanding it, it only disappears when it is acknowledged out loud and action is taken.

All these forms of resistance grow from the same soil: an ethics that does not stop at one's own inner self.

Therein lies the sharpest antidote to the zombie generation, and it brings this blog article back to the Greek thought with which it began.

The true, the good, the beautiful, and the right are not feelings that one cultivates for oneself, but fundamental principles belonging to a just and merciful reality that demand recognition as soon as they are violated.

Whoever takes that seriously no longer simply brushes aside injustice.

He stands still for a moment, uncomfortable, and that discomfort is precisely the sign that he is still alive.