I'm writing a book (as are we all) but the thing about this

File: 1357967375963.jpg (87KB, 500x551px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x551px

I'm writing a book (as are we all) but the thing about this book is that it's something like post apocalyptic:

a huge majority of humanity has died out, leaving a small population with enough resources for about 8-9 billion people (the "apocalypse" happened in the nearish future, but it's never explicitly dated, or explained)

Now, the thing is, is that I wanted to make an apocalypse that isn't dystopian or mad max style. Since there's so much of everything, nobody has to fight for anything.

The remaining humans sort of group together in "towns" that sort of evolve out of people repurposing parts of huge cities, and hippie communes in... wherever they feel like it.

Since there's such a surplus in everything, people can just go out and get whatever they want. So there's no reason to fight over say, money or jewelry or other material objects.

Electricity/ internet/ crops/ etc, those are still maintained (on a much smaller scale) by people who have nothing better to do/ get asked to do it, that sorta thing.

Now, of course there's still things like rapists and serial killers and additional things like apocalypse death cults, but the majority lives mostly peaceably in a mostly anarchic society.

(Bare in mind that this is about 10 years after the apocalypse- once populations start to rise and resources actually need to be replenished, this would slowly change)

My question is, how valid is this interpretation? I know that the debate on whether humans are inherently violent or peaceable has always been a hot topic [spoiler ]I personally believe humans are inherently good[/spoiler]. Do you think people could live like this in this scenario, or is this a painfully naive backdrop for a novel? Would you be interested in reading something like that?