Feasibility of Zombie Holocaust

[Wyldwraith]

I disagree, With the exception of Dawn '04 zeds, or Rage-Infected, I just can't see zombies wiping us out. You can't even make the endless horde argument if you factor in the enormous damage that even 4-5 fully loaded A-10s could do to a wall of solid biomass, ie thousands/tens of thousands of zombies packed into relatively confined urban areas. Yes, people can be stupid, foolish, ignorant, apathetic, incompetent and cowardly. They can ALSO be valiant, adaptable, motivated, inventive and highly capable of learning from their mistakes and those of others. Frankly, I don't buy into generalizations or anecdotal evidence. For every bus full of sissies you've got 80yr old retirees fighting off gangs of home invaders. People are simply too varied in quality of character, natural ability, and basic adaptability. One of the VERY FEW things I liked about Dawn '04 was the way it realistically depicted that someone with a nothing of a dead end retail job can be the most effective survivor you could come across simply because they have the innate tendency to act in tune with what their common sense & instinct is telling them, rather than reacting to a situation once there's no other choice, and because they possess that written of blessing of being able to keep their heads when all about them are losing theirs. In fact, one could even make the argument that a high degree of training in conventional survival skills might tend to make one less likely to change tactics, explore alternative means of survival, and more close-minded because they believe they already know everything they need to in order to survive. Sure, there's an initial advantage for the trained survivalist, but desperation is the mother of invention. The guy who makes his way to a highly secure, well-stocked little hideaway probably won't be the guy who finds the key to large scale/efficient neutralization of the undead, for the obvious reason he hasn't needed to. Beyond all that though, I have a difficult time stomaching the idea that we're really so far gone as a species that uncoordinated entities moving at a slow walk that desire our flesh are really all it takes to exterminate us. Or what about this: Everyone makes much of the concept "For every zombie you kill, ten take their place"...ok, on the ground/in the trenches it might seem that way, but in actuality all you need is 1 guy in 10 who destroys 10 or more zombies before dying. At that ratio, the zombies lose. Plus there's the wearing out of connective tissue issue. I don't believe that the non-repairing bodies of the undead would have connective tissue that endured for any substantial length of time.

[Mr.G]

Another factor that would complicate an effective response would be the emotional connection many would feel with infected and reanimated loved ones, like the mess in the apartment building in the original Dawn. I really don't think I could blow off a family member's head with a gun but I see no issue with a knife/screwdriver/sword that would make me unable to do so. I understand there is little logic there but the alternative helps me sleep at night.

[Zombie Snack]

I think you underestimate the realitive ease that the human race has for mass killings, look at just the last 100 years the attempted genocides that have taken place, because of political/racial/ethnic/religous differences. Look at all the wars that have been fought, there are countries at war somewhere in the world at any given times, men charging into battle, hand to hand combat, killing and being killed, over border disputes, political agendas, for freedom, for resources, or just to see who has the biggest peter. There are plenty of people who would not hesitate to kill a reanimated corpse that was trying to eat them. In a slow zombie situation i have no doubt that the military can and would stop it one way or another, if they couldnt stop the initial outbreak with standard military search and destroy recon missions there would be other options, to protect the entire living world from being lost to zombies i believe every military option could be used if needed, even nuclear. In a romero style slow zombie outbreak, I just think the complete overwhelming defeat of the human race is not a possibility, sure a lot of people would die, but humanity would survive. Now for a 28 days later/fast zombie outbreak, I believe for the most part humanity would be fucked, there may be pockets of survivors but there would be so much nuclear fallout from all the countries world wide with nukes blowing up there neighbor countries that are infected to prevent the spread into there boarders, even possible nuclear bombs on a countries own soil to attempt to stop an apocolyptic fast zombie/viral oubreak..in a matter of hours/days..very short days the governments would be forced into total destruction of the infected areas to prevent world wide destruction...thats my thoughts anyways. peace

[Gemini]

So does everyone here agree that in GAR's world, the dead reanimate regardless of how they died; that they don't need to be bitten to be infected but that it must be something in the atmosphere which causes it to happen? This I believe was true even through LOTD where the dude who hung himself was reanimated; I don't believe he had been bitten he just commited suicide. The bites are deadly and will cause death, but death in any instance will result in reanimation. As I said, if the plague was spread through bite only AND the zombies are slow (Max Brooks' vision) then I feel the outbreak would be repelled relatively easily.

[krakenslayer]

So does everyone here agree that in GAR's world, the dead reanimate regardless of how they died; that they don't need to be bitten to be infected but that it must be something in the atmosphere which causes it to happen? This I believe was true even through LOTD where the dude who hung himself was reanimated; I don't believe he had been bitten he just commited suicide. The bites are deadly and will cause death, but death in any instance will result in reanimation. As I said, if the plague was spread through bite only AND the zombies are slow (Max Brooks' vision) then I feel the outbreak would be repelled relatively easily. Yeah, in Dawn and Night "every dead body, that is not exterminated, gets up and kills", not just those that were bitten. In Day, the severed head of Pvt. Johnson, the soldier who died under gunfire in the corral scene, is later seen to be undead and active in Logan's lab. The suicide in Land and the homicide victims in Diary also back this up. Anyone that dies, of any cause, becomes a zombie. There is something in the atmosphere, the electromagnetic spectrum, outer space, or within our bodies that is causing it to happen everywhere virtually at once. The confusion about bites is due to the fact that a zombie bite in Romero's films is almost always fatal, which "spreads" the problem by creating more zeds. The bite doesn't cause the zombie; the bite causes a dead body, which in turn becomes a zombie. Now as to why a zombie bite is so dangerous, this (from Romero's own pen) sheds some light on one possible reason: http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/s...ad.php?t=14640

[Gemini]

Yeah, in Dawn and Night "every dead body, that is not exterminated, gets up and kills", not just those that were bitten. In Day, the severed head of Pvt. Johnson, the soldier who died under gunfire in the corral scene, is later seen to be undead and active in Logan's lab. The suicide in Land and the homicide victims in Diary also back this up. Anyone that dies, of any cause, becomes a zombie. There is something in the atmosphere, the electromagnetic spectrum, outer space, or within our bodies that is causing it to happen everywhere virtually at once. The confusion about bites is due to the fact that a zombie bite in Romero's films is almost always fatal, which "spreads" the problem by creating more zeds. The bite doesn't cause the zombie; the bite causes a dead body, which in turn becomes a zombie. Now as to why a zombie bite is so dangerous, this (from Romero's own pen) sheds some light on one possible reason: http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/s...ad.php?t=14640 That makes perfect sense. When you consider how many people die every minute on this planet (natural causes or otherwise) and the fact that each death would result in immediate attack of the living, it's easy to see how the plague could spiral out of control. In fact it equals the speed advantage zombies have in Dawn 04 and would create a crisis just as threatening. The link was awesome, actually didn't know Romero could write like that. With the popularity of Brooks' books maybe GAR should throw his hat into the ring instead of making another movie that might be as weak as 'Diary'.

[Wyldwraith]

Wow, So GAR is essentially saying that if you excise the bitten area within sixty to ninety seconds of the bite then the person lives? Well damn, isn't that another big steaming heap dropped on the forehead of our sacred Canon. I mean, if you can handle it like a snake bite then it stands to reason that some researcher somewhere would figure this out if the undead phenomena went on long enough. Interesting. ----------- As for the zombie holocaust concept itself. I do agree that in the GAR zombie phenomena that WHATEVER is causing the dead to rise causes all brain/spinal cord-intact zombies to reanimate/rise. To expound on an idea I mentioned in passing in a previous post, I believe that the notion of overall decay being the main enemy of the zombie's physical body is false. What is the zombie's worst enemy? Wear and tear. A zombie is a dead body. Its cells do not repair themselves, and no element of its body maintains the autonomous maintenance & repair functions of the living human body. For the most part, and for quite some time in all but extreme environments this is mainly irrelevant. So much of the zombie's body is no longer useful or needed by the ghoul that the breakdown of this useless biomass troubles it not at all. The problem arises in the basic physical structures required for motion. Cartilage which cushions the joints from damage by transmitted kinetic energy, or even simply acting against gravity to stand upright. Connective tissue of various kinds that serve to allow muscle and bone to work together in the performance of physical tasks, basic locomotion etc. Then there are the muscles and bones themselves. While we're alive, each and every time we exert any part of our body physically we do a small amount of damage to muscle and bone. It's this biological principle that allows us to improve our musculature via exercise. First we damage/break down the muscle while exercising, then our bodies are spurred to repair the damage and increase the density of the affected strands of muscle, resulting in bigger/more powerful muscles after consistently repeated workouts. The zombie's body does NOT repair muscle tissue broken down during its post-reanimation exertions. As certain as the apple which falls due to gravity's action upon it, the zombie's physique will inevitably and rather rapidly destroy itself simply by moving. First will come weakness in the muscles that have broken down, then the extremities will simply cease functioning. In fact, it would be a race between the connective tissue (tendons, ligaments, certain cartilage) drying out, or wearing down, before finally snapping, and the muscle fiber/strands of muscles in the limbs breaking down, wearing out and finally becoming useless/totally inoperative. Not being an authority on orthopedics or the chronology of tissue breakdown, I'm not equipped to put a set deadline on how long a specific zombie might remain functional, but the basic fact of their non-healing natures guarantees that each zombie would have a relatively short window of potential activity before these breakdowns occurred. None of which even takes into account the potential problems facing those zombies who expired as a result of being fed on by one or more zombies. Besides the abdominal cavity, the flesh of the extremities is after all the next most likely target to feed on. In the face of these factors, how are zombies supposed to last long enough to even come close to wiping out humanity? Lastly, I indict the zombie's body due to the chillingly relentless behavior for which it is celebrated as a monster. We often talk about how a zombie will never stop trying to get at live humans once it becomes aware of them, but that very repetitive relentlessness of pursuit would only accelerate the physical breakdown of a ghoul shambling across countless miles in pursuit of fleeing humans, or smacking its limbs hundreds if not thousands of times against a transparent barrier, beyond which they can see warm humans. Anyways, that's my view of why zombies lack the endurance to drive humans anywhere near extinction. Thoughts?

[krakenslayer]

Wow, So GAR is essentially saying that if you excise the bitten area within sixty to ninety seconds of the bite then the person lives? Well damn, isn't that another big steaming heap dropped on the forehead of our sacred Canon. I mean, if you can handle it like a snake bite then it stands to reason that some researcher somewhere would figure this out if the undead phenomena went on long enough. Well, it seems people had figured it out by the time of Day. Sarah pretty quickly dealt with Miguel's arm and seemed to think he had a slim chance of surviving (who knows what would have happened if he hadn't got himself killed). In other situations, like in Land when Cholo gets bitten, it's likely that the victims and survivors immediately on-hand know they lack the tools and the skills required for a successful super-fast limb amputation, at least one that doesn't simply bring about an even slower and more agonizing death that still results in zombification. Or maybe they city-dwellers didn't know; I mean, there were no research stations there that we saw and unless they knew to amputate within 60 seconds it's unlikely that they would have discovered this trick worked (it would naturally be a couple of minutes at least before anyone dared to try such a thing). Maybe Sarah believed it would work in theory because of her studies, the benefit of which the city-dwellers did not have. As for the zombie holocaust concept itself. I do agree that in the GAR zombie phenomena that WHATEVER is causing the dead to rise causes all brain/spinal cord-intact zombies to reanimate/rise. To expound on an idea I mentioned in passing in a previous post, I believe that the notion of overall decay being the main enemy of the zombie's physical body is false. What is the zombie's worst enemy? Wear and tear. A zombie is a dead body. Whoa, wait, stop, I have a theory on this. I think I might have mentioned it somewhere else on here too. What is a dead body? It's a lump of meat in which all cellular, metabolic and autonomous mechanical action has stopped. Now clearly this doesn't fit the definition of a zombie. A dead body, by definition, does not walk around, or feel hunger, or chase people (never mind the higher thought processes of Bub and BD. Basically, it is inaccurate to call a zombie a dead body except in an artistic context. It has been a dead body, it is not a dead body any more. There are clearly some chemical, electrical and metabolic processes happening inside, we can see these manifested in things as obvious as limb movement and basic co-ordination, and more subtly in breathing (even moans and groans) and the continued workings of the cardiovascular system (blood still spurts from their wounds, as if under vascular pressure). I think we make the mistake of assuming that, since a zombie doesn't immediately need it's bloodflow, doesn't require a steady stream of cellular oxygenation, it doesn't have these functions in the first place. I would propose that zombies DO have these processes, albeit in a much more sluggish, imperfect form (so slow they can last ten years on one stomachful of food, like a reptile). Their hearts continue to beat (if they have them), their lungs continue to intake air (if they still have them), etc. etc. If this was true, it would answer a number of questions: 1) Why zombies can last years without rotting away to nothing 2) Why blood spurts from them when shot and they are seen to breathe 3) Why Logan said they don't NEED any bloodflow, as opposed to they have NO bloodflow 4) Why some zombies from the same time frame have rotted much more than others (they have lost their heart/respiratory function to damage and their cells have begun to decay)

[Mike70]

Whoa, wait, stop, I have a theory on this. I think I might have mentioned it somewhere else on here too. What is a dead body? It's a lump of meat in which all cellular, metabolic and autonomous mechanical action has stopped. Now clearly this doesn't fit the definition of a zombie. A dead body, by definition, does not walk around, or feel hunger, or chase people (never mind the higher thought processes of Bub and BD. Basically, it is inaccurate to call a zombie a dead body except in an artistic context. It has been a dead body, it is not a dead body any more. There are clearly some chemical, electrical and metabolic processes happening inside, we can see these manifested in things as obvious as limb movement and basic co-ordination, and more subtly in breathing (even moans and groans) and the continued workings of the cardiovascular system (blood still spurts from their wounds, as if under vascular pressure). I think we make the mistake of assuming that, since a zombie doesn't immediately need it's bloodflow, doesn't require a steady stream of cellular oxygenation, it doesn't have these functions in the first place. I would propose that zombies DO have these processes, albeit in a much more sluggish, imperfect form (so slow they can last ten years on one stomachful of food, like a reptile). Their hearts continue to beat (if they have them), their lungs continue to intake air (if they still have them), etc. etc. If this was true, it would answer a number of questions: 1) Why zombies can last years without rotting away to nothing 2) Why blood spurts from them when shot and they are seen to breathe 3) Why Logan said they don't NEED any bloodflow, as opposed to they have NO bloodflow 4) Why some zombies from the same time frame have rotted much more than others (they have lost their heart/respiratory function to damage and their cells have begun to decay) the zombies are also shown in several scenes to be salivating. that would strongly suggest that their digestive process is still at work even though they don't actually require nourishment. which brings us to the real crux of the problem: how the fark are they operating without an energy source? their muscles clearly work and that requires a steady supply of oxygen, sugar, sodium, chloride and potassium. now if they don't require nourishment (hell some of them don't even have stomachs) where are things that keep their muscles working come from? what is enabling them to salivate? in short, i think that none of what is presented in the movies makes the slightest bit of scientific sense. it is a contradictory mess. without the intake of certain elements (actually ions but i won't bore you with the specifics), muscles will not fire and saliva cannot be produced. hell, the simple production of saliva requires at least 6 elements (sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chlorine, iodine, bicarbonate and phosphate ions; a host of other proteins and enzymes are also required. again, the idea that these things don't eat for nourishment is ludicrous when considered against what a body needs simply to move around. add on: the part about not needing blood flow is nuts too in light of their obvious ability to move around. here we reach the ultimate scientific ridiculousness of truly "dead" zombies. to move around there has to be some mechanism delivering the required nutrients to muscle tissue.

[Wyldwraith]

That's my point, In order to attempt to provide even the loosest of descriptions as to why a zombie wouldn't rapidly break down, one has to go back to making HUGE assumptions, to the point that Kraken is basically saying zombies are living humans with very low-level metabolic activity. (Don't believe that, was just providing the example) I'll try to go point by point. 1) The infamous blood splatter from zombies subjected to severe trauma. If you look at the VAST number of examples where this alleged "blood flow" is present, you'll notice they are hits to head or extremity. In both cases, an until such times as the fluids completely dry out within what remains of the vascular system, this can be explained by the blood that pools within the scalp and extremities of a post-rigor cadaver. 1a) Basic forensics has a term to explain this phenomena. It's called Ballistic Spatter, and can be emitted even by cadavers that are violently traumatized in areas where blood has pooled. 2) Slowdown of decay rate as depicted by the later movies, ie: Day and Land. There's a MUCH simpler explanation for this than some form of weird & contradictory "undead bio-chemistry". In the absence of prey, many zombies simply remain motionless until such time as prey or an environmental cue that may indicate the presence of prey (such as a human voice being amplified and speaking continually over a bullhorn, ala the opening scene in Day, where we see the delayed-reaction swarming of zombies, or the lawn-ornament-like zombies encountered by the raiders at Land's beginning). If a certain % of zombies go months/years without any physical exertion, its more reasonable to believe these zombies would remain far more functional/mobile than ghouls that stayed on the move for the majority of the intervening months/years. 2a) As previously discussed, to believe in a zombie-type that doesn't fall apart within 10-14 days of rising, one MUST believe that *some sort of unexplained phenomena, of potentially a variety of sources* is retarding/impeding the basic decay process. Otherwise Kraken's limited-but-functional metabolic theory is automatically destroyed by a fact that any mortician can tell you about. In the absence of life, the relatively fragile tissues holding the intestines in their proper place break down, followed by a sooner rather than later rupturing of the abdomen due to the bulging of said intestinal mass against the abdominal wall/cavity, and the bloat which plagues the abdomen as gasses build up. Consistent short-term rupture of the abdominal cavity would destroy Kraken's theory otherwise as previously stated. 3) I just propounded on a long essay related to body wear and tear post-mortem, so I won't belabor the point further. Not that it was a BAD idea Kraken. It has the value of at least sallying forth and attempting to defend GAR's work via an imaginatively creative stab at a logical cause for what we see of zombie conditions in the movies. I stand by my assertion that whatever GAR may have envisioned, whatever flavor of zombie possibility you subscribe to, unless the ghoul body can somehow generate or absorb energy and maintain its physical infrastructure, the laws of physics, let alone biology say that the undead are perforce a short-term phenomena. Of course this is just my .02. I am neither GAR nor a possessor of any sort of medical degree, just a guy with a pet theory trying to apply common sense to an imaginary movie monster subtype.

[Gemini]

I believe many of Max Brooks' ground rules can be used to fill in the gaps of GAR's dead world. For instance, in 'Complete Protection From the Living Dead' it was explained that microbes responsible for the breakdown and decomposition of dead tissue are repelled by the disease, which saturates the flesh of the zombie. This greatly decreases the rate of decay. I believe it was written that zombies would remain functionally mobile for 3 - 5 years depending on environmental conditions. ---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 AM ---------- The same alien properties of this pathogen could be responsible for providing fuel for the reanimated tissue somehow; the science and physiology that are known by humans are useless to explain this condition because it outside the realm of our knowledge.

[Legion2213]

Regarding a few dick heads terrorizing train passengers, these scum are protected by law, people are generally afraid to step in when they see criminal scum rampaging around because they know that there are plenty of weasel lawyers out there who will do their best to criminalise the law abiding citizens who step in to defend their fellow citizens from these worthless filth...it would be pretty obvious that zombies were a different matter and folks would be far more likely to have a pop at them IMO. .

[Wyldwraith]

No, I just don't buy the notion that any pathogen, no matter how advanced, can provide the necessary energy to almost completely retard decay AND the energy required for movement, perceived sensory impulse transmission and processing, AND provide/distribute the biochemical resources required to repair or at least offset the constant damage being done to extremities, joints connected to those limbs and the related connective tissue. The only feasible way it could work is if the zombies have some means of converting the flesh they consume into the necessary energy. The problem with that as a primary means of energy/resource intake & processing is the huge number of zombie attack victims that are disemboweled by the ghoul(s) that brought them down and fed on them. I mean, zombies go for the belly and particularly the intestines they scoop out and devour the way lions go for the throat to choke their prey to death. Why would a pathogen or evolved biological process drive its hosts to engage almost invariably in a behavior that renders new hosts/converts incapable of storing the fuel they need to function? It's a reach, but perhaps if the theories about zombies taking in the energy/fuel needed to continue functioning are valid, the ghouls might have developed processes to harvest those energies/resources that take place in the mouth instead of the stomach? If they really are producing some sort of putrid drool that's responsible for their infectiously 100% lethal bite, maybe that drool functions primarily as many venoms do. As a form of pre-digestion like that used by spiders to liquefy the insides of insects before the spider sucks them out. Venomous snakes do likewise, beginning digestion with their initial strike. If something similar is occurring in the zombie drool/saliva, then maybe they draw the required chemicals/nourishment directly through the tissues inside their mouths from the flesh they chew on. Maybe that's why they stick religiously to warm living flesh. The chemical process only works on tissues which still contain living cells/ample cellular energy, fresh proteins and uncorrupted enzymes. If the venom/pre-digestion theory isn't your cup of tea, what about the processes that take place in living bodies exposed to hydrochloric and sulfuric acids? The acid primarily contacts skin, but significant exposure proves fatal because the acids leech calcium and potassium from the body at ever-increasing rates. If the process is chemical instead of biological, then no specific organs would be needed to trigger the drawing out of the chemicals/energy. Again, they could be absorbed directly into the undead tissues inside the mouth, and transmitted to where the undead body needs them. Differences in acid and base levels could be what draws the chemical resources onward throughout the undead body as its tissues seek chemical equilibrium. Just a couple ideas, but the best I could do at trying to view other theories about zombie physiology as valid. I still maintain that what energy the zombie body contains goes toward reanimation and keeping them functional until its exhausted after a short time and the body begins to break down because it cannot repair itself. Still, I tried to keep an open mind and concocted my best speculations as to what might continue powering a zombie. Regardless, slow shambling undead lack the ability to overwhelm us. Cause hideous numbers of casualties certainly, but their initial success would lead to dense concentrations of ghouls that can be dramatically thinned from the air, by artillery, or simply by tanks rolling over vast numbers of them and firing nasty fragmentation shells into concentrated masses. In the post-9/11 world, military facilities have become well-practiced at the lockdowns sure to be ordered if zombies become numerous/widespread enough to cause significant civil disturbances. Even an incorrect initial assumption that what's happening are signs of bio-terrorism would have the benefit of consolidating police and securing military bases. At least some bases would be saved from early contamination or somewhat later overrunning. One thing we NEVER see in the movies is enough military elements surviving to act effectively. What effect might even a few surviving divisions or air elements under the command of someone who's grasped the truth have? Thoughts?

[Legion2213]

One thing we NEVER see in the movies is enough military elements surviving to act effectively. What effect might even a few surviving divisions or air elements under the command of someone who's grasped the truth have? Thoughts? This annoys the hell out of me, speaking for GAR films, I don't think he has any respect for the military (my opinion), they are always portrayed as useless (Dawn, Day) or untrustworty scum (Diary). In Dawn 04 we get the impression that there is still *some* kind of functioning US military when we see that helicoptor fly over the mall. The only zombie films that feature a fully intact and victorious military (to my knowledge) are "Shaun of the Dead" and "The Zombie Diaries" Edit: 28 Days Later also runs with the "military are scum" theme as well. .

[strayrider]

By my estimates, you need a minimum of 300,000 survivors to actually cover the planet in the way you need to. That's all of them actually doing so every waking moment of their lives, and living to be over 100 years old. And it would take their entire lives. Probably not fun. A more reasonable situation would be at least 10 million survivors. They would still work near-constantly, but they'd be done in "only" about 5 years. 10-15 years if they do it realistically, only scouring and fighting about 10 hours a day, every day. You need all ten million perfectly spaced in starting positions, and in constant, perfect coordination throughout, though. If not, you've got to add year to it. How about ONE well-organized starting position of 10,000 survivors. They secure a rural area, set up an agrarian society, and slowly repopulate the planet over a 300-500 year period. Kind of like the expansion of Western civilization in the early period of American history. Let's assume that they have good breeding stock. "Ric'em rac'em ruc'em, take those gun and really...FIGHT!" -stray-