Humanity's Prospects After Zombie Apocalypse?

[Publius]

I agree that decomposition rate is an important consideration. But once you get to the point where you're relying on physical decay to thin out the undead hordes, the zombies obviously have the upper hand and the world as we know it is gone. A reasonable decomposition rate would just make the difference between having some kind of civilization (maybe even industrial civilization) and being sent right back to a pre-literate pre-civilized state. I think the most critical unknown factor is reaction time. How quickly is the threat identified and understood, and how quickly is knowledge disseminated? The first day or two will likely determine the trajectory of the rest of the crisis. If people react quickly in the first 24-48 hours, while zombies are few and far between, the damage will likely be very limited. If the actions of the living in the first 48 hours are mostly counterproductive, the zombies may have a decent shot of outnumbering the living. I guess I'm in the optimist camp on that question, at least with respect to the United States. That has to do with 1) the effectiveness of modern communication systems and the unbelievably short news cycle, 2) the high degree of "zombie literacy" these days, and 3) the high rate of gun ownership.

[Trin]

If you're in the "GAR Camp" and subscribe to the idea the somehow, inexplicably, dead bodies will remain almost completely intact and very functional for years and years, then it only makes sense for you to believe Humankind would be doomed in the face of a Zombie Apocalypse. Here you say doomed. As in humans do not survive, period. I concede that many of your counter-arguments have merit, except for the position that long-lasting/high functionality zombies wouldn't have a more adverse effect on the struggling-to-recover human population than short-term zombies. I never said that the longevity of the zombies wouldn't delay or stunt the recovery. I said that the longevity wouldn't come into play in humanity's survival. My argument is really very basic. If humans survive the first couple of months then humanity survives. I agree that if the zombies all drop to the ground after a month due to dehydration or sunburns or whatever then humanity recovers much more quickly. But I also say that if people are still alive after a month then they've passed the point where survival is assured. After that it's just a matter of mitigating the risks. That is, widening the safe zone, securing food sources or farmlands, securing medication, etc. It's not like the zombies are gonna surprise you with new tactics a month or two into it. If after a month you have to kill them versus them dropping on their own it's really not that big a difference. Sure there will be the tiny survivor group that only had 2 months of food and no weapons, and yes they probably die in their safe hole. But by and large anyone alive after a month has figured out enough to destroy the zombies between themselves and their next stash of guns/ammo/food. Taking it from a different angle, if a group of humans is alive after a year, and the zombies are still functional, and the group is still at risk of dying off... what were they doing for a year? On a side topic, once the technology and infrastructure fall the biggest risk is that there are too many survivors. Let's face it, if you had to fight to get into the grocery store versus 100 zombies or 100 hungry people, you're better off with the zombies. The best case scenario for survivors is that society fell quickly and completely so that survivors are relatively sparse in an area. Good discussion!!

[Publius]

It's not like the zombies are gonna surprise you with new tactics a month or two into it. If after a month you have to kill them versus them dropping on their own it's really not that big a difference. Sure there will be the tiny survivor group that only had 2 months of food and no weapons, and yes they probably die in their safe hole. But by and large anyone alive after a month has figured out enough to destroy the zombies between themselves and their next stash of guns/ammo/food. Taking it from a different angle, if a group of humans is alive after a year, and the zombies are still functional, and the group is still at risk of dying off... what were they doing for a year? I pretty much agree with you, but to play devil's advocate it partly depends on zombie "migration patterns." Some groups may have survived in remote areas that could be overwhelmed once massive zombie hordes start wandering out from the cities.

[DTyra]

If a full blown zombie infection occurred and the zombie type were slow moving shamblers it would be easy for people to organize and eventually stop it while a good portion of our life style could be maintained. So, in the event of shamblers we would lose a lot initially, but the outcome would be in the favor of Mankind. If the infection involved fast movers it would take people longer to get control and there would a greater number of casualties, but eventually Mankind would reign again. Would it change mankind's circumstances? Maybe, but probably not. It might slow the implementation of newer technologies for a period of time, but that's about all. Let's face it, Mankind is the most resilient and adaptive creature on the face of the planet; we're going to be around a very long time.

[Wyldwraith]

If a full blown zombie infection occurred and the zombie type were slow moving shamblers it would be easy for people to organize and eventually stop it while a good portion of our life style could be maintained. So, in the event of shamblers we would lose a lot initially, but the outcome would be in the favor of Mankind. If the infection involved fast movers it would take people longer to get control and there would a greater number of casualties, but eventually Mankind would reign again. Would it change mankind's circumstances? Maybe, but probably not. It might slow the implementation of newer technologies for a period of time, but that's about all. Let's face it, Mankind is the most resilient and adaptive creature on the face of the planet; we're going to be around a very long time. Part of me wants to agree with you, However, the more cynical part of me wonders if the hierarchical power structures the Industrialized Nations depend on for organization are really durable enough to deal with an even mostly-uniform catastrophe in the majority of a given nation's territory. I mean, look at the logistical problems that cropped up with Katrina. Not so much the details of the response, just the delay in significant first-response efforts by the government/Federal Agencies. That was a single, *relatively* localized disaster, which at worst could be described as a "Regional Disaster". I have my doubts about the government's response when faced with equally serious catastrophes ranging from one or more States that secure their borders/territory early, and might even secede (considering the rest of the nation defunct), or at least try to secede, to the effects of panic/rioting/rising zombie numbers/collapse of emergency services in several major metropolitan areas simultaneously. Don't get me wrong, I believe that even in its strained/thinned condition due to international events, the military would be able to subdue the threat when their efforts are joined by those of remaining law enforcement and armed civilians. I just don't think it would be a situation resolved in 5-6 days, followed by a few months of infrastructure repair. The problem would be more serious than that, as the L.A Riots exemplify in recent memory. The more I think about it, the more weight I give Trin's position. It'd be down-and-dirty, and the Industrialized Nations infrastructure could get quite mangled. Ultimately however, the sheer might of an aroused and heavily armed civilian population (that will in all probability organize, at the local level at least), and the hideously powerful weapons systems the military has at its disposal would be too much for the zombies. One weapon in particular could be quite effective. Its name escapes me ATM, but its composed of raining down a storm of caustic-substance-filled or explosive darts on area, that is normally used to detonate minefields over a wide stretch of territory (Because its considered simply too inhumane to use it as an anti-personnel weapon. That consideration wouldn't apply to targeting zombie hordes obviously.) This weapons system would IMHO be BRUTALLY effective at eliminating huge numbers of zombies at once, since the darts would be raining down/delivering their caustic discharge/ordinance at terminal velocity to the zombies from above, in perfect position to strike and bore right through the top of the head and down into the chest cavity, or at least badly cripple the zombies. The capacity for such bombardments of ALL SORTS negate in my mind the possibility of the "Sea of Undead" phenomena ala Dawn '04. I've heard the arguments about airfields getting overrun or pilots/support staff deserting, but in reality you only need a very few crews and about 3 airfields operative for nationwide bombardments, and that's without even getting into conventional bombing and the deployment of the REALLY nasty weapons (Thermobarics, MOABs etc). Hell, civilians with a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook and access to a Home Depot could construct frigging PHOSPHORUS GRENADES for that matter. If the naysayers say that's too tough, what about homemade Thermite? I mean c'mon, the friggin Mythbusters cooked up tens of gallons of the stuff with one errand run for supplies and about 45-50 mins work (most of which was spent applying their brand-new Thermite Paste to their project (a scaled-down model of the Hindenburg.) Destroying tons of zombies isn't HARD per se, it would just require more forethought than "Just shoot them til we're out of bullets and then panic when they don't go down after we squandered 80% of our ammo on center-mass shots and half of the remaining 20% were clean misses. Guess I got a little off-track again. Enjoying this debate very much though. Please continue

[rongravy]

If a full blown zombie infection occurred and the zombie type were slow moving shamblers it would be easy for people to organize and eventually stop it while a good portion of our life style could be maintained. So, in the event of shamblers we would lose a lot initially, but the outcome would be in the favor of Mankind. Hell, enough people with baseball bats and pick axes could put a serious dent in their ranks nibbling at the edge of the horde. Throw some methamphetamine in the mix, and it's over in no time. If the infection involved fast movers it would take people longer to get control and there would a greater number of casualties, but eventually Mankind would reign again. Doubt it. Those things are relentless sprinters. They are definitely also not weak. Unless you got to the fucking styx before the shit went down, you be toast. If it happened, I'd prefer shamblers. Of course it wouldn't be up to me, I guess. My luck they'd be able to fly or something. Or have the ability to smell me pissing my pants...

[DTyra]

I recognize the points brought out in the previous posts. Would there be a fragmentation of the United States in the event of a global SHTF involving zeds? I don't think so. The main reason is a clear common enemy. With a common enemy the people and governments would rally together, this the reason a good politician searches for a common front. This is the reason the Nation is so divided politically today, instead of inclusion we have division. As an example, the day before Dec. 7, 1941, America was divided and unwilling to become involved with the war in Europe. Many of us supported Great Britain, but a significant number supported the Nazis. The day after Dec. 7 we, as a nation, were looking for someone's a** to kick. Japan forced us to take a side. The zombies would force us to take a side. America, because of the 2nd Amendment, would no doubt survive; heck, I have enough weapons to outfit a fire team myself and I would gladly hand them out to someone who wasn't armed, even someone who had previously advocated the confiscation of privately owned firearms (I think a horde of Zeds might change their stance). The only glitch would be the folks who firmly believe the government is going to take care of them, which seems to be a growing problem today. Still, the United States is the most culturally individualistic country in the world and you will see most of us taking appropriate action quickly. Would conditions be bad afterward? Probably, it would only take the loss of one critical industry to bring the our society to a standstill, but that's the reason it is important for Americans to be able to feed and care for themselves for an extended period of time. In the late sixties there was enough food stockpiled to feed the entire nation for a year, today we have close to three days. Did we lose our way somewhere along road? In essence we are nine meals from starvation. Fema used to tell people to have a three day supply of food on hand in case of an emergency, the last time I looked they were recommending two weeks. And have you noticed they have the plans to build wood gasifiers to run your cars with available on their website? Are they beginning to become concerned about a long term emergency?

[BillyRay]

Unless you got to the fucking styx before the shit went down, you be toast. Sorry, Ron, LOTS of Dead folks there, too. Realises today that this was my 666th post. Hail Satan.