The Dead Rising NOT an Extinction Event

[Wyldwraith]

Hey,
A previous thread got me thinking about this. In all of the Romero movies, and many others of the genre the directors try to convey an apocalyptic end-of-humanity sort of feel to the events going on. While it makes for good story, I would submit that it would be nearly impossible for a Romero-style global zombie rising to wipe humanity out. Here's why:

1) Too many extremely fortified and incredibly well-provisioned military shelters, past and present. Everything from Cheyenne Mountain, to Crystal Palace (can't remember where this one is located)..etc etc etc. Most modern shelters of this sort have nigh-impenetrable lockdown capabilities, enough supplies to last a population of hundreds for decades, and, most importantly, self-sustaining facilities like hydroponics bays and solar panels set high on the sides of mountains. Yes, some of these communities will destroy themselves, or fall prey to garden variety epidemics that isolated populations are susceptible to, but not all of them.

If the zombies can't get in, and the population in the shelter(s) rigorously adhere to intelligent corpse disposal when one or more of their number dies, then barring stupidity or extremely bad luck they have everything they need to wait until the vast hordes finally crumble into putrescent immobile heaps. Retarded/nearly halted decay is not the same as COMPLETELY HALTED decay. No undead exposed to the elements is going to last longer than ten years at a maximum. Twenty years tops for zombies stuck in sheltered buildings/extremely arid environments.

2) Geographic/Population Anomalies: All around the world there are locations that would make it all but impossible for the undead to snuff out human life. Bedouins would do just fine, and would those who dwell on the steppes. On the other end of the spectrum you have populations that will only be facing a very small number of the undead. A good example being an island with 1,000-1,500 people living on it. Yes, they might succumb for any of a number of reasons, but if they stamp out the initial surge of zombies AND adopt the aforementioned rigorous corpse-disposal methods, I see no reason why they'd ever see more than one or two zombies at a time ever again.

3) Luck: Some people will make it through sheer dumb right place/right time luck. Could be anything from people who take over a Walmart, to well, anything.

I can think of a variety of other reasons, but I'm interested in what everyone else thinks. Do you think a global Romero-style zombie epidemic would wipe out humanity or not? If so, why? If not, why?

[Philly_SWAT]

Here is my take on this topic. All 3 of your points above are indeed valid. And I agree with them all generally. However, even with those 3 things in mind, I still think that an apocalyptic atmosphere would come about on earth anyway. Here's why I think that:

1) "Zombification unknowns" - We do not now, and likely would not in the event of a zombie outbreak, have enough information about the exact nature of the problem. While it seems logical that after a period of time that a dead body will eventually whither away to nothing, that is based on what we know of the universe around us. That same knowledge tells us that dead bodies can not rise and attack the living. Therefore, the "rules" that we think we know would have obviously changed. As discussed elsewhere, there may be a stopping point for the decay. The zeds may reach of point of sustained mobility, we dont know. And if not, millions/billions now decaying zombies...who knows what type of biological damage that could do the planet. Water tables infected, trees, crops, animal life, etc., it seems likely that whatever strange force that enables the dead to walk could have disasterous effects on the environment of the Earth.

2) "Humanity Definition" - What is the definition of humanity? No doubt the general opinion on that has changed throughout history as man has progressed in his knowledge and abilities. Would simple existence still be considered as a 'human society'? Living in a bunker, eating bland food that has been preserved for emergencies, cant go outside, cant watch a new movie or play, cant take a picnic in the mountains, etc., would that seem apocalyptic, or not? I guess that depends on your perspective, but if most of the advances, medical, technological, etc., were not only stopped in their tracks, but regressed back to the metaphorical stone ages, it would be a bleak existence indeed.

3) "Lack of Continuing Knowledge" - Unless all of the enclaves of people that were able to survive due to fortified bunkers, unique geographic locations or dumb luck happened to have doctors/scientists with them, they would be susceptable to all types of diseases, even if they were to survive. Things that we take for granted now that we more than likely wont get due to vacinations...Polio, Rubella, etc., any newborn would not have the benefit of innoculations. Plus, any new disease that may come around, there would be no one around with the skill and knowledge to come up with new treatments. Even if there were tons of textbooks laying around explaining scientific procedures, it is unlikely that untrained laymen would be able to continue research such as this. So it is not unlikely that survivors would be sickly a lot of the time. Even simple things such as antibiotics would eventually run out.

4) "Dangers not addressed in movies" - What about all the nuclear plants that are operating throughout the world...what happens to them if they are not manned? Will computer safety features shut them down? Or will there be nuclear radiation incidents all over the place? What about chemical plants? What about electrical plants? If the power grid goes down, would there be incidents of some type all over? What about something simple, like fires? Wildfires due to lighting strikes, or due to any number of reasons (i.e. power in still on, shorted fuse sparks a fire, etc), without fire fighting personel to combat blazes, who knows how far fires could get out of control? Even if chemical plants located near a city were secure, who knows how a massive fire could effect the plant? Perhaps it causes a huge explosion, which eventually sets the entire city ablaze? The planet would be scarred from events such as this, and perhaps unihabitable as well. Poisonous toxins in the air could seep into the ventilation of the protected bunkers. Etc.

To answer the question, I think that while there may be survivors here and there, a Romero-style zombie epidemic would more or less wipe out humanity.

[SRP76]

You're going to find very few facilities that are truly self-contained. In fact, it cannot happen and still be zombieproof. Every single aspect of all these bunkers and whatnot runs on electricity. The only thing between you and death is solar panels (which are located OUTside, where the zombies can get you while you try to maintain them). You have to go out to perform maintenance on these and all mechanical devices. And even then, there's no telling how long things last with zombies afoot, molesting everything in sight. Once the power goes down, the people inside are just trapped, and die.

[MoonSylver]

Yhe only thing between you and death is solar panels (which are located OUTside, where the zombies can get you while you try to maintain them).

Just put up a flimsy chain link fence & you'll be fine. Then you can go out & bury your dead, grow pot, etc!!! :lol::evil:

[Thorn]

I think your post is very well thought out and I agree with much of it. I am one who feels strongly that no matter what goes on man will improvise, adapt, and overcome. The will to survive is a powerful motivator.

We did not always have electricity, modern medicine, machine tooled weapons, vehicles. Yet somehow we managed to survive in hostile climates and locations.

I will grant you Zombies are different creatures all together, it would be as if we were suddenly plagued with a swarming horde of "land sharks" that were walking about knocking on doors eating us alive. Spreading disease and famine in their wake. It would be very different, I know this.

What would be the same is our desire to live, survive, and thrive. While yes every time one of us died their numbers could potentially grow stronger. Every day that goes by we become better at dealing with that situation and we WOULD find ways to overcome the odds.

You can grow your own penicillin, you can make your own medicine, there are lots of home grown remedies. Currently there are not as many medical professionals as we need, electricians, mechanics, farmers, and soldiers. That said there will be when there needs to be.

I work in IT because it was a job that was in demand, there was growth, potential. It afforded me a great way to make a living to care for my family. In a world where the dead walk that is a basically valueless skill. I would need to work on some other way to contribute, and I would I would change and adapt to care for my family and those around me.

You would too, or you would lay down and die. The choice ultimately is yours give up, or fight. I do not think any of us are the lay down and die kind of people.

Even if there are some of us here who could not go on, could not change, could not adapt then we grow stronger for your loss for the gene pool because we are left with stronger more close knit people who need each other all the more making turning on each other much less appealing.

Would life ever be the "same" I doubt it but maybe that is the point of it it all, maybe it is not supposed to ever be the same. Is it so perfect now?

[Wyldwraith]

Beautifully written post Thorn,
I agree with just about 100% of what you said. As to the point that the zombies may not ever decay made by a previous poster, I must disagree. Eventually entropy will reclaim any object, particularly organic ones. If the zombies did NOTHING besides simply stand motionless in the absence of prey then eventually the joints at their knees and ankles would wear away from friction and the lack of a living cellular system to repair them. Same would go for tendons and cartilage.

However, on the off-chance that the above poster is correct, and undead bodies can persist indefinitely I will say this. They would provide an OPPORTUNITY to an afflicted mankind. If zombie brains can continue producing the electro-chemical activity required to make eyesight, hearing and the olfactory systems function, then some enterprising chemical engineer could come up with a way to harness this perpetual energy source for use by mankind.

Hack off a few hundred zombie heads, remove the lower jaw & teeth from the upper jaw, and hook the still-active heads up in series like a battery system. Voila, Zombie-Tech. Collect enough heads and you might be able to power a whole grid.

Yes, the above suggestion was meant to be preposterous in a way. I was seeking to highlight the adaptability of our species. Throughout our history we've maintained a knack for harnessing our afflictions into tools to serve our interests.

I think the issue can be broken down to a simple competition between competing species for position at the top of the food chain. Given the static response-driven limits of zombie behavior, I believe human beings would *eventually* come out on top. Civilization would certainly be destroyed, but our species would rebuild and go on.

Another thing: About the power-grids of shelters. I wasn't aware that mountaineering/free climbing was among the undead skillset. How would these zombies "get" the people doing maintenance on solar panels high up on a mountainside? I'm positive that the humans wouldn't naiively pop out at the mountain's base, wade through thousands of undead, and then climb the mountain. They'd use service tunnels bored through the rock. Yes, an isolated zombie here or there might find a way high up onto a mountain, but it doesn't seem particularly likely that it would manage to be in just the right place at just the right time to ambush the guy chosen to go fix Solar Panel #32.

The environmental argument is really the most compelling. I'm not certain how all the zombies putrefying in the planet's bodies of water would affect the water. The virus might perish like many virii deprived of their adapted host-type, or it might not. The calamities caused by the leftovers of civilization left unmonitored would certainly be serious, but I doubt any of the nuclear power plants in the US/rest of the 1st world would actually melt down.

It's an interesting subject. Anyone else have any ideas?

[Philly_SWAT]

They would provide an OPPORTUNITY to an afflicted mankind. If zombie brains can continue producing the electro-chemical activity required to make eyesight, hearing and the olfactory systems function, then some enterprising chemical engineer could come up with a way to harness this perpetual energy source for use by mankind.

Hack off a few hundred zombie heads, remove the lower jaw & teeth from the upper jaw, and hook the still-active heads up in series like a battery system. Voila, Zombie-Tech. Collect enough heads and you might be able to power a whole grid.

LOL, I could see that if large pockets of humans were able to keep a semblance of 'civilization' going, that people would come up with unique combination of zed head to provide power. Some would capture their former loved ones, and use their head, figuring "at least they are doing some good now". I could see a person using their spouse, kids, and parents zed heads for this purpose.

Hollywood survivors would no doubt take pleasure in using celebrity dead heads. Imagine Jessica Alba, Jessica Beal, Beyonce and Natalie Portman, there reanimated heads sitting in the 'head box', providing the juice to run your AC. The possibilities are endless! :)

[Wooley]

I'd love to see this explored in a Dead flick.

Dead start rising, and someone in a position of recongnized authority-police cheief, sheriff, Nat'l Guard in or near some little town, being brighter than most, starts work on a series of moats and other fortifications around the town, starts a series of camps for refugees where they're screened against bites, communicable diseases, etc, starts compling lists of food, fuel and other necessities and works out a system where the property holder is or will be compensated for their goods, hence heading off resistance to 'official theft', sets up a ration distrbution system using data from the US nuclear war recovery programs.

Cobbles together systems by which drinkable water and sewage removal and treatment can continue or alternatives found, like making sure all residents know to boil water or how to set up a slow sand filter to get clean water, and how to dig a latrine.

Forms a citizen defense force from lists of concealed handgun permit holders, hunting permits, and former military personnel, in addition to the remnants of police and military units either in the town or ones who come through, and figures out a way to form civilian work details to maintain the fortifications, plant gardens, harvest crops, etc in such a way as to head off resistance against 'conscription' and 'slavery'.

I'll bet when the last zom drops over with maggots crawling out it's eyes, lots of those towns will still be there.

[Wyldwraith]

Excellent post Wooley,
You encapsulated mine and Thorn's viewpoints beautifully. It's a given that 21st century civilization would be a near-complete casualty of a global zombie epidemic, but the persistence of the human animal and our ability to alter our behavior via reasoning, and our environment via tool use makes our complete extinction unlikely without something more on the order of accepted causes of Extinction Level Events.

An asteroid the size of Delaware striking the Earth, and the eruption of a super-volcano would both do us in as a species because the changes to our planet are too damaging, too all-encompassing, TOO QUICKLY. No time for adaptation is the key to extinction IMO. I simply don't believe zombies pack the oomph to bump us off as a species.

Do I believe that something on the order of 7.25 billion people would die during such a zombie epidemic? Absolutely. It's the diminishing returns and entropic aspects related to the zombie phenomena that lead me to believe in our survival. Humanity can learn to cope with the threat zombies pose, as well as all the secondary calamities caused by the collapse of civilization. Zombies can't.

The only way I see a zombie epidemic taking us out entirely is if one of two things happen.

1) During the fall of civilization for some reason the world superpowers get involved in a massive nuclear exchange. Nuclear Winter + zombie apocalypse might well do us in, just as the 1-2 punch of the asteroid strike + the massive volcanic/tectonic activity it precipitated bumped off the dinosaurs.

2) If somehow the zombies are not actually reanimated corpses, but somehow radically mutated human beings that a) are somehow beyond the need of the survival basics and b) still evolving/more than mindless response-driven automatons.

In other words, if the zombies continue to not only grow in number, but also become ever more dangerous individually then eventually the pressure might be enough to drive us into extinction.

Brian Keene's premise of self-aware demons taking over the bodies of the dead and using them as puppets to interact and further their agenda of world annihlation is an excellent example of this principle. If a military ordinance tech becomes a zombie and retains all his reasoning power and skills from when he was alive, then obviously he and his zombie buddies can devise a means of blasting their way into the gov't bunkers, just like Brian Keene's demon-zombies did in City of the Dead.

Then again, at that point we really aren't talking about a zombie epidemic anymore. We're into the realm of alien invasion, and I've always been of the opinion that any race that's developed Faster-Than-Light travel that wanted to take us out as a species could do it before we even realized we were under attack. (Hell, they could just tow the largest asteroid they could find in the belt between Mars and Jupiter into position, and then set it on a collision course with Earth.

Anyways, those factors/possibilities aside, I think we're in complete agreement Wooley. Your plan for organizing the population sounds like it has all the elements required to get a fortified community up and running.

Hell, would love to see that played out in a movie. Land of the Dead with Fiddler's Green administrated and defended by the intelligent and responsible. Would be an interesting flick IMO.

[Yojimbo]

Assuming that people agree to work together to fufill a collective need, I have no doubt that civilization would persist. My fear, however, is that people will not work together for a common goal.

I recall that there were a lot of folks that stated that their survival plans entailed looting supplies by force, for example, and I wonder if they would do so in an egalitarian way, or would this lead to folks capping each other in the Costco Warehouse parking lot over a pallet of pork and beans?

Obviously, there are tightly knit small communities out there unified by tradition, or religion or interpersonal relationships that will work together as a team. Would they set upon waging war against the community down the road over supplies, or would they manage to have a healthy, working relationship with the other town? Would they be able to cope with
differences between the two communities (differing religious beliefs or cultures?) or would this cause more friction given the stress of the circumstances.

Would one community agree to be annexed by a larger, better equipped and armed community? And would the elected leader of the smaller community step down quietly, or be resentful?

A common theme in GAR's universe is that what will kill us is not necessarily the zombies, or the virus, or the fact that the phones are down- but our inability to cooperate with each other and our willingness to compromise. Perhaps it is a glass half empty view, but I find it hard to believe that the majority of folks out there will be willing to sacrifice their own needs and desires for the collective good, and sadly without this willingness to work together I feel that the human race would use the ghouls as an excuse to behalf selfishly.

[Wyldwraith]

That's where my statement about 7-7.25 billion people perishing comes in.

I don't have rose-colored glasses on. Of course there will be tons of people who behave in exactly the manner that GAR, Yojimbo and others predict. I still maintain that there are enough of us who AREN'T like that to ensure our survival as a species.

Call it my glass one quarter-full view of the human species :)

Additionally, I suspect that there will be MUCH more craziness like you describe during the phase that NotlD depicts than later. The folks who are liable to make decisions that will end up getting themselves and those around them killed will likely do so in short order. Anyone who is still standing (with a pulse) 3+ months in has had the value of cooperation and teamwork acid-etched into their minds.

Just consider how much more dangerous it would be to scavenge a grocery store alone than doing it with two partners? Would you rather absorb all that risk, and thus all the reward if everything turns out all right. Or, would you choose to vastly diminish the personal risk, even though it means you'd have to split the goods with your two partners?

Given a choice you would NEVER get me into an unknown/potentially zombie-compromised structure while I was alone unless not entering meant my swift and certain death. The fourteen zombies fifty yards behind me on a wide road, two a dozen yards off to my left, and 3 20 yards off to my right are preferable to the ONE I might not see inside a confined space until he got one lousy grimy tooth into my skin, dooming me. At least I've got room to make a stand against the zombies in the wide open. If the fight turns against me I can always kill myself. Alone, in a confined space, I might end up dead before I could check out properly, and I am NOT ending up a zombie!

There's nothing selfless about teamwork and cooperation during imminent danger. The intelligent will band together against both the zombies and the Khardis-type amorally psychotic human marauders. The rest will end up shambling about.

Basically I guess I'm saying that enlightened self-interest can arguably be considered an instinctive reason to band together with other people to try and survive.

[Yojimbo]

That's where my statement about 7-7.25 billion people perishing comes in.

I don't have rose-colored glasses on. Of course there will be tons of people who behave in exactly the manner that GAR, Yojimbo and others predict. I still maintain that there are enough of us who AREN'T like that to ensure our survival as a species.

Call it my glass one quarter-full view of the human species :)

Additionally, I suspect that there will be MUCH more craziness like you describe during the phase that NotlD depicts than later. The folks who are liable to make decisions that will end up getting themselves and those around them killed will likely do so in short order. Anyone who is still standing (with a pulse) 3+ months in has had the value of cooperation and teamwork acid-etched into their minds.

Just consider how much more dangerous it would be to scavenge a grocery store alone than doing it with two partners? Would you rather absorb all that risk, and thus all the reward if everything turns out all right. Or, would you choose to vastly diminish the personal risk, even though it means you'd have to split the goods with your two partners?

Given a choice you would NEVER get me into an unknown/potentially zombie-compromised structure while I was alone unless not entering meant my swift and certain death. The fourteen zombies fifty yards behind me on a wide road, two a dozen yards off to my left, and 3 20 yards off to my right are preferable to the ONE I might not see inside a confined space until he got one lousy grimy tooth into my skin, dooming me. At least I've got room to make a stand against the zombies in the wide open. If the fight turns against me I can always kill myself. Alone, in a confined space, I might end up dead before I could check out properly, and I am NOT ending up a zombie!

There's nothing selfless about teamwork and cooperation during imminent danger. The intelligent will band together against both the zombies and the Khardis-type amorally psychotic human marauders. The rest will end up shambling about.

Basically I guess I'm saying that enlightened self-interest can arguably be considered an instinctive reason to band together with other people to try and survive.

In a SHTF situation, I fear that we humans pose the biggest risk to ourselves, and when the dead start walking, I fear that other survivors may end up being more dangerous to my well-being than the ghouls.

But the above being said, I do hear what you are saying, Wyld, and prefer your "glass one-quarter full" view to the thought that the human race would ultimately doomed in an apocalyptic situation. I do agree with what you said: that enlightened self-interest will cause folks to band together and cooperate. I only hope that those "cooperative" groups can hold their own against marauders, looters and any other "manifest destiny" motivated forces, zombies notwithstanding.

[Wooley]

"Enlightened self interest." I like the sound of that.

I think the small towns and communities that hold out against the dead won't be goign to war with each other over supplies and such, simply because they're likely to be governed by intelligent men and women who can reason the situation, in most cases-I'm certain all the police chiefs and sheriffs in an area know each other, for example, and are pragmatic, so they know warring with each other is a nonstarter. That and towns tend to be alike politically, religiously, etc through out regions, so I don't see much conflict there. I figure they would make trade and mutual aid pacts with each other as needed, with the provision that if one community doesn't live up to their word, the others will cut them off. Kind of like the Amish tradition of shunning wrong doers.

A little town isn't going going to screw themselves out of help of help from the big town's company of Nat'l Guard mechanized infantry if the little town can only muster a defense force of a few dozen, armed with deer rifles, shotguns and limited ammo and training, nor is the big town going to screw themselves out of a cut of the little town's wheat and corn harvest when they've got a few thousand mouths to feed and limited ability to grow their own food.

I think society has always been ruled by love, fear and self interest, and that won't change, even if the dead walk the earth.

I do think the biggest problem will be like the one faced by the people in the farm house-if there isn't a clear leader, how do you formulate a clear strategy that works? I figure lots of folks will simply follow what the government says, assuming the government appears the least bit competant, and spins their into in such a way that the panicked masses will act on it, rather than revolting-"Tie up your grandmother with the bite wound on her arm. She's sick with a rabies like disease, and when the National Guard comes to your door, give her to them so they can take her to get treated in one of the mobile Army field hospitals" rather than "Your grandmother is now a zombie. She's a living corpse and you need to shoot her in the face then burn her corpse in the back yard like she's a log in a wiener roast." Granted, the first one is a bald faced lie, but it's the one that will get most of society moving in the right way towards controlling the epidemic.

A few works I've seen that present a realistic and probable way of life and governance in post-apocalyptic communities:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/790610.pdf
A short story called "Charlottesville", commissioned by the Federal government as part of a study about the aftermath of a nuclear war between the US/Nato and the USSR/Warsaw Pact.

http://www.tdtcoalition.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2638&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=cf1c4e4df07f82bfa1df7d31f55ac9be
"We Now Interrupt This Program", a work done done by a survivalist author about a man in Florida after a impact from space that does to the East Coast and Gulf Coast of the US and elsewhere what Dec 26 Tsunami did to Southeast Asia, Austrailia, and Africa.

The highly localized system of government, with it's dependence on civilian volunteers for law enforcement and defense, and use of radios for communication is similar to a system found during the Communist backed terrorist insurgency on Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.

The way the farmers handle the Nat'l Guard food requision situation is highly probable too, and goes to my comments to Ned back in Mike70's Post-Zombie Government thread. There simply isn't enough food out there to feed everyone, not anymore, and trying to do so is likely to result in everyone starving.

[strayrider]

Wow, an actual intelligent discussion on surviving the dead without people threatening to kill one another over the last can of Beanie Weenies.


The way the farmers handle the Nat'l Guard food requision situation is highly probable too, and goes to my comments to Ned back in Mike70's Post-Zombie Government thread. There simply isn't enough food out there to feed everyone, not anymore, and trying to do so is likely to result in everyone starving.

I think that in the mid-west food will not be a problem. Unless the "plague" somehow effects wildlife, the population of game animals such as deer, squirrel, rabbit, ducks, geese, wild turkey, etc. will literally explode. Imagine a herd of 1000+ deer living the area around your enclave. You won't go hungry.

Consider also our current crops gone "wild". Fruits and vegetables would grow on their own in abundance (barring any weird hybrids), apple trees, etc. I think the mid-west would be the "Land of Plenty".

Of course, if you're in the desert ...

:D

-stray-

[Mike70]

3) "Lack of Continuing Knowledge" - Unless all of the enclaves of people that were able to survive due to fortified bunkers, unique geographic locations or dumb luck happened to have doctors/scientists with them, they would be susceptable to all types of diseases, even if they were to survive. Things that we take for granted now that we more than likely wont get due to vacinations...Polio, Rubella, etc., any newborn would not have the benefit of innoculations. Plus, any new disease that may come around, there would be no one around with the skill and knowledge to come up with new treatments. Even if there were tons of textbooks laying around explaining scientific procedures, it is unlikely that untrained laymen would be able to continue research such as this. So it is not unlikely that survivors would be sickly a lot of the time. Even simple things such as antibiotics would eventually run out.


this could potentially be a huge problem and is treated at length in walter miller's "a canticle for leibowitz", which is an awesome post-apocalyptic novel about an order of monks attempting to preserve knowledge and science after a gigantic nuclear war destroys civilization. the problem the monks have is that they have science textbooks, books on medicine, chemistry texts, texts on engineering, etc. but after the nuke war the people who were left blamed science for what happened and anyone -doctors, engineers, chemists, professors, etc. that had any sort of specialized knowledge was tracked down and murdered by mobs.

so the monks have all these books but none of the basic skills in math, science, chemistry, etc. to make any sense of them, they are, in effect, useless for hundreds of years until the base knowledge required to understand a college level textbook is rediscovered.

as for diseases, two things that would help limit disease would be the very low population densities and a relative lack of contact with other groups of survivors. given that and following a few common sense sanitation rules, disease could be limited.

[Wooley]

Wow, an actual intelligent discussion on surviving the dead without people threatening to kill one another over the last can of Beanie Weenies.



I think that in the mid-west food will not be a problem. Unless the "plague" somehow effects wildlife, the population of game animals such as deer, squirrel, rabbit, ducks, geese, wild turkey, etc. will literally explode. Imagine a herd of 1000+ deer living the area around your enclave. You won't go hungry.

Consider also our current crops gone "wild". Fruits and vegetables would grow on their own in abundance (barring any weird hybrids), apple trees, etc. I think the mid-west would be the "Land of Plenty".

Of course, if you're in the desert ...

:D

-stray-

Actually, you're right that food for a large chunk of the population might not be a problem should the dead walk. Any type of situation that dramiatically cuts the number of mouths to feed but doesn't cut the amount of food available will mean that unless you're stupid or unfortunate (like Andy in the gun store) you probably won't know starvation or even malnutrition. I say stupid because a tremendous percentage of our population probably doesn't know where it's food comes from (milk comes from cartons!), much less what do do with it if it isn't already packaged for them-even if they figure out that the grain silos contain grain, would they figure out a way to grind it into flour or corn meal and know how to make bread from it, for example.

But situations where the number of mouths to feed isn't reduced below the available food,, or the ability to get food to the survivors is impaired like a nuclear war or economic collapse or other possibilities means mass starvation/malnutrition is very possible, if not a given since the US no longer has the stores of grain we once had. The Just in Time/Wal-Mart way has extended even to our food production, and the US government never did stockpile food for civil defense like Russia, or other countries.

One thing to remember though is that the corn, wheat, soybeans, etc in the farm fields are hybrids, as are many of the plants in backyard gardens across the nation. They're engineered to give higher yields with less fertilizer, pesticides, etc, at the expense that their seeds are most likely sterile, and the ones that do germinate won't germinate well, I've read.

Mike70 brings up something I've often wondered about-would there be another Dark Age in the aftermath of a major cataclysm? Our educational system isn't what it used to be, and with much of the population dead, either in the event or the chaos that followed, and the surviving population forced back into subsistence farming and guard duty, it's not likely there'd be a premium placed on passing on the algebra, chemistry, etc needed to restart a modern society such as we're used to. And that's assuming the raw materials are there to do so in the first place. I think the best we could do is a 1920s level of existence with better medicine and communications.

[Mike70]

Mike70 brings up something I've often wondered about-would there be another Dark Age in the aftermath of a major cataclysm? Our educational system isn't what it used to be, and with much of the population dead, either in the event or the chaos that followed, and the surviving population forced back into subsistence farming and guard duty, it's not likely there'd be a premium placed on passing on the algebra, chemistry, etc needed to restart a modern society such as we're used to. And that's assuming the raw materials are there to do so in the first place. I think the best we could do is a 1920s level of existence with better medicine and communications.

yeah, i think there undoubtedly would be a dark age afterwards that would probably last for centuries, depending on how many people were left, how they were distributed, and how keen they were to rediscover technology.

something else that comes to mind is that the longer this dark age lasts, the harder it will become for people to communicate with others from different groups. literacy is what fixes a language in place and prevents large changes to it in a relatively short time. if contact was lost between groups for a long period, english would undoubtedly mutate into several different regional languages.

this is something else that miller examines at length in his book. after 600 years (when the book starts), english has shattered into dozens of mutually unintelligible languages. since the catholic church is only vestige of civilization left, latin becomes (once again just like in the dark ages after the fall of the western empire) the language the different groups of monks, priests or the few non-church types that know it use to communicate with one another. our form of standard english becomes like latin, in that nobody but people in the church can understand it and it is used for ceremonial purposes by the church.

anyone seriously into post-apocalyptic books should read "a canticle for leibowitz" pronto. it is broken into 3 parts: "fiat homo" (let there be man) 600 years after the war and during a dark age, "fiat lux" (let there be light) 1,200 years after and right as electricity, engineering, advanced math, and chemistry have been rediscovered, and "fiat voluntas tua" (let thy will be done) 1,800 years after when humans are actually more advanced than we are now and have colonies on some of the other planets and advanced spaceflight but are headed right back down the same old self destructive path.

[strayrider]

yeah, i think there undoubtedly would be a dark age afterwards that would probably last for centuries, depending on how many people were left, how they were distributed, and how keen they were to rediscover technology.

something else that comes to mind is that the longer this dark age lasts, the harder it will become for people to communicate with others from different groups. literacy is what fixes a language in place and prevents large changes to it in a relatively short time. if contact was lost between groups for a long period, english would undoubtedly mutate into several different regional languages.

this is something else that miller examines at length in his book. after 600 years (when the book starts), english has shattered into dozens of mutually unintelligible languages. since the catholic church is only vestige of civilization left, latin becomes (once again just like in the dark ages after the fall of the western empire) the language the different groups of monks, priests or the few non-church types that know it use to communicate with one another. our form of standard english becomes like latin, in that nobody but people in the church can understand it and it is used for ceremonial purposes by the church.

anyone seriously into post-apocalyptic books should read "a canticle for leibowitz" pronto. it is broken into 3 parts: "fiat homo" (let there be man) 600 years after the war and during a dark age, "fiat lux" (let there be light) 1,200 years after and right as electricity, engineering, advanced math, and chemistry have been rediscovered, and "fiat voluntas tua" (let thy will be done) 1,800 years after when humans are actually more advanced than we are now and have colonies on some of the other planets and advanced spaceflight but are headed right back down the same old self destructive path.

While I don't disagree that in certain areas there might be a dark age of sorts, but I also think all eras of human history might exist. High tech in some areas, medieval in others, tribal, etc.

Heck, in our own American west things might revert to the way they were a century, or so ago. That's where I'd want to hang out. Young Guns with zombies.

:D

-stray-

[Wyldwraith]

I'm going to have to disagree with the notion of a full Dark Ages backslide,
Literacy isn't terribly hard to convey, and due to the vast majority of First World inhabitants being literate it would be a hard skill to lose. Now, as for the outgrowth sciences of the late 20th/early 21st century, those would be finished of course.

Some of the factors that made the Dark Ages so tenaciously resistant to being transcended were controlled by powerful cross-sections of the population with a vested interest in as little progress as possible occurring. In the absence of a power bloc resembling the marriage between the aristocracy and the Church I just don't see it happening again.

For one thing, too many of the "Basic Great Discoveries" of science are now common knowledge. Everyone in the first world understands the basics of germ theory, so we aren't likely to backslide into believing evil spirits of sickness are responsible for health problems for example.

For such a backslide to occur you would need more than simply a massive portion of the world's population to die. You'd need for that portion to completely encompass the first world, and for the rise of some sort of geo-political power with the same anti-progress interests the Church had back then.

If even a million college-educated individuals survived in the United States in the wake of a disaster that wiped out 85% of the nation's population, the furthest back we might fall is like the man said, the 1920s or so. Memory of the fundamentals would dramatically cut down the time until they could be re-implemented.

In other words, the big hold-up throughout history has always been ignorance, not productivity. If people understand how a thing may be accomplished, and desire to accomplish that thing then it becomes a simple matter of resource and manpower allocation.

Now, I'm NOT suggesting we would be back designing microchips by Year 10 after this major cataclysm, but I am suggesting that so long as the survivors were diligent in perpetuating literacy and recording the fundamental principles behind the great discoveries of science our climb back to where we were pre-Cataclysm would be orders of magnitude shorter than the amount of time it took us to progress to that point to begin with.

To get the kind of cultural and scientific desolation you're talking about you'd need for 95 of every 100 high school and college educated First-Worlders to bite the dust. Under those conditions I could see there being too few remaining to pass on information, and within a generation we'd be tribal again.

Then again, if you're going to take it THAT far we might not survive at all.

[sandrock74]

I'm going to have to disagree with the notion of a full Dark Ages backslide,
Literacy isn't terribly hard to convey, and due to the vast majority of First World inhabitants being literate it would be a hard skill to lose. Now, as for the outgrowth sciences of the late 20th/early 21st century, those would be finished of course.


What?!? "the vast majority of First World inhabitants being literate" is something I have to disagree with. Maybe a sizeable minority of the population, but certainly not the vast majority!

[strayrider]

What?!? "the vast majority of First World inhabitants being literate" is something I have to disagree with. Maybe a sizeable minority of the population, but certainly not the vast majority!

Dude, where do you get your information?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_lit_tot_pop-education-literacy-total-population

:D

-stray-

[sandrock74]

Dude, where do you get your information?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_lit_tot_pop-education-literacy-total-population

:D

-stray-

So, 99% of our population is literate? So, whats the problem?

[strayrider]

So, 99% of our population is literate? So, whats the problem?

I guess its just what they're literate in ... political/scientific journals vs celebrity/entertainment magazines for example.

:D

-stray-

[AcesandEights]

The farce is strong in this thread.