Why do the characters want to survive?

[Bunsher]

In every zombie film I've seen, the characters really do try their hardest to survive the impending apocalypse that is occuring. Even without an apocalypse, humans have an unexplainable desire to live for no other reason then, well, to live... but what's there to truly live for in a post-zombie-apocalyptic world?

In all honesty, if there were to be a zombie outbreak I'd just go over to the person I love and just spend my last moments with her. I wouldn't barracade the place, I wouldn't do anything, I'd just sit with her and wait until the zombies tear me to shreds.

I've never understood why no character in a zombie film says "Well it's pretty pointless to live, I'll just die now.." although I guess John comes pretty close in Day.

[Marie]

People want to survive for the same reason that people want to reproduce in this crazy, and increasingly dangerous world, even without the zombie plague being real. We're programed for it, othewise our species would have died out centuries ago. If we'd have quit trying we'd have never become the dominant species on this planet.

M_

[Legion2213]

What Marie said - Survival/preservation/continuation is hard-wired into our minds and our DNA.

[JDFP]

In all honesty, if there were to be a zombie outbreak I'd just go over to the person I love and just spend my last moments with her. I wouldn't barracade the place, I wouldn't do anything, I'd just sit with her and wait until the zombies tear me to shreds.

I call bullshit on this. You honestly mean to tell me that if a ghoul was about to enter into your place with a loved one you would just say: "Oh, well, shit, I guess we're about to die."? Here in Tennessee we call a person that doesn't stick up for his family/friends a yellow-belly (a.k.a. coward).

Do you wake up in the morning and just say: "Well, I don't feel like trying to succeed in life anyway because I'll just end up failing anyway, better just to save myself from the embarrassment." Because, that's exactly what you are saying. If not for your own laziness, if this is the way you really feel, then you should survive in knowing that the longer you keep going the longer you can help other people who really want to live to survive.

I agree with others here about the survival instinct. You say the above now, but I could bet you a buffalo nickel that if you were about to face certain death you'd either fight or flight. I've always liked the phrase: "I'm not afraid of death, just the dying part." I think that really sums a great deal of it up right there. We carry on regardless of the tumult or toil or terror because it's who we are as people (at least, ahem, some of us).

We all die, but some of us (like the person you mention above in your phrase) never truly live.

Now a nuclear war is a different story all together...

j.p.

[zombiekiller]

I call bullshit on this. You honestly mean to tell me that if a ghoul was about to enter into your place with a loved one you would just say: "Oh, well, shit, I guess we're about to die."? Here in Tennessee we call a person that doesn't stick up for his family/friends a yellow-belly (a.k.a. coward).

Do you wake up in the morning and just say: "Well, I don't feel like trying to succeed in life anyway because I'll just end up failing anyway, better just to save myself from the embarrassment." Because, that's exactly what you are saying. If not for your own laziness, if this is the way you really feel, then you should survive in knowing that the longer you keep going the longer you can help other people who really want to live to survive.

I agree with others here about the survival instinct. You say the above now, but I could bet you a buffalo nickel that if you were about to face certain death you'd either fight or flight. I've always liked the phrase: "I'm not afraid of death, just the dying part." I think that really sums a great deal of it up right there. We carry on regardless of the tumult or toil or terror because it's who we are as people (at least, ahem, some of us).

We all die, but some of us (like the person you mention above in your phrase) never truly live.

Now a nuclear war is a different story all together...

j.p.

hear,hear. i agree with you 100 percent.if you would give up then, you might as well just stay home in bed til you die. cause you wouldn't mount to anything anyway.

[SRP76]

Plain fear. People are afraid to die. Zombies or not, croaking is a frightful thing that you don't want happening to you. So, you try to avoid it.

[sandrock74]

Simple answer: the human will to survive.

[Yojimbo]

We all die, but some of us (like the person you mention above in your phrase) never truly live.

Wise words. Death is an inevitability that is only truly sad when there there was no point to the life lost.

[SymphonicX]

I can see where Bunsher is coming from in a sense, maybe misguided in the way the point is expressed but I am assuming he means the pure futility of trying to survive in a sparsely populated, extremely volatile and dangerous environment wouldn't exactly make you want to breed let alone see any point to survival.

It's kinda like living on the mouth of a volcano, one day you know it's going to cause your premature end so why stave it off til you're too old to run away from it?

Human survival instinct only goes so far, and after a few years of a zombie plague I'd bet my bottom dollar the suicide rate would be higher than the death from zombies rate.

However I doubt Bansher would really let zeds tear him and his girlfriend limb from limb, that's just painful and a horrible way to die and I do suspect you'd fight tooth and nail to see your gf have a more peaceful end than that, if suicide was on the agenda. I mean the ultimate fear in all of this is being torn apart and eaten by zombies...so to simply throw yourself into that situation is unnatural in terms of human behaviour.

I think the likelihood is that you'd be taking a whole bunch of sleeping pills and zzzzzzzzzzz

[Publius]

I can see where Bunsher is coming from in a sense, maybe misguided in the way the point is expressed but I am assuming he means the pure futility of trying to survive in a sparsely populated, extremely volatile and dangerous environment wouldn't exactly make you want to breed let alone see any point to survival.


It's not like the human race hasn't been there (in a sparsely populated, extremely volatile, and dangerous environment) before. Should the first humans have just laid down to die cuz of all the scary sabertooth tigers and such? If they had thought like Bunsher, we wouldn't exist today. ;)

[SymphonicX]

yeah but we're not talking about an underdeveloped, flailing species...those instincts would be sharper and more attuned to those environments...however imagine if the species evolved to the point of no natural predators, and instead survival was merely a thing of the past, so the species relaxed and generation after generation didn't have to deal with anything close to a constant physical threat...then suddenly all hell breaks loose, how does this species handle this problem? I'd say a fair few suicides...

That's obviously where we're at now, but with thousands of years ago we hadn't relaxed and volatile environments were what people were born into...I reckon the sudden change now days would be enough to tip people over the edge...maybe not all of us, we are of course, a species renowned for the "adapt and overcome" method of being - but there would be a major, major culture shock which wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people simply couldn't handle it...

[Trin]

Depression and trauma are tricky things to predict, and in severe cases can completely jack up the survival instinct. Maybe the dude isn't going to lie down and let the zombies win the first night, but after a couple months, and after seeing the futility of living on, that might just be the case. Day after day of watching the world sink would eventually take its toll.

[SymphonicX]

Depression and trauma are tricky things to predict, and in severe cases can completely jack up the survival instinct. Maybe the dude isn't going to lie down and let the zombies win the first night, but after a couple months, and after seeing the futility of living on, that might just be the case. Day after day of watching the world sink would eventually take its toll.

Exactly.
I'm gonna kill myself now tbh....

[Wyldwraith]

Whoa,
All over the world people are still fighting tooth and nail to eke out a subsistence-level existence. Painting the species as if soft complacency is the norm is inaccurate, since we are VASTLY outnumbered by the portion of humanity still one bad harvest/one outbreak of disease/loss of one week's extremely minimal earnings from being wiped out.

Humanity has only been around for an eyeblink of time on Earth, but it strikes me as unreasonable to believe that instincts and drives responsible for keeping us going through the vast majority of the time we've been around that predates the last century of modern conveniences have just disappeared.

Yes, many would die due to a simple lack of knowledge, but the survivors would relearn the lessons of survival in short order. How do we know?

We're the one species on Earth prone to experiencing major overall improvements in the condition of our species DUE TO catastrophes that claim large portions of our populations.

The Younger Dryas caused mass migrations that lead to human populations discovering/settling in new and much more favorable territories, and is also believed to be responsible for technological leaps forward in weapons/hunting implements design.

The Black Death leads directly to the Renaissance. (Which is quite telling, since the golden age of gentle climate Europe had been experiencing prior to the Black Death had resulted in ossification of social development, while the sudden extermination of two thirds of the population ends the Dark Ages and slingshots us towards the Enlightenment)

One could easily make the argument from a historical perspective that the loss of 5-6 billion people worldwide is more likely to trigger our next leap forwards as a species than it is to threaten our survival.

Humanity seems to thrive and advance ONLY when life turns to horror and shit for the majority of us...

[Gemini]

Max Brooks addresses this with references to suicide epidemics and death due to unexplained natural causes (tangible evidence of lost hope and lost will to live) in his great book World War Z.

However the people too weak to summon the will to persevere are in the minority I believe.

How about Max's strange yet plausible 'quislings' theory, living people so disillusioned and warped by the zombie crisis that they believe they are one of them, and shamble amongst the undead, attacking the living before being devoured themselves by legitimate zombies.

Interesting post by wraith btw.

[Bunsher]

I call bullshit on this. You honestly mean to tell me that if a ghoul was about to enter into your place with a loved one you would just say: "Oh, well, shit, I guess we're about to die."? Here in Tennessee we call a person that doesn't stick up for his family/friends a yellow-belly (a.k.a. coward).

Do you wake up in the morning and just say: "Well, I don't feel like trying to succeed in life anyway because I'll just end up failing anyway, better just to save myself from the embarrassment." Because, that's exactly what you are saying. If not for your own laziness, if this is the way you really feel, then you should survive in knowing that the longer you keep going the longer you can help other people who really want to live to survive.

I agree with others here about the survival instinct. You say the above now, but I could bet you a buffalo nickel that if you were about to face certain death you'd either fight or flight. I've always liked the phrase: "I'm not afraid of death, just the dying part." I think that really sums a great deal of it up right there. We carry on regardless of the tumult or toil or terror because it's who we are as people (at least, ahem, some of us).

We all die, but some of us (like the person you mention above in your phrase) never truly live.

Now a nuclear war is a different story all together...

j.p.

I just have to throw it out there that I'm not a weak-willed person, and I completely understand the instincts that are implanted within human beings that causes their desire to live, I just question why? What existence are we having that is so good that we should attempt to stretch our lives as much as possible? I view my life in a strange way, almost metaphorically.

Imagine George A Romero... imagine if he made five more zombie films and they all sucked major balls. Completely awful. Now he'd be remembered as "That guy who used to make good films but now doesn't."

..he could have been remembered as "That guy who made those masterpieces"

Do you know what I mean? I view my life in a similar manner. In regards to my notion that I would wait for death in a zombie epidemic, it's true, I genuinely would. I see death in my own way, we only die once and I want that to be memorable. Surviving a zombie epidemic is nothing more than prolonging your death. You know it's inevitible and imminent, your life becomes a ticking time bomb and nothing more.... I am so fascinated by the apocalypse and I'd love to die when it happens because of the wonderfully morbid and yet strangely compelling and relaxing notion that we'll all go together when we go. Like that Tom Lehrer song!

I think I'm truly living now and I don't want to live past the beginning of a zombie epidemic because I'd rather my last memories be my normal life, my nice memories, and not of me running, hiding, dodging, and trying to live in a post-apocalyptic world. Just my view, a bit controversial I do accept but oh well!

[darth los]

Whoa,
All over the world people are still fighting tooth and nail to eke out a subsistence-level existence. Painting the species as if soft complacency is the norm is inaccurate, since we are VASTLY outnumbered by the portion of humanity still one bad harvest/one outbreak of disease/loss of one week's extremely minimal earnings from being wiped out.

Humanity has only been around for an eyeblink of time on Earth, but it strikes me as unreasonable to believe that instincts and drives responsible for keeping us going through the vast majority of the time we've been around that predates the last century of modern conveniences have just disappeared.

Yes, many would die due to a simple lack of knowledge, but the survivors would relearn the lessons of survival in short order. How do we know?

We're the one species on Earth prone to experiencing major overall improvements in the condition of our species DUE TO catastrophes that claim large portions of our populations.




Interesting theory but i have to take exception.


Imo, since the industrial revolution people have slowly been losing the survival instincts and self reliance that had gotten us to that point. So it would stand to reason that the people scratching out an existence would stand a much better chance in a scenario such as this one.

I posed a question to some classmates: If there were no supermarkets where would you get your food? You could hear crickets. But that's exactly my point.

Also, just because the species has television sets and Nuclear weapons doesn't mean that every human on the face of the earth knows how to build them. W.B. Dubois had a "talented tenth" theory where he said it was the duty of that percentage of negroes to lift lift up the other 90%".

That's really a microcosm of what the human race is, a talented tenth leading a bunch of fat, lazy, gullible sheep.

I do believe that survival instinct has all but disappeared, particularly in the "developed" countries. I've always said, you don't need a nuclear weapon in order to bring about the end of the world. An EMP device of a strong enough solar flare to knock out earth's electricity will suffice. Just wind them up and watch the magic happen.

Then we will see what is mankind's true nature. Is it what we ideally want to live up to or is it more like what we saw in the aftermath of katrina? And to anyone who has studided history, it's obviusly the latter.

:cool:

[AcesandEights]

Maybe they still have all their life to live and all their love to give?

Anybody consider that?

/disco point

[Legion2213]

Actually, the only way I can see some folks not wanting to survive is if they manage to survive for 20 years or so in a zombie wasteland and they are practically eating bugs to survive and living like cave men, even then, only a few/tiny minority would give up and top themselves.

To any born after the end of civilisation, their life would just be "normal" to their way of thinking - Which makes us pretty resiliant as a species, one generation cures all self pity/nostalgia/yearning for the good old days. To a second generation, zombies and the PA lifestyle would be a normal as the information/push button age is to us.

[BillyRay]

I see death in my own way, we only die once and I want that to be memorable.

Ah...huh?...waitaminnit...

Memorable to whom, if I can ask?

[AcesandEights]

Ah...huh?...waitaminnit...

Memorable to whom, if I can ask?

Maybe memorable to the one doing the dying in the eternity of the moment?

Or if that's too much poetic rubbish for you, there may be something to the timelessness of death, as experienced in the human brain. Time being subjective, what if you suffer/enjoy a near-eternity of a thoughtful (not quite)afterlife upon the moment of your death when that sweet electro-chemical cascade hits your gray matter?

It'd be nice to be at peace, no?

[Bunsher]

Ah...huh?...waitaminnit...

Memorable to whom, if I can ask?

I am bad at phrasing things. It's more of a knowledge that I'm about to die... if you die without knowing beforehand that it was about to happen then you won't know what it's truly like to experience it because it just.. happened.

[Wyldwraith]

Interesting theory but i have to take exception.

Imo, since the industrial revolution people have slowly been losing the survival instincts and self reliance that had gotten us to that point. So it would stand to reason that the people scratching out an existence would stand a much better chance in a scenario such as this one.

Also, just because the species has television sets and Nuclear weapons doesn't mean that every human on the face of the earth knows how to build them. W.B. Dubois had a "talented tenth" theory where he said it was the duty of that percentage of negroes to lift lift up the other 90%".

That's really a microcosm of what the human race is, a talented tenth leading a bunch of fat, lazy, gullible sheep.

I do believe that survival instinct has all but disappeared, particularly in the "developed" countries. I've always said, you don't need a nuclear weapon in order to bring about the end of the world. An EMP device of a strong enough solar flare to knock out earth's electricity will suffice. Just wind them up and watch the magic happen.

Then we will see what is mankind's true nature. Is it what we ideally want to live up to or is it more like what we saw in the aftermath of katrina? And to anyone who has studided history, it's obviusly the latter.
:cool:

I'm sorry,
While I agree with your premise that 10% of the population is responsible for the innovations that the other 90% avail themselves of, I do NOT believe this indicates that the non-innovaters in the present or future would be doomed in the event of a civilization-eroding global catastrophe.

You point to Katrina, yet Katrina is a localized short-term period of extreme devastation. It shares very little in common with the long-term threats such as prolonged and unfavorable climate shift, persistent/widespread epidemics, or the collapse of a major civilization whose infrastructure was responsible for supporting huge populations.

Referencing Katrina, at its most basic its an example of a population adapting in the wake of catastrophe by migrating to more favorable locales. The city's fate is not the same thing as the fate of the people who inhabited it.

On to my main premise though. Species don't rise or fall based on the success or failure of a particular form/portion of government. Their fate is determined by the success or failure of the majority to adapt to a changing environment. Something there is little evidence humanity has lost the capacity to do.

If you assess humanity's chances by looking to history, what we see time and again are reconfigurations of human populations doing their best to survive and rebuild in the wake of a variety of disasters. Italians didn't become extinct because the Roman Empire fell. Much like forest fires clear away old growth to make space for new, the collapse of social institutions are a trigger for the reconfiguration of the population's way of life.

Had you asked an educated Roman citizen what the fate of Man would be should Rome be suddenly wiped out I'm sure you would hear any number of equally dire speculations as to what a world without Rome would be like. A Roman senator might've been quite sure that the inhabitants of the Empire's cities would be doomed without the services and structure they'd become accustomed to.

Not saying that a global catastrophe wouldn't or couldn't threaten humanity's survival. Just that there are plenty of historical examples which could lead us to believe humanity is quite capable of regaining what ground it loses during calamities, just as it is capable of dooming itself if the majority find themselves unable to adapt to a world changed by that catastrophe.

One final note: In the event of a global EMP why would we have any reason to believe that populations that have remained agrarian and self-sufficient would be inconvenienced in the slightest. There are still quite a few relatively intact indigenous populations worldwide that have eschewed advanced in technology in favor of the proven survival methods of their forefathers.

Just in the USA...there are the Orthodox Amish/Mennonites, the Inuit & Aleuts, and even some of the Native American tribes fortunate enough to possess reservation land that allows for a simpler way of life.

Which say nothing about the various subsistence-farming/hunter-gatherer Indonesians, many native South American tribes, a variety of small communities the length of the Himalayas etc. All of which would barely notice if everything invented after 1900 stopped working tomorrow.

Just my position/opinion/beliefs. Open by all means to differing points of view.

Edit: I suffer from extreme pain every moment of every day. Yet as much as I sometimes wish my Maker would end my suffering, there's no damned way I'd lay down and make myself a meal for rotting cannibal meatbags. I seriously doubt I'd last very long, but I would die knowing I'd fought for my life and the lives of the people I care for to the best of my ability. The same goes for any other sort of disaster. I happen to have faith in a Divine Being, and I refuse to face my God and admit I folded like a house of cards in a stiff breeze. I haven't yet, and don't plan on it.

[Trin]

One final note: In the event of a global EMP why would we have any reason to believe that populations that have remained agrarian and self-sufficient would be inconvenienced in the slightest.
Because the 99.9% of us who can't grow enough food to populate one dinner table would swarm their idyllic communities and push them right into starvation with the rest of us. They'll be lucky not to be the first victims of the angry starving mobs.

It seems to me that Wyld is looking at this in long-term global conditions, and I tend to agree that in broad terms the human race is resilient and prone to survive. What the theory doesn't cover is the 4 lone humans left in a mall who have experienced a traumatic event that changed life as they knew it. The fact that the race is resilient doesn't keep them from putting the gun to their heads. Or Miguel from letting the zombies in.

Darth is looking more at pockets of civilization and questioning their viability in a catastrophe. Certainly on a case by case basis some pockets would not survive. If you buy into the Night/Dawn/Day/Land mentality then you have to agree with this. In the end only one city managed to rise to the crisis.

And Bunsher wants his life to be a never ending ascension of pleasurable experiences. Which makes me want to be there when his first paycheck comes. :lol: :eek: :p

[Bunsher]

And Bunsher wants his life to be a never ending ascension of pleasurable experiences. Which makes me want to be there when his first paycheck comes. :lol: :eek: :p

I am so horrifically inexperienced in this world, I'm gonna truly jump into hell when college is over aren't I?

[Publius]

I just have to throw it out there that I'm not a weak-willed person, and I completely understand the instincts that are implanted within human beings that causes their desire to live, I just question why?

For those who will come after me.

[JDFP]

I am so fascinated by the apocalypse and I'd love to die when it happens because of the wonderfully morbid and yet strangely compelling and relaxing notion that we'll all go together when we go. Like that Tom Lehrer song!



http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/jim-jones.jpg

You're certainly not the only one with the hope that "we'll all go together when we go". :)

j.p.

[Wyldwraith]

@Trin:
All right, the continental US communities that are self-sufficient would definitely be at risk of the fate you describe, but the Alaskan/South American/Eurasian populations are extremely geographically isolated. If people with access to all the modern conveniences in the here and now find it challenging to reach the areas these communities inhabit, it stands to reason that Flyboy and Co. won't be dropping by.

You're dead on in your assessment of the scale of perspective I've been operating on. Been looking at how a Zombie Apocalypse would affect the totality of mankind on a global level. I definitely agree that on the personal scale the casualties in the developed nations could easily exceed 85% if the government fails to take the necessary steps and use the tools at its disposal to execute the Scorched Earth-style tactics required to bring down hordes if it gets to that point.

However, I'm optimistic that the top 8-10% most adaptable, swift to react and in possession of a solid plan to secure the required necessities will go on to create "Pocket civilizations". They might each be sundered from each other by a sea of zombies, but even in the densely populated developed nations I'm confident that out of the nearly 309,000,000 people in the US, enough will survive to outlast the zombies and begin again.

On a person to person level my outlook is far more dire. Since at least 9 out of 10 people are dead/undead meat if the government fails to halt the increase in the ranks of the undead, the odds are any given person/family/neighborhood will be wiped out.

[LoSTBoY]

I am bad at phrasing things. It's more of a knowledge that I'm about to die... if you die without knowing beforehand that it was about to happen then you won't know what it's truly like to experience it because it just.. happened.

You seem to be coming across as a self-defeatist. Thinking everything yet to come is going to be bad.

For every bad thing that comes your way there are those little nuggets of joy that make existence worth while.

As for a zombie apocolypse, imagine if you were to hole up with some good people, even find someone you love that would have never happened if the apocolypse never happed.

Every cloud = Silver lining. :)

[bozak]

I'm sorry i couldnt struggle through all the posts - too many letters, but i have to express my point of view ;)
I think that people surviving in hope that everything will be ok one day - humanity will start to rebuild itself, zombies will wither and disappear, the new world will start to exist.

I believe that all people are born to fulfill some purpose in the world, and thats one of the reasons to survive.

Survive to defend our beloved ones.

Survive and defend your family because you'r a man and its your duty.

[bd2999]

I think it is just natural for people to want to live on. It is built into our genes and instincts to want to live on, and fear death. Same as animals, it is only natural. It is not necissarily rational but really trying to survive is the only hope for any sort of future.

Some people have this more than others do. I agree that depending on the extent of things dying early might just be the best thing anyway but some people would fight on until they had nothing left to fight with. Although there are other things, even survivors are going to have a rough time if they ever think about things. Madness or depression would be as bad as the dead.

[MissJacksonCA]

I dont think survival is hard wired in a lot of peoples DNA. Not even close. Every day I see people who drink, smoke, eat too much. They dont exercise and work too much. Poor posture... bad attitude... and little to no interst in preserving or keeping themselves mentally or physically sharp. Not all people just a lot of people. I think people just dont want to be eaten and torn into dinner by savages. I see a lot trying to survive and using dirty measures to try and survive longer than the other guy. Additionally a lot of people wouldn't be mentally prepared for zombies. Even people here can prolly barely fathom the mental strength that would be required to face zombies running down the street readying themselves to tear your family apart and feast on their flesh. And you dont see a lot of people kill themselves in zombie flicks because who'd go to see that? Its like I tell my friends... the idiot girl runs up the stairs in a horror movie because if she didn't the movie would end right quick. Characters in zombie movies fight to survive because without it the movie would end and it would turn into a mockumentary of a world with zombies but without people...

I see NRA enthusiasts surviving. I see prison inmates surviving. I see people who know what it means to survive. People today are so pampered. They dont know what to do without a cell phone, a gps, and a microwave.

Just mho....

[Wyldwraith]

I dont think survival is hard wired in a lot of peoples DNA. Not even close. Every day I see people who drink, smoke, eat too much. They dont exercise and work too much. Poor posture... bad attitude... and little to no interst in preserving or keeping themselves mentally or physically sharp. Not all people just a lot of people. I think people just dont want to be eaten and torn into dinner by savages. I see a lot trying to survive and using dirty measures to try and survive longer than the other guy. Additionally a lot of people wouldn't be mentally prepared for zombies. Even people here can prolly barely fathom the mental strength that would be required to face zombies running down the street readying themselves to tear your family apart and feast on their flesh. And you dont see a lot of people kill themselves in zombie flicks because who'd go to see that? Its like I tell my friends... the idiot girl runs up the stairs in a horror movie because if she didn't the movie would end right quick. Characters in zombie movies fight to survive because without it the movie would end and it would turn into a mockumentary of a world with zombies but without people...

I see NRA enthusiasts surviving. I see prison inmates surviving. I see people who know what it means to survive. People today are so pampered. They dont know what to do without a cell phone, a gps, and a microwave.

Just mho....

Partially correct IMHO,
You're dead on about most people's self-preservation instinct only being activated when in overt danger. Nobody ever experienced a flight-or-fight response because they realized their bad cholesterol was too high. You're also dead on about the way movies distort what might actually happen in such situations just to make the movie go a particular way.

Example: Was watching 30 Days of Night again recently, and I was struck by how idiotic it was for the Sheriff and his merry band of survivors to keep "performing diversions" that involved running around the darkened straights in the presence of multiple beings faster, stronger and more durable than they. One scene in particular got to me, and illustrates your point perfectly. Having reached the house with the UV Light setup/greenhouse, the main protagonist left emptyhanded when the vampires cut the power. The UV panel was very light, and had a short extension cord attachment, and they'd established earlier the police station had its generators inside. He easily could have done everything else just as the movie depicted, but taken the UV light-panel with him, and hooked it up to the police department generator not nearly so vulnerable to being cut off. From there they could have help the vamps off nigh onto indefinitely.

However, they didn't do that, because that would've involved the last 45 mins of the movie being 5 people huddled in the center of a room while 1 guy manned the UV panel as needed. Not very thrilling.

All of that said, I believe that once a person experiences an overt threat, particularly of an ongoing predatory-type scenario, that person is *likely* (but not certain, everyone is different) to remain in a stressed, heightened awareness sort of survival mode. At least until such time as their mental and emotional resources are exhausted via attrition.

28 Days Later had a good example of that. There was a clear implication that the father of the girl they first met at the apartment, who was wearing riot gear had been fending off the Infected on a nightly basis. Even in the absence of the hope of an exit strategy, with dwindling water and food stocks, he stood firm to protect his daughter.

I believe people will go further for that/who they care for than they will for themselves even. When someone might otherwise just let exhaustion and despair claim them if they were on their own, they'll go until they literally can't one more moment to protect family/close friends/spouse.

Again, just my .02 your mileage may vary.

[Trencher]

As for the original question, the reason why the characters in the movies does not kill themelves are as varied as the characters themselves. A better question is why all zombie movies are mainly about people who want to live rather than people who kill themselves. And I think you allready know the answer. It would not be much of a movie.

[MaximusIncredulous]

As for the original question, the reason why the characters in the movies does not kill themelves are as varied as the characters themselves. A better question is why all zombie movies are mainly about people who want to live rather than people who kill themselves. And I think you allready know the answer. It would not be much of a movie.

"Oh God, the horror."

BANG!

[SRP76]

It could be done. Unlike some of our fantasies around here, real life doesn't always plunk you down in the middle of food and armaments. There's a high chance that many folks would quickly get trapped in a useless place like the back room of a convenience store.

In that case, "bang" doesn't enter the equation. You've got a bunch of toilet paper and some 12-packs of canned soda.

Now, how exactly is our "hero" going to kill himself? That could be interesting. How to off yourself, when you have no weapons or anything really dangerous at your disposal. Might wind up with the guy beating his own head against a wall, trying to beat himself to death.

[JDFP]

It could be done. Unlike some of our fantasies around here, real life doesn't always plunk you down in the middle of food and armaments. There's a high chance that many folks would quickly get trapped in a useless place like the back room of a convenience store.

In that case, "bang" doesn't enter the equation. You've got a bunch of toilet paper and some 12-packs of canned soda.

Now, how exactly is our "hero" going to kill himself? That could be interesting. How to off yourself, when you have no weapons or anything really dangerous at your disposal. Might wind up with the guy beating his own head against a wall, trying to beat himself to death.

...or, opening the door.

:)

j.p.

[Wyldwraith]

Well,
There's always something made of glass around. Could easily open an artery with a decent-sized piece of glass. Now, if you're talking about suicide without reanimation, that's a tough one in the absence of firearms or someone with a decent blunt instrument standing by to do the deed.

This exact scenario is depicted as a flavor short story at the beginning of a chapter in the Zombie RPG: All Flesh Must Be Eaten. Long story short: Incompetent Lt. leads his platoon into a massacre/rout, and one of the soldiers ends up making it into the basement of a building chosen at random/due to necessity, and gets the door shut and secured seconds ahead of the zombies arrival.

Only then does he realize he's in an abortion clinic, and the strange mewling-gurgle sound he couldn't place is coming from the late-term aborted fetuses in the Medical Waste bins that have reanimated.

It actually ends the way a previous poster suggested. Soldier decides to open the door and go down trying to fight his way free with an empty M-16 and a combat knife as his only weapons.

Good game btw, worth checking out. It explores a LOT of the psychology/personalities one might encounter, and less obvious hazards of a zombie apocalypse.

Personally, I'd feel a compulsion to try and survive as long as I could. Feel that I might last long enough to be the right guy in the right place at the right time to render someone else assistance that allows survivors with a better chance of making it to well, make it.

After all, it's a numbers game. The zombies find their strength in their numbers, while our remaining numbers determine our prospects of outlasting the Undead Phenomena. Maybe my sacrificing myself to help a small group escape a tight spot won't change the big picture, but if a great many individuals adopted a "Plan A: Do my best to keep me and mine alive/Plan B: Do what you can to help some others you meet survive if Plan A fails" strategy, maybe we could slow the dramatic attrition that allows the hordes to form.

Just an idea.

[Wooley]

Interesting thread. I'll add that people who say they'll just roll over and die are quite full of it. If they aren't, then their passing was no great loss. But I think they'll struggle for their next breath same as anyone because self preservation is hard-wired into us at some level. The likelyhood of their success however, depends on a multitude of factors.

A 400 pound pack a day smoker may run as fast as they possibly can from an advancing horde, but at 400 pounds and a pack a day, it's not likely to be fast enough for long enough to outrun it.

A anti-gun vegetarian may not survive the learning curve to be able to successfully hunt, and gain sufficient skill at arms before they either starve to death due to poor hunting/fishing/trapping or are killed by a rival survivor for whatever stocks they might have had.

Will the urban hipster whose closest communing with nature is the local park figure out the need to boil their water before they die of dehydration due to water-borne illness?

That said, as a species we are incredibly adaptable, and very fast at it. While individuals, families, neighborhoods and even regions might not make it, enough of us surely will all but the most extreme events, and in that case, well, we gave it our best shot, right? Katrina is an example. The stupid, lame or lazy sat around and bitched to Anderson Cooper that George Bush hadn't personally handed them a glass of ice water. The strong, smart and cunning got shit done.

I remember a story on a kid, not even in his teens who stole a bus and got himself and a bunch of others out of the city. A mentally ill man who was the healthiest of a group of mentally ill men, gathered all their meds and kept his group together and medicated until they were evacuated. A neighborhood formed a militia with a collection of arms, and some jury-rigged spotlights taken from abandoned cars to protect their neighborhood. These folks will make it or as someone else said, they'll help others to make it.

The fat bitch who complained about getting an MRE, or the Haitians who complained about being given the emergency biscuits, well, their passing wouldn't be any great loss in the great scheme of things.

I think we'd adapt. Survivors in low to no zombie areas would create communities there and we'd leave the cities to the dead until they finally rotted away to dust, or whatever. Depending on a multiude of factors we'd probably devolve as a society back to the 1930s at best to as far back as the Renessance period at worst in terms of pretty much everything but we'd go on as a species We'd have our scars most certainly-how many people in Russia or Japan or Germany after WW2 or the Southern US after the Civil War talked about it as a happy time?

We'd go on.

[Wyldwraith]

Amen Brother Wooley,
That was about the most succinct, yet at the same time most eloquent framing of the ideas under discussion here by those of us who believe humanity hasn't lost its intrinsic ability to adapt and survive.

On the topic of how far we'd regress: I believe that if the survivors new community was centered around an old town, even the local library/libraries of smallish towns contain MANY books that are NEVER checked out, that would become priceless in the post-apocalyptic era.

A book describing the *details* and methods by which the Romans constructed their architecture, aqueducts and surveying of land/topography would be a treasure. Written in terms a layman understands, those are the sorts of things we'd need as a society to reestablish a relatively prosperous society. Books on the creation of temporary and permanent fortifications, and rudimentary chemistry & medicine would save hundreds of lives.

The contents of one modern library contains sufficient knowledge to get us back to the beginning of industrialization in short order once the undead are no longer a threat.

Packs of outlaws and petty warlords might thrive for a time DURING the apocalypse, but as many have said, sooner or later the existing supply of ammunition will run out. Then the small self-sufficient community who have painstakingly relearned the making of gunpowder from local resources will gain the upper hand.

In the land of knives, clubs and bats, a Spencer-type repeating rifle would be king.

It would probably be our desire to regain as much of what we had lost as possible that would spur previously insular and distrustful communities to begin trading and the pooling of manpower for projects of benefit to both but beyond the individual capabilities of each individually.

Sorry, got a bit off-topic, and my thoughts haven't been framed as well as they might've been, but I agree with you completely Wooley.

Just saying that if we can outlast the zombies, I believe our technological regression is likely to be no further than the late 19th century. It might take awhile, but the memory of what we'd lost, combined with the basic human desire to provide a better quality of life for family and friends would be something disparate pockets of humanity could well bond over.

[Wooley]

Why thank you, Wlydwraith.

In most apocalyptic scenarios I'd put civilization's regression no further than the 1880s-1930s, with some isolated, advanced, pre-collapse tech like night vision goggles and CNC machines.

I mention middle ages in case Frankenstein's 400,000 to 1 ratio was right, in which case I'd fear we'd have lost too much as a species in the way of specialized knowledge, not to mention general education. Parents of kids in such a world would likely not spend much time teaching the 3 R's as much as survival and tactical skills.

Hard to teach your kid how to do algebra if you don't know yourself, assuming you even had time, between manning the walls, and working the fields, and for most survivors, the question would be, what's the point? Why learn HTML when there's no internet, etc, etc?

In a short time, like a generation or two, it might not matter that the books are there, people couldn't read them or at least not with enough skill to apply the knowledge. College level math and chemistry are unlikely to be understood by people with a low level of reading skill.

Funny you mention libraries and old rarely looked at books, especially ones with the vital details one would need for rebuilding a civilization. With what I've found in the past few years via the internet, one could rebuild anywhere that they could secure sufficient water, and maintain adequate defenses if they had a laptop with a solar panel and sufficient disk space for storage.

I've even found a book that goes into great detail the processes used to make ammunition, namely the processes used to draw brass sheeting into a cartridge case and stamp out primer components like cups and anvils, not to mention roll cardboard into shotgun shells.

I think I'll make a thread on that-knowledge of the dead.

[Neil]

I call bullshit on this. You honestly mean to tell me that if a ghoul was about to enter into your place with a loved one you would just say: "Oh, well, shit, I guess we're about to die."? Here in Tennessee we call a person that doesn't stick up for his family/friends a yellow-belly (a.k.a. coward).

Do you wake up in the morning and just say: "Well, I don't feel like trying to succeed in life anyway because I'll just end up failing anyway, better just to save myself from the embarrassment." Because, that's exactly what you are saying. If not for your own laziness, if this is the way you really feel, then you should survive in knowing that the longer you keep going the longer you can help other people who really want to live to survive.

I agree with others here about the survival instinct. You say the above now, but I could bet you a buffalo nickel that if you were about to face certain death you'd either fight or flight. I've always liked the phrase: "I'm not afraid of death, just the dying part." I think that really sums a great deal of it up right there. We carry on regardless of the tumult or toil or terror because it's who we are as people (at least, ahem, some of us).

We all die, but some of us (like the person you mention above in your phrase) never truly live.

Now a nuclear war is a different story all together...

j.p.

I too would have to add one more to the bullshitometer here...

Might be a romantic thought, but in the heat of the moment, survival and the fight/flight response would kick in!