Humanity's Prospects After Zombie Apocalypse?

[Wyldwraith]

Hey,
Some of the other threads derailed, so thought I'd start a new one for once and try to get a discussion going on what everyone thinks concerning the prospects of survival or extinction of Humankind in the wake of a massive Global Zombie Apocalypse.

I'm of the firm belief that not only would humanity survive a Global Zombie Apocalypse, but that in the long run it would actually be enormously beneficial to the continuing development of our species. I believe this for 3 main reasons, and a variety of related tangent-perspectives, but I would be very interested in hearing what everyone thinks about a) Would Humankind survive a Global Zombie Apocalypse, and if so b) Would these events prove detrimental or beneficial in the long-run to humanity?

I'll withhold my reasoning for now, in the interests of getting a variety of theories put forth, instead of simply an agree/disagree model of debate to begin with.

So, what do you all think about the Two points I raise? Survival or Extinction in the face of Global Zombie Infestation, and should Humanity survive, would the ordeal prove beneficial or detrimental to Humanity's development from that point forwards?

Please discuss, and by all means expound on why you believe as you do.

Debate On

[AcesandEights]

For the purpose of this discussion, are we putting any ground rules in place about the type of zombie? Standard GAR zeds or open to the poster's flow of argument as required?

Generally, unless it's some crazy-ass animals can become zombies too or all zombies can regain a good measure of their intelligence paradigm (and how lame are those?), I subscribe to the Frostian view (and drop this quote at hpotd once a year or so):

I am assured at any rate
Man’s practically inexterminate.
Someday I must go into that.
There’s always been an Ararat
Where someone someone else begat
To start the world all over at.


This is not to say that I think mankind will not go extinct some day, that's a given over a long enough time line. The prospect for humanity's current society and societal constructs/conventions in the wake of a zombie plague, though? That's a very different, albeit related, conversation.

[bassman]

There would definitely be survivors to rebuild. Not many...but some.

If we're talking about Romero's world where the dead come back without an infectious bite, it would be a bit harder. No matter how well you rebuild or plan things out, as long as there are people there will alway be zombies.

It would definitely be an up hill struggle, but through the course of it all "life will find a way", to quote the great Jeff Goldblum.

[AcesandEights]

It would definitely be an up hill struggle, but through the course of it all "life will find a way", to quote the great Jeff Goldblum.

Robert Frost, Jeff Goldblum--titans of American thought! Let's see who else is quoted in this worthy debate.

[darth los]

There would definitely be survivors to rebuild. Not many...but some.


I don't know about that. It was dicussed here before about how big a pocket of survivors had to be in order to have a large enough genepool in order to procreate. I think it was around 200.

Imo, humans are resourceful,yes, but not very resilient.

We need to have optimal conditions in order to thrive. We are currently in a unique situation in our history because technology handles everything for us and if things were to go to shit overnight I doubt most have the survivals skills to be able to survive if they can't go to the corner store to get milk. :dead:

Our anscestors on the otherhand would fare much better in an apocolyptic scenario because they actually practiced self reliance and had no problem roughing it when nescesary. Shit if you took people's cell phones away from them they'd die.

:cool:

[JDFP]

I'm going by Romero zombies here because super-human sprinting zombies just bore me and don't interest me...

I believe the government (of the U.S. and probably elsewhere) probably have some type of rudimentary "Zombie" plan that they spent a few million dollars on of American tax payer's money for. I'm serious. They probably do.

The question is whether this "plan" could be implemented before everything falls apart or not. My guess is no -- efficiency and government in the same breath is a bit (more than a bit) of a contradiction.

No doubt, most of the "important people" would survive. Government officials, the wealthy, government leaders, etc., they'd be just fine for the most part. Government officials would sit back on supplies at NORAD, D.C., Omaha, and places such as this and then by the time supplies start running thin most of the ghouls will be gone from rotting and they'd be good to go as far as coming out into the world and re-populating it again.

The rest of us (the other 98% of us) wouldn't be so lucky. I think Max Brooks really does a great job of expressing this. There would be some of us around that would be Mad Max "Last Men On Earth" folks keeping to ourselves and being weary like a wolf of seeing any other people out there. Then there would be a few roving bands of groups (organized para-military groups) running around the country as well -- this would be an interesting confrontation once all the other "regular" military folks and their government officials come up from the bunkers years later after it is all over.

Otherwise, the rest of us will be dead and it won't really matter too much. Of course I think humanity will survive -- but a good 90% of people would be dead (and that's a VERY conservative estimate). I'd say a good 25%+ of the people that die won't even die from the ghouls at all -- but will die from the hands of other people, starvation, disease, or other ailments without the advancements of medicine and technology.

As far as it being ultimately beneficial to humanity, I don't know. We'd all be dead anyway (except maybe Khardis who would set himself up as a dictator to one of the roaming para-military groups), so what would it matter to us? Short-term it would be more devestating than the Black Death in the 14th Century that wiped out more than half the people of Europe. Long term? By what measure are you classifying the word "Beneficial"?

j.p.

[rongravy]

Yeah, but will there still be Twinkies?!?!?

I think we'd make it, but alot of people would be murdering their own as well as the undead. It'd be a mess, and it makes you wonder just who would come out on top in the end.

[MoonSylver]

(except maybe Khardis who would set himself up as a dictator to one of the roaming para-military groups).

Khardis=====>http://reason.com/assets/mc/psuderman/2009_10/humungus_speech.jpg

:rolleyes:


Robert Frost, Jeff Goldblum--titans of American thought! Let's see who else is quoted in this worthy debate.

"Here is sit all broken hearted, came to shit & only farted" - A. Nonymous

Not relivient to the topic at all, but you DID say you wanted to see who was quoted next...:p:moon:

[DEAD BEAT]

Hey,
Some of the other threads derailed, so thought I'd start a new one for once and try to get a discussion going on what everyone thinks concerning the prospects of survival or extinction of Humankind in the wake of a massive Global Zombie Apocalypse.

I'm of the firm belief that not only would humanity survive a Global Zombie Apocalypse, but that in the long run it would actually be enormously beneficial to the continuing development of our species. I believe this for 3 main reasons, and a variety of related tangent-perspectives, but I would be very interested in hearing what everyone thinks about a) Would Humankind survive a Global Zombie Apocalypse, and if so b) Would these events prove detrimental or beneficial in the long-run to humanity?

I'll withhold my reasoning for now, in the interests of getting a variety of theories put forth, instead of simply an agree/disagree model of debate to begin with.

So, what do you all think about the Two points I raise? Survival or Extinction in the face of Global Zombie Infestation, and should Humanity survive, would the ordeal prove beneficial or detrimental to Humanity's development from that point forwards?

Please discuss, and by all means expound on why you believe as you do.

Debate On


i totally agree....flush out all the assholes and start all over!:cool:

[Dr Tongue]

I don't think we would survive. Honestly, how would it be handled at the Political level? We get enough lies and deceit in the news today(All news channels), would they down play it ala Diary of the Dead? Would the Government be able to inhumanely "Shoot all of them mothers in the head"?

Also, I'm assuming we are using Romero rules, so you would never "Cure" the problem. Now you have thousands of Zombies created a day(And that's just the natural deaths.), minus the Zombies eating people, and lack of medication, food, and doctors.

I'm not trying to stir up Political debate, as it is all just theory.

[Legion2213]

GAR Style = No apocalypse (see Shaun of the Dead, Zombie Diaries etc), any one of us here could take down shamblers with our bare hands in small numbers.

Zack Snyder Style = Situation fucked, too fast, too aggressive, bad times on horseback, these are the worst case scenario IMO.

28 Days Style Infected Folk = Fast and aggressive to start with, but if enough folks holed up somewhere safe, they'd just have to wait for them to starve.

[Dr Tongue]

Zack Snyder Style = Situation fucked, too fast, too aggressive, bad times on horseback, these are the worst case scenario IMO.

28 Days Style Infected Folk = Fast and aggressive to start with, but if enough folks holed up somewhere safe, they'd just have to wait for them to starve.

But it seems like both of these styles are more containable. 28 Days Later, die of starvation. Dawn04, are fast, but we don't know how widespread it would be. Maybe the Government would use nuclear weapons?


Yes, Romero Zombies are slow, but when they are the majority, you will be fucked. Read The Walking Dead, Romero rules in the whole "You die, you become one.". Everyone currently alive would be 'The Walking Dead', as you are infected already, and you just have to die.

[Legion2213]

But it seems like both of these styles are more containable. 28 Days Later, die of starvation. Dawn04, are fast, but we don't know how widespread it would be. Maybe the Government would use nuclear weapons?


Yes, Romero Zombies are slow, but when they are the majority, you will be fucked. Read The Walking Dead, Romero rules in the whole "You die, you become one.". Everyone currently alive would be 'The Walking Dead', as you are infected already, and you just have to die.

Dawn 04 had Sarah Poley waking up to see her entire area over run...we can assume it's pretty fast. The government seemed gone in days. We've seen from various fiction that nukes do more harm than good...burns don't bother zombies, but radiation sickness and burns will fuck up any survivors who are unlucky enough to be caught in the zone.

I really do think Dawn 04 stenches are the most lethal and dangerous.

All my own opinion of course. :)

[AcesandEights]

I don't think we would survive. Honestly, how would it be handled at the Political level? We get enough lies and deceit in the news today(All news channels), would they down play it ala Diary of the Dead? Would the Government be able to inhumanely "Shoot all of them mothers in the head"?

Also, I'm assuming we are using Romero rules, so you would never "Cure" the problem. Now you have thousands of Zombies created a day(And that's just the natural deaths.), minus the Zombies eating people, and lack of medication, food, and doctors.

I'm not trying to stir up Political debate, as it is all just theory.

I don't know about other people's opinions, but my opinion is based on survival of humanity not humanity's current organs of government and social rule. And yes, a lot of people--most people--would probably die and if the governments fell and society broke down people would kill each other as well and people would also die of typhus and tetanus from scraping their big toe on rusty metal, however I still think there'd probably be a good chance of enough people surviving to eventually get things together, though life would probably not be like it was for anyone in 1st world nations or the industrialized portions of the third world. Even in a Romero* post-rising world where the zombies (unfairly) take so long to decompose.

I'm talking species survival, not whether the American way of life or any of our neighbors might make it (different set of what-ifs involved in those questions), just addressing the likelihood of humanity surviving.



* = I am not going to address the prospect of large swathes of undead gaining enough intelligence to operate weapons, communicate or work as a team, or magically walk underwater through heavy currents in my post, however.

[Legion2213]

Edit: Actually, disregard all my previous posts...Wyld wasn't really asking about the feasability of such a situation, he was asking what would happen after it had happened...so I apologise for derailing his thread.

Regarding rebuilding. It would be the same as rebuilding after any disaster that wiped out 90% of humanity, it couldn't be done IMO.

I think we'd be back to a Victorian state of living (if we were lucky). I just don't think the 21st century could be recovered after losing so many cogs in such a complicated and specialised machine. :(

[BillyRay]

So we're sticking with the standard Romero paradigm of shambling zombies, & any death results in reanimation?

Right? Good.

Because if we had running "raptor" zeds, let's face it, Kids, we're #$%-ed.

(And reanimation due to demonic possession or Alien Control has too many X factors to account for.)

Now Wyld said Global Zombie Infestation. We'd have to take into account where in the world the whole Zombocalypse begins. If it starts in Iraq or China, we'd have some time in the West to ready ourselves. If it starts in D.C. or London, different scenario.

Those areas not immediately swarming with Infected have a short time to take action. But that may be all the time we'd need to put a military/medical plan into motion (I agree with JD that there could already be a plan in place). There will be a lack of reliable information, but plenty of finger pointing, in the first couple days.

And there will be a temporary suspension of Civil Liberties, so that's a whole other series of problems...

I agree with Darth that there's a lot of stupid people with no survival skills/common sense out there. Those'll be the first ones et', no doubt. I have the naive belief that enough communities and neighborhoods can organize and work together to get through the First Wave of Infected.

Also, don't discount folks like us, the Zombie Movie Nuts. We'll know what we're dealing with. We'll know to shoot for the head. We'll know the loved one shambling towards us isn't our loved one anymore. Folks like us will keep a lot of people alive.

But let's say we don't. Let's say we end up with a Out-of-control Global Pandemic that makes the Black Plague look like the sniffles. There'll still be enough holdouts - the survivalists, the privilaged, the tenacious, to rebuild some kind of society when the dead stop movin'.

BTW, Have we established (in this thread, or in general on the board) what the decomposition rate of the Living Dead might be? Does the Z-virus suspend the natural putrification of necrotic tissue to any degree? If the Zeds wind up walkin' for a long while, it'll be a bit more difficult for the survivors.

The society we'll be starting over with will be a lot tougher. We'll have to do without a lot of comforts and conveniences for probably a few decades. The infrastructure (roads, electrical and fresh water) will obviously deteriorate, but there will still be enough tools, books, canned goods, and (more important) living skills on hand to use.

There will be new rules to deal with every death coming back to eat you.

It'll be a harsher society in many ways. Most of the early survivors are going to be the reactionaries, the "gun nuts", the survivalists. Hard people for a hard world. But as communities develop, improve and even thrive, we'll see the Human side of civilization come back in a big way.

But I'm a bit over-optimistic, so I've been told.

[AcesandEights]

BTW, Have we established (in this thread, or in general on the board) what the decomposition rate of the Living Dead might be? Does the Z-virus suspend the natural putrification of necrotic tissue to any degree? If the Zeds wind up walkin' for a long while, it'll be a bit more difficult for the survivors.

In Day Logan gives a pretty grim estimate that whatever animates the dead retards the decomposition process keeping the tissues viable for years longer than would otherwise be the case. Don't have a quote handy at the moment.

[Wyldwraith]

Will start providing my "take" and answering the questions posited.

1) I can buy a MILD retarding of the putrefaction process by accepting that the "Reanimation Microbe" is exceptionally hostile to other microbes. HOWEVER, maggot damage (this includes the other bugs that flock to corpses), gas bloat, and (the biggie) Environmental Exposure would be unaffected and proceed normally.

Figure a Reanimate in reasonably intact shape at time of reanimation is good for 90-120 days of GAR-depicted "Zombie Optimal" functioning. Followed by another 90-120 days of downhill, steady degradation of the body, resulting finally in an immobile reanimate feebly twitching as humans approach. This rate would be good for temperate climate areas and a bit colder. Sub-Tropical Climate-Areas would increase the rate of decay by perhaps 25-33%, while Tropical Climate could cut the "Undead Lifespan" in half. Zombies that for whatever reason remain indoors 100% of the time could last far longer in some areas, but in Tropical Climates being indoors could actually accelerate the decay, depending on the structure.

2) The only way I accept the GAR "Everyone alive is a carrier, so everyone who dies, for any reason reanimates" paradigm is if the cause is some sort of airborne, incredibly contagious/virulent pathogen. I don't believe in "Mysterious Radiation Saturation" permanently reanimating all corpses on Earth. Yes, everyone would be a carrier, so in all likelihood events as far as how GAR depicts the Infection's spread would be reasonably accurate.

3) Zombies are shamblers, Romero-style. There are just too many biological impediments to the creation of fast, highly coordinated Dawn '04 zombies. If for no other reason, the cessation of cellular maintenance of the inner ear would quickly and DRASTICALLY impair zombie balance and coordination. At BEST, or I should say worst, extremely fresh zombies (As in first 24 hours of reanimated existence) would be about 2/3rds as coordinated, have about 2/3rds the reaction time of the average human, and be maybe 3/4ths as fast.

Under no circumstances would the truly reanimated dead be as high-performance as Dawn '04 zombies. Yes, the VERY RARE ***Individual*** Zombie, who for some physical reason was much faster than the average person in life, MIGHT be as fast as the average person in death. Impairment in proportional after all. If the physical specimen was top .1% conditioned in life, it may have a short window while its "fresh" where its close to as fast as average life humans.

4) For purposes of this discussion, we will assume the cause of the Zombie Apocalypse is a virus that has spread undetected to most of the major population centers at the same time due to widespread international travel. Due to Living Humans having absolutely no symptoms from the virus they've become passive contagious carriers of, and due to the fact that the Increase of Viral Load in individuals is relatively equal, while Reanimation requires an expired human to have reached X Viral Load in their system, where X is the minimum amount required to trigger immediate reanimation after physical death, we can assume the Infection will be all over the place (with the exception of a very few population bases that for whatever reason have ZERO contact with the outside world). In the event a person dies before their Viral Load is sufficient to trigger immediate (by immediate I mean as depicted by GAR. Anywhere from 3-5 minutes, up to 30-40 minutes in the rarest of cases) reanimation, the individual will remain dead for now, but the virus will continue replicating in their tissues, albeit at a somewhat reduced rate due to vascular system shutdown cutting off an easy means of viral dissemination. At some point (2-4 hours MAXIMUM) the dead body will reanimate when its Viral Load reaches X-Level.

Apologies about the poor paragraph construction on #4, was just trying to convey a lot of detail as fast as it came to me, quick and dirty.

Note: I retain my belief that zombie eyesight will be the first of a ghoul's active 3 senses (taste and touch being pretty much nil) to deteriorate, followed by hearing, and then smell long after. Sight will begin to deteriorate within a week of reanimation, but remain functional enough to be useful (at ever decreasing efficiency) until the zombie has reached the halfway point on its way to completely putrefying. Hearing and Smell will be impacted much slower, but hearing can as a rule of thumb be considered significantly impaired by the time the zombie is 2/3rds of the way to falling apart for good. Different zombies in different environments will obviously experience significant variance in the rate of Hearing and Smell deterioration, but eyesight will start to go and continue deteriorating pretty much at the set rate I described. Note: "Deteriorated" does NOT mean BLIND AS A BAT. To start it will be fine detail and color loss, significant impairment of night vision and speed at which undead eyes adjust to changing light levels next, and only then will eyesight BEGIN to become more liability than asset to the hunting zombie.

Hope this clarifies the hypothetical scenario, though BY ALL MEANS I'm open to and encourage different views of what I've described and continue to entertain alternate theories of these "constants" of zombie decay.

Just wanted to answer some of the general key questions in as much detail as I could quickly relate. Will have to pardon me for the haphazard manner of parts of this. My pain levels are skyrocketing, and that's proving to be quite the distraction.

Ok, please continue.

[DTyra]

Societies without heavy gun control will do well. If it's GAR zombies we can call out the girl scouts and deal with it for the most part. Fast zombies, Ragers, another story, but humanity would survive.

[SRP76]

We're all lunchmeat. It might take awhile, but we're finished.

Just think: every single place where a person is right now, will have zombies. The bathroom in room 212 at Motel 6, the cooler at your local liquor store, you name it. You're talking about surviving every nook and cranny on Earth. Not happening.

There are simply more zombies in places than you know places that exist. If we were Borg, all hooked into the same brain, so we all have a total knowledge of everything on the planet, and instantaneous action from any thought of the collective consciousness, then maybe. But we aren't, and don't.

We can't even handle one terrorist network. How in fuck are we going to handle literally a billion enemies, cropping up in every back bedroom on the planet? No way.

[Wyldwraith]

You make a good point SRP,
But by the same token, the zombies aren't Borg either. Further, they have no capacity for real thought or genuine investigation. Yes, accidentally kicking a can while sneaking down a back alley could draw the attention of the near zombie(s), IF the sound of the can skittering over stone is the most prevalent sound in the zombies range of hearing at that time.

See what I'm getting at? People don't have to be terribly clever. They have to keep their asses intact for about 180-210 days (at which point the Mass Putrefaction of that billion zombies will be WELL underway), and then they need to use the skills they developed during that period to survive the more intermittent, but still dangerous period that would follow subsequently.

Hell, in places like Central and South America the zombies would be goop on the ground in like 30, 45 days MAX. If the rainforest is wet enough to make prolonged exposure to it sufficient to soften LIVING human skin and make it tear easily, what do you think those conditions would do to dead flesh?

Double Hell, it's colder but suffers from just as much humidity/dampness. The rainforest area in Washington State...Olympia I believe its called. Was just watching an episode of Dual Survival set there. The hippie who walks around everywhere barefoot was encountering major problems because the sopping wet ground was making his feet soft and tear-prone in just a COUPLE hours after being dropped off in it.

My point is that yes, in many areas the zombies will of course exterminate the local population of humans, but in other areas there will be a variety of factors that may very well come into play that work against the zombies/in human favor.

Just one more example: Take the Thousand Lakes area in Minnesota. A fairly good environment climate-wise for zombies to last a substantial amount of time. There are TONS of little islands out in the larger of those lakes...and tons of marshy areas just getting to the edge of many of the lakes.

This isn't Land. Regular immersion (even partial, such as from the calves down) in water would be DEVASTATING to zombie flesh. As for a zombie that tried the Land-esque "Walk across the bottom to humans on other side" trick, that zombie just reduced its effective functioning period to 72 hours max.

I guess in the end it would be a race to see if humanity could stay hydrated, sheltered and fed until the largest density of ghouls became inactive/non-functional/immobile due to decay.

Yes, in a GAR depiction of zombies that somehow retard all decay for YEARS, I expect humanity's fate would be a lot grimmer. However, if the bulk of the zombies rot away before the average survivalist/Militia-member's homemade bunker runs out of M.R.Es, there's something to be said for our prospects as a species when coupled with the isolated populations that never became infected to begin with. (Hell, there are STILL Amazon Basin tribes that we whites have never even SEEN, let alone had anything to do with.)

Which doesn't even touch on the crews at sea when the zombie shit hits the fan, who park their Cruiser Escort next to an uninhabited Pacific island with multiple freshwater springs and plenty of food to supplement their ship's stores. How would those folks get killed?

[Legion2213]

I doubt that zacks would last long in the Australian outback...they'd be desiccated in a few days, I don't care what spooky method is used to explain their durability as living corpses, they'd be dried out husks within a week.

Any Aussie survivors with access to water in such an area would only have to worry about living threats IMO...Hell, they probably wouldn't have to worry about them too much either...Oz can be a brutally hostile enviroment.

[Eyebiter]

Cracked just did an article on this

http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly_p1.html

[Publius]

Yes, Romero Zombies are slow, but when they are the majority, you will be fucked.

That sounds like the "phase/step 3 - PROFIT!!" meme (originally from South Park).

Phase 1: Shamblers appear
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Shamblers are the majority, we're screwed!

I'd like to see someone run the numbers.

[Wyldwraith]

Here's some numbers for you,
I'm disabled to the point I cannot evade zombies on foot for longer than a few minutes. I DO, however, have two things going for me.

1) A literal, honest-to-God, no bullshit, Genius-Level IQ.
2) A Model 88 .308 I got for my birthday from my stepfather.

Incidentally, I have *at this moment* (22) 100-count boxes of .308 rounds/cartridges (pick your favorite word). This doesn't even take into account my OTHER guns. Like my .45 or my 12-gauge (both of which have their own healthy stockpiles of ammo). Let's stick with the rifle though.

Now, in the event the living dead somehow breach my home (a not-inconsiderable feat) before I am prepared/aware they're on the way, THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO is they kill, and stop to consume MY ENTIRE FAMILY. Why? My room is at the back of the house, with no windows of sufficient size to easily crawl through without fine motor control.

So, my family's dead, but their deaths have a) filled me with a rage sufficient to (at least temporarily) overcome my Shit-My-Pants-Level terror at the sight of the walking dead, and b) bought me the precious, precious time to go for my guns, LITERALLY.

I do not give a FUCK what movie this is. I double-dog-fucking-dare-you to find a SWAT TEAM that wants to come down the deathtrap-of-a-hallway leading to my bedroom, let alone a bunch of mindless zombies marching single-file down it.

Suffice to say if I don't suffer from a sudden unrelated aneurysm or ridiculously unlikely heart attack or stroke at 30 years old, I AM going to shoot my way out of the damned house. Bring the ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD back from the dead and march them down that hallway, it'll make NO DIFFERENCE, other than how sore my shoulder is from the recoil when all is shot and dead.

Ok, I've cleared the house, but I know my mobility is dick, and that if I try for a cool exit scenario I'm dogmeat in 3 minutes or less. What do I do?

I go up into the attic, dragging the backpack full of ammo and my .45, while my shotgun and rifle are slung over one or both shoulders, and hence to the skylight-roof-access AFTER DESTROYING THE STAIR-LADDER BEHIND ME.

So, I've got Dick for water, and same for food. I am dead in 72 hours, and non-functional probably after 2 days.

IN THE MEANTIME I think I'll, I dunno...SHOOT EVERY DAMNED ZOMBIE THAT COMES WITHIN RANGE OF MY HOUSE IN THE HEAD??

So, 72 hours comes and goes. Near-death from dehydration, I eat a bullet so I don't simply reanimate and stumble off the roof and break both legs.

What was the difference between me going through all that or simply letting the zombies eat me downstairs?

Easy. Littered in concentric circles around my house you'll find the re-dead bodies of over TWO THOUSAND of the formerly-Living-Dead.

I'm ONE punk. A disabled one at that. I showed NO intelligence or effort in even TRYING for long-term survival, yet STILL I EASILY end up in a position to while away my last hours on this Earth blowing the brains of my zombie neighbors out, until I simply come down to my last 4-5 .45 rounds (not going for a dramatic last bullet nonsense, bullets misfire after all).

Assume I am the ONLY guy within 50 square miles of my home armed and in a position to reach his house's roof with guns and ammo. There AREN'T 2200 PEOPLE LIVING WITHIN 50 MILES OF ME.

See where I'm going with this? You don't have to survive to take a HUGE bite out of the zombie population, you just have to last long enough to empty all your ammo into their undead brains.

If ONE guy in 2,200 does what I just did, a Zombie Apocalypse isn't feasible.

[BillyRay]

Again, I stick with my theory that if enough (armed) Zombie Flick fans are aware of what's going on during the initial outbreak...

headshotheadshotheadshotheadshot..etcetcetc...

It's like all those old Vampire or Werewolf movies where somebody has read the books and seen the movies, and knows their main weaknesses.

Alls I got at home is a cricket bat and a tire iron. For Romero Zeds, that's enough for starters. Then I get the crew together....:evil:

[Trin]

I don't think a discussion of the science and biology of zombies is very constructive in answering the two initial questions. We could (and have) spend pages discussing that sort of thing and never get to the meat of the questions.

To stay on topic, about the most you need to address is:
(A) are they fast or slow,
and
(B) how long do they remain a threat

For me the answers are, Slow (per GAR), and Indefinitely (again per GAR). Although in practical terms I really think that after 3-6 months with slow zombies the second question is moot. Either the humans have become extinct or they've found a way to cope that assures long-term survival.

Would humans survive? Most definitely. Anyplace that is free of zombies and knows/understands what to do with dead bodies will survive. Take any cruise ship, naval vessel, third world despot who built a wall around his compound, very sparsely populated rural area, etc. If they figure out the dangers of dead bodies they'll be fine.

Would it ultimately benefit humanity? That's a really great question. The answer is almost a commentary on how a person feels about society today. Would society benefit from a global tear-down and rebuild? Hard to say. There would undoubtedly be some benefits. Common enemies breed empathy between groups. The world could sure use a dose of that right now.

Health and living conditions would go to hell in the short term. But long-term better population control and a "greener" earth might result. Society might very well learn from its mistakes.

[dracenstein]

Wyld, do you ever go outside your house? Particularly some distance away? And do you always carry a gun?

ie, having dinner out with friends or at church for thanksgiving, wedding, funeral.

And that is when you find out about the dead resurrecting.

Still confident you can nail 2000 zombies?

Couple years ago, I did a thread asking where people would be at a certain time on a certain day when zombiegeddon happens. Most people would be stuck away from home and arsenal, with one of our esteemed members admitting he would be stuck in a funeral parlour!

Even if you are at home and within easy reach of your guns, I seriously doubt you will nail any number of zombies. Real life is not a shoot-em-up movie. Stress will limit your skills and accuracy.

If one or more of your family reaches your room, will you deny them access? If they are dying from being bitten or blood loss or heart attack, will you be able to put a bullet through their head? And if so, will any other family members about let you? Can you spare any attention to your argument with the walking dead walking down that corridor?

Lucky all this is hypothetical...

[AcesandEights]

Wyld, do you ever go outside your house? Particularly some distance away? And do you always carry a gun?

ie, having dinner out with friends or at church for thanksgiving, wedding, funeral.

And that is when you find out about the dead resurrecting.


This is based on the assumption that there is very little in the way of time or information-creep leading up to a person's first encounter with the undead, thus leaving them extremely vulnerable. An eventuality that is possible, but by no means guaranteed. People don't have to know the specifics of a situation for them to know the shit has possibly hit the fan and take some prudent actions based on whatever limited information they will have at their disposal.

That's all I'm saying, as it's going to come down to people interpreting their own vision of the hypothetical in this case.

[Trin]

...try to get a discussion going on what everyone thinks concerning the prospects of survival or extinction of Humankind in the wake of a massive Global Zombie Apocalypse.


If ONE guy in 2,200 does what I just did, a Zombie Apocalypse isn't feasible.According to your own OP we're supposed to be discussing in the wake of a global zombie apocalypse, but then you spend a long post stating how that premise isn't feasible? Did you derail your own thread? :eek:

[Wyldwraith]

@Dracenstein:
This is by no means a good thing...in fact, it's even something I am mildly embarrassed to admit and SERIOUSLY DEPRESSED over, but I only leave the house AT ALL twice in every (90) days. Both trips out are to my M.D, with the second trip being two months after the first, then the cycle begins again.

Other than that, once in a great while I'll have some problem with one of my teeth (all the pain pills and steroids/anti-inflammatories I'm forced to take not to go mad have a bad effect on the enamel of my teeth. Figure maybe two dentist trips in a year.

I have two friends left who haven't deserted me since I became a complete shut-in. Kevin, who I've known for 15 years (since Sophomore year of High School) visits regularly, brings over movies and pizzas and such, but we NEVER go out, and my other friend Erin, lives in Ottawa. (I live in Ocala, Florida).

In addition, because of the pain meds I'm even more susceptible to the brutal Florida heat than your average senior citizen. (My grandmother and 71yr old stepfather both do yardwork and regularly walk round the neighborhood, whereas for me just limping out to the screened-in walled patio/pool deck to smoke (parents decreed no cigarette smoking inside the house about 18 months ago, so now me my Mom and grandmother all go out on the patio to smoke.) That is LITERALLY as far as I EVER go outside, and even then I'm no more than 40 feet from my guns and the pool is between the outside world and the side near the door to the house.

I see the point you're making Dracenstein, but I'm a bad example of the principle you're pointing out. My regular day to day life is so hellish that other than the inability to acquire new supplies of 30mg Oxycodone and my 350mg Carisoprodal, a zombie apocalypse truly wouldn't be any worse for me than my day to day life.

As to my ability to hit that many zombies. I will concede that down on the ground floor while trying to reach the attic my accuracy would suffer, just like EVERY human being's accuracy/fine motor control suffers when heart rate exceeds 175 beats/minute, aka "Code Black/Fight or Flight state".

With zombies at close quarters, it's a given I would fall into a Code Black pulse rate. Anything besides my 12-gauge would be useless to me during the fight to the attic, unless my attacker was literally at point blank range.

Now, again I'm a unique case when it comes to what my mindset would be if I reached the roof alive and unbitten with weapons and ammo. You have to understand that my ability to stay calm and focus once I'm out of immediate danger has NOTHING to do with bravery.

I've been in extreme agony for over 11yrs now. Been treated for back pain and other issues for longer than that, but up until I was 19 the pain meds completely controlled my pain, allowing me the pretense of a normal life. Slowly though, over time the pain grew worse and worse, and now all the pain meds do is take the worst of the edge off for an hour and change, but make NO MISTAKE, I'm still in AGONY even then.

Under these circumstances I don't kill myself for only (2) reasons. 1) (Primary Reason) My faith gives me reason to believe that if I take my life when death is not otherwise imminent and certain, the essence/soul that makes me, well, me would be damned and sent to Hell. By the same token, if I were trapped on my house's roof, with no capacity to escape and dying of thirst, I believe my God would accept my escaping a certain death situation via suicide. 2) The impact my death would have on my family. They've sacrificed and continue to sacrifice so much just to do whatever small things they can to make my existence more endurable. I believe they deserve better than for me to give up.

However, as far as the "Could I turn my back on a bitten or unbitten-but-endangered family member" question, the answer is no. I might very well die trying to save who I can, but my family has been through terrible, frightening and violent things due to the actions of a vicious human predator. It's hard to explain, but when you and your family have survived such prolonged attack(s) it changes your family forever.

I firmly, unquestioningly believe that if my Mother or Grandmother were about to be dragged down by zombies, their last words would be a rage filled "NO! Save yourself!" if they saw me about to leave a safe vantage point to try and rescue them (thus exposing myself). My stepfather would go down defending my mother, barehanded if need be, and is more than capable of easily terminating a zombie barehanded after a life of intensive labor that left him with fast, IMMENSELY POWERFUL hands and arms. If anyone could perform a Mortal Kombat-style Fatality of pulling head and attached spinal column free it would be him. To be fair, my stepfather would tire after 10-15 minutes of full-out exertion, but whatever was gonna happen would've happened by then.

Now, if my Stepfather reached HIS guns, I can GO BACK TO BED, because savage walking corpses wouldn't faze him. Man has been in two shooting wars on the lines and doing some behind-the-lines WWII stuff. After that, the undead are bullshit compared to the stuff you can see flit across the back of his eyes when WWII gets brought up. Stuff like killing unarmed men begging for their lives because they weren't in a position to take prisoners...

Your point is taken to heart though Dracenstein. The VAST MAJORITY of even otherwise prepared and well-equipped individuals could very easily be far away from those preparations and supplies by day-to-day life. Particularly those who commute substantial distances to work.

[SRP76]

A huge danger I just noticed, especially for "rural" folk, is damned animals. Specifically, mutts!

I live in one of those low-population, edge of nowhere places. Problem is, many people out here have dogs. You don't really notice them usually.

But, last night, I decided to take a walk. Guess what? Every damn dog around started going bonkers, yapping at me.

That made me think. Even if you think you're safe, you're "hiding" from any dead, you've got all those animals out there, and they're determined to make a bunch of racket. That will draw zombies like a magnet, right to you.

[Legion2213]

Another dog concern is that once people are gone (or thin on the ground) those mutts will also become feral hunting packs, any lone humans will also be in danger of...

A: Being brought down and scoffed.

or

B: Being injured by them and slowed down.

Mans best friend just became another threat to any survivors.

[Rancid Carcass]

Although perhaps another way of looking at it would be that the zombies eat the dogs, so the feral packs probably wouldn't be much of an issue. But I suppose that depends on what zombie dietary concerns theory you ascribe to...
:D

[SRP76]

Although perhaps another way of looking at it would be that the zombies eat the dogs, so the feral packs probably wouldn't be much of an issue. But I suppose that depends on what zombie dietary concerns theory you ascribe to...
:D

Even if they eat the mutts, the trouble is that a boatload of zombies have made their way to your location in order to do it. And once there, they're likely to stay.

"Man's best friend". Yeah, right.

[carpetbeggar]

Great thread so far guys. I never get enough of reading these "What if scenarios."

I just wanted to mention also that Wyldwraith brings up a lot of great points about the physiology of "the dead."
A lot of which I've been saying for years in these type of discussions. Dehydration would be the zeds greatest enemy and their eventual downfall IMHO.
All in all great stuff and part of the reason I've loved this place for so many years, going back to the old board. I've just got to stop 'lurking' so much and start posting more. :)

[Publius]

According to your own OP we're supposed to be discussing in the wake of a global zombie apocalypse, but then you spend a long post stating how that premise isn't feasible? Did you derail your own thread? :eek:

It seems to me that getting to a global apocalypse may require some counterfactual assumptions other than the existence of zombies themselves. For example, also assuming a world where the zombie fiction genre never existed. Maybe zombies would have had the best shot of taking over if Night '68 happened for real, as a global phenomenon. Ignorance of zombies, higher mortality rates, a slower news cycle, and less effective communications networks would combine to give them a much better chance than they would have today.

[Legion2213]

It seems to me that getting to a global apocalypse may require some counterfactual assumptions other than the existence of zombies themselves. For example, also assuming a world where the zombie fiction genre never existed. Maybe zombies would have had the best shot of taking over if Night '68 happened for real, as a global phenomenon. Ignorance of zombies, higher mortality rates, a slower news cycle, and less effective communications networks would combine to give them a much better chance than they would have today.

Interesting point about it happening in an AR without zombie media...if the first major outbreaks occur in the likes of Africa, Middle East, Bible belt USA and deeply religious sections of Europe, the people would all be well phased thinking in the terms of "armageddon/voodoo/witchcraft/etc" as opposed to "OMG zombie outbreak"...these factors might allow the first wave of zombies to grow to unmanagable levels.

[Yojimbo]

Another dog concern is that once people are gone (or thin on the ground) those mutts will also become feral hunting packs, any lone humans will also be in danger of...

A: Being brought down and scoffed.

or

B: Being injured by them and slowed down.

Mans best friend just became another threat to any survivors.

I am more inclined to believe that a roaming pack of hungry feral dogs would pose a formidable danger to the slow moving ghouls than vice versa. In my neighborhood we have a coyote infestation problem, and due to urban sprawl they now forage through the neighborhood picking off cats and small dogs- I assume that they, like feral dogs, would likely thrive in a ghoul infested environment.

[Wyldwraith]

Hmm,
After some additional long thought on this issue, I've realized that one core issue divides the End of Humanity from A Disaster We Would Be Damaged By, But Otherwise Survive (Relatively) Intact.

Rate of zombie decay/physical breakdown.

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.

On the other hand, if you're like me and give credence to the many well-understood biological processes which are part and parcel of physical death, you no doubt perceive a host of reasons why zombies simply couldn't remain functional for longer than 6-7 months at the absolute maximum (barring those zombies sheltered from environmental exposure).

The Interval of Functionality of the reanimated dead would, IMHO, be the key factor in determining the scope of the zombies' impact on Humankind and Civilization for (3) main reasons, and a few tributary reasons.

1) Supply Stockpiles. I believe we're all in agreement that any major widespread disaster of sufficient scope will interrupt the functioning of national infrastructure. Of these interrupted services, the lack of new deliveries of food to regular outlets, the disruption or termination of access to clean water sources, and the ongoing lack of medical supplies of even the most basic sort will be the losses most immediately and keenly felt by surviving humans.

I've read in multiple locations/articles/books that the average person/family has no more than two weeks of food on hand at any given moment, with populations in disaster-prone regions (portions of California and S. Oregon due to earthquakes. The Gulf Coast due to hurricanes, and during the winter, New England due to "Nor'easters", sudden blizzards, and potential flooding) for example possessing on average 3-7 days additional food in the form of non-perishables.

So, barring runs on grocery stores/produce stands/ranches etc., most people have no more than 3 weeks of food and an unspecified but no doubt limited amount of clean water available to them. Even in a best-case-scenario where we assume in the opening day/days of the growing crisis/zombie infestation that such a family successfully acquires DOUBLE their current at-home supplies by a frantic run on the grocery store(s), that's still only six weeks of supplies even in disaster accustomed regions.

42 days of food at regular consumption rates, or significantly longer if strictly rationed, but still no more than 2-2 & 1/2 months of rationed food.

Then we have the hardcore survivalists/apocalypse believers of all stripes. Such individuals could very well have extremely large (yet still finite) stockpiles of non-perishables (M.R.Es etc). Someone like this might well have a few YEARS of food, months of stockpiled water, and established systems/practices to augment their supplies should the worst happen. (Doesn't really matter if they were thinking Nuclear War/W.W III when they made their preparations. The supplies are the same.)

So, the VAST MAJORITY of individuals would be totally out of food by Month 3 of the Zombie Apocalypse. Even among those people who've been clever, well-trained/well-prepared, or simply lucky enough to make it that far, right around then will come the last major spurt of human casualties. Either due to encounters with zombies while venturing forth to scrounge for food when hunger drives them beyond the confines of their heretofore "safe" hideout, or in conflicts with other equally desperate human beings competing for the same EXTREMELY LIMITED supplies.

You can see where I'm going with this line of reasoning, but I'll come back to this a bit further on.

2) Societal Instability/Upheaval. This umbrella concept encompasses everything from the breakdown of law and order/emergency services, up to and including desperation-inspired actions by world governments who, seeing the situation(s) in their respective territories go wildly out of their control after efforts to contain and eliminate the threat by conventional means have failed, undertake EXTREME measures to try and regain some of the metaphorical ground they've lost.

Addressing societal breakdown first, MUCH has been said on this particular issue in prior threads. The rise of nomadic marauder-gangs and petty warlords claiming dominion here and there as their manpower and resources allow, to the far more insidious, but ultimately far more lethal epidemic-spawning conditions.

After all, when the Water Treatment Plants go offline, yet sewage continues to be introduced into the system until power is lost, all it will take to cause a host of potential outbreaks of conventional pathogens is enough rainfall or other cause that forces that raw sewage into the streets and contaminating relied-upon water sources that up until now have remained clean. Presto, instant Cholera epidemic. Cryptosporidium, while normally much less dangerous, would have a vastly increased impact on a population already malnourished, under constant stress/carrying significant sleep-deficits and otherwise at least partially Immuno-compromised. Just look at the effects it had on an otherwise healthy, infrastructure-operational Milwaukee when ONE water plant became MILDLY AND BRIEFLY contaminated by Cryptosporidium.

Subsequently, there will be lots of standing/stagnant water all over the place. Everything from pools and decorational ponds/fountains of millions of homes, to simple rainfall accumulation. Without the regular anti-mosquito spraying done in susceptible areas (which would be pretty much everywhere but the damned DESERT under these conditions) the mosquito population would explode to levels seldom seen, let alone experienced by anything but the caribou herds near the arctic circle (whose entire migration cycle is prompted by desperate efforts to escape the CLOUDS of mosquitoes and biting flies). With this explosion of the mosquito population will come any or all of the mosquito-borne pathogens and parasites at epidemic levels.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Then we have the Extreme Measures by the Militaries of the Industrialized Nations at the behest of the aforementioned desperate National Governments they serve. Anyone who has seen the movie Outbreak can easily envision just how destructive/lethal these zombie-extermination efforts could be.

You might be insanely lucky enough to be a member of a well-armed and sizable group who've ultra-secured something like a Sam's Club or Distribution Center ala Dawn-Style and have years of supplies while enjoying a vantage from which you've handily fended off all marauding gangs who've tested your defenses, but you will be just as dead as the people who died seconds after seeing their first zombie if the Air Force drops powerful Thermobaric Bombs on every former major metropolitan area in an effort to destroy huge concentrations of the undead.

3) Basic. Simple. Attrition. No wordiness here. Essentially, the longer the nightmare continues, the more people that will die for any of thousands of reasons. Simple as that. The ultra-prepared can suffer from devastating bad luck, the incredibly well-trained can have a stupid accident, and the Average Joe's luck can run out. If worldwide predators of Man continue to exist in large numbers, and the attendant Anarchy caused by their rise continues unabated, the environment will simply grow so hostile that extinction becomes all but an inevitability.

Now, ***!!!EVERYTHING!!!*** I just described is dependent upon ONE and ONLY ONE factor ultimately.

How long can the vast hordes remain functional? If Trin and the GAR-depicted/Flies-In-The-Face-Of-Biology multiple-years-unimpaired zombie is correct, we're FUCKED for EACH AND EVERY one of the above reasons.

If, on the other hand, the hordes only remain functional for 6-7 months, to be followed by FAR less numerous and sporadic reanimation outbreaks, ALL of the above factors can (and I believe WOULD) be effectively mitigated.

I'll hold off on my final conclusions as yet, as this thread still has a good deal of unlife left in it, but that's why I believe Functional Zombie "Lifespan" is the key deciding factor in Humanity's ultimate fate in the face of such an Apocalypse.

Why I believe all of this would be VASTLY BENEFICIAL to our species can also wait until another post.

Please, continue. :)

[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.
I disagree. I'd contend that after a few months the humans have either survived and gotten their regional situation under control (i.e. destroyed the bulk of the zombies) or they're dead. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where a year into it there is still a struggle to survive because of the zombies.


On the other hand, if you're like me and give credence to the many well-understood biological processes which are part and parcel of physical death, you no doubt perceive a host of reasons why zombies simply couldn't remain functional for longer than 6-7 months at the absolute maximum (barring those zombies sheltered from environmental exposure).
Well understood biological processes invalidate the existence of zombies period.

I love these hypothetical discussions, but at some level you've gotta suspend disbelief and just go with it. Getting mired in the science of something that is utterly impossible is pointless.

Put another way, if you accept that a dead body can rise and be cannibalistic then any further discussion is outside the bounds of science. Whether you choose to believe they can survive 3 weeks or 3 years is purely a function of what disbelief you are suspending.


The Interval of Functionality of the reanimated dead would, IMHO, be the key factor in determining the scope of the zombies' impact on Humankind and Civilization
I just don't believe this. If a group of survivors can manage to secure shelter, food, and water enough to last a month or two, then that's all the time they need to devise a method to destroy an ever-widening area of safety. Look at all the bitchin about Dawn (either version) and the survivors' lack of ambition in widening their safe zone. People throw out dozens of ways to increase the scavenging area, and at the same time tons of reasoning why the number of zombies in any particular locale would be limited (unlike the "kill 1 and 2 replace it" zombies noted in Dawn '04).

All it takes is one trip to Cabella's and you realize that Dr. Logan was way off. I wandered the aisles and there were more bullets in that store than people in a 10 mile radius. Given even a short amount of time I believe you can "blow the piss" out of all of them.

To the specific 3 points. I think there is some validity to each of them, but I also think each has enough counter arguments to cast serious doubt.

(1) The food supply argument relies on a large body of people diminishing the supplies. If we assume that most of the humans become zombies (and we have to for the supply chain to break down) then the demand dimishes faster than the supply. The only challenge is securing the food stores in a dangerous world.

(2) Societal Instability/Upheaval - the rise of marauders and petty despot all but guarantees the survival of the race. It may not be pretty, and it may lead to as much death as the zombie apocalypse itself, but these groups will assure their own survival at all costs.

(3) Attrition can only kill so many. History has proven that probability is on the side of survival.

Which do you think would happen more? Unplanned death or unplanned birth?


If, on the other hand, the hordes only remain functional for 6-7 months, to be followed by FAR less numerous and sporadic reanimation outbreaks, ALL of the above factors can (and I believe WOULD) be effectively mitigated.
This is an odd perspective given the rest of your post. You contended that food supplies would deplete far faster than 6 or 7 months and everyone was gonna die, the world would fall immediately into a dooming chaos, people would be dying through random accident/eventuality/misquitos ... yet you also contend that the zombies' ability to be functional after 6 months is crucial to the overall outcome. By your own arguments the fate of humanity is decided far earlier than 6 months.

My personal opinion, look to the countries that aren't so well off today. They don't have the reliance on technology and infrastructure. Their
day-to-day survival challenges today will have equipped them better to handle the fall of the first world countries tomorrow.

I'll be interested to hear the thoughts on long term benefits to humanity.

[soulsyfn]

You know whats funny... you are all putting so much debate and theory into the science of real dead bodies coming back to life and eating people.

If, in the real world zombies came to attack and eat people to survive... that alone would go against most sciencetific thought processes, and conventional science as we know it would need to be thrown out the window.

The reality is we have no real idea what or how this would happen or how we could really stop it. A head shot might not even work... we dont really know.

What I say is that zombies could be eating flesh to remain intact and continue to consume and create more zombies. The flesh and blood could be the catalyst to keep the zombie bodies from rotting or at least slow it down to a non-existent decomposition rate. Once there was no more flesh for them to consume their bodies could possibly begin rotting.

As for humanity's prospects... We are already sliding down a slippery slope and there will be no way that humanity will continue if the dead did come to eat us. Even zombie fans will die gruesome deaths, no matter how prepared you are the reality of the situation is too much for the human mind to accept.

People will survive, civilization will unfortunately no longer exist as we know it. Will we slip back into savage almost like medieval times? That is likely. But the people that do survive will be hardened, with a killer instinct and I fear that the zombie population will always exist at some level humans start to rebuild the world.

Just my $0.02

---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------

Damn it Trin you posted almost my exact thoughts...lol

I started the post at like 10am and just hit submit reply... oh well.

Great minds i guess...

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------


...I'll be interested to hear the thoughts on long term benefits to humanity.

I think something like this would hit a reset button that would cause the weak to die and the strong to survive.

I think the long term benefits include another industrial revolution as we will need to find ways to automate the creation of necessities. So innovation will flurish again. Also, less reliance on the usual energy sources will be removed entirely as there is no demand for fuel as we know it.

I think humans will go more into the old mentality of "it takes a village to raise a child" which will only lead to less infantile adults.

I just hope that humans will be able to learn from their mistakes.

[Legion2213]

I am more inclined to believe that a roaming pack of hungry feral dogs would pose a formidable danger to the slow moving ghouls than vice versa. In my neighborhood we have a coyote infestation problem, and due to urban sprawl they now forage through the neighborhood picking off cats and small dogs- I assume that they, like feral dogs, would likely thrive in a ghoul infested environment.

Thats a fair point, but I still believe it would be bad for survivors when dog packs lose all fear of two legged folk and see them a legitimate food source (dead or alive).

[Yojimbo]

Thats a fair point, but I still believe it would be bad for survivors when dog packs lose all fear of two legged folk and see them a legitimate food source (dead or alive).

I do agree- without a doubt the survivors would be at risk of becoming prey for the feral dogs. I just meant that the dogs would be in less danger of becoming zombie food than the zombies would be from the dogs.

[Wyldwraith]

@Trin,
The reason you're missing my point about limited zombie functionality is you placed the emphasis on defining a "functional zombie" to be one that is still mobile and capable of hunting, whereas I break the phases of Zombie Functionality down further into the period during which zombies are relatively "fresh and unimpaired" (for zombies), and the period just afterward when decay/physical degradation of the zombies' sensory organs (among other things) becomes a serious impediment for the majority of the zombies hunting efforts.

I apologize for the ambiguity in the later portion of my post. I got too caught up in the Big Picture, and didn't stop to adequately explain why I placed such emphasis on the deciding factors I described. (Ie: Degradation of the general zombie condition over time making it easier for surviving humans to pick up the pace of their rebuilding efforts.)

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.

In specific, I acknowledge that the well-prepared survivalist types and indigenous populations which still live very close to the land aren't really subject to my supply argument in the way that members of industrialized nations are. However, as to your point that the plummeting human population would free up large amounts of available supplies for the survivors to scrounge I have to disagree. Whether large numbers of people cease consuming the available supply stockpiles, only a minority % of those supplies are non-perishable. There could be many less mouths to feed as you theorize, but food rotting would create an alternate-but-equal cause of supply deprivation in place of actual human consumption.

Finally, I find the most merit in your learning to defend themselves or succumbing human population theory, but qualify it by reiterating my belief that you're underestimating the difference it would make to the survivors if the zombies were in a Land-esque condition a year or two after the primary undead uprising, or if said zombies were on the verge of becoming all-but-completely non-functional after several months. If nothing else, dramatically decay-impaired zombies would allow for a much faster and (IMHO) more comprehensive recovery by the surviving human population.

Good points Trin. We just happen to disagree on how a few of the particulars would play out.

[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. :D


Realises today that this was my 666th post.

http://yankeewombat.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/bush_devil_horns.jpg

Hail Satan.