Zombie Apocalypse: Realistically? Yes or No.

[Darksider18]

Me? i actually want a zombie apocalypse to happen plainly because it would be THE ultimate test on Human Survival, but deep down i know its never gonna happen. Based on realism, heres my top 2 reasons, feel free to either go against my notions or add to it. :). ::

1) Temperature: Think about it, most of the planet has extreme weather conditions, and in this case, things that are keeping us from rotting or freezing to death is action, reaction and our beloved Central Nervous System. and when your dead, this CNS is also dead. which means there is literally no way that an average zombie could survive (or After-Survived). just a rotting, melting, freezing dead corpse walking into their own doom. and they dont even know it. because yeah, thats right, they cant feel pain.

2) Basic Self-Survival: Heres another thing that keeps us from dying. Survival skills, Team-work, basic use of a weapon, you know stuff like that. zombies cant do anything like that, right? because the only feature of their body that has been reanimated is the brain stem. so in this case, they are just a walking bag of flesh waiting to be eaten by all sorts of creatures. And they cant stop the attacks because yet again, they dont have nerves or reactions or pain receptors.

[JDFP]

EDIT: Sorry, I originally misunderstood what you were asking.

Do I want it to ever happen? Hell no.

Would it be very bad (at minimum) if it ever happened? Oh yes.

The zombies wouldn't be the worst danger (at least in the beginning) -- it would be other people you would have to worry about. In the ensuing chaos that would come to be there would be riots, killings, and the worst possible chaos imaginable on a global scale.

More people would probably die from distribution and service lines breaking down (lack of food, medicines, electricity for heat/cooling, etc.) as opposed to the zombies -- at least at first. And then add to this the general insanity that would ensue from the 'masses of living idiots' who would be more damaging than the zombies.

We're them and they're us, and that kind of jazz, we don't need them to destroy us when we could very well do it ourselves in the potential tragedy of something like that ever taking place. I'd like to think more positively and think we'd stick together as humanity (perhaps in smaller communities/towns and rural areas it would be better) but if you're in a major urban area you're pretty much screwed.

j.p.

[bassman]

Hell no I wouldn't want it to happen. Not that it ever could, anyway. They're just movies.

No amount of firepower or "knowledge" on the situation is going to help anyone here. We've seen people come and go around this place saying that they could easliy survive the zombie apocalypse. They're armed to the teeth and know exactly what to do! Puh-lease. These guys would die just as quick as everyone else. The only thing that could really help you in that sort of situation is extreme luck.......unless of course you're the president. Then you would stand a pretty good chance. Otherwise....we're all fucked.

[Mr.G]

I do think the isolationists would last the longest. Someone living in Alaska/Canada or parts of the remote western US would do well. Lacking a larger population base has to help your percentage of survival.

[Mitchified]

Me? i actually want a zombie apocalypse to happen plainly because it would be THE ultimate test on Human Survival, but deep down i know its never gonna happen.

So just to recap, you want something to happen that would lead to the deaths of millions of people around the world? Including probably your own?

[MoonSylver]

Me? i actually want a zombie apocalypse to happen plainly because it would be THE ultimate test on Human Survival, but deep down i know its never gonna happen. Based on realism, heres my top 2 reasons, feel free to either go against my notions or add to it. :). ::

Never gonna happen. Nor do we need it to. We're going to do just fine wiping ourselves out. We don't need zed's for that.


1) Temperature: Think about it, most of the planet has extreme weather conditions, and in this case, things that are keeping us from rotting or freezing to death is action, reaction and our beloved Central Nervous System. and when your dead, this CNS is also dead. which means there is literally no way that an average zombie could survive (or After-Survived). just a rotting, melting, freezing dead corpse walking into their own doom. and they dont even know it. because yeah, thats right, they cant feel pain.

I've postulated this one before, but who says they're susceptible to any of the above anymore?

If I can accept the premise that something has reanimated a dead body & made it get up & walk around & want to eat people (& that's already a HUGE stretch), it's not that much further to accept that whatever reanimated them made have made further changes in their biology.

If Logan is correct, we already know cellular decay has been severely curtailed, so it's not inconceivable that other changes have been made to let's say, have their blood &/or cell tissue act as some kind of "antifreeze", become unpalitable to maggots & other insects, etc.

In that case, you can't depend on nature to save your ass. ;)


2) Basic Self-Survival: Heres another thing that keeps us from dying. Survival skills, Team-work, basic use of a weapon, you know stuff like that. zombies cant do anything like that, right? because the only feature of their body that has been reanimated is the brain stem. so in this case, they are just a walking bag of flesh waiting to be eaten by all sorts of creatures. And they cant stop the attacks because yet again, they dont have nerves or reactions or pain receptors.

Most of that would be offset by the following:


The zombies wouldn't be the worst danger (at least in the beginning) -- it would be other people you would have to worry about. In the ensuing chaos that would come to be there would be riots, killings, and the worst possible chaos imaginable on a global scale.

More people would probably die from distribution and service lines breaking down (lack of food, medicines, electricity for heat/cooling, etc.) as opposed to the zombies -- at least at first. And then add to this the general insanity that would ensue from the 'masses of living idiots' who would be more damaging than the zombies.

J.D.'s got it right. The beginning would be BAD. The # of dead would increase ENORMOUSLY right off the bat for all of the reasons listed above.

[Wyldwraith]

Well,
I don't believe the undead could ever rise, but I also don't *actively* discount ANYTHING from happening in this world. Life is just too weird.

Now, could something like 28 Days/Weeks Later happen? You betcha it could. The wrong difficult to detect Prion slipping into the beef/pork/poultry supply, and you could have mayhem in a hurry. ESPECIALLY if said Prion's nature was such that it goes undetected by the current means of scrutinizing our foodstuffs for taint. Not incredibly likely, but NOT impossible.

That said, all you really need is some sort of (let's just call it an "Infectious Agent") that, among its other symptoms, afflicts the host with severe paranoia, something similar to a "Thyroid Storm" effect in the Adrenal Glands...or just Paranoia + good ole-fashioned psychotic breaks (which CAN be caused by some pathogens/diseases).

Ramp up someone's adrenaline and/or epinephrin (sp?), afflict them with severe paranoia, and shove them out of touch with reality via a psychotic break...and the sick could very well believe WE are the zombies they need to kill before we eat them...or somesuch manifold justifications for believing everyone is out to get them.

If something like that happened on a large scale it wouldn't be the end of civilization, but it WOULD eclipse all but the very worst of natural disasters/epidemics in recorded history as far as total mayhem and fatalities went.

When an epidemic isn't just stretching emergency services to the breaking point in dealing with/attempting to treat and/or isolate the sick, but is ALSO straining law enforcement to said breaking point nationwide because of the violent behavior of the sick....you'd be looking at a situation that would require extended Martial Law to bring under control.

That's without even getting into the localized disasters that could be caused by such deranged individuals. A retired priest comes to believe the other residents of his apartment building are Satanists who are stealing and sacrificing babies, and who've used their black magic to keep the cops oblivious to their activities might decide he needs to burn down the building to "purge the evil"....and then the fire spreads, because emergency services are already overtaxed. Etc. Etc. Etc.

So you don't need to cross over to territory nearly as unlikely as the living dead to find the world, or at least your country caught up in the midst of a nightmare scenario.

[mpokera]

Is a Zombie Apocalypse possible? EVERYTHING is possible. Just look at the things that are in the world today that if you asked someone in the past they would have said was completely impossible. Is it possible with what we understand today? No, but to believe we are the complete pinnacle of knowledge and can foresee everything that is possible would be hubris to the millionth degree IMHO.

The 28 days later/rage virus type zombies? I think this is certainly possible. No reanimation of the dead/supernatural/violation of the laws of nature is needed for this. Just an unknown pathogen that shortcircuits higher brain functions and leaves nothing but unreasoning aggression. I actually think this is quite likely to eventually happen. I only hope that if and when it does, it is in a highly controlled situation and not allowed to break out into the population at large because if it does we are all in big trouble. 'Zombies' of this type would of course be susceptible to normal ways of disposal, if harder to kill than normal people just because they would ignore pain.

GAR actual living dead zombies? This is of course a much larger stretch but I still dont think anything can be totally ruled out. Barring supernatural or demonic influence I cant swallow the dead rising from graves and the like. But it isnt too hard to imagine a virus/prion type organism taking over and modifying the human body for its purpose. Shutting down all systems except for mobility and feeding. Making the body in effect 'dead' and unable to be stopped without actually severing the brain from the ambulatory machine below. The disease wouldnt be intelligent of course, so its only drive is to survive and replicate, having the body attack and devour other noninfected life would accomplish both of these.

Now as to your objections. Who says temperature would bother them at all? They dont feel any pain or discomfort, there is no blood circulating to warm the muscles but why do they need to be warm? If they arent actually frozen they would still operate. As for decay and the like, if the flesh of the zombie is toxic, even insects will leave it alone. And without the influence of maggots and micro-organisms, decay would be much, much slower if in fact they decayed at all.

And survival instinct? zombies have none of course, nor do they need it, their only enemy is man, no animal would bother them, there are plenty of examples of animals being able to detect diseased flesh from a distance and not even looking at it as food.

Is there anything that we know of that is capable of this? Of course not. Is it possible it could exist someday, manmade or otherwise? I think we would be foolish to think it couldnt happen

[Mr. Clean]

So just to recap, you want something to happen that would lead to the deaths of millions of people around the world? Including probably your own?

LOL "well....since you put it that way...." :o

[Rancid Carcass]

EVERYTHING is possible.

I take it you haven't tried transmuting base metals into gold recently then? :p :D

[mpokera]

I take it you haven't tried transmuting base metals into gold recently then? :p :D

Just because you or I (or anyone else at this point) cant do something doesnt mean its impossible. At this point obviously tranmutation of metals isnt possible. will it ever be? Who knows, if nanotechnology advances far enough it could be just as one possible example.

[Mr. Clean]

I take it you haven't tried transmuting base metals into gold recently then? :p :D

I've "almost" went super saiyan a few times. Someday I swear....someday :p

[rongravy]

Well, if it happens, I'm not far away from the boonies to hide out safely for awhile. Just gotta be able to make it out to them, family intact. Then hunt and fish awhile.
Unless they're those damned Dawn 04 fuckers, then I'm screwed, because I'm a lazy fat bastard.

Could this all happen? I doubt it, but it's possible. I just don't think there'd be anything supernatural to read into it.
Do I want this to happen, as long as they're slow as hell...?
Errrrrrrrrrrrr. Only when my alarm clock goes off in the mornings about 4:30 in the am Monday through Friday.
Kidding, geez.

[brer]

Heck, bring it on. If the undead killer mutant commie zombies are subject to rot, they have an unlife expectancy measured in days in my local. Probably not even worth breaking out the shottie.

Now, as I get older, fatter, and lazier, I find myself somewhat reluctant to lose the comforts of civilization. Indoor plumbing, the internet, and 250 channels of nothing to watch.

Regular meals fit in there somewhere, along with beer, but we can't be too picky.

[JDFP]

Regular meals fit in there somewhere, along with beer, but we can't be too picky.

#1 priority for me in the event of any type of apocalyptic event is to ask myself: "Have I stockpiled enough beer to do me awhile?"

Then again, I'm a drunk. So, there you go.

j.p.

[bassman]

If zombies were to rise, would you really want to be drinking? Even if you've got the most secure fortress available, being intoxicated is probably a bad idea. I love drinking, but drinking in the midst of the end of the world? Not so much..

[MoonSylver]

If zombies were to rise, would you really want to be drinking? Even if you've got the most secure fortress available, being intoxicated is probably a bad idea. I love drinking, but drinking in the midst of the end of the world? Not so much..

Can't think of a better time TBH...

[JDFP]

If zombies were to rise, would you really want to be drinking? Even if you've got the most secure fortress available, being intoxicated is probably a bad idea. I love drinking, but drinking in the midst of the end of the world? Not so much..

Here's my mental picture on this one, Bass:

I'm watching Fox News (because CNN and MSNBC are far too liberal, even during a zombie apocalypse, they'd probably try to put the zombies in a sympathetic light) and Sean Hannity is going on about how zombies are devouring people all around me. The question I ask myself is: "Hmm, do I want to be perfectly coherent and sober if/when I'm devoured by zombies?" -- doesn't take too much for me to come to a conclusion on that one.

On the bright side, if I wake up the next morning and I'm still alive (because like Michael Jackson's attorney says, I'd hate to wake up dead), it would be an excellent opportunity to drink beer in celebration in still being alive.

Really, if you think about it, wouldn't a global apocalypse be the perfect time to get shit-faced drunk without concerns over how your actions the previous night may have been embarrassing, etc. ?

j.p.

[Andy]

28 days later are not zombies so can we please stop refferring to them as such :mad:

Anyway thats a topic for another thread, on the likelyhood of a zombie apocalypse happen, didnt the center for disease control in america publish something on this a while ago? like exactly what a rage virus or zombie virus would have to do to the brain and body.. It wasnt too far off possible if i remember correctly.

[Rancid Carcass]

wouldn't a global apocalypse be the perfect time to get shit-faced drunk

...And the last time anyone ever sees you is when you charge headlong into a large group of zombies shouting, "look at me! I'm Frank West!". I wonder just how many people on this website would die under those exact same circumstances? :lol:

[Thorn]

No I do not want it ever to happen, wishing death on a large chunk of the population and a collapse of the wold as I know it has zero appeal to me. I am not fond of things as they stand now, but that is no way to institute change and in the end we would be worse off not better.

While it would serve to eradicate the sick, feeble, and worthless that exists as burdens to society children would also be hit hard and not to sound cliche but they are our future.

It is hard to move forward when you are just trying to get back to where you were, and this would retard our development as a species as well as taking from us some of our most precious resources.

Do I think it could happen? Well not like in the movies maybe, but yes I think it is possible.

And hey so do the writers at Cracked.. so it must be true. No I kid but the explanations are sound as presented.
Link to article: http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html

[Mitchified]

...And the last time anyone ever sees you is when you charge headlong into a large group of zombies shouting, "look at me! I'm Frank West!". I wonder just how many people on this website would die under those exact same circumstances? :lol:

We'd all probably die while doing this when the zombies turn around and shoot us with laser beams from their eyes, thus proving that Romero didn't know jack.

[Trin]

2 ways zombies could happen:

(1) Supernatural or deific intervention - A large portion of the world believe that a man died and was resurrected to walk the earth again. Why is it so hard to imagine that an equally miraculous event could manifest itself on behalf of evil in the form of zombies?

(2) Technology - Imagine someone 300 years ago being told that an atom (which was proposed around that time), the smallest conceptual unit of matter, would be split some 200 years later to produce the largest explosion ever created. So how can we conclude that no technology will come into being in the next 300 years that will enable reanimation of dead tissue... and that technology will go berzerk.

[Yojimbo]

A large portion of the world believe that a man died and was resurrected to walk the earth again.


Agree with Trin - and since in Revelations it says that when Christ comes during the end times that the dead will rise from their graves to live again, perhaps they are not zombies, but instead are Holy Christian Soldiers marching as to war.

[carpetbeggar]

That's what I'm saying. ^^^^ :elol:

Who says if the dead DO return to "life" that they will become cannibalistic mass murderers?

Maybe it'll just be like the beginning of the book "Autumn" where they come back to life and just shuffle mindlessly around, bumping into things for their whole existence?

Regardless whether they came back as flesh eaters or not they would just shrivel up like dried raisins, due to dehydration in no time anyway if they didn't take in enough water to keep hydrated.

[Ragnarr]

That's what I'm saying. ^^^^ :elol:

Who says if the dead DO return to "life" that they will become cannibalistic mass murderers?

Maybe it'll just be like the beginning of the book "Autumn" where they come back to life and just shuffle mindlessly around, bumping into things for their whole existence?

Regardless whether they came back as flesh eaters or not they would just shrivel up like dried raisins, due to dehydration in no time anyway if they didn't take in enough water to keep hydrated.

I think the closest thing to a zombie apocalypse we may ever see will be a situation like in the movie "The Road" where the living are eating the living in order to survive. We're all civilized when everthing is okay and there's food in the local store. If society breaks down for whatever reason and there's little or no food left, other people will start to look yummy to other people. Now THAT'S creepy!

[rongravy]

Yeah, I'm still going with the anything can/could happen belief. At one time the earth was flat, and eclipses were thought of as the moon being eaten, and some all knowing/all powerful being was/is in control of it all.
Heck, we're still a type ZERO civilization. I'd bet it would be some alien organism that controls you, like the thangies that hang out in the slug/snail trail waiting to be eaten by ants so they can hang off a leaf waiting to be eaten by cows. Once again, nothing supernatural, as nothing supernatural has ever been proved.
So yeah, the elements could hamper the dead; like cold, like the tightening of tendons, like eventual decompositional deterioration, however slowed. Like Queen said: Who wants to live forever?!?!?
I've often wondered what would happen if I treaded deep enough water while the dead were trying to get at me. They would surely still try to get at me, the same as they would through fire(without fear of any type of pain, whether it be drowning or burning), then they would sink like a rock and I could swim to freedom...
Unless there were so many of them they just displaced enough water, if in a pool, to eventually get me.
Look, I'm just spitballing here, but once you get past the fact that the accepted reality is no longer applicable, then it is open season on them. I'd be inclined to believe that the very recently dead would have more mobility, but that they'd still be slow enough to outrun...
As long as you weren't a lazy bastard who smoked like a chimney.
Who knows? There are organisms that can survive under extreme conditions. Some believe that the goo that made us what we are today came here from comets or meteors from other places.
I've always thought we should leave/send some of our spooge to other planets or solar systems/galaxies. Maybe somebody has already done this and we are the product of that. I personally don't believe we have any idea of what the fudge. It all comes back to the fact that we have no effing clue as to what makes it all tick, no matter how advanced we THINK we are.
Who knows?
This world is beginning to be a severely fucked up place. Maybe it's time to shake things up a bit. I sometimes have zombie dreams, but in them I'm always trying to save my only kid from undeath. Do I want it to happen?
No.
But if it did my kid would be my first priority. Sorry for the profanity, but yeah I'd fucking freak out first. I can only hope I'd not lose it completely and come back with a vengeance. I also think that northwest AR would be an ideal place to be. Not as good as Montana, but still...
Stay out of heavily populated areas, keep a 24/7 type of guard up, and dismember whatever baddies you can, and you might just repopulate and live to a ripe old age. Life/nature throws us for a loop when we least expect it. Look at the ice age, look at the black plague...

[wayzim]

That's what I'm saying. ^^^^ :elol:

Who says if the dead DO return to "life" that they will become cannibalistic mass murderers?

Maybe it'll just be like the beginning of the book "Autumn" where they come back to life and just shuffle mindlessly around, bumping into things for their whole existence?

Regardless whether they came back as flesh eaters or not they would just shrivel up like dried raisins, due to dehydration in no time anyway if they didn't take in enough water to keep hydrated.

Or they simply don't die, like on Torchwood; Miracle Day.

Wayne Z

[Yojimbo]

The zombies wouldn't be the worst danger (at least in the beginning) -- it would be other people you would have to worry about. In the ensuing chaos that would come to be there would be riots, killings, and the worst possible chaos imaginable on a global scale.

More people would probably die from distribution and service lines breaking down (lack of food, medicines, electricity for heat/cooling, etc.) as opposed to the zombies -- at least at first. And then add to this the general insanity that would ensue from the 'masses of living idiots' who would be more damaging than the zombies. j.p.

Agree with JD. It does not take much for society to fall apart, and when it does you are frequently in more danger from other survivors than from whatever calamity that caused the collapse. In Los Angeles, an overcrowded urban area, folks go crazy and riot when the Lakers win or lose. In the UK it took the police several days to organize against groups of young miscreants who managed to cause all kinds of mayhem in the interim. As much of a fan of post apocalyptic survival scenarios I might be, it would truly suck if everything fell apart.

As far as ghouls being unable to organize, Land of the Dead pretty much changed the rules there. Even in their most mindless, unorganized pre-LOTD state, they have the advantage of numbers, of being impervious to pain or fatigue, and really need no more an advantage than traveling and attacking in a large group to overwhelm most survivors who would not only be fighting the hordes of the dead but would also be competing with other survivors for resources and safe haven.

-- -------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------


If society breaks down for whatever reason and there's little or no food left, other people will start to look yummy to other people. Now THAT'S creepy!

Creepy thing is that there is historical precedent for this sort of response to a crisis-related food shortage.

[SRP76]

As long as you grow a good supply of red and green herbs, and keep a typewriter handy, you'll be all set.

[Ragnarr]

As long as you grow a good supply of red and green herbs, and keep a typewriter handy, you'll be all set.

Soylent Green IS people! AAAAGGGGHHH!!!!

I get where rongravy's coming from; zombie apocalypse cannot happen in any rational or scientific way that we know at present. It's what we DON'T know that would be the likely catalyst for a possible zombie apocalypse. Not worried here though. I'm pretty well stocked up on weapons, ammo, water and of course, pop tarts (pop tarts never go bad... ever).

[Rancid Carcass]

zombie apocalypse cannot happen in any rational or scientific way that we know at present...

...(pop tarts never go bad... ever).

I think you have your answer! :D

The cannibalism thing is an interesting subject, I'm surprised Romero hasn't touched on it already – it fits in rather nicely with his 'we're them and they're us' theme. Human survivors desperation leading to the total collapse of civility and humanity to the point of where there is nothing left that really separates humans from zombies. I think that would also play nicely against the zombies vague memories of who they were and their fumbling attempts to do 'what they used to do', there's some real weighty issues to explore in there, very grim and extremely dark. If you like that sort of thing.

[Ragnarr]

I guess that was the creepiest part of "The Road" when they were looking for shelter and went into that house. The basement was filled with half-starved "future meals" for that dirty, blood stained cannibal family. Nasty! Aside from that house scene(s), I didn't care much for the rest of the flick.

Can you imagine hordes of LIVING people trying to break into your boarded up house intent on making you their next meal? Whoa man, now that's a movie idea Romero should consider doing. He can call it, "Night of the Living Living."

[Wyldwraith]

Well,
The likeliest possible anything-apocalypse resembling zombies would IMO prolly be something like around the time that nanotech for medical purposes/life span extension etc. become cheap enough to mainstream, but not around long enough yet to be bulletproof-reliable.

Say you've got your nanites that are programmed with a template they're supposed to maintain you at. Ie: Their "blueprint of you" and their maintenance road map. After the initial burst of activity, most nanite activity would be self-replication to replace worn out nanobots and general maintenance-functions. Ie: Cleaning out the cholesterol you've recently introduced, cleansing toxins etc...

So, one guy/gal, SOMEWHERE ends up in some utterly improbable scenario (such as being exposed to lethal amounts of radiation when the nuclear power plant near your neighborhood gets wrecked by an earthquake ala Japan)...

A replication error occurs in a significant minority % of the nanites, while the majority have been flat out destroyed or too damaged to do much. At that point we're talking Xeroxes of Xeroxes to the Nth degree.

Under those circumstances, it's difficult to imagine what COULDN'T HAPPEN to such an individuals physiology....and god help us all if some nitwit ever decides we should all have wifi nanites for patch updates and such. There's your root for a "zombie" apocalypse right there.

Current technology? Just can't see it. Potential future tech? If nanites could Gray Goo us into extinction, what exactly is impossible?

[Neil]

Me? i actually want a zombie apocalypse to happen plainly because it would be THE ultimate test on Human Survival
You don't think:-
- Climate change
- Polution (of the ocean)
- Population growth
- Peak oil
- Peak resources in general

...is enough to test us over the next few decades?

[Ragnarr]

You don't think:-
- Climate change
- Polution (of the ocean)
- Population growth
- Peak oil
- Peak resources in general

...is enough to test us over the next few decades?

Hmm, not really. In a few decades I'll already be a zombie.

[Sammich]

Steve Quayle did an entire 3 hour show a couple weeks ago presenting evidence and his sincere belief that there will be a real zombie apocalypse. It was heavily in the religious angle but also mentioned the likelihood of a type of engineered pathogen that would have effects similar to "The Crazies".

[Neil]

Steve Quayle did an entire 3 hour show a couple weeks ago presenting evidence and his sincere belief that there will be a real zombie apocalypse. It was heavily in the religious angle but also mentioned the likelihood of a type of engineered pathogen that would have effects similar to "The Crazies".

I think the only thing we need to be scared about in this area is a virile avian flu strain!

[Ragnarr]

I think the only thing we need to be scared about in this area is a virile avian flu strain!

Living here in the land of "New Joisey", with the whacko terrorists always seemingly focused on NYC, it's likely that some sort of pathogen will blow my way from the north someday. I don't recall the name of a movie I watched recently, but it involved a biological attack on the U.S. west coast. Dude locked himself in his house, duct taped his windows (also covering them in plastic), and wouldn't let anyone in including his girlfriend. Not wanting to spoil the end for those of you who haven't seen the flick, but it turned out really really bad for him.

[rongravy]

Living here in the land of "New Joisey", with the whacko terrorists always seemingly focused on NYC, it's likely that some sort of pathogen will blow my way from the north someday. I don't recall the name of a movie I watched recently, but it involved a biological attack on the U.S. west coast. Dude locked himself in his house, duct taped his windows (also covering them in plastic), and wouldn't let anyone in including his girlfriend. Not wanting to spoil the end for those of you who haven't seen the flick, but it turned out really really bad for him.
What was the name of the movie? You can't spoil it for me if I dunno the name yet, lol.

[Ragnarr]

What was the name of the movie? You can't spoil it for me if I dunno the name yet, lol.

Did a google search just now. The movie is called, "Right at your door". Wasn't his girlfriend that he locked out, it was his wife. Creepy thought to lock your wife outside in order to save yourself from being infected, unless of course you did not dig your wife too much.

[rongravy]

Did a google search just now. The movie is called, "Right at your door". Wasn't his girlfriend that he locked out, it was his wife. Creepy thought to lock your wife outside in order to save yourself from being infected, unless of course you did not dig your wife too much.
Yeah, I can't imagine something like THAT ever happening...
:rolleyes:
Wait, that guy left his old lady to get munched in 28 Weeks Later, too...
Guess it's better to cut those ties that bind during an apocalypse so you don't have to sacrifice yourself for a piece of ass that at some point will do something to get you both killed anyway.

[Ragnarr]

Yeah, I can't imagine something like THAT ever happening...
:rolleyes:
Wait, that guy left his old lady to get munched in 28 Weeks Later, too...
Guess it's better to cut those ties that bind during an apocalypse so you don't have to sacrifice yourself for a piece of ass that at some point will do something to get you both killed anyway.

I think those ties that bind also got the young guy cooked at the gas pump in the original NotLD. His gf's jacket "got caught" at a very very bad time. BOOM!

[Yojimbo]

I think those ties that bind also got the young guy cooked at the gas pump in the original NotLD. His gf's jacket "got caught" at a very very bad time. BOOM!

I don't know about the rest of my brothers here, but I personally wouldn't be able to abandon my wife to be torn apart by ghouls or blown up in a truck just to save my own ass. Even if I could short circuit my immediate impulse to save my wife and instead haul ass to save my own, I think that I would want to die for leaving her to die. I don't have children, but I would guess that the same sentiment would apply there and those instincts to protect the one you love would be very hard to ignore, even at your own peril.

Sorry, cannot remember how to do the spoiler thing, so if you haven't seen 28 weeks later DO NOT SCROLL DOWN!!!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!!
(Sorry in advance for the incompetence!)










































As for the coward in 28 weeks later who left his wife for the infected - I think that guy is not a man and is worth less than shit as far as I am concerned. But there was an elderly couple who died in the farmhouse too, and the man sacrificed himself for his wife - that dude is my hero!

[Ragnarr]

Naa, I wouldn't let my gf to get all munched up just to save my sorry carcass. The more likely event would be me sacrificing myself to save her. That was one of the freaky parts in the Walking Dead when the mechanic dude (the one who was bitten on the stomach) mentioned that he watched his family get munched as he got away.

[Neil]

As for the coward in 28 weeks later who left his wife for the infected - I think that guy is not a man and is worth less than shit as far as I am concerned.

I'm afraid I don't see it like that. He was in a do-or-die situation. Almost certainly if he'd stopped to help her, he'd be dead too. And that would help her how?

I suspect, given the same scenario, there's a high chance I'd do exactly the same I suspect. My instinct at the time may of course change to "fight," but by all logic "flight" would be the logical thing to do.

[AcesandEights]

I'm afraid I don't see it like that. He was in a do-or-die situation. Almost certainly if he'd stopped to help her, he'd be dead too. And that would help her how?

I suspect, given the same scenario, there's a high chance I'd do exactly the same I suspect. My instinct at the time may of course change to "fight," but by all logic "flight" would be the logical thing to do.

Well said. I've heard a lot whinging about that scene from "real men" the last few years, but it's not only perfectly believable, but pretty easy to sympathize with. And your above points don't even begin to address the fact that the character in question had children he evidently believed, or at least wanted to believe (based on his earlier conversation with his wife), were still alive.

No doubt the scene was written to get a reaction of this sort out of the viewers and it seems to have worked quite well.

[shootemindehead]

It's about the best thing in whole film.

THERE! I said it!

[Ragnarr]

btw @ shootemindehead: Captain Rhodes' response to Dr. Logan's "Pardon ME, is there food?" is one of the best lines in Day of the Dead IMO and totally rocks as a signature. Bravo!

[Yojimbo]

He was in a do-or-die situation. Almost certainly if he'd stopped to help her, he'd be dead too. And that would help her how?

I suspect, given the same scenario, there's a high chance I'd do exactly the same I suspect. My instinct at the time may of course change to "fight," but by all logic "flight" would be the logical thing to do.
I cannot argue with your thought that fleeing, as he did, was the logical choice. Given the circumstances, I agree that it would make the most sense. However, I personally would not have been able to live with the image of my wife's panicked face helplessly watching me as I ran away and abandoned her to death by the infected. So perhaps it is a figment of my own personal weakness - and not a macho man thing - that I would have rather died attempting to defend her than doing the logical thing and fleeing.

-- -------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 AM ----------



No doubt the scene was written to get a reaction of this sort out of the viewers and it seems to have worked quite well.

I am in agreement with you here -That was a heartwrenching scene and it did get a reaction from me. As for him running out of consideration for his children, I am less convinced. I think he did it - understandably - to save his own ass. I will recant that my eariler very judgemental statement that he was less than shit, though, since who knows how one would react and what would motivate their reactions in a time of danger and stress.

[Wyldwraith]

Been thinking about this,
And I've come to the conclusion that "conventional danger" (Ie: Someone brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner at you) and "attempted predation" (Ie: A Crocodile leaping from the water in an attempt to have you for breakfast) can't really be compared as regards reactions to the two very different types of threats.

For thousands of years human males have been naturally selected for the trait of being willing to fight in defense of mate and (to a lesser extent) the resulting children. AT THE SAME TIME, those males descended from males who passed on this "defend your mate" instinct/trait by process of elimination must be males either a) extremely effective at fighting off predation-attempts or b) (and the more likely scenario IMO) have better-developed instincts/reactions to EVADING such predation attempts.

Example: You're an Aboriginal man living in a community near the banks of a North Australian river. A river that happens to be inhabited by a large # of very large salt water/estuarine crocodiles. Now, as a male of this community you obviously have to go out and "bring home the bacon" so to speak (though incidentally, among Aborigines fishing is generally considered "women's work"...one way or another, if your community relies on that river in various ways for its survival, by definition you're descended from someone who succeeded in not getting eaten by a crocodile for long enough to pass on his genes to the next generation.

Anyways, my point is that if one looks at inherited traits in human beings as "nature playing the odds", and considers that for the VAST MAJORITY of our time here on Earth our ancestors were prey animals, even as they were also predatory animals on certain levels. Bottom line, people who weren't any good at not ending up lunch for the predatory mega-fauna of the Pleistocene Era didn't survive to pass on their genes. Looked at like that, IMO there seems to be a genetic imperative that favors what we modern folk might call "cowardice" in the face of something that wants to eat us. If there wasn't, how did we ever survive eras when our level of technology left us vulnerable to predators all over the world?

So no, I don't think most men would "heroically stand and fight" in defense of their loved ones against a very dangerous predatory threat. It would seem that the voice of instinct is more likely to say "run away and find another female with which to pass on your genetic contribution to the species" than it is to say "stand and fight, putting all your eggs in one basket here and now".

Of course this is all speculation, but speculation that IMO is supported by well-established principles of heredity. Thoughts?

[Mike70]

No amount of firepower or "knowledge" on the situation is going to help anyone here. We've seen people come and go around this place saying that they could easliy survive the zombie apocalypse. They're armed to the teeth and know exactly what to do! Puh-lease. These guys would die just as quick as everyone else. The only thing that could really help you in that sort of situation is extreme luck.......unless of course you're the president. Then you would stand a pretty good chance. Otherwise....we're all fucked.

in fact, several studies (which i wish i could find the fucking links to right now) have shown that luck and thinking quickly are what enable most people to survive a fucked up situation. the "experts" and the ones who "know what they are doing" are almost always the first ones to die. i'll take luck anyday over just about anything else i can think of.

isolation has an extreme, powerful negative effect on the human psyche. the number of people who can survive in isolation without going completely and totally fucking bonkers is very, very low. the people who claim they can do it are the ones most full of shit. i've been a loner all my life but i could no more survive without other people in a rational state of mind than i could breathe chlorine gas. again, it is a nothing more than a loose bit of macho bull.

[Yojimbo]

I don't think most men would "heroically stand and fight" in defense of their loved ones against a very dangerous predatory threat. It would seem that the voice of instinct is more likely to say "run away and find another female with which to pass on your genetic contribution to the species" than it is to say "stand and fight, putting all your eggs in one basket here and now".


Your statement may be speculative, but it is well written and well thought out and makes a lot of sense. I do wonder, however, if standing and fighting to protect your mate is truly something borne out of heredity and evolution since, it would seem, to do so would put you in danger and is in fact counter-productive especially from a purely survival oriented perspective. Surely, in this sense, the key to survival is to not confront danger if you can avoid it.

I think about the story of Hosono Masabumi, a survivor of the Titanic and a Japanese National who, upon returning to Japan found himself widely ridiculed and ostracized for jumping into a lifeboat even though there were women and children left behind on the ship to die. Surely, it is understandable that he preferred not to die at sea and equally understandable that he did what he could to save his own life, even at the expense of other's lives. Perhaps it is wrong of me to judge Mr. Hosono and think of him as cowardly and think of his actions as reprehensible since, in effect, his survival instinct - that which is borne from centuries of heredity and evolution - is the key reason why he saved himself and left others to die. The will to survive is very strong in this sense - an almost animalistic need, however selfish or self serving it may be.

But then, as humans we have the ability to think out things, to limit our behavior and not react as an animal or give into our need for immediate satisfaction of our own personal animal needs. If we did not have this ability we would give in to raping every person we saw on the street who we found sexually attractive, or would grab food out of someone's hand whenever we felt hungry, or punch someone out everytime they pissed us off. Examples of this sort of behavior - the short circuiting of the need to save oneself in order to save others or to satisfy our own animal needs at the expense of others - do occur in real life. The emergency responders who rushed into the World Trade Center at a risk to their own well-being on 911 comes to mind. Sadao Munemori, a Japanese American soldier during world war two who jumped on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers is another example. PFC Ross McGinnis did the same recently in Iraq.

I do think it is understandable if one chooses their own survival over risking themselves to save someone else. Without judgment, however, I do think that we as humans are capable of doing so much more than merely thinking of ourselves and our own asses, and that perhaps we should strive to do this more often.

[Ragnarr]

I went to Utube to find the part in 28 Weeks Later where the dude abandons his wife. I don't remember the entire flick, but if you're referring to the house break in during the beginning, it looked like the wife was trying to find her son while the husband was yelling her name. I "think" they were separated in the chaos because of the infected psychos more so than him abandoning her to save his own skin. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[rongravy]

I went to Utube to find the part in 28 Weeks Later where the dude abandons his wife. I don't remember the entire flick, but if you're referring to the house break in during the beginning, it looked like the wife was trying to find her son while the husband was yelling her name. I "think" they were separated in the chaos because of the infected psychos more so than him abandoning her to save his own skin. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It wasn't their kid. The little pecker doesn't follow directions very well either. I think the husband wanted her to forget the kid. It's been awhile since I've seen it.

[Yojimbo]

I went to Utube to find the part in 28 Weeks Later where the dude abandons his wife. I don't remember the entire flick, but if you're referring to the house break in during the beginning, it looked like the wife was trying to find her son while the husband was yelling her name. I "think" they were separated in the chaos because of the infected psychos more so than him abandoning her to save his own skin. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No brother, he was with her the whole time and made a deliberate decision to leave her to the infected to save himself.

I found a clip that shows the woman looking for the kid (not her kid but some random kid that led the infected to the house) who was hiding in a closet upstairs. Her husband is imploring her to give up on the kid and trying to get her to come with him to escape, but of course the woman's maternal instincts cause her to run to the closet to get the kid. At that moment an infected drooling dude bursts into the room - one infected mind you - and stands between the husband and the wife. At that point the husband clearly makes a decision to save his ass and slams the door. You see the woman scream at her husband with a look of shock and surprise.

Now it would be forgivable if the two of them got separated and he assumed she was gone and felt that he had no other choice but to split, but this was not the case. Take a look at the following clip at about 5:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXhjc0xC2jo&feature=related

So while what he did might have been understandable to some of you, he clearly made a value judgement. Whether it was cowardice or a logical survival move I will leave up to you all to decide for yourselves. But it is not as if he made any attempt to try to defend his wife from the one infected dude between him and her at that time. He did not even try.

-- -------- Post added at 10:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------


It wasn't their kid. The little pecker doesn't follow directions very well either.
Yeah the little kid is what caused all the crap that happened to the poor survivors in the farmhouse. If the kid had listened better, perhaps things wouldn't have turned out as tragically between the married couple!

[Ragnarr]

Yojimbo wrote: "Yeah the little kid is what caused all the crap that happened to the poor survivors in the farmhouse. If the kid had listened better, perhaps things wouldn't have turned out as tragically between the married couple!"

I thought that the farmhouse break in happened when that chick removed the piece of wood from the wall to peer outside and the infected dude broke through the wall to grab her. The kid running around aimlessly certainly didn't help the situation at all, but I'm not sure that he initiated the break in. I'll have to go back to that scene and look.

[Yojimbo]

Yojimbo wrote: "Yeah the little kid is what caused all the crap that happened to the poor survivors in the farmhouse. If the kid had listened better, perhaps things wouldn't have turned out as tragically between the married couple!"

I thought that the farmhouse break in happened when that chick removed the piece of wood from the wall to peer outside and the infected dude broke through the wall to grab her. The kid running around aimlessly certainly didn't help the situation at all, but I'm not sure that he initiated the break in. I'll have to go back to that scene and look.

While you are correct that the break-in happened after that girl started saying her boyfriend's name at the door while looking through a crack that had been obscured by something - a rag or a small piece of board - I am pretty sure that the kid fled to the farmhouse because he was being chased by some infected folks. I think it was implied that his parents were in the group of infected chasing the little dirty kid when he came to the house and pounded on the door pleading to be let in. When asked how many were after him he said "loads"

So maybe it is just my assumption, but it is my position that the little kid led the infected to the house, causing an overwhelming force of infected to be in close proximity to the survivors who had heretofore been able to escape notice of the infected.

As you mentioned, the tragedy was also exacerbated by the kid running around the house and hiding in the upstairs closet, refusing to cooperate with the woman and go with her and her husband to flee. The three of them could have gotten away had it not been for that little brat not listening.

[rongravy]

Several things I remember when I saw this at the movies: First, when that kid starting running away from them, I was like, "Screw that kid, get the heck outta there!"
I know it sounds bad, but geez. Can't help everybody all the time.
Then the thing happened with his wife. Everybody, including myself, was saying, "Dooooood, that was cold busted to do that to your old lady."
On top of that, I saw it with my wife. She, and every other wife there, was all, "WTF?!?!? You better not even think about leaving me behind, jerkoff."
Then he ended up getting infected back by her with the kiss. Most of the wives were happy with her revenge until he gouged her eyes out. My wife was giving me the look that said, "Mmmm hmmm, that's what you get."
Then I was like, "Back atcha!"
I think that part probably had more than a few couples pissed off at each other by the end of the night.
Another reason to hate the movie, I guess...

[Neil]

I cannot argue with your thought that fleeing, as he did, was the logical choice. Given the circumstances, I agree that it would make the most sense. However, I personally would not have been able to live with the image of my wife's panicked face helplessly watching me as I ran away and abandoned her to death by the infected. So perhaps it is a figment of my own personal weakness - and not a macho man thing - that I would have rather died attempting to defend her than doing the logical thing and fleeing.

-- -------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 AM ----------



I am in agreement with you here -That was a heartwrenching scene and it did get a reaction from me. As for him running out of consideration for his children, I am less convinced. I think he did it - understandably - to save his own ass. I will recant that my eariler very judgemental statement that he was less than shit, though, since who knows how one would react and what would motivate their reactions in a time of danger and stress.

And I can entirely understand the stand a fight mentality possibly kicking in.

...but I made my comment in reply to "that guy is not a man and is worth less than sh*t," which I felt was very unfair, not only to the film, but in particular to anyone who sympathises with that character (eg: me). I can see you've reconsidered it. I praise you for you words! It's nice to see someone 'big enough' to reconsider things!

[Yojimbo]

I made my comment in reply to "that guy is not a man and is worth less than sh*t," which I felt was very unfair, not only to the film, but in particular to anyone who sympathises with that character (eg: me). I can see you've reconsidered it. I praise you for you words! It's nice to see someone 'big enough' to reconsider things!

It is very easy to make a strong statement that, upon reconsidering, you regret having made. This was one of those cases where I let my own personal views unfairly color the content of my post. I appreciate your kind words, Neil, and your patience and understanding.

[Mike70]

I'm afraid I don't see it like that. He was in a do-or-die situation. Almost certainly if he'd stopped to help her, he'd be dead too. And that would help her how?

I suspect, given the same scenario, there's a high chance I'd do exactly the same I suspect. My instinct at the time may of course change to "fight," but by all logic "flight" would be the logical thing to do.

in fact, you might not even have a choice. in stressful situations your brain is literally able to take control of your body (by shutting off your logic and reason centers) and make you do whatever it wants. most so-called "real men" are anything but and understand absolutely nothing about the way the brain responds to stress. it can absolutely override any of your decisions at any time it wants. if it wants you to run, you will run, regardless of whether your wife, child or bookie who owes you $15,000 is at risk.

[Yojimbo]

in fact, you might not even have a choice. in stressful situations your brain is literally able to take control of your body (by shutting off your logic and reason centers) and make you do whatever it wants. most so-called "real men" are anything but and understand absolutely nothing about the way the brain responds to stress. it can absolutely override any of your decisions at any time it wants. if it wants you to run, you will run, regardless of whether your wife, child or bookie who owes you $15,000 is at risk.
True, brother. You might even find yourself wanting to run from a logical, survival standpoint but instead going kung fu on the infected guy because your instincts kick in. ;)

[MateoR]

Me? i actually want a zombie apocalypse to happen plainly because it would be THE ultimate test on Human Survival, but deep down i know its never gonna happen. Based on realism, heres my top 2 reasons, feel free to either go against my notions or add to it. :). ::

1) Temperature: Think about it, most of the planet has extreme weather conditions, and in this case, things that are keeping us from rotting or freezing to death is action, reaction and our beloved Central Nervous System. and when your dead, this CNS is also dead. which means there is literally no way that an average zombie could survive (or After-Survived). just a rotting, melting, freezing dead corpse walking into their own doom. and they dont even know it. because yeah, thats right, they cant feel pain.

2) Basic Self-Survival: Heres another thing that keeps us from dying. Survival skills, Team-work, basic use of a weapon, you know stuff like that. zombies cant do anything like that, right? because the only feature of their body that has been reanimated is the brain stem. so in this case, they are just a walking bag of flesh waiting to be eaten by all sorts of creatures. And they cant stop the attacks because yet again, they dont have nerves or reactions or pain receptors.

Okay, that's few good reasons why zombies would not last long. But look at it this way; You don't die from a single bite. Yes, the bite carries a virus, but the virus infects the brain, so people would be brought to their primal urges(some cannibalism involved). That being said, people who would be bitten would have a few basic instincts: to feed, to drink, to find shelter, to sleep, to procreate. Basic things. So considering they wouldn't be dead dead, the temperature would not be a deal breaker. Example, people turned to zombies in Nordic country's and Russia etc. would be able to tolerate cold temperatures and people in warm country's would be able to tolerate heat. And not to mention they would probably seek some shelter. Plus zombies would not be slow. We consider them slow because of what we see in the movies, but assuming that they have not really died (they only have infected brains) they would have the average human running speed. Plus more than likely they would form some small groups like ancient humans used to do. Why? Well, for the reason I listed above, to feed, to drink, ti sleep, to have a safe place and for procreating. They would do all these things because that's how every thing on this planet is essentially "programmed" to do. Yes, zombies could procreate. How? Since they are on some level still human, most of their bodily functions would still be in use. Reproduction system as well. So most of these scientific reason have loopholes in them. But I agree that zombie apocalypse is impossible. The reason is simple, first off, we would kill most of them and in time we would find a cure.

[Yojimbo]

Okay, that's few good reasons why zombies would not last long. But look at it this way; You don't die from a single bite. Yes, the bite carries a virus, but the virus infects the brain, so people would be brought to their primal urges(some cannibalism involved). That being said, people who would be bitten would have a few basic instincts: to feed, to drink, to find shelter, to sleep, to procreate. Basic things. So considering they wouldn't be dead dead, the temperature would not be a deal breaker. Example, people turned to zombies in Nordic country's and Russia etc. would be able to tolerate cold temperatures and people in warm country's would be able to tolerate heat. And not to mention they would probably seek some shelter. Plus zombies would not be slow. We consider them slow because of what we see in the movies, but assuming that they have not really died (they only have infected brains) they would have the average human running speed. Plus more than likely they would form some small groups like ancient humans used to do. Why? Well, for the reason I listed above, to feed, to drink, ti sleep, to have a safe place and for procreating. They would do all these things because that's how every thing on this planet is essentially "programmed" to do. Yes, zombies could procreate. How? Since they are on some level still human, most of their bodily functions would still be in use. Reproduction system as well. So most of these scientific reason have loopholes in them. But I agree that zombie apocalypse is impossible. The reason is simple, first off, we would kill most of them and in time we would find a cure.


If one rewrites the rules of what zombies are and what they are capable of doing, then the sky is the limit to what they can withstand and do. We see examples of this in Contagium and the Day and Dawn remakes - ghouls with ultimate athletic abilities, screeching like velociraptors, not eating humans because they were vegetarians, etc.

I follow the Romero ghoul rules, which are as follows

1) Any person who dies for whatever reason will ressurect and become the living dead.
2) A bite will eventually cause death, but is not necessary for ressurection.
3) A ghoul can be killed by destroying the brain. Kill the brain and you kill the ghoul.
4) Because of rigor mortis and decomposition of tissue, a ghoul moves slowly.
5) Ghouls are impervious to pain and exhaustion but possess no more strength than that of an average human.
6) Ghouls kill for one reason - they wish to eat the flesh of their victims - but they do not eat out of a need for sustenance.
7) Ghouls can retain and recall residual memories from when they were alive.
8) In some circumstances, ghouls can learn tasks.
9) Ghouls appear to be able to communicate with each other and can appear to work cooperatively for a common goal.
10) Ghouls prey on living humans - they do not prey on each other, though there are some cases where ghouls may eat animals or insects


And the following rule is one that is not from Romero, but one that I feel is applicable:
11) If you are merely infected with some sort of disease that causes you to want to eat people in the manner of a zombie but are actually a living person, you are not a ghoul but an infected person.

[Wyldwraith]

@Yojimbo:
I completely agree with your assessment. People can and often do override even the most deep-seated of instincts to make conscious, reasoned out choices. Your examples of the 9/11 first-responders who entered the burning towers to try and help trapped and/or injured people, even as a huge mob of people was going the other way in their flight from the Twin Towers, was a very apt example of this facet of human nature. The same could be said for the soldiers who jumped on grenades to protect their comrades/buddies.

That said, I believe that the "Defend Your Mate" and the "Flee to avoid being killed/eaten, and find another female with which to pass on your genetic contribution to the next generation" instincts came about SIMULTANEOUSLY as traits naturally selected for during our species evolution. Furthermore, I believe that these two polar-opposite instinctive impulses exist in the human male together, and in the form of an "Instinct Switch" in the brain. By switch, I mean that the human male has had passed down to them/us an instinct based on a near-instantaneous assessment of both the "threat of imminent and potentially life-threatening attack" and the "threat of an imminent predation-attempt" situations.

Put more simply, I believe that when a man finds himself in a conflict situation where the threat of attack or being attacked and eaten is present, and he is forced to make the decision to stand and defend his mate or flee and abandon his mate to increase his chances of surviving in that split-second of Fight or Flight, the man's mind weighs the perceived odds of winning or losing the conflict. If this internal "odds-giver" part of the instinctive response determines the chance of success if he Fights is below X-percentage, instinct gives much greater weight to the Flight-response, and the man likely flees to save himself. If the odds are equal or greater than X-percentage, more weight is given to the Fight-response, and the man likely chooses to stand and fight in defense of his weight.

This is an oversimplified version of a very complicated part of brain-function, and there are undoubtedly other factors that are weighed by the male mind's "odds-giver", such as the perceived difficulty/amount of energy expended and the %-chance of encountering more danger in securing a new mate if the man flees and abandons his current mate...and as previously stated, humans have the capacity to rationally override and act contrary to their instincts if they so choose in a wide range of circumstances. I just feel that based on what we know of how the human primate favors the "middle ground option" in an evolutionary sense concerning everything from testicle size smaller than the very promiscuous chimpanzee but larger than the very monogamous gorilla (for example) to the positioning of our eyes in our faces being a compromise between the enhanced range of peripheral vision granted by increasing the space between the eyes and locating them nearer the sides of the head, as is common to prey animals, and the deeply inset eyes for honed depth-perception of a predator....that our survival instincts are equally likely to have taken the same "Middle Ground Path" when it comes to how we react to danger.

[Christopher Jon]

If one rewrites the rules of what zombies are and what they are capable of doing, then the sky is the limit to what they can withstand and do. We see examples of this in Contagium and the Day and Dawn remakes - ghouls with ultimate athletic abilities, screeching like velociraptors, not eating humans because they were vegetarians, etc.
That's because zombies and ghouls are make believe. Romero zombies are a mash-up of numerous old legends. Anybody who writes a story or creates a film should have the same creative freedom that Romero had.


Because of rigor mortis and decomposition of tissue, a ghoul moves slowly.
Because of rigor mortis they wouldn't be able to move at all. Might as well call them the planking dead.


Ghouls are impervious to pain and exhaustion but possess no more strength than that of an average human.
Average humans have shown the capability of extreme strength. Soccer moms lifting cars to save their children. It's not unreasonable that the undead could tap into that strength as well.

Just a couple of random thoughts this fine morning. :)

[Wyldwraith]

As an aside: Wow, really thought my last post woulda provoked some comment. Ah well.
On the topic of ghouls "tapping into" the Hysterical Strength Phenomena, which the mother lifting a car to free her trapped child/children is an archetypal example of...
Though we've yet to scientifically identify every facet of these crisis-engendered bursts of superhuman strength some people demonstrate, we know that a truly massive release of Adrenal Gland secretions and Endorphins is a major part of what happens to the body before and during such a demonstration of "superhuman" strength. This being the case, a reanimated corpse would need a variety of the glands that functioned when it was alive to begin functioning again in undeath, and the same goes for the circulatory system/heart as well (In order to transport the Adrenal Gland secretions to the brain, heart and rest of the body. Just as said circulatory system would be needed to carry the biochemicals released by the brain once it received the appropriate "cues" from Adrenaline, Epinephrin and the like where those biochemicals need to go).

In the absence of function of these systems of the living human body, to get the same bursts of strength from a reanimated corpse there would need to be some mechanism that fundamentally alters the anatomy of the undead ghoul. Perhaps some form of anaerobic (requires no oxygen as part of its life cycle) microorganism (which fungi and various molds are examples of) capable of altering otherwise necrotic tissues of the hypothetical undead body. A symbiotic or parasitic-symbiotic relationship between the corpse host and the mystery microorganism. Many examples exist in Nature of microorganisms altering the capabilities/attributes of their hosts, so it wouldn't be out of the question for such a thing to be possible. In a world where microorganisms that make mice fearless of, and in fact attracted to the cats that want to eat them so the microorganism can continue its life-cycle in the gastrointestinal tract of the cat, or that make tadpoles undergoing metamorphosis into frogs grow twenty legs every which way so said frog is easy for wading birds to eat said crippled frog, it's difficult to rule out even some of the most improbable results of evolution and mutation conclusively. Especially when, as a group, parasites are the hands-down singlemost successful type of organisms on the planet.

All that said, it would be impossible for an undead ghoul to utilize the SAME form of extreme bursts of strength as that exhibited by human beings. At least not without an entire spectrum of the ghoul's systems still being alive. The "Rage-Infected" from the 28 Days movies could certainly do so, however.

[AcesandEights]

As an aside: Wow, really thought my last post woulda provoked some comment. Ah well.

To be fair, it's the weekend. For example, I'm only skimming the forums till tomorrow and probably won't do full comments till then. After all, I got some Walking Dead to watch today :)

[Christopher Jon]

All that said, it would be impossible for an undead ghoul to utilize the SAME form of extreme bursts of strength as that exhibited by human beings.
You do realize your picking and choosing your science to justify one and discredit the other.

[Wyldwraith]

Not really,
The core part of my point was that for a zombie to call upon the SAME bursts of superhuman strength as a human being in a crisis, they would need to have the same bodily functions working. I even allowed for the possibility that some other mechanism might alter the hypothetical ghoul's anatomy in such a way as to duplicate the bursts of strength using an entirely different mechanism than the normal living person's anatomy.

I apologize for any ambiguity in my prior post. If you could call my attention to my cherry-picking science, I would appreciate it, because I felt what I'd stated was consistent in all respects with what we know of the Hysterical Strength phenomena.

[Ragnarr]

Actually, when Romero's zombies began to "organize" and "communicate" with each other, I liked them less. The zombie threat (for me anyway) seems more watered down the more they seem semi-intelligent. Great Odin's Eyebrows did Land of the Dead suck because of that development alone, although the brilliant "Bub" was kind of fun.

[Publius]

Because of rigor mortis they wouldn't be able to move at all. Might as well call them the planking dead.

Rigor mortis doesn't last forever, even in normal corpses. It starts to set in after a few hours, lasts for a couple of days, and then dissipates. Presumably whatever reanimates zombies also speeds up the rigor mortis timeline.

[Ragnarr]

I must agree with Publius here; Rigor Mortis is of a limited duration, setting in after a few hours and lasting a couple of days. I would add that my co-workers DO get a half hour for lunch and two 15-minute breaks just to help loosen that stiffness somewhat which allows them to shamble through their day a bit better. ;)

[rongravy]

Presumably whatever reanimates zombies also speeds up the rigor mortis timeline.
Or keeps it from happening altogether...

[Yojimbo]

@Yojimbo:
I completely agree with your assessment. People can and often do override even the most deep-seated of instincts to make conscious, reasoned out choices. Your examples of the 9/11 first-responders who entered the burning towers to try and help trapped and/or injured people, even as a huge mob of people was going the other way in their flight from the Twin Towers, was a very apt example of this facet of human nature. The same could be said for the soldiers who jumped on grenades to protect their comrades/buddies.

That said, I believe that the "Defend Your Mate" and the "Flee to avoid being killed/eaten, and find another female with which to pass on your genetic contribution to the next generation" instincts came about SIMULTANEOUSLY as traits naturally selected for during our species evolution. Furthermore, I believe that these two polar-opposite instinctive impulses exist in the human male together, and in the form of an "Instinct Switch" in the brain. By switch, I mean that the human male has had passed down to them/us an instinct based on a near-instantaneous assessment of both the "threat of imminent and potentially life-threatening attack" and the "threat of an imminent predation-attempt" situations.

Put more simply, I believe that when a man finds himself in a conflict situation where the threat of attack or being attacked and eaten is present, and he is forced to make the decision to stand and defend his mate or flee and abandon his mate to increase his chances of surviving in that split-second of Fight or Flight, the man's mind weighs the perceived odds of winning or losing the conflict. If this internal "odds-giver" part of the instinctive response determines the chance of success if he Fights is below X-percentage, instinct gives much greater weight to the Flight-response, and the man likely flees to save himself. If the odds are equal or greater than X-percentage, more weight is given to the Fight-response, and the man likely chooses to stand and fight in defense of his weight.

This is an oversimplified version of a very complicated part of brain-function, and there are undoubtedly other factors that are weighed by the male mind's "odds-giver", such as the perceived difficulty/amount of energy expended and the %-chance of encountering more danger in securing a new mate if the man flees and abandons his current mate...and as previously stated, humans have the capacity to rationally override and act contrary to their instincts if they so choose in a wide range of circumstances. I just feel that based on what we know of how the human primate favors the "middle ground option" in an evolutionary sense concerning everything from testicle size smaller than the very promiscuous chimpanzee but larger than the very monogamous gorilla (for example) to the positioning of our eyes in our faces being a compromise between the enhanced range of peripheral vision granted by increasing the space between the eyes and locating them nearer the sides of the head, as is common to prey animals, and the deeply inset eyes for honed depth-perception of a predator....that our survival instincts are equally likely to have taken the same "Middle Ground Path" when it comes to how we react to danger.

Very well stated. I can see your point - abandon your mate or flee to mate with another can certainly be choices that are situationally contingent in that your final choice would be made based on the specific threat that you were facing at that time.

-- -------- Post added at 01:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 AM ----------


That's because zombies and ghouls are make believe. Romero zombies are a mash-up of numerous old legends. Anybody who writes a story or creates a film should have the same creative freedom that Romero had.


I argue that Romero created the modern zombie as we now view it, however I see your point. All the same, anyone who is doing a riff on the modern zombie is doing a riff on a Romero zombie so naturally one would assume that similar rules would apply. Of course folks are welcome to make up their own rules and are free to do so, just as others are free to scoff at the notion of a vegetarian zombie, or one that wants brains and talks without use of a tounge or lips, or zombies that are athletically superior to average humans.

-- -------- Post added at 01:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 AM ----------


Because of rigor mortis they wouldn't be able to move at all. Might as well call them the planking dead.


Not necessarily, though I am certain that it won't make them sprinters. I could see someone with major muscle cramps being able to move about as efficiently as your average rigor mortis affected ghoul, without planking - moving slowly with reduced abilities to flex joints.

-- -------- Post added at 01:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 AM ----------


Average humans have shown the capability of extreme strength. Soccer moms lifting cars to save their children. It's not unreasonable that the undead could tap into that strength as well.

I have often heard of the sotry of a woman lifting a car for a kid ever since I was a little kid myself - but this always seems to me to be anectodal at best and from an unknown source. Nevetheless, it does sound reasonable that a living human could respond on an extraordinary level when stressed into a rage-like state.

[Christopher Jon]

I argue that Romero created the modern zombie as we now view it, however I see your point. All the same, anyone who is doing a riff on the modern zombie is doing a riff on a Romero zombie so naturally one would assume that similar rules would apply. Of course folks are welcome to make up their own rules and are free to do so, just as others are free to scoff at the notion of a vegetarian zombie, or one that wants brains and talks without use of a tounge or lips, or zombies that are athletically superior to average humans.
But here is the problem. When people do their own variation of zombies that don't fall lock-step in-line with Romero's vision they are torn to shreds by a vocal minority who feel that anything that isn't Romero-esque is wrong.

Romero zombies should follow Romero rules. My zombies should follow my rules. And honestly, I don't think Romero put much though at all into the science behind his creatures. He wanted them to act a certain way and stuck with it. Unfortunately, too many people have seen his movies and think that is how it works when in truth, he just made shit up to fit his vision.


Not necessarily, though I am certain that it won't make them sprinters. I could see someone with major muscle cramps being able to move about as efficiently as your average rigor mortis affected ghoul, without planking - moving slowly with reduced abilities to flex joints.
An electrical current applied to a dead frogs leg can get that sucker moving pretty fast which would be an argument for dead doesn't automatically mean slow. But this is a discussion diving into neurology and muscles and a whole bunch of shit I know nothing about. Basically, Romero zombies have zero science to back up why they act they way they do, like a said before, he just made shit up to fit his vision and now fans are running with that vision believing it's an accurate representation of how the dead would behave and move if they were to come back to life. Vampires are dead and they don't have problems moving fast or doing a bunch of other silly stuff and ghouls are just vampires retarded cousins.

My big beef is the fanboys who shit on everything that isn't 100% Romero. The dude made 3 fun movies and 3 crap movies. Zombie actually has a fairly broad interpretation from a reanimated dead body to a living body that is brain dead. Time to move on from the past and breath some life into a dead genre.

[Mike70]

I have often heard of the sotry of a woman lifting a car for a kid ever since I was a little kid myself - but this always seems to me to be anectodal at best and from an unknown source. Nevetheless, it does sound reasonable that a living human could respond on an extraordinary level when stressed into a rage-like state.

those stories are less anecdotal than you would think. your brain is capable of making you do just about whatever it wants. there are stress hormones can that triple your strength for a short time by flooding your cells with oxygen and glucose.

since i've been through the whole PTSD thing, i understand stress reactions pretty well. first thing your brain does in a flight or flight situation is shut off all non-essential systems. digestion and the urinary systems are shut down entirely and the blood and oxygen they use are redirected to your muscles and brain. the next thing your brain does is shut off the logic and reasoning part of your brain. thinking can get you killed and your brain doesn't want that, so it turns your decision making ability off and it starts making decisions for you. then it decides to either run or fight. you have no control over whether to stay or flee. none. if it decides to stay it will punch a few buttons and you'll be like chuck fucking norris in a really bad fucking mood.

the professor knows what i mean. i was in somalia and he was over in the sandbox. if your brain hits that magic button that mixes testosterone, epinephrine, norepinephrine, and two hormones called orexin and leptin (leptin vastly increases your metabolism and orexin increases strength and alertness)- watch the fuck out. that's the werewolf juice that makes the world appear like it is slow motion while you are moving like the ginsu man. your slicing, dicing, chopping and cutting through the can all in one smooth motion.

[Rancid Carcass]

Basically, Romero zombies have zero science to back up why they act they way they do, like a said before, he just made shit up to fit his vision and now fans are running with that vision believing it's an accurate representation of how the dead would behave and move if they were to come back to life.

Sure he just made up a bunch of stuff but they do fit in to a sort of biological logic that makes real-world sense. Their muscles are rotting and their brains are starved of oxygen so they lack balance and coordination and combined with muscle tissue wasting away, movement is always going to be a struggle. The problem I think the hardcore fans have with runners or spidey-style wall crawlers (for example), is that there's just no logic to them being able to perform such feats beyond 'it's a mystery virus' sort of thing, and as soon as you try to explain it, it can get very messy very quickly.
The real beauty of the Romero archetype is their simplicity, there's no fancy gimmicks going on, to quote Dr Logan: “They're us – simply functioning less-perfectly”, it's simple and effective. Everything else is just reinventing the wheel and makes them less believable, which in turn dilutes the horror – or to put it another way, when I'm swimming around in the ocean I'm not worried about Deep Blue Sea, I am worried about Jaws!

[Yojimbo]

those stories are less anecdotal than you would think. your brain is capable of making you do just about whatever it wants. there are stress hormones can that triple your strength for a short time by flooding your cells with oxygen and glucose.

since i've been through the whole PTSD thing, i understand stress reactions pretty well. first thing your brain does in a flight or flight situation is shut off all non-essential systems. digestion and the urinary systems are shut down entirely and the blood and oxygen they use are redirected to your muscles and brain. the next thing your brain does is shut off the logic and reasoning part of your brain. thinking can get you killed and your brain doesn't want that, so it turns your decision making ability off and it starts making decisions for you. then it decides to either run or fight. you have no control over whether to stay or flee. none. if it decides to stay it will punch a few buttons and you'll be like chuck fucking norris in a really bad fucking mood.

the professor knows what i mean. i was in somalia and he was over in the sandbox. if your brain hits that magic button that mixes testosterone, epinephrine, norepinephrine, and two hormones called orexin and leptin (leptin vastly increases your metabolism and orexin increases strength and alertness)- watch the fuck out. that's the werewolf juice that makes the world appear like it is slow motion while you are moving like the ginsu man. your slicing, dicing, chopping and cutting through the can all in one smooth motion.

First, I would like to again thank you for your honorable service to our county. It is because of the efforts of folks like you and other veterans that my family is kept safe from harm, and I want you to know that you and other veterans are all heroes as far as I am concerned.

I have no doubt that there is indeed a boost of strength and a sharpening of reactions during times of heavy stress. What you wrote makes a lot of sense, and given the circumstances of your deployment I would hazard to guess that these components - adrenaline, testosterone, et al - were important in keeping you alive and giving you the ability to survive in a horrendously stressful situation.

Please let me clarify that what I was referring to was specifically this story about a woman - sometimes she is the mother, sometimes a grandmother- lifting a car, which is sometimes a VW bug (as the story was when I was a kid during the 70's) and sometimes a larger vehicle (as I have heard recently) when a child was pinned under it. I have heard so many variations of this story throughout the years that I wonder if it is more myth than fact. But you raise a good point, that given the stress of a situation that it is quite possible that this story - regardless of it's many variations - could very well be true. It is just that I have yet to see a legitimate source which verifies that this specific situation, often retold and reinterpeted, acutally ever happened.

-- -------- Post added at 12:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------


An electrical current applied to a dead frogs leg can get that sucker moving pretty fast which would be an argument for dead doesn't automatically mean slow...My big beef is the fanboys who shit on everything that isn't 100% Romero. The dude made 3 fun movies and 3 crap movies. Zombie actually has a fairly broad interpretation from a reanimated dead body to a living body that is brain dead. Time to move on from the past and breath some life into a dead genre.

A frog has quite a less complex system than does a human. Nevertheless, I understand your point.

All the same, please understand that not all of the folks whom you refer to as fanboys shit on things that are not 100% Romero. There are a number of non-romero rule following films that many of the fans embrace. I understand that you do not like Romero's later films - some of which the "fanboys" also do not like. You are most certainly entitled to think of zombies by your own rules, and free to feel that life needs to be given to this "dead" genre.

I am not saying that Romero's vision is accurate, however I do agree with the following post:

-- -------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 PM ----------


Sure he just made up a bunch of stuff but they do fit in to a sort of biological logic that makes real-world sense. Their muscles are rotting and their brains are starved of oxygen so they lack balance and coordination and combined with muscle tissue wasting away, movement is always going to be a struggle. The problem I think the hardcore fans have with runners or spidey-style wall crawlers (for example), is that there's just no logic to them being able to perform such feats beyond 'it's a mystery virus' sort of thing, and as soon as you try to explain it, it can get very messy very quickly.
The real beauty of the Romero archetype is their simplicity, there's no fancy gimmicks going on, to quote Dr Logan: “They're us – simply functioning less-perfectly”, it's simple and effective. Everything else is just reinventing the wheel and makes them less believable, which in turn dilutes the horror – or to put it another way, when I'm swimming around in the ocean I'm not worried about Deep Blue Sea, I am worried about Jaws!

Well said, Rancid! I am in agreement and this articulates the problem that I have with sprinting, superhuman zombies.

[Christopher Jon]

Well said, Rancid! I am in agreement and this articulates the problem that I have with sprinting, superhuman zombies.
It's a silly argument anyway. Might as well be debating blondes or redheads. :)

BTW, I'm a fanboy myself so I'm not using the term as a derogatory insult. Anybody who steps into a zombie forum has some dork flowing through their veins.

AS for the OP's question: Man, you're watching too many movies. This shit ain't real.

Even a rage virus which is the only semi-realistic scenario. Go the walmart, buy 50 cans of tuna, a couple gallons of water, lock your doors, don't go outside, wait a couple of weeks until the infected are all dead from dehydration. You don't need 7,000 rounds of 5.56 and a bug-out shelter to survive the apocalypse.

[Mike70]

Please let me clarify that what I was referring to was specifically this story about a woman - sometimes she is the mother, sometimes a grandmother- lifting a car, which is sometimes a VW bug (as the story was when I was a kid during the 70's) and sometimes a larger vehicle (as I have heard recently) when a child was pinned under it. I have heard so many variations of this story throughout the years that I wonder if it is more myth than fact. But you raise a good point, that given the stress of a situation that it is quite possible that this story - regardless of it's many variations - could very well be true. It is just that I have yet to see a legitimate source which verifies that this specific situation, often retold and reinterpeted, acutally ever happened.[COLOR="Silver"]


yeah jimbo you hear these stories a lot but they are like 75th hand usually. here is a video of man lifting a 2,000 pound helicopter after a crash to save the life of his friend trapped underneath it. yeah, this guy is a big boy but a ton is lot to lift.

XbjJBZIONUc

[Yojimbo]

It's a silly argument anyway. Might as well be debating blondes or redheads.

Personally I would argue "brunettes"- content of your post appreciated brother!

[Cykotic]

realistically, I have more chance of going 12 for 12 with playboy calendar models...

would i like a zombie apocalypse to happen though?

oh f*** yes!

[Yojimbo]

yeah jimbo you hear these stories a lot but they are like 75th hand usually. here is a video of man lifting a 2,000 pound helicopter after a crash to save the life of his friend trapped underneath it. yeah, this guy is a big boy but a ton is lot to lift.

XbjJBZIONUc

Yeah, no doubt humans are capable of heroic feats of strength when the moment calls for it- Thanks brother!