Alone or Group?

[SRP76]

This is another variation on the "what would you do?" theme.

I got this idea from an argument in another thread. We have "helpers", and we have "killers" here.:p

So, let's find out which kinds of folks we have in here.

When the dead break loose, what do you do? Do you attempt to survive on your own, avoiding the risks but sacrificing the rewards of grouping, or do you try to get a gang together, taking both the risks and rewards?

Alone, or with others?

[Mike70]

i think it would be damned hard for a single human (though not impossible) to survive on their own in a zombie scenario.

[Trencher]

I dont think helpers and killers will be divided into groupers and loners.
I would prefer being alone but it would not be an option very long I think. I voted alone.

[Shadowofthedead]

well scipio70 do you own guns or do you know how to use one... look at my location under my name... im close very close to you. as in 5 minutes away. and yes miami university of oxford ohio main campus is full of hot women who wont bang.... any who i think it would be a good idea for us to team up in the event of a zombie apocolypse...:elol:... i do believe it would benefit us both. be cuase i can use i a gun and im a pretty good shot with a pistol and a helluva shot with a rifle. so lets wound the guns and the posse and raid the local kroger... i used to work there so my knowledge of the store would be helpful and my knowledge of oxford and the surroundin country side would be helpful because i grew up in our shared small college town...:elol: ok so my location doesnt show up but im from somerville if that helps

[MaximusIncredulous]

People can be frickin morons. It's like a spin of the wheel, you can wind up with people who know what they're doing or you can wind up with morons. Being a fatalist and knowing the wheel would probably work against me, I'll take my chances on my own. I may die but I died for my lackings not because I trusted in the stupidity of others.

[Brubaker]

I'd prefer to stay by myself, as a rule. If I had my druthers, I'd be running around on foot with a large backpack loaded with handguns, ammo and other necessities to survive (food & water).

However, when I think realistically, I am not a very good shot with a gun so I may need at least a partner to help shoulder some of the load. I do the tactical stuff and he/she does most of the shooting.

[Zombie Snack]

I like the thought of joining with a small group of other's and attempting our escape's, fortifications, daily attempts at survival together, but i wouldnt be sticking around if it was a small group of dumbasses that are gonna get themeselves all killed and ate up by zombies...I would take off by myself, or maybe take dumbasses lady with me.

[Doc]

Unfortunately it would have to be group.:dead:

[SRP76]

I would go completely alone.

By yourself, there is no infighting. But in a group - ANY group - you will always have one person who is trying to be "in charge". This is unavoidable.

Most times, you will have more than one person trying to "establish dominance". Once that happens, you're all dead. And, unless you have only a one-person group, it WILL happen.

Group = dead, as far as I'm concerned. It can help you in the short term, but it is not a permanent solution. Only alone do you have any chance at all of surviving.

Plus, you can move and hide one person a whole lot easier than you can a group. Less to attract the dead. Especially if there are groups nearby; they will get eaten, distracting the zombies for you.

Also, supplies: you can arm, equip, feed, and water one person a whole lot easier than an army of survivors. Alone, you can set yourself up for days with a 5-minute dash through a convenience store. With a group, you'd have to bunker up at a well-stocked place. And that's just doom waiting to happen.

[mista_mo]

humans are social animals by nature, and no offense to those who go at it alone, but you'll probibly end up going insane, Both from lack of human interaction, and from the fact that you are literally a dozen steps away from what can be interpretted by some as the avatars of death.

Every. Single. Day.


I see no other choice then to work in a group setting, it would preserve both my sanity, safety, skills, and offers a better chance at preserving humanity as a whole.

dissenters however are a problem, but being in a group setting offers increased protection (if the people aren't total bigots and skilless morons) and something being alone can't- human interaction.

[MikePizzoff]

I couldn't do it alone. I'd probably have a mental break down if I didn't have at least one companion.

[Danny]

nah, as much as people are asseholes even if they run , at least you know theres something behind your back there running from.;)

[Skippy911sc]

Did ya see I am Legend? or Castaway? People go NUTZ alone...plus more man power the better you are to take care of business...A group needs a leader plain and simple...if 2 individuals want to lead they need to lead 2 groups. Weapons (guns) are heavy...ammo even heavier...to go it alone means carrying very little in the way of defensive weaponry. You put a large gun in a shoulder holster it starts to weigh you down after a few hours of trekking through the brush. A group with certain tasks or duties...jobs if you will, and a chain of command.

[wyvern1096]

No real choice. I have a family. I'm in a group by default. I'd want to hook up with other people as well. More guns, different skills (no one person knows everything), and extra sets of eyes and ears.

Heck, even hunting works better and is more enjoyable as a small group, much less trying to survive.

[Yojimbo]

No real choice. I have a family. I'm in a group by default. I'd want to hook up with other people as well. More guns, different skills (no one person knows everything), and extra sets of eyes and ears.

Heck, even hunting works better and is more enjoyable as a small group, much less trying to survive.

Damned straight. 2 pairs of eyes and ears are better than one.

[Wyldwraith]

IMO,
Stick to people you know that (if possible) handle things well when the feces hit the fan. Yes there are always interpersonal rivalries going on in a tense survival situation, but thats counterbalanced by the whole united-by-common-enemy thing. Humanity as shown very well that so long as a common enemy remains in existence we can unify quite well.

I'll stick with a group. Least I won't die alone.

[Mike70]

i think the loners are really kidding themselves about this one. maybe they are living in some grizzy adams fantasyland but let's get real. not only are we social animals but even people who are "loners" (like yours truely) need human contact to remain sane and to help them survive.

[SRP76]

i think the loners are really kidding themselves about this one. maybe they are living in some grizzy adams fantasyland but let's get real. not only are we social animals but even people who are "loners" (like yours truely) need human contact to remain sane and to help them survive.

I'm sure the people who were murdered at the Superdome would agree with that.

[Legion2213]

I'm sure the people who were murdered at the Superdome would agree with that.

SRP, like it or not, we are social animals...I'm sure that any of us could survive alone for a year or two...but as time dragged on you would wonder just why you were bothering to survive at all....what would be the point? You'd never be able to exchange an opinion with a fellow human bean, never enjoy the love of a good woman etc.

No, Scipio is right, we are not solitary animals, we like a bit of space, peace or tranquility now and then, but that's it IMO.

And just for the record I assume that a "group" means a few people, maybe a few dozen, not 10's of 1000's of folks packed into the superdome....none of us here would be stupid enough to go to a "rescue station" we've all seen and read enough of the zombie genere to know what happens to those places.

[SRP76]

Even if you "went insane" from being alone (which is something that isn't proven), you would live a lot longer than with other people.

Average time until insanity: 3-5 years

Average time until the jealous fat kid blows you up with a shoebox bomb: 5-6 months.

People CANNOT be together without attempting to kill each other.

At any rate, it would eventually boil down to just you eventually (if you're lucky), due to the rest of your group shooting each other in the back or getting eaten by zombies. One by one, they'll get picked off. Since you will sooner or later lose your group anyway, why bother risking being with them in the first place?

And no, nobody would ever, ever go to a "rescue station". They should just name those "Gateways to Hell".

[jim102016]

I'm sure the people who were murdered at the Superdome would agree with that.

I don't think they'd agree with anything right now except that Hurricanes suck and New Orleans is for the birds.

[Mike70]

I'm sure the people who were murdered at the Superdome would agree with that.


a hurricane is not a zombie apocolypse. this is an apples and oranges comparison. i do not see how your analogy fits.

i am not referring to the govt. herding folks into cantonment areas but people finding other people and forming small social groups - for protection, sanity, and just maybe the continuation of our species.

[dracenstein]

I voted alone, simply because I am a 'loner', and it would be easier to survive longer on my own.

At work, there is a guy who simply gets get my back up every time he speaks, if he's in that group, or somebody like that, I would definately go my own way. He would drive me nuts!

Go nuts on your own or go nuts because of the company you would be forced to keep?

It would be a sizable group to pursuade me to stay.

[Legion2213]

I am by nature perfectly happy with my own company for a time, but I know I would be needing a woman sooner or later.

So the ideal situation for me would be my own little safe house with a capable female companion (like Babara from night 1990 for example) and one or two other survivors in my imediate area...we could get together for suply runs and a bit of socialising every now and then.

[EvilNed]

People CANNOT be together without attempting to kill each other.


Ergh? I fail to see any kind of logic in that whatsoever.

I voted group, because that way I'll survive longer. People who are alone will just get cocky or careless down the line. Really, being alone is only an option for a few months or so, after that you're either going to go insane or you're going to get careless. Your survivability rate drops anyhow.

With a group you have more knowledge of various situations, you have someone (or several) you can bounce opinions and ideas with. Overall a much more creative and dependable situation. Not all people try to become leader, or kill their brethren. In fact, only a very small minority of the population would fall into the latter category. Of all the people in the superdome who raped, how many people were there not who just sat there and protected their families? There are a few rotten apples, but in situations like these, there's way more fresh ones and even a few golden ones.

[Legion2213]

Good points EvilNed.

I have no military experience, I am not an engineer....my best hope would be foraging and just getting by until food ran out, where as if I fell in with a few military types and folks who knew how to set up some power for freezers, proper rock solid barricades, folks who knew how to grow food etc and maybe a few people with medical experience my personal survival chances would be increased.

I still haven't voted in this poll yet BTW, it's a tough call, because I would worry about joining up with folks who were as clueless as me or dangerous unstable types!

[SRP76]

Ergh? I fail to see any kind of logic in that whatsoever.



The evidence can be found by looking at every single civilization in the history of Earth.

And that's with "laws" hindering it. Anarchy (which is what you'd have in a zombie situation) would be open season.

[blind2d]

I chose Alone just because I'm a loner by nature, and if I got attacked, at least only one more Z would be created, instead of several. I'm probably stupid, though, so just ignore me.

[ZombiePrototype]

I think that people would be better off in groups because we as humans would have a duty to preserve and ensure the survival of our species and that would be easier done in groups.

[jsz0]

For any chance of long term survival you'd need a group to share the load. After the gas runs out, and that'll take only a couple months, you will have to travel exclusively on foot which means your ability to scrounge for supplies is limited by how far you can walk and how much stuff you can carry on you. You couldn't last long on that. You'd be forced to wander from town to town which makes you a sitting duck for zombies or hostile human survivors. You would definitely need at least a few people (ideally friends & family who you can trust)

[blind2d]

Or a bicycle...

[Mutineer]

With a group, but very careful how I pick them !

[SoCalLoco]

I've never been the "joiner" type anyway, so I'd Lone Wolf it.

[bd2999]

I voted in a group. The only way I can see one person making it alone is if they have a fall out or bomb shelter. If they have enough food and supplies to last the next 15 or 20 years they would pretty much be set. Although insanity might kick in too from being alone and having nothing but the same crap to do over and over again.

It depends on the group you end up in too. As others have said if you are in a small group were everyone gets along than you are set. More people mean that you can carry more supplies, more sets of eyes to watch for trouble and more people to help secure a hide out for a while. In theory one would hope you could get something like this going with friends and family if at all possible but whatever works. Its best if you at least know the folks a little or know of them I think.

If its a group with constant power fights and such than you might as well be alone because half the group is going to get killed anyway.

Although I think its best to find others to help out. At the worst they make for companionship. Either way I favor the bomb shelter approach and just have a couple other folks in there too. That way you have a definate safe haven and if you must leave you are not going out completly alone and have a better chance to get more and come back alive. Problems with this too but I would do it if possible.

[capncnut]

Alone. Machete, baseball bat, bottle of Jack, let's rock! :D

[Mike70]

i'll reiterate my position. i have never cared about joining in things or been much of a follower and i enjoy doing lots of stuff alone BUT i don't think a single person would have as much of a chance as a well organized group (note the words well organized). i think that the tremendous shock of what has happened and the loneliness over time would drive 99% of people insane and leave the other 1% as people you wouldn't want to be around.

so the folks that are living in survivalist fantasyland that want to go "robinson carusoe" would probably end up like alexander selkirk - dressed in rags and chasing goats around when they want a bit of "fun."

myself i would hook up with a few people and try to set up a right and proper honkey paradise somewhere.

[acealive1]

definitely find a group, it'll save you from havin a zombie mistake your forearm for a drumstick.

[gottgen]

I voted alone, only because I feel it would be more likely I would survive for a long period of time.

I don't trust many people to know what the hell they're doing on normal days...much less in a constant state of danger. Groups can accomplish more, carry more stuff, etc. The wrong person can also get you killed. Also, being in a group is in NO way a guarantee against going crazy. :stunned:

That being said, I wouldn't be against grouping with others if I came across them. I would just be an a-hole who would ditch at the first sign they were gonna get me killed.

=V=

[blind2d]

Hey, if you save your own expletive, then it's no problem, right?