Zombies Apocalypse

ZackB

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2016
4,401
440
140
Deep South
I think that I have detected some flaws in this whole "zombie apocalypse" thing that some people are so into these days. First off, if zombies are dead people then eventually they are going to rot to the point where they are no longer ambulatory. Other people may die and become zombies, but it seems to me that any hoard activity would be short lived due to decomposition. Therefore, the best thing to do during such an apocalypse would be what the characters did in "Sean of the Dead", to wit: hole up in a pub and wait for it all to blow over.

Secondly, why are zombies supposed to always be so pissed? As I see it there are 2 types of zombies:

1. Zombies reanimated by supernatural forces; and
2. Zombies who turn due to some kind of environmental pathogen or drugs.

I am not concerned with the supernatural because that is entirely fiction. So for the other type, why are they homicidal? Yes, I know that zombies are an allegorical devise. But at some point this facade jumps the shark and becomes distracting.

Why can't the zombies be happy? Instead of eating people why don't they have a compelling drive to, say, become Master Gardeners or auto mechanics? Why don't they incessantly now people's lawns? There is absolutely no reason they should be maniacs, especially if their learned behavior when alive was anything but maniacal. Granted, there is that whole "rage virus" subset of zombie lore as seen in "28 Days Later" and "28 Weeks Later" in which the living human being suffers a virus induced psychotic break and becomes enraged. However, I do not believe that everyone who suffers from a psychotic break becomes a homicidal maniac. Some just curl up in balls and become catatonic.

Could a drug cause people to become murderous assholes? Bath Salts and other synthetics have done this on a very limited scale. But you would need to add to this the ability to make the condition infectious if you are to have an apocalyptic scenario. Even tainting water supplies would not induce an apocalypse because eventually most people will sober up, realize that they ate their grandfather or hamster, then recover. Apocalypse over.

No, to have a real chance at having a bone fide zombie apocalypse it will need to be done by creating an infectious microbe that induces violent tendencies. But even with this there is bound to be disparity of result. For example, with bath salts you may get some dude who eats homeless people's faces and others who turn into mindless douche bags wandering the streets aimlessly and singing Bee Gees songs. While I am not a scientist nor do I have any medical training I just do not see how it is biologically possible to program people to be brain eating killing machines. This is just as likely to occur as a supernatural zombie apocalypse.

I will disclose that I think the whole idea of a zombie apocalypse is pretty freakin' cool. It would be freestyle target practice. When that lunatic in Florida who was whacked out of his mind on bath salts was caught on camera eating that homeless guy I thought, "Yeah! It's on!" I wanted to start loading magazines and sharpening my swords, knives and axes. I was ready. However, I am now attempting to mitigate my disappointment. It is now clear to me that despite the fact that humans generally suck, the great Cthulhu will not crawl out of the ocean to eat us and that there is no zombie apocalypse to look forward to. It is just us - little biological capsules of bone and flesh walking around on earth.
 
Every virus acts on the host in a manner which maximizes the chances of the virus being spread. If it is a quick-acting virus (kills the host rapidly), it must transfer quickly and so it will likely become airborne and make the carrier sneeze and cough a lot to infect as many other hosts as possible. If it is a slow-acting virus (like AIDS), it can take its time and hide undetected in the host as it does its work in propagating itself through sexual contact to as many other hosts as possible.

The zombie virus is quick-acting, and instead of being airborne it makes the carrier violent enough to bite others so it can be spread widely and quickly.

A zen-state landscaping zombie is a non-infectious zombie, and therefore not an evolutionary option.
 
Last edited:
First off, if zombies are dead people then eventually they are going to rot to the point where they are no longer ambulatory.
That is the one flaw in The Walking Dead which irks me.
 
Every virus acts on the host in a manner which maximizes the chances of the virus being spread. If it is a quick-acting virus (kills the host rapidly), it must transfer quickly and so it will likely become airborne and make the carrier sneeze and cough a lot. If it is a slow-acting virus (like AIDS), it can take its time and hide undetected in the host as it does its work in propagating itself through sexual contact.

The zombie virus is quick-acting, and instead of being airborne it makes the carrier violent enough to bite others so it can be spread.[/QUOTE

Yup. The walking dead kind of has an interesting take on it. No one has said, this is my opinion. What I got from how the characters described it was they all had the virus, and that death from the bite was a given due to incurable infection that killed the victim who is then reanimated as a "walmer". You made a good comparison there with AIDS. That fit the "rage virus" zombie pretty good. The virus made them weep infected fluids to spread it's self around. It brings to mind the scene in 28 days where the guy looked up and a drop of blood from a birds beak dripped into his eye turning him. Great stuff.
 
Yeah, in The Walking Dead everyone has the zombie virus in them. Even if you die of natural causes, you become a zombie within minutes of dying. In the meantime, the virus just sits there and doesn't kill you.

That's the behavior of a slow-acting virus.

So why do you become a zombie if you are merely nipped by a zombie and don't die? That's the behavior of a fast-acting virus.

This dichotomy makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
Every virus acts on the host in a manner which maximizes the chances of the virus being spread. If it is a quick-acting virus (kills the host rapidly), it must transfer quickly and so it will likely become airborne and make the carrier sneeze and cough a lot to infect as many other hosts as possible. If it is a slow-acting virus (like AIDS), it can take its time and hide undetected in the host as it does its work in propagating itself through sexual contact to as many other hosts as possible.

The zombie virus is quick-acting, and instead of being airborne it makes the carrier violent enough to bite others so it can be spread widely and quickly.

A zen-state landscaping zombie is a non-infectious zombie, and therefore not an evolutionary option.

A good example of what you describe are the world War Z and rage zombies.
 
I think that I have detected some flaws in this whole "zombie apocalypse" thing that some people are so into these days. First off, if zombies are dead people then eventually they are going to rot to the point where they are no longer ambulatory. Other people may die and become zombies, but it seems to me that any hoard activity would be short lived due to decomposition. Therefore, the best thing to do during such an apocalypse would be what the characters did in "Sean of the Dead", to wit: hole up in a pub and wait for it all to blow over.

Secondly, why are zombies supposed to always be so pissed? As I see it there are 2 types of zombies:

1. Zombies reanimated by supernatural forces; and
2. Zombies who turn due to some kind of environmental pathogen or drugs.

I am not concerned with the supernatural because that is entirely fiction. So for the other type, why are they homicidal? Yes, I know that zombies are an allegorical devise. But at some point this facade jumps the shark and becomes distracting.

Why can't the zombies be happy? Instead of eating people why don't they have a compelling drive to, say, become Master Gardeners or auto mechanics? Why don't they incessantly now people's lawns? There is absolutely no reason they should be maniacs, especially if their learned behavior when alive was anything but maniacal. Granted, there is that whole "rage virus" subset of zombie lore as seen in "28 Days Later" and "28 Weeks Later" in which the living human being suffers a virus induced psychotic break and becomes enraged. However, I do not believe that everyone who suffers from a psychotic break becomes a homicidal maniac. Some just curl up in balls and become catatonic.

Could a drug cause people to become murderous assholes? Bath Salts and other synthetics have done this on a very limited scale. But you would need to add to this the ability to make the condition infectious if you are to have an apocalyptic scenario. Even tainting water supplies would not induce an apocalypse because eventually most people will sober up, realize that they ate their grandfather or hamster, then recover. Apocalypse over.

No, to have a real chance at having a bone fide zombie apocalypse it will need to be done by creating an infectious microbe that induces violent tendencies. But even with this there is bound to be disparity of result. For example, with bath salts you may get some dude who eats homeless people's faces and others who turn into mindless douche bags wandering the streets aimlessly and singing Bee Gees songs. While I am not a scientist nor do I have any medical training I just do not see how it is biologically possible to program people to be brain eating killing machines. This is just as likely to occur as a supernatural zombie apocalypse.

I will disclose that I think the whole idea of a zombie apocalypse is pretty freakin' cool. It would be freestyle target practice. When that lunatic in Florida who was whacked out of his mind on bath salts was caught on camera eating that homeless guy I thought, "Yeah! It's on!" I wanted to start loading magazines and sharpening my swords, knives and axes. I was ready. However, I am now attempting to mitigate my disappointment. It is now clear to me that despite the fact that humans generally suck, the great Cthulhu will not crawl out of the ocean to eat us and that there is no zombie apocalypse to look forward to. It is just us - little biological capsules of bone and flesh walking around on earth.
I wondered the same things. Zombies will, because of natural laws, decay to the point that they couldn't lift a dead decaying finger because they would be just be so much dust. It seems, if you wait long enough, the zombies will just disappear on their own, anyway . Secondly, as you pointed out, why do they need to feed on the living when they are...deceased? And, Why are zombies so dead set on killing the living, since it gets them nowhere? I don't get the whole zombie thing. We fear death, and we fear the dead.
 
Last edited:
I think that I have detected some flaws in this whole "zombie apocalypse" thing that some people are so into these days. First off, if zombies are dead people then eventually they are going to rot to the point where they are no longer ambulatory. Other people may die and become zombies, but it seems to me that any hoard activity would be short lived due to decomposition. Therefore, the best thing to do during such an apocalypse would be what the characters did in "Sean of the Dead", to wit: hole up in a pub and wait for it all to blow over.

Secondly, why are zombies supposed to always be so pissed? As I see it there are 2 types of zombies:

1. Zombies reanimated by supernatural forces; and
2. Zombies who turn due to some kind of environmental pathogen or drugs.

I am not concerned with the supernatural because that is entirely fiction. So for the other type, why are they homicidal? Yes, I know that zombies are an allegorical devise. But at some point this facade jumps the shark and becomes distracting.

Why can't the zombies be happy? Instead of eating people why don't they have a compelling drive to, say, become Master Gardeners or auto mechanics? Why don't they incessantly now people's lawns? There is absolutely no reason they should be maniacs, especially if their learned behavior when alive was anything but maniacal. Granted, there is that whole "rage virus" subset of zombie lore as seen in "28 Days Later" and "28 Weeks Later" in which the living human being suffers a virus induced psychotic break and becomes enraged. However, I do not believe that everyone who suffers from a psychotic break becomes a homicidal maniac. Some just curl up in balls and become catatonic.

Could a drug cause people to become murderous assholes? Bath Salts and other synthetics have done this on a very limited scale. But you would need to add to this the ability to make the condition infectious if you are to have an apocalyptic scenario. Even tainting water supplies would not induce an apocalypse because eventually most people will sober up, realize that they ate their grandfather or hamster, then recover. Apocalypse over.

No, to have a real chance at having a bone fide zombie apocalypse it will need to be done by creating an infectious microbe that induces violent tendencies. But even with this there is bound to be disparity of result. For example, with bath salts you may get some dude who eats homeless people's faces and others who turn into mindless douche bags wandering the streets aimlessly and singing Bee Gees songs. While I am not a scientist nor do I have any medical training I just do not see how it is biologically possible to program people to be brain eating killing machines. This is just as likely to occur as a supernatural zombie apocalypse.

I will disclose that I think the whole idea of a zombie apocalypse is pretty freakin' cool. It would be freestyle target practice. When that lunatic in Florida who was whacked out of his mind on bath salts was caught on camera eating that homeless guy I thought, "Yeah! It's on!" I wanted to start loading magazines and sharpening my swords, knives and axes. I was ready. However, I am now attempting to mitigate my disappointment. It is now clear to me that despite the fact that humans generally suck, the great Cthulhu will not crawl out of the ocean to eat us and that there is no zombie apocalypse to look forward to. It is just us - little biological capsules of bone and flesh walking around on earth.
I wondered the same things. Zombies will, because of natural laws, decay to the point that they couldn't lift a dead decaying finger because they would be just be so much dust. Secondly, as you pointed out, why do they need to feed on the living when they are...deceased? And, Why are zombies so dead set on killing the living, since it gets them nowhere? I don't get the whole zombie thing. We fear death, and we fear the dead.

Well, look at night of the living dead. Those zombies could speak and made it a point to let everyone know they wanted brains. At the end one could assume it was a weird one time overnight type thing.

With the walking dead zombies, they are not supposed to be the issue as we see as we watch the survivors deal with them. Our survivors also learn that people are more dangerous then the zombie plague.
 
So, what is it about zombies that captivate us? Horror? Some existential thing? Amusement? Some basic human angst? Zombies are the ultimate evil, like ISIS or Nazis or even the IRS. They haunt us. They are real horrors, ones we can barely fight...
 
So, what is it about zombies that captivate us? Horror? Some existential thing? Amusement? Some basic human angst? Zombies are the ultimate evil, like ISIS or Nazis or even the IRS. They haunt us. They are real horrors, ones we can barely fight...

I don't know. I was reading an article a while ago that went into that very question, and it linked our interest in zombies to the economic downturn and other things. Hopefully this link works. It's not the article I read, but it touches on the economic downturn part.


Zombie Love: Why Are We So Obsessed with Things That Want to Eat Our Brains?

"And that got me thinking. The economy is bad, violence and crime are all over the news, and the heavy weight of our unknown futures is keeping many of us from standing up tall and proud. People are definitely struggling. Maybe we're experiencing a new level of hopelessness and faithlessness as a society, and in order to combat the negativity, we've decided that, like the old adage goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
 
Do zombies represent that indestructible monster within our selves? Doubt? Hate, neurosis in general? And the fear of death, it's a powerful thing. Fear of death eats us all up...
 
So, what is it about zombies that captivate us? Horror? Some existential thing? Amusement? Some basic human angst? Zombies are the ultimate evil, like ISIS or Nazis or even the IRS. They haunt us. They are real horrors, ones we can barely fight...

I find it very interesting how much people like watching this kind of horror movies.
But I do watch The Walking Dead and Fear the walking dead every Sunday night even I'm overseas.
 
Decay will eventually render zombies incapable of movement. But that could take weeks, depending on the weather. In that time, everyone they bite or scratch will become a zombie.

As for why they are savage instead of calm and loving is that their system is running on only the most primal parts of the brain. That is why they can't be rational. Only the most basic instincts are there. The survival instinct in a starving animal is pretty basic.
 
Decay will eventually render zombies incapable of movement. But that could take weeks, depending on the weather. In that time, everyone they bite or scratch will become a zombie.

As for why they are savage instead of calm and loving is that their system is running on only the most primal parts of the brain. That is why they can't be rational. Only the most basic instincts are there. The survival instinct in a starving animal is pretty basic.

Awesome! Was going to point out that Dr Genner in season one of TWD pretty much said the same thing. Good stuff!
 

Forum List

Back
Top