Have We Finally Reached the Peak of Zombie Fatigue?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Have We Finally Reached the Peak of Zombie Fatigue?

Fear the Walking dead promo

With AMC's Fear the Walking Dead receiving mixed (at best) reviews ahead of it's premiere tonight, it may just be time to admit that the zombie needs to be put down for good.

Fast zombies. Rage-infected zombies. Nazi zombies. Bath salt zombies, rape zombies (?!), alien zombies, romantic zombies, and zombie goddamn beavers. Mere hours away from the premiere of AMC's *second* zombie series, Fear the Walking Dead, it's safe to say that we have reached peak fascination (or fatigue, depending on where you stand) with the members of the undead. Like the viruses often depicted in these countless incarnations of zombie lore, our obsession with post-apocalyptic culture has spread to a critical, uncontainable level, and one that simply won't die no matter how many times we put it down.

Now, I should come clean. I am and have always been a complete zombie shill. I've seen damn-near every type of zombie flick I mentioned above (excluding the rape zombies, because why?). I've partaken in a Zombie Run. I've written, directed, and acted in a multitude of low-budget zombie fare, and have fearlessly stuck by the original Walking Dead series despite the fact that it hasn't had a consistently good top-to-bottom season since the Darabont days. But even the most diehard fan of zeds must admit that the horse has been beaten to death and beyond by this point.

Look no further than the existence of AMC's upcoming series, Fear the Walking Dead -- which describes itself as "a gritty drama that explores the onset of the undead apocalypse through the lens of a fractured family" -- to confirm this notion. On a network that only holds nine original programs to its credit, three of them are centered around the zombie apocalypse. Three. And let us not forget that one of those three zombie programs is immediately followed by a zombie program that spends an hour discussing what just happened on the previous zombie program. That is absolute insanity -- like following up Mad Men with a show devoted entirely to Bob, or a Breaking Bad spinoff all about the lawyer! I kid, but at least AMC had the common decency to wait for one Vince Gilligan series to end before moving ahead with another (which had an excellent first season, FWIW).

In an effort to give us more of what we (apparently) want, AMC is risking watering down the already watered down product that is The Walking Dead. The network has already ordered a 16-episode second season of Fear to follow the 6-episode first season, which means that by this time next year, we'll be looking at 30+ weeks of zombie mayhem on our television screens. It's an ambitious prospect to say the least, especially when you consider that the show upon which Fear is based has been repeatedly criticized for either front or back-loading entire seasons and meandering aimlessly in between because, simply put, there isn't enough story to tell (or the current team of writers behind The Walking Dead simply don't know how to tell it). "Something More" indeed, eh AMC?.

Of course, whilst The Walking Dead continues to dominate Sunday night ratings -- often competing with and triumphing over Sunday Night Football in key demographics, as crazy as that sounds -- it's entirely possible that Fear will tank. Early reviews for the spinoff have been somewhat less than welcoming, to put it lightly:
-- Hitflix described the pilot as "uneven in execution, with the prequel nature of it hurting as much as helping."

-- Vanity Fair fears (no pun intended) that it will only be a matter of time before Fear simply becomes "The Walking Dead L.A."

-- The A.V. Club thinks the pilot "spends too much time on the kind of blah melodrama" and "sacrificing a lot of the resonances that a prequel promises" (while ultimately noting the potential for the show to become something great).

If the first few minutes of Fear -- which were released online earlier this week-- are any indication, it looks like we might be in for a bit more of the same, which fans of the original incarnation will almost certainly be pleased to find out.

(I don't think Gloria is doing well, you guys.)

And it's not just AMC that's churning out zombie media at an indigestible rate. According to IMDB, there have been at least 133 major and independent zombie films released in the past two years, and that's only their top picks!

What's the latest spin on the zombie genre to receive the big budget treatment, you ask? Why, that would be Boy Scouts vs. Zombies, of course. Check out the trailer for Boy Scout's Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, which also premiered earlier this week and opens nationwide on October 30th. (Warning: NSFW)

While not nearly as lazy as anything Michael Bay or Adam Sandler have been jamming down moviegoers throats these days, it's hard to imagine that Zombieland+ MacGyver (as Filmdrunk's Vince Mancini best put it) will really be the entry that completely redeems all the unnecessary recent entries in the zombie cannon. (Zombieland+ MacGruber, on the other hand...)

All that said, I will almost certainly be tuning in for the premiere of Fear this Sunday, as I'm sure many of you will. But when looking back at just how much artistic landscape has been devoted to our undead friends in recent years, does anyone else think it's about time (or long-past the time) we moved on to something else? Mummies, maybe? Frankensteins? And before you even suggest it, no, I am not saying that we need more vampires in our lives. Seriously, screw you, Vampire Diaries.

Whatever meaning or metaphor that could be drawn from the George A. Romero classics of old has long since lost relevance, or at least, it's already been analyzed and discussed ad nauseum. Fear the Walking Dead may very well be another smash hit for AMC, it could just as easily be the straw that breaks the camel's back...then brings the camel back from to life before putting a bullet in its head.

Permalink

Not yet. But then i dont pay attention to half the zombie crap out there. Look at Steam greenlight, almost every game is a zombie game because with a zombie you dont need to programme AI. So far all i have for zombies are the Romero trilogy of movies, WWZ and Zombie survival guide books and The Walking Dead comics and TV shows. Those and Return of the Living Dead and Wasting Away movies. Apart from those all other zombie stuff is meaningless. The good products in the zombie genre will always be good, the rest are forgettable and shouldnt stop you from enjoying the genre.

Zombie fiction seems to be more or less completely selling this idea of the return to the American old West, where all your problems could be solved with a shotgun and anyone trying to set up a society is essentially an evil cannibal/racist/pedophile. I guess people like the fantasy of not having to shower or pay speeding tickets, but the show was always really strange to me for how anti-community it is, and how the heroes destroy all of these societies and it's treated like a good thing.

Fu11Frontal:
Zombie fiction seems to be more or less completely selling this idea of the return to the American old West, where all your problems could be solved with a shotgun and anyone trying to set up a society is essentially an evil cannibal/racist/pedophile. I guess people like the fantasy of not having to shower or pay speeding tickets, but the show was always really strange to me for how anti-community it is, and how the heroes destroy all of these societies and it's treated like a good thing.

Zombies have metamorphosed from "horror of society's breakdown destroying the ability to implicitly trust others" to "great excuse to do whatever I want". Face it, kids: 99% of you would be the shambling undead, and the other 1% would be more focused on the "fun" of finding drinkable water, edible food, medication, weapons, and transportation after the world's gasoline supply began to break down. (You'd have six months at most before every last drop of gasoline in every gas station in the nation became unusable; diesel, probably a year. Yes, it has a shelf life.) Good luck following that "zombie outbreak plan" when ten guys with guns got to that shopping center first, and they don't want to share. What are you gonna do, call the cops on 'em?

Those little power fantasies of "now I can shoot that jerk jock who bullied me in high school in the face, because he's a zombie now, and then his girlfriend will want me" would pale next to the reality of deciding whether or not to cut off your gangrenous leg because you couldn't find any antibiotics.

I wouldn't mind an actual zombie survival game to exist before they apparently run their course. Closest to date is the incomplete project zomboid. All or at least most others are survival only to the point you get yourself those major explosives and anti zombie magic armour

The Rogue Wolf:
Good luck following that "zombie outbreak plan" when ten guys with guns got to that shopping center first, and they don't want to share. What are you gonna do, call the cops on 'em?

Considering how actual human beings act in real-life disaster situations, those ten guys would probably hurry you inside to safety the moment they saw you. Everyone has some skill that a group needs to survive and make the best of horrible situation. Even if it's just skills such as being a reliable friend, a good listener, or -having two hands-. :)

The trailer for the scout zombie movie, why are the scouts wearing their uniforms all the time? A: Those things are uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time. I'd find the chance to switch out of them as soon as possible. B: Those are Class A uniforms, which are only worn for special scouting events and meetings. Going to a strip club is not a special scouting event or meeting. C: Why are they wearing those to a strip club? It's a big sign that they're underage and will probably get kicked out if the bouncer wasn't hyped up on bath salts.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the writers of this movie are not Scouts. They just wanted something to fill the "loser" archetype.

chikusho:

The Rogue Wolf:
Good luck following that "zombie outbreak plan" when ten guys with guns got to that shopping center first, and they don't want to share. What are you gonna do, call the cops on 'em?

Considering how actual human beings act in real-life disaster situations, those ten guys would probably hurry you inside to safety the moment they saw you. Everyone has some skill that a group needs to survive and make the best of horrible situation. Even if it's just skills such as being a reliable friend, a good listener, or -having two hands-. :)

Son... you're gonna die horribly during a prolonged disaster if you keep being that naïve. "People" separate into clicks and then it becomes "us vs them". Just look at all the looting that happened during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and how quickly society falls into mindless rioting (see London riots, Boston riots, Ferguson riots, et all.). I can safely say 80% of those people didn't give a shit about the issue, they just saw a chance to do whatever they wanted. I mean, how does destroying private business and stealing for people's livelihoods help in those situations when you have a problem with the government? And that's when people know order will be restored. You wanna survive? Find your friends, arm yourselves, think before you act, use common sense, be weary of everyone, and as sad as it is... have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

OT- Fear was always going to have a rocky start because it's starting with the melodrama. Be like if you jumped into TWD during the boring bits of Hershel's farm. They need to focus on building up the world. What happened that the military can't win in the beginning through shear volumes of lead? How did society cope with slowly (at first) being destabilized and how did people blinded by the veil of societal rules try, and ultimately fail, to live? Hope it turns out well, I really want to see the explanation for why the world is the way it is.

I personally reached it around the time the DayZ trend was sprouting like a cancerous mass on Steam.

After that, I shelf off "zombies" into the same part of my brain that flares up whenever I see the words "deviantart" and "fanfiction". It's a special type of boring and lazy that feels like the spawn of Facebook quotes.

If we are to believe the show, the druggies will be the first to survive. They've already expanded their minds, so strange new ideas like undead cannibals are more believable for them and they'd be far less likely to walk up to one like "Are you ok? let me check your temp". Peak zombie has not been reached yet. Though zombies have become an institution of their own, there are still new things to be done with them, take "Maggie' or "The Last of Us" for example.

I still love zombies. Yes there's been a huge surge in popularity and you can't scroll through Steam or Netflix without encountering at least a dozen crummy copies of DayZ or Night of the Living Dead but I still enjoy the good zombie media that comes out.

I think "Zombie Fever" died about the time they put them in the Call of Modern Warhunter clones.

Zombies are garbage and they ran their course decades ago. Also, I doubt people who watch The Walking Dead do so for the zombies. I watch that show because of the characters. They are interesting and fun to watch. You could replace the zombies with anything and it wouldn't matter because they aren't the main attraction as people like to think.

JaredJones:
I've seen damn-near every type of zombie flick I mentioned above (excluding the rape zombies, because why?).

Hay! Don't knock it until you see it... I mean, it can't be as bad as the hentai equivalent to that movie's zombie premise... (only in the hentai, it effects both genders instead of just the "obvious" gender... :p)

OT: What kept me watching the first episode of Fear TWD was that the pending situation was being describe by a young drug addict, for example, because when you think about how you would describe an undead zombie/infected being, it sounds like you hit the shit a bit too much and could use a good cleaning/flushing of all the drugs from your body...

Other than that, at this point, I would want to see a take on zombies where every human being's super-smart in the common sense department to the point that a random person calling 911 leads up to a CDC exodus that clears the pending zombie invasion over the course of less than 2 real-life hours... In other words, too surreal to not be improbable, if everyone trusted what everyone's saying at face value, to the point that it's borderline pseudo-telepathy, "at best"...

chikusho:

The Rogue Wolf:
Good luck following that "zombie outbreak plan" when ten guys with guns got to that shopping center first, and they don't want to share. What are you gonna do, call the cops on 'em?

Considering how actual human beings act in real-life disaster situations, those ten guys would probably hurry you inside to safety the moment they saw you. Everyone has some skill that a group needs to survive and make the best of horrible situation. Even if it's just skills such as being a reliable friend, a good listener, or -having two hands-. :)

On the contrary. Humans are inherently selfish. They will more likely shoot you so you couldnt come back and cause trouble. its the movies world when they risk their lives to get somone (possibly infected) inside.

Strazdas:

On the contrary. Humans are inherently selfish. They will more likely shoot you so you couldnt come back and cause trouble. its the movies world when they risk their lives to get somone (possibly infected) inside.

On the contrary. Disasters makes humans band together better than any other type of situation. And a dizzyingly large portion of people are willing to risk their lives for total strangers when such an event occurs. Group solidarity is a stronger force than selfishness, and this has been observed in basically all disaster situations over the entire world. Helping fellow humans is a strong, prevalent trait in the human species, and also the kind of behavior that grants you a higher rate of survivability in the real world. The selfish, hoarding individualist however is probably the one most likely to die.

The break-down of human society in the aftermath of a disaster is just a myth. Although, sometimes it does make for some great fiction. :)

Sarge034:

Son... you're gonna die horribly during a prolonged disaster if you keep being that naïve. "People" separate into clicks and then it becomes "us vs them".

Son... you should probably go outside once in a while. Real life bears very little resemblance to movies. :)

chikusho:

Strazdas:

On the contrary. Humans are inherently selfish. They will more likely shoot you so you couldnt come back and cause trouble. its the movies world when they risk their lives to get somone (possibly infected) inside.

On the contrary. Disasters makes humans band together better than any other type of situation. And a dizzyingly large portion of people are willing to risk their lives for total strangers when such an event occurs. Group solidarity is a stronger force than selfishness, and this has been observed in basically all disaster situations over the entire world. Helping fellow humans is a strong, prevalent trait in the human species, and also the kind of behavior that grants you a higher rate of survivability in the real world. The selfish, hoarding individualist however is probably the one most likely to die.

Only because there is the "civilized world" out there. When you take that away people are less willing to band and more willing to go for maximum survival chances. While group survival is more likely normally, in zombie case a single infected in the group means entire group dies.

chikusho:

Strazdas:

On the contrary. Humans are inherently selfish. They will more likely shoot you so you couldnt come back and cause trouble. its the movies world when they risk their lives to get somone (possibly infected) inside.

On the contrary. Disasters makes humans band together better than any other type of situation. And a dizzyingly large portion of people are willing to risk their lives for total strangers when such an event occurs. Group solidarity is a stronger force than selfishness, and this has been observed in basically all disaster situations over the entire world. Helping fellow humans is a strong, prevalent trait in the human species, and also the kind of behavior that grants you a higher rate of survivability in the real world. The selfish, hoarding individualist however is probably the one most likely to die.

The break-down of human society in the aftermath of a disaster is just a myth. Although, sometimes it does make for some great fiction. :)

Sarge034:

Son... you're gonna die horribly during a prolonged disaster if you keep being that naïve. "People" separate into clicks and then it becomes "us vs them".

Son... you should probably go outside once in a while. Real life bears very little resemblance to movies. :)

You are too good for this world. Too pure.

Strazdas:

Only because there is the "civilized world" out there. When you take that away people are less willing to band and more willing to go for maximum survival chances. While group survival is more likely normally, in zombie case a single infected in the group means entire group dies.

That's the point though. The 'civilized world' is centered in humans, not the other way around. The natural response to band together in disasters is so strong that it's basically instinctual, and it carries across all cultures in the entire world. And it has done so for thousands of years. The selfish response is the exception, not the rule. And that is more than likely to be the case even in the very unlikely (and also, hardly disastrous) zombie apocalypse. :)

FuzzyRaccoon:

You are too good for this world. Too pure.

There's that. And also, the facts back me up. :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-myth-of-the-panicking_b_837440.html
http://www.cpbr.gov.au/disact/human-response.html
http://www.crhnet.ca/common-misconceptions-about-disasters-panic-%E2%80%9Cdisaster-syndrome%E2%80%9D-and-looting

In mainstream media, maybe. But I don't see how post-apocalyptic survival genre can ever disappear entirely. It tickles the nerves too well, no matter how little exposure to the real world dangers you've had in your life.

Also never underestimate the potential of a good old bodyhorror scare...

Nope, but then it comes down to how much of this content I watch, I am more than happy to continue watching the Walking Dead because it isn't the zombies themselves it's the survivors that interest me and that's where it works, zombies are zombies no matter what medium they are in, oh yeah some have a few twists to the formula but the basic premise is the same (walking dead, hard to kill, love the taste of the living) what makes the show is the survivors.

I'll happily give Fear The Walking Dead a shot but if it sucks ass it won't stop me watching The Walking Dead.

You know, everyone seems to be on chikusho's ass for saying people would work together when the world is falling appart, but I have to take his side on this one. People in disasters are much less chaotic and selfish then fiction and cherry picked footage of disaster areas would have you believe. Humans are inherently social animals who put the safety and survival of the group above out own individual one, it's how we evolved, and those lone wolf psychopaths you see in zombie fiction are excessively rare in real life to the point where in a real zombie outbreak you're unlikely to come across any. If The Walking Dead was realistic you'd see things like The Governor never getting past being a low level member of his settlement not responsible for much of anything, assuming his actions didn't get him killed or exiled. Then again, the military wouldn't have gotten its ass kicked by the undead, since zombies which don't have excessive speed or strength couldn't realistically win against a modern military even with strength of numbers taken into account.

Speaking of speed and strength, it amazes me no realistic attempt at tackling zombies has gone with the "true human strength" angle, since a zombie, before it reaches the later stages of decay, would probably in initial months after infection be stronger then a normal human since it probably wouldn't have inhibiting impulses humans have to prevent damage to our bodies from overextension.

We have reached Zombie Zenith a long time ago. Now it's just prolonging its inevitable recession.

I've been sick of it for about the last 5 years. That craze has been kept going artificially so long it's going to crash hard.

There is no death to the zombie parade. It is everlasting. Even if it falls for a while, it's only waiting to be renewed once more.

chikusho:
Son... you should probably go outside once in a while. Real life bears very little resemblance to movies. :)

Have you ever been in a post disaster situation? I have. Don't assume you know anything about people, because society is much more fragile then you seem to believe. That's why you'll die. You will walk right into their sights, they kill you, and take your stuff. That's the real world unfortunately. Look at Africa to see shining examples of human nature unbound by society or common decency.

chikusho:

That's the point though. The 'civilized world' is centered in humans, not the other way around. The natural response to band together in disasters is so strong that it's basically instinctual, and it carries across all cultures in the entire world. And it has done so for thousands of years. The selfish response is the exception, not the rule. And that is more than likely to be the case even in the very unlikely (and also, hardly disastrous) zombie apocalypse. :)

FuzzyRaccoon:

You are too good for this world. Too pure.

There's that. And also, the facts back me up. :)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-myth-of-the-panicking_b_837440.html
http://www.cpbr.gov.au/disact/human-response.html
http://www.crhnet.ca/common-misconceptions-about-disasters-panic-%E2%80%9Cdisaster-syndrome%E2%80%9D-and-looting

Humans were always and always will be selfish. the reason we band together is out of selfishness (mental gain, children, higher survival chances, social interaction). selfishness is not limited to material things. The problem is, in zombie apocalyse situation being in a group actually decreases survival chances because groups allow easy infiltration of infected and are slower to get away from the zombies. you could say zombies are a unique disaster in such a case as the "problem" comes not from outside but from within the group. thus - the group becomes the danger.

But yes, zombie outbreak is very unlikely due to how effective we are at wiping out population before the outbreak can spread. it would take a bit more than the traditional zombie to actually spread worldwide.

P.S. Please do not refer to Tabloids like Huff as "Facts".

The second link is not much but the third one is interesting. ill read it more thourally when i have the time.

Zontar:

Speaking of speed and strength, it amazes me no realistic attempt at tackling zombies has gone with the "true human strength" angle, since a zombie, before it reaches the later stages of decay, would probably in initial months after infection be stronger then a normal human since it probably wouldn't have inhibiting impulses humans have to prevent damage to our bodies from overextension.

Actually quite a few movies portray zombies as faster (if they are the running type) and stronger in them. None specify this for the reason as far as i remmeber, but there definitely are faster/stronger zombies. The main thing the humans have over them is weapons and intelligence (zombies are mostly stupid and cant climb stuff for example)

Strazdas:

chikusho:

Strazdas:

On the contrary. Humans are inherently selfish. They will more likely shoot you so you couldnt come back and cause trouble. its the movies world when they risk their lives to get somone (possibly infected) inside.

On the contrary. Disasters makes humans band together better than any other type of situation. And a dizzyingly large portion of people are willing to risk their lives for total strangers when such an event occurs. Group solidarity is a stronger force than selfishness, and this has been observed in basically all disaster situations over the entire world. Helping fellow humans is a strong, prevalent trait in the human species, and also the kind of behavior that grants you a higher rate of survivability in the real world. The selfish, hoarding individualist however is probably the one most likely to die.

Only because there is the "civilized world" out there. When you take that away people are less willing to band and more willing to go for maximum survival chances. While group survival is more likely normally, in zombie case a single infected in the group means entire group dies.

The whole reason there is a civilized world in the first place is because of this very trait. Humans are not alpha predators. We are not great at most things when it comes down to us vs natural order. We are tool users and community driven. We've thrived to the point we are because when the chips are down, our feral response is to co-operate for survival.

Strazdas:

Humans were always and always will be selfish. the reason we band together is out of selfishness (mental gain, children, higher survival chances, social interaction). selfishness is not limited to material things.

It's a commonly held belief, sure enough. But it doesn't hold up in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't explain altruism, it doesn't explain risking your own life, and it doesn't explain the very basic human response to others emotions through mirror neurons - a sort of biological counterpoint to the selfishness you seem so certain of.

Fact is, human societies and civilizations have been obliterated countless times throughout the history of the species. And yet it always forms back together. If it was ever truly "every man for himself", this would never have happened once, let alone _every single time_.

The problem is, in zombie apocalyse situation being in a group actually decreases survival chances because groups allow easy infiltration of infected and are slower to get away from the zombies. you could say zombies are a unique disaster in such a case as the "problem" comes not from outside but from within the group. thus - the group becomes the danger.

Even in these cases, which do you think is better at spotting an infected person; 2 people or 30 people each looking out for the survival of the group? Which do you think is more effective at stopping infection from spreading, 10 guys holed up in a basement or abandoned store, or 10 000 volunteers working around the clock directed as to provide the most efficient response possible? Also, sure, fewer people might mean fewer mouths to feed, but it also means fewer people to keep lookout, inspect fortifications, gather supplies and establish functioning communications and infrastructure. And every time a small group loses a member it gets severly handicapped, not to mention the unavoidable lack of necessary skills such as medicare, mechanics, building, food safety/preparedness etc. and the social/positive aspect a community provides to keep members from becoming depressed, give in to PTSD or going insane.
Especially in a zombie apocalypse setting, every person who you don't help will eventually become another shambler pounding at the door of your safe house. :)

Sarge034:

Have you ever been in a post disaster situation? I have. Don't assume you know anything about people, because society is much more fragile then you seem to believe. That's why you'll die. You will walk right into their sights, they kill you, and take your stuff. That's the real world unfortunately.

Let me refer back to what I just wrote to Strazdas: "Fact is, human societies and civilizations have been obliterated countless times throughout the history of the species. And yet it always forms back together. If it was ever truly "every man for himself", this would never have happened once, let alone _every single time_." - That's the real world.

I have not been in a post disaster situation. But the results from research into this very topic provides results that run counter to your claims. Feel free to show me otherwise.

The most likely scenario is that people band together and form a civilian guard for the sole reason of preventing the selfish group of 10 people from stealing and looting others. And at that point, would you rather be with a community of 100 people cooperating for survival, or 10 people violently making the rest of humanity their enemy? To me, the choice is obvious. Human strength and sruvivability comes from cooperation.

Look at Africa to see shining examples of human nature unbound by society or common decency.

Might want to ease up on the racism there.

The Rogue Wolf:

Fu11Frontal:
Zombie fiction seems to be more or less completely selling this idea of the return to the American old West, where all your problems could be solved with a shotgun and anyone trying to set up a society is essentially an evil cannibal/racist/pedophile. I guess people like the fantasy of not having to shower or pay speeding tickets, but the show was always really strange to me for how anti-community it is, and how the heroes destroy all of these societies and it's treated like a good thing.

Zombies have metamorphosed from "horror of society's breakdown destroying the ability to implicitly trust others" to "great excuse to do whatever I want". Face it, kids: 99% of you would be the shambling undead, and the other 1% would be more focused on the "fun" of finding drinkable water, edible food, medication, weapons, and transportation after the world's gasoline supply began to break down. (You'd have six months at most before every last drop of gasoline in every gas station in the nation became unusable; diesel, probably a year. Yes, it has a shelf life.) Good luck following that "zombie outbreak plan" when ten guys with guns got to that shopping center first, and they don't want to share. What are you gonna do, call the cops on 'em?

Those little power fantasies of "now I can shoot that jerk jock who bullied me in high school in the face, because he's a zombie now, and then his girlfriend will want me" would pale next to the reality of deciding whether or not to cut off your gangrenous leg because you couldn't find any antibiotics.

Yeah a zombie apocalypse wouldn't even last six months. zombies would break down within days and be immobile.

chikusho:
Let me refer back to what I just wrote to Strazdas: "Fact is, human societies and civilizations have been obliterated countless times throughout the history of the species. And yet it always forms back together. If it was ever truly "every man for himself", this would never have happened once, let alone _every single time_." - That's the real world.

I never said it would be "every man for himself", I said it would be small groups looking out for their own interests. So every time humanity has rebuilt society its had an omnipresent threat like zombies, right? No? Then don't try to use previous example as the norm when they are not comparable.

I have not been in a post disaster situation. But the results from research into this very topic provides results that run counter to your claims. Feel free to show me otherwise.

During Detroit's local government shut down, did crime go down or up? After hurricane Katrina did people hold hands and sing or did it get so bad they had to call in PMCs (private military corporations)? During the Boston riots did people target relevant targets or did they loot and burn business at random and then try to put the firefighters in even more danger by cutting their hoses?

Don't talk to me about "results from research" because I've seen it in the real world. I've seen society unravel, and the vast majority of people are monsters hiding in the guise of civility to fit in. Once that need is gone, you'll see people for who they really are. The good, the bad, and the indescribably evil.

The most likely scenario is that people band together and form a civilian guard for the sole reason of preventing the selfish group of 10 people from stealing and looting others. And at that point, would you rather be with a community of 100 people cooperating for survival, or 10 people violently making the rest of humanity their enemy? To me, the choice is obvious. Human strength and sruvivability comes from cooperation.

Sure does, but when faced with starvation do you think that guard is going to watch it's members, their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters starve to death or take what they need from a well stocked group down the way? There will be cooperation, but on a tribal level. Look up the hierarchy of needs, it's very relevant.

Look at Africa to see shining examples of human nature unbound by society or common decency.

Might want to ease up on the racism there.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Africa was a race. Oh, you're trying to make it about race. Well how bout this, there is more genocide then you can possibly imagine and more rape then you can possibly imagine. Parts of Africa are spared this because they have strong governments, strong society, while others that do not are not. Odd how I didn't say it was cus dem black people be rapin and murdinous folks. Oh wait, no it's not because my point has fuck all to do with race.

Elijin:

The whole reason there is a civilized world in the first place is because of this very trait. Humans are not alpha predators. We are not great at most things when it comes down to us vs natural order. We are tool users and community driven. We've thrived to the point we are because when the chips are down, our feral response is to co-operate for survival.

No, the reason there is a civilized world is because of selfishness combined with intellect. We want whats better for ourselves. we are also smart enough to know that by cooperating in a civilization more can be achieved which in return means we get more things too. thus we created civilization for our benefit. do remmeber that first ones were slave-run dictatorships because dictators wanted to be rich and powerful. Yes, we are smart enough to know that we cannot win playing solo so we play in groups. It has nothing to do with instinctual response but with our intelect. Zombie/plague outbreak changes things, and thus we react differently.

chikusho:

Strazdas:

Humans were always and always will be selfish. the reason we band together is out of selfishness (mental gain, children, higher survival chances, social interaction). selfishness is not limited to material things.

It's a commonly held belief, sure enough. But it doesn't hold up in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't explain altruism, it doesn't explain risking your own life, and it doesn't explain the very basic human response to others emotions through mirror neurons - a sort of biological counterpoint to the selfishness you seem so certain of.

Fact is, human societies and civilizations have been obliterated countless times throughout the history of the species. And yet it always forms back together. If it was ever truly "every man for himself", this would never have happened once, let alone _every single time_.

Sure it does. You are simply looking at selfishness too narrowly. Selfishnes accounts for vast amount of things we want, coming from basic material goods all the way to self-expression and appreciation of others. Altruism exists because we intrincitly want others to like us, it fulfills out psychological needs. We are hardwired with those needs, for better or worse, and we find ways to fulfill them, some of which are good and some are not so nice (for example the so called "Attention whores").

Yes, we are pack animals, but we are also individualists. we dont simply conform (proof: every culture revolution in history). Hence why communism does not work in reality.

Yes, human civilizations reform because civilization benefits us. Zombie apocalypse changes that because civilization is in fact a danger because a single infected would mean a destruction of the entire group.

Even in these cases, which do you think is better at spotting an infected person; 2 people or 30 people each looking out for the survival of the group? Which do you think is more effective at stopping infection from spreading, 10 guys holed up in a basement or abandoned store, or 10 000 volunteers working around the clock directed as to provide the most efficient response possible? Also, sure, fewer people might mean fewer mouths to feed, but it also means fewer people to keep lookout, inspect fortifications, gather supplies and establish functioning communications and infrastructure. And every time a small group loses a member it gets severly handicapped, not to mention the unavoidable lack of necessary skills such as medicare, mechanics, building, food safety/preparedness etc. and the social/positive aspect a community provides to keep members from becoming depressed, give in to PTSD or going insane.
Especially in a zombie apocalypse setting, every person who you don't help will eventually become another shambler pounding at the door of your safe house. :)

Depends on the signs of infected. if you talk about the full flerdged zombies sure. the problem is when one of the 30 are infected and hides it before turning into a zombie. you have much higher chances there with 2 people.

In zombie apocalypse scenario its too late to prevent it from spreading. Like Gavin sang in "My only remaining goal now to survive".

Though you do make a good point about the services community can provide. but thats going to be way later than the first days of the apocalypse.

Might want to ease up on the racism there.

Using a continent with a number of official 'Failed States' and the atrocities which occur therein as an example of societal collapse, particularly when a significant percentage of international aid goes to attempting to stem said atrocities is simply pointing out facts, not racism, chief.

Sarge034:

I never said it would be "every man for himself", I said it would be small groups looking out for their own interests. So every time humanity has rebuilt society its had an omnipresent threat like zombies, right? No? Then don't try to use previous example as the norm when they are not comparable.

Yes, every time until very recently. It's called 'nature' and it's pretty god damned dangerous - way more deadly than zombies could ever be.

During Detroit's local government shut down, did crime go down or up? After hurricane Katrina did people hold hands and sing or did it get so bad they had to call in PMCs (private military corporations)? During the Boston riots did people target relevant targets or did they loot and burn business at random and then try to put the firefighters in even more danger by cutting their hoses?

Detroits government shutdown is a sociopolitical issue, not a disaster situation. Same thing with riots.
During Hurricane Katrina they unneccesarily sent in PMCs to stop looting which wasn't really happening. Many of the so called 'looters' were often people getting property for their own homes or scrounging for supplies to stay alive. Much of the media coverage of the violence, looting and raping was also extremely inflated and sometimes even fabricated. Holding hands an singing is a lot closer to the truth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2496928/

Don't talk to me about "results from research" because I've seen it in the real world. I've seen society unravel, and the vast majority of people are monsters hiding in the guise of civility to fit in. Once that need is gone, you'll see people for who they really are. The good, the bad, and the indescribably evil.

Of course, the almighty anecdote is the most reliable source of truth.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Africa was a race. Oh, you're trying to make it about race. Well how bout this, there is more genocide then you can possibly imagine and more rape then you can possibly imagine. Parts of Africa are spared this because they have strong governments, strong society, while others that do not are not. Odd how I didn't say it was cus dem black people be rapin and murdinous folks. Oh wait, no it's not because my point has fuck all to do with race.

You were basically calling an entire continent and the people who occupy it savages. That's pretty god damned racist.
Also basically irrelevant, since I assume you are talking about war situations. Still, that somehow makes the point for me even better. What happens when a foreign power attacks a society is that society becomes more closely knit. In war time situations, civilians are always doing their damndest to take care of and protect one another from the external threat. Another thing more dangerous than zombies - a human military force. If people join together to stay alive when all infrastructure is bombed to hell, and life is led under constant threat of death from all directions, a zombie apocalypse would be like vacation.

chikusho:
Yes, every time until very recently. It's called 'nature' and it's pretty god damned dangerous - way more deadly than zombies could ever be.

False. Nature can be dangerous but it's not actively out to kill you. Nature is actually indifferent to you, it doesn't "want" to do anything. Zombies have the sole purpose of seeking you out and killing you. Kindda different.

Detroits government shutdown is a sociopolitical issue, not a disaster situation. Same thing with riots.
During Hurricane Katrina they unneccesarily sent in PMCs to stop looting which wasn't really happening. Many of the so called 'looters' were often people getting property for their own homes or scrounging for supplies to stay alive. Much of the media coverage of the violence, looting and raping was also extremely inflated and sometimes even fabricated. Holding hands an singing is a lot closer to the truth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2496928/

Sociopolitical... Is this whole topic not sociopolitical as it was about how people change after society collapses? Your point is that people will band together in the absence of society and this shows the exact opposite. Same with the riots, a breakdown in society. For a finer point, how about that guy in the London riots who got beaten really badly and his bike stolen? Only to have people come up to him looking like they were going to help only to beat him again and steal his backpack? All the while people watched and didn't attempt to help at all. When the hierarchy of needs breaks down to the point you must actively worry about personal safety and the safety of those closest to you most people very easily revert to a tribal mindset. I'll omit Katrina only because there was so much shady shit going on but I will point this out, you didn't research the PMC point at all. I intentionally misworded it and you didn't correct me. The first PMC went down before they were even hired and began acting with the authority of the government when in fact they were simply vigilantes at that point in time. Vigilantes who documented all the rapes, murders, and looting they stopped, but vigilantes none the less. Another product of the breakdown in society perhaps?

Of course, the almighty anecdote is the most reliable source of truth.

Otherwise known as a primary source. You said yourself you've never experienced it and studies are secondary sources because they don't do them in the direct aftermath of the disaster. I'm just saying you can point to as many papers as you want, but having seen it with my own eyes... What study could you possibly show me that would change what I've seen?

You were basically calling an entire continent and the people who occupy it savages. That's pretty god damned racist.
Also basically irrelevant, since I assume you are talking about war situations. Still, that somehow makes the point for me even better. What happens when a foreign power attacks a society is that society becomes more closely knit. In war time situations, civilians are always doing their damndest to take care of and protect one another from the external threat. Another thing more dangerous than zombies - a human military force. If people join together to stay alive when all infrastructure is bombed to hell, and life is led under constant threat of death from all directions, a zombie apocalypse would be like vacation.

No, I am not talking about war, although you could make the argument that Africa is in a constant state of war I guess... Is there another continent that has as rampant societal breakdown as Africa? It was a perfect example as society has broken done severly in several places and in it's stead tribal genocide, ethnic cleansing, and rape have become the norm. You want to focus on skin color (which is in and of itself racist as many different races live in Africa) and I'm focusing on the situation they find themselves in. Society is gone and they aint all holding hands. Groups of people have decided to just take what they want in a post-society culture, that was my theory and the world seems to be proving me right.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.