7 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Outbreak Would Fail 320
Whether they spoil in the heat, freeze in the winter, or get taken out by a human-friendly venue of vultures, a zombie outbreak is unlikely to succeed. Here's 7 reasons why we should stop worrying about the shambling dead and start concentrating on a real threat: sparkly vampires.
Reason #0 (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no zombies?
#7. They Have Too Many Natural Predators (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Reason #0 (Score:5, Insightful)
But there is a huge market for all things zombie, and it doesn't even seem to have peaked yet. Zombies are the new vampires, and to date none of them sparkle in the sun.
Most of the zombie fiction is just a different approach to RPG-style problem solving, and has the same appeal. A zombie outbreak happens near you, and the zombies work this way. What do you do? What do you eat? How do you defend yourself? Do you find others, or avoid others? etc, etc. It's good fun.
This doesn't seem very scientific... (Score:5, Insightful)
This person is claiming that zombie outbreaks will fail, but where is the evidence? Has there ever been a zombie outbreak that has actually failed for any of these reasons?
It all seems like blind optimism to me.
#1 pretty much covers it (Score:3, Insightful)
max brooks (Score:1, Insightful)
Read World War Z and the Zombie Survival Guide and you will have some sound (although I'd agree that they're hardly perfect) scientific reasons why zombies might make it.
Re:The US (Score:3, Insightful)
I, for one, leave it to the US to deal with zombie outbreaks. You, guys have so many weapons stashed up it would be a joke to deal with a couple of zombies. Just get to Europe, will ya?
Sure, like how "we" handled Katrina? The BP spill? Wonderful. The first official act would be to round up all the survivors and confiscate their weapons, then leave them in a stadium with no supplies. Then just one infected gets mixed in with the others...
Panicky Idiots (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahem. I beg to differ.
Re:This doesn't seem very scientific... (Score:2, Insightful)
Has there ever been a zombie outbreak that has actually failed for any of these reasons?
Well, that is a good point, but let me turn that question around for a second. Has there ever been a zombie outbreak that succeeded?
Re:This! (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you're talking about Romero's "Dead world" films. Only a bite will infect a living person, true, but anyone who dies and is not disposed of properly rises again for some reason.
That's The Night of the Living Dead's whole thing, where the zombies dig their way out of graves, unbitten, to attack the whole world at once. The following chaos and disruption greatly increases their numbers not only through bites, but through any incidental deaths that occur.
If it's viral, and this is unknown, then living tissue is able to defend against the airborne vector but not the bite vector; or perhaps the bite is some form of poison unrelated to the actual infection, which then proceeds as usual after the person dies from the poisonous bite.
This article's good, but only applies to some zombie scenarios.
Re:Stephenie Meyer is a talentless hack (Score:3, Insightful)
It wouldn't be hard to really. Look at the average post-goth teen. They're still in love with death and the macabre. A vampire is just an undead human if you remove the demon aspect. Stephenie Meyer did that *shudder*. I suppose, you could have teen protagonists, one of which dies and comes back, and then they try to make it work. Think about Return of the Living Dead 3 and factor in some of the recent zombie mockumentaries where zombies are vying for civil rights. I think, sadly, a teen zombie romance is a logical eventuality. I'm sorry.
Re:Reason #0 (Score:1, Insightful)
we're talking about the classic Romero zombie I assumed, the one upon which most zombie fiction is now based.
Is it now? There have been several movies lately with non-Romero zombies. Fast Zombies, Rage-infected humans (close enough), etc. The slow, stumbling, couldn't walk up a flight of stairs zombies are Out, the fast, viscous, could sense you from across town, run over and still kill you zombies are In.
Which, funny enough, makes sense. The 'classic' zombie is untenable, from a biological and physical standpoint. Dead bodies that can't be stopped unless you destroy the brain? Puh-leaze. For a Z to walk, it needs to use its muscles. For the muscles to work, they need energy. Energy they get by (simplifying) taking sugar and oxygen out of the blood. That means the blood must be flowing, the lungs must be working. Shoot a Z in the leg, that wound will bleed. Lose enough blood= Z can't use muscles to move. Sure, the Z might be able to 'push through' the pain and remain active until the loss of blood affects it, but it will eventually 'die' of blood loss.
Most of the points the article made are fine and good, for the 'classic' zombie. But for Rage-infected humans, or similar... not so much.
7. Natural predators? They're fast, can think, even use weapons. They won't be taken down by a rogue dog.
6. and 5.- Hot and cold- they can think enough to seek cool places in the heat, and warm places in the cold. They are alive so their bodies produce heat.
4. Biting- a virus doesn't need to pass through biting. The common cold proves that. A 'rage' virus could be airborne, could get into water supplies, or could even linger on surfaces. Even if it's strictly carried by bodily fluids, there are more fluids than blood. A Z could spit at you. If you stab or slash one, a spurt or spray of blood could wind up being inhaled, or landing in an open wound, your mouth, or eye. As for the CDC getting involved... they would, but if the virus is airborne, it could infect a large enough number of people that it couldn't be contained.
3. Day-to-day damage isn't a real problem for non-classic Zs.
2. Same with rivers, bridges, and cliffs.
1. People. People with guns. Sure, they would be effective, but people would need to get over the "Oh, gosh, is that our neighbor? I can't shoot him" feelings. Could you shoot your wife or husband? Your kids? The number one mistake people make is not accepting that their zombied friend/lover/relative is GONE. Once that happens, we'll be okay.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reason #0 (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with any of these "disaster A can't happen" is they always assume humans will band together and act logically which if anything history has taught us in a widespread panic humans are as dangerous and stupid as any other scared animal. To quote MiB "A person is smart, people are dumb, dangerous, panicky animals and you know it.
You know, I love that quote as much as anyone but I'm not convinced it's true. Think of the times when people really HAVE been up against the wall in large numbers, with a cause they believe in, and I think you'll find that in general, we're pretty good in a pinch. Take, for example, the British in WW2. They're having the absolute shit bombed out of them but they stayed organized for the most part and put up a hell of a fight.
Re:Reason #0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Likewise, the original Haitian zombies started off the whole "now he's dead, now he's shuffling around" trend. They've slowly been modified by successive media releases since then and the standard zombie trope is now quite removed from its roots.
You want scientific? (Score:2, Insightful)
You want scientific? Ok, here you go: http://www.mathstat.uottawa.ca/~rsmith/Zombies.pdf [uottawa.ca] It is a mathematical model of how the zombies will spread.
It is not as optimistic as cracked.com I am afraid.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reason #0 (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no zombies yet.
FTFY.
Re:"Ancient" as in... 19'th century? (Score:3, Insightful)
So Sesame Street's depiction of "The Count" is spot on then.