Can A Zombie Apocalypse Destroy Humanity In 100 Days?

Post Reply New Topic

How would you even know it was ebola first of all? There needs to be appropriate evidence before making such claims

I am of the opinion that, when you have come from an infectious area, and become ill-enough to see a doctor, you are a risk to the people around you.

It's more of a Murphy's Law sort-of thing than 100% certainty.

Really, the people who mismanage these sorts of situations need to be shown a public service announcement.

Have you ever noticed, that you are supposed to be concerned and take precautions, but you don't let the guy on the plane or treat his medical problems? What are you supposed to be doing differently, as the little guy, seeing as how you're not personally empowered.

I just believe in observing all the facts before making judgements.

What judgment do you believe I am making, and which facts do you believe I have disregarded, if any.

I think these people want my money and take unnecessary risks. Is that unfair?

I wasn't directing this at you I simply meant I so not know all the facts and therefore will not make a judgement on this

I think the more relevant question is this: Could Donald Trump accomplish it in half the time?

Socialist medicine was first promoted, most-prominently, as Romeey-care, by a fellow Republican.

Of which I was aware, Obama promoted single-payer (as by the state.)

Trump can do it, in half the time, by giving it to you, whether you want it, or not.

Love post apocalypse books but not zombie ones. I am a bit obsessed with PA stories actually and am writing a kids book at the moment and trying to think of ways to spin it off into a pa story.

Ethereal Sky is one of the best I have read recently. It's about humanity relying too much on technology, and when everyday tech goes wrong it can bring about the end of society as we know it now.

Since zombies aren't real and cannot ever be, there is a 0% chance of a zombie apocalypse destroying anything.

But if you take "zombie apocalypse" as a stand in for "some terrible contagion" then we can look to past pandemics and conclude that while a nasty pandemic could knock the global population back for a while, it's extremely unlikely any particular pandemic would cause the extinction of our species. And then we would come back.

The post apocalyptic fantasies ignore the fact that large numbers of people know how to use pre-digital technology. People need to secure food and shelter and the need for food means agriculture and storage and storage means settlements which accumulate wealth and accumulated wealth requires security and government and allows specialization and each specialized trade seeks maximum return on effort which implies technological advance.

The chain of forces leading to recovery and then a return to technological civilization even in the event of massive disruption and die-off, is pretty compelling. If some civ-shaking apocalypse comes, don't expect it to last.

Firstly, there is a part of your mind, which doesn't know the differences, between fact and fiction. You share the road and basic amenities with them, every day.

Secondly, have you ever rendered assistance, during an emergency. Just a minor one. Most people don't know how to provide basics for themselves.

For instance --
a drink, where there is no obvious water source.
(I am frequently thirsty, outside. People, on jobsites, don't remember to bring it, when it comes from the store or tap.)

lighting a fire
(Most people can barely use the matches.)

a source of calories, which takes less energy to obtain than it will provide for you.
(Lots of people can't make do, if you lay the ingredients, right in front of them.)

I would still disagree with catastrophism, having witnessed crimes of convenience, in which trivial locks deter theft. They don't take time to appraise valuables, so leave them behind. Or, stolen goods are frequently abandoned, nearby. Crime rates drop during inclement weather.

While we should be attentive to our safety and other needs, these same people usually won't try very hard, to harm you.

?
I don't understand what you mean by this.



Yes, I trained in CPR and very basic first aid and used that training at work and in the street. It's true that many, perhaps most, don't know how to provide basics, but it's also true that many do, and those who do would be able to teach those who don't but are willing to learn. In an emergency, that would be many. I was in Manhattan during 9/11, contrary to the dog-eat-dog fantasies post-apocalypse people like to dwell on, everyone was extremely helpful and cooperative.


My outdoor/low tech survival experience has mostly been on the trails of the Green Mountains of Vermont. I can make a fire and find and purify water. Calories can be more of a challenge depending on the time of year. But I know a lot of people who have the old skills and would be willing to teach in the event of some catastrophe.

In addition to the "Whole Earth Catalog" people in VT who use wood stoves, grow crops, dig wells, run water and windmills and so forth, there are communities like the Amish and Mennonite farmers who maintain a lot of 18th/19th century agricultural skill, and loads of "off grid communities" that are civilized but carry the knowledge of pre-digital or pre-combustion engine ways of living.

It seems to me that while there might be catastrophes that would kill many, there wuold almost certainly also survivors who would rebuild civilization with tools and skills appropriate to the new circumstances.