Zombie Survival

191 readers

1 users here now

Discussion about the hypothetical scenario of a zombie apocalypse.

Unless stated otherwise, by zombie we're refering to The Walking Dead -kind of undead creature.

Serious discussion only.

Header by ThomasJakeRoss @ Deviantart

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Do you think that zombies' inability to run is the deciding factor in making it even conceivable to survive in the post-apocalyptic world? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I personally can't imagine anyone surviving long-term around running zombies. Even if fighting them was relatively easy, it’s statistically inevitable that sooner or later you'd get bitten. This applies to walking zombies too, but at least with them, you have the option to avoid physical altercations altogether, at least for the most part. That’s what I think most TV shows get wrong about zombies: even if there’s just one, and you could easily take it down, just don’t. It’s almost never worth the risk. In my view, the best way to survive is to avoid them as much as possible. Fighting is the last resort and should only be done in self-defence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I dunno.

Even slow movers in bad shape are a problem in numbers.

So, carefully eliminating individuals before they can turn into a horde should be the default.

Once you get enough living together, you fortify and get snipers trained up. Set up on the walls first and pick off anything undead that comes close. Slowly set up an expanding circle of raised emplacements with sniper observers to pick off individuals at a longer distance from the settlement, and give warning for any hordes as well as being able to thin out a horde as it gets closer, and continue depleting the horde if they surround the settlement.

But, for lone travelers, assuming that you have a ranged weapon that's quiet enough, always take them out. You never, ever leave an enemy behind you if you can take them out without causing a worse problem.

I think that's the key to long term zombie survival. You have to take every reasonable opportunity to reduce the spread of the agent that's causing it. Literal walking dead zombies, they're all a disease vector. Every one you put down makes future survival easier. So it's a calculated risk. Measure the risk of your infection in the attempt, measure the risk of attracting any unseen zombies, and if those risks are low to zero, it's going to be a long term benefit to take one out.

Obviously, in a WD scenario, firearms increase the risk significantly compared to quieter weapons. But there are other options available, including the old and trusty Pointy Stick™. Even the roughest spear you can make gives you the reach to make a quick finish to slow zombies 1v1 with very low risk of contact, so you only have to worry about being capable of moving faster if the weapon fails.

Bows can replace firearms at that kind of range, as long as you practice, and it takes the risk down to zero for a single shot, since the noise a miss will make is in a different direction than you.

You're right though, don't fight. Assassinate.

[–] brygphilomena 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ammo might be a pain in the ass. But standing atop a tall wall with a pike stabbing down into skulls would probably work well.

Plus a good fire pit to burn the bodies so other diseases don't crop up.

I've kind of wondered if you could make a sustainable fire using only zombie bodies. They could be an interesting source of fuel.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bodies don't actually burn well at all. Even dried out bodies more smolder (people used to burn mummies, among other really silly things they did to them) than burn.

So, you can definitely make a pyre to make sure any flesh is gone, but the zombies won't make good fuel.

[–] brygphilomena 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fair enough. It's mostly just for preventing the rotting corpse from festering diseases.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Yup, makes sense :)

Watching TWD, and the various other zombie fiction, I'm always surprised how little attention gets paid to the other parts of what a walking, rotting corpse would mean. It never really gets covered in the kind of way I would expect it to.

Yeah, when excrement meets air conditioning, you don't stop and worry about the corpse juice on every little scratch and injury, but nobody ever dies from the kind of infections that would be running rampant after a zombie fight.

And nobody really cleans up the environment around them after a zombie fight near their camps. They'll drag the bodies off, but that's not really enough to prevent every risk from ever happening. You'd have tainted watersheds, possible contamination as insects and scavengers come to check out the smells of rot, then spreading pathogens.

TWD only had one plague pre-carl dying (I stopped after that), and that seems a bit low for what was years of time.

Which, there's all kinds of ways to explain that stuff away, but they never do lol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I disagree with this. What you describe requires that you’ve already survived for several years and managed to establish a secure base and survival group, which is unlikely if one is willing to kill zombies en masse like that. Every zombie encounter comes with the risk of getting bitten, and the more encounters you have, the more likely you are to make a mistake and die. The safest way to survive a conflict is always to avoid it. Even if you were able to make a dent in the local population, more are likely to wander in from further away, and the noise of constant shooting will probably attract even more of them, as well as other survivors, who are an even greater danger.