Have We Finally Reached the Peak of Zombie Fatigue?

[Laughing Man]

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.

 

[Zontar]

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.

 

[Christian Neihart]

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

 

[Nurb]

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.

 

[FalloutJack]

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.

 

[Sarge034]

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.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

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.

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)

 

[Elijin]

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.

 

[chikusho]

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.

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.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

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.

 

[Sarge034]

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.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

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.

 

[Timmibal]

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.

 

[chikusho]

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.

 

[Sarge034]

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.

 

[chikusho]

Is this whole topic not sociopolitical as it was about how people change after society collapses?

No, this is about whether people are more or less likely to help each other out during a disaster. And evidence shows people are more likely to help out during a disaster.

Your point is that people will band together in the absence of society and this shows the exact opposite.

wat?

Same with the riots, a breakdown in society.

Riots are isolated and temporary. If your theory was true, Detroid would be a wasteland right now. As far as I can see, Detroit is still around. London too I might add.

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.

And at the point of a zombie outbreak, your tribe will basically consist of everyone who's still alive.
Also, sure, some people might take advantage of a disastrous situation. Most people have been proven to do the opposite.
It's mostly the media focusing on isolated cases of terrible things happening that perpetuates the myth of the post-disaster anarchy.

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?

So, in your mind, people banding together to protect people from violence is somehow breakdown of society? I'd argue that you're basically making the case for me here.

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?

Yes, a single primary source can provide some insight in isolated incidents. But several perspectives are needed for a complete and true picture. Seeing something bad in one location naturally produces an perception that things are worse than they might actually be in the grand scheme of things.

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?

That's the problem. You can't talk about a continent that way, because everything you say will be anything from grossly exaggerated to dead wrong. If you want to argue a point about something occurring in Africa you'll have to get specific.

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.

I never said anything about skin color.

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.

Yeah, I bet groups of more than 10 people in a store.

Also, if you want to continue this conversation, you're going to need to back up your claims. All I've gotten from you is vague anecdotes and unsubstantiated conjecture.

 

[Sarge034]

No, this is about whether people are more or less likely to help each other out during a disaster. And evidence shows people are more likely to help out during a disaster.

Riots are isolated and temporary. If your theory was true, Detroid would be a wasteland right now. As far as I can see, Detroit is still around. London too I might add.

The whole reason it's a question in the first place is that society breaks down. There is no "police" to call. Isolated cases show us a preview of what could be. Detroit and London are still here because there was still an establishment with force behind it to restore order, what if there hadn't been? The answer is Africa. Those who cut throats the most ruthlessly will win and gather a following of likeminded people.

And at the point of a zombie outbreak, your tribe will basically consist of everyone who's still alive.
Also, sure, some people might take advantage of a disastrous situation. Most people have been proven to do the opposite.
It's mostly the media focusing on isolated cases of terrible things happening that perpetuates the myth of the post-disaster anarchy.

Mine sure as hell wouldn't, because I know better. I surly wouldn't take you in my group because you're going to put us at unnecessary risk. I wouldn't take a rapist, someone with a death wish, or a psychopath either. Just because you're alive don't make you friendly or an asset. And proven? Really? You provided, what, one research paper? How about I link the countless studies on mob mentality, survival instincts, and "going native", in addition to my specific examples?

So, in your mind, people banding together to protect people from violence is somehow breakdown of society? I'd argue that you're basically making the case for me here.

They didn't do it for the people, they did it for money. In a way, they were no better than the looters they were stopping because they're both profiteers in one way. But were they not the group with the biggest sticks imposing their will without any authority behind it? What if they'd decided their word was law and the US wasn't around to restore normality?

Yes, a single primary source can provide some insight in isolated incidents. But several perspectives are needed for a complete and true picture. Seeing something bad in one location naturally produces an perception that things are worse than they might actually be in the grand scheme of things.

So a primary source with collaborating real world examples in the short term and the long term effects of societal breakdowns are what then? Fringe results because they don't align with the "feel good about humanity" paper you keep waving about?

That's the problem. You can't talk about a continent that way, because everything you say will be anything from grossly exaggerated to dead wrong. If you want to argue a point about something occurring in Africa you'll have to get specific.

I honestly believe this forum couldn't handle it if I brought specific examples into it, they are simply that atrocious. Why can't you see the bigger picture and see the patterns? Or are you unaware of what those patterns are?

I never said anything about skin color.

You said that what I said was racist. "Africa" isn't a race, the "situation in Africa" isn't a race, and I said nothing about race. So do tell how I was being racist.

Yeah, I bet groups of more than 10 people in a store.

You keep trying to be smug and it only makes you look ignorant of history and current events. It starts out small and then that core group will dominate other groups, not include as equals, but subjugate. That's why child soldiers are a thing, that's why ethnic cleansings are a thing, that's why warlords are the reigning governmental bodies, if you can not gag saying that, in those destabilized areas.

Also, if you want to continue this conversation, you're going to need to back up your claims. All I've gotten from you is vague anecdotes and unsubstantiated conjecture.

What exactly are you looking for? I provided first hand accounts, a general big picture example, and a theory backed up by specific examples. If you're looking for a paper I'm going to waive around so we can have a paper slap fight I refuse. The world provides enough examples that those papers mean nothing. Why believe an academic when you can preverbialy look out your window and see how it has already played out?

 

[Cowabungaa]

What exactly are you looking for? I provided first hand accounts, a general big picture example, and a theory backed up by specific examples. If you're looking for a paper I'm going to waive around so we can have a paper slap fight I refuse. The world provides enough examples that those papers mean nothing. Why believe an academic when you can preverbialy look out your window and see how it has already played out?

Because it hasn't played out yet and because academics know that observations are A: not necessarily trustworthy or B: not necessarily representative of the entire situation or C: might not be statistically relevant.

Why hasn't it played out yet? Because those riots were not the complete destruction of society as we see in zombie fiction. The different situations can hardly be compared.

 

[Sarge034]

Because it hasn't played out yet and because academics know that observations are A: not necessarily trustworthy or B: not necessarily representative of the entire situation or C: might not be statistically relevant.

Why hasn't it played out yet? Because those riots were not the complete destruction of society as we see in zombie fiction. The different situations can hardly be compared.

That's why I cited Africa. The riots are short term examples to show that trends in rich countries are the same as poor countries when society begins to break down. Then it's carried on by my citing Africa as an end state. To see how humanity copes when it's just... people, no society to speak of. I guess a finer point on my question would have been how many examples do I have to cite before that poster's hypothesis was called into question. I can cite the Stanford Prison Experiment, Africa, riots, all other manners of societal breakdown, and countless psychological studies all pointing to the same thing, but when do they stop being fringe results?

 

[Cowabungaa]

That's why I cited Africa. The riots are short term examples to show that trends in rich countries are the same as poor countries when society begins to break down. Then it's carried on by my citing Africa as an end state. To see how humanity copes when it's just... people, no society to speak of. I guess a finer point on my question would have been how many examples do I have to cite before that poster's hypothesis was called into question. I can cite the Stanford Prison Experiment, Africa, riots, all other manners of societal breakdown, and countless psychological studies all pointing to the same thing, but when do they stop being fringe results?

Sadly, 'Africa' is an awful example. First of all, it's pretty much per definition somewhat ignorant to speak of 'Africa' as one thing when it comes to sociological things like this. Or most things, to be fair. Why? Well, just look at it:

I hope it's pretty obvious what I'm trying to say here. Speaking of 'Africa' like that is plain silly.

Secondly, society often doesn't 'break down' in certain African nations in the same way as it does in zombie fiction. What happens is worse; there's wonky dictatorial regimes that get opposed and/or preyed upon by ideological factions all on a bed of terribly managed post-WW2 decolonization.

How does this relate to zombie fiction? Not much, as in zombie fiction we're presented with completely emptied countries, in terms of society. The US in The Walking Dead isn't governed by a dictatorial regime, there's no civil wars. The land has been turned in a nasty kind of 'terra novum' in which, in the course of the story, we see small things getting built up again. That's absolutely not the case in countries like Southern Sudan. There's no clean slate.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is also a bad example in this case. In that, if anything, a dictatorial regime was simulated. Neither was the goal of the experiment to research lawlessness or anything of that sort. No, the goal was simply to research the psychological effects of imprisonment on both prisoners and guards. It has little to nothing to do with the disappearance of society.