"The Three Laws of Zombiotics" - STORIES, PSEUDO NON-FICTION, POETRY, ETC. NEEDED

[jinlo]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

This leads to a question: What is the best tactic for outrunning the above listed creatures?

- Option 1: A straight path, where your goal is simply to outrun those pursuing you.

- Option 2: A changing path, where you quickly alter direction with the hope that those pursuing you will have trouble reacting to the changes in direction.

Excellent question and this is why our studies here are so important. By considering these factors before the coming epidemic, we can be prepared to take the best course of action.

As for the above options, I would say it depends on the surrounding circumstances. If there's no one else around and it's a clear area with few obstructions, go for the straight line and hope to outdistance the pursuing Zombie. We do have to remember, however, that Zombies never tire and we can only run so fast for so long. Always be careful of the tortoise and the hare syndrome.

A twisting, turning path might be much more appropriate if there are many obstructions and distractions that might catch the Zombie's attention. Actually, if there's someone you don't particularly like in the area, run directly at that person, throw some money on the ground, and then run like the wind. The person will drop down for the money and the Zombie will have a free lunch. Unethical? Yes. But then again, you survive and there's one less person you don't like in this world.

[jinlo]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

It seems like what is needed is an effective physical barrier against zombies. Anything that exceeds the potential strength of zombies, even with tools, would seem to be the key.

One barrier that might be effective is a massively high steel wall that is slight angled outward to prevent the zombies from climbing it. It should be effective as long as the zombies don't develop primitive technology like a catapult (Don't let them see "Monty Python And The Holy Grail"!).

The steel reinforced wall built with an angled top is believed to be one of the best barriers against Zombies. This got me thinking of other barriers, including some of the worst. In doing so, I considered one barrier that I feel helps illustrate the three laws which started this thread. I offer the mine field.

On one side of the mine field is a pack of Zombies. On the other side is a small collection of humans hoping to survive the undead onslaught. Since the first law states that Zombies will seek out the living, it's pretty obvious what happens next. The Zombies enter the mine field.

Let's say there are a dozen or so Zombies that now go shambling through the field. BOOM! One hits a mine. You now have little tatters of Zombie flesh all over the place and perhaps the top third of a Zombie body struggling in the dirt. Do the other hungry Zombies stop to pick up the flesh for a bit of a snack or to feast on the brains of the incapacitated Zombie that's now an easy target? Absolutely not. Why? Second Law: A Zombie shall not eat another Zombie.

Instead, the remaining Zombies move forward completely focused on the living humans on the other side of the mine field. Boom! Boom! Boom! And still they move onward, disregarding the mayhem and the obvious danger to themselves. And thus we see the implications of the Third Law. Zombies will disregard obvious hazards while focused on their prey.

This illustrates why a mine field is a fairly useless barrier. The psychological power of a mine field is a potent weapon. If an enemy believes one wrong step toward you is going to blow him into next week, he's going to think twice about charging you. Heck, sometimes you don't even have to plant the mines, just put up a warning sign - "Danger! Mine Field. Proceed at your own risk!" This normally ends any trespassing problems. Zombies, however, won't bother to read the sign. They simply don't care.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by jinlo

The steel reinforced wall built with an angled top is believed to be one of the best barriers against Zombies. This got me thinking of other barriers, including some of the worst. In doing so, I considered one barrier that I feel helps illustrate the three laws which started this thread. I offer the mine field.

On one side of the mine field is a pack of Zombies. On the other side is a small collection of humans hoping to survive the undead onslaught. Since the first law states that Zombies will seek out the living, it's pretty obvious what happens next. The Zombies enter the mine field.

Let's say there are a dozen or so Zombies that now go shambling through the field. BOOM! One hits a mine. You now have little tatters of Zombie flesh all over the place and perhaps the top third of a Zombie body struggling in the dirt. Do the other hungry Zombies stop to pick up the flesh for a bit of a snack or to feast on the brains of the incapacitated Zombie that's now an easy target? Absolutely not. Why? Second Law: A Zombie shall not eat another Zombie.

Instead, the remaining Zombies move forward completely focused on the living humans on the other side of the mine field. Boom! Boom! Boom! And still they move onward, disregarding the mayhem and the obvious danger to themselves. And thus we see the implications of the Third Law. Zombies will disregard obvious hazards while focused on their prey.

This illustrates why a mine field is a fairly useless barrier. The psychological power of a mine field is a potent weapon. If an enemy believes one wrong step toward you is going to blow him into next week, he's going to think twice about charging you. Heck, sometimes you don't even have to plant the mines, just put up a warning sign - "Danger! Mine Field. Proceed at your own risk!" This normally ends any trespassing problems. Zombies, however, won't bother to read the sign. They simply don't care.

This provides an excellent illustration of the three laws, especially the last one. Self-preservation is simply not a consideration when it comes to the long-term zombie, although it might be a small (and quickly diminishing) factor when it comes to the newly zombified.

Considering the types of barriers that are available, this leads to a question: Are zombies affected by music? Specifically: Will certain types of music attract or repel zombies?

In the video for "Thriller," Michael Jackson demonstrated an effective use of music as a weapon against zombies. If music is effective in this manner, it would provide many possibilities in the field of zombie defense. Let's say that zombies are attracted by heavy metal, and are repelled by disco. It would be possible to drive the zombies away by the judicious use of speakers to send them away.

[Greenkeeper]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

In the video for "Thriller," Michael Jackson demonstrated an effective use of music as a weapon against zombies. If music is effective in this manner, it would provide many possibilities in the field of zombie defense. Let's say that zombies are attracted by heavy metal, and are repelled by disco. It would be possible to drive the zombies away by the judicious use of speakers to send them away.

Zombies do react to sounds, but only because sounds will lead them to prey. This is especially true with music, as they will hear the singer's voice and likely investigate, since human voices = food source. Even instrumental music would stand a good chance at attracting zombies, expecially if some remnant of memory tells them that humans tend to gather where there is music. After long exposure to continuous music, however, the zombies would likely tune it out as environmental noise. On the other hand, some may be in a continuous hunting mode as they vainly search for a singer who isn't there.

I suspect that no music would repel the undead, though. Taste in music is lost when taste for flesh is acquired. The best way to use music for your own personal survival would be to crank up the volume to lure the zombies to go one way and then sneak off in a different direction.

[jinlo]

The importance of sound to a Zombie has led to numerous areas of study and has often created difficult scenarios for researchers to resolve. For example, a military caliber rifle with a telescopic sight is often accepted as the best weapon for dispatching a lone Zombie at distances of over 50 yards. The report of the rifle, however, might alert other Zombies to your presence. Thus, it might actually be safer to use an alternative weapon that makes little to no noise. Escape vehicles are another area of concern. A running car will move faster than a bicycle, but will the sound of the engine also attract curious Zombies? Noise is your enemy when trying to avoid detection. But since I want to remain focused on music, both of these are subjects best left for another day's discussion.

I'm not sure if it's possible to repel Zombies with music. Once the Zombies have zoned in on possible prey, the 3rd Law would seem to imply that even the most obnoxious music, say Neil Sedaka or Slim Whitman, would be useless as a deterrent. If you can't dissuade the undead with a few shotgun blasts to the knees, I doubt singing an irritating ditty from some bad musical is going to work any better. A Zombie locked on its meal is not going to care whether the potential victim is singing opera, hip-hop, or even God forbid Mr. Roboto by Styx.

This is not to say that music can't be utilized in other ways. It has already been mentioned that it could be quite useful as a lure to guide Zombies toward a certain area. But again, this would only be useful on Zombies that are not already focused upon prey. You don't have to tell the undead that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. A Zombie will never leave a known target for a catchy tune in the distance.

Still, sounds do attract Zombies, that is now confirmed by many documented case studies. I do not, however, know of any studies that test to determine if certain music is more effective than others. A simple test would involve placing a Zombie at an equal distance between two stereo systems and playing different types of music on each. I believe further investigation is warranted.

[Solitaire1]

I've done some thinking about zombies. Based on my recent comic book reading, is it possible that zombies are the opposite of what we've thought.

It is generally thought that a zombie is a living human who has caught a virus that converts them into a zombie. However, what if the reverse is true?

It is the virus that is the actual zombie, and it kills the living human. Then it takes over the corpse to provide it with a means to survive and travel since it can't survive in the open air.

The reason zombies move in a very unstead manner is that the virus is of limited intelligence and must rely on an inefficient communcation network between the virus cells to direct movement.

Due to the virus' limited intelligence, it operates in a very simple manner with a basic goal: To seek out new uninfected individuals to provide it with food and space for new zombie virus cells to live. This could be the reason that zombies don't attack other zombies, only living bodies can provide the zombie virus with what it needs (a home and food).

As far as why humans are the main target for the virus, it could be that the human bodies are simply the most accomodating for the virus. It is likely that when there are no uninfected humans left the virus would move on to other living creatures.

Just a theory. What are your thoughts?

[jes1]

I tried out that Veg-O-Matic thingy on a Zombie foot and it worked like a charm, but I put the ooze in a ketchup bottle from the fridge and now I can't find it. (heh, good thing I like mustard.)

That explains why my hamburger tasted odd. I don't feel so good, now.

It is likely that when there are no uninfected humans left the virus would move on to other living creatures.

Zombie chickens or skwirls....too scary.

[jinlo]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

It is generally thought that a zombie is a living human who has caught a virus that converts them into a zombie. However, what if the reverse is true?

It is the virus that is the actual zombie, and it kills the living human. Then it takes over the corpse to provide it with a means to survive and travel since it can't survive in the open air...

Your analysis highlights many of the issues in the on-going debate over whether the infectious agent that leads to a Zombie-state is viral. Viruses take over cell processes of a living organism in order to reproduce, and thus, it seems logical that the virus could redirect other cellular properties as well as synaptic activity. As viruses themselves also straddle the definition of life and death, it seems the perfect explanation for the symptoms prevalent in any Zombie.

The proponents of VCT (Viral Control Theory) believe that a host infected by the Zombie virus will die and all subsequent cellular activity is regulated by alterations in the DNA caused by the virus. This is what I like to call a "puppet master" hypothesis in that the virus now represents the true living organism and is directing all functions of otherwise dead tissue.

Opponents of this theory usually maintain that such parasitic behavior would be beyond the scope of a virus. While it's true a virus can manipulate the host cell in order to reproduce, the ability to stimulate the necessary synaptic activity for complete reanimation would require vast cellular control. Opponents also state the amount and rate of cellular decay rampant in the undead tends to disprove VCT. If cells are being manipulated to allow for reanimation, why are the cells also decaying? The amount of possible viral activity in dead tissue remains a consistent point of contention.

Personally, I like the arguments behind VCT. I think it explains the differences in Zombies we have discussed right here in this thread. If we hold that the infecting agent is actually a virus and this virus can mutate, then we would expect differences in behavioral reanimation. Zombies from one strain might be slow and ponderous, while those infected by a different strain could be fast and agile. A certain viral strain might cause the host to search out brains and only brains, while a mutated strain might be more than happy with any flesh it can get its mouth upon.

[jinlo]

Originally Posted by jes1

That explains why my hamburger tasted odd. I don't feel so good, now.

Really? That's great! uhmmm... I mean sorry about that. Carelessness on my part. Totally inexcusable.

But in truth, this is a great opportunity. We've never been able to study the effects of Zombie ooze ingested with ordinary food. We could never convince a test subject to eat the stuff.

I think a quarantine is in order.

[Solitaire1]

jinlo wrote as part of a post:

Originally Posted by jinlo

Opponents of this theory usually maintain that such parasitic behavior would be beyond the scope of a virus. While it's true a virus can manipulate the host cell in order to reproduce, the ability to stimulate the necessary synaptic activity for complete reanimation would require vast cellular control. Opponents also state the amount and rate of cellular decay rampant in the undead tends to disprove VCT. If cells are being manipulated to allow for reanimation, why are the cells also decaying? The amount of possible viral activity in dead tissue remains a consistent point of contention.

One reason the cells are decaying is that the virus is unable to maintain the existing cells and those cells wear out over time. It is similar to someone using a car without maintaining it. At first the car is fine, but without regular maintenance such as oil changes and tune ups the car will eventually break down. In the same way the existing cells wear out since the virus is not maintaining them, it is simply using them.

As far as the virus being able to maintain and control a large body, one answer is that the zombie virus is like a swarm of bees or a colony of ants. The individual cells are extremely limited, but as a group they can do many things under the direction of a leader.

This can give us a clue on how to deal with zombies. If the virus functions in a manner similar to bees or ants, then it would have a queen zombie virus cell that directs the actions of the virus as a whole. If you destroy the queen virus cell and prevent the creation of a new one, then the zombie will collapse since the individual zombie virus cells can do little without direction.

[jinlo]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

This can give us a clue on how to deal with zombies. If the virus functions in a manner similar to bees or ants, then it would have a queen zombie virus cell that directs the actions of the virus as a whole. If you destroy the queen virus cell and prevent the creation of a new one, then the zombie will collapse since the individual zombie virus cells can do little without direction.

This is absolutely fascinating!

In essence, you're postulating that a Zombie is nothing more than a mobile virus hive. We can call them MVHs. (I like acronyms.) You're theory also seems to maintain that when a virus replicates itself within the host cells, it would create different varieties in order to operate various functions. I would theorize that a second queen would not be reproduced within the host other than to pass into a new victim. Since the virus is passed through a Zombie bite, it is possible a new queen virus is prepared in cells unique in the mouth.

This definitely requires additional study and perhaps an entire new field of specialists. What we need now is something of a Zombie dentist to extract a tooth from the undead and study the cellular properties.

I wonder if these new dentists would require hazard pay?

[derrell]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

As far as the virus being able to maintain and control a large body, one answer is that the zombie virus is like a swarm of bees or a colony of ants. The individual cells are extremely limited, but as a group they can do many things under the direction of a leader.

This can give us a clue on how to deal with zombies. If the virus functions in a manner similar to bees or ants, then it would have a queen zombie virus cell that directs the actions of the virus as a whole. If you destroy the queen virus cell and prevent the creation of a new one, then the zombie will collapse since the individual zombie virus cells can do little without direction.

Maybe not a specific queen virus cell but something more along the lines of a true dispersed intelligence. The virus seeks out the source of the chemicals in the brain and concentrates there at the beginning of the infection. As the virus multiplies the individual virus cells are able to link up and communicate due to the concentration of essential chemicals until a threshold is reached. It is then able to take control of the host. It could be this virus cooperative concentrated in the brain tissue of the host explains the zombies vulnerability to brain trauma. You have the same effect as a queen virus cell but it may actually be a group.

Since at the point where the virus takes control, the host is no longer alive it might be possible that the virus mimics, although not well, the functions of the hosts nervous system and other systems as well. Since to be able to move and eat the musculature of the zombie has to be getting energy from somewhere. In between feedings the virus could be actually feeding on the nonessential portions of the host body to provide the energy to keep up the search for food and other potential hosts.

This would also explain the observed behavior of consuming body parts other than the brain mentioned earlier. In essence the virus needs two kinds of fuel for the host body. The essential chemicals in the brain to enable it to keep functioning as a higher organism and the more mundane parts to fuel the remains of the host body.

[jinlo]

Originally Posted by derrell

Since at the point where the virus takes control, the host is no longer alive it might be possible that the virus mimics, although not well, the functions of the hosts nervous system and other systems as well. Since to be able to move and eat the musculature of the zombie has to be getting energy from somewhere. In between feedings the virus could be actually feeding on the nonessential portions of the host body to provide the energy to keep up the search for food and other potential hosts.

This would suggest a Zombie is not simply decomposing, but in essence, also going through a process of cellular self-cannibalism. This is brilliant in its inherent logic. An undead organism is probably incapable of normal digestion and the creation of fat cells for energy storage. The internal consumption of what is now basically nonessential tissue matter would rectify this situation.

If this is true, it could be the game changer we've been looking for.

You ask why?

Think about it. If it's not just normal decay that leads to a Zombie's state of decomposition but also the internal consumption of the host's own tissue for energy utilization, then a Zombie will decay faster if its metabolism is increased. I know it would be useless to get the undead interested in aerobics or speed walking, but perhaps there are other methods. Certain diet pills of the past were used to increase metabolism but were banned due to heart attack risk. Could these banned substances be the true "kryptonite" to any Zombie?

[Greenkeeper]

Originally Posted by jinlo

This would suggest a Zombie is not simply decomposing, but in essence, also going through a process of cellular self-cannibalism. This is brilliant in its inherent logic. An undead organism is probably incapable of normal digestion and the creation of fat cells for energy storage. The internal consumption of what is now basically nonessential tissue matter would rectify this situation.

If this is true, it could be the game changer we've been looking for.

But wait, there's more! This may answer a very important question posed earlier in the thread: Why do zombies eat people?

Follow me on this one.

Under the MVH theory, the virus uses the infected host (aka, the zombie) as both a mobile incubator and as a food source. The virus takes up residence throughout the body, infecting every cell and co-opting all normal cellular functions for its own purposes. Any energy it needs at first can simply be drawn from the cells of the host. Once infection spreads to the brain the virus is effectively behind the steering wheel, so to speak. Utilizing the nervous system for its own ends, the virus turns what was once a well adjusted member of society into a flesh-eating monster. But why?

Because, doing all this takes energy, and a lot of it. The virus could just eat cells inside the host, but after a short while this process would cause total decomposition of the host and leave the virus immobile without a new food source. The solution: just hyper-stimulate the part of the brain that controls hunger and the infected host will seek out a new supply of fresh meat. That steaming pile of chewed people stewing in the zombie's guts isn't digested in the normal human fashion, but it is broken down by the virus so that it doesn't have to eat the more functional parts of its host. So, while the host body isn't getting any nutrition out of the meal, the virus is chowing down. This means a well-fed zombie is going to be around for a good long time.

Under this theory, this makes the infections caused by zombie bites only a secondary effect of the virus's one and only motivation: food.

[DixieGal]

Back to the music discussion, may I propose using Gloria Gaynor's disco anthem "I Will Survive" to taunt the zombies into uncoordinated enraged shambles dancing toward the minefield?