Post-ZA Society Standards: What Wine Goes With Bob...?

[Ailianna]

Although actually there are some researchers now who believe that the increased incidents of autism, allergy problems, and a host of other health problems is that children, including infants, aren't exposed to the number and variety of potentially infectious agents as previous generations.  Even just dirt-eating, which parents usually try to stop, can help develop the immune system and make them stronger.  So, it's possible the lack of hygiene is gross to us, (or possibly that's a given) but it may make Judith and any other children born during or just before the end of things better able to withstand illnesses and diseases that trouble their elders.  The CDC never tested whether children born to infected mothers carried the virus, or antibodies...

[maystone]

I'm almost positive that Gareth told Rick that he was going to give them the enlistment speech, but then Rick noticed all of CDB's belongings being worn by the Termites and got the (temporary) jump on them. I don't have a DVR or a copy of the episode, but I swear I remember Gareth kind of taunting Rick about it. I think it was when they were lined up at the trough. I think.

 

It makes sense to me that Gareth would recruit like that. From what we could see of what was left of the original Terminus group in that boxcar, there weren't that many people still breathing. He'd want a bigger and stronger group to insure that they never became cattle again (as Nashville pointed out upthread). I think they probably did come up with their own version of the three questions followed by the ritual eating of a human victim to seal the deal. He wouldn't trust anyone who was tricked into cannibalism, but someone who consciously opted to eat rather than be eaten or someone who didn't have a problem with it to begin with would be forming a social and psychological bond with the rest of the group by joining in on the feast. Martin (Shed Guy) certainly wasn't an original member of Terminus; he was reminiscing to Tyreese about how normal his old life was, and how quickly and easily he changed. He was recruited, as was the guy who didn't keep track of his spent shells because capturing Rick & Co. was his first roundup.

 

Also, Gareth did try to justify the Termites' cannibalism when pleading for his life at the church. Remember him shouting at Rick, "You don't what it's like to be really hungry!" Or words to that effect. I remember being shocked and laughing at the same time, because, yeah, CDB came close to starving several times. They still didn't go there, Gareth. But I think the scumballs who overran the original Terminus did starve them and in return were eaten when Gareth and his crew won their freedom.

 

Great discussion, guys! BTW, a few weeks ago I watched a documentary on PBS that talked about the recent discovery of cannibalism at the Jamestown Colony during the disastrous winter of 1609. No one was killed for food, but several dead bodies were butchered and eaten. Desperate times and all that.

[ghoulina]

Thanks for all those points, maystone. I remembered really having a feeling that the Termites attempted to recruit people in their own way, or at least feel them out. I didn't think their entire group was part of the original ones captured by the scary biker gang. I just couldn't remember the details so well. 

[rab01]

I'd like to add a new ethical question to the hopper -- given that every armed stranger is a potentially deadly threat and given that almost everyone left is armed, how do you decide when it's OK to shoot a stranger? What is it that they do, say or look like before you pull the trigger?

[ParadoxLost]

Thanks for all those points, maystone. I remembered really having a feeling that the Termites attempted to recruit people in their own way, or at least feel them out. I didn't think their entire group was part of the original ones captured by the scary biker gang. I just couldn't remember the details so well. 

 

See I think that they skipped the interesting part of this.  The grill was at the welcome gate to Terminus for one of two reasons.  They are either feeding newcomers as part of a recruitment process or they are making all their victims no better than they are.  Although I bet there is a side of knockout drug or something to get everyone into the train car.

 

I think there is only a very slim chance that Glenn's group didn't eat.  Rick's group only avoided it because he saw their stuff and thangs before the BBQ.  Based on the short time frame and the rib cages laying around I think that everyone goes into the train car.  The only question in my mind is whether everyone usually goes to the trough or did they skip a normal evaluation/ recruitment period because Rick/Daryl/Michonne were clearly dangerous to keep alive.

[Nashville]

Can we twist the topic a bit to cover hygiene in the ZA? I often see my fellow posters here talk about the characters needing to shower and improve their hygiene before getting lucky. Even Rick!

When I was a kid we bathed on Saturday night for Mass the next day and that was it. And we were poor so we bathed in dish detergent! My parents and grandparents grew up with outhouses. There was a sink but no tub or shower, Out of school, I started training as a dental nurse andI lived in a rural area with no knowledge of preventative dentistry. I saw mouths that make the zombies in this show look good and all of those mouths were married with families. I'm very fond of my toothbrush, my shower and my deodorant, but I remember when these things were novelties (and I swear I'm not 100 years old) I wouldn't like to go back to the standards of my childhood but I think I could adapt.

What's the bottom line when it comes to acceptable hygiene levels if the species is to continue?

You're not alone, Irishmaple. My family hails from the hill country around the TN/KY border. TVA didn't even get electricity into my grandparents' neck of the woods until around the time of Nixon's resignation - and without electricity to run water pumps you don't have things like showers, flushable toilets, etc. When I was about 13 I helped install their first indoor plumbing, which also included adding a new room onto the house for a bathroom. Until then, an urge in the middle of the night involved putting on your shoes, grabbing a flashlight, and heading outside to walk the path to the outhouse out back. There were alternatives, of course - especially in winter - but the uninitiated probably REALLY don't want to hear about THAT. :)

So yall think about that the next time you flush the toilet. The things that some people take for granted amaze me sometimes....

Although actually there are some researchers now who believe that the increased incidents of autism, allergy problems, and a host of other health problems is that children, including infants, aren't exposed to the number and variety of potentially infectious agents as previous generations. Even just dirt-eating, which parents usually try to stop, can help develop the immune system and make them stronger. So, it's possible the lack of hygiene is gross to us, (or possibly that's a given) but it may make Judith and any other children born during or just before the end of things better able to withstand illnesses and diseases that trouble their elders. The CDC never tested whether children born to infected mothers carried the virus, or antibodies...

I totally agree. I was only half-joking earlier with my "that which does not kill you makes you stronger" comment. I firmly believe that what began as a (laudable and totally justifiable) effort to reduce infant mortality in the U.S. has gone too far to the extreme, with families attempting to raise their children in as antiseptic an environment as possible. The problem being Mother Earth is not an antiseptic place. Efforts to make it so are:

• Doomed to failure from the start. The earth is too big and too dirty to totally sterilize more than the tiniest parts - and even if you are successful, don't expect it to stick for very long.
• Do not serve the children well in the long run. As Ailianna pointed out, the lack of proper antibody development early in life leads to a host of long-term ailments further on down the road.
• Creates more problems than it solves. Mother Nature is constantly cooking up new bugs for your sneezing and coughing pleasure, and for good (in the grand scheme of things) reason. Virii and bacteria serve a very important purpose in nature, they help thin the herds to keep things in natural balance, and put the brakes on any one species overtaxing available natural resources. Human beings, clever little monkeys that we are, have been extremely successful to date at frustrating her efforts - with the result being the world's human population grown far beyond its own ability to support, entire nations where starvation and disease are the norm, and new diseases entering the mainstream daily as Nature keeps its cookpots simmering. Two perfect examples have been the casual overuse of both antibiotics and antiseptics - both of which have resulted in exciting new strains of antibiotic-resistant diseases, and bacteria resistant to formerly effective methods of eradication.

In the 14th century, the Black Plague killed off approximately half the European/Mediterranean basin human population in a four-year period, with re-occurrences popping up well into the 1600s. Worldwide? About 155-220 million - approximately 37.5% of a world pre-plague population of only about 500 million. How itchy do you think Mother Nature's trigger finger is getting to balance the current-day population of 7.3 billion? Historically speaking, pandemic plagues used to occur about once every 300 years; these days, it's not uncommon for two or three to be running concurrently in different parts of the world. She's trying to kill us off to restore some balance, but our technology has given us the ability to fend off Her best efforts - so far. How long before She cooks up something we can't control, or contain?

In this context, the ZA would appear to be a very -ah- Natural response. ;)

Martin (Shed Guy) certainly wasn't an original member of Terminus; he was reminiscing to Tyreese about how normal his old life was, and how quickly and easily he changed. He was recruited, as was the guy who didn't keep track of his spent shells because capturing Rick & Co. was his first roundup.

Good catch there, maystone! Two thumbs up! :)

I'd like to add a new ethical question to the hopper -- given that every armed stranger is a potentially deadly threat and given that almost everyone left is armed, how do you decide when it's OK to shoot a stranger? What is it that they do, say or look like before you pull the trigger?

Good question. You meet a stranger. What do you do? Do you go Recruiter Daryl, put your trust in strangers, and get betrayed by them? Or do you go Prison Carl, and kill someone who's surrendering to you? Beyond your instincts - which may stink - what's the middle ground?

BTW - did I mention I am LOVING these discussions? God, I must be twisted enough I could use a corkscrew for cover.

ETA: Nixon's resignation, not "registration ". Damn autocorrect.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Nashville

[nodorothyparker]

When I was a kid we bathed on Saturday night for Mass the next day and that was it. And we were poor so we bathed in dish detergent! My parents and grandparents grew up with outhouses. There was a sink but no tub or shower, Out of school, I started training as a dental nurse andI lived in a rural area with no knowledge of preventative dentistry. I saw mouths that make the zombies in this show look good and all of those mouths were married with families. I'm very fond of my toothbrush, my shower and my deodorant, but I remember when these things were novelties (and I swear I'm not 100 years old) I wouldn't like to go back to the standards of my childhood but I think I could adapt.

 

There's a looooong running joke in my family that my mom married my dad for the indoor plumbing.  That was in 1970, so this kind of history isn't as far gone from the more rural parts of the U.S. as people might believe.  There are still country churches and township halls near my parents that only have outhouses and a hand pump.  Everybody I knew growing up had wells and/or cisterns and the idea of showering or bathing every single day just because would have been considered a serious waste of water.  So I was well into my school years before it registered with me that the parts of the Little House books that talk about weekly baths were considered some kind of historical relic and not just a fact of life.

 

I think that's my roundabout way of saying I assume most people would go through that initial period of just feeling gross or disgusting when the water stopped running, but they'd likely adapt fairly quickly.  "Normal" is whatever people define it as in their particular circumstances.  Because keeping clean by modern standards becomes a much more difficult proposition if you have to haul or heat water instead of just running a tap, and when you're already trying to outrun zombies and scavenge food you can probably school yourself to wipe off the filth the best you can as it happens and keep moving.  It probably helps that no one around you looks or smells any better.  My husband, who spent some of his misbegotten youth hitchhiking around the country like something out of a Beat Generation novel, assures me that there comes a point somewhere around 7-10 days after your last shower where your body acclimates itself and you really don't smell anymore or at least you can no longer notice it.  I'm taking his word for it on this, just like I take his word for it that all of our crew probably have raging athlete's foot or worse from their apparent all boots all the time policy.

 

I do like that the few times we've seen our gang finally get access to a decent shower that we've seen them absolutely revel it.  Both at the CDC and after they reached Alexandria characters were wallowing in the luxuriousness of being able to properly brush their teeth or smell clean laundry.  They've adapted to the new normal of being filthy and covered in walker guts half the time, but they haven't forgotten what it's like not to be.  Except for Daryl, apparently.

Edited December 15, 2015 by nodorothyparker

[Irishmaple]

There definitely were alternatives to the outhouses! The chamber pot, for one. I was really young and we lived in a small apartment with a shared bathroom down a set of stairs. Not wanting to schlep her little kids down the stairs in the middle of the night, my mother kept a little pink pottie under the bed. I wonder if Judith will have one!

[Nashville]

There definitely were alternatives to the outhouses! The chamber pot, for one. I was really young and we lived in a small apartment with a shared bathroom down a set of stairs. Not wanting to schlep her little kids down the stairs in the middle of the night, my mother kept a little pink pottie under the bed. I wonder if Judith will have one!

My grandparents called it the honeybucket, but same thing. That's the alternative to which I referred. Ever tried using one of those in the middle of the night, in a house with few or no interior doors? Both sound and smell can be LOUD. I'd usually opt for the Long Walk, even with snow on the ground.

[JBody]

I'd like to add a new ethical question to the hopper -- given that every armed stranger is a potentially deadly threat and given that almost everyone left is armed, how do you decide when it's OK to shoot a stranger? What is it that they do, say or look like before you pull the trigger?

Oh good Lord I would be so dead. I don't know a single person up here who owns a firearm. Oh, scratch that. I have an uncle, in his late 70s, who hunted moose, so there's one. Maybe this is only an issue for the Canadians floating around here.

[Nashville]

Oh good Lord I would be so dead. I don't know a single person up here who owns a firearm. Oh, scratch that. I have an uncle, in his late 70s, who hunted moose, so there's one. Maybe this is only an issue for the Canadians floating around here.

 

In Tennessee, ammo will probably replace the dollar as the new form of currency - everybody will be swapping extras for their own preferred caliber.

[paigow]

In Tennessee, ammo will probably replace the dollar as the new form of currency - everybody will be swapping extras for their own preferred caliber.

Like barefoot John McClane lamenting that "of all the terrorists in the world, I have to kill one with feet smaller than my sister's" ; TN citizens will gripe about killing enemies that use "damn metric bullets".

[paigow]

Real Life cannibalism as loyalty test example...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2899141/Cartel-cannibalism-Mexico-says-drug-gang-members-ate-human-hearts.html

[rab01]

Oh good Lord I would be so dead. I don't know a single person up here who owns a firearm. Oh, scratch that. I have an uncle, in his late 70s, who hunted moose, so there's one. Maybe this is only an issue for the Canadians floating around here.

I don't own a gun and only know a few friends who do (I live in NYC) but I do know what stores sell guns and ammo so if I survived even a few weeks I would be armed by then - as would most people. I'd be instantly dead in the ZA anyway because I live in Manhattan and even Rambo wouldn't make it off this island alive.

 

And, yes ammo makes perfect sense as a currency.

[paigow]

Rambo wouldn't make it off this island alive...

Maybe if the other Expendables showed up...

[Nashville]

TN citizens will gripe about killing enemies that use "damn metric bullets".

  

Hey, we like metric down here - when it comes to ammo, anyway. Lotsa 9mm fanboys running around - although personally, I've always been kind of partial to 10mm myself....

Real Life cannibalism as loyalty test example...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2899141/Cartel-cannibalism-Mexico-says-drug-gang-members-ate-human-hearts.html

So much for that trip to Acapulco.

[paigow]

Hey, we like metric down here - when it comes to ammo, anyway. Lotsa 9mm fanboys running around - although personally, I've always been kind of partial to 10mm myself....

 

Sorry about that...I just have this image in my head of WW2 Army Colt .45 passed down through the generations...kinda like the watch in Pulp Fiction

[Nashville]

Sorry about that...I just have this image in my head of WW2 Army Colt .45 passed down through the generations...kinda like the watch in Pulp Fiction

A 1911 transported in that fashion would be uncomfortable in the extreme.

Seriously.

;>

Another aspect of societal change, though: I strongly suspect open carry will once again be in vogue. Which opens up a whole new can of worms.

[rab01]

Maybe if the other Expendables showed up...

Not even if you added in Bruce Li & Chuck Norris and gave us Snake Pliskin as the group leader.

 

Each midtown office tower has more potential walkers than the horde surrounding Alexandria. The fewer than a dozen land exits would have been destroyed by the same army that firebombed Atlanta and the few boats would be immediately taken away by refugees. Our only chance would be to make like Morgan and clear it one building at a time.

[paigow]

Another aspect of societal change, though: I strongly suspect open carry will once again be in vogue. Which opens up a whole new can of worms.

Wannabe Johnny Ringos riding through downtown ...arguing / cursing in Latin...artistically twirling pistols...looking for lungers...

[Nashville]

Each midtown office tower has more potential walkers than the horde surrounding Alexandria. The fewer than a dozen land exits would have been destroyed by the same army that firebombed Atlanta and the few boats would be immediately taken away by refugees. Our only chance would be to make like Morgan and clear it one building at a time.

Manhattan would definitely be a crappy place to be. I could easily see multiple issues from the get-go:

• Immense walker hordes (already mentioned). They would initially start out in the buildings, but where would they go from there? Stay in the buildings? Infiltrate the stairwells and (gravity generally indicating the path of least resistance) work their way down to the ground floors? Out onto the street?
• Resources = none, except what had already been shipped there pre-ZA. I could easily see each building becoming its own fiefdom - literal "castles in the sky", as humans occupy the top floors and barricade access to lower, walker-infested levels - and each apartment / office / cubicle a village. Competition among the living for what resources do exist is going to get pretty fierce, too, with the "villagers" cowering behind locked doors and attempting to identify anything usable as a weapon should someone (living or otherwise) attempt to kick in that door. Until they run through their stocks, that is, and need/want drives them to become aggressors and start kicking in doors themselves. All of which comes to naught when utilities (water, sewer, electricity) eventually fail - at which point total social devolution into barbarism wouldn't surprise me in the least.
• Communications / trade / transportation - all of which becomes the same thing when the lights go out. With no telephone/tv/internet/etc., it doesn't really matter if you're trying to move people, things OR information; nothing is moving anywhere unless it's carried by hand, and transported by foot. So how to do this with a lobby full of lumbering cannibals? I'd initially had an image of rope bridge "highways" strung between buildings, so nobody had to risk contact with hordes of streetwalkers (the eat-you-and-not-in-a-good-way kind). Given how fast the resource issues are likely to escalate, however, I doubt the King of the Chrysler Building will want to negotiate an access point of vulnerability with the Emperor of Empire State, or vice versa. Guards would be required at the foot of every bridge to (literally) cut access in case raiders try coming across, and MORE guards as armed intra-building escorts for travelers passing along the "highway", to ensure the traveler isn't a spy scoping out your building's resource stores.

All of which comes to naught when the water stops running.

On the whole, I'd suggest making a dash to the waterfront and swimming for it.

Assuming walkers can't swim.

Or float.

Or an (entirely foreseeable) surge of live/dead/undead bodies in the water haven't initiated a corresponding uptick in the number of water-bound predators taking advantage of a plentiful new food source.

Yeah, you're pretty much screwed. ;)

[paigow]

Manhattan would definitely be a crappy place to be. I could easily see multiple issues from the get-go:

Romero zombies would hang around Macy's, Best Buy etc...

Game of Thrones undead definitely avoid the water

All zombies want out of Newark.... maybe it will be renamed New Woodbury by an Ellis Island ferry boat Captain...

[rab01]

Yup, I'm dead so my zombie "survival" plan is to drink whatever whisky I have on hand and probably just stroll outside while still drunk ;)

 

Empire State and Chrysler are instant death traps (no resources and totally unlivable once the power stops). Most of the office towers are worse than you even think because they have no resources and you couldn't even construct walkways between buildings because the windows don't open (bullet-resistant tempered glass - you can maybe break it but then that part of the floor becomes unlivable in the winter) and because there aren't the building materials around to use for suspension bridges. The only habitable places would be a few scattered locations - Columbia University (a discrete set of buildings, surrounding grassy space suitable for farming and surrounded in turn by walls, with usable equipment in the science labs), some of the hospitals (fortresses full of the most valuable ounce-for-ounce supplies in the ZA and powered by their own back-up generators), the main branch of the Library (has Bryant Park attached to it), etc.  Each city block can possibly be fortified as one unit so you might have webs of buildings connecting by rooftop. Each block a kingdom and ten-square blocks a mighty empire. ...

 

Running for the water would be really hard given that every street would be full of traffic jam and every sidewalk full of zombies. Once you got there, the East River just leads to Brooklyn (you're still dead) and the Hudson leads to NJ (which probably makes Georgia look like a picnic).

 

Yup, screwed.

Edited December 16, 2015 by rab01

[Nashville]

Running for the water would be really hard given that every street would be full of traffic jam and every sidewalk full of zombies. Once you got there, the East River just leads to Brooklyn (you're still dead) and the Hudson leads to NJ (which probably makes Georgia look like a picnic).

Yup, screwed.

I think you just described the entire Northeast seaboard.

With the possible exception of parts of Maine's coastline, the population density - and therefore the Z pop density - is simply too high.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nashville

[rab01]

Well, you have a chance once you get more than 20 miles away from any city. Just ask Rick ;)

 

The most densely populated state in the Union is New Jersey and even that has huge swaths that just have semi-isolated horse farms. Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire - all have places where I'd consider holing up but yeah I don't think there is any safety within 60 miles of New York City or similar distances from Boston or Philadelphia.

 

This country is really, really big. The population is relatively small so there are scattered places in pretty much every state that might be made livable but there are some places (like NYC) that would become hell on Earth.

[JBody]

I'd like to think our walkers would freeze in the winter and then we could go around at leisure poking them in the brainstem with a crowbar or lopping their heads off a la Michonne. Obviously the big issue is other people. Population density is pretty low anyway. Head north. The land will suck for large scale farming but animals and fresh water will be plentiful. One could grow some stuff in the short growing season and forage wild plants. Lots of blueberries, blackberries, cranberries, saskatoonberries (beginning to sound like the Forrest Gump dude). We have the First Nations to thank for sumac tea to prevent scurvy. Rosehips too. Man we'd lose a lot of weight, as a nation. I'm not overly fond of those northern lakes though. Boggy. Lots of tannins and tons of leeches. Well, I'm sure I'd get over it quickly, under the circumstances....

[paigow]

The most densely populated state in the Union is New Jersey...  

Cuddy: The hospital is overrun with zombies...

House:  It's just Lupus....

[AwesomO4000]

When I was a kid we bathed on Saturday night for Mass the next day and that was it.

 

You're not alone, Irishmaple. My family hails from the hill country around the TN/KY border. TVA didn't even get electricity into my grandparents' neck of the woods until around the time of Nixon's resignation - and without electricity to run water pumps you don't have things like showers, flushable toilets, etc.

So yall think about that the next time you flush the toilet. The things that some people take for granted amaze me sometimes....

 

When I was a kid, it was a weekly bath too - until I became an early teen, then it was a Monday, Wed, Fri or so shower if I remember correctly. But it was for a different reason - it was often too damn cold! We lived in a smallish town, but we were in town, meaning when the electricity went out - which it didn't do often, but when it did it really went out (usually for a week or two) - the toilets still flushed and the water still worked just fine, however, it was freezing cold. Even when the electricity worked, the water wasn't very hot or for very long, and it, like the house, was mainly heated via heating oil - which wasn't cheap. Which pretty much meant the house wasn't very warm to begin with, so taking a shower was not something you looked forward to. You generally got a tepid shower or a short hot one if you were lucky (so no lingering) and then you got cold when it was over and trying to dry off as quickly as possible.

 

Another aspect of societal change, though: I strongly suspect open carry will once again be in vogue. Which opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

Or like a typical Saturday night at WalMart here in suburban mid Georgia. ; ) Okay, I exagerrate a little, but truthfully my hubby hates having to go into WalMart on a weekend night, because he sees people carrying all over the place (I tend not to notice as much as apparently my brain focuses more on things than people in such situations). Not that hubby objects to guns in theory - he's a hunter himself - but well, WalMart on weekend nights here is a bit on the odd side already. Our first time experiencing it was somewhat of a culture shock. Adding guns to that is a little unnerving. I can't imagine what some bars in the area would be like.

[paigow]

Or like a typical Saturday night at WalMart here in suburban mid Georgia. ; ) Okay, I exagerrate a little, but truthfully my hubby hates having to go into WalMart

What was the body count on Black Friday near you? Puts a whole new twist on "bargain hunting"

[JBody]

Although actually there are some researchers now who believe that the increased incidents of autism, allergy problems, and a host of other health problems is that children, including infants, aren't exposed to the number and variety of potentially infectious agents as previous generations.  Even just dirt-eating, which parents usually try to stop, can help develop the immune system and make them stronger.  So, it's possible the lack of hygiene is gross to us, (or possibly that's a given) but it may make Judith and any other children born during or just before the end of things better able to withstand illnesses and diseases that trouble their elders.  The CDC never tested whether children born to infected mothers carried the virus, or antibodies...

 

I dig this, but it works the other way too.  Without modern medical intervention, nature weeds out the weaklings (not to sound like a throwback eugenicist here, hopefully that's obvious).  Natural selection.  So in this case the ZA is nature righting herself, as Nashville suggested upthread (I think), and to paraphrase good ol' Hershel from S2.  This is the Medea hypothesis, contrary to the Gaia hypothesis.  

https://books.google.com/books?id=so9ZU88OBrEC&pg=PA3&dq=medea+principle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO86_jjePJAhVEox4KHfvFBBMQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=medea%20principle&f=false

[Ocean Chick]

Cuddy: The hospital is overrun with zombies...

House:  It's just Lupus....

 

But it's NEVER Lupus!  Everyone knows that.  ;)

 

I live in a suburb of a large metro area, so hopefully I could make it to less populated areas before the masses surrounded me.  I'd eventually have to deal with herds at some point though, unless I really went off-the-grid.  I'd be hard pressed to farm anything in those areas though.

 

Glad we don't have open-carry around here.  I could only imagine the shoot-outs at the Not-O-K Corral, given the frequency of drive-bies around here.

[paigow]

 Natural selection.  So in this case the ZA is nature righting herself 

Not sure this is natural selection...zombies will eventually hunt every living animal down...unless something evolves - e.g. Planet of the Apes - no species will be around to take down the zombies.

[paigow]

New sub questions...Can demagogues / Ricktators survive ZA?  Is the "Claimer" model more sustainable/ scalable? Which leader would you follow? Which leader are you?

[Nashville]

Not sure this is natural selection...zombies will eventually hunt every living animal down...unless something evolves - e.g. Planet of the Apes - no species will be around to take down the zombies.

 

...in which case some bacteria or virii will evolve to take advantage of the plentiful new growth medium - same as the ZV developed to take advantage of humans.  Unfortunately, at that point there probably won't be many humans left around to enjoy the respite.

[Nashville]

Is the "Claimer" model more sustainable/ scalable?

 

Some random thoughts on that - just throwing this out for discussion:

 

Scalable? My answer: Extremely doubtful.

The "Claimer" model depends upon several primary contextual factors for successful operation:

1. All participants in a Claim group recognize and acknowledge the authority of Claim rules.
2. All claim interactions are one-to-one, between individuals.
3. Claim disputes which cannot be resolved between two individuals are arbitrated by a group-acknowledged "Leader".
4. Authority of the Claim paradigm is enforced by all members of the group against any dissenter(s).

 

Given these parameters, this model could not scale beyond small, isolated groups of loners.

• Small: coalescence of small groups into larger groups increases the potential for many-to-one or many-to-many disputes.  Definite conflict with Factor 2, strong potential conflict with Factor 4.
• Isolated: contact with other groups (especially non-Claim-based groups) virtually ensures interaction - and potential dispute - with people who do not acknowledge the authority of Claim rules.  Conflict with Factor 1.
• Loners: socially interactive personalities present potential for formation of sub-groups - the formative foundations of which may present potential for varying degrees of conflict with all Factors.

 

Sustainable?  Depends of how long a time period you're picture as constituting "sustained", and in what context.  If a group remains small enough, isolated enough, and committed to the Claim model, the group dynamic could be sustained for years - conceivably for the remaining lives of the participants.  Introduction of any changes to the core group, however, introduce potential for Factor conflicts which could fragment the group in very short order.

 

 

ETA another issue which has potential impact upon scalability: what happens to Claim conflicts when the Leader - the one with authority and responsibility to resolve all irreconcilable disputes - is one of the parties in an irreconcilable dispute?  Does the Leader automatically win all such cases?  How does that play with new group members, who may or may not have had a say in selecting a pre-existing Leader?

Edited December 29, 2015 by Nashville

[paigow]

ETA another issue which has potential impact upon scalability: what happens to Claim conflicts when the Leader - the one with authority and responsibility to resolve all irreconcilable disputes - is one of the parties in an irreconcilable dispute?  Does the Leader automatically win all such cases?  How does that play with new group members, who may or may not have had a say in selecting a pre-existing Leader?

Ideally, a rational / enlightened leader may define a conflict resolution template that does not involve "Thunderdome" combat. Such that when the leader is directly involved, a "jury" could decide the case based on precedent / guidelines.  "In the Claimer Justice System, the people are represented by..." [Dun Dun]

[Nashville]

Ideally, a rational / enlightened leader may define a conflict resolution template that does not involve "Thunderdome" combat. Such that when the leader is directly involved, a "jury" could decide the case based on precedent / guidelines.  "In the Claimer Justice System, the people are represented by..." [Dun Dun]

 

At its heart, "Claimism" is a social construct of group support for individual interest - i.e., having a group to back up your Claim rights when challenged.  As such, participatory motives are inherently selfish; Claimers participate in the process simply because there are strength in numbers, and each individual participant can foresee a situation where they may require the support of others to back up their Claims.

 

While I hesitate to apply the term "enlightened" to Claimer Joe, I would consider him extremely rational - and as a pragmatic rationalist of selfish motivation, I don't see Joe ever relinquishing control to a group of likewise-selfish motivations for any reason, for any length of time.  Rather, I would see Joe (or any other Claimer Leader, for that matter) acting in a manner which mimics "fairness" as much as possible in decisions, to strengthen and solidify his support base - which could conceivably see him forfeiting the short-term gratification of unilaterally declaring himself the victor in a single Claim dispute in order to advance his own selfish long-term goals.  Failing that, I could see Joe simply making the choice which benefits him most, and depending upon the pack mentality to back it up.

[paigow]

Which system is more likely to be the primordial soup of Law & Order? Is a code that punishes lying, yet encourages rape & exploitation better than nothing? Can it evolve into a federation of claimer clans that "sign" non-aggression pacts because each lacks the resources for war? 

[Nashville]

Which system is more likely to be the primordial soup of Law & Order? Is a code that punishes lying, yet encourages rape & exploitation better than nothing? Can it evolve into a federation of claimer clans that "sign" non-aggression pacts because each lacks the resources for war? 

 

Purely guesswork on my part, but I'd say - parts of both, and all of neither.  :)

 

A few of my thoughts (with which anybody is perfectly free to agree/disagree):

1. A zombie plague is virtually* guaranteed to be a civilization crasher.  Once the infected population mass reaches a critical mass/tipping point, formal human-supplied societal maintenance structures (police, medical, fire, public works, etc.) will immediately collapse.
2. In each infected geographic area, initial survivors will immediately fall into three primary classes: "bug-outs" who immediately evacuate, "bug-ins" who remain and barricade their residence, and "looters" who take advantage of the relative lawlessness to steal any/all resources they can lay their hands on.  In this dynamic looters are operationally antagonistic toward all others.  Bug-outs are easily engaged on the street, but (a) represent smaller supply scores and (b) are at best a rapidly diminishing resource.  Bug-ins are stationary and represent larger stores of supplies, but are also possibly better able to defend against looters (solid structures, more weapons, more ammo, etc.).
3. Maintenance of coherent military operations is a bit fuzzier, depending upon how quickly - or if - the military acknowledges the unwinnable nature of a "tipped" population and evacuates.  Whether due to death or evacuation, however, the resultant protection vacuum for remaining survivors is indistinguishable.
4. Once the military presence is gone (and with it the last vestige of any form of law enforcement), all affected/infected large population centers will devolve - at least partially - into an "every man for himself" survival mode.  The only exceptions may be, for lack of a better term, "neighbor-nations" - groups of people in specific bounded locations (ex. inner-city apartment buildings, suburban neighborhoods) who immediately establish defensive cooperatives to protect their common ground from both zombies AND looters.
5. Without public works support to maintain them, public infrastructure systems (electricity, water, sewer, communications) will eventually fail - and with them, many of the defensive cooperatives.  Inner-city neighbor-nations will be especially hard-hit, due to lack of alternate resource sources (particularly water).  More bug-ins will become bug-outs - or quite possibly become looters themselves.
6. The "every man for himself" stage will actually be pretty brief, as it won't take long for ALL classes to recognize the value of greater strength in numbers.  Individual looters will coalesce into raiding parties (enter groups such as the Claimers).  Individual bug-ins will either join existing neighbor-nations, form new neighbor-nations, relocate to stronger defenses, become bug-outs, or succumb to raiders.  Individual bug-outs are trickier; some loners may opt to stay alone and attempt to slide under the raiders' radar as low-value targets, while some may form defensive camps - a mobile form of the neighbor-nation.  Depending upon the organizational hierarchies established and the personalities establishing them, some of the neighbor-nations may start to resemble the beginnings of a dictatorship.
7. At this point, it's all about stuff (aka survival resources); raiding groups are trying to steal stuff, while neighbor-nations and defensive camps are trying to both defend their stuff AND acquire more stuff.  At this point, ALL groups loot to some degree; the only difference between raiders and the others is the degree to which looting is depended upon for survival (hint: raiders = 100%). All this against a backdrop environment of undead cannibals who couldn't give a tin shit about your stuff - they just want YOU.
8. One thing is certain, though: with the singular exception of subsistence farming communities with some effective degree of natural defense (islands, inaccessible plateau/mountain/mesa locations, etc.), EVERYBODY will eventually end up mobile to some degree.  They won't have a choice; local resources will eventually get used up, and it will be move or starve. 
9. The mobile defensive camp (aw heck, let's call them "tribes" now) becomes the next stage of "standard life" for a long while - until the zombie threat has been reduced enough to create a quasi-stasis, at least, and that's a lot of undead to be re-deaded. 

 

IMHO there will be very little political advancement beyond those systems capable of following the tribal model until the zombie threat has been reduced enough to permit the re-establishment of permanent, geographically static communities - because only then will you have a large enough coalesced population base to support their development.

 

 

* I emphasize "virtually" because a few scenarios can be posited whereby initial infections are identified, contained, and neutralized before the infection can spread (ex. the infamous "government lab").  Such scenarios require quarantine-level isolation of infection victims from any significantly sized external population from the earliest stages of infection, however.  Unless the initial infections were intentionally introduced in a controlled quarantine environment, I doubt 100% containment would be achievable.

[NorthstarATL]

the only "fly in the ointment", and part of what makes the world of WD so intriguing, is that within each of your original groupings (bug-ins, bug-outs, looters), which make sense, is the potential for an accidental or unexpected death-and-turn, which throws off the dynamic. If you're, say, lucky enough to have a bomb shelter in North Georgia, or you manage to get to one of the Keys, you still have the worry about someone in your immediate vicinity making a meal of you. I'd like to imagine that post-ZA I'd be Michonne, but, seeing as how I rely upon a daily dose of meds to survive in the real world, it's more likely I'd wind up raiding Grady and going out like Beth! LOL!

[Nashville]

First, a preemptive clarification on the terminology I'm employing.  I wrote my preceding post with the mindset that "looting" referred to human attacks upon other humans to acquire supplies already possessed by another.  Acquiring supplies not actively in possession of or defended by another person - going through abandoned stores, for example - would be simple scavenging.  In retrospect, "raiding" may have been a clearer term of my intent - but I've already used THAT to refer to larger collectives of looters, so I'll keep the revisionism down to a minimum.  :)

 

In any case, the bigger fly in the ointment IMHO will be the potential for crossovers between classes - bug-outs becoming looters, for example. 

By definition, bug-outs will be limited by their means of transport as to how many supplies they can carry.  An adult with a backpack, for example, will be hard-pressed to carry more than a week's worth of provisions for themselves and immediate family, even if they had a bug-out bag prepped and waiting by the front door.  What happens at the end of that week if the food runs out, your family is hungry, and you can't find anything to scavenge?  Same question applies even if they're not hoofing it out of the hot zone with nothing more than what they're carrying on their backs.  The family truckster may be loaded to the brim with enough supplies for several months - but eventually all those supplies will be consumed, will expire or spoil, or be lost to looters.  The quantity of supplies is immaterial to the question; it only varies the time delay before the question becomes a mandate.

 

Same question applies to bug-ins as well.  Unless the bug-in in question was SERIOUSLY into "prepping", the bug-in survivors will outlast their supplies.  In truth, this is the key component to why I said eventually everyone will be mobile.  Scavenging in the immediate vicinity will extend the viability of a bug-in's home base; at some point, however, there won't  be anything left to scavenge - or loot - and they'll have to leave their happy home to find more.

 

Grady was a demonstration of the logical extreme of the bug-in concept - solar power, water source, and a replenishing source of food both animal and vegetable.  Even with all that, however, there were still unmet supply needs which required scavenging/looting, and the search for these needed supplies already had the LollyCops extending their search out to something like a 150-mile radius from home base - AND they're only bringing back a carload at a time. 

What happens when the scavenging/looting runs start taking two days - three days - a week?  Even if nothing else gets them first, THAT will be the death knell for Grady and other similar bug-ins - when runs take so long the home base folk go through more supplies in a run's duration than the run can replenish.

 

Bug-ins could conceivably do nothing more than hopscotch to another location and begin their process anew.  Between scouting and identifying a new location, transporting people and remaining supplies, fortifying the new base camp, AND re-establishing the replenishables, however, there's still going to be a fairly significant window of vulnerability - to attacks from both zombies and (other) looters - before it's Business As Usual again.

[Bongo Fury]

In my opinion, a tribe surviving by scavenging/looting is unsustainable. We've done the math before, 2000 calories a day for an active adult translates to 9-10 cans of food. For CDB as an example with 13 adults and an infant, that is roughly 120 cans of food each day to keep that group going. Even if Daryl supplements half of their food needs with his mad hunting skills, that's still 60 cans a day they have to scrounge. Going through buildings systematically and searching all the cupboards and all the drawers takes a lot of time, and a lot of effort, and it's dangerous. Scrounging is a tough existence. And really, a year and a half into the ZA, how much food and other supplies will still be around to scavenge? Not much, definitely not 60 cans a day. 

 

So a tribe or neosociety will have to be self sustaining in some form or another. Which means farming, ranching, hunting, or fishing, or some combination thereof. A hunter/gatherer society will obviously work as people survived in America for thousands of years doing so. But that existence necessitates the group giving up most modern technology, and living a more bronze age lifestyle. A community based on farming, ranching and or fishing will necessarily be a more fixed society, so they will need to secure their location from threats both living and dead. Which means a sizable community commitment to defense and building defensive positions. So I think these communities will need to be larger than a hunter/gatherer group, safety in numbers and more laborers needed to support the fighters (resource producing and 'support' members of the community). 

 

A farming community (or such) might also very well take a significant step back technologywise. But not necessarily. I think the best chance for a community/society to form and for them to have a chance to rebuild the world, they will need to secure some sort of asset that allows them to maintain as much technology as possible. For example, I've talked in the past about centering a community on one of those Marcellus shale gas wells that are popping up all over the mid Atlantic. Something like that could supply a community of 500 people with natural gas for decades, that they could use to run electric generators, vehicles, factories, workshops, etc. So instead of subsistence dirt farming, the community can use near modern farming technology to increase yields tremendously, with substantially less manpower. But anything that lets the community retain technology will be a huge benefit; a large solar power array (not the dinky little thing in Alexandria, I have a friend with a bigger array in his back yard), a hydroelectric plant, a wind farm, even a N-plant.

 

Because I think size is a key to building a thriving community. You need enough people so that you can allow specialization and community support. If everyone in a group is needed to scavenge cans every day or everyone has to go work the fields, there isn't time for community building, it is just hand to mouth existence. A community of 500 members could support an 'army' of 100 people. What is a group like the Wolves going to do when they encounter trained troops in numbers several times their own when they attack a community? It won't be wolves slaughtering sheep like in Shirewilt or somewhat in Alexandria, no against an organized community the Wolves will become the sheep.  And a community that can support a 100 person army never gets surprised by a group like the Wolves in the first place, because they scout the area, and clean out all threats PROACTIVELY. 

[AwesomO4000]

The site ate my carefully thought out post, so please excuse me while I try to put what I was trying to say back together without getting really annoyed...

In my opinion, a tribe surviving by scavenging/looting is unsustainable. We've done the math before, 2000 calories a day for an active adult translates to 9-10 cans of food.

 

While I agree that in the long term, scavenging/looting would likely not be sustainable, smaller groups might increase their chances by concentrating on the right kind of provisions. Not all canned goods are created equal, for example. Many types of canned goods can have higher calorie counts and multiple servings. Things like chilies, hearty soups, pastas with meat, etc. can have higher calorie counts and multiple servings per can. I wouldn't want to try to imagine, for example, how many calories were in Carl's big can of pudding.

 

Also dry goods, like pasta and instant potatoes can have large numbers of servings with relatively little weight and even sometimes space. Smaller, denser pasta like orzo for example, can have about 8 servings in a small, one pound package the size of a medium can. A box of crackers or a bag of cookies can have large numbers of servings of 150+ calories in one container. So theoretically, for example, a one pound bag of pasta, a large can of tomato sauce, a couple of large cans of baked beans or chili (especially with meat), and a half a package of cookies for dessert could make a good meal for 6 people if a source of water could be found and a non-zombie-attracting fire (say in a pit in the daytime) could be made. So instead of a whole bunch of cans, theoretically 3 large cans,* one bag of pasta, and a cellophane container of cookies (like one of those cheap ones with the "sandwich creams" and a whole mess of cookies in them) could provide 6 or so people with a good chunk of their required calories for that day (depending on the cookies consumed and the calorie count in the cans of chili, maybe close to half.)

 

So if scavenging was conducted with that in mind, concentrating on the higher calorie, multiple serving cans and higher serving dried foodstuffs for collecting, this could drop the number and weight of supplies needed to be scavenged. Canned fruits generally have multiple servings and also can provide juice and needed vitamins, so might also be a good choice, but vegetables might best be consumed on the spot or drained and combined in a lighter container - such as plastic bags - to be consumed immediately upon arrival back to camp, saving space in the scavenging container for the higher calorie, higher serving size cans and dried goods.

 

* Not the huge cans, but the 30 or so ounce can of tomato sauce and the long cans of baked beans or chili - I don't recall the size exactly, but probably close to the same 30 ounces as the tomato sauce. If I remember correctly, they have about 8 servings per can or so... 6 at least.

[Nashville]

In my opinion, a tribe surviving by scavenging/looting is unsustainable. We've done the math before, 2000 calories a day for an active adult translates to 9-10 cans of food. For CDB as an example with 13 adults and an infant, that is roughly 120 cans of food each day to keep that group going. Even if Daryl supplements half of their food needs with his mad hunting skills, that's still 60 cans a day they have to scrounge. Going through buildings systematically and searching all the cupboards and all the drawers takes a lot of time, and a lot of effort, and it's dangerous. Scrounging is a tough existence. And really, a year and a half into the ZA, how much food and other supplies will still be around to scavenge? Not much, definitely not 60 cans a day.

 

The site ate my carefully thought out post, so please excuse me while I try to put what I was trying to say back together without getting really annoyed...

 

While I agree that in the long term, scavenging/looting would likely not be sustainable, smaller groups might increase their chances by concentrating on the right kind of provisions. Not all canned goods are created equal, for example. Many types of canned goods can have higher calorie counts and multiple servings. Things like chilies, hearty soups, pastas with meat, etc. can have higher calorie counts and multiple servings per can. I wouldn't want to try to imagine, for example, how many calories were in Carl's big can of pudding.

 

Also dry goods, like pasta and instant potatoes can have large numbers of servings with relatively little weight and even sometimes space. Smaller, denser pasta like orzo for example, can have about 8 servings in a small, one pound package the size of a medium can. A box of crackers or a bag of cookies can have large numbers of servings of 150+ calories in one container. So theoretically, for example, a one pound bag of pasta, a large can of tomato sauce, a couple of large cans of baked beans or chili (especially with meat), and a half a package of cookies for dessert could make a good meal for 6 people if a source of water could be found and a non-zombie-attracting fire (say in a pit in the daytime) could be made. So instead of a whole bunch of cans, theoretically 3 large cans,* one bag of pasta, and a cellophane container of cookies (like one of those cheap ones with the "sandwich creams" and a whole mess of cookies in them) could provide 6 or so people with a good chunk of their required calories for that day (depending on the cookies consumed and the calorie count in the cans of chili, maybe close to half.)

 

So if scavenging was conducted with that in mind, concentrating on the higher calorie, multiple serving cans and higher serving dried foodstuffs for collecting, this could drop the number and weight of supplies needed to be scavenged. Canned fruits generally have multiple servings and also can provide juice and needed vitamins, so might also be a good choice, but vegetables might best be consumed on the spot or drained and combined in a lighter container - such as plastic bags - to be consumed immediately upon arrival back to camp, saving space in the scavenging container for the higher calorie, higher serving size cans and dried goods.

 

* Not the huge cans, but the 30 or so ounce can of tomato sauce and the long cans of baked beans or chili - I don't recall the size exactly, but probably close to the same 30 ounces as the tomato sauce. If I remember correctly, they have about 8 servings per can or so... 6 at least.

 

A couple of things to consider:

 

Bongo Fury - I would respectfully modify your statement to say scavenging is an unsustainable model in the long run.  Scavenging fails as a long-term prospect because the resource of pre-ZA-processed canned food is by definition a finite and dwindling resource; there is no longer a production process to replenish that which is scavenged, and spoilage will accelerate depletion of the resource with the passage of time. 

That being said - scavenging is an option in the short term, and I would go so far to say it is an optimal strategy, for a couple of reasons:

1. The food has already been processed, it's sitting on grocery shelves and pantries, and its spoilage clock is already running.  Survivors would be foolish not to avail themselves of pre-packaged portable calories before spoilage, especially if/when their survival group is in a highly mobile state and unable to cultivate long-term sustenance alternatives.
2. Developing self-sustaining long-term alternative food sources takes a LOT of three elements - time, work, and luck.  Pure hunter/gatherer is not a realistic long-term option for a group which wants to put down roots; anthropological data indicates an area of about 10 square miles per person is required to sustain long-term hunting or foraging without debilitating available resources past the point of recovery, so hunting/gathering would realistically serve as a supplemental (not primary) food resource (not an issue, of course, for a mobile group - they can hunt an area bare, then simply move on).  Optimal long-term sustainability for a stationary group should therefore be focused on farming - 1/2 acre can generate a sustainable quantity of food per person - but that has its own drawbacks as well.  From first planting to full harvest will be a time interval of several months - during which the farmers will also be eating more as well, because farming is HARD work - all day, every day - and they'll be burning more calories doing it.  How will they sustain life until the land starts producing enough to be considered a dependable resource?  And that's assuming no problems with weather, insects, blight, etc.  What happens when it doesn't rain - or rains too much - or your entire crop is ravaged by locusts, grasshoppers, cutworms, etc.?

 

On the subject of calories - I think the estimate of 2,000 calories a day is, to put it mildly, wildly optimistic in the extreme.  For our intrepid band of survivors, a healthy balanced 2,000-calories-a-day diet will be the stuff of dreams long gone.  They'll be perfectly happy to simply avoid starvation, which sets the bar much lower.  NIH's lowest recommended daily caloric intake for women and men is 1,200 and 1,500 calories, respectively; to avoid starvation, I think survivors would be pleased as punch with anything north of 1,000 calories a day.  If supplemented with hunting/foraging, this would cut their canned food consumption down to roughly half of the previously cited estimates - and as AwesomO4000 has already observed, being judicious about selecting high-calorie foodstuffs could reduce their packed food volume even further.

 

There's no doubt survival should not depend absolutely upon scavenging prepackaged food sources, especially since the day will come sooner rather than later when such will no longer exist in a usable form.  Until long-term alternatives can be brought to fruition, however, I don't see survivors as having any realistic alternatives.

[AwesomO4000]

I revise my above meal recipe... forget the tomato sauce. Nice for taste, but upon further assessment: low in calories. Instead make that above meal with two one-pound packages of pasta (I prefer whole wheat, but whatever you can get) and two 28 oz cans of chili. I'm not sure about the calorie content of chili since I don't have that on hand, (because I usually make my own), but kidney beans alone are 100 calories a serving with 6 servings in a can, so I'll estimate about 125 calories a serving for a chili and if it had meat I think that's probably conservative. Or maybe better one chili and one baked beans. The dry pasta has 8 servings of 200 calories per pound. So with 2 packages of pasta and two cans of chili, 6 people could have two servings of pasta and two of the chili beans/baked beans. That alone should provide approximately a 650+ calorie meal per person... add the high calorie cookies I mentioned above, and you'd have 6 well fed people with a relatively small amount of food.

 

Lots of stuff could replace the cookies, too. Most snack crackers are likewise lightweight and high in calories - I had a package of Goldfish in the pantry that I think had 5+ servings of 150 calories in a 5 oz package. I bet that a bag of corn chips or tortilla chips would be a lightweight, high calorie goldmine. Another great high calorie food source I forgot... quick cooking oatmeal. A 21 oz container has 15 servings of 150 calories. And that's just the plain stuff... Find the flavored instant variety and the calorie count would likely rise. Potentially good for you and high in energy too.

 

Okay turning my inner food/nutrition nerd off now... sorry about that. For some strange reason, I find banal "food facts" fascinating. I read food labels when I shop... and cook. It's a sickness.

[Bongo Fury]

A fundamental aspect of a society is the standard of living they aspire to. This drives the steps they take to provide for their citizens. So I aspire to a balanced 2000 calorie diet for my citizens. In times of need must citizens expect to get by on short rations, 1000 cal/d? Absolutely. Will there be times when people get a diet devoid of fruits and vegetables? Sure. But the goal is to provide a healthy diet for the community so that the citizens are strong and healthy and can work hard to build a new society. I came up with the 9-10 cans a day by going to my pantry and seeing what a balanced 2000 calorie diet really was, just to get an idea of how much scavenging it really takes to survive. And it caused me to conclude /it unsustainable as a primary survival method. You just can't scrounge that much, people have already eaten/taken everything already. Look at the big haul of food CDB got from the flooded basement when Bob got bit, that was a nice pile of food they walked away with. But in reality it was only enough for a few days for all those people. At the beginning of the ZA scavenging is viable, but where we are in the story now it's all dried up.

 

A community along a coast that could support fishing boats could probably support a pretty big population with fish as a primary food source. You'd need a pretty big farming effort to balance the diet and to provide mash to distill into alcohol to fuel the fishing boats and farm equipment. It'd be a lot of work, but you have a near limitless source of protein. 

[AngelaHunter]

I have nothing to add to this discussion at the moment, but finally have to say: Bongo Fury? Every time I see your handle, I start giggling. It's great for improving my mood!

[nodorothyparker]

The idea of eating a well balanced diet is a rather modern one and one that would probably go out the window pretty quickly in our scenario.  People historically ate what was available and either survived and periodically suffered diseases associated with poor nutrition like scurvy and rickets or didn't.  Laura Ingalls Wilder was famously only about 4 1/2 feet tall at least probably in part as a result from the often scanty shit diet she describes in her books.  My own mom, she of the no indoor plumbing and oldest of a dozen kids of Depression-era parents, can still tell stories of days of meals of only bread and milk by late winter/early spring when most of the preserved food stores were gone.  Work still had to get done though, even if you weren't really getting the proper calories and nutrition to fuel it.  Our survivors probably wouldn't be in a much different place for many years until they mastered that whole self-sufficiency thing.

[rab01]

The shelf life of canned goods is a lot longer than we think it is. The expiration date is for when the food starts to lose some of its flavor and appearance but there have been studies showing that it is still safe to eat for a looong time after that.  Whether and for how long a group could survive on looting depends on how many people survived the onset of the ZA after the end of manufacturing. If less than 1% of the population survived the first week, then why couldn't a town of under 100 people (like Alexandria) survive the first five years just on what they can raid from homes, stores and warehouses?

 

Also, if people return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, the amount of work required is much lower than we've been discussing on this thread -- it's a pretty prevalent theory that hunter-gatherers worked less than 20 hours per week. That leaves plenty of time left over for other activities (like clearing rock quarries of zombies in more permanent ways than parades).

[Nashville]

The shelf life of canned goods is a lot longer than we think it is. The expiration date is for when the food starts to lose some of its flavor and appearance but there have been studies showing that it is still safe to eat for a looong time after that.

Absolutely. The expiration date marked on canned goods usually has to do more with the last sale date (the last date a grocery can keep it stocked on the shelves) than the last consumption date (the last date at which it can be safely consumed). I learned during my young broke days canned food generally has at least a year after the marked expiration date when it can be safely consumed, sometimes much more. Groceries will rarely clarify this shoppers, as it is their best interest for you to toss - and re-purchase - foodstuffs the day after the marked expiration date.

As rab01 noted, smell and taste may be affected after the expiration date; in a post-ZA world where the choice may be between an old can of Spam versus the Rodent Of The Day, however, I suspect people might be a LOT less persnickety about their diet. ;)

It should be noted this doesn't change the fact that scavenging has limited feasibility as a long-term survival strategy; it does, however, extend the time window during which scavenging is a feasible alternative.

Whether and for how long a group could survive on looting depends on how many people survived the onset of the ZA after the end of manufacturing. If less than 1% of the population survived the first week, then why couldn't a town of under 100 people (like Alexandria) survive the first five years just on what they can raid from homes, stores and warehouses?

Definitely a valid point for consideration, and to a large extent dependent upon the primary nature/class of survivors present in the area. If the area has/had a large static population (long-term bug-ins, for example, or looter/raiders with a central base of operations), then the store shelves are far more likely to be stripped as resources are stockpiled in a controlled/defended location; the stores still exist, but are inaccessible without a fight. If the area's survivor population consisted primarily of roamers (bug-outs or un-homed looter/raiders) there's likely to be far more stuff remaining on the shelves, as the survivors' consumption will be limited to what they can carry.

 

Also, if people return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, the amount of work required is much lower than we've been discussing on this thread -- it's a pretty prevalent theory that hunter-gatherers worked less than 20 hours per week. That leaves plenty of time left over for other activities (like clearing rock quarries of zombies in more permanent ways than parades).

After reading this, it occurred to me: the 10-square-mile-per-person hunting-gathering estimate I referenced is based on current fish and game population estimates. With an assumed decimation of 90% of the human population, I wonder... how much there might be a corresponding increase in wild game and plant populations, since their competition with humans (viable habitats, lack of hunting to control population growth, etc.) is so drastically decreased? If there were such a population explosion, I think it would be reasonable to expect animal/plant densities per square mile would increase - which translates into a reduction in the number of square miles required per person, as each square mile would yield greater harvests without depletion.

Just a thought.... ;)