Scientists reveal how to survive a real-world zombie apocalypse.....

[Derek 2.0]

....In case you were wondering:

The Cornell team ran a simulation on a real map of America, with 300 million people.

‘At their heart, the simulations are akin to modeling chemical reactions taking place between different elements and, in this case, we have four states a person can be in—human, infected, zombie, or dead zombie—with approximately 300 million people,’ says Cornell’s Alex Alemi.

‘Given the dynamics of the disease, once the zombies invade more sparsely populated areas, the whole outbreak slows down—there are fewer humans to bite, so you start creating zombies at a slower rate,’ he says – recommending that people should head for nearby mountains if there actually is a zombie outbreak.

Pop-culture meets epidemic modeling. Interesting (and smart) of Cornell to jump on the Zombie bandwagon to further the exposure to epidemic modeling, the science behind predicting how diseases both spread and their potential size & scope, and of course, how to control epidemics. I think using "zombies", instead of Ebola, HIV/AIDS or the common flu, will receive greater attention from the general public versus more realistic traditional press releases or published papers......that nobody outside of healthcare professionals read or heed today.

Case in point, several years ago the American CDC launched their own Zombie pandemic page....through the use of pop culture and tongue-cheek humor, the CDC was able to convey to millions the importance of having ones own household "zombie survival kit", that could also be used in the event of an Earthquake or Tornado etc.....

-----

My question, is this an indictment of what our society has actually become? In that, decades ago, the Government under the auspices of public safety, could convey knowledge and advice and "the people" listened, be it "duck and cover", getting vaccinated for a disease or AIDS/Drug awareness etc....Now, as a society, do "the people" really require a spoonful of pop-culture laden sugar to help the medicine go down? Have we become the zombies?

In my mind, if not for the appearance of (Government) control, we truly are separated between a fine, fragile, line between modern, civilized society (or what we have today) and Darwinism writ large.......

[Bonam]

In my mind, if not for the appearance of (Government) control, we truly are separated between a fine, fragile, line between modern, civilized society (or what we have today) and Darwinism writ large.......

People are what they always have been. There is no inherent or genetic difference worth mentioning between the civilized Westerner of today, the Roman slaver, the Viking berserker, or an ancient hunter from pre-historic times. The only difference is the society and technology that people are surrounded by. Take away all the advancements that let us not have to worry about any of our basic needs, that put a whole world of information at our fingertips, and humans revert to what they have been throughout the other 99% of the history of the species.

As for how various government organs communicate with the population... that is also a matter of culture and technology, and will change as those things change. Why would you expect communication to maintain the same tone and style as it did decades ago when all of the most prominent modes of communication we use today didn't even exist yet. In the time you speak of, the information flowing at any given person was limited, a few TV channels, maybe a few magazines or newspapers. People absorbed all the programming including boring government messages, because there was only so much content being thrown at them. Today, the world around you is saturated with information. There is no end to the content you might choose to view, and even if you spent your whole life doing nothing but reading information released by the government, you'd probably never have time to absorb even 1% of all the information from the government that was available. To reach a wide audience, content needs to be presented in a way likely to catch people's interest and attention, otherwise it gets lost in the noise.

And if you think this is silly, just wait another 30 years, when the world will have been reshaped by technology to be as unrecognizable to us as the world of today would be to people from 100 years ago.

[Michael Hardner]

As for how various government organs communicate with the population... that is also a matter of culture and technology, and will change as those things change. Why would you expect communication to maintain the same tone and style as it did decades ago when all of the most prominent modes of communication we use today didn't even exist yet. In the time you speak of, the information flowing at any given person was limited, a few TV channels, maybe a few magazines or newspapers. People absorbed all the programming including boring government messages, because there was only so much content being thrown at them. Today, the world around you is saturated with information. There is no end to the content you might choose to view, and even if you spent your whole life doing nothing but reading information released by the government, you'd probably never have time to absorb even 1% of all the information from the government that was available. To reach a wide audience, content needs to be presented in a way likely to catch people's interest and attention, otherwise it gets lost in the noise.

And if you think this is silly, just wait another 30 years, when the world will have been reshaped by technology to be as unrecognizable to us as the world of today would be to people from 100 years ago.

Even though I already understood this, reading your post reinforced it and made me think about it some more. The 'public service message' of 30, 40 years ago ... read in a sombre tone ... is gone, replaced by President Obama appearing on 'between two ferns'.

[Mighty AC]

Common Craft summarized how to survive the Zombie Apocalypse in this handy 3 minute video. This could save your life one day so please take the time watch.

[Derek 2.0]

People are what they always have been. There is no inherent or genetic difference worth mentioning between the civilized Westerner of today, the Roman slaver, the Viking berserker, or an ancient hunter from pre-historic times. The only difference is the society and technology that people are surrounded by. Take away all the advancements that let us not have to worry about any of our basic needs, that put a whole world of information at our fingertips, and humans revert to what they have been throughout the other 99% of the history of the species.

I fully agree, look no further than lawless regions throughout the World or the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.....or the brutality of ISIS etc. Without a doubt, John Locke believed civilized man could govern him/herself, even so, without the appearance of government control and rule of law, we'd be flinging our poop at each other....In a sense, Thomas Hobbes was correct, and in modern society, we've replaced the absolute Monarch with President or Prime Minister, ceding our natural rights in exchange for a guarantee that is ultimately to most of our benefit.

As for how various government organs communicate with the population... that is also a matter of culture and technology, and will change as those things change. Why would you expect communication to maintain the same tone and style as it did decades ago when all of the most prominent modes of communication we use today didn't even exist yet. In the time you speak of, the information flowing at any given person was limited, a few TV channels, maybe a few magazines or newspapers. People absorbed all the programming including boring government messages, because there was only so much content being thrown at them.

I think its a reflection of the culture of the information age.......Now the monolithic State needs to dumb down information that is to our benefit........Are we better off with the state requiring to cut information with pseudo pop-culture? Several generations ago, the State could tell its citizens it is to their benefit to have food/water/medicine on hand in the event of a disaster and this was accepted as gospel. Now, we need fantasy interjected with reality to have this message delivered.......

Are we, as society, better off for this?

Today, the world around you is saturated with information. There is no end to the content you might choose to view, and even if you spent your whole life doing nothing but reading information released by the government, you'd probably never have time to absorb even 1% of all the information from the government that was available. To reach a wide audience, content needs to be presented in a way likely to catch people's interest and attention, otherwise it gets lost in the noise.

Without a doubt.

And if you think this is silly, just wait another 30 years, when the world will have been reshaped by technology to be as unrecognizable to us as the world of today would be to people from 100 years ago.

Is a further reliance upon technology actually going to be a net-benefit to us is my question......Will we get to a point when we need an App to tell us when to eat, drink, sleep and breath? In turn, will this further dependence also weaken our ability to survive without information-technology?

Could it be said that Government controls placed upon information are actually to our benefit in the end?

[Bonam]

Even though I already understood this, reading your post reinforced it and made me think about it some more. The 'public service message' of 30, 40 years ago ... read in a sombre tone ... is gone, replaced by President Obama appearing on 'between two ferns'.

Glad to contribute.

[Bonam]

I think its a reflection of the culture of the information age.......Now the monolithic State needs to dumb down information that is to our benefit........Are we better off with the state requiring to cut information with pseudo pop-culture? Several generations ago, the State could tell its citizens it is to their benefit to have food/water/medicine on hand in the event of a disaster and this was accepted as gospel. Now, we need fantasy interjected with reality to have this message delivered.......

Are we, as society, better off for this?

People not taking whatever the state says as gospel? Yes, we're better off for that.

The state learning how to communicate important information in a way that more people might pay attention to it? Yes, we're better off for that too.

People still needing to be told by someone else to have spare supplies on hand in case of disaster rather than this being inherently obvious to everyone? No change, people have always been stupid.

Is a further reliance upon technology actually going to be a net-benefit to us is my question......Will we get to a point when we need an App to tell us when to eat, drink, sleep

and breath? In turn, will this further dependence also weaken our ability to survive without information-technology?

Well, it will be a lot less clear than that. We are less than 10 years away from when it will be typical to have devices that communicate directly with your central nervous system. If the app talks directly to your brain as if it was just another part of your brain... is it really "an app telling you what to do", or is it that the definition of "you" has been expanded to include all the new components of your consciousness as well as the original biological ones.

Could it be said that Government controls placed upon information are actually to our benefit in the end?

Some controls on information are certainly beneficial. For example, keeping the information on how to make chemical, biological, nuclear, and nanotechnological weapons under wraps is a good idea (in my opinion). But in more mundane cases I'd generally lean on the side of less government control over information being better.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Bonam

[Derek 2.0]

People not taking whatever the state says as gospel? Yes, we're better off for that.

Sure, but at what point does too much mistrust result in a society all adorning tin-foil hats?

The state learning how to communicate important information in a way that more people might pay attention to it? Yes, we're better off for that too.

But are more people paying attention?

People still needing to be told by someone else to have spare supplies on hand in case of disaster rather than this being inherently obvious to everyone? No change, people have always been stupid.

Without a doubt, but before, it was easier to convey important information.......are we actually better off that now the "stupid masses" are overloaded with more confusing information?

Well, it will be a lot less clear than that. We are less than 10 years away from when it will be typical to have devices that communicate directly with your central nervous system. If the app talks directly to your brain as if it was just another part of your brain... is it really "an app telling you what to do", or is it that the definition of "you" has been expanded to include all the new components of your consciousness as well as the original biological ones.

Right, but does further reliance make us more vulnerable to collapsing as a civil society without such technology?

Some controls on information are certainly beneficial. For example, keeping the information on how to make chemical, biological, nuclear, and nanotechnological weapons under wraps is a good idea (in my opinion). But in more mundane cases I'd generally lean on the side of less government control over information being better.

Why though?

[Bonam]

Government is an entity whose fundamental nature is to grow and to accumulate power. But there is only so much power it should have. It's control over information should be strictly limited, lest it be able to manipulate information towards its own ends. I see no reason why one would trust government more than any other large expensive organization.

As for reliance on technology... yes we are certainly reliant on it. If, tomorrow, all technology suddenly stopped working permanently, then over the following years, billions would die (but, of course, without the technology, none of those billions would have been around living in the first place). Reliance on technology is a risk we accept in order to be able to reap the benefits... which far outweigh the risks.

The history of the human race and its advancement and the evolution of its societies is the history of technology. There is no other factor as singularly important as a driving force. And it will continue to be so.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Bonam

[Derek 2.0]

Government is an entity whose fundamental nature is to grow and to accumulate power. But there is only so much power it should have. It's control over information should be strictly limited, lest it be able to manipulate information towards its own ends. I see no reason why one would trust government more than any other large expensive organization.

In itself, can it not be said the information media industry does not manipulate the message to its own end?

As for reliance on technology... yes we are certainly reliant on it. If, tomorrow, all technology suddenly stopped working permanently, then over the following years, billions would die (but, of course, without the technology, none of those billions would have been around living in the first place). Reliance on technology is a risk we accept in order to be able to reap the benefits... which far outweigh the risks.

The history of the human race and its advancement and the evolution of its societies is the history of technology. There is no other factor as singularly important as a driving force. And it will continue to be so.

I'm not speaking to evolving technology as a whole, of that I do agree it is an overall benefit to us. My point though, are we better off as a society with vast amounts of unfiltered, and often incorrect, information, when most are unable to judge its merit?

[Bonam]

I'm not speaking to evolving technology as a whole, of that I do agree it is an overall benefit to us. My point though, are we better off as a society with vast amounts of unfiltered, and often incorrect, information, when most are unable to judge its merit?

The term "better off" is a relative term... better off than what?

I agree with you... vast amounts of unfiltered, often incorrect, information is a really bad situation. But compare it to the alternative... a situation where all that information IS filtered... by someone. Suddenly the unfiltered case doesn't seem so bad in comparison.

[Derek 2.0]

The term "better off" is a relative term... better off than what?

I agree with you... vast amounts of unfiltered, often incorrect, information is a really bad situation. But compare it to the alternative... a situation where all that information IS filtered... by someone. Suddenly the unfiltered case doesn't seem so bad in comparison.

Better off then where we were........several decades ago, if the "State" said keep several weeks worth of vital supplies in your basement or ensure your children get all their booster shots, by the majority this advice was heeded......Today, an equal amount of voice will claim such advice as polt to put us into FEMA camps or poison our children.......

With unfiltered information, also comes lack of accountability.......if a segment of the malleable masses follows the bad advice of an unaccountable "blogger" over a Government health advisory, because the blogger had more "views" or "retweets" or a slicker facebook, are we as a society better off?

Now, I feel, every idiot can have a soap box regardless of validity........clearly those intelligent enough can make use of increasing sources of information and determine which info is valid and false......but what of the unwashed masses?

[Bonam]

Better off then where we were........several decades ago, if the "State" said keep several weeks worth of vital supplies in your basement or ensure your children get all their booster shots, by the majority this advice was heeded......Today, an equal amount of voice will claim such advice as polt to put us into FEMA camps or poison our children.......

The "state" spends most of the time lying through its teeth to the population, and when it's not lying on purpose, than just being a bunch of idiots. You need only hear something from the mouth of a politician to know right away that's it's almost certainly either a blatant lie or just idiotically wrong. There is absolutely nothing about the state (which is nothing but a crappy collection of idiotic politicians undeserving of any respect) that makes it inherently deserving of people's trust. Any trust it may have had, the politicians have long ago flung away, like monkeys playing with pieces of poo (except that the monkeys are a lot smarter). Sorry, but I don't miss the "olden days" when every word coming from a government source was considered gospel... if such days ever even existed.

With unfiltered information, also comes lack of accountability.......if a segment of the malleable masses follows the bad advice of an unaccountable "blogger" over a Government health advisory, because the blogger had more "views" or "retweets" or a slicker facebook, are we as a society better off?

Now, I feel, every idiot can have a soap box regardless of validity........clearly those intelligent enough can make use of increasing sources of information and determine which info is valid and false......but what of the unwashed masses?

Those that aren't smart enough to do the very basic things needed to reduce their own chance of dying an untimely death will have an increased chance of dying an untimely death. What else can I say? Am I supposed to weep over their poor wretched fates? If a bunch of people follow the advice of an unaccountable blogger and die, then some other blogger will blog about it, and it will be one more piece of information in the sea of information, swaying more people to avoid following the same bad advice again in the future, until it too is drowned out and the thing repeats again. That's just life. Not much to do about it unless you want to eradicate free speech and impose a harsher regime of censorship and information control than even North Korea could dream of. And even then, you'd just be replacing one bad information source with another... the LAST thing I would believe are declarations from a state that controls all information.

Summary: Zero respect for state. Crackpot blogger may be crackpot, but better than thought police.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Bonam

[Derek 2.0]

The "state" spends most of the time lying through its teeth to the population, and when it's not lying on purpose, than just being a bunch of idiots. You need only hear something from the mouth of a politician to know right away that's it's almost certainly either a blatant lie or just idiotically wrong. There is absolutely nothing about the state (which is nothing but a crappy collection of idiotic politicians undeserving of any respect) that makes it inherently deserving of people's trust. Any trust it may have had, the politicians have long ago flung away, like monkeys playing with pieces of poo (except that the monkeys are a lot smarter). Sorry, but I don't miss the "olden days" when every word coming from a government source was considered gospel... if such days ever even existed.

Right, but without the State, without a doubt, we'd be tossing our collective crap at each other......So what is the better alternative, devolving the State and allowing the inmates to run the asylum?

In my view, our current place is the best possible outcome.

Those that aren't smart enough to do the very basic things needed to reduce their own chance of dying an untimely death will have an increased chance of dying an untimely death. What else can I say? Am I supposed to weep over their poor wretched fates? If a bunch of people follow the advice of an unaccountable blogger and die, then some other blogger will blog about it, and it will be one more piece of information in the sea of information, swaying more people to avoid following the same bad advice again in the future, until it too is drowned out and the thing repeats again. That's just life. Not much to do about it unless you want to eradicate free speech and impose a harsher regime of censorship and information control than even North Korea could dream of. And even then, you'd just be replacing one bad information source with another... the LAST thing I would believe are declarations from a state that controls all information.

Summary: Zero respect for state. Crackpot blogger may be crackpot, but better than thought police.

Ahh, but what is the crossover point between free speech and the "thought police"? That is the question.....at what point does free speech become the proverbial yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater?

[eyeball]

Ahh, but what is the crossover point between free speech and the "thought police"? That is the question.....at what point does free speech become the proverbial yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater?

When it's a proverbial politician yelling "terrorist" in a secure society.

[Derek 2.0]

When it's a proverbial politician yelling "terrorist" in a secure society.

Ahh, but how is said society kept secure? Society - politican =

[eyeball]

Ahh, but how is said society kept secure?

Surely you're not suggesting the monkey house on Parliament Hill.

[Bonam]

In my view, our current place is the best possible outcome.

I would tend to agree that our current place is not too far off in the sense that we are discussing in this thread. However, you were the one mentioning that you think currently government communications are not held important enough by the population, that messages have to be dumbed down to be heard, etc. You were making the implication that things were better before, asking the rhetorical question "are we better off now", etc.

[Derek 2.0]

I would tend to agree that our current place is not too far off in the sense that we are discussing in this thread. However, you were the one mentioning that you think currently government communications are not held important enough by the population, that messages have to be dumbed down to be heard, etc. You were making the implication that things were better before, asking the rhetorical question "are we better off now", etc.

To a degree, but more of an observation as to if we're in decline as a society.

[poochy]

When it's a proverbial politician yelling "terrorist" in a secure society.

Yawn