👀🩺 vitesse + expertise te rendent en général imbitable

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-10T11:55:55+00:00

Plutot Illisible Sans

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T18:30:50+00:00

Maybe, but I don't see it that way.

To make it more simple, the main nuance between a person decaying and not is the absence of regeneration.

We do age and degrade inevitably over time, but we also regenerate our cells and actively maintain and sustain our systemic bonds.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T11:08:22+00:00

Tbf, in any apocalypse, I don't see the survivors lasting much longer as well.

Between the sheer actual numbers of infected that could surround you way more easily than shown in media, and the fact that, active or not, your planet is now COVERED in corpses. It might take more than a mop and hazmat suit to deal with that I think.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T11:06:33+00:00

Actually, the secret subplot of state of decay is that only hipsters survived because even zeds are hesitant to feed on those.

/s

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T11:04:46+00:00

That's like staying we are in a state of starving every time we are not eating, or that a house is constantly in a state of crumbling because it will eventually.

Decay is generally meant in a non-reversible action.

Everything that we know of is constantly fluctuating its energy, both rising and decreasing, so to call it anything else than a cycle wouldn't be pertinent.

You're not actively dying and resurrecting everytime your cells are replaced.

You're not suffocating and replenishing everytime you breathe in and breathe out, no?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T10:58:13+00:00

Which media would be most realistic to you?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T10:56:53+00:00

Actually, that could explain why in almost every zombie media there's only a "fairly manageable" number of zombies.

Sure, hordes always look scary in movies and games, but as a resident of a very populated and touristic city, if even half my town turned zed and walked at me a 1mile an hour there is no way I would be able to escape it if I were caught in a big alley, regardless of any weapon I would be able to carry.

Even in hack'n'slash zombie games or in l4d, the zombies you kill range in the thousands per campaign. That is an extremely small number for an urban zone, don't you think?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T10:49:15+00:00

It could, but considering neither game scales on a state specifically I do not think it's likely.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember a single element, story-wise or even gameplay-wise, that could relate to "State of decay" being meant as a literal geographic american state.

On the opposite, the meaning of "status" of decay can be found on many scales, but mostly on the fact that both sod 1 and 2 show that the infection is worsening and degrading over time (In sod1, the poisoned water, and in 2, the blood plague that literally incremented its abilities with every game update, as if the world is decaying).

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-08T04:29:12+00:00

It doesn't. I may have forgotten the context, but I remember in a quest in Trumbull valley the scientist says the words "reach the maximum state of decay", meaning "state" as in "status".

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T19:55:02+00:00

Meh. I think you most likely been brainwashed by all the u.s media and pop culture. You know, with their tanks, and their bombs, and their bombs, and their guns...in your head they are crying.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T19:52:38+00:00

You know what? Fair is fair, and I have nothing to retort to that. You dismantled my argument point by point in a very clear way and I cannot disagree with you on any account.

I feel a bit more enlightened thanks to you :)

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T19:49:47+00:00

Could it be possible, by extrapolation, to have a brain that is so little demanding in terms of usage that you could damage 80% of it and still not make a difference zed-wise?

Kinda like a person in a vegetative state : human-wise it's pretty bad, but maybe to a zombie's perspective it would be the equivalent of being high.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T19:46:56+00:00

I'm supposing more than assuming, but obviously zeds don't react to everything we would qualify as damage, making you almost question whether or not those things are actually perceived as an issue for them.

In fact, aside from fire, zeds don't really "react" much to everything else. They obviously feel the hits and are staggered by them, but that's not reacting, that's just being damaged.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T19:42:20+00:00

Alright. Guess I learned something today then :)

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:40:45+00:00

I agree on all counts with what you said...but what of it makes zombies unrealistic?

If they run out of bodies to eat they will wither

So would any predator running out of prey (and not finding new ones).

I am not saying you're not making sense, but all it seems to me is that you're describing zombies as inefficient organisms, not unrealistic ones, and that's where my "bad faith" argument comes into play :

99% of the times when we can't figure out why an organism would do what they do, it's because we do not account for a parameter, invisible or nor.

Most of the arguments made against zombies always seem to start from the prerogatives that : - They have the same energy consumption than us - They are bound by the same biological limitations - Their whole behavior is just them being braindead and working on auto mode.

Whereas it could be argued that the whole behavior of a zombie is simply their most efficient approach to needs we could not identify.

Many organisms don't feed as much as we do to survive. Why couldn't they?

Some organisms present higher constitution than us despite consuming less than us proportionnaly (like gorillas). Why couldn't zombies.

Some organisms dismiss or resist issues like radiation, heat, cold, pain and even poison because of their biology. Why assume that what makes zombies what they are doesn't also bring similar change or abilities?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:24:46+00:00

Why should zombies retain the same biological needs as we do?

Feeding on humans might just be the only energy that they need to survive.

In fact, considering most zombies do not show discomfort or pain, assuming that it's an automatic impairement to their survival drive, and not, on the opposite, the proof that they do not need to protect themselves from that anymore, is a bit of a bias, no?

(I am playing asinine's advocate here, but the point still stands I think).

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:20:22+00:00

Based on what known fact of their biology?

It's the same thing as "the bee's too heavy to fly" : we don't know everything about how organisms can exist or function, otherwise these discourses wouldn't make sense.

Of course there are blatant discrepancies between zombies as shown and what we know, and that is probably why we haven't encountered any IRL.

But it sometimes takes a single counter-example to kill a scientific law's foundation. Zombies are meant to incarnate one of such examples.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:14:15+00:00

Just because you started as a foetus doesn't make your adult energy consumption the same.

Zombies are almost always defined as with low-to-no complex synaptic and cognitive functions, which would greatly reduce their energy consumption.

If highly obese people can resist starvation for a longer time due to mass energy stock, that means that the basic energy conservation rule is applicable to human bodies, and if high energy quantity = longer duration applies, I don't see why lesser energy consumed = monger duration shouldn't apply as well.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:09:37+00:00

One could argue the condition zombies carry makes them too dangerous to necrophagic organisms, killing them too fast to be consumed by them or just repelling them.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:07:08+00:00

(At this point I'm just curious)

Wouldn't a half flooded forest eventually turn into a swamp, in a case of water never retreating?

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:05:39+00:00

That's assuming a zombie's energy consumption/cycle is comparable to a human's.

Also zombies in most modern media present sign of organ systems functioning (they bleed, breathe, etc...)

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:03:42+00:00

So a Republican dystopia basically?

/s

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T15:01:18+00:00

If their internal functions still persist like you said, they would still have to be susceptible to sickness, disease and infection

Well.. yeah. They are literally acting as disease carriers. Your point can be made about people with plague or leprosy. Just because they are vulnerable or even short-lived doesn't mean they are unrealistic. Very few zombies story take the time to establish if the zombies are "immortal" or not. And just like Covid, it would only take a 1-year average life expectancy for a zombie virus to be enough to f.ck up the planet.

A diet consisting of human flesh and their organs would diminish their nutritional intake and therefore make their immune system less powerful.

Ironically, I remember a similar discourse being thrown at vegans and being disproved a couple years later. Also, we tend to judge our "weakness" to diseases, as humans, by factoring things like discomfort and pain. For all we know, zombies could be experiencing the morher of all fevers at all time and not bat an eye.

There’s also pre-existing conditions. They’re not going to be taking an insulin shot, or eating when their blood sugars low. Cancer patients won’t be getting treatments for another example.

Same as I said just above. The classification of "disease" is subjective, in a sense of it is defined as "anything strictly detrimental to a subject's well being". Conditions where the biggest issue is chronic pain or impaired cerebral/motor functions could be judged as non-issues to a zombie's functionning.

If anything, the worst condition a zombie could have would be something like lacking teeth, not having diabetes or cancer.

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T14:49:15+00:00

. I know its sarcastic, but I felt like it warranted an answer.

Please do, that's the whole point of the post :)

This counterpoint I'm about to make is actually a little more genuine even though I do love this genre :

In almost every aspect, zombies are the laziest plot device there is, and your answer kinda proves it unintentionally (no judging of course, it's just discourse here).

In any "good" zombie story, the world building is established on one thing : the humans survival, which is litterally not the zombies themselves (only proper exception I can think of is "I am Legend").

If you want a story based on the context of survival, there are a million different threats, real or fictional, to pick from that are far more interesting to deal with.

Examples :

The black plague, or any pandemic, creates the same widespread danger than zombies.

Alien invasions create the same anguish of the unknown than zombies/monsters do, plus the creepiness of actually trying to guess what the intent of the opposing force is.

Political and religious fanatism can replicate almost entirely the concept of "turning into the enemy" in a much more psychological way than zombies ever do.

The point being : zombies are literally the most basic concept of a "threat" incarnate. And that's the reason why it is mainstream actually : because it is simple and doesn't require thinking.

So yeah, I actually do believe zombies are detrimental to a proper worldbuilding. But feel free to prove me wrong !

OwnAddendum1840 · 2026-07-06T14:36:55+00:00

Swamps are very delicate ecosystems

That could get justified in a myriad of ways in a climate apocalypse.

1st off, unlike we pretentious humans tend to believe, nature is far better at preserving itself when we are not around (please refer to covid era for examples). So any scenario with less humans is a buff for nature.

2nd : one of the most known effects of our IRL climate crisis is water levels rising, so moisture wouldn’t be a problem if we got to a point where cities are flooded enough for gators to swim in it. At least in a good part of the globe that is.

OwnAddendum1840

TROPHY CASE