How long will the dead last

q0d53kbvsi6rgy

To settle an argument between myself and a peer I would like to call on some more minds. The question is that in the walking dead zombies can go for over six months, without eating ( we really can't know how much they eat, and that is a rough guess) . As we all know it's essential for all living things to eat, but the question is how long can a zombie go without eating? Clearly if the zombies were to die off of starvation the zombie then we can start to rebuild society.

degrassinoel

Rage infected zombies* (28 days zombies) do eventually starve, wither and die.

Romero and Brooks-esque do not, the decay process stops, they don't starve, they cant digest food, what goes in stays in until bursting point. And as everyone knows, the only surefire way to kill them is to destroy the brain.

So take your pick, which zombies is it gonna be?


*some might disagree that they are/not zombies.

Carter P Fly

The Walking Dead zombies do not eat for nourishment and do not actually digest the food as I believe they are roughly based on a Solanum (max brooks) type zombie.

The do eventually rot but the bacteria that eats the flesh works very slow as it cannot eat virus infected tissue.

Since the brain is literally fileld to capacity with the virus it never rots, hence why you have to physically destroy it to take one of them down.

jamo2oo9

All zombies will die off eventually. May just take a while. Anything that has organisms of any kind needs food, no matter what. My guess is roughly 2-4 weeks if not 6 weeks depending on how much food they can find.

thegreatiam

also factor in damage, predators etc.
I think that some mythos says that their flesh can be eaten by animals though they prefer not to.

Id be inclined to lean towards the fact that it isnt magic but a disease so most carrion would happily eat a zombie.

Damage and wear and tear from shambling about aimlessly wont be repaired, so eventually they will fall to pieces.

When youre alive you are constantly repairing your self, stop that process and you will soon see bits drop off you, same for the zeds.

Normal rot will kick in too, a body only takes a few weeks in the right conditions, moist places like Ireland will rot them faster than dry deserts.

Real question is, once all the flesh drop off do they keep going? How far rotted do the need to be before the skeleton becomes immobile. Eventually they will just become near inanimate lumps of rot. maybe a few tendons can feebly work a limb or two.


3-4 months before the majority are immobile, a year and they will mostly all be gone. Then its just the stragglers, desert and arctic zombies and any underwater.

666irishguy

I'd say six months to a year depending on climate and the amount of food available. Can't see their skin in particular lasting anything longer than that before it begins to decay beyond the point of allowing mobility or stopping the innards from falling out.

ScumLord

thegreatiam wrote: »

Normal rot will kick in too, a body only takes a few weeks in the right conditions, moist places like Ireland will rot them faster than dry deserts.

Rot depends on the bacteria and insects that essentially eat the body. According to WWZ the virus is highly toxic to all living things including the bacteria that would rot the corpse, meaning the only method of decay in zombies would be erosion.

The erosion would be twofold, you'd have the erosion caused by movement which would render the zombie immobile and weathering which can have a number of effects, none of them good. Our wet weather could be good for the zombies reducing friction wear in the joints.

degrassinoel

thegreatiam wrote: »

also factor in damage, predators etc.
I think that some mythos says that their flesh can be eaten by animals though they prefer not to.

Id be inclined to lean towards the fact that it isnt magic but a disease so most carrion would happily eat a zombie.

Damage and wear and tear from shambling about aimlessly wont be repaired, so eventually they will fall to pieces.

When youre alive you are constantly repairing your self, stop that process and you will soon see bits drop off you, same for the zeds.

Normal rot will kick in too, a body only takes a few weeks in the right conditions, moist places like Ireland will rot them faster than dry deserts.

Real question is, once all the flesh drop off do they keep going? How far rotted do the need to be before the skeleton becomes immobile. Eventually they will just become near inanimate lumps of rot. maybe a few tendons can feebly work a limb or two.


3-4 months before the majority are immobile, a year and they will mostly all be gone. Then its just the stragglers, desert and arctic zombies and any underwater.

^^ unless you've read World War Z -

The toxicity level of undead flesh, combined with the 100% fatality rate for infected lifeforms significantly slows down the process of decomposition. This is because all organisms, even the bacteria that play a role in natural decomposition, are also killed when in contact with Solanum. This has the noteworthy side-effect of making many zombies practically odorless, due to the absence of the bacteria responsible for body odor and the traditional smell of rotting flesh. Zombies that have been undead for many months may start to show minor signs of topical decay, and the recently turned may smell because humans void their bowels after death. Other than that, zombies produce no odor.

thegreatiam

Damn, I forgot about that factual essay

degrassinoel

ye should give the book a shot, it's well worth it - especially as the film is due out in a few months. Though i doubt that will stay cannon to the book.

thegreatiam

degrassinoel wrote: »

ye should give the book a shot, it's well worth it - especially as the film is due out in a few months. Though i doubt that will stay cannon to the book.

I read the first of his books, got bored during the 2nd didnt really enjoy the 'talking heads' style of writing.

Seems the movie isn't at all staying true as he specifically states zombies cannot run only move at a slightly faster shamble when they see food. (which I tend to agree with, as realistically it takes a concentrated effort to actually run, which zombies cant really do)
In the trailer you can see them running 28 days later style, which has upset me a little.

degrassinoel

The talking heads style, that was the style in which both of his more famous books were written. Which one is it you mean, WWZ or TZSG?

thegreatiam

degrassinoel wrote: »

The talking heads style, that was the style in which both of his more famous books were written. Which one is it you mean, WWZ or TZSG?

wwz is in talking heads style,

The other is a survival guide, so its written like a survival guide.

Couldnt get into wwz, found it a little boring. The survival guide was a good book.

degrassinoel

thegreatiam wrote: »

Couldnt get into wwz, found it a little boring. The survival guide was a good book.

Did you finish reading wwz?

thegreatiam

degrassinoel wrote: »

Did you finish reading wwz?

no, lost interest, think i got about half way. didnt pick it up for a few days and then, when i went back to it, i realised i wasnt interested

degrassinoel

that's a shame, there's loads of juicy bits in there.

thegreatiam

I got through the dr in brazil, the dr in china, smuggler in nepal, a few others and got bored.
Think I felt it was taking too long to tie together. Might give it another try before I go see the movie tho.

degrassinoel

that's the thing it doesn't tie together in the way that say pulp fiction did, being a bunch of seemingly random stories intermixed and melded together the way that was.WWZ is, well It's pretty much a journalists interviews with survivors and their recollections of the z war.

I would give it another shot though, fair enough if it bores ye to tears after the first chapter

ScumLord

The stories are unrelated more or less. It's the perfect book for the bog, it's really a collection of short stories that you could pick up and read individually any time.

LaurajC

I've wondered this myself as in the walking dead, the gang has been alive for around a year after the virus spread! So i think these zombies take longer than usual, i'd like to put a time frame of 9 months on it but they seem to be around for longer so i really haven't a clue! I just wanted to participate in the thread!

thegreatiam

degrassinoel wrote: »

that's the thing it doesn't tie together in the way that say pulp fiction did, being a bunch of seemingly random stories intermixed and melded together the way that was.WWZ is, well It's pretty much a journalists interviews with survivors and their recollections of the z war.

I would give it another shot though, fair enough if it bores ye to tears after the first chapter

ScumLord wrote: »

The stories are unrelated more or less. It's the perfect book for the bog, it's really a collection of short stories that you could pick up and read individually any time.

It did seem to me that the stories were interconnected

dont the seal team find a cave where one of the previous stories occurred. and the Chinese outbreaks were mixed in with the nepalese who exported the virus elsewhere, where those patients killed the doctor. (cant remember the details, but it was along those lines.
There is a definite time line and interconnecting threads to the storyline.
I dont mean the all come together to a shared conclusion, like in a hollywood movie, but they do have a traceable lineage

LaurajC wrote: »

I've wondered this myself as in the walking dead, the gang has been alive for around a year after the virus spread! So i think these zombies take longer than usual, i'd like to put a time frame of 9 months on it but they seem to be around for longer so i really haven't a clue! I just wanted to participate in the thread!

Noone really knows, come up with a theory, back it up with some logic thinking and youre good to go.

Of course, if you subscribe to the different "cannon" theories established by tv/movies/comics youre good also.

So, why 9 months?

Kromdar

what about a cancerous-based regrowth? like a disease that regrows dead tissue like tumors. certainly not useful tissue, but could replace lost mass, and process protien to create new cells.

but then you're going into mutation vs reanimation viruses. still, that's what the t and g viruses were aimed at.
if the virus was smart enough to try to preserve itself it would be natural for it to tell the host to acquire a resupply of lost tissue, hence the hunger. if the virus is focussed in the brain, hence, its highest priority would be to acquire more braaainz.

any extra muscle / skin it ate would be reprocessed as tumorous growths of muscle.

does any of that make sense?

tl;dr, they might starve. but they;re more likely to fall apart first due to wear and tear rather than erosion.

ScumLord

Kromdar wrote: »

what about a cancerous-based regrowth? like a disease that regrows dead tissue like tumors. certainly not useful tissue, but could replace lost mass, and process protien to create new cells.

but then you're going into mutation vs reanimation viruses. still, that's what the t and g viruses were aimed at.
if the virus was smart enough to try to preserve itself it would be natural for it to tell the host to acquire a resupply of lost tissue, hence the hunger. if the virus is focussed in the brain, hence, its highest priority would be to acquire more braaainz.

any extra muscle / skin it ate would be reprocessed as tumorous growths of muscle.

does any of that make sense?

tl;dr, they might starve. but they;re more likely to fall apart first due to wear and tear rather than erosion.

that would depend on the body being still alive so that it could process the food and then have a working heart to transport the nutrients around the body.

The other problem would be the cancerous growth would probably require more energy and give less output for that energy.

thegreatiam

Kromdar wrote: »

what about a cancerous-based regrowth? like a disease that regrows dead tissue like tumors. certainly not useful tissue, but could replace lost mass, and process protien to create new cells.

if the virus was smart enough to try to preserve itself it would be natural for it to tell the host to acquire a resupply of lost tissue, hence the hunger. if the virus is focussed in the brain, hence, its highest priority would be to acquire more braaainz.

ScumLord wrote: »

that would depend on the body being still alive so that it could process the food and then have a working heart to transport the nutrients around the body.

The other problem would be the cancerous growth would probably require more energy and give less output for that energy.

Also a virus preserves itself by spreading to new hosts. Eating brains will not give it extra life, infecting live bodies will.

A virus wont "think" like a parasite and try to keep the host body alive, its motivation is to spread to as many host bodies as possible.

However, if the cause of the illness is similar to a parasite (like the zombie ant thingies )
Then the motivation would be there to preserve the host until a new one can be found.

In this case the host zombie would still be alive (possibly 100% brain dead and incurable) but it could still eat and heal itself (in this case it may be required to eat to keep it going) the normal physical limitations of stamina and pain would be ignored and the parasite wont care if the host is hurt as long as it stays alive, it may even be able to move and run, in an uncoordinated way. With the goal of allowing the parasite (fungus) to find a new host/reproduce and provide hosts for its offspring.

It may (if the parasite has not killed the higher function of the brain) to remove the source of the zombification and restore the person to life.
In this case would they retain memories from when they were a zombie and eating the living flesh of humans to stay alive?

Kromdar

thegreatiam wrote: »

However, if the cause of the illness is similar to a parasite (like the zombie ant thingies )

i think that's what i had in mind. been a while since i read the article.
anyway it would be nice to take a break from the virus theory and explore the parasite one. i mean its less likely, but just that step above necromancery.

whereas digesting the flesh / muscle / brains of victims might seem to the zombie as a valid way to restore lost or damaged parts, we know it wont. but as the zombie is lacking higher brain function eating brains may seem like a good idea to it, and many hollywood directors.

thegreatiam

Kromdar wrote: »

i think that's what i had in mind. been a while since i read the article.
anyway it would be nice to take a break from the virus theory and explore the parasite one. i mean its less likely, but just that step above necromancery.

whereas digesting the flesh / muscle / brains of victims might seem to the zombie as a valid way to restore lost or damaged parts, we know it wont. but as the zombie is lacking higher brain function eating brains may seem like a good idea to it, and many hollywood directors.

Its actually the most likely as you know, it's real. There is a wasp that does a similar thing and lays its eggs in the zombie.
The parasite in this manner will want to sustain the life of the host and force it to feed to ensure its off spring will have sustenance when it hatches.
In this case it would feed voraciously on any thing it can get its hands on, raw. Since the host is essentially a dead husk that would mean it would be eating other, non-infected, humans.

This would account for an unending hunger for living flesh (or any flesh really), while it would easily live on regular food the parasite controlling it would either not know or not care and just grabs the nearest thing it perceives as edible.

The zombie would eat and eat until the egg hatches, say 4-6 weeks, where it would be consumed by the larvae from the inside out.
There could be some gestation of live larvae, as they grow to maturity. In this stage they can infect living people via blood, bite etc each bite allows larvae to pass to a new host.

Adults of the parasite (be it worm.wasp.fungus whatever) can infect new hosts by laying eggs thereby spreading an infection further.

It may be one step up from necromancy in the zombie cannons, but its only one or two steps from a viable reality. Since these parasites are real its only a failed (or successful, depending on your outlook) biological/genetic experiment before we are all infected by africanised-zombie-fungus-wasps Or Zom-bee-shrooms as I am going to call them when the apocalypse comes.

This give a zombie lifespan of a much shorter (depending on the growth of the parasite young) lifespan of a few weeks per zombie, but it also increases the likelyhood of infection after the initial wave as you can be infected by the bite of the zombie or by the adult breeding parasite directly.

Im off for a shower as my skin is crawling.

ScumLord

The parasitic one is interesting and one I've considered, the main problem with it is parasites are harder to spread, generally you pick up a parasite from the wild and it's not spread person to person as easily. Being in a host is only part of it's life cycle and traditional ways of getting into the host would be difficult in this day and age. If you think of the tapeworm it lives in the digestive system so has easy access to the outside world whenever it wants. Easy in, easy out. Then we pop it out and it goes out to a field to infect a cow which we in turn eat and become infected.

I'm fairly sure there are brain worms too but if they're in the brain they will have a problem with jumping to the next host.

There are a number of advantages for parasites, that being it can live in intermediary hosts while it's waiting to find a human. That would make every other living thing a potential carrier including our food.

It would need to be able to complete it's entire life cycle within the human body and find a way to plant its seed away from where it's living in the body so it can be spread. If worm could attach itself to the nervous system it would have that access though. It could have one end in the brain secreting chemicals to keep the host angry and violent and have it's other end going down the nervous system to the digestive system so bites and saliva carried it's eggs.

This would still put a lifespan on the zombie, the parasite would be doing immense damage to the host, being a living creature also makes it just as susceptible to death once its host becomes too sick and could very likely be killed outright by antibiotics.

thegreatiam

ScumLord wrote: »

The parasitic one is interesting and one I've considered, the main problem with it is parasites are harder to spread, generally you pick up a parasite from the wild and it's not spread person to person as easily.

Weaponised genetically mutated African zombie wasps.
Bred for bio warfare buy the government, with an increased breading cycle. Immunity to most modern medicines and toxins. Once the female is of breading age she can lay 5-8 eggs, which hatch in a living host that has been paralysed by her sting before being injected with a neuro-toxin which limits all but basic brain function. The female wasp can then bite down on the base of the skull where she can manipulate the central nervous system of the host. Using this control she can move the host to find new sources of food to sustain it through the gestation period. The 14 day period sees the eggs hatch into larvae, which begin to feast on the host from the inside out, the same neuro toxin the mother uses to control the host is present in the larval digestive system. Ensuring the larvae full control over their own host. At this stage the mother will leave the host body to find another male and bread again, each female wasp can birth 5-8 eggs per cycle and will cycle approximately every 2-3 weeks.

While incubating the eggs the host, with limited brain function, remains alive and conscious. The parasite wasp will control the basic functions of the bod, but with no thought other than to secure food by any means for her offspring, gorging the host with whatever edible, and in some cases inedible, food stuffs, cases have been reported of animal remains, plant matter; including mud and tree bark as well as the flesh of other living humans, any thing that the host can be forced to swallow.

If a host incurs excessive damage during the growth of the larvae they have often been known to evacuate their host body into another suitable candidate, often through direct blood contact, or at later stages when the larvae is bigger, through the mouth by forcing the host to bite a suitable target while the larvae burrows into the new body.

Once the larvae has gorged them selves to maturity they leave the host body and seek a mate, often mating with their own siblings or parents. This habit causes rapid mutation in the species, allowing for more efficient breads of insects (also allowing for various plot points to be made and a spin off series)

If the host remains alive once the larvae have left its body, or the parent wasp has been removed the neuro toxin remains in the system allowing the empty husk to follow its basic instincts to feast on the most convenient material, including its own limbs. These empty hosts slowly return to a state of awareness as the neurotoxin fades from the body (usually 7 to 10 days), the damage incurred by the infestation, be it physical or mental remains.

The memories of the trauma are so vivid that insanity is usually the case, even a toxin free individual may simply degenerate into the instinctive habit of feasting until they are killed by outside sources. The physical aftereffects of the toxin ensure that the host body can never fully regain its previous dexterity and is a permanent mark of infection

Carter P Fly

Just giving away a great book idea like that eh!!!

thegreatiam

Carter P Fly wrote: »

Just giving away a great book idea like that eh!!!

lol, its b movie material.
I expect to see your name on the credits