Slashdot Mirror
Statistical Mechanics Finds Best Places To Hide During Zombie Apocalypse
HughPickens.com writes Eric Mack reports at Cnet that a team of researchers at Cornell University, inspired by the book "World War Z" by Max Brooks, have used statistical-mechanics to model how an actual zombie outbreak might unfold and determined the best long-term strategy for surviving the walking dead: Head for the hills. Specifically, you should probably get familiar now with the general location of Glacier National Park so that when it all goes down, you can start heading in that direction. The project started with differential equations to model a fully connected population, then moved on to lattice-based models, and ended with a full US-scale simulation of an outbreak across the continental US. "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," says Alex Alemi, "infected, zombie, or dead zombie--with approximately 300 million people."
Alemi believes cities would succumb to the zombie scourge quickly, but the infection rate would slow down significantly in more sparsely populated areas and could take months to reach places like the Northern Rockies and Glacier National Park. "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," Alemi says. Once you hit Montana and Idaho, you might as well keep heading farther north into the Canadian Rockies and all the way up to Alaska where data analysis shows you're most likely to survive the zombie apocalypse. The state with the lowest survival rate? — New Jersey. Unfortunately a full scale simulation of an outbreak in the United States shows that for `realistic' parameters, we are largely doomed.
Alemi believes cities would succumb to the zombie scourge quickly, but the infection rate would slow down significantly in more sparsely populated areas and could take months to reach places like the Northern Rockies and Glacier National Park. "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," Alemi says. Once you hit Montana and Idaho, you might as well keep heading farther north into the Canadian Rockies and all the way up to Alaska where data analysis shows you're most likely to survive the zombie apocalypse. The state with the lowest survival rate? — New Jersey. Unfortunately a full scale simulation of an outbreak in the United States shows that for `realistic' parameters, we are largely doomed.
Why are there so many studies about a non-existent problem ? If you want to model a disease, why not a deadly flu ?
Zombies are worse than Pirates and Ninjas!
Zombies are not REAL, Zombies as an exercise isn't realistic, as you just applying basic game rules to a model.
Zombies as a literary element is about a lone or a few people against a mindless horde. So we can feel good that a guy with intelligence 1 standard deviation from the mean, can be victorious against such a hord, by outsmarting them. So us normal people feel good about ourselves, that we can somehow be better than the rest of the population.
This meme needs to go away, it is old and tiresome.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
To my city Zoo. 1.4sq miles with its own working train, planetarium, and 10ft concrete walls designed to keep big cats from jumping them. Open exhibits with moats instead of caged pens which are perfect for herding zombies into or keeping criminals. Indoor areas for winter exhibits to take shelter in. A petting farm with a barn full of sustainable livestock animals to live off while using some of the wilder animals to keep both snoops and zombies at bay. Every entrance is heavy pad locked gate or 6ft carousel style gate. It's own water tower, sewage, and generators. Two natural spring fed ponds, gardens, and multiple snack stations loaded with food. Tranq guns, mancatchers, and stun equipment for dealing with humans and wildlife. Massive parking structure with a helipad.
Come at me bitches!
Yes. Speaking as a Montana fellow, and being quite familiar with Glacier park, I can confidently inform everyone that if you try to live up there in the winter without a well-insulated and extremely well supplied domicile away from any steep slopes (locations for which there is a very limited selection, btw), Glacier park will calmly, without any particular effort, make you dead. For that matter, given the terrain and some of the species still wandering around up there, I'm none too sanguine about anyone's chances through the other seasons, either. And a bunch of people? You'd just kill each other.
No zombies required.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Humans are the most deadly predators that the planet has ever had. Killing stuff is what we're really really good at. Making weapons is something we're really really good at.
Actually, making tools and organizing labor is we're really good at. I personally have never killed anything larger than a bug in my life; I suspect a lot of other people haven't either. I've never had to, because there have always been other people who are willing to do those unpleasant tasks for me, in exchange for modest amounts of money.
Granted, I could learn those skills (and others) if I had to, but it would probably take me some days or weeks before I got good at it. It's not clear I would survive long enough to learn them.
So yes, humanity is the most deadly predator the planet has ever had. Any particular human being, OTOH, most likely is not -- we're more likely to be the most effective C++ programmer the planet has ever had, or the best Fedex deliveryman, or some other not-so-helpful-during-the-zombie-apocalypse skill.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The parent's point is that with a Zombie infection, we'll kill them all pretty quickly. So, even if they happen to have a small exponential increase in the beginning, the same function (1 person killing 3 zombies) will have a damping effect. The fact that zombies need contact and a shotgun simply needs proximity will also tip the balance in favor of the humans.
Comparing zombies to other pandemics leaves out one key point: we could stop the other pandemics in their tracks if we weren't trying to save the infected people. Simply killing everyone with an STD or the flu the minute they were diagnosed would stop those diseases pretty quickly. Just to be 100% clear: saving lives and helping people recover should be our goal with diseases. With zombies, we've established that they are no longer human and are fair game.
In an actual zombie apocalypse I think my list of threats would be:
1. Opportunistic bastards (thugs, gangs)
2. Desperate bastards (hungry, cold, afraid)
3. Devious bastards (poisoned, stabbed in sleep)
4. Survival skills (and fighting for the good spots)
5. Zombies
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I think the best solution is to head to a harbor. I don't know how fast or how well a zombie can swim, but I'd bet it's slower than and not as well as a ship can sail. A decent sized ship with fishing gear could fish for food and send out "landing parties" (where absolutely no one wears red) to raid the coast for supplies as needed. If it's large enough (think yacht) those landing parties could even rescue survivors and keep them in quarantine (separate locked cabin, trailing the ship in a lifeboat, etc.) for a time to ensure they're not infected before letting them join the normal complement.