Poll: How many people would survive the apocalypse?

[TheWanderingMan 170]

There are a lot of guns out there, but not quite that many.

 

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

 

Thats around 90 guns for every 100 people in the US. And only 9 for every 100 in the rest of the world. So perhaps the US would fair better than the rest of the world?

 

 

m7 your fav pass time right now is shooting eachother, so what would it be like if there were no laws? LOL.

 

you'd be fucked basically. More guns and ammo in murica than trees and wildlife.

[Whyherro123 2283]

m7 your fav pass time right now is shooting eachother, so what would it be like if there were no laws? LOL.

 

you'd be fucked basically. More guns and ammo in murica than trees and wildlife.

Way to be a xenophobic asshole. In the US, gun-related violence has been steadily dropping over the last 20 years, to the point where, unless you put yourself in a situation where gun violence is likely (robbery, mugging, known gang turf, etc), you are more likely to be killed by a car than by a gun.

 

PS: most of the firearms in the US are owned by hunters and collectors, people who tend to be responsible, as they know what sort of damage a firearm can do.

[Combine (DayZ) 247]

In such a scenario I see guns as last resort, or rather, not as the wonder recipe to success. Yes, might come in handy but you can't shoot microbes, bacteria or a virus with it. Seriously, go watch that documentation. I dunno what channel, watched it on YT. So many possible infection vectors it's not even funny anymore.

 

Basically, if something like this was to occur all you folks better get out of the city and / or wear masks, gloves and be careful. Disinfect stuff, etc.

 

Er, my point is: Most people, in their minds, focus on shooting stuff or zombies. Not getting sneezed at or not touching stuff that others touched with their fingers or so would be as vital.

[KarmaCoin 72]

Sorry to do this but I need some more votes for my statistics to be accurate. so...

 

bump

[blacklabel79 949]

 

Thats around 90 guns for every 100 people in the US. And only 9 for every 100 in the rest of the world. So perhaps the US would fair better than the rest of the world?

 

There is hopeing those People whould turn on each other anyways eventho if all Z´s are dead...

 

 

unless you put yourself in a situation where gun violence is likely (robbery, mugging, known gang turf, etc),

 

i call BS on that Statement. how about going to School ? How many People just carry a gun because they can because ´murrica ?

Edited February 25, 2014 by {Core}BlackLabel

[KarmaCoin 72]

In the US, gun-related violence has been steadily dropping over the last 20 years, to the point where, unless you put yourself in a situation where gun violence is likely (robbery, mugging, known gang turf, etc), you are more likely to be killed by a car than by a gun.

 

i call BS on that Statement. how about going to School ? How many People just carry a gun because they can because ´murrica ?

 

He is actually correct. Despite a majority of people believing that gun violence is getting worse in america it is actually on the decline.

 

"Firearm-related homicides in the US dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011," according to a report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, "and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

 

meanwhile in 2011 32,367 people died in car accidents in the US, making it about 3 times more likely you would die from a car than a gun in the US.

 

Check out the article below for a more in depth analysis on gun crime in america.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/gun-crime-drops-but-americans-think-its-worse/2139421/

Edited February 26, 2014 by KarmaCoin

[Milkman Jim 5]

Why wouldn't everyone on Earth become infected anyway?

[KarmaCoin 72]

Why wouldn't everyone on Earth become infected anyway?

 

I suppose that depends on how it spreads. Its possible some people would be genetically immune.

[Ozar 108]

are there really People out there that believe in that Zombie Thingi .

 

hahahahahahaaaaa

 

oh guys, plz

[zeroy 240]

The question cannot be answered without more details. i'd go with 10 million however - simply because some Islands cannot be reached that easily and therefore would remain unaffected by a Zombie apocalypse.

[KarmaCoin 72]

are there really People out there that believe in that Zombie Thingi .

 

No, its a hypothetical question.

[KarmaCoin 72]

The question cannot be answered without more details.

 

Use your imagination to fill in the missing details and then decide how many people would be alive after 5 years in the scenario you imagined.

[Highlander007 249]

Well shit man. Depends on what kind of an apocalypse it is. Is it a Romeros slow running infestation or Richard Mathesons fast paced contagion from I am Legend that's the reason for the season.

[KarmaCoin 72]

Well shit man. Depends on what kind of an apocalypse it is. Is it a Romeros slow running infestation or Richard Mathesons fast paced contagion from I am Legend that's the reason for the season.

 

Which ever one you prefer or think is most realistic

[Ozar 108]

okey . i try to let this one into my mind.

 

so lets say there is a Zombie apocalypse.

 

we have army with fu***** planes that are faster than the Sound and shout exatcly into a dot of a laserpoint. we have missles that fly around half of the planet.

 

what do you think how many Zombies would survive ????

Edited February 26, 2014 by Ozar

[Highlander007 249]

okey . i try to let this one into my mind.

 

so lets say there is a Zombie apocalypse.

 

we have army with fu***** planes that are faster than the Sound and shout exatcly into a dot of a laserpoint. we have missles that fly around half of the planet.

 

what do you think how many Zombies would survive ????

The army is made of same humans, they get infected too.

 

 

Which ever one you prefer or think is most realistic

Well, I'm not an expert, however, American Center for Disease Control or CDC, is suggesting in their short novel called 'Zombie Pandemic' that this particular Apocalypse would sport more of a Night of the Living Dead sort of a scenario with slow walking and crawling Zombies.

Link is legit http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies_novella.htm ,so you can check this out for yourself too, that I'm not just talking shit.

The spread of the disease would probably involve exponential progression but there are too many variables which we don't have as it's all hypothetical . So, I couldn't really say.

If by some unlikely case running zombies were spreading the virus and/or if it was airborne , It would take over the world in a matter of days.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Highlander007

[Gerandar 212]

Zombies would be a non-issue in most countries given our military power.

[GrappleX 354]

The army is made of same humans, they get infected too.

 

 

 

Thing is it doesn't take an army to launch a missile, and missiles can put a lot of hurt on a zombie infested city.

[Nienko 41]

All the fat people that can still run would survive. Because we would eat all your food. And you have no idea what I can become when I am low on sweets and junk food. I could kill an army with my bare hands just for one cookie...

[KarmaCoin 72]

Thing is it doesn't take an army to launch a missile, and missiles can put a lot of hurt on a zombie infested city.

 

But also cause a lot of collateral damage without accomplishing much in terms of resolving the disaster. I think it is much more likely the military would take a disaster relief role rather than a combat role.

 

Providing medical aid, food, water, shelter and protection to survivors while protecting the resources and supply lines required to work towards a solution to the infection would probably be the primary strategy of the military.

 

The assumed offensive role of search and destroy exposes the military to increased risk of infection and spends vital resources on something that does little to advance towards a permanent solution.

 

In short. Missiles can kill zombies but they can't cure disease.

[Hrki 94]

B) zombie apocalypse yea right like i will fly to moon with my spaceship  :rolleyes: 

[chekovp 89]

Lol @ all the "after 5 years, shit would be worse than at the start" posts. 5 years after any sort of apocalypse, things would be nothing but better. The population would be growing and technology would start coming back into play. 

Even if 99% of the worlds population was wiped out, that still leaves over 70 million people left alive. That was the worlds population around 750 BC. People would still be killing each other, just like they do now. But people would have formed groups, tribes and such and the killing would be over land and hunting grounds, just like it was back in 750 BC. I really doubt that people would still be hunting other people just for kicks, except for the crazies who will always do that. 

Just my opinion

[terminal_boy 860]

I'm going with 10 million.

 

Most likely thinly spread across remote areas which weren't contaminated/infected and the people there know how to live off the land/sea.

 

I would fully expect some silly sod to launch a nuke or two once they realise their country is doomed.

[gibonez 3633]

Oddly enough I will say the vast majority of the population would survive zombies stand little chance against tanks and apcs.

[Etherimp 1323]

I'd say between 100 - 500 million.

 

There are about 7 billion people living on Earth right now, and if 99% of them died, that'd be about 70 million survivors. 98% would be 140, 97% about 210 mil, 96% 280 mil, 95% 350 mil.

So, assuming the apocalyptic event resulted in 95-99% of the human population being wiped out, you would end up with between 70-350 million survivors.

 

An apocalypse would encourage population growth. Less people means more work to survive. More work means people would group together, and they would need to have children to create a sustainable community. 

 

You also have to consider how this would impact large cities and other dense population centers. Suddenly, the world would be a much quieter place, and the value of human life would rise dramatically. In our current society with twitter and facebook and forums like this and cell phones and movies and TV, it's hard to imagine a world where you could go a week without seeing another living person.

 

With 100 million people on Earth, there would be approximately 1.5 square kilometers of LAND area per person. 

 

Chernarus is 225 Sq. km, and on a 40 player server that gives each player 5.6 Sq. km. 100 player servers would drop that down to 2.25.