Redefining what constitues a Zombie

[PackLemming]

There is no hierarchy for Zombies, Zombies do not argue with Zombies. Zombies do not have interest in resolving their impulsive behavior. Zombies will simply go with the flow until they are re-de-animated. The horde is a Zombie. The Zombie is a horde.

I ticked the final selection box.

20. Travels in packs / tends to group together with other infected individuals

[shiddymunkie]

I apologize for going there. I do not think the point of your thread was to dehumanize anyone, nor was it racially motivated, nor could anyone get that impression from this thread. Just pointing out that what you identified as a central characteristic of movie zombies - the moral obligation to exterminate them/absence of culpability associated with killing - makes the zombie metaphor attractive to people with such unsavory ideas.

I understand your concern, and I have no qualms at all with the rule of not referring to real people as zombies. But with that being said, there is no way to discuss the possibility of real zombies without venturing into the hypothetical realm of real people being involved. But since the hypothetically-infected don't actually exist, it would be a stretch for them to be considered "real people" -- and so the rule wouldn't apply. After all, those hypothetical people would only be as real as the hypothetical zombies they have fallen victim to, am I right? Further more, implications that we shouldn't discuss the possibility of real zombies, as that would entail labeling real people as "zombies", would be presupposing that the infected still actually qualify as people.

Current top 5 traits:

1. #5 with 23 votes
2. #18 with 20 votes
3. #6 with 20 votes
4. #19 with 16 votes
5. #1 with 15 votes

[US_Army_Z28]

When it boils down to it in a real life application i think thee term "zombie" would best be served as a description of behavior rather than a state of alive or dead

[squinty]

I apologize for going there. I do not think the point of your thread was to dehumanize anyone, nor was it racially motivated, nor could anyone get that impression from this thread. Just pointing out that what you identified as a central characteristic of movie zombies - the moral obligation to exterminate them/absence of culpability associated with killing - makes the zombie metaphor attractive to people with such unsavory ideas.

I understand your concern, and I have no qualms at all with the rule of not referring to real people as zombies. But with that being said, there is no way to discuss the possibility of real zombies without venturing into the hypothetical realm of real people being involved. But since the hypothetically-infected don't actually exist, it would be a stretch for them to be considered "real people" -- and so the rule wouldn't apply. After all, those hypothetical people would only be as real as the hypothetical zombies they have fallen victim to, am I right? Further more, implications that we shouldn't discuss the possibility of real zombies, as that would entail labeling real people as "zombies", would be presupposing that the infected still actually qualify as people.

Current top 5 traits:

1. #5 with 23 votes
2. #18 with 20 votes
3. #6 with 20 votes
4. #19 with 16 votes
5. #1 with 15 votes

(Hypothetical realm = fictitious realm for most intents and purposes, so I'm happier. Still sorry to go Godwin on you, very poor form on my part.)

Well sure, if there was some agent or process that could, hypothetically, make people "not people" then we'd be well on our way to calling them zombies. But I can't think of anything irl right now that could do that. Even with their behavior distorted by drugs or brain injuries people are people. We don't currently kill people with brain damage unless and until they are reduced to brain stems on a respirator. Although maybe that's a good working definition of a zombie: a homicidal vegetable, ie someone with no higher mental function, whom you would normally disconnect from a respirator or feeding tube and allow to die because there was definitely no "them" left in there anymore, except they are somehow able to walk around and eat you. Though Shaun of the Dead even had the brilliance to introduce doubt about that, in the scene where Shaun says to his mother "I know it looks like him, but there is nothing of the man you loved in that car" but at that exact moment, her zombitized husband reaches up to turn off the stereo that had been blasting music he hated in life, and the zombie stepdad looks, briefly, relieved.

Even a brain injury or disease that makes a person homicidal and impairs some of their reasoning and survival ability doesn't make them a zombie. Charles Whitman was close. He still had higher reasoning functions, but they were impaired by rage somewhat (a coldly rational Whitman could have killed in subtler ways, and got away with it over and over.) But even him, the only reason to shoot him was he placed others in imminent danger. If he could have been identified as suffering from w/e it was sooner, the response wouldn't be "oh no, he's got that tumor that makes him kill. Head shot!" It would have been to detain him and try to fix the thing that was making him nuts.

Now, a Charles Whitman "tumor" that was somehow highly contagious, and spread so rapidly that the time and resources didn't exist to treat them all would be pretty scary, esp. if it left a lot of higher functioning intact. Way scarier than the typical "higher functioning lost" zombie.
The Return of the Living Dead "Zombies" had some higher functioning, they could talk, use radios, wheedle and cajole their victims, and explain what a terribly painful state was living death. I think The Crazies introduced a similar "thinking zombies" concept, as the infected in that movie didn't regress to a level of subhuman, unable to use tools impairment. They kept the ability to shoot, drive, run you through with a pitchfork etc. but were so consumed with the urge to kill that they couldn't think very far ahead.

[shiddymunkie]

And there in lies the most fundamental question, at what point does a person go from simply being sick or disabled to being a zombie? Is there such a point? I don't think I know the answer to that question because it ultimately comes down to a philosophical issue that has been debated for over 1000 years, i.e. what makes a person a "person". For the purposes of this discussion, I believe there are a few things that would need to be true in order for someone to no longer be considered a zombie.

1. The condition either has to be incurable, or it must spread so fast/freely that curing the disease is not a viable option. In other words, there can't be any hope for saving the infected, and additionally, the condition must be so dangerous that it can only be contained by destroying those infected (i.e. because of how contagious it is and/or because of how violent the infected are).

2. It must somehow remove the person's agency. I don't know if that means severely damaging the cerebral cortex, or blocking certain receptors in the brain, over-producing certain hormones, etc. Because of how complicated the brain is, I am sure there are more ways of doing this than what I am aware of. The point is that the "person" can no longer "be there". Since behavior alone can't always give us that answer, there would have to be some sort of biological evidence that, while the body is still functioning, there has been an irreversible loss of agency.

3. For such a condition to be more than just a brain-killing plague, I do believe that one result of infection must be extreme violence and hostility, which may or may not include cannibal-like behavior. I don't really think the actual eating of people is necessary, just unrestrained violence against other people (which would probably include biting and other animal-like behavior).

So in summary, a zombie must be a mentally-vacant, unsaveable, violent creature who carries a disease which can cause the same condition in others. Would you agree with that assessment?

[squinty]

And there in lies the most fundamental question, at what point does a person go from simply being sick or disabled to being a zombie? Is there such a point?

IMO no. Existing in the real world will always disqualify someone from being a 'zombie,' no matter the superficial resemblance to the fictional creature. That doesn't mean I'll let anyone eat my face off, but I ain't usin' the zed word.

I don't think I know the answer to that question because it ultimately comes down to a philosophical issue that has been debated for over 1000 years, i.e. what makes a person a "person". For the purposes of this discussion, I believe there are a few things that would need to be true in order for someone to no longer be considered a zombie.

1. The condition either has to be incurable, or it must spread so fast/freely that curing the disease is not a viable option. In other words, there can't be any hope for saving the infected, and additionally, the condition must be so dangerous that it can only be contained by destroying those infected (i.e. because of how contagious it is and/or because of how violent the infected are).

2. It must somehow remove the person's agency. I don't know if that means severely damaging the cerebral cortex, or blocking certain receptors in the brain, over-producing certain hormones, etc. Because of how complicated the brain is, I am sure there are more ways of doing this than what I am aware of. The point is that the "person" can no longer "be there". Since behavior alone can't always give us that answer, there would have to be some sort of biological evidence that, while the body is still functioning, there has been an irreversible loss of agency.

3. For such a condition to be more than just a brain-killing plague, I do believe that one result of infection must be extreme violence and hostility, which may or may not include cannibal-like behavior. I don't really think the actual eating of people is necessary, just unrestrained violence against other people (which would probably include biting and other animal-like behavior).

So in summary, a zombie must be a mentally-vacant, unsaveable, violent creature who carries a disease which can cause the same condition in others. Would you agree with that assessment?

I would nevertheless only use the term to describe creatures in fiction. I cannot imagine a likely scenario which would produce such a condition IRL, though plenty of plausible sounding unlikely scenarios could be dreamt up.
I don't think the zombie has to carry the "disease," in fiction and lit it is sufficient that their numbers increase exponentially by some means. That could happen even if a "zombie" was not itself a vector for transmission.
NOTLD postulated something preposterous like "radiation from a probe returning from Venus" that just reanimated the recently dead, no matter how they died. ROTLD postulated a corpse animating gas.

[shiddymunkie]

IMO no. Existing in the real world will always disqualify someone from being a 'zombie,' no matter the superficial resemblance to the fictional creature. That doesn't mean I'll let anyone eat my face off, but I ain't usin' the zed word.

I would nevertheless only use the term to describe creatures in fiction.

I get that, especially out of respect for the fact that this was a normal person with hopes and dreams, and had friends/family who loved them. It would be a tragic illness beyond anything I could hypothesize. But as crass as this may sound, wouldn't what we call them be an issue of semantics? Don't get me wrong, I don't mean any disrespect, but our label for the afflicted (or lack thereof) wouldn't change the reality of their condition. And honestly, I don't think that would be our chief concern anyhow...

I don't think the zombie has to carry the "disease," in fiction and lit it is sufficient that their numbers increase exponentially by some means. That could happen even if a "zombie" was not itself a vector for transmission.
NOTLD postulated something preposterous like "radiation from a probe returning from Venus" that just reanimated the recently dead, no matter how they died. ROTLD postulated a corpse animating gas.

Yeah, that's a good point. All that seems to be necessary the the threat/existence of mass contamination, regardless of how it came about. I suppose a contagion carried by the infected only adds to their hazard, and thus their expendability.

Good lord, it feels gross to be on this side of the discussion

[squinty]

But as crass as this may sound, wouldn't what we call them be an issue of semantics? Don't get me wrong, I don't mean any disrespect, but our label for the afflicted (or lack thereof) wouldn't change the reality of their condition.

I feel like too low a value has been placed on semantics. Like I said, I'ma not let my face get eateed regardless. But the reasons you kill an irl zombie are the same reasons you use lethal force against any person. Someone might, theoretically, have all the higher mental function in the world, be the picture of health and rationality, his own free autonomous agent with all his hopes and dreams intact, and be a lovely dancer, yet decide for whatever reason (maybe he's just a dick) that my face looks tasty. He isn't a zombie, he doesn't fit most of the criteria, but if his eating my face is an imminent certainty then he's sure as shit taking some lead to the facio-cranial region if I have anything to say about it, and I'm verbose.

An IRL person, who IS showing zombie-esque behavior but who isn't at that moment engaged in face eaty behavior, maybe they are somehow restrained or rendered harmless for the time being, I'm going to treat like a sick person and I'll sure not shoot them. They are still a person. So. yeah, I'll be that guy in the movie that has his wife chained up and shufflin' in the attic, hoping that maybe some treatment will be found. If you prove to me that she's somehow the equivalent of a vegetable despite being able to walk, and definitely not coming back, I'll euthanize her. Here, help me strap her down to this table - watch the jaws! - while I get the EEG leads pasted in place...