Category: Zombie Apocalypse

Zombie Apocalypse: Leadership

Nov 5, 2025 – 10:13 AM

The intersecting web of institutions in our modern life takes care of much of the ambiguity that is present in everyday reality. We do not notice it anymore, except during extreme moments of strife. For example, we have laws, which inscribe in concrete terms what we can and cannot do. But there are also moral conventions, traditions, religion, culture, &c., that we can rely on to dispel with ambiguity, whether personal, familial, societal, political, or to some degree even global.

In the event of an apocalyptic scenario, these institutions will crumble. Many things will become ambiguous again. One of the main driving forces of this ambiguity is the ensuing scarcity that not only incentivizes brutal competition but also makes it impossible to maintain such institutions.

Now, although it is possible to think through every ambiguity, so that we arrive at a suitable solution or compromise (although not necessarily the correct one), the state of things during an apocalypse also means that many times there will be no time to think. Thus, decision-making for the most pressing matters needs to be delegated to a knowledgeable few, or even a single leader. There will be many cases wherein an imperfect swift decision is better than the perfect solution that never comes.

Time and urgency are the most crucial factors that necessitate the presence of a strong, decisive, knowledgeable leader. And the decisions of this leader need to be protected, at least to a degree. Although this leader must be accountable, they cannot be accountable in the way that leaders today are. The circumstances are simply too different; they will have to make decisions that they themselves are ashamed of. But this is the moral cost of survival. In the apocalypse, all kinds of sacrifices must be made—physical, mental, emotional, and moral. The leader must bear the brunt of that.

There will have to be a balance between the beastly and the angelic natures embodied in the human person. A purely angelic person will be defeated by the beast; the beast will be torn asunder by other beasts or themselves.

At the plainest, more basic level, however, the leader must be competent. They must be able to obtain resources, handle disputes, and deal with enemies within and without. But they will have the help of their group. Even with regard decisions, the leader will ideally have advisors. But the ultimate privilege of the leader is the ability to make decisions with reference to nothing: They make distinct what is arbitrary. They make definite what is vague. They say what is and what is not, in a time when certitude is as scarce as anything else.
Zombie Apocalypse: Discipline

Nov 4, 2025 – 4:12 PM

The military will be a crucial actor during a zombie apocalypse. The military is a kind of society within a society, not only composed of soldiers but doctors, engineers, mechanics, &c., all highly trained for combat situations. This is why it is crucial that they remain under civilian control: They are essentially a mirror of ordinary society but composed of stronger individuals. Without that guarantee of civilian control, they take it over through their superior prowess and discipline, as has been the case throughout human history, as we see in cases ranging from martial law to full-on juntas.

As we saw in the Season 3 finale of The Walking Dead, the difference between armed individuals and soldiers is discipline. Although the Governor had many more people than Rick, it did not take much for them to flee. When complaining to the Governor of what they had to go through, a woman exclaims: “We’re not soldiers!”

Worth noting here that when I say discipline, I am speaking more precisely about military discipline and not everyday, individual discipline. In military theory, discipline is just about as important as weaponry or training. Soldiers will not do what they need to do if they do not have discipline: “Discipline is behavior tempered by high moral standards. It is the willing adherence to the organizational values and to the shared expectations of the unit, even in the absence of supervision” (ADP 6-22).

Carl von Clauswitz, who first saw war is a science, dedicated much thought on discipline. He realized that war is fundamentally danger; thus, orders can only be successfully carried out in the battlefield if the soldiers possess personal courage. That is to say, the first and primary quality of the soldier is courage—this, when embodied, is what we call discipline.

It is not reasonable to expect that everyone in a settlement will have the discipline to become a soldier. At the soonest possible time (but no sooner), a settlement must create a professional class of order keepers. These people must have no duties, or barely any other duties, apart from maintaining the peace. Whatever time they have outside of doing their work must be spent training.

Just as crucial as any work they do and every bit of knowledge they have regarding weapons, formations, tactics, strategy, &c., is discipline. They must follow orders, even in the face of extreme and deadly danger. Otherwise, they would not have the fortitude to enact that knowledge, and so it would be essentially useless.

Discipline is particularly important when certain actions that need to be performed involve an emotional element. For example, there might be times when members of the group must be dealt with harshly. Sacrifices might need to be made that affects the weakest members. There might be extreme circumstances wherein innocent people may be hurt. In such cases, ordinary people might not be up for the task, and a highly disciplined class is needed to accomplish them.

Once again, this is a material necessity that goes back to the dawn of human civilization. The warrior class was venerated for a reason, and until today the people we know as nobility are people descended from warriors (which is why many members of royal families around the world are given numerous military honors, even if they have never substantially served in the military). But although our material capabilities return to the ancients, our values do not, which makes handling an armed force more complicated. Which makes discipline much more important, not only in terms of spurring people to action but in curbing our baser impulses.
Zombie Apocalypse: Strangers

Nov 3, 2025 – 4:36 PM

As I watch the series The Walking Dead, I will be reflecting on what it would be like to live and survive during a zombie apocalypse.

One of the main issues of surviving in the zombie apocalypse is how to deal with strangers. How to deal with them wanting to join is one thing, but overall dealing with strangers during a time of hunger, violence, and destitution

It is worth noting that savagery is not something new to human society. There was a time when all of humanity was composed of savages. The tension is apocalyptic stories lies primarily in how we are forced to return to this previous state of human existence while maintaining values that have developed thousands of years since then.

Thousands of years ago, during tribal society, strangers were enemies. If someone wandered in from the wilderness, that person must have been exiled from their tribe, and if that person was exiled, then they must have done something terrible. So, they were done away with. Animals who live in groups continue to do this. The exception is if the lone animal takes over the group via slaughtering the existing leaders. Lions and primates do this.

During the zombie apocalypse, the easiest method for dealing with strangers is killing them and taking all of their possessions. This eliminates risk and enriches the group, as one cannot truly determine whether a stranger has good or bad intentions. One cannot determine their weaknesses or failures or strengths. These things tend to emerge only during crises—i.e., during which they matter the most.

The reason we don’t do that, however, is because doing so would be considered barbaric, and engaging in barbarity lowers group morale. In surviving, one essentially creates the conditions for a state of being where it is not worth surviving. The exception here is if the people develop a culture of barbarity. But I believe that, given enough time, a culture of barbarity is liable to destroy itself. I believe that this is a near necessity, and one of the reasons why humans developed a strong sense of altruism even if sacrificing one’s self seems to be contrary to the principles of self-preservation.

I even imagine that, during the dawn of the age of humanity, some groups of people did develop extreme brutality as their core cultural trait. But I imagine none of them survived, and so the traits that produced such a culture were not passed on. And now I think we have a general aversion to such things. I think our need for peace, stability, and altruism is genetic and essential. And if we let those things go, we do not only lose what it means to be good; we lose what it means to be human.

I believe that history is the progress by which we have come to realize these values.[1] And if we are ever put in a position where we need to regress on such progress, we become confused. We try to retain it, all the while having to respond to situations that require things contrary to our natural impulses.

Thus, how do we balance our values with necessity? The question, when posited this way, seems elementary, although not simple. This is the question we encounter today with things like security, privacy, and governance.

All answers short of shunning or killing all and any strangers would require a tremendous amount of resources. For example, it might be a good idea to screen people or to leave them in a place where they are isolated from the main group. Here, they can prove themselves, and they can be observed. But the resources that would be required to create and maintain such an area are exorbitant.

That is to say, prosperity and peace come hand in hand. And in times of calamity, we simply cannot afford peace. So, up until that point that we can, I think the best policy with regard to newcomers is to avoid them. In many cases, it might be wise and humane to grant aid and supplies to passersby, but to integrate anyone into the group without knowing them, or even after spending only some time with them, is deadly.

And if strangers force their way in, then they are invaders. And they should be dealt with the way all invaders should be dealt with. Although it is worth considering that death should not be the penalty for all invaders; it is possible to simply incapacitate them and displace them, perhaps leaving supplies with them.

This will only change if and when our settlement can afford a professional police force. Then, we can count on them to maintain order if newcomers make trouble. But that is a long ways away for most groups, as most groups are nomadic bands rather than settled.

The issue with this policy is that there will be many instances where we will strangers will die as a result of being turned away. This dilemma is familiar: Is this not what we think about when we think about the migrant crisis? One of the most pressing political, economic, and moral challenges of our day.

Unfortunately, during such times, sacrifices need to be made. Not only physical sacrifices but also moral sacrifices. This is one of them.

I could go on and on. But I’ll spare you.

[1] Despite this, I do not hold the vulgar Hegelian position that we are teleologically inclined towards democracy and freedom, &c., in that our inclinations are still defined retroactively by the meanings and outcomes of our actions.
Zombie Apocalypse: Leadership

Nov 2, 2025 – 4:31 PM

As I watch the series The Walking Dead, I will be reflecting on what it would be like to live and survive during a zombie apocalypse.

I’ve gotten to think about the things I would do if I were in a zombie apocalypse. The most important thing that any group needs is structure. The larger a group grows, the more unlike it is they will survive without leadership. Not to say that a group with leadership will necessarily succeed, but the more things they have to deal with, the more they will find that it is impossible to reach consensus on many things, especially in the harsh conditions of the apocalypse. As the group grows, deadlocks become increasingly dangerous. And sluggish decision making can cost a life or worse cause fractures in the group that lead to deadly in-fighting, leading to the extermination of the group altogether.

Someone needs to make the decisions, and this person needs to be absolved of the difficult decisions people need to make during such times. Thus, human dignity and the sanctity of life are preserved, all the while making space for the fact that these values need to be transgressed in the name of survival. If the entire group makes the decision to engage in such exceptions, they would be foregoing those values voluntarily. However, if the leader is the exception, then the group as a whole maintains their values and the leader becomes the “scapegoat” (homo sacer) that embodies the brutality of power. Effectively, the transgression is relegated to that role; it is a designated moral sacrifice.

Physical decay is the most apparent difficulty during the apocalypse, but moral decay is something that becomes apparent once stability has returned. Without the scapegoat, and with the decay of human dignity and values, what survives is the human animal. But in the scala natura, the human is at the juncture of the animal and the angel. Though I’m not religious, I still know that the story of the Garden of Eden has survived for thousands of years for a reason. At the very basic level, it reminds us that the divine aspect of our nature can be lost.

I think the noble nature of humanity, which is only part of us and not the totality of us, is essential to its survival. Because human capacities are such that we are indeed capable of our complete destruction, if it came down to it. There might have been a time when we thought we could not possibly have enough power to wipe out the human race, simply because we have grown so numerous, but nuclear weapons put an end to that notion.

And so when we need to act like animals, there has to be a method, a reason, a purpose. And a way to purge ourselves of that action, a way to maintain the integrity of our humanity, as separate from the beast. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, there is the logic of the Primal Father as the exception that bolsters the rule. Maybe we will get into that later.

Category: Zombie Apocalypse

Zombie Apocalypse: Leadership

Zombie Apocalypse: Discipline

Zombie Apocalypse: Strangers

Zombie Apocalypse: Leadership