Why a Zombie Apocalypse Cannot Reasonably Happen

Zombie-Apocalypse-Gear-Survival-Essentials-0Bioquark has announced recently that they are starting research into reanimating a dead human brain. This announcement has received less than positive reviews, the most adamant coming from the zombie apocalypse community. But, how much of their panic is founded in logic? I can see their own neurons firing incorrectly, thinking that graves will be invaded, cadavers taken, reanimated into mindless cannibals that ravenously eat the flesh of the living, to bring down all of civilization, so that Rick can wake up from a coma and be the hero/anti-hero/hero-again person they like to watch on the Walking Dead.

Okay, some of you aren’t actually thinking that, and I do understand the nostalgia some feel at the current hell hole of civilization we have now being brought down by it’s own ignorant actions. But I’m not talking about you guys. I’m focusing on those who haven’t reanimated their own brains and did a little critical thinking before jumping on the bandwagon of stupid.

Researchers would be focusing on the best possible scenario of reanimating near brain dead coma victims. These are people on life support, who have families who now feel that they have some hope in getting their loved one back from that state between life and oblivion. Thinking they would first try to animate a fully dead brain degraded by decomposition is as insane as the fear of Bioquark sparking a full on zombie apocalypse. But, my rebuttal doesn’t stop here.

I feel it’s necessary to browbeat logic into those who are legitimately afraid of zombies and for no good reason. Zombies exist on TV and movies because it’s fiction. It is not real, though special effects make it seem that way. Dead people cannot get back up, and wander for years in hordes of zombies behaving like the human equivalent of locust swarms.  And that’s mainly because decomposition shatters cellular operation that decimates the nervous system, ends muscular activity and destroys the connective tissues that hold it all together. This is decomposition, guys, and it starts within minutes after death. An hour later the body cannot function… period. A few hours after that the body is stiff, because our little ecosystems have been eating away at our cells and flesh the whole time… the hungry little bastards. Days later, the body is most definitely well into rot and has bloated up, the degree of which depends on a number of environmental factors that includes heat, humidity etc.  And the heavy stink that assails your nostrils is clear evidence that the corpse is in no way getting back up to bite your face off.

Getting away from zombies, and back to reality, the research this company is engaging in may result in advances in alzheimer’s patients and brain damaged victims, to name a couple other areas where we need improvement, and may lead to a much better understanding of neurology in general. So, stop fearing the impossible, stop engaging in fantasy and start understanding the real world and how it works… not the fictional world of the Walking Dead. It’s a TV show… really, I would never lie to you.


Open Minded Does Not Mean Believe Everything You Hear

headinsandDo you have an open mind? Wait. Before you answer you may need to properly understand what it really means to have an open mind. Urban Dictionary defines an open mind as, “… when even if you think you are right, you know that you can be wrong and are always willing to listen to and hear an opposing or contradictory view.” The Cambridge online dictionary defines it as waiting until all the facts are in before making a judgement. But, let’s tear apart the definition from Urban Dictionary first, because it troubles me somewhat.

There is a scale with definitely not right on one end and definitely right on the other. Most of us are somewhere between the two on most issues. Yet not all issues reside in that fuzzy, gray area. For example, I don’t need an open mind when someone says that the Moon is made of cheese. When I say it is not I do not need to look at the evidence presented by Mooncheesers, just in case there is new evidence in support of a Moon of cheese. Barring that non-zero quantum probability, that suddenly the Moon can turn into cheese, it most definitely is not made of Gouda, and I definitely do not need to entertain the idea. I can say with certainty that my claim is on the definitely right end of the scale. It is the same with hollow Earth, zig-zag-and-swirl and chemtrails. All three never should have happened, let alone gain acceptance by so many people. This is why I’m going with the definition provided by Cambridge. When all the evidence is in we can make a judgement and be quite sure that we have it right.

Is it closed minded to no longer have an interest in the paranoid ramblings of a few crazy people that hold true to an idea even after it has been shown to be completely false? No, it isn’t. It is simply logical to not waste time on a falsehood that has been shown to be such. Illuminati, chemtrails, alien abduction – and Moons made of cheese – may still seem possible by Urban Dictionary’s definition, but not with the Cambridge definition. The evidence is in, we’ve looked at it from the proponent’s point of view and the evidence is not compelling, and can even be said to be contrived to the point of deliberate misrepresentation.

I’ve been called closed minded before, this is not a new thing. I was once told by a friend of mine that he saw pyramids on the Moon through his telescope. When challenged to show me he would not and I was promptly accused of having a closed mind. I was expected to just believe it. This friend defined open mind as “believe what I tell you”. This was during a time when I was struggling with other crazy ideas supported by fabricated evidence, molded to fit a desired conclusion. These were crazy ideas I believed without the background checking that is now a fundamental part of my MO. Mind you, in my defense, the internet was not accessible to the general public as it is now, so I didn’t really have the resources.

The thing is, no one can use lack of resources as an excuse today. The internet is a tool that is only half used for some reason. People look for what supports their preconcept and never look for, or have a desire to believe, any evidence to the contrary. Many people seem to choose ignorance. They are not open to the possibility that they are wrong, and in many cases seem to be scared to death of it. I do not understand how this fear can exist at all. Would you not want to know if you are right or wrong? If you are scared of aliens, would you not want to seek out all the information in an effort to either confirm or deny that fear? If you are scared of chemtrails, would you not want to know if it is actually true? If you answer no to any of those three questions then you do not have an open mind. And if your mind is closed enough to answer no to any of those questions, then you are probably upset with me now for having a closed mind.

However, if you answered yes to all three, then you are ready to look at both sides of any issue and tease out the truth. You are ready to use your resources fully. You may not always get the answers you’re looking for and it may land you someplace in the gray area, but that is how proper inquiry works. That is how science works. You may not consider yourself a scientist, but if you look at all the evidence, weigh that evidence against the contrary with an objective eye, then you are, for all intents and purposes, a scientist and have an open mind. If you are not afraid of being wrong, or at least not entirely sure, of something you once held as absolute, then you are not closed minded.


You Are In Charge of You

angry face

Who is really in charge of your emotions?  I ask because too often I see people being overly blamed for the anger of others. All too often it seems that I am in charge of not making other people angry.  But, how much of this responsibility is on me and how much is on those who habitually fume at the actions or bahaviours of other people?  Don’t misunderstand, I too get mad and also attribute the causes of those moments to someone or something that triggers them.  I’m fully aware that I am the one in charge of myself, that I am the one who invariably makes the choice of letting it get to me, or allowing it to pass.

I’ve been told countless times in the past that so-and-so is easily angered and to be careful, to tread lightly.  Every time I hear something like this I quickly respond with words to the effect that, no… I will not tread lightly, so-and-so can damned well learn tolerance… and I feel mostly right in saying so.  This is not to say that I am free to troll or instigate someone who is easlily set off, I’m not.  I have the responsibility to put some reasonable effort in not preying on people easily riled.  Even if I personally feel that a bit of adversity can and will teach some tolerance to someone who cannot control their emotions, it is not up to me to teach anything in such a manner.

On the same note, I also have a right to express myself, my concerns and rebuttals.  I have a right to express my political, social and moral views to counter what is clearly incorrect, illogical thinking and assumption.  And I should not be blamed for someone becoming completely unhinged due to unaddressed anger issues.  For some reason I am responsible for both my own emtional state and those of other people.

I have somehow made it my life work to counter incorrect with the correct.  It is not just one of the directives of this blog, it is the way I am.  The intent is not to be a pain in the arse, even though it is commonly viewed that way.  There are some modes of thought, and some moral stances, that are just wrong and have been allowed to propagate through society simply because we are afraid of being open an honest with those who fume, seeth, and generally make everyone’s life miserable.  We walk on eggshells whenever we’re around them. We adust our behaviour to accomodate them… and we shouldn’t.  What we’re really doing when we back away and not call these people on their behaviour, is not qwell a bad situation, but let it fester for the next time, when it starts all over again.  In short, we are supporting an atmosphere of negativity and this sends a clear message to anger addicts that it is not only okay to be like that, but preferred.

People that resort to anger need to learn to temper their temper, and the rest of us need to realize that it is not up to us to avoid pissing them off.  Our only responsibility is to not deliberately piss them off.  We are allowed to challenge them on bad moral ideals and bad behaviour, even knowing that such challenges may well cause an uncomfortable tirade that ends up making us miserable for a little while.  So, to answer the question at the very top of this post, we are responsible for not being a dick… just like they are.