Zombie Apocalypse And Conspiracy Theories

[Pioneer1]

Piggy Backing off of @frankster's Conspiracy Theory thread.......
I have a confession to make.

I actually DID want to see a Zombie Apocalypse as a result off those vaccines.
Or some sort off Global incident similar to it.

Why?

Because like a lot of people, I want to be right/correct and be assured that my judgement is sound.

Like frankster and many others, I DO NOT trust those vaccines nor do I trust a lot of other things being pushed on society and think that they cause more harm than good.
But without clear evidence and concrete proof, it's hard to convince others to have that same mistrust and in some cases even convince MYSELF that my position is sound and correct.

So the entire planet was hit with a global pandemic out of nowhere.
Then they come up with shot to give most of the human population.

It's been about 4 and almost 5 years later and no Zombie Apocalypse yet and although there's been a lot of hearsay about people dropping dead and having complications as a result of the vaccine....most of the society SEEMS to be living as they did prior to the Pandemic.

So what am I...we...to make of this?

Especially those of us who believe in Conspiracies?

This hasn't changed my mind that Conspiracies exist, but it's a bit disappointing because it doesn't offer a powerful enough incentive for the masses to mistrust the propaganda they're being given.
Even if it is harmful, if people are taking the shots and aren't turning into Zombies or dropping dead in mass numbers then most people aren't going to make the connection between the two.
And even if they agree that they are harmful, they'll be willing to weigh their options and take a chance on them because they figure the consequences aren't nearly as severe as the "Conspiracy Theorists" make things out to be.

I guess this is the reason behind what some Conspiracy Theorists call the "frog in the slow boiling pot strategy".
If the Conspiracy was too obvious or too devastating, it wouldn't work as effectively because the masses wouldn't fall for it.
 

[ProfD]

On 7/27/2025 at 11:56 AM, Pioneer1 said:

I actually DID want to see a Zombie Apocalypse as a result off those vaccines.
Or some sort off Global incident similar to it.

Why?

Because like a lot of people, I want to be right/correct and be assured that my judgement is sound.

Any conspiracies surrounding the pandemic and vaccines is a huge undertaking because it was global.

 

There's no shortage of unhealthy things that are killing humans. Not quite a zombie apocalypse. But, millions of people die every year.

[Pioneer1]

I've talked about several times one of the reasons I'm no longer religious.
I expected things to happen that didn't.

This recent war between Israel and Iran and what's happening in Gaza is a good example.

It flared up...and died down.

If I were still religious and believed in the Bible I probably would have quit my job and prepared for "the end" because of how things looked.
It looked like the end of the world was right around the corner; only for them to be sitting around in cafes with their legs crossed in sandals sipping on coffee again.

But now I know better.

Some may think that's silly to even believe that in the first place......
However it's not for those who SINCERELY believe in what they espouse.

Christian theology TEACHES that when you see these things the "end" is near.
It's taught.
And it's been taught for HUNDREDS of years.
....another reason I stopped believing.


Whether it's religion or conspiracy theories, it seems as if a lot of people are so cognitive dissonant that they can stare contradictions in the face and not think twice about them and even promote them WHILE living a life totally opposite of what they're teaching and claiming to believe.

They claim Jesus is coming back soon, yet their buying mortgages on houses and sending their children to college to get degrees and good jobs -yet claiming the world is going to end.
It doesn't make sense to ME as to why they even hold on to doctrines they clearly deep down don't believe in.

Human psychology is amazing.
 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Human psychology is amazing.

Yep. Humans can rationalize d8mn near anything.

 

Despite their religious beliefs, people seem indifferent to the death and destruction from meaningless conflicts. There's no huge protest from that community.

 

Of course, world leaders have no problems with sanctioning death and destruction towards sociopolitical ends.  The *game* is very real.

 

Seems easier for people to bury their heads in the sand especially when they are not directly affected by what's happening.

[umbrarchist]

On 7/27/2025 at 10:56 AM, Pioneer1 said:

If the Conspiracy was too obvious or too devastating, it wouldn't work as effectively because the masses wouldn't fall for it.

 

9/11 isn't obvious?

 

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Human psychology is amazing.

 

Amazingly Dumb!?

 

https://elleyotter.home.blog/2018/02/27/book-review-under-a-graveyard-sky-black-tide-rising-1-by-john-ringo/

 

Great Fun if you can handle Ringo Jingoism.
Pseudo-Zombies galore,
smarter than Trump.

Under a Graveyard Sky by John Ringo 

 

5 free chapters

https://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781451639193/9781451639193.htm

 

But you need to be able to dance and shoot in time to rock & roll.

Edited July 29 by umbrarchist
Spacing, bolding

[ProfD]

19 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

Amazingly Dumb!?

 

...smarter than Trump.

I don't  believe high IQ has ever been the key to human survival. 

[umbrarchist]

2 hours ago, ProfD said:

I don't  believe high IQ has ever been the key to human survival. 

 

Personal survival or collective social survival?

 

How much technology do you use every day that you do not understand?  How smart were the individuals who invented it?

 

Would there be 8 billion people on the planet today without those kinds individuals? Now we have economists who will not talk about the depreciation of technology that they do not understand.

 

I asked a PhD economist to explain how a gas engine worked. He said nothing. He drove a white SUV.

 

Is this vast "Not Knowing" part of the problem NOW?

.

[ProfD]

4 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

Personal survival or collective social survival?

Throughout human existence it only takes a fraction of the population to be *smart* enough to make incremental advances in prolonging our survivability.

 

4 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

How much technology do you use every day that you do not understand?  How smart were the individuals who invented it?

The real question becomes how important is the technology if people do not understand how to use it.

 

Put differently, there's always enough people who know enough about the technology to makie it accesssible to the masses.

 

Computers have only been around for a half-century. People are still capable of surviving just fine without them.

 

4 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

Would there be 8 billion people on the planet today without those kinds individuals?

Population growth has nothing to do with intelligence. Humans don't have to study biology in order to procreate.

 

4 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

Is this vast "Not Knowing" part of the problem NOW?

The masses *not knowing* doesn't seem to be a real world problem in the grand scheme of things.

[umbrarchist]

38 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Computers have only been around for a half-century. People are still capable of surviving just fine without them.

Take out computers controlling the traffic lights if a major city, what will happen?

 

There are videos of Russia's Aeroflot having problems right now.

 

But how crappy is the technology really? I had to write my own benchmarks at IBM to find that the new computer was slower than the one it was replacing.

.

Edited July 31 by umbrarchist
Add paragraph

[ProfD]

51 minutes ago, umbrarchist said:

Take out computers controlling the traffic lights if a major city, what will happen?

Traffic will become congested until police show up to direct it.

 

In no way am I suggesting that computers are unnecessary. Technology makes our lives easier. It automates mechanical processes.

 

But, we had a way of getting things done before technology automated those processes. In an emergency situation, we go back to whatever worked in the past.

 

 

51 minutes ago, umbrarchist said:

There are videos of Russia's Aeroflot having problems right now.

No matter how many *smart* people are involved in building technology, there are trials and errors.

 

Sometimes the sh8t blows up or falls out of the sky for no apparent reason. Just ask the purported genius Elon Musk.

 

51 minutes ago, umbrarchist said:

But how crappy is the technology really? I had to write my own benchmarks at IBM to find that the new computer was slower than the one it was replacing.

Some people work with the limitations of existing technology while others try to improve upon and make it better.

[umbrarchist]

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

Traffic will become congested until police show up to direct it.

For an Entire CITY!!!

 

Examples:

• New York City: 7,660 (of a total of 12,460) signalized intersections are controlled by a central computer network and monitored by traffic management centers.
• Toronto: 83% of its signals are controlled by the Main Traffic Signal System (MTSS). 15% also use the SCOOT (Split Cycle and Offset Optimization Technique), an adaptive signal control system.
• Sydney: 3,400 traffic signals co-ordinated by the Sydney Co-ordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS). Designed and developed by RTA, the system was first introduced in 1963 and progressively developed since then. By October 2010, SCATS was licensed to 33,200 intersections in 144 cities across 24 countries worldwide, including Singapore, Hong Kong, Dublin, Tehran and Minneapolis and Detroit.
• Melbourne: 3,200 traffic lights across Victoria, including regional areas such as Geelong and Ballarat, using SCATS. Some 500 intersections also have tram and bus priority.
• Adelaide: 580 sets of coordinated traffic lights throughout the metropolitan region managed by the Adelaide Coordinated Traffic Signal (ACTS) System.

 

I presume these systems are hardened with backups but my point was that we have created dependencies on complex tech.

.

Edited July 31 by umbrarchist
Paste city signal control data

[ProfD]

5 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

For an Entire CITY!!!

 

I presume these systems are hardened with backups but my point was that we have created dependencies on complex tech.

Correct. Definitely redundant backup computer systems in place to manage complex systems.

 

But, those automated traffic systems with computer centers were built and refined over time.

 

The traffic system started out very differently when cars were 1st invented.

[Troy]

Humans have a great capacity for magical thinking, which why some are genetically predisposed to being religious or believing in conspiracy theories or not.

 

Humanity's great gift is the ability to cooperate at scale.  The is the only reason the brilliance of a few geniuses can turn into gummy bears, atomic bombs, TikTok, and space craft.

 

If it were not for technology, we would still be living hard lives and dying at 30 on average.

It is technology that is responsible for the number of people on the planet.  It took 300K years to reach a billion people. It only took 10 years to add the last billion people to the earth. This is just not the result of horny people this is technology.  This is also why I never believed in reincarnation (the math does not work). 

 

[ProfD]

7 hours ago, Troy said:

Humanity's great gift is the ability to cooperate at scale.  The is the only reason the brilliance of a few geniuses can turn into gummy bears, atomic bombs, TikTok, and space craft.

Right. A very small fraction of the population is genius level given the times in which they live.

7 hours ago, Troy said:

If it were not for technology, we would still be living hard lives and dying at 30 on average.

Advanced knowledge in science, medicine and technology has definitely led to lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy.

7 hours ago, Troy said:

It is technology that is responsible for the number of people on the planet.  It took 300K years to reach a billion people.

300k years is a long time being able to survive without the medicine and technology we have today.

7 hours ago, Troy said:

It only took 10 years to add the last billion people to the earth. This is just not the result of horny people this is technology. 

The white population is not growing despite access to the best medicine and technology. They aren't horny enough.

 

Meanwhile, non-white populations in less developed parts of the world are growing.

 

Even with limited access to meds and technology, the people are still getting busy and reproducing. 

 

Surely, meds and technology play a part in human survivability.

 

Basic human nature is all it takes in order to procreate. Not levels of genius.

 

Most people are still of average intelligence relative to their time of existence. 

[Troy]

My point is that without technology the planet's population would not have grown by 7 billion in past 300 years -- that includes the growth in the number of so-called white people too.

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, Troy said:

My point is that without technology the planet's population would not have grown by 7 billion in past 300 years -- that includes the growth in the number of so-called white people too.

Understood.

 

Rhetorically, I wonder why it took so long and appears we have a long way to on several levels.

 

Despite advanced medicine and technology, there'a stiil no cure for so many diseases and other problems.

[Pioneer1]

20 hours ago, ProfD said:

 

Despite advanced medicine and technology, there'a stiil no cure for so many diseases and other problems.

Probably because much of that "advanced technology" actually CAUSED many of the diseases and other problems that didn't exist, in the first place.

The "start a problem and offer a solution" ruling strategy is almost as old as "divide and conquer"

[ProfD]

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Probably because much of that "advanced technology" actually CAUSED many of the diseases and other problems that didn't exist, in the first place.

The "start a problem and offer a solution" ruling strategy is almost as old as "divide and conquer"

Oh...you mean like them starting HIV/AIDS and trying to blame it on the primates.

 

That statement would make you a conspiracy theorist in some places.

[Pioneer1]

5 hours ago, ProfD said:

Oh...you mean like them starting HIV/AIDS and trying to blame it on the primates.

 

That statement would make you a conspiracy theorist in some places.

I'm sure the Green Monkeys wouldn't object to that Conspiracy....lol.
They've been getting blamed for starting AIDS for about 5 decades now.

[frankster]

I have only read part of the opening post of this threads

THe conspirators are planning generationally...People tend to forget - 70 yrs

Had it resulted in  a zombie apocalypse the conspirators would be fully outed 

Plausable deniability is all thats needed to sow and maintain doubt.