Zombie Research Society
USA Today first reported about the booming business of building doomsday shelters in 2010, noting that because of the high cost of construction the new model is to buy part ownership in a larger facility designed to house up to two thousand people. Now it seems a new line of deluxe apocalypse condos for sale in Concordia, Kansas have sold out at over $1 million per unit.
We’ve been saying for two years that these type of shared survival shelters are a horrible idea because of the massive amount of trust in strangers these partial-ownership facilities require.
When upwards of one hundred people have the ability to access your shelter, what’s to stop an owner from bringing his entire extended family along even though he’s only purchased one spot? What’s to stop dozens of owners doing likewise, thereby instantly shrinking your food supply from a year to just a couple weeks?
Even more disturbing is that the builders of the Kansas facility are located in Melbourne, Florida, more than 1,500 miles from the actual shelter. That’s a long way to call for assistance when you arrive at the end of the world and the solar panels and plumbing don’t work as promised. Not to mention the thousands of desperate survivors who will come knocking because the Melbourne team has happily advertised the shelter’s exact location far and wide.
In short, do yourself a favor and stay as far away from these death traps as possible.
Here is a link to SurvivalCondo.com website, and also an article about their selling out.
Isolation is key. Somewhere far from people (read: communal survival shelter=bad idea) with a fresh and self sustained water supply. That would indeed be ideal, but for most of us, it is just out of reach. Where ever you choose to go, make sure it is away from large groups of humanity. Just your family and your team, and only your family and your team should know of it’s exact location. You have discussed all this with your family, right? You do have a team (even a small one) assembled, right? And you are currently storing food in and around (or very easily transportable) your chosen destination, right? Just remember: Isolation. No people= no zombies. You have to have people in order to have zombies. Ahh, The abandoned farmhouse, how sorely you will be sought after.
the book WWZ went over something similar to this in the chapter about the rich people, where it was to be a safe place far from the zombies, but because everyone knew about it, anyone who could get across the water ran to it, and the rich people were thrown out. If people know of a safe place they will go to it for safety, probably turning into a mob, and destroying the things that made it safe altogether.
once the main panic has settled down, and the amount of infected people running around has turned undead, the zombie problem sould become manageable if you stay far away from any hoards. So dealing with people will become the most dangerous thing you can do, and I agree that the biggest A-hole has the best chance to survive; not just at the start, but afterwards when large groups are formed, and the first to take all the weapons become the dictator. But this may only factor in for shelters were the people gathered to get away from virus, as for the rest of us, we are more likely to first run home, to family, or friends, you know the people we trust, and that is worth more then being able to turn a car into a tank, as your darling little sister is not going to throw you to the zombies, well unless you family suck that is, but then why would you go to them.
Get there early. Lock the doors. Nobody gets in. Paradise.
Kill em all, problem solved
Adam’s right….and what if one of the residents is just a straight up a-hole looking to be the new leader of the group?
Good point Adam but I doubt there’d be survivors, why? It’s due to the fact the majority will be turned into zombies and the remaining (probably the guys that run and hide and are weak) will commit suicide due to the loss of morale of living any longer foraging for food everyday, finding ammunition for their firearms traveling almost everyday and the possibility of refuge is almost nonexistent since well, not only you have zombies chasing you hut you have other survivors to worry about and I mean groups. You have to compete for the same food same amount of shelter. So not only the zombies will kill us but even ourselves. Were better off driving inna huge military hummer that runs on solar power with chainsaws on the front. Maybe a few fire arms at your side. Btw this global gun ban thing is kinda dumb, since 1)we have no power in countries that hate us aka Iran 2) the US constitution states a right to own fire arms.
Worse than just bringing more people than you have space and food is that they may bring the infection with them, the best way to survive a zombie apocalypse is to split off to small groups and survive how you can. There is too much to go wrong is a large group, someone was bitten but “we can’t kill her because she’s my sister” and there is less resources to go around, group creates more noise, needs protecting from itself and possibly even cannabilism is the food supply runs low.
The sad truth is that, in the initial wave of a full-scale outbreak, the ones who survive will wind up being those who are cold-blooded and ruthless enough to do WHATEVER is necessary to keep themselves alive and uninfected. Mercy, compassion and sentimentality will be at least as likely to kill you as a horde of ghouls.
Protecting people in whatever group you manage to put together will have to be based on sheer pragmatism – never mind “Oh, I have to help her with supplies/ammo/shelter/whatever because she’s my sister,” folks. The survivor will be the one who goes, “I may hate this persons guts… but he/she is a trained surgeon/blacksmith/farmer, and I will need their skills to survive.”