Zombie Apocalypse vs. Virus Outbreak: A Personal Perspective
When it comes to choosing between a zombie apocalypse and a virus outbreak, my preference is unequivocally the virus outbreak. While both present severe challenges, the aesthetics and practicalities of dealing with each make the virus a more appealing option for me. Here's why.
Preference for Viral Outbreaks
The primary reason for my leaning towards a virus outbreak is simply personal preference. Dealing with zombies involves facing something inherently creepy and disgusting, which I find deeply unpleasant. In contrast, taking measures against a virus mainly requires good hygiene and, in some cases, vaccination. These measures, such as purified air and water, although impressive, are somehow more manageable in terms of comfort than dealing with crawling, undead corpses.
Let me elaborate. Caring for my personal hygiene and sanitation involves simple and accessible steps. Consuming well-purified and filtered air and water, while futuristic and impressive, is a step too far for a comfort-seeking individual like myself. On the other hand, zombies can only be effectively managed with the aid of cremation, which is more akin to an extreme action and less comforting.
Personal Safety and Comfort
From a survival standpoint, the risk factors of each scenario are relatively comparable. While the risk of being killed in a zombie apocalypse is high, the risk of surviving a significant viral outbreak is also considerable. However, my personal inclination is to prioritize comfort over both emotional and physical distress. Hence, I am much more inclined towards a virus outbreak, even if the total fatalities from each are virtually the same historically.
Historically, viral outbreaks have been less apocalyptic in nature, with a much smaller percentage leading to widespread global collapse. Zombie apocalypses, on the other hand, are guaranteed to be apocalyptic by definition due to the presence of undead beings. Theoretically, if total fatalities were drastically different, I would reconsider my preference. For now, however, the relative safety and the burden of daily life in a virus outbreak seem more manageable to me.
Personal Choice of Virus: Influenza
Even if I had the chance to choose my own virus, I would select influenza. The flu is something we encounter annually and, as a society, we are reasonably prepared for it. Annual flu shots are an available and effective preventative measure. This choice is not about arrogance; it's about accepting a virus we can deal with on a regular basis.
However, if the choice was left to random assignment, I would base my decision on the type of zombie involved. Without a concrete mechanism to prevent undead zombies from attacking each other, a typical zombie apocalypse could be extremely dangerous, especially given their relentless and uniform threat to humans. In contrast, if the virus outbreak involved more varied types of zombies with unique weaknesses (like reduced aggression towards each other), the outbreak would be significantly safer to manage.
In conclusion, while both a zombie apocalypse and a viral outbreak present serious challenges, my personal preference leans heavily towards the latter due to the practicality and comfort of dealing with a virus as opposed to an undead threat. The choice isn't just about survival but also about maintaining a degree of daily comfort and dignity.