World War Z Max Brooks 105-187

The book World War Z by Max Brooks gives the scenario of a viral zombie apocalypse that takes over the entire world. The book gives an oral narration of the war against the undead and interviews survivors of the ordeal. I really enjoyed the way Max Brooks told the story through people’s personal recollections of the war. This gives the reader a great insight to what it would be like to be in this nightmarish situation. The government’s decision to bomb bridges with civilians on them to stop the zombie movement shows the fight between morals and survival. This fight between what is right and wrong is thrown out the window under the circumstances of a zombie apocalypse. Your main strategy is to do what you have to survive and keep the infected zombies from reaching here the masses of uninfected are. This raises the question of how far does the government go to save its civilians? Do they try to save everyone or just a portion? In the book it gives the example of Paul Redeker’s idea of using civilians as bait for the government and military to retreat to a safe zone to save their selves. Once in this safe zone a small portion of civilians with “desirable qualities” would be ushered in to help with labor. This idea is very scary seeing how in times of chaos ones government can turn on their own people. But in this situation it seems logical to save your highest officials and military. Without these people your whole country is even more in shambles. Saving the people with the best qualities gives hope of trying to rebuild your country once the war is over. These moral decisions are tough to make in times like that. Would these actions be justified in a zombie take over? I think saving as many people you can without giving up all of your own resources would be best. The book makes you wonder what kind of decisions you would have to make if put into this situation. You question if your morals would be diminished to enhance your own chances of survival.