Agree. Cities are crowded, and that means there will be tons of zombies there.
Disagree. Although you'd have to have deal with more walkers, there are way more supplies in a city than a forest.
Yeah but if there are more survivors that's also more competition for acquiring food, shelter, weapons, etc.
Yeah but most people have no idea how to survive in the wilderness anyways. Starting a fire, hunting, and not dying of dysentery is pretty hard for the average white collar human.
Fine but you could safely assume that the people left alive after a zombie plague would probably be the strongest, smartest, and well equipped individuals.
Fine but that also goes for the competition. In a zombie plague you'd have lots of very bad people roaming around trying to steal your stuff or kill you. At least in a city you could hide more easily and re-acquire goods.
OK but you could just easily stay away from such dangers in the forest.
OK but it's easy to get lost in the wild when there are no points of reference. You could end up going in circles and get attacked over and over.
Sure but at least there would be fewer instances of zombies walking around. In the city you'd have to probably escape a hoard every time you go out for resources.
Sure but the city also masks a lot of noise that the quiet forest does not. Even though there aren't planes and cars anymore, you quietly creep through alleys and inside buildings.
But that's exactly where zombies can pop out and get you too.
But avoiding zombies is relatively the easy part, surviving is the challenge. And that's much easier around lots of freely available resources.
The Devil's Advocate blog is an experimental format that poses a question, then has two opposing voices share their thought process as they defend why they agree or disagree. Learn more about the Devil's Advocate card game here. Or sign-up below to get on the pre-order list.