Ah, there would be more travel per surviving person, but surely there would be many fewer people (the rest having been devoured) and thus less overall oil demand.
Plus, other authors have speculated (Romero, 2005, passim) that survivors would congregate in a few locations for ease of defence and mutual support – the more likely setup would be a few fortified cities of hundreds of thousands each, rather than a large number of small settlements, each in the ruins of a larger city, of a few thousand each.

Maybe in the long run, but there are a lot of transitional costs.

You can do your part by buying some Zombaid merchandise: http://www.cafepress.com/flippin_sweet/553102

soru

I think it would actually lead to a (hopefully temporary) upswing in dependence on foreign oil, though, as once more-or-less self-sufficient communities, having been decimated or worse, would have to engage in more inter-community travel.

Backing Blair VI - Not Over By A Long Shot

Featuring Tony Blair, spicy brains and the Partridge Family.

http://www.brokentype.com/monster/

Many recent studies have also shown that people who keep a domestic zombie or two chained in their basement actually live happier, more fulfilled lives*. Perhaps zombies could even become a crucial alternative source of schadenfreude in the era of Peak Pony.

(* No, I’m not going to tell you which studies. If you have to ask, you’ll never know.)

Yet another virtue of exit by massive heart attack.

It would seem that some metaethical theories leave no way to say that it would be wrong. Are those bad metaethical theories, or is cannibalism less objectionable than people think.

The recent case of voluntary being-cannibalized in Germany doesn’t fit my argument, since voluntary being-murdered was also involved. (However, that case did tell us one important thing: when cooking penises, use the recipe for tongue. You can’t just fry them up.)