So by a modern realistic approach, we’re all gonna die soon. Well, most of us. Of course no bigshots are going to tell you that. Did you actually expect someone would cry from the boat “come on all, take up every last portion of my poopdeck!”
So given that we’re all pretty well screwed, except for some smart and lucky ones- what can we at least sum up for how we can best survive? I’m guessing you would want to jar plenty of food in mountain caves, and also store a lot of technology like solar panels and windmills to set up so that you can light the inside of the cave and grow a garden. You really ought to keep some weaponry too because some schmucks might try to steal your well-earned survival unit. If you’re a guy, you can always leave your humble door open for the next pretty girl. And for the love of god, don’t save your family. What kind of an irresponsable role are you playing for the gene pool, when the human race might subsist on your procreation, and all you have as an option is inbreeding! Well that sums it- store a rifle, some solar panels, a girl or two, and jars in a cave.
Oh yes, you could also offer this as a service to others for money and when the time comes to hell with them and keep it. I imagine a lot of this is in the plans.
Anyone have alternate theories on how to better survive?
I’d agree that a die-back is inevitable. To avoid that, world government would have to be in place. I’d say world cooperation, but I’m too cynical to believe in that possibility. At the same time, I don’t believe that it will necessarily devolve into total chaos. It is a romantic picture of the “last man on earth”, but the complete breakdown of social organization will only happen in those parts of the world without adequate self-sustaining resources. Small enclaves of stability will remain in all parts of the world. Because the die-back will come from multiple causes, the ability to be prepared for any eventuality becomes more a matter of luck than anything. With starvation being the leading cause, pandemic disease is very likely to follow, and the best planned provisions won’t make much difference if your “cave” is emptied by a killer disease. So saying “I’m prepared” will only take you so far. The rest will be luck.
That said, the die-back isn’t likely for another 30-50 years. That gives us plenty of time to create the structure that allows for both “shrinkage” as well as the model for the small enclave of which a few will survive as seed for an eventual recovery and the beginning of the cycle again.
In a sense, we need to begin looking both forward and back to find the best scenarios possible for the small village life style. There is no reason to enter a new dark age, it will just be smaller and simpler. Part of this is the material preparations aimed at self-sufficiency and part is beginning to learn and teach those perspectives that foster cooperation and stable relationships among people. I’m a bit leery of the latter, because we don’t just learn to manipulate the physical world, but the people as well. More cynicism…
Yes Imp, we know that you won’t be happy until there is blood running in the streets and it’s the last man standing game played out. Hooray for the rugged individualist who spurns all of society and looks forward to the day that there is no one left but himself. There is plenty to Eeore about, but there are other alternatives other than species suicide.
Perhaps we could figure out the best location on the planet. I actually wonder if you’d best be in the most barren area- the antarctic. If the planet is threatened by scorching heat, you would naturally want the coldest region.
In a way, you might want the perspective of a Martian colony looking for the best place to start. Earth would be much hotter than Mars, but its best regions would be far from the equator because this is where you can expect the most turbulance and flooding. Are there land masses near the poles that are very high altitude?
Thanks, Imp. I suppose you could live out in the Tatra mountains on the premise of a ski trip, build some sort of igloo and set up a solar collector. Ship in a large crate of rations. Build some sort of greenhouse, and search for caves. Sooner or later someone will notice, but if there’s enough militancy, I suppose no one would put up much of a fight for some snowy chasm. You’re looking at least a Million or two.
There will be no “best” places. Obviously, the fewer people around, the better the odds. But the fewest people left might just be where there was the greatest density at the beginning of the collapse. The areas of the fewest people will also be the areas of the fewest resources. If starvation and war were the only considerations, then a sparsely populated area would be a good choice. But with starvation comes disease, and this alone makes survival at any particular place a matter of fate. The only way to beat that is the high tech nuclear war survival bunker with self contained food, water, and filtered air provisions. That’s a little past the abilities of most folks.
I’m still aimed at regionalization. From small self sufficient villages up through geographically defined areas. Perhaps it will fail 99%, but 1% would make extinction unlikely. We’re persistent suckers…
As I think about it, Coming up with simple agrarian life style concepts isn’t that much of a deal. The rest of “civilization” could be rat-holed in a time capsule form for the survivors to piece together as societies begin to form again. We might even be able to leave warnings about unchecked population increase…
But this is all down the road a bit. First, we need to let the air out of the balloon and get people back on the ground again. Folks need to get familiar with a hoe handle instead of the remote. That process is beginning, but we have a long way to go before people will be ready to pay attention. We aren’t stupid, we’re just negligent. I may be overly optomistic, but I’ve watched people forced into dire circumstances wake up and come to the party. I’m guessing that it will happen again.
Do we need multiple strategies, depending upon the cause of the “dieback”? The above might be best if we’re done in by greenhouse gases, but what if it’s an overdue plague/superflu that gets us, would it be more advantageous to be near medical supplies? Or maybe it would still be better to be isolated? (I already live in a cold area, I’d prefer if I didn’t have to head for the poles. )
I suppose one could work out a number of possible strategies based on relative self sufficiency, including “best” locations, but I suspect that it will finally come down to chance, even for the best prepared. Of course I can only say this based on the causal chain of eventual starvation > pandemic disease > massive die back globally. I could be wrong, but if you look at the history of any area where starvation is present, disease is a partner in the death cycle.
The best example I can think of is the outbreaks of Ebola in Africa. The suspected cause is humans killing and eating our near-cousins (chimps and monkeys) plus the usual list of other variables such as stressed immune systems, lack of any sanitation, etc. But there is Asian bird flu, SAARS, all starting in areas of high population density coupled with abject poverty. It would be good to remember that bacterium and virus are the most persistent life forms on the planet. The ability to rapidly mutate to take advantage of any environment is the key to their success and as the human population grows weaker from lack of basic resources, the likelyhood of a pandemic disease becomes much greater. This also assumes just one disease source, and there could be many over a few decades time. So unless we can devise ways to reduce population other than allowing starvation to “solve” the problem, it seems unlikely that there is any place on the planet that is “safe”.
This doesn’t mean that we can’t prepare for as many eventualities as possible, but that the survival of any particular grouping of people in any particular location is still shooting dice.
