• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

That was too close... Five natural disasters that may yet happen

Which means that China, much of Russia, India, Indonesia, Australia, South America (in this example) would be comparatively untouched (international supply chains collapsing would affect them, but nothing like the ground zero effects in Europe and North America). What would they do next?


Well I'm never sleeping again.
 
That's what extensive conditioning and bushcraft are for. If you don't got it, you can always learn it.
You can't learn how to survive without medicines.

From your posts, I have little doubt that you would survive. But millions won't. Even if some of the eight or so million in NYC or London do have the requisite skills, they really aren't in the best of locations to utilise them. And why should people living in Manhattan or Southwark have bushcraft skills? I mean, they well do, but they aren't things that are integral to their day to day life. You yourself said that a lot of the knowledge and skills you possess are because you actually need this stuff on a relatively frequent basis. If people don't need itch skills, then they're less likely to have them. I mean, I worked in Outdoor Education, so I probably know enough to just about get by, although with a lot of hardship, but others may not have had the opportunity or motive. You may well think that they're, "a bit of a ninny" for not having those skills, but the driver to learn them has been far weaker than it was for you.
 
Essentially this is why I've been saying it's the end of Society not Humanity. There's enough people who would survive that its not an extinction level event, but millions, if not billions, will die and what emerges isn't going to be recognizable as anything like the current situation.

Well, no, but we may be quibbling on the definition of society and civilization. The existant society would die a rather embarrassing death, yes, but civilization will come back and bring with it new societies. As the joke goes over here, just because it's the end of the world doesn't mean it'll kill you- after all, that means you get to stop working when you're dead.

I don't know what it says about the modern spirit that it expects to survive the apocalypse simply to keep suffering, but them's the times.

The death toll in the first day or two will be horrific. Survivors will try to spread out into the countryside. Those, as Tabac has identified, who have resources and capability left, will be the targets for the desperate refugees.

You make it sound like such a one-way relationship though. In this scenario, since the flare is hitting in late July, I can still get crops in the ground and forage, so I'm going to be looking for refugees to help me get me up to the carrying capacity of my land. Since loyalty to box stores is going to be effectively nil, I'm probably going to be stocking up on bikes, guns, and ammo during the initial crunch time. After that, I've got most of the liquid currency equivalent, and may get me and mine to be holed up on the farm until the whole damn thing blows over. Given free reign of my land without city ordances, I can probably manage a 25-30 person carrying capacity, and given my neighbors land (who are feckless idiots and would probably be running for the hills) I can up that carrying capacity to about 70 people. In a best case scenario and I get my entire neighborhood to bug out, leaving me King of the Hill, I've got about carrying capacity for about 500~ people if they're willing to accept a reletively mediocre diet and rationing.

The nice thing about apocalytic planning like this is that what you do with getting bodies is the easy part- the hard part is finding people.
 
Back
Top