5 ms·
So, assuming we're screwed, where's the best place to move preemptively? I know Boston isn't that place. - I assume the coasts are a nonstarter. - Moving inla
by tabeth 10y ago
So, assuming we're screwed, where's the best place to move preemptively? I know Boston isn't that place.
- I assume the coasts are a nonstarter.
- Moving inland could be nice, but the ground would need to be pretty arable to restart civilization there. I'm guessing somewhere in Africa is a safe bet, given the lack of resource exploitation there, but then again, there's not much infrastructure at the moment.
- philfrasty 10y agoFirst-mover advantage.
- anon1253 10y agoI'm betting on the higher regions of Scandinavia or Iceland.
- Gustomaximus 10y agoCountries like Norway/Iceland could get significantly colder if the gulfstream stops from arctic melts, which seems likely. Maybe this will improve in time but in the short-term this could be a real problem. Somewhere like NZ is a better bet. Being remote with no land borders could be an advantage if there is significant global upheaval.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wamsachel 10y ago> I'm guessing somewhere in Africa is a safe bet, given the lack of resource exploitation there, ...what?
- tabeth 10y agoAFAIK Africa has a ton of natural resources still available compared to the rest of the continents (other than Antarctica)
- hbk1966 10y agoI'm guessing somewhere like Colorado would be nice. They'll probably just end up with a longer growing season.
- zouhair 10y agoYou do know most of the World is living off over exploitation of Africa.
- bbcbasic 10y agoAssuming property rights and law and order are still a thing when the apocalypse happens