5 ms·

The 3rd world would be fine, the first world would fall apart. Just a few weeks without power is enough to bring the USA down onto it's knees.

xeromal 5y ago
I think major cities would fall apart but I can speak from experience that the where I grew up in the deep south would fare just fine. Still lots of old world knowledge left to keep local farms and towns running. Of course it would be the stone age but a lot of people live for it there.
- XorNot 5y ago
  Models of major disruptions from other countries don't support this. In general, urban areas do quite well because neighbors and communities look after each other, whereas as isolated communities fall over as soon as they run out of something. Distribution is also easier in the cities due to population density. In general there's a fiction pushed by people who live in lower density areas that somehow they're tougher or more caring or something - that for some reason everyone in cities is just waiting for a moment to suddenly slaughter each other. It doesn't happen.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    Fair enough. I don't have the data to back it up. What countries do you have as examples for me to inform myself with?
    - weagle05 5y ago
      I too would be interested to view these models. Coming from a rural background, people in my hometown still have gardens and hunt/fish. We're one, maybe two, generations removed from people producing most of their own food. I don't see how cities deal when they can't refrigerate food and the supply chain is interrupted.
      - xeromal 5y ago
        Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. I don't see how it can fall apart of it's mostly self sustaining. There are still loads of people in my hometown that don't have power. What are they gonna lose if society falls apart? lol Lots of the local trucks run on vegetable oil so they don't even need a working supply chain for diesel. It'll be an inconvenience but it's no death. On top of that, a huge amount hunt and fish like you said and have hundreds of pounds of meat for a year or two with only 2-4 deer which breed like locusts.
        toss1 5y ago
        For sure, a lot of rural people are much closer to and have actual living practical knowledge of farming and hunting. However, I wonder if there are really enough resources to support them. Two concerns, short term and long term. Short term, depending on the season, it could be over a year before sustainable crops can be grown to eat. Best case, it happens in early spring, and everyone can go immediately till and plant as many acres as possible, presuming they have the seeds. And the stored fuel and sufficient labor to prepare the extra ground, fell trees and turn them to fields, etc. Even then, what is the fastest-maturing crop, 10 weeks? A long few months to live on the scraps in your no-longer-working refrigerator. And if it happens too late in the growing season? yikes, but less bad for those in more temperate climates. Hunting? If everyone even in small towns started hunting for food, including out of season, most food species would be hunted to local extinction in short order. Longer term, is there really enough to sustain more than a small population? I recall one rule of thumb of 20+ acres/household just to have wood to heat with (an acre/year, 20 years to regrow). With little tech, we'd pretty quickly be back to 98% of the population doing primarily farming activities. Cities? Sure, everyone would help each other, but what other things stop working when there is no electricity? Water, refrigeration, fuel pumps, heating systems. The populations of cities are so dependent on just-in-time or constant supplies, I have a hard time seeing how they survive in any numbers unless massive aid can be immediately mobilized and sustained, which would be very tough if all the cities are out of power at once...
        saiya-jin 5y ago
        Well if us city dwellers will turn into savages due to lack of any food, the first thing we will turn into is go out to those nice farming communities for food. Obviously if your nearest big town is 500-1000km away then you're OK for some time. Maybe.
bserge 5y ago
That seems like the commonly held belief, but is it really the case? 1st world countries are well stocked, have know-how, have a lot of people (and a lot of educated people). I'm inclined to believe they'd recover faster and with better results (i.e. no anarchy, no descent into dictatorship, good QoL) than third world countries. Worst case, they'll be invading poorer countries, sadly.
barry-cotter 5y ago
I’d expect pretty much exactly the opposite. The first world is rich, developed and full of knowledgeable people and more competent governments. There’s so much more capital to cannibalize to get something working. Anywhere dependent on international trade or aid to feed its people would be fucked by even a two month hiatus in international trade. Starvation and war within two weeks and peacekeepers are busy at home dealing with their own countries’ disasters. Most of Africa is not self-sufficient in food.

xeromal 5y ago

I think major cities would fall apart but I can speak from experience that the where I grew up in the deep south would fare just fine. Still lots of old world knowledge left to keep local farms and towns running. Of course it would be the stone age but a lot of people live for it there.

XorNot 5y ago
Models of major disruptions from other countries don't support this. In general, urban areas do quite well because neighbors and communities look after each other, whereas as isolated communities fall over as soon as they run out of something. Distribution is also easier in the cities due to population density. In general there's a fiction pushed by people who live in lower density areas that somehow they're tougher or more caring or something - that for some reason everyone in cities is just waiting for a moment to suddenly slaughter each other. It doesn't happen.
- xeromal 5y ago
  Fair enough. I don't have the data to back it up. What countries do you have as examples for me to inform myself with?
  - weagle05 5y ago
    I too would be interested to view these models. Coming from a rural background, people in my hometown still have gardens and hunt/fish. We're one, maybe two, generations removed from people producing most of their own food. I don't see how cities deal when they can't refrigerate food and the supply chain is interrupted.
    - xeromal 5y ago
      Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. I don't see how it can fall apart of it's mostly self sustaining. There are still loads of people in my hometown that don't have power. What are they gonna lose if society falls apart? lol Lots of the local trucks run on vegetable oil so they don't even need a working supply chain for diesel. It'll be an inconvenience but it's no death. On top of that, a huge amount hunt and fish like you said and have hundreds of pounds of meat for a year or two with only 2-4 deer which breed like locusts.
      - toss1 5y ago
        For sure, a lot of rural people are much closer to and have actual living practical knowledge of farming and hunting. However, I wonder if there are really enough resources to support them. Two concerns, short term and long term. Short term, depending on the season, it could be over a year before sustainable crops can be grown to eat. Best case, it happens in early spring, and everyone can go immediately till and plant as many acres as possible, presuming they have the seeds. And the stored fuel and sufficient labor to prepare the extra ground, fell trees and turn them to fields, etc. Even then, what is the fastest-maturing crop, 10 weeks? A long few months to live on the scraps in your no-longer-working refrigerator. And if it happens too late in the growing season? yikes, but less bad for those in more temperate climates. Hunting? If everyone even in small towns started hunting for food, including out of season, most food species would be hunted to local extinction in short order. Longer term, is there really enough to sustain more than a small population? I recall one rule of thumb of 20+ acres/household just to have wood to heat with (an acre/year, 20 years to regrow). With little tech, we'd pretty quickly be back to 98% of the population doing primarily farming activities. Cities? Sure, everyone would help each other, but what other things stop working when there is no electricity? Water, refrigeration, fuel pumps, heating systems. The populations of cities are so dependent on just-in-time or constant supplies, I have a hard time seeing how they survive in any numbers unless massive aid can be immediately mobilized and sustained, which would be very tough if all the cities are out of power at once...
      - saiya-jin 5y ago
        Well if us city dwellers will turn into savages due to lack of any food, the first thing we will turn into is go out to those nice farming communities for food. Obviously if your nearest big town is 500-1000km away then you're OK for some time. Maybe.

bserge 5y ago

That seems like the commonly held belief, but is it really the case? 1st world countries are well stocked, have know-how, have a lot of people (and a lot of educated people). I'm inclined to believe they'd recover faster and with better results (i.e. no anarchy, no descent into dictatorship, good QoL) than third world countries. Worst case, they'll be invading poorer countries, sadly.

barry-cotter 5y ago

I’d expect pretty much exactly the opposite. The first world is rich, developed and full of knowledgeable people and more competent governments. There’s so much more capital to cannibalize to get something working. Anywhere dependent on international trade or aid to feed its people would be fucked by even a two month hiatus in international trade. Starvation and war within two weeks and peacekeepers are busy at home dealing with their own countries’ disasters. Most of Africa is not self-sufficient in food.