4 ms·

I flew to Alaska, and drove down to BC. Before I went I was expecting Alaska to be a desolate place. Alaska is actually pretty developed. Lots of commercial act

I flew to Alaska, and drove down to BC. Before I went I was expecting Alaska to be a desolate place. Alaska is actually pretty developed. Lots of commercial activity, with power lines and trucks going from place to place. I would compare it to Northern Ontario. When I drove down through Yukon, literally drove for hours without seeing any signs of humans other than the road. Very pristine environment from what I remember. Beautiful little lakes surrounded by forests. And crazy washboard roads that weave up and down due to freeze / thaw cycles. If Nuclear WWIII happens, this might be where humans survive. If I ever wanted to be a hermit, I know where to go.

deutschew 5y ago
curious where did you go exactly in Yukon? being a hermit, it's been on a list of places I might escape to. Yes, I also believe Yukon and North West Territories is the best place to survive a nuclear war. The problem with antarctica is that its too cold and lacking in resources. Yukon, NWT, is teeming with stuff you can hunt and eat. I've been reading about Inuits a lot and its fascinating how they have survived.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  Just drove down to BC from Fairbanks Alaska and camped along the way. I believe we took highway 2. We stopped at Whitehorse and a hot springs campground. Realistically finding a place along the coast of Alaska would probably greatly your improve chances of surviving the winter. Much much milder winters next to the Ocean. And better availability of food. Though Alaska cities might be targeted. Nuke Map might be of help https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
- justahuman74 5y ago
  I've often thought that New Zealand is the least bad post-nuclear life. It's simply so far from anything. Even Australia is a big distance away.
  - tigerlily 5y ago
    Take it from me, at this juncture, New Zealand still doesn’t feel far enough.
- danans 5y ago
  > Yukon, NWT, is teeming with stuff you can hunt and eat. And likely teeming with stuff that can hunt and eat you. Well, just grizzlies I guess.
  - antifa 5y ago
    I feel like most places have an animal just as bad, if not only because it could be a society without hospitals.
refurb 5y ago
Alaska seems quite developed from the Fairbanks to Anchorage corridor, but you don't have to go far off the highway for it to be complete wilderness. I spent some time there and you'd drive on roads for miles and then they just end - in the sense the road doesn't go any further and everything after that is pretty much wilderness with maybe a few unused logging roads.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  We stuck to pretty much the main roads, but I went to Denali as well, so I've experienced how vast and beautiful it is. I was just curious and looked up the population density. Alaska has a population density of 1.3 people per square mile and Yukon just 0.07 per square km. If I did the math right Yukon has a population density of 0.027 people per square mile. Or Alaska is about 5 times more densely populated. Of the 34 thousand people that live in all of Yukon, 25 thousand live in Whitehorse. That leaves just 9k people for everywhere else.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Population density isn't a great measure for how undeveloped an area is since population isn't uniformly distributed. Like the Yukon, Alaska has most of its population in the cities and for Alaska it's along the coast in small towns. The interior is mostly wilderness. But regardless, no doubt Yukon is as empty as you describe.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>If Nuclear WWIII happens, this might be where humans survive. If WWIII happens, there will be plenty of places people will survive. But in dramatically reduced numbers as, firstly, the people living in major population centers would have been killed en masse, and secondly, as a consequence of the first, global supply chains break down and food and other necessities become extremely scarce. Technology would see massive regression and an extended dark ages as well, as much of the production base would be destroyed, and the people who predominantly live in large population centers and sustain it would be killed. I only go into these extremely grim details because I'm seeing too many cavaliar attitudes on social media, and even from some officials and former officials (e.g. former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, saying it's "a question of time" until Russia does something to force a NATO response) about a possible military confrontation between the West and Russia.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > Maybe it was a viral pandemic, or an asteroid strike, or perhaps nuclear war. Whatever the cause, the world as we know it has ended and you and the other survivors must start again. > What key knowledge would you need to start rebuilding civilisation from scratch? * http://the-knowledge.org/en-gb/buy-the-book/ http://the-knowledge.org/en-gb/buy-the-book/
- antifa 5y ago
  I always wonder, if in the typical US vs Russia scenario, would Buenos Aries, South Africa, and Australia be able to restablish the 90s before the 2090s?
jsnodlin 5y ago

deutschew 5y ago

curious where did you go exactly in Yukon? being a hermit, it's been on a list of places I might escape to. Yes, I also believe Yukon and North West Territories is the best place to survive a nuclear war. The problem with antarctica is that its too cold and lacking in resources. Yukon, NWT, is teeming with stuff you can hunt and eat. I've been reading about Inuits a lot and its fascinating how they have survived.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
Just drove down to BC from Fairbanks Alaska and camped along the way. I believe we took highway 2. We stopped at Whitehorse and a hot springs campground. Realistically finding a place along the coast of Alaska would probably greatly your improve chances of surviving the winter. Much much milder winters next to the Ocean. And better availability of food. Though Alaska cities might be targeted. Nuke Map might be of help https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
justahuman74 5y ago
I've often thought that New Zealand is the least bad post-nuclear life. It's simply so far from anything. Even Australia is a big distance away.
- tigerlily 5y ago
  Take it from me, at this juncture, New Zealand still doesn’t feel far enough.
danans 5y ago
> Yukon, NWT, is teeming with stuff you can hunt and eat. And likely teeming with stuff that can hunt and eat you. Well, just grizzlies I guess.
- antifa 5y ago
  I feel like most places have an animal just as bad, if not only because it could be a society without hospitals.

refurb 5y ago

Alaska seems quite developed from the Fairbanks to Anchorage corridor, but you don't have to go far off the highway for it to be complete wilderness. I spent some time there and you'd drive on roads for miles and then they just end - in the sense the road doesn't go any further and everything after that is pretty much wilderness with maybe a few unused logging roads.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
We stuck to pretty much the main roads, but I went to Denali as well, so I've experienced how vast and beautiful it is. I was just curious and looked up the population density. Alaska has a population density of 1.3 people per square mile and Yukon just 0.07 per square km. If I did the math right Yukon has a population density of 0.027 people per square mile. Or Alaska is about 5 times more densely populated. Of the 34 thousand people that live in all of Yukon, 25 thousand live in Whitehorse. That leaves just 9k people for everywhere else.
- refurb 5y ago
  Population density isn't a great measure for how undeveloped an area is since population isn't uniformly distributed. Like the Yukon, Alaska has most of its population in the cities and for Alaska it's along the coast in small towns. The interior is mostly wilderness. But regardless, no doubt Yukon is as empty as you describe.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>If Nuclear WWIII happens, this might be where humans survive. If WWIII happens, there will be plenty of places people will survive. But in dramatically reduced numbers as, firstly, the people living in major population centers would have been killed en masse, and secondly, as a consequence of the first, global supply chains break down and food and other necessities become extremely scarce. Technology would see massive regression and an extended dark ages as well, as much of the production base would be destroyed, and the people who predominantly live in large population centers and sustain it would be killed. I only go into these extremely grim details because I'm seeing too many cavaliar attitudes on social media, and even from some officials and former officials (e.g. former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, saying it's "a question of time" until Russia does something to force a NATO response) about a possible military confrontation between the West and Russia.

throw0101a 5y ago
> Maybe it was a viral pandemic, or an asteroid strike, or perhaps nuclear war. Whatever the cause, the world as we know it has ended and you and the other survivors must start again. > What key knowledge would you need to start rebuilding civilisation from scratch? * http://the-knowledge.org/en-gb/buy-the-book/ http://the-knowledge.org/en-gb/buy-the-book/
antifa 5y ago
I always wonder, if in the typical US vs Russia scenario, would Buenos Aries, South Africa, and Australia be able to restablish the 90s before the 2090s?

jsnodlin 5y ago