4 ms·

Some may call this “the industrial revolution and it’s consequences”… These people are entirely dependent on technology and social structures that they have no

by 3qz 5y ago

Some may call this “the industrial revolution and it’s consequences”… These people are entirely dependent on technology and social structures that they have no control over. Unfortunately, that’s true for everyone in the countryside too unless they want to live with Stone Age farming tools. Could you sustain yourself if your town had to recreate the metal supply chain? Energy? Probably not. I don’t think you’re much better off in the long run. You can’t sustain your own lifestyle either.

briHass 5y ago
The difference would be how much of a shock to the system would result in catastrophic effects to you/your family. A hypothetical major 2-week disruption to supply lines and public infrastructure looks pretty different if you are in the country, with well/septic, on a plot of land with a well-stocked fridge/cellar vs. a small downtown apartment with maybe a day or two's worth of supplies and the strong possibility of nearby violence from those that might not be even that prepared. In a few areas of the US, we have Old-order Amish who make a point of trying to do without dependencies on most modern infrastructure. They always live rural, on farms, certainly not by accident.
- cryptica 5y ago
  Agreed, it's about the magnitude of the impact. A massive economic crash would affect people in the countryside too but the difference is that there is a much higher chance to survive by downgrading your lifestyle. As a basic example, you can't go fishing in the city to catch your own food, especially if there are millions of people competing to fish in the same river. There are also no wild fruit trees or farms there. Only way to survive would be cannibalism - That's what happened to Leningrad/St Petersburg during WW2 as a result of a military siege.

4 ms·

Some may call this “the industrial revolution and it’s consequences”… These people are entirely dependent on technology and social structures that they have no

by 3qz 5y ago

briHass 5y ago
The difference would be how much of a shock to the system would result in catastrophic effects to you/your family. A hypothetical major 2-week disruption to supply lines and public infrastructure looks pretty different if you are in the country, with well/septic, on a plot of land with a well-stocked fridge/cellar vs. a small downtown apartment with maybe a day or two's worth of supplies and the strong possibility of nearby violence from those that might not be even that prepared. In a few areas of the US, we have Old-order Amish who make a point of trying to do without dependencies on most modern infrastructure. They always live rural, on farms, certainly not by accident.
- cryptica 5y ago
  Agreed, it's about the magnitude of the impact. A massive economic crash would affect people in the countryside too but the difference is that there is a much higher chance to survive by downgrading your lifestyle. As a basic example, you can't go fishing in the city to catch your own food, especially if there are millions of people competing to fish in the same river. There are also no wild fruit trees or farms there. Only way to survive would be cannibalism - That's what happened to Leningrad/St Petersburg during WW2 as a result of a military siege.