4 ms·
Stone age? Hardly. More like 18th century. I am more worried that we do not have that many attempts at rebuilding, because coal and oil are finite. OTOH a slow
by mordae 2y ago
Stone age? Hardly. More like 18th century.
I am more worried that we do not have that many attempts at rebuilding, because coal and oil are finite. OTOH a slower 2nd iteration might actually work better than this one.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago"I know others will disagree, but it's not something you wanna take a gamble on." Far more important than 18th century vs stone age debate is the fact that there are people in charge that would lead us down either path.
- verisimi 2y ago> there are people in charge that would lead us down either path Must you follow?
- cynicalpeace 2y agoWould love not to. But I'm not the decider whether we head down the path of nuclear armageddon.
- bonzini 2y agoIf we lost access to electricity, we'd be completely screwed; we can't even get drinkable water in many places without electricity. For example where I live there is water around 10-20m depth, but it's polluted (it may be usable for agriculture but not for human consumption); you'd have to dig a well over 100m below the surface.
- generic92034 2y agoThe standards for what is fit for human consumption might drastically change in a post-apocalyptic scenario, though.
- kortilla 2y agoBoil it