Speed limits is a government interference with capitalism - delivery trucks could, arguably, complete their rounds faster without speed limits. Since it interferes with the capitalism, are speed limits socialism?
What about a community water system? Is that socialism. What if no private company, for whatever reasons, did not come forward to build a community water system? Is that still socialism if the community builds and operates it?
Military is socialist.
The people pay for it in taxes.
Most of them would even argue it is communistic.
Visions of cauldrons full of excrement agitated vigorously, came to mind upon reading this thread.
A most prescient post if I do say so myself.
the general rule is that what people are used to the government providing is a government service.
If it is new, then it is socialism.
Perhaps two exceptions might be cited:
1) The health service in the UK is still "Socialized Medicine" because that is how it has always been identified.
2) Federal aid to primary and secondary education is sometimes labeled "socialism" in the USA despite the fact that this began before the Constitution was ratified. (The Northwest Ordinance.)
2) Federal aid to primary and secondary education is sometimes labeled "socialism" in the USA despite the fact that this began before the Constitution was ratified. (The Northwest Ordinance.)
Not quite accurate. Public education was encouraged; it wasn't funded at a Federal level. And, as you note, it was passed pre-Constitution, i.e. by the Continental Congress. The Constitution is silent on education. The only thing I remember about direct Federal involvement is through the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause whereas if a State establishes public schools, citizens can't be denied access under equal protection.
The only thing I remember about direct Federal involvement
Well, the only thing YOU remember must be the standard that everyone uses,
Therefore, my citation of the Northwest Ordinance is out of place. Please forgive me for bringing facts into a forum of your delusions.
The Northwest Ordinance set aside one section in each township to support public education. In those days, the national government had little income, but the national lands were -- and were regarded as -- most of the national wealth.
Those of you without Jim S's certainty can Google it.
The Northwest Ordinance set aside one section in each township to support public education.
It's been years since I looked at it as part of some research for a story, and I can't be bothered to dig into again, but if I remember right, the feds set aside the land for public education while they left it up to the future state or township to arrange it and pay for it. Also, at that time the bulk of the education was privately provided or communally provide at the town level.
The Northwest Ordinance set aside one section in each township to support public education. In those days, the national government had little income, but the national lands were -- and were regarded as -- most of the national wealth.
A larger scale example of that would be the later creation of "Land Grant Universities" not that it worked according to plan. Evidently failing spectacularly in many cases. One such university was created per state IIRC. They were given thousands of acres of land, per school, where they were to then use that land to generate income sufficient to fund their own expenses. Worked flawlessly in some states it seems, just ask the students now paying 5 digit sums per semester to attend.
Well, the only thing YOU remember must be the standard that everyone uses,
You might want to read the entire post, not just one sentence.
Nothing that you say disagrees with what I put in my post. Well, except for the ad hominem. Your original post that I responded to seemed to imply that the Federal government had a role in education, or at least did at the start of the country. I pointed out that such an interpretation was not correct.
And nothing the other two responders linked to your post said really negates what I posted.
Those of you without Jim S's certainty can Google
it.
I couldn't agree more.
I've got to ask, since this was posted on the Autor's Forum: are you asking because this relates to a story you're writing, or are you just trying to start fires so you can sit back and laugh at the damage it causes?
I asked because I'm genuinely interested in the answers that would be provided by authors - and the author's forum seemed to be the logical place to ask. I see authors assert that some things constitute socialism, even though those things fall far short of what I was taught about socialism - where the government controls the means of production, distribution and exchange. So, I wonder just how far their definition of socialism goes - and speed limits and water systems were the most extreme examples I could thing of. I'm sure others with a more vivid imagination can come up with better examples. The purpose of the question was to find out what is socialism and what isn't. Is there a consensus, or is it that everyone can decide for themselves what defines socialism? It relates to a story or stories I hope to write.
what is socialism and what isn't. Is there a consensus ...
It relates to a story or stories I hope to write.
Consensus? NO!
For an American setting, I'd suggest you could mostly use the term 'liberal', with characters using it as a pejorative or badge of honour to display their prejudices. Using 'socialist' in the way I see some use it would be a way to show a right-wing fanatic who only ever expresses the most extremist views possible.
I see authors assert that some things constitute socialism, even though those things fall far short of what I was taught about socialism - where the government controls the means of production, distribution and exchange.
From what I've witnessed here, Socialism is considered by the conservatives as anything Liberals like, whether it is or not - and Socialism = Communism in their minds. Let's not let facts get in the way...
I was taught about socialism - where the government controls the means of production,
The basic idea of socialism is that the workers own the means of production - not an individual, not their heirs, not a bank, not stockholders, and also not the government.
The basic idea of socialism is that the workers own the means of production
Close, but the basic idea is all of the workers in the society own all of the means of production in one giant collective, not just the people who work at the one place. It also means when you work at a one person job like a cottage industry baking apple pies from trees and other ingredients you produce yourself the finished products are all also owned by everyone else in the society and not just you, despite you making everything involved.
Close, but the basic idea is all of the workers in the society own all of the means of production in one giant collective, not just the people who work at the one place.
Do you mean to say if all factories and farms are owned by their respective workers but not by 'one giant collective' it's not socialism?
Do you mean to say if all factories and farms are owned by their respective workers but not by 'one giant collective' it's not socialism?
I mean you have to look at the whole community structure and set up, not just the single factory. If every factory was owned and managed by its own individual group and they had no links with the organization that controlled the state over all you're probably looking at a mixed option with components of communalism as against communism and socialism.
Where my family, including a hundred cousins, collectively owned and operated factory for making furniture and your large family owned and operated a fridge making factory and neither of us had any links or so in the control of the wider state and they had no direct control over us, then it's not a true socialist operation. In those case it matters not if we're jointed owners, have shares, it's owned by a co-operative, or owned by a trust company we're beneficiaries of - all of them have ways for groups to own and control businesses within a capitalistic or free enterprise economy (yes, there is a difference between those two as well).
The key between communal ownership and socialist / communist ownership is the group in charge of Operation A (be they 1 or 1,000 people) have the right to operate different to those in Operation B despite doing the same things in the same area, and they also have the right tell the others to bugger off.
Then I guess we have divergent opinions about the meaning of 'basic idea'. To me, the basic idea of socialism means the workers own the means of production. The organization of state and government is not a part of this base concept but rather a means to abuse it, as proven by countless dictators who called themselves socialists.
To me, the basic idea of socialism means the workers own the means of production. The organization of state and government is not a part of this base concept but rather a means to abuse it
After noting this exchange consists entirely of ludicrous fantasies, I have a question. Does the state allow workers to sell the means of production and become employees instead? Surely that's the test of whether they really "own" the means of production or not.
Surely that's the test of whether they really "own" the means of production or not.
Surely?
Surely?
I will not be dragged into debating this nonsense.
I'm just pointing out that your definition, and EB's, both ignore a significant point, that workers don't really own the means of production if they're not entitled to sell them. The classification of the system would be different depending on whether the state allows that or not.
I didn't drag you anywhere and won't stop you from leaving either. I'll even ignore your significant point of objection to make it easier for you.
I'll even ignore your significant point of objection to make it easier for you.
I really don't care about this one.
CW asked the OP above, "are you just trying to start fires so you can sit back and laugh at the damage it causes?" My question was intended to be the literary equivalent of a Molotov cocktail. :-)
My question was intended to be the literary equivalent of a Molotov cocktail. :-)
For a literal Molotov cocktail you have to do better than that. That was a squib at best.
Socialism as a political idea is about the governing of the society, not just the ownership of a business operation. As a single person owner/operator of a small business the workers own the means of production. Most single person or single family farms own and work their farms and the means of production. As a member of a work co-operative society the workers own the means of production. All of these are business models that exist in capitalist societies. All of the business models above are communal business models where the community own and operate the business. These are business models not political ideologies, and socialism is a political ideology.
.............................
One place I worker for a few decades ago was a business built from a single person owner/operator operation to employing over 100 machine operators to produce goods. The grandson of the business founder was ill and looking to retire at 63 years of age. All his children worked in other fields and didn't want to be involved in the business. About a third of the staff were sprouting about making it worker owned operations, so he offered to sell out to the staff for just the book value of the assets. It worked out they only had to come up with $20,000 each to buy the operation as the book value of most of the machinery was way down due to an aggressive depreciation rate on the equipment, but there was still over 20 years of working life left in them. None of those pushing the worker ownership aspect offered to come up with any money towards buying the place, and the just over half of the workers interested in buying the business couldn't raise the required $2,680,000. In the end the business was sold to a competitor for $5,250,000 which was the commercial value of it. The ones pushing for the worker ownership were angry he didn't give it to them for nothing.
The worst aspect of it was the sales agreement had the new owners continuing the current above award wages, but they then gave no pay rises until the industrial award rates went above what the people were being paid already, and it also meant the end of the Annual Bonuses based on the business profitability during the year as the previous owner used to share 20% of the profits with the staff, while the new people didn't.
The basic idea of socialism is that the workers own the means of production - not an individual, not their heirs, not a bank, not stockholders, and also not the government.
Under this definition, the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would fail to qualify as socialist, wouldn't they? Did not the Soviet government, and not the workers, control the means of production?
Under this definition, the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would fail to qualify as socialist,
The names of countries mean nothing! Do you think the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic? (It's the one in the northern section of the peninsula, by the way.)
I think robberhand's point was that the government owning means of production is not socialism. Many may say the better term for that is communism. I think he'd agree with me that an even better term for it is a 'Who Gives a Fuck What They Call It' dictatorship.
I think he'd agree with me that an even better term for it is a 'Who Gives a Fuck What They Call It' dictatorship.
I do.
The names of countries mean nothing!
I agree. The names adopted by countries mean nothing. The Democratic Republic of Congo is likely neither a Republic nor Democratic. But the facts matter in assertions, regardless of the name. The Soviet Union was widely considered to be socialist, yet, whatever it's name, i doubt that it meets the basic requirement for the argument that, to be socialist, it must be the workers and not the government, that control the means of production. If the Soviet Union could not meet the basic definition for being socialist - then what nation could?
. If the Soviet Union could not meet the basic definition for being socialist - then what nation could?
It met it, but only briefly from my understanding. But that gets into splitting hairs and the differences between Lenin and Stalin. Stalin wasn't much of a Marxist all things considered.
I asked because I'm genuinely interested in the answers that would be provided by authors - and the author's forum seemed to be the logical place to ask. I see authors assert that some things constitute socialism, even though those things fall far short of what I was taught about socialism - where the government controls the means of production, distribution and exchange.
One of these days we'll find a school and education system that teachers the whole truth on socio-political matters.
Economic Socialism is what you speak of when you discuss it only in regards to the means of production, distribution, and exchange. However, that is a sub-set of the socio-politcal system known generally as Socialism of which there are a number of variants which have some minor different viewpoints - fascism and communism are the two best known of them.
Socialism is where the collective owns and controls everything through the entity known as the State. This covers a lot more than just the economic aspects mentioned above. However, the economic aspects mentioned are the quickest and easiest way to recognise the difference between a socialist organisation and a capitalist organisation, which is what a lot of educations systems focus on as it's easiest to have a two system situation than the reality of the multi-system situation that exists. I'll leave the full range of varying economic situations for another discussion.
..............................
Many people see the socio-political situation as being a two system choice, when it is also a multi-choice situation due to communalism and monarchism with a mixed spread between the four.
Many people confuse communism / socialism and communalism because the basic precept of communism / socialism grew out of the communalism societies of the past. However, what they forget or ignore is the other social, physical, and economic dynamics of the past they look at.
Historically there have been many successful communalism societies, but all have been small agrarian societies that grew up from either a single family or a small group of families that grouped together for security of their food and physical beings. In those societies major issues were talked out in group meetings of everyone in the society, and they also chose a person to manage the day to day activities in a similar way.
The reason modern day communism and socialism based on those precepts don't work is it's not possible to get everyone in the community together to talk out every major thing until they all reach a uniform agreement on what to do. While that would work for up to a hundred or so people it just doesn't work for tens of thousands of people, and the time to try to do it is far too long.
....................
Today we have a semi-communal aspect with some community rules to see we don't all go around killing each other. We call them laws. Some are good laws, some a re bad laws. The worst aspect is the systems we have to give people power to look after the big things gives them opportunities to past bad or stupid laws for their own biases and greed.
Some of the good community laws relate to murder and road rules etc.
It relates to a story or stories I hope to write.
Ah, that's the answer I was hoping for, rather than you're just trolling SOL for the fun of it.
"Socialism" has taken on expanded meaning as it's become associated with a huge variety of perceived 'social issues'. So you're right, the vast majority of what people are currently claiming have nothing at all to do with socialism, per se, but constitute a gradual creep away from 'completely unregulated free-markets' and taxation. Thus, the answers you get will be heavily weighed by each indiidual's political position (which, since you are asking for story purposes, is what I assume you're actually after).
I don't consider Denmark or other 'normal' states to be Socialist, precisely for the reasons which you laid out (no market controls on production), and the few remaining openly Socialist states are merely waiting for their old-guard leaders to die of old age before they retire the titles once and for all. Like "Communism", the term took was adapted by military dictatorships in order to grant themselves expansive powers, when they have almost no interest in helping the poor at all.
social issues
The building I live in has a Social Room. I told management they should call it the Uncle Social Room because they wouldn't want it to be Aunty Social.
I told management they should call it the Uncle Social Room because they wouldn't want it to be Aunty Social.
Or even 'creepy Uncle' rooms. Kids already have enough trouble with those as it is.
The building I live in has a Social Room. I told management they should call it the Uncle Social Room because they wouldn't want it to be Aunty Social.
The Uncle Bob social room? Where Uncle Bob gets social with teenage girls?
(With apologies to Lubrican)
AJ
I've got to ask ... are you just trying to start fires so you can sit back and laugh at the damage it causes?
I'd approve of that question being asked if it had been asked about some other recent threads too.
Speed limits is a government interference with capitalism - delivery trucks could, arguably, complete their rounds faster without speed limits. Since it interferes with the capitalism, are speed limits socialism?
What about a community water system? Is that socialism. What if no private company, for whatever reasons, did not come forward to build a community water system? Is that still socialism if the community builds and operates it?
Speed limits are NOT socialism. They are an appropriate safety limit, as delivery trucks operating at high speeds without limit simply are not safe on a mixed use roadway. Anyone who's seen a semi flip over from taking a turn too fast knows this reality.
A community water system would be no different than an REMC - Rural Electric Membership Cooperative. It would be a not for profit water system that each member is both an owner and a user of the service provided. Thus, since the cooperative water system would charge the members / owners for their services, it would NOT be socialism.
Speed limits are a type of Soviet-style communism, because there are classes of people for whom they're optional (in the UK it's very rare for police chiefs, politicians and royals to be prosecuted).
AJ
Speed limits is a government interference with capitalism - delivery trucks could, arguably, complete their rounds faster without speed limits. Since it interferes with the capitalism, are speed limits socialism?
Strictly speaking public roads in general are a form of socialism in that "society owns it." Which makes it quite literally so. However, the existence of a speed limit has little bearing on that matter.
More broadly however, it only truly qualified under "socialism" if the ability to build, own, or operate a private roadway is greatly restricted by legal means.
What about a community water system? Is that socialism. What if no private company, for whatever reasons, did not come forward to build a community water system? Is that still socialism if the community builds and operates it?
In that the water system is "owned by the community" it meets a strict interpretation of being "communistic" in nature. But it doesn't mean the people involved are "communists" in respects to being adherents to the political systems falling under the label.
Of course, the other "test" on this would be in regards to the persons ability to privately operate their own water system. But this is more of a legality construct at this point than a economic one, it says nothing about the economic viability of said private system, just that it is legally possible to have one.
Of course, then we have government granted monopolies....
I think it would help the discussion immensely if you could lay out precisely what sort of story you're looking to use this information in. Are you looking for personality types? Arguments used by opponents? Background information on the definitions of modern socialism?
Currently, everyone is guessing about what precisely you're looking for, with the information based largely on stereotypes of past abuses, rather than actual cases of any true socialism.
I'm working on a long, autobiographical novel in which the MC is a modern girl of mixed heritage from a family of modest means. The first part of the novel is coming-of-age. The second part is college, and that's the portion where I foresee using the debate over what is or is not socialism. While the MC's family is involved in farming, she leaning toward a career in agricultural engineering; she's also drawn toward politics (poli-sci her minor) because her grandmother is a widely-read political journalist. That's all just background, and, so far, are the only portions on which I've worked. The main focus of the novel will be a catastrophic event that changes the world as we know it, with mankind struggling to recover during the afterword. I foresee the catastrophic event occurring early in the MC's senior year in college. During her college years (she won a scholarship), she's not there just to put in the time and get credentials, but to absorb as much as she can.In politics, she's interested in not only what the theories and definitions are, but how they are perceived in the modern world. She's interested in engineering, not so she can build bridges or skyscrapers, but so she can help improve farming. Her brother, 8 years older, is an engineer and in the Navy. her grandfather (Vietnam) and great-grandfather (WWII) were both engineers and in the Seabees. Her father is a Libertarian and her mother, while mostly apolitical, usually ends up voting for the Green Party candidate for president. Neither the MC nor anybody in her family favors either the Republican or Democratic party.
All of that, of course, is subject to change, as I think I've nailed the overall arc of the story, but the devil is in the details. I foresee serious students at her college debating, outside the classroom, issues - religious, political, and others raised by current events.
Is that enough precision?
The main focus of the novel will be a catastrophic event that changes the world as we know it, with mankind struggling to recover during the afterword.
A lot of times, other than in a Hollywood movie where everything is fine shortly afterwards (Deep Impact, which is NOT what would happen if a comet hit the earth), the way most authors address society after a major catastrophic event is for the local society to resort to a sort of feudalism. 'Lucifer's Hammer' by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle had a good description of that, so does 'Aftermath' by Al Steiner on here. If you go for the Yellowstone caldera eruption, hopefully you'll do better with it that Harry Turtledove in 'SuperVolcano', which is in my opinion one of the worst series he's ever put out.
One of the things Hollywood and Harry both skipped is that if you hit the Earth with something big or you have a supervolcano blow, you're going to set off every damned fault zone on the planet. The entire Ring of Fire will erupt, probably all at once. Here in the U.S., the San Andreas and every other west coast fault WILL trigger, and you'll probably see the New Madrid fault cut loose as well, which screws a good chunk of the Midwest. Around the world? Greece, Turkey, Spain, and Portugal are screwed. So are New Zealand and Japan.
The question becomes ... how catastrophic? A plague that kills half the population would be catastrophic, but wouldn't necessarily destroy civilization. A zombie plague (like in John Ringo's 'Black Tide Rising' series) could still have a central controlling authority. EMP blasts (like in the William Fortschen series that starts with 'One Second After') are still catastrophic and will result in major societal issues as well. And if you end up with an alien invasion (John Ringo's 'Legacy of the Aldenata' series), you're going to have issues as well simply with any kind of farming.
Now, if it's a MINOR catastrophic event, like John Ringo describes in 'The Last Centurion', farming will be just as important, but not in the areas normally figured. If we have a minor cool down, such that the northern climates become inhospitable, what's doing to happen is areas further south - like what would normally be a desert in Nevada - are suddenly going to become more conducive to farming, albeit you don't have great soil, but you DO have a cooler climate so crops WILL grow there that wouldn't normally grow. (Think Texas not having 100+ degree summers, but instead having at most, 80 degrees for the high, and suddenly you can get corn and beans and wheat in an area that you can barely grow scrub grass now, especially if there's more moisture.)
One of the things Hollywood and Harry both skipped is that if you hit the Earth with something big or you have a supervolcano blow, you're going to set off every damned fault zone on the planet. The entire Ring of Fire will erupt, probably all at once. Here in the U.S., the San Andreas and every other west coast fault WILL trigger, and you'll probably see the New Madrid fault cut loose as well, which screws a good chunk of the Midwest.
That is not actually "in evidence" and there is very little in the geological record to indicate that "massive swarms of volcanic eruptions" were triggered by any of the previous supervolcanic events that have been identified. To the point, I'm not aware of any. Now that being said, there are catastrophists out there, probably being interviewed on Coast to Coast AM as I'm typing this tonight, that will swear up one side and down the other that is exactly what will happen. But it's not likely, at least not from a supervolcano. Now an impact from a giant space rock the size of a small state? That's a different matter.
No evidence will be found where none is sought.
You nor I can empirically state it can, or cannot happen. The study/survey to empirically prove or disprove any historical basis would necessarily be massive in scope and cost. Therefore only modeling based upon assumptions of unknowns have ever been applied to the question.
I am of course always open to learning new things. I'd be most interested in reading the 'empirical' study that proves it never happened if you're aware of one out there somewhere?
Therefore only modeling based upon assumptions of unknowns have ever been applied to the question.
More likely, a study of already identified assumption, which completely ignore the many unknowns, which is precisely which such modeling is so often wildly wrong.
But Starfleet Carl's point was about a whole host of different potential natural disasters, rather than a specific super volcano. In that case, it's simply another consideration in construction a plot he's largely unfamiliar with. I'd give him latitude on this one, as he's discussing generalities while you've being hyper specific in criticizing him.
No evidence will be found where none is sought.
You nor I can empirically state it can, or cannot happen. The study/survey to empirically prove or disprove any historical basis would necessarily be massive in scope and cost. Therefore only modeling based upon assumptions of unknowns have ever been applied to the question.
The "Thing" here is every volcano/volcanic event has a unique "signature" that is largely characteristic of the rocks/substrata in their area. The Supervolcanic events leave deposits over a very wide area(practically entire hemispheres) and those signatures track fairly well with their local "signature" with little to no evidence of overlapping "signatures" coming from other volcanic events at/near the same time.
Ergo, a Supervolcanic Event does NOT automatically mean setting off a rapid fire chain reaction of other volcanic events on anything near a global level. To point: The volcanic ash deposits found to date point to it being isolated to the "immediate vicinity" (couple hundred, not thousand(s), miles) of the eruption itself.
Earthquake activity is another matter that is much harder to point towards, but given the (lack of) data regarding other volcanic events tied to those time frames, it isn't likely to be "Cataclysmic" anywhere outside the area that is already going to be having major issues with both volcanic ash & activity.
I'm not arguing one way or another. I'm stating neither side can prove their hypothesis empirically due to lack of data. I don't personally know, or am aware of anything that settles it definitively.
I'm not arguing one way or another. I'm stating neither side can prove their hypothesis empirically due to lack of data. I don't personally know, or am aware of anything that settles it definitively.
Except, a complete lack of any conformational evidence is pretty convincing! And seeing as the 'evidence' is solid rock, it's hard to argue that it no longer exists in enough places to find and identify.
However, they (the mysterious 'scientific' experts) have pretty well established that the 'Great' Die-off of the Dinosaurs didn't happen over hundreds of years due to starvation and poor hunting, but that it happened relatively instantaneously.
All we're arguing is that it likely wasn't a worldwide explosions of volcanoes that did it. But no one has yet determine exactly what physical process did kill off all those on the other side of the globe from the impact strike.
All we're arguing is that it likely wasn't a worldwide explosions of volcanoes that did it. But no one has yet determine exactly what physical process did kill off all those on the other side of the globe from the impact strike.
I wasn't even touching that one. I was saying a Supervolcanic eruption isn't likely to trigger a "chain reaction" or large scale volcanic and earthquake events worldwide.
Yellowstone might have a decent chance of "ringing Church bells in Boston" but I doubt it is going to kick off an 8.0+ earthquake along the Pacific Rim any time sooner than a few years later.
Likewise, it's unlikely to cause the West Coast's portion of the ring of fire to suddenly "pop its cork" across the chain. A couple of them might rumble a bit in response, but unless they were already "primed to go," that will be all they do.
I wasn't even touching that one. I was saying a Supervolcanic eruption isn't likely to trigger a "chain reaction" or large scale volcanic and earthquake events worldwide.
Sorry, I must have responded to the wrong message. I was echoed your sentiments, agreeing with you in response to the suggestion that 'nothing rules out that it might have happened at some point in the past.
I wasn't even touching that one. I was saying a Supervolcanic eruption isn't likely to trigger a "chain reaction" or large scale volcanic and earthquake events worldwide.
Yellowstone might have a decent chance of "ringing Church bells in Boston" but I doubt it is going to kick off an 8.0+ earthquake along the Pacific Rim any time sooner than a few years later.
I'm not saying it's likely to happen. But ... you're making the mistake of comparing a Yellowstone supervolcanic eruption with a regular eruption. Compare Mount St. Helens, which when it blew, dumped 0.25 cubic kilometers of material into the air. Krakatoa put 5 cubic miles of material into the air, which is 20 cubic kilometers. The last time Yellowstone blew, it dumped 1,000 cubic kilometers of ash into the air - 240 cubic MILES of material.
Oh, and Mount St. Helens was a Volcanic scale eruption of 5, with not quite a 6.0 magnitude earthquake associated with it. Krakatoa was a 6, and the sound of the eruption was heard 3,000 miles away (and was about a 7.2 magnitude quake). Tambora was a 7, with about an 8 magnitude quake associated with it. Yellowstone is considered an 8 on the scale, so figure abouy a magnitude 9.0 (or higher) quake / blast.
That may not be enough by itself to trigger the whole ring of fire. It's damned sure enough to trigger the San Andreas and New Madrid.
Oh, and Mount St. Helens was a Volcanic scale eruption of 5, with not quite a 6.0 magnitude earthquake associated with it. Krakatoa was a 6, and the sound of the eruption was heard 3,000 miles away (and was about a 7.2 magnitude quake). Tambora was a 7, with about an 8 magnitude quake associated with it. Yellowstone is considered an 8 on the scale, so figure abouy a magnitude 9.0 (or higher) quake / blast.
That may not be enough by itself to trigger the whole ring of fire. It's damned sure enough to trigger the San Andreas and New Madrid.
With all the faulting and continental rifting between Yellowstone and the San Andreas, it'd probably register as less than 5.0 by the time it reaches Cali. Still damn impressive given the distance, but nothing to "write home about" when it comes to upsetting the California tectonic applecart. New Madrid is another matter, but if it rated above a 6.5 by the time it reaches there, I would be shocked.
Atmospheric impacts were a given, and not being considered, I was focused on the other more extraneous matters. Anyone West of the Mississippi and anywhere North of Louisiana is pretty much fucked without regard to what New Madrid does, although it could fuck plenty more East of there.
With all the faulting and continental rifting between Yellowstone and the San Andreas, it'd probably register as less than 5.0 by the time it reaches Cali. Still damn impressive given the distance, but nothing to "write home about" when it comes to upsetting the California tectonic applecart. New Madrid is another matter, but if it rated above a 6.5 by the time it reaches there, I would be shocked.
What you're not considering is that the quake itself from Yellowstone won't be what directly causes issues - you're right in that in and of itself it won't cause much direct damage. That's not going to be the problem.
What causes earthquakes? The slipping of the tectonic plates deep (or not so deep, depending upon where you are) as the plates slide by each other. So you have the Pacific Plate creeping northward at about 2" per year, rubbing along the North American Plate. Most of the time they just sit, trying to move, with pressure building, then when the pressure gets too much, the plates move just a little and you get an earthquake. Maybe a small one, maybe a big one. But that's from their OWN movements, without an outside effect.
Now you hit the North American Plate with an outside force. That's going to put extra pressure upon the boundary between it and the Pacific Plate. That's what'll cause things out there to let go.
What you're not considering is that the quake itself from Yellowstone won't be what directly causes issues - you're right in that in and of itself it won't cause much direct damage. That's not going to be the problem.
What causes earthquakes? The slipping of the tectonic plates deep (or not so deep, depending upon where you are) as the plates slide by each other. So you have the Pacific Plate creeping northward at about 2" per year, rubbing along the North American Plate. Most of the time they just sit, trying to move, with pressure building, then when the pressure gets too much, the plates move just a little and you get an earthquake. Maybe a small one, maybe a big one. But that's from their OWN movements, without an outside effect.
In the context that every "movement event" in turn "progresses the clock" on the next tectonic event in any location where that movement was noticeable(detectable--which would be "everywhere" on Earth for strong quakes) you're right. It will hasten the arrival of a "Big One" event in California. Although statically speaking, what geologists generally reference on that is a once in so many hundred years event. It's entirely possible California will have experienced several dozen "Big One" (Magnitude 8.0+) earthquake events between now and then. (Although that would nullify the applicability of the term "Big One" in describing it.)
It stands, Yellowstone is an event "internal" to the North American plate, no other plates are involved. So your "external force" claim is null and void. It is a VERY significant and large event, covering hundreds of square miles and "internal plumbing" that actually primarily resides under Idaho.
But you have to keep in mind the size and scale of the North American plate. 36 cubic miles of rock being pulverized and violently launched into the atmosphere over the course of an indeterminate duration event is mind boggling in scale as it is.
But compared to the rest of the North American plate it is like proclaiming it will cause "dangerous wave action" if somebody teleported the entire contents of a water tanker(truck) 2 feet above the center of Lake Mead.
A Yellowstone event would hasten "the big one" happening, but it would still stand that if likely contribution in the Cali area as being about on par with a "Local" 6.x or weaker Earthquake event.
It stands, Yellowstone is an event "internal" to the North American plate, no other plates are involved. So your "external force" claim is null and void. It is a VERY significant and large event, covering hundreds of square miles and "internal plumbing" that actually primarily resides under Idaho.
Yes it is a standalone plate. However, it is not immune to the world geologic system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave#Types
Wave mechanics transmit energy globally. Through that, earthquakes and nuclear detonations, are detectable around the globe.
If the right series of events took place, those waves can create standing waves/harmonic constructive interference patterns. Just depends on the materials natural resonance frequencies.
An example as it relates to structures.
https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/animation/building_resonance_the_resonant_frequency_of_different_seismic_waves
This sort of thing cannot as yet be predicted, but to say a standalone plate cannot be affected by activities on or near another plate, is in error.
Yes it is a standalone plate. However, it is not immune to the world geologic system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave#Types
Wave mechanics transmit energy globally. Through that, earthquakes and nuclear detonations, are detectable around the globe.
If the right series of events took place, those waves can create standing waves/harmonic constructive interference patterns. Just depends on the materials natural resonance frequencies.
An example as it relates to structures.
https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/animation/building_resonance_the_resonant_frequency_of_different_seismic_waves
This sort of thing cannot as yet be predicted, but to say a standalone plate cannot be affected by activities on or near another plate, is in error.
Which goes back to
In the context that every "movement event" in turn "progresses the clock" on the next tectonic event in any location where that movement was noticeable(detectable--which would be "everywhere" on Earth for strong quakes) you're right.
But a "major tectonic event" occurring roughly a thousand miles away from the nearest plate boundary? (Which isn't even the Pacific Plate, when speaking of Yellowstone, btw)
Go back to the "dangerous wave action if you Teleport the contents of a tanker(truck) 2 feet above the center of Lake Mead."
Depending on a number of factors as to the orientation and other sundry factors related to the distribution of said "contents" the resulting wave action could be quite spectacular... If you happen to be within about 50 feet or so of where it was dropped. Or it might only noteworthy if you're within 15 feet of it. (Is the "tanker" oriented horizontally with the lake, or perpendicular -- A 5ft diameter by 40+ foot tall column of water starting at 2 feet above the lake surface is a bit different than say a 5 foot diameter "tube" of water that is 40+ feet long with its base 2 feet above the water at the moment it "drops."
But without regard to HOW it was oriented or otherwise disposed prior to being "dropped" the resulting wave action noticed by the time it reaches the shore line? "Not much."
Yes, it is a massive amount of energy being released. But by the time it reaches the closest plate, it will have spread across so much area, and been dampened by numerous other faults and "geological features" along the way, that it still comes back to "not much to write home about" by the time it reaches the Pacific Ocean.
The Ash Cloud is an entirely different matter.
That may not be enough by itself to trigger the whole ring of fire. It's damned sure enough to trigger the San Andreas and New Madrid.
Triggering New Madrid would be much worse than than triggering San Andreas.
Due to a difference in the structure of the bedrock between the two areas, Seismic waves in the San Adreas area dissipate much more quickly over much shorter distances than seismic waves from New Madrid.
The last big quake from New Madrid caused structural damage to buildings in Chicago and broke windows in Milwaukee.
A really big quake (8+) from New Madrid could wipe out half (or more) of the mid west.
But no one has yet determine exactly what physical process did kill off all those on the other side of the globe from the impact strike.
My assumption is dust in the atmosphere blocked too much sunlight for cold-blooded animals to achieve the body temperatures needed to find food. Mammals coped better.
Now an impact from a giant space rock the size of a small state? That's a different matter.
The impact object that caused the KT extinction was between 10km to 15km wide.
With a few exceptions no living thing weighing over 25kg survived.
An impactor the size of the smallest state would likely be a wipe the slate clean and start over from liquid rock event.
An impactor the size of the smallest state would likely be a wipe the slate clean and start over from liquid rock event.
The smallest US state is 1212 square miles or 69.6 miles x 69.6 miles.
A lot depends on velocity. A 70x70x70 mile cube or a sphere with a 70 mile diameter with an iron rich body might be enough to shatter the planet. It might fall back together or we might end up with a new asteroid belt.
the way most authors address society after a major catastrophic event is for the local society to resort to a sort of feudalism.
After a major catastrophe that destroys civilization and kill upwards of 70% of the existing population, even feudal states should take a long time (centuries) to develop.
In the immediate aftermath, I would expect a reduction to tribalism, maybe a city state or two in areas with higher concentrations of survivors.
In the immediate aftermath, I would expect a reduction to tribalism, maybe a city state or two in areas with higher concentrations of survivors.
Which was Stephen King's solution in The Stand, though in his case, it occurred quickly because of supernatural forces.
even feudal states should take a long time (centuries) to develop.
I'm referring to local - where an individual strongman ends up taking control of an area that may be a dozen city blocks in size, or it may be a county in size. He becomes the 'king' or 'chief' of that area. The patriarch of a local clan would also fit into this. I'm not referring to an actual group of independent kingdoms, with diplomats and all the trappings of an organized group of societies, more the temporary 'oh, shit, what do we do to survive' where the one guy who has a clue is put in charge.
I'm referring to local - where an individual strongman ends up taking control of an area that may be a dozen city blocks in size, or it may be a county in size. He becomes the 'king' or 'chief' of that area. The patriarch of a local clan would also fit into this. I'm not referring to an actual group of independent kingdoms, with diplomats and all the trappings of an organized group of societies, more the temporary 'oh, shit, what do we do to survive' where the one guy who has a clue is put in charge.
You're describing warlords rising to power after the 'nation state' collapses. From what's been described so far, it sounds like the nation state is still largely in control, hence their desire to 'control production' in order to feed the majority of people left unable to work and feed themselves.
After a major catastrophe that destroys civilization and kill upwards of 70% of the existing population, even feudal states should take a long time (centuries) to develop.
Based upon the discussion, I'm assuming the definition of 'civilization' is worldwide rather than regional.
A catastrophe on a world scale can have many variations. Is it immediate or slow moving? Disease, firestorm, nuclear, biological, economical, astroid, unrest, genetic.. ?
Drilling down further, does it destroy infrastructure worldwide, or regionally? How about the industrial base?
Those and a thousand other variables would have to be plugged in to give any meaningful estimate to recovery time or body count.
One thing I'm sure of though is this. The so called third world nations/areas will recover faster than the first world/area. Look around you in your travels over the next few days and consider the following.
How much of what you see is 5th generation tech given the start point of bronze age tools?
Can you or a group of people you know, reproduce all that you use and depend upon daily?
Technology is built on earlier technology. The further along it is, the harder it will be to reproduce.
Feudal states and other forms of government won't take near as long to be implemented, as it will to reproduce the foundations of modern society.
One thing I'm sure of though is this. The so called third world nations/areas will recover faster than the first world/area. Look around you in your travels over the next few days and consider the following.
How much of what you see is 5th generation tech given the start point of bronze age tools?
Can you or a group of people you know, reproduce all that you use and depend upon daily?
I live in a modest-sized city in one of those countries. I do not see what you imagine, except of the food supply. If cut off from supplies and technology from the outside world, I'm sure it would quickly be self-sustaining in food. Virtually everything else they use is dependent on modern technology. The main difference to first-world economies is it's usually just adequate to serve its minimum functional requirements and very poor quality.
I live in a modest-sized city in one of those countries. I do not see what you imagine, except of the food supply. If cut off from supplies and technology from the outside world, I'm sure it would quickly be self-sustaining in food. Virtually everything else they use is dependent on modern technology. The main difference to first-world economies is it's usually just adequate to serve its minimum functional requirements and very poor quality.
In my Great Death series (in the 3rd book, at least), this was played up as the solution was to replace the food lost from trucked in produce with window and rooftop gardens in each functional apartment in the city. Though each would be small scale, with enough people working together, and each trading their produce with the others, a major city could conceivable become semi-sustainable, at least long enough for someone to begin productive farming and transporting the farm goods once again.
It's not always intuitive how they'd accomplish it, but there are a lot of highly intelligent and creative people, from a wide variety of backgrounds, in most modern cities.
Though each would be small scale, with enough people working together, and each trading their produce with the others, a major city could conceivable become semi-sustainable
I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of land needed to produce enough calories for one person to live on. A typical housing block in suburbia is unlikely to support even one person who's growing highly-productive staples. And the population densities in cities? Forget it. They'd be hunting rats for food before long ... and then start on the humans.
I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of land needed to produce enough calories for one person to live on.
I'm the first to admit I've no idea about farming, but that's what I thought as well.
I'm the first to admit I've no idea about farming, but that's what I thought as well.
My guesstimates after some quick research was that maize and potatoes can support about 6-8 people, rice and wheat less. That's with current technologies and best practices. Yields would plummet once fertilisers were no longer available.
My guesstimates after some quick research was that maize and potatoes can support about 6-8 people, rice and wheat less.
But how much square soil is needed to produce these amounts of potatoes or maize?
@Ross at Play
My guesstimates after some quick research was that maize and potatoes can support about 6-8 people, rice and wheat less.
But how much square soil is needed to produce these amounts of potatoes or maize?
Sorry. That's people supported per acre.
A typical suburban block might just support one person, definitely not a family.
A typical suburban block might just support one person, definitely not a family.
I'm not so sure about that. For example, if I'm to believe the scale on Bing maps, the block that I grew up on in Detroit is about 7 acres (800 x 400). I didn't believe it and had to verify the scale against my current property. Which I did and it checks. Then I remeasured. And it checks.
My current location's "block" is about 4.5 acres. Kind of hard to measure as unlike the Detroit block with straight streets, my suburban location believes in laying out streets so they look like spaghetti dropped on a table from a height of 5 feet.
So either size block would seem to be able to support several families if the 6-8 persons/acre/year is accurate. Which it seems to be. My own estimates from USDA data on crop yields seem to come up with the same number.
Size of block can vary widely and would need to be agreed on in this sort of exercise. Best to use number of acres as it's easy to convert. Square feet to acres to square miles are readily convertible both ways and crop yields are always in acres. Easy peasy.
I'm not so sure about that. For example, if I'm to believe the scale on Bing maps, the block that I grew up on in Detroit is about 7 acres (800 x 400). I didn't believe it and had to verify the scale against my current property. Which I did and it checks. Then I remeasured. And it checks.
I don't doubt your figures but shouldn't you also mention how many people are actually living in this block of 7 acres?
I don't doubt your figures but shouldn't you also mention how many people are actually living in this block of 7 acres?
I haven't a clue. Bing maps shows 2/3s of the houses gone. So it's anybody's guess as to how many are living there now. When I lived there app. 50 years ago? About 35 houses, some were two family, just about all with husband, wife and kids. My family had 8 but even then we were atypical.
When I lived there app. 50 years ago? About 35 houses, some were two family, just about all with husband, wife and kids.
35 houses x 4 people = 140 people
But 7 acres of ground area could apparently only support about 50 people and thats when the entire space is used only to plant and none for dwelling or anything else at all.
35 houses x 4 people = 140 people
You forgot the kids. Call it 3.5 per house average, so another 125 or so to feed.
ETA: whoops. You already had two kids in your calculation. So add another 50 or so.
Size of block can vary widely
I said "typical suburban block". To an Australian that means about one sixth to a quarter of an acre.
Maybe American cities don't have what we call suburbia, with mile after endless mile of one family living in its own house on its own block. I thought from TV shows like the Brady Bunch, Wonder Years, and Desperate Housewives that you did.
AAH!
Apparently our interpretation of 'block' is very different. You seem to think a 'block' is an area surrounded by roads. I think a 'suburban block' is the area occupied by one family in one house.
pparently our interpretation of 'block' is very different. You seem to think a 'block' is an area surrounded by roads. I think a 'suburban block' is the area occupied by one family in one house.
Yep, what you call a block, we call a lot or a plot.
I said "typical suburban block". To an Australian that means about one sixth to a quarter of an acre.
Actually, 1/6th acre would be kind of small for a US suburban lot in the US. Generally the small end for suburban lots in the US is 1/4 or 0.25 acres and can range up to a full acre. I have 0.52 acres myself.
The city I grew up in single family residential lots run 0.1 to 0.125 acres.
So either size block would seem to be able to support several families if the 6-8 persons/acre/year is accurate. Which it seems to be. My own estimates from USDA data on crop yields seem to come up with the same number.
Size of block can vary widely and would need to be agreed on in this sort of exercise. Best to use number of acres as it's easy to convert. Square feet to acres to square miles are readily convertible both ways and crop yields are always in acres. Easy peasy.
One major distinction is that we're not talking about arable land on each block, but ... city parks and community gardens would be perfect for creating large gardens for sustaining (barely) enough people to keep people working on restoring the shattered resources. It's not idea, but it is doable, at least on a purely fictional framework where the author gets to decide the dimensions of the disaster.
t is about 7 acres (800 x 400)
800 x 400 what feet, yards, meters.
In feet, that would come to just over 7 acres, but that seems extremely large for a residential block in a dense city like Detroit for
The city I grew up in, a residential block was around .1 miles or 524 feet on the long side.
But the real question for an urban environment is how much of that 7 acres is buildings/pavement/concrete and how much would be tillable soil?
800 x 400 what feet, yards, meters.
It was in feet. The measurement is kind of rough, taken from my computer screen using a measure transcribed onto paper from the scale on the screen. I didn't use a ruler so a finer gradation is an estimate. I may have rounded up slightly the shorter side as that one came up just short of 400'. So give the measurements +/- 10%. Even then, it's 6 acres at worse.
As I mentioned in a follow up question, there were about 35 houses on it. What I didn't mention is that there was also one smallish church at one corner and an industrial building, a longish tool-and-die shop lying between the rear end of property lines of the two rows of houses that fronted the long side streets that bordered the block. Frankly, I'm estimating the house count from what's still there as I never counted them when I lived there. Even though I walked by two sides of that block every school day for nine years on my way to primary school (it was in the block bordering mine but at the opposite end long side). And a lot of my summer days too as there was a city park that my friends and I used to play at across from the school I attended.
There were sidewalks (paved concrete) from the front of the house to the street and from the rear of the house in the backyard to the property line. Just about all of the houses had garages at the rear of the property. Ours was a dirt floor garage for parking one car that we eventually tore down, using the ground for a small vegetable garden (after suitable prep). There was also a wider sidewalk paralleling the block's entire boundary.
There was a wide alley between the two rows of houses on the long side that contained the industrial building. There was also a large concrete pad behind the building the trucks could use to turn around in when picking up or delivering stock. The entire complex ran maybe 2/3 of the long side. The rests of space was roads that trucks used as that's where trash pickup occurred for the residences (the industrial building being between two dirt roads bordering the rear of the properties).
The aerial shot on Bing maps shows roughly 75% of the land usable for crops if trees that are now growing where houses used to be are removed. As to how fertile the soil, I remember that aforementioned vegetable garden returning some huge tomatoes, 8' corn stalks, lettuce, celery, radishes, and others as the mood struck my mother at planting time. So much so that a family of 8 couldn't consume it all and a lot was returned to the soil as fertilizer for the following year. Only one crop/year. We never tried for two.
You'll find when doing an aerial shot of Detroit using Bing maps, the city blocks varied widely in size even within the city. Mine was far from being the largest. It was also far from being the smallest.
As to how fertile the soil, I remember that aforementioned vegetable garden returning some huge tomatoes, 8' corn stalks, lettuce, celery, radishes, and others as the mood struck my mother at planting time. So much so that a family of 8 couldn't consume it all and a lot was returned to the soil as fertilizer for the following year. Only one crop/year. We never tried for two.
A key component is most farms is crop rotation. You can keep the soil growing consistently if you swap the crops you raise, so that one plant replenishes the nutrients the other plants consume. That's another reason why it's best to have multiple small 'farmsites', each of which grows only a single crop, and then everyone trades their produce with each other so they all have a relatively balanced died.
Of course, as I outlined before, in PA disaster scenario, we're not talking of an typical American diet. In fact, most would consider it starvation, pure and simple, akin to the dustbowl days in the 1920s, but enough of those small-scale gardens could provide enough substanance to support a small rebuilding phase where the essential infrastructure could be rebuild (ex: windmills and solar panels, instead of the large industrial power grids most now depend on).
so that one plant replenishes the nutrients the other plants consume.
All plants deplete nutrients from the soil, rotation only delays the effects of the depletion. To raise crops indefinitely year after year requires fertilisation.
AJ
All plants deplete nutrients from the soil, rotation only delays the effects of the depletion. To raise crops indefinitely year after year requires fertilisation.
Excuse me, but we've been farming but tens of thousands of years, and we didn't have chemical fertilizer plants until very recently. Before then, we did fine with 'natural' fertilizer. True, we didn't get the same yields then as we did now, but then we don't have as many to feed, and we also aren't poisoning as many people with the byproducts of such products.
Farms have been using crop rotation techniques to keep fields growing for thousands of years. When the soil finally begins to fail, low and behold, a massive flood ends up depositing all new soil over the fields and the survivors pick up and start once again. It's a story as old as time, and much older than our short recorded history. So don't start telling me that no one can possible farm a field without Monsanto's help!
A key component is most farms is crop rotation. You can keep the soil growing consistently if you swap the crops you raise, so that one plant replenishes the nutrients the other plants consume.
I was complaining about your statement, which left fertilisation out of the equation, and claimed that crops replenish nutrients used by other crops.
AJ
@Crumbly Writer
so that one plant replenishes the nutrients the other plants consume.
All plants deplete nutrients from the soil, rotation only delays the effects of the depletion. To raise crops indefinitely year after year requires fertilisation.
Where do the elements plants extract from soil go? They can be returned to the soil via the waste products of animals, and the burning or composting of plant materials. The locals where I live routinely burn the stacks after harvesting their rice. I suggest the main long-term losses of nutrients would be from fine topsoil blown away as dust and sewerage ending up in rivers.
The big problem is Nitrogen. Rotating legumes with bacteria which fix nitrogen can overcome that. Urine can introduce nitrogen coming from the protein in animal foods. My father grew some enormous tomatoes using his "enhanced watering technique".
Still, sustaining high yields without fertilisers is not easy. It's not a coincidence that the first large human civilisations all arose at the deltas of major rivers so they could rely on annual flooding to replenish soils.
I'd go with the estimates that the yields from organic farming are only about half those of modern industrial farming techniques and assume those yields were sustainable over the long term.
Where do the elements plants extract from soil go? They can be returned to the soil via the waste products of animals, and the burning or composting of plant materials.
That's true, but it brings its own level of complexity to post-apocalypse farming. Resources need to be allocated to process human waste, as well as livestock waste, and return it to the fields, otherwise there will be an ongoing depletion of nutrients like selenium, magnesium etc.
I read somewhere that over half of townies who decide to become farmers end up failing.
AJ
Resources need to be allocated to process human waste, as well as livestock waste, and return it to the fields, otherwise there will be an ongoing depletion of nutrients like selenium, magnesium etc.
Resources will need to be allocated to such tasks, whether it's returned to the fields or not.
The alternative is a nightmare of disease and plagues due to a lack of sanitation.
The alternative is a nightmare of disease
I recommend everyone gets their typhoid vaccinations up-to-date before the apocalypse :-)
I've read that before WWI, over half the casualties by every army involved in a European were from typhoid; battle injuries were a minor problem.
I've read that before WWI, over half the casualties by every army involved in a European were from typhoid; battle injuries were a minor problem.
Forget before WWI, during the trench warfare of WWI, more soldiers, on both sides, died from diseases caused the the awful conditions in the trenches than died from enemy action.
Forget before WWI, [during WWI] more soldiers, on both sides, died from diseases ... than died from enemy action.
To be more specific in what I said, before WWI, every army lost more soldiers from typhoid than all other causes, including enemy action.
In WWI, the Allies vaccinated their troops against typhoid. The Germans did not. The Germans, again, lost over half to typhoid. The Allies lost less than half to typhoid, but over half if you add losses from the various other diseases caused by unsanitary conditions.
It's a lot more fun dying of dysentery than typhoid. :-)
The name comes from the delirium, caused by dehydration, which sets in during the third week. The majority who last that long die in the fourth week. If they survive that they usually recover.
I read somewhere that over half of townies who decide to become farmers end up failing.
That probably has more to do with financial side than the difficulty of farming at a subsistence level with reasonably modern resources/tools.
Look at the failure rate for small business startups in practically any enterprise. 50 to 80% failure rates are considered normal almost everywhere. It's why most people end up working for somebody else.
That probably has more to do with financial side than the difficulty of farming at a subsistence level with reasonably modern resources/tools.
Failing to make a viable business is obviously a major factor, but reading biographical accounts, time-after-time you see comments like, "I never realised farming was so complicated."
To be successful, townies have to be quick learners and ready to put in long hours of back-breaking work.
AJ
To be successful, townies have to be quick learners and ready to put in long hours of back-breaking work.
(My emphasis)
I think you just put your finger on the real reason for such failures....
I think you just put your finger on the real reason for such failures....
It should be pointed out that if "townies" only have a 50% failure rate when taking up farming. Then when compared to most other self-employment business operations, they're actually rather successful on average. "Small Business" failure rates in general are higher than that.
My impression of small business failures is that many of them are speculative startups with no real business model just to see if the concept flies ie starting a home-made jewellery business from aluminium cans because you're bored of being an office drone.
In a post-apocalypse setting, a failure rate of greater than 50% for communities trying to be self-sufficient in food production would have horrendous consequences.
AJ
Could you name some? I'd like to read them.
Sadly no, but they occur quite frequently in the 'human interest' features of my newspapers.
There was a popular UK TV series, "The Good Life", about a fictional couple who tried to become self-sufficient in a London suburb, Surbiton, and their interactions with their snooty neighbours. As a result, the idea of dropping out of the rat race and running a farm/smallholding has a soft spot in the British psyche. Reports on the people who do it for real are popular fillers when news is in short supply.
AJ
Still, sustaining high yields without fertilisers is not easy. It's not a coincidence that the first large human civilisations all arose at the deltas of major rivers so they could rely on annual flooding to replenish soils.
And we modern 'geniuses' have built dams which prevent this replenishment. "Oh look, the river flooded and people who built houses in the flood plain lost everything! Build a dam! Stop that flooding!"
Sigh.
(Note: yes, I know there are other reasons for dams - reservoirs, hydro power, etc, but 'stop flooding' is an ecological disaster in the making.)
(Note: yes, I know there are other reasons for dams - reservoirs, hydro power, etc, but 'stop flooding' is an ecological disaster in the making.)
And Lousiana is paying that price in particular as those dams upstream from there both turned into sediment collectors themselves(because the water lost velocity, which means lost carrying capability), in addition to the whole matter of the floor control channels preventing it(sediment) from reaching places that need it in order to continue to exist.
It is the "rest of the story" for many, if not most, barrier islands. Flood controls have "naturally" stopped the area from flooding, which means the soils are no longer being replenished/built upon by nature, even as erosion and ground subsidence(settling) continues.
Now pair that with a slowly rising ocean, and zomg massive crises involving disappearing islands and coastal areas.
In the EU, sediment dredged from rivers and canals is classed as a waste product and must go to landfill, ie it's buried in a big hole in the ground.
AJ
In the EU, sediment dredged from rivers and canals is classed as a waste product and must go to landfill, ie it's buried in a big hole in the ground.
Depending on the location and other factors, it probably is a "waste product" and best not to be used for other purposes beyond landfill at a landfill.
Some of those areas are still pulling up nastyness from upstream which hasn't been fully cleaned up yet and centuries of prior environmental neglect and abuse.
Which isn't to say significant portions of that sediment couldn't be salvaged, but it'd be suspect all the same.
That is one major advantage to the United States and Canada, they control nearly the entirety of their respective watersheds, and where that isn't the case, the only other nation they have to talk to is the United States or Canada respectively, depending on which one has the "upstream" issue of concern.
Makes it a LOT easier to deal with than river systems that span a dozen or more nations and fighting over who pays for cleaning up ____, never mind who can afford to pay for it.
In feet, that would come to just over 7 acres, but that seems extremely large for a residential block in a dense city like Detroit for
Having lived in both Chicago and Manhattan, I think of 'city blocks' in terms of Manhattans 'oblong' blocks, which are 264 by 900 feet, or 80 m × 274 m, which is actually a bit smaller than the figure you quoted. Of course, those are mostly 'Concrete and asphalt laded blocks, not dirt and grass filled 'blocks'. But still, Manhattan has a greater amount of trees than most urban cities. In addition to the vast amount of city space set aside for Central Park, many of the city blocks are tree lined, and kept well fed with the plentiful carbon emissions by passing traffic and dog poop by the locals.
My own estimates from USDA data on crop yields seem to come up with the same number.
If it hasn't already been taken into account, the lack of means of production of sophisticated chemicals would mean that large-scale food production would have yields comparable to organic farming, and as a rule of thumb they're about half the yields of modern intensive agriculture.
AJ
If it hasn't already been taken into account, the lack of means of production of sophisticated chemicals would mean that large-scale food production would have yields comparable to organic farming, and as a rule of thumb they're about half the yields of modern intensive agriculture.
That would be a given in a post apocalyptic story, wouldn't it? At least I would expect it. Even so, though, that cuts back the number to be supported to 3-4. But that's an equivalent number anyhow.
If the objective of all these calculations is to determine how many people per acre could be supported by subsistence farming in a PA world, it would need be acknowledged that man does not live by corn alone. Protein, fruit, green vegetables, etc. need enter into the calculation. And all have different yields/acre. Now THAT calculation ain't so simple. I'm sure one is possible. After all, American forebearers did so for a couple of hundred years in our Western expansion. I just don't know where one does exist.
If the objective of all these calculations is to determine how many people per acre could be supported by subsistence farming in a PA world, it would need be acknowledged that man does not live by corn alone. Protein, fruit, green vegetables, etc. need enter into the calculation.
But that's where the use of Soylent Green comes in. 'D
A typical housing block in suburbia is unlikely to support even one person who's growing highly-productive staples. And the population densities in cities? Forget it. They'd be hunting rats for food before long ... and then start on the humans.
That depends on the resulting population densities. In most PA stories, deaths are widespread, meaning while the cities would still have more people than the country regions would, they'd also have more leftover goods available to support them in the interim. Plus, with so many citizens deceased, a single person could take over the entire roof for one massive garden, importing productive dirt from parks if necessary. If the subsequent weather patterns are substantially changed, then small window gardens spread across an entire apartment block, while requiring a hell of a lot of maintenance, could feed a couple people, and if each building houses someone who specializes in one particular crop, and each trades good with the others, you'd have a pretty decent sustainable food source.
However, if you only lost 10 to 20% of the population, then all bets are off for the cities.
However, if you only lost 10 to 20% of the population, then all bets are off for the cities.
I suggest that the suburbs would not have enough land to feed themselves if they only lost 75% of their population.
My main question would be, why would the 25% of survivors even attempt to plant their food in an urban environment.
My main question would be, why would the 25% of survivors even attempt to plant their food in an urban environment.
The main reason? Because 98% of whatever survivors you have would flee the cities, descending on the not-well defended farmlands to strip them of most available food and resources fairly quickly.
However, the cities would still contain the highest concentration of wide varieties of specialized equipment and expertise, so if the survivors were willing to sacrifice (for themselves and each other), they could make a go of it. But again, the survivors would have to prioritize which survivors would be most useful in restoring lost services and facilities—something which no civilized society would put up with!
Because 98% of whatever survivors you have would flee the cities,
Is this number just a guess or based on something?
Is this number just a guess or based on something?
Just a guess, based upon the various stories I've read which all feature MILLIONS of people fleeing the cities immediately after any sort of natural disaster. You can always tell they were written by someone who's never lived in a city, or by the 'commuters' who may work in the city, but would never dream of spending any time there outside of work.
I used the term derisively, as I think the entire concept is bogus, as most of those living in an urban environment would stick close to home rather than running away, and most people I've known in cities (rather than the surround suburban sprawl) are incredibly resourceful, knowledgeable and focused.
Most suburban workers, though I've lived with many and love them dearly, not so much. Not because they aren't good people, but because they feel no ownership in the companies which employ them (i.e. they're unable to affect how the company operates), and if it looks like they won't be paid, they're outta there!
I used the term derisively, as I think the entire concept is bogus, as most of those living in an urban environment would stick close to home rather than running away, and most people I've known in cities (rather than the surround suburban sprawl) are incredibly resourceful, knowledgeable and focused.
How resourceful, knowledgeable and focused they are won't matter. If all the modern infrastructure (electricity, water, gas, sewer) all fails at once, something that hasn't actually happened ever, anyone who tries to stick it out in a concrete jungle with no water, no food, no means of cooking, and no sanitation will be dead within a week or two.
How resourceful, knowledgeable and focused they are won't matter. If all the modern infrastructure (electricity, water, gas, sewer) all fails at once, something that hasn't actually happened ever, anyone who tries to stick it out in a concrete jungle with no water, no food, no means of cooking, and no sanitation will be dead within a week or two.
Again, we're ping-ponging between discussions of 'reality' superimposed on fictionalized worlds of one's own creation.
A Zombie Apocalpse will NEVER happen, and if an asteroid strikes the Earth, we'll likely never survive anyway, and neither will the many Preppers holes up in the mountains, shooting at anyone approaching thinking they're there to spy to steal their supplies.
Instead, we pick and chose our world to tell the type of story we want. Thus we either choose a universe of evil men, preying on the defenseless, or we focus on a world where hard work, sacrifices and good will wins out in the end. But nowhere in any of these scenarios is there any semblance of REALITY!
You'll never craft a book where ALL modern infrastructure fails permanently at once, you need protected reserves. And then, even if most of the world dies instantly, you need a reserve of people with the exact mix of skills needed to allow the people to survive.
The only difference to picking a city over the country, in such a scenario, is whether one likes cities or not. If you think cites are cellpools of privilage, excesses and liberal bias, then you will never see anything positive ever arising out of one in a time of despair.
If you think the only honest people live on farms, then that's where you set your story.
I took the easy way out. I set my first PA book in a remote, protected enclave where someone choose to live off the grid, so when the Apocalypse came, he retains power, has the ability to access gas and power reserves, and has an easy time of convincing people to join him.
It was only in my third book that I ventured anywhere near a city, and because I knew it, I choose Manhattan, simply because I'd NEVER seen a PA story set in Manhattan (aside from the original I am Legend, written back in 1954). That made the story easier to write, as the remaining population was already whittled down, and were desperate to assistance and a way to continue. In short, I didn't have to account for every single moment of surviving a zombie apocalypse in Manhattan, I could just dump someone into the middle of the aftermath, and record what happens.
Again, when we write, we create our own universes. So it's silly to keep insisting that NO ONE could ever survive a Zombie Apocalypse in Manhattan!!! Get over yourself!
A Zombie Apocalpse will NEVER happen
Under the standard of what is typically considered a zombie in the George Romero style, with the dead coming back to life, you're probably right.
In the standard of a bio-attack whereby humans become infected with a man-made brain disease and end up acting irrationally, with what could be considered zombie-like behavior ... yeah, that COULD happen.
In the standard of a bio-attack whereby humans become infected with a man-made brain disease and end up acting irrationally, with what could be considered zombie-like behavior ... yeah, that COULD happen.
Ah, Zombie Ants, gotta love them.
A Zombie Apocalpse will NEVER happen
Under the standard of what is typically considered a zombie in the George Romero style, with the dead coming back to life, you're probably right.
In the standard of a bio-attack whereby humans become infected with a man-made brain disease and end up acting irrationally, with what could be considered zombie-like behavior ... yeah, that COULD happen.
My point wasn't that you couldn't 'qualify' your statement, it was that we're talking about fictional author universes. So insisting that certain conditions or situations can't occur is pretty silly.
Granted, my initial assumptions about small groups surviving in Manhattan might have been a bit far-fetched, but as I later explained, given the context I created for that book, it makes sense (since my character only shows up later, once the situation is largely stabilized).
In the standard of a bio-attack whereby humans become infected with a man-made brain disease and end up acting irrationally, with what could be considered zombie-like behavior ... yeah, that COULD happen.
Or self-inflicted. A version of zombie spice where the effects are permanent, for example.
AJ
My main question would be, why would the 25% of survivors even attempt to plant their food in an urban environment.
As an alternative to carrying about 400 cubic yards of soil (a quarter acre to a depth of one foot) up to the roof of a high-rise building in the city. :-)
As an alternative to carrying about 400 cubic yards of soil (a quarter acre to a depth of one foot) up to the roof of a high-rise building in the city.
Actually, in a story I'm working on, it's on the roof of an approximately 125,000 square foot warehouse store (Sam's Club). The depth of soil needed varies depending upon what you're planting - green beans only need about 8" of dirt. Zucchini need 24". I've done some rough figuring on weight loads, as these large open span warehouse buildings aren't designed for that much weight on the roof without internal supports.
Fortunately, there's lots of racking around AND forklifts that can stack that racking to provide some additional bracing inside under key areas.
Actually, in a story I'm working on, it's on the roof of an approximately 125,000 square foot warehouse store (Sam's Club). The depth of soil needed varies depending upon what you're planting - green beans only need about 8" of dirt. Zucchini need 24". I've done some rough figuring on weight loads, as these large open span warehouse buildings aren't designed for that much weight on the roof without internal supports.
Where is this Sam's Club located? For all the ones I'm familiar with, the parking lot would give you a much bigger area to work with and no load concerns.
Where is this Sam's Club located? For all the ones I'm familiar with, the parking lot would give you a much bigger area to work with and no load concerns.
Story set in the Black Tide Rising universe of John Ringo. Which is, basically, a man-made zombie apocalypse. Tough to farm outside, so while during the period of falling back and regrouping, boarding up inside a Sam's Club becomes necessary. (Actually inside of several Sam's Clubs, for survivors in the entire metro area.)
I'm also using real world locations for the stores, so when the survivors make raids for more supplies both before and after actually boarding up, the stores I mention AND the materials within them really exist.
Story set in the Black Tide Rising universe of John Ringo. Which is, basically, a man-made zombie apocalypse. Tough to farm outside, so while during the period of falling back and regrouping, boarding up inside a Sam's Club becomes necessary. (Actually inside of several Sam's Clubs, for survivors in the entire metro area.)
In that case, since only a single movie references 'climbing' zombies, it would be easier to rip the entire roof off of the structure to provide an open environment for fields and small houses within the solid walls of the existing structure. Plus, in that scenario, there are no weight restrictions at all.
Where is this Sam's Club located? For all the ones I'm familiar with, the parking lot would give you a much bigger area to work with and no load concerns.
Excellent point. Use the same equipment to rip up the parking lot and you've got an undisturbed (by competing plants) natural dirt field.
Excellent point. Use the same equipment to rip up the parking lot and you've got an undisturbed (by competing plants) natural dirt field.
Not quite. When large areas like that are paved, the generally dig out the usable top soil and lay down a bed of gravel before pouring asphalt and/or concrete over it.
You will still need to bring in fresh topsoil from somewhere else. Though, you may still need to tear out the asphalt/concrete anyway, for drainage, so rain doesn't just wash the transplanted topsoil away.
Not quite. When large areas like that are paved, the generally dig out the usable top soil and lay down a bed of gravel before pouring asphalt and/or concrete over it.
You will still need to bring in fresh topsoil from somewhere else. Though, you may still need to tear out the asphalt/concrete anyway, for drainage, so rain doesn't just wash the transplanted topsoil away.
True, true. So we're left with the same scenario. Dump dirt on the paved surface (inside an enclosed, reinforced structure) and start from scratch. You bring in animals for 'natural' fertilizer (because you'll kill people fertilizing it with human poop), all without going outside to face the zombie hordes.
Actually, in a story I'm working on, it's on the roof of an approximately 125,000 square foot warehouse store (Sam's Club). The depth of soil needed varies depending upon what you're planting - green beans only need about 8" of dirt. Zucchini need 24". I've done some rough figuring on weight loads, as these large open span warehouse buildings aren't designed for that much weight on the roof without internal supports.
Fortunately, there's lots of racking around AND forklifts that can stack that racking to provide some additional bracing inside under key areas.
I would probably just remove the roofing, leave the supports(help keep the walls up), and setup the farming on the floor of the store itself.
I would probably just remove the roofing, leave the supports(help keep the walls up), and setup the farming on the floor of the store itself.
You still have to have shelter from the elements for your survivors. And keep in mind I'm not talking about an empty Sam's Club when they go into it - the area command centers (which are all the Sam's Club in the metro - were all functioning and operational - when the zombie plague starts.
Actually, in a story I'm working on, it's on the roof of an approximately 125,000 square foot warehouse store (Sam's Club). The depth of soil needed varies depending upon what you're planting - green beans only need about 8" of dirt. Zucchini need 24". I've done some rough figuring on weight loads, as these large open span warehouse buildings aren't designed for that much weight on the roof without internal supports.
A quite note of caution for your story. Most large department warehouses (like Sam's Club or Walmart Stores) are too broad to support much of a load on their roofs (which is why so many collapse during wind storm of heavy snows). I doubt you put load much dirt on such a structure before you have no structure left!
Apartment buildings, however, are heavily reinforced with steel girders and constructed with either brick or reinforced concrete (reinforced with additional steel rod), and thus they support much heavier loads. In fact, modern architecture is based upon heavy weights supporting the structure and preventing it from collapsing, as opposed to the 'box stores' which have no such 'reinforcing' arch supports.
I doubt you put load much dirt on such a structure before you have no structure left!
That's why I mentioned racks (for bracing from underneath) for those specific areas for where they DO plan on putting dirt.
Building codes require roofs without large, open spans (such as in a girder supported warehouse roof) to support a minimum load of 20 psf (pounds per square foot). A cubic yard of soil weighs approximately 2,000 pounds. That's 46,646 cubic inches. Thus, by handy math, you'll find that 1 square foot of dirt that's 3" thick weighs 18.5 pounds. I'll grant you that's dry dirt, but is within the load bearing capacity of any building that's designed to code, albeit barely.
And those are the minimums - typically you're going to find such buildings over-engineered, simply for safety and because the owners don't want to get sued if a building collapses due to a simple snowfall. A square foot of light, fluffy snow will weigh about 3 pounds at 12" deep, while a foot of thick, heavy snows weighs about 21 pounds. Ice is the real destroyer - a 12" thick sheet of ice is almost 60 pounds per square foot.
Building codes require roofs without large, open spans (such as in a girder supported warehouse roof) to support a minimum load of 20 psf (pounds per square foot). A cubic yard of soil weighs approximately 2,000 pounds. That's 46,646 cubic inches. Thus, by handy math, you'll find that 1 square foot of dirt that's 3" thick weighs 18.5 pounds. I'll grant you that's dry dirt, but is within the load bearing capacity of any building that's designed to code, albeit barely.
In that case, my guestimations may be way off base, but I recall reading (and seeing) multiple instances of those same Box Stores collapsing after a 8" to 20" snowstorm. Granted, much of that is water-logged weight, as it's melting, but I doubt that 20" of fresh snow isn't that much heavier than 12" of dirt!
Do we have any engineers here to explain the discrepancy to me?
but I recall reading (and seeing) multiple instances of those same Box Stores collapsing after a 8" to 20" snowstorm.
Do we have any engineers here to explain the discrepancy to me?
I'm not an engineer, but I would hazard a guess that there is a significant difference in building code requirements for such roofs between areas where significant snow accumulation even for the entire winter is unusual, but 8" to 20" snowfalls can happen as once in a century freak events and areas where even if 20" snowstorms are rare, 3+ feet of seasonal snow accumulation is common.
I live in southeastern Wisconsin. Here, while single 20" snowstorm is rare, the average seasonal snowfall is 36" and while mid season thaws happen, they are not common. So unless they are prepared to do snow removal from the roof, not an easy task, a building with a large span roof had better be engineered to handle the weight of 3+ feet of snow for an extended period.
I live in southeastern Wisconsin. Here, while single 20" snowstorm is rare, the average seasonal snowfall is 36" and while mid season thaws happen, they are not common. So unless they are prepared to do snow removal from the roof, not an easy task, a building with a large span roof had better be engineered to handle the weight of 3+ feet of snow for an extended period.
I'm not an engineer but do love to play around with data.
Some basic info might help here. A cubic foot of water weights 62 pounds or thereabouts. Water equivalent in snow varies. The rule of thumb is 10" of snow per inch of water. But that depends on whether the snow is heavy or light and fluffy. If heavy, 4"-5" will give an inch of water. Light and fluffy can be as much as 20" per inch of water.
So using the rule of thumb 10" per inch, a 12" snowfall would be about 18 or 19 pounds of water per square foot.
Snow weight isn't a trivial problem either. I remember a domed stadium in Minnesota (city of Minneapolis) collapsing from the weight of it. So even the engineers can get it wrong sometime, i.e. not foreseeing every possibility.
Correction: Apparently, I can't do math anymore. The calculation is for 3" of water, not 1". So the correct answer is a little over 6 pounds of water. I think I'm gonna hang up my calculator.
In that case, my guestimations may be way off base, but I recall reading (and seeing) multiple instances of those same Box Stores collapsing after a 8" to 20" snowstorm. Granted, much of that is water-logged weight, as it's melting, but I doubt that 20" of fresh snow isn't that much heavier than 12" of dirt!
For what it's worth, I just went back into my local Sam's Club, which is the one I'm using in my story. The building is 300' x 400', so 120,000 square feet. The 400 is north-south, with internal columns running to the ceiling every 50', with structural roof bracing running along the east-west column rows, with simple roof support bracing running between these structural braces.
So not counting the end walls, this gives us 7 rows that are 300' long that are main structural supports, thick steel trusses, 12" wide, designed to transfer loads to their columns and then down to the ground. You wouldn't have to cover the whole roof in dirt, just 3' wide strips along those columns. That'd give you 6,300 square feet of gardening space, which with spacing gives you 4,200 linear feet of space for planting, assuming 1' spacing between rows and 2 rows per column.
1 entire row - 600 linear feet - of green beans gives you about 1,200 plants, or enough for 100 people for an entire year. (MORE than enough - we used to grow green beans when I was younger.) 1 entire row gives of tomatoes gives you enough of those for 100 people for an entire year. 1 row of bell peppers gives you enough of those for 100 people for an entire year. A full row of leaf lettuce gives you enough for 75 people for an entire year. Beets gives you enough for 80 people. An entire row of peas is enough for 100 people for a whole year. And you'd have enough with a row of zucchini for 75 people.
As a stand alone garden that's the sole source of food, you could feed 75 - 100 people for an entire year. As a supplement to food that's already IN the Sam's Club (and what they also manage to salvage - which is how I'm writing this - that should be enough to help keep more than 300 people alive for a couple of years if needed.
My main goal is figuring a logical way to keep more than 2,000 people alive in relatively confined situations (meaning they're all sort of confined to the metro Sam's Club / Winco's) during a period where, until they 'thin things down outside', so that actually planting real gardens is an option again.
My main goal is figuring a logical way to keep more than 2,000 people alive in relatively confined situations (meaning they're all sort of confined to the metro Sam's Club / Winco's) during a period where, until they 'thin things down outside', so that actually planting real gardens is an option again.
So you want them to survive in a building that may as well have targets painted on the side???
Do yourself a favor, look up survivalist/prepper forums (ten minimum). Go ahead and sign up so you can search them properly. Look up the number of threads with the theme of taking over a Walmart/Sams/Costco etc. Google searching should verify it.
There is enough of that out there that the Feds/Homeland would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to have not noticed. Further, every keyboard survivalist has the same thing in their heads. The prepper survivalist forums have seen it enough that they've named the people. They call them raiders. Somewhere in the back of their heads, such places float around as high priority targets.
Want to get a bunch of people killed? Lead them to one of those places after shit hits the fan.
There is enough of that out there that the Feds/Homeland would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to have not noticed. Further, every keyboard survivalist has the same thing in their heads. The prepper survivalist forums have seen it enough that they've named the people. They call them raiders.
I completely agree with your commentary - I'm simply dismissing it because the people taking over the Sam's Club ARE the government - or at least those in the government interested in survival when the fecal matter hits the oscillating air movement device.
Phrasing it politely - a raider armed with an AR-15 loses to a SAW. Better yet, go read the John Ringo Black Tide Rising series and you'll understand how and why what I'm writing will fit in. While there are certainly more survivors, after approximately one year, there are only 45,000 confirmed survivors in the entire state of Texas. Out of a population of about 28 MILLION.
I've read most of Ringo's work (all of BTR). You've missed my point though. It doesn't matter if it's FEDS or raiders, the end result will be an environment immediately dangerous to life and health to any who get the idea to roll up into one of them as a refuge. The poor bastards who get caught in the crossfire won't care who took the shot, they will be dead.
What you want for your scenario to fly is a building with a large flat or near flat roof design. It should be and older building, preferably mid 80s or earlier, as many roofs designed after that are engineered sheet metal in accordance with AWS D1.3. Prior to that, most were over designed and built in accordance with AWS D1.1 or D1.0 if before 72 if it's outside NYC, LA, or other areas that put their own stamp on matters.
In short, you want a school building that is not on the homeland designated shelter list. One thing you can be damned sure of, every single large Walmart, Sam's etc is on the government list for times of national emergency.
It doesn't matter if it's FEDS or raiders, the end result will be an environment immediately dangerous to life and health to any who get the idea to roll up into one of them as a refuge. The poor bastards who get caught in the crossfire won't care who took the shot, they will be dead.
What you want for your scenario to fly is a building with a large flat or near flat roof design.
Oh, I completely understand that, too, regarding the crossfire. The whole point with the BTR scenario is that there is such a quick breakdown, AND the infection is so strong, that there won't be that much time for people to react. Remember in the story collection the folks that ended up on top of the gasoline tanks in the Chicago area.
And if I really needed a large, near flat roof, we've got one of those nearby. 1.3 MILLION square feet, built in 1942, still in use today.
If built in 42, it was for the war effort. That narrows it down to less than 50 buildings still in use. All of which are on the Fed radar.
If built in 42, it was for the war effort. That narrows it down to less than 50 buildings still in use. All of which are on the Fed radar.
Building 3001 at Tinker AFB.
And Tinker will be involved in my story, especially since the golf course there is literally right across the street from where the Sam's Club I'm using is located.
So you're going to bypass HLS, FBI, etc, and go straight to DOD/Air Force?? Does the term concentric read and white circles mean anything to you?
So you're going to bypass HLS, FBI, etc, and go straight to DOD/Air Force?? Does the term concentric read and white circles mean anything to you?
I think you're presuming that there IS going to be an HLS or FBI. What happens when the chain of command is effectively broken due to both losses AND inability to communicate?
Also, it sort of helps that the main character in my story is (or was) in the military.
And let's face it - it's sitting right there. I have relatives who have (and some who still do) have worked there.
If it's broken to the point of no government left in the world (which it would have to be under that scenario), you're talking about a warlord scenario like Somalia etc.
I say no government for a reason. If any of the major power's are left in any form of cohesive organization but the U.S. had dissolved completely, they'd almost assuredly move on in.
When the Soviet Union fell, every base they had outside of Russia even remotely the size of Tinker, was soon occupied by one power or another.
If it's world wide collapse as stated, every military base out there will be the target of the warlord wannabes.
That'd give you 6,300 square feet of gardening space ... As a stand alone garden that's the sole source of food, you could feed 75 - 100 people for an entire year.
That's assuming the annual production from 2 square yards is enough to feed 75-100 people for one day? I doubt such productivity has even been achieved, even somewhere in the Middle East about two thousand years ago.
Look up which crops have the greatest annual production of calories per unit of area. The most productive crop is sweet potatoes, followed by potatoes or maize.
At least 3,000 square feet is needed to provide one person with 2,000 kcal per day - and that's if you only grow sweet potatoes, and use fertilisers and modern farming techniques.
At least 3,000 square feet is needed to provide one person with 2,000 kcal per day - and that's if you only grow sweet potatoes, and use fertilisers and modern farming techniques.
It really sucks when I actually did research BEFORE I made my statements. And used appropriate math.
https://www.theprairiehomestead.com/2018/03/how-much-to-plant-per-person-garden.html
https://www.gardengatemagazine.com/articles/web-extras/all/how_many_veggies/
So you'll find that MY figures - 300 linear feet, 3 feet wide (thus, 900 square feet), allowing for 2 rows of plants per row - are quite accurate.
As a stand alone garden that's the sole source of food, you could feed 75 - 100 people for an entire year.
That's a very unbalanced diet. The Sam's Club (about which I know nothing) should probably have a large stock of carbs. Perhaps rice, because that has the fewest storage/freshness problems.
AJ
That's a very unbalanced diet. The Sam's Club (about which I know nothing) should probably have a large stock of carbs. Perhaps rice, because that has the fewest storage/freshness problems.
Thing is, as others have attempted to point out, going anywhere near a Sam's Club within the first several weeks of an apocalyptic type event is asking to either get killed yourself, or to kill those with you.
Whatever food may have been there at the onset, it won't be there by the time it's "reasonably safe" to go there.
Whatever food may have been there at the onset, it won't be there by the time it's "reasonably safe" to go there.
That's presuming that the Sam's Club / Costco / whatever isn't already taken over shortly after the onset of the apocalyptic event, BEFORE panic AND the mass-die off due to the actual event happens.
That's a very unbalanced diet.
Never said it wasn't - this is about survival AND about balancing / supplementing canned and bagged food already present inside. It's a rare day when a Sam's Club doesn't have at least 6 pallets full of 50 pound bags of rice - that's 12,000 POUNDS of uncooked rice. Which is enough to feed 100 people 16 oz of cooked rice every day for a full year. (Since 1 pound of uncooked rice = 3 lbs of cooked rice.)
It really sucks when I actually did research BEFORE I made my statements. And used appropriate math … So you'll find that MY figures - 300 linear feet, 3 feet wide (thus, 900 square feet), allowing for 2 rows of plants per row - are quite accurate.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
Let's do your maths!
Let us see how many kcal your garden could potentially produce per year.
You have said 900 square feet (100 square yards) devoted to each of beans, beets, lettuce, peas, peppers, tomatoes, and zucchini.
I found the following "likely annual yields" in tons per hectare:
beans – 10
beets – 18
lettuce – 25
peas – 5
peppers – 30
tomatoes – 50
zucchini – 18
Most of those estimates came from here:
https://www.kzndard.gov.za/images/Documents/Horticulture/Veg_prod/expected_yields.pdf
The estimate for zucchinis came from here:
http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/horticulture/vegetables/vegetables-a-z/growing-zucchini-marrows
I found these estimates of kcal per 100gm of raw produce:
beans – 20
beets – 36
lettuce – 12
peas – 83
peppers – 36
tomatoes – 17
zucchini – 18
Most of those estimates came from here:
https://www.lasting-weight-loss.com/calories-in-vegetables.html
The estimate for green beans came from here:
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ucm063477.pdf
Let's start with the beans.
That is calculated by multiplying all of these:
20 (kcal/100gm)
10,000 (100gm/tonne)
0.907 (tonne/ton)
10 (ton/hectare)
0.405 (hectare/acre)
That gives kcal/acre. Note how all the intermediate units in that calculation are cancelled out leaving just the units in bold font.
Divide the result by 48.4 because you have only 100 square yards per crop and there are 4,840 square yards per acre.
The result, rounded to the nearest 1,000kcal) is 15,000 kcal from 100 square yards of beans.
The results for the other crops are beets (49,000), lettuce (23,000), peas (31,000), peppers (82,000), tomatoes (65,000), and zucchini (25,000).
The total is 290,000kcal. That's not what you said:
a stand alone garden that's the sole source of food, you could feed 75 - 100 people for an entire year. As a supplement to food that's already IN the Sam's Club
In fact, it's only about 40% of the energy needed by one person per year … assuming, of course, they could replicate typical yields achieved using fertilisers and modern day farming techniques.
I guess it really does SUCK when someone does the maths appropriately!
* * *
FYI, these are the calculations I used for the seven crops
20 * 10000 * 0.907 * 10 * 0.405 / 48.4 = 15179 (beans)
36 * 10000 * 0.907 * 18 * 0.405 / 48.4 = 49180 (beets)
12 * 10000 * 0.907 * 25 * 0.405 / 48.4 = 22769 (lettuce)
83 * 10000 * 0.907 * 05 * 0.405 / 48.4 = 31497 (peas)
36 * 10000 * 0.907 * 30 * 0.405 / 48.4 = 81967 (peppers)
17 * 10000 * 0.907 * 50 * 0.405 / 48.4 = 64511 (tomatoes)
18 * 10000 * 0.907 * 18 * 0.405 / 48.4 = 24590 (zucchinis)
Let's do your maths!
But you didn't do MY maths - you went off on your own tangent, and did your OWN maths.
600 feet of green beans = 1200 plants. 45 plants required for a family of 4. 1200 divided by 45 = 26.66 families of four you're feeding - or just over 100 people.
This is not just a hypothetical exercise for me - my parents had an 80' by 80' garden. We didn't plant as tightly as would be required in a temporary survival situation (keep in mind, I'm NOT striving for long term, years worth of living on a roof, my survivors are simply stretching what supplies they have until they CAN begin regular planting again) - but if you've ever picked 3 x 40' rows of green beans, you know you're talking about dozens of bushel baskets of beans - we'd have cans (jars) of green beans down in the basement enough to last years (and they did).
45 plants required for a family
COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!
AGAIN, you're pulling irrelevant, unsourced numbers out of your arse.
"Required to feed a family"??? What the fuck does that mean?
I identified the precise problem with your assertions in my first comment to you.
Look up which crops have the greatest annual production of calories per unit of area. The most productive crop is sweet potatoes, followed by potatoes or maize.
At least 3,000 square feet is needed to provide one person with 2,000 kcal per day
The precise problem was the maximum calories which could be grown in a given area. You had less than 100 square feet per person. I asserted at least 3,000 square feet was needed per person, and getting anywhere that requires the selection of crops with very high calorie yields per unit of area.
You just tossed up some numbers which mean absolutely nothing without even citing where they came from and sarcastically insisted your maths was right.
@ME
Let's do your maths!
@YOU
But you didn't do MY maths - you went off on your own tangent, and did your OWN maths.
Okay. I made a rhetorical flourish that wasn't accurate.
I CHALLENGE YOU ... Find the hole in my maths if you're so sure mine is wrong! My calculations show your garden would only produce 0.5% of the calories needed by your 75+ people. If I am wrong, tell me where.
I've cited all the data I relied on in my calculations and shown my complete calculations. You haven't dared show us anything we could look at to find where you fucked it up.
I'll put it in baby steps so even you can follow my calculations.
1. Considering beans first, there are 20kcal/100gm of fresh beans. (estimate from supplied source)
2. There are 20 * 10,000 = 200,000kcal/tonne of fresh beans (10,000 units of 100gm per tonne)
3. There are 200,000 * 0.907 = 181,400kcal/US ton of fresh beans (0.907 US tons per tonne)
4. The likely yield is 181,400 * 10 = 1,814,000kcal from 1 hectare of beans (10 tons/hectare estimate from supplied source)
5. The likely yield is 1,814,000 * 0.405 = 735,000kcal (rounded) from 1 acre of beans (0.405 acres per hectare)
6. The likely yield is 735,000 / 48.4 = 15,186kcal from 100 square yards of beans (4,840 square yards per acre)
7. Identical calculations to all seven crops gives estimates in thousands of kcal of beans (15), beets (49), lettuce (23), peas (31), peppers (82), tomatoes (65), and zucchini (25).
8. Adding all those gives a total of 290,000kcal from the entire garden per year.
9. A person needs about 2,000kcal per day, about 730,000 per year. The harvest from your garden is only about 40% of that.
So, come on, you self-proclaimed mathematical genius. TELL WHICH WHICH STEP(S) I GOT WRONG!
I'll be man enough to apologise for my sarcasm and abusive language if I'm proven to have made any gross mistake. I doubt you have the balls to do the same when unable to brandish a gun in someone's face.
9. A person needs about 2,000kcal per day, about 730,000 per year. The harvest from your garden is only about 40% of that.
What I said was:
As a stand alone garden that's the sole source of food, you could feed 75 - 100 people for an entire year. As a supplement to food that's already IN the Sam's Club (and what they also manage to salvage - which is how I'm writing this - that should be enough to help keep more than 300 people alive for a couple of years if needed.
I did forget to include the word 'fresh' in my first sentence. As a stand alone garden that's the sole source of FRESH food, you could feed 75 - 100 people for an entire year. As a supplement to food that's already IN the Sam's Club ...
And if you're on tight rations, you're NOT going to give someone who isn't working 2,000 calories per day.
Also, farming by hand, where you're having to break the ground, continually hoe and till a large garden IS backbreaking work. Putting IN a raised bed garden is a pain in the ass - I've done it three times. CARING for that raised bed garden isn't ... especially when you're again talking about a row that you can reach from either side. (And you also planted the dirt / peat moss / fertilizer combo complete with Miracle Gro from scratch - NOT where you're trying to coax soil that's already been worked 20 times, to produce a crop. Again, been there, done that.)
I did forget to include the word 'fresh' in my first sentence. As a stand alone garden that's the sole source of FRESH food
That changes the meaning of the statement I objected to entirely.
And I misread the next sentence the first time I read it. You wrote "As a supplement to Sam's Club" My first reading was more like "and a supplement from Sam's Club."
The garden really won't produce much. My calculation is less than 40g of fresh vegetables per person per day. Realistically, I'd say it's only enough to give everyone one cup of vegetable soup per day. That doesn't make it without value.
A couple of things I suggest is growing parsley or basil under the tomatoes or another crop, and swapping the beans, a second pulse, to sweet potatoes. A few dark-green leaves are fabulous sources of many vitamins and minerals. A little bit of sweet potato will give you Vitamin A, which is hard to get enough of from most foods. Keep the peas rather than beans to help replenish the soil with nitrogen.
A couple of things I suggest is growing parsley or basil under the tomatoes or another crop, and swapping the beans, a second pulse, to sweet potatoes. A few dark-green leaves are fabulous sources of many vitamins and minerals. A little bit of sweet potato will give you Vitamin A, which is hard to get enough of from most foods. Keep the peas rather than beans to help replenish the soil with nitrogen.
Doing it "native style" circa 1600 Plymouth Rock.
The Native Americans who farmed in New England didn't monocrop, and some of their techniques were rather advanced for their time. They basically were doing as detailed above, growing complimentary crops interwoven with one another. So seeing a crop that fixes nitrogen being grown among crops depleting it was very common for example. They didn't know the why, but they knew it worked, and reduced the need to "rotate crops."
So seeing a crop that fixes nitrogen being grown among crops depleting it was very common for example. They didn't know the why, but they knew it worked, and reduced the need to "rotate crops."
Leguminous plants (peas and beans and clover) fix nitrogen and store it in their roots. There's no benefit to companion plants until the legume has died and its roots have decayed. Clover, and some types of beans, are grown specifically as green manure because of their nitrogen-fixing capability.
AJ
A few dark-green leaves are fabulous sources of many vitamins and minerals. A little bit of sweet potato will give you Vitamin A, which is hard to get enough of from most foods.
Your Sam's Club is going to have pallets of multivitamins (e,g 'Centrum') which in a survival scenario could provide your basic vitamins and trace minerals. They might not do much if you're eating a balanced diet, but in a survival scenario, they might get you over the hump while you restart your agriculture.
And don't forget your vitamin 'C', lest you want to develop scurvy. :-)
Your Sam's Club
Not my Sam's Club, but Carl's. Please!
I'm having more than enough problems coping with the pre-apocalyptic world already.
Your Sam's Club is going to have pallets of multivitamins (e,g 'Centrum') which in a survival scenario could provide your basic vitamins and trace minerals. They might not do much if you're eating a balanced diet, but in a survival scenario, they might get you over the hump while you restart your agriculture.
And don't forget your vitamin 'C', lest you want to develop scurvy. :-)
Yeah, I'm actually planning on a little walk-through sometime in the next couple of weeks, just to get a good snapshot of what they have on the shelves.
You wrote "As a supplement to Sam's Club" My first reading was more like "and a supplement from Sam's Club."
It's all good, Ross.
And that's a good idea about the parsley or basil. Probably one of the Indians that's also a survivor will have that thought.
It's all good, Ross.
It's all good, Carl.
May I go into not-picking editor for a while? I just got back from my usual nightly walk to the mall for a coffee and an hour or so contemplating life, the universe, and grammar.
The poor construction of your original statements contributed to my misinterpretation.
The missing word from the first sentence created a statement that had me spitting chips. It's not surprising I wasn't paying much attention to detail just after that.
But beyond that, you attached the descriptions "sole source of" to the garden and "supplement" to Sam's Club. The reality is the reverse and you could have written it that way. As a matter of good writing practices, connecting appropriate modifiers (adjectives and adverbs) to major words (nouns/pronouns and verbs) means readers are likely to get the right impression even if they skim over the glue words (prepositions and conjunctions).
Then there was the order of the ideas in your statements. You had three ideas, some veges from the garden, enough for many people, and most food from Sam's Club - in that order. If you move the last of those to the front, readers are unlikely to miss the significance of what it is that's keeping your characters alive.
Sermon mode ends here. :-)
45 plants required for a family of 4.
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_patterns/EstimatedCalorieNeedsPerDayTable.pdf
The average Adult woman needs 2000 Calories per day to maintain current weight. The average adult male needs 2500 Calories per day. Kids need anywhere between 1000 and 2400 depending on age / gender.
Those numbers go up significantly if you are very active, and subsistence level agriculture is back breaking physical work.
You say a family of 4. One man, one woman, two kids.
A 9 year old boy and an 11 year old girl would both require 1800 Calories/day for moderate activity.
So your family of 4 needs 8,100 Calories/day. that's 2,956,500 Calories / year.
According to this (https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/threads/how-many-green-bean-plants-needed.356992/) , you'll get about 1 cup ( half a pint) of beans per plant.
https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/green-beans#weight
1 cup of raw green beans is 31 Calories
45 plants * 31 Calories / plant is only 1,395 Calories. Not enough for 1 person for 1 day, much less a Family of 4 for a year.
According to this (https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/threads/how-many-green-bean-plants-needed.356992/) , you'll get about 1 cup ( half a pint) of beans per plant.
Or not :(
Am I missing the point somewhere? You don't grow fruit and veggies for the calories, you grow them for the vitamins and the fibre and, in a few cases, the protein. The calories you mainly get from carbs - the sacks of rice inside the Sam's Club.
AJ
The calories you mainly get from carbs - the sacks of rice inside the Sam's Club.
And when that runs out? I don't think it will last half as long as you apparently do.
And when that runs out? I don't think it will last half as long as you apparently do.
Say you're giving 1 pound of cooked rice to a single person per day, and you have to feed 100 people. To get 300 pounds cooked, you cook 100 pounds - so two bags every three days. 240 bags (6 pallets) = 360 days worth of rice for 100 people.
What SHOULD happen is the fresh meat gets smoked, the frozen meats get cooked as quickly as possible and/or then smoked as well. Eat the stuff that's going to spoil (and quickly) first, then work your way through the rest.
To get 300 pounds cooked, you cook 100 pounds - so two bags every three days. 240 bags (6 pallets) = 360 days worth of rice for 100 people.
But how likely is it for even a Sam's Club to have 6 pallets of rice in stock? Me, I doubt that they would even have half that. A more traditional grocery store would be unlikely to even have half a pallet in stock at any given time.
But how likely is it for even a Sam's Club to have 6 pallets of rice in stock? Me, I doubt that they would even have half that.
Well, last Sunday when I went through there, ours did. They may have just received a truck, but ...
Oh, and they had three pallets of Basmati Rice, with the smaller bags. We have six Sam's Clubs in the metro area total, and do NOT have Costco or any other warehouse clubs.
Am I missing the point somewhere?
I think so.
You don't grow fruit and veggies for the calories, you grow them for the vitamins and the fibre and, in a few cases, the protein.
Is less than 40g of mixed fresh vegetables per person per day a reasonable thing to include in the diet. Yes. The statement I objected to described that as:
a stand alone garden that's the sole source of food ... As a supplement to food that's already IN the Sam's Club
Wouldn't you say Sam's Club was the "sole source of food" if the fresh vegetables you grew provided only one-half of one percent of the total calorie needs?
I found the following "likely annual yields" in tons per hectare:
beans – 10
beets – 18
lettuce – 25
peas – 5
peppers – 30
tomatoes – 50
zucchini – 18
I have no dog I this fight,it I would point out that the farmers have to leave room for their equipment to move through the fields, among other things. In the "Wal-Mart/ Sam's Club scenario" that otherwise empty field would be populated by roofing which isn't covered by dirt. Giving people room in which to work.
I have no dog I this fight,it I would point out that the farmers have to leave room for their equipment to move through the fields, among other things. In the "Wal-Mart/ Sam's Club scenario" that otherwise empty field would be populated by roofing which isn't covered by dirt. Giving people room in which to work.
Please, let's not quibble about the margins with this one.
He said:
a stand alone garden that's the sole source of food, you could feed 75 - 100 people for an entire year. As a supplement to food that's already IN the Sam's Club
I said:
NOT enough for a large proportion of what 75+ people would need
Probably not even enough for 0.4 people (because I think it's doubtful amateurs could match the yield of commercial farmers)
I said:
NOT enough for a large proportion of what 75+ people would need
Probably not even enough for 0.4 people (because I think it's doubtful amateurs could match the yield of commercial farmers)
I'll agree he probably misread what he sourced, or his source didn't properly state what they were trying to convey. It IS possible was meant to read "could supply the RDA(recommended daily allowance) needs for consumption by up to ____ people(eating a balanced diet). Which means while it would be a source, it wouldn't be the only source for the full 2Kcal/day.
full 2Kcal/day
BTW, there's a confusing anomaly in energy units called "calories".
What is often referred to as a "calorie" is actually 1,000 of the metric units called calories. Sometimes a capital C is used to differentiate between them.
I used the units called kilocalories (kcal). I'm sure I got this right in my calculations and a person needs about 2,000 of those per day.
BTW, there's a confusing anomaly in energy units called "calories".
What is often referred to as a "calorie" is actually 1,000 of the metric units called calories. Sometimes a capital C is used to differentiate between them.
I used the units called kilocalories (kcal). I'm sure I got this right in my calculations and a person needs about 2,000 of those per day.
IIRC isn't it also derived from the BTU? (British Thermal Unit)
IIRC isn't it also derived from the BTU? (British Thermal Unit)
I think you're right. The units for energy in the metric system are Joules, and I got that wrong bit in my post.
Standard
BTU = heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.
Metric
Calorie = heat required to raise one gram of water one Celsius.
SI/Joule energy unit
Heat for many purposes is measured as energy. Other units are converted to this. 1,055 Joules = one BTU for instance.
SI
International System of Units.
Beyond that it starts breaking down into the specifics of what's being measured. Newton meters/metres, heat dissapated from one Amp through a resistance of one Ohm per second, etc.
I suggest that the suburbs would not have enough land to feed themselves if they only lost 75% of their population.
In my scenario, at least, the cities and country regions would do much better, at least if not inflicted with large numbers of survivors, than your suburban model. You're right, suburbia has few useful resources for growing, sustaining or creating an industrial/technological base. What's more, unlike the typical population of most urban cities, suburban areas are typically filled with people who have only a couple of skills, rather than having multiple 'experts' in a wide range of fields, or at least have ready access to such information.
Again, these are ALL purely fictional constructs, but with the correct numbers of survivors, and the availability of enough 'off-the-grid' resources, it should be plausible, at least.
The main difference to first-world economies is it's usually just adequate to serve its minimum functional requirements and very poor quality.
That is the main point I think. Those groups that are satisfied with the minimum needs required for survival will survive with the least of the (social) problems most first world groups will suffer. The fight for luxuries will be far bigger in first world countries then it will be in countries that were not used to those luxuries. (Among "luxuries" are fresh water, power etc. that we now take for granted)
Yeah. I was assessing theoretical possibilities of re-establishing a functional society. When I consider the capacity of Westerners put the community's needs first, I agree; we'd be tearing each other apart before long. :(
I live in a modest-sized city in one of those countries. I do not see what you imagine, except of the food supply. If cut off from supplies and technology from the outside world, I'm sure it would quickly be self-sustaining in food. Virtually everything else they use is dependent on modern technology. The main difference to first-world economies is it's usually just adequate to serve its minimum functional requirements and very poor quality.
It would take a few hundred pages to even brush the surface of what I tried to glaze over. Let's skin it another way.
In your city;
How many people require medicine to continue living?
How many are currently on some form of psychotropic drug to maintain behavior?
How many have ever seriously farmed?
How many have ever built a circuit board or a semi-conductor?
How many have ever cast metal, welded, built a welding machine, pulled wire from raw stock, built tooling, and all other things metal.
I could go on for a month of Sundays in that vein. Take any singular object you see and trace back 'every' technology ever required to produce it from the dirt up. Even the lowly street sign has a minimum of five generations of technology behind it. The metal, reflective coating, stamping, printing, the extruded pole it's mounted on, the screws it's mounted with, the machines that dug the hole, not only do each of those elements have layer upon layer of technology required, the organization behind the layout has its own layers.
Research the implementation and manufacturing of a street sign. Branch into every single technology required to get to that point.
The average person just sees a street sign. I see the litany of tech required for its existence from the ore and organics in the ground to the sign that I behold when making a turn. What more to a car, truck, drug, building, etcetera?
I'm not going to debate this.
You suggested third world areas would "recover faster" because their technology is not as advanced.
Everything I see the locals using, except food, is a product of modern technology. I think they'd be as screwed without their technology as us, and theirs being less advanced than ours does not change that at all.
Doesn't matter if you don't want to debate it. Your position is wrong. They will most definitely recover faster, if for no other reason than many of them have more recent experience with severe collapses.
Everything I see the locals using, except food, is a product of modern technology. I think they'd be as screwed without their technology as us, and theirs being less advanced than ours does not change that at all.
Case in point: most 'underdeveloped areas' are underdeveloped for very specific reasons (i.e. they're unlikely to provide enough resources to grow anything without heavy intervention from outside the area. While cities would suffer tremendously due to widespread hunger, they at least have access to a wide variety of tools and information.
On top of that, there are abundant small farms and productive grasslands surround most small to large cities, which depending on the number of survivors, could easily be put into use to at least get a small recovery program moving. The biggest obstacle wouldn't be feeding are caring for everyone, instead it would be guaranteeing that the greedy don't consume every scrap, leaving the entire community destitute and likely to starve (i.e. there's going to be a fair amount of shooting of the hungry!).
It would take a few hundred pages to even brush the surface of what I tried to glaze over. Let's skin it another way.
In your city;
How many people require medicine to continue living?
How many are currently on some form of psychotropic drug to maintain behavior?
How many have ever seriously farmed?
How many have ever built a circuit board or a semi-conductor?
How many have ever cast metal, welded, built a welding machine, pulled wire from raw stock, built tooling, and all other things metal.
Easy answers first: anyone not equipped to survive in a PA environment (i.e. physically disabled or needing specialized drugs) would rapidly die off in short order. As for specialized training, once again, people are drawn to cities from a wide variety of backgrounds, including farming communities in which they could no longer life (think of gays in an strict Conservative mindset). Thus they may not be farmers themselves, but they'd likely have fairly extensive experience with farming and what's involved.
The same is true with other specialized skills. While there may not be many metal smiths in most cities, the public libraries are filled with indepth knowledge that is readily available. The main problem are the facilities, rather than the existing skills. However, even then, most major cities have quite a few 'specialized' stores which cater to those groups, so with few survivors, there would supposedly be plenty of supplies for the survivors to begin the process of creating tools, which again would have to be shared to be useful.
Finally, as for getting technology going again, the main requirement (at least in most fictional PS stories, is access to power needed to run the existing machinery, rather than building it all from scratch. While the power is likely to be out in most locations, all it takes is a few select pockets of individuals creating their own power (i.e. operating 'off the grid') and they could keep those machines running, at least long enough to get the local economy functioning well-enough to repair the broken infrastructure needed to produce and repair those types of machines.
I'm not saying that any of this is easy, or that it would be automatic, but since we're only dealing with fictional universes where the scope of the problems is largely author defined, authors have a LOT of flexibility in how survivors can manage those resources. So quoting chapter and verse of what the 'textbooks' say is needed to maintain the typical American sitting on the couch in their parent's basement is largely meaningless.
Sure, many people will starve, but those who are willing to work together could likely make a go of it, and with that limited success comes a LOT of people eager to trade or work for them in exchange for a small token of their newfound wealth.
Again, we're not talking about society as we know it now, but we're talking about subsistence survival until they can manage to restore some semblance of infrastructure repairs.
The same is true with other specialized skills. While there may not be many metal smiths in most cities, the public libraries are filled with indepth knowledge that is readily available. The main problem are the facilities, rather than the existing skills. However, even then, most major cities have quite a few 'specialized' stores which cater to those groups, so with few survivors, there would supposedly be plenty of supplies for the survivors to begin the process of creating tools, which again would have to be shared to be useful.
That needs cooperation between people, which is likely to be very difficult in such a situation. The well known survival of the fittest is what probably rules for a long time. Maybe after things settled down a little and gangs can be suppressed it might work, a little.
That needs cooperation between people, which is likely to be very difficult in such a situation. The well known survival of the fittest is what probably rules for a long time. Maybe after things settled down a little and gangs can be suppressed it might work, a little.
Sadly, that's what's always turned me off on PA stories, the assumptions that, without the rule of law, that all humans immediately resort to their baser animal nature (apparently based primarily on the ancient Biblical Notions of man as an inherent 'evil' creature unless saved by the grace of the domineering Catholic church hierarchy).
When I wrote my one PA series, I approached it with the assumption that humans in a civilized society (i.e. one that wasn't already living in a lawless country, forced into open conflict due to ongoing wars and the utter lack of resources) would try to work together to help each other, rather than immediately breaking into biker gangs and vigilantes. Since I don't buy the 'inherently flawed' religious model of human potential, but believe that man's 'better nature' occur naturally in reasonable people (rather than being forced down our unwilling throat by a vengeful God), I utterly refuse to read most of that (pardon my overly broad characterization) trash!
I'd rather read a tale of good people, struggling against the odds to save everyone, rather than read about how a few bad apples manage to overtake the vast majority of vile men intent on raping every woman and child. But, I'm well aware that my view of human nature is the decidedly minority view. But I refuse to believe that 'laws' (either God's or society's) "make" men lawful. Instead I believe that men choose to either be social or antisocial, and that we should judge men by their choices, rather than their beliefs.
Even in war-torn countries like Afghanistan and Somalia, you get many more honest and hard-working individual than you do terrorists, rapists or pirates.
Instead I believe that men choose to either be social or antisocial, and that we should judge men by their choices, rather than their beliefs.
I agree on that but in a PA situation as described people have to start making choices which in most cases is himself first, then family, then friends, neighbors, and so on. The more difficult it is to find food the smaller the circle becomes for which you feel responsible since the resources are simply not available to support more. Groups will form but it will be a all sorts of different groups which most certainly will include gangs. It depends a lot on where you have to start from. Places that already have gangs will still suffer from gangs but in more rural areas cooperation will be better. Farmers understand what work is needed to get food on the table and they understand that can only be done if they cooperate with each other (assuming each farm is heavily thinned in the workforce). So I don't think it has anything to do with laws, it's about cold practicality within the possibilities.
So I don't think it has anything to do with laws, it's about cold practicality within the possibilities.
I was referring to the genre, and how it depicts ordinary people resorting to ruthless savages within days of a disaster. I don't doubt the longer term survival would be difficult, but I've always rejected the notion that 'without God and the Church there would be NO law', and that people are only good when they're forced to be.
In every natural disaster, people help each other, even in the well-talked about 'hellholes', the common people work together so they can escape the few 'wild cards' who insist on doing whatever they want to whoever they want.
As such, I'd rather read about 'decent' people succeeding through hard work, rather than stories about the most ruthless and despicable people killing off the less criminally-minded in the immediate aftermath.
But that's also why the 'wide open' fields would be difficult to defend. Despite their being low-density population centers, once people start searching for food, they're difficult to defend, while small island communities (Governors Island in Manhattan or Nantucket in Mass.) would be easier to set up defend, plus there would be more easily accessible resources, even if you had to fight your way to them.
But then again, those are simply the types of stories I'd want to read about, not what might actually occur in real life.
So I don't think it has anything to do with laws, it's about cold practicality within the possibilities.
Hmm? The desire for cooperation is strong but fear is often overwhelmed by FEAR. Think of all the good, decent Christians in the rust belt who found a way to justify voting for Trump.
The question becomes ... how catastrophic? A plague that kills half the population would be catastrophic, but wouldn't necessarily destroy civilization. A zombie plague (like in John Ringo's 'Black Tide Rising' series) could still have a central controlling authority. EMP blasts (like in the William Fortschen series that starts with 'One Second After') are still catastrophic and will result in major societal issues as well. And if you end up with an alien invasion (John Ringo's 'Legacy of the Aldenata' series), you're going to have issues as well simply with any kind of farming.
I'm just guessing at this point, but it sounds more like an EMP or solar flare episode, which would immediately affect farming and technology, while not setting of the wide-scale natural disasters your describing. That would immediately play into the traditional political discussions of socialism (do you steal from the productive members of society in order to benefit the majority, who are no longer able to fend for themselves).
Is that enough precision?
Yep. That should tailor the advice you're getting so you'll get less blind opinions and more specific suggestions.
One question on your basic story premise, though. If the 2nd book (if you are dividing it into separate books rather than only long unfolding story) is post-apocalyptic, then how are you going to push the first part? After all, readers who buy into the story as a CoA drama might not be interested in either sci-fi or PA stories in particular. That will probably change how you approach the overall story.
The other major issue is the basic nature of the PA event, and how that impacts her background. But I'm assuming you've already taken that into account, so I won't waste everyone's time and force you to include spoilers just to rehash old ground.
But, the fact it is a PA story, and that the big, bad government is likely wanting to control who controls the limiting farming in the aftermath would play into her political background, particularly in regards to the original definitions of socialism (i.e. the government taking control of private property in order to manage the resources produced).
The big thing to keep in mind here is there a rather large gap between the technical definition of certain things when compared to the political system usage.
Particularly where "communism" and "socialism" are concerned because the political system names are derived from previously existing practices. As such it is possible to have one without having the other as it were. But mostly, they're distinctions that only the truly pedantic would appreciate.
As such people "making a fuss" on the distinctions are far more likely to be politically motivated rather than being motivated by pedantry. Yes, us pedantic types, and I number myself among them, are out there. But we're not that numerous in general. (And even they are not immune to "political motivations")
Boy, did this thread over go off the rails quickly! It went from semi-productive conversations to all out 'You're an idiot for even assuming that!' bashings.
Now, let's see whether there's any interest in saving the few good ideas which where circulating before we went so far off the rails.
Some added cauldrons for sure. It's the internet, so everything must be true and factual right?? (Choking on the sarcasm)
Walmart, Sam's Club, Costco, and other warehouse stores would in my estimation, not be survivable locations. Ask yourselves what the population surrounding them, and all their more distant shoppers, think about when shopping for food comes to mind?
I suspect the immediate area surrounding any of them would be a free fire zone in the immediate aftermath.
I suspect the immediate area surrounding any of them would be a free fire zone in the immediate aftermath.
My thoughts exactly. I'd see the 'commuters' fleeing in droves, the bigger stories being stormed, but the smaller suppliers and warehouses being largely left alone (mostly because few people even know where the are, and those that do will only take what they immediately need in order to preserve their supply in the future.
Zombie movies like to portray cities as abject hellholes, since most of the writers would never consider living in one anyway, but I'd be more terrified of living in suburbia, since there are so few resources, and the easy travel and lack of physical restrictions wouldn't allow you to keep people trying to steal whatever they can out.
The country is easier to defend, since there are fewer people, and most have guns (hunting riles, if not multiple automatic assault rifles), but once large amounts of people descent in the dead of night looking for food, those wide-open fields wouldn't last long (the food, not the underlying soil). That's also where most deaths would occur, the farmers trying to defend their fields when they can't see who they're shooting at and the desperate people willing to do anything to survive. It's all a bad combination.
But once again, my 'the cities have more resources' theory only holds up if you lose the vast majority of the population, and only the smart, resourceful and knowledgeable (in various divergent fields) survive!
The country is easier to defend, since there are fewer people, and most have guns (hunting riles, if not multiple automatic assault rifles), but once large amounts of people descent in the dead of night looking for food, those wide-open fields wouldn't last long (the food, not the underlying soil). That's also where most deaths would occur, the farmers trying to defend their fields when they can't see who they're shooting at and the desperate people willing to do anything to survive. It's all a bad combination.
This is where some of this becomes a regional issue.
Outside of a Yellowstone eruption event, in which case they're screwed because of proximity, Idaho and Utah are, oddly, probably two of the best prepared areas in the world in the event of a global catastrophe.
Part of that is deliberate, because of the Mormon Church laying up a huge stockpile of supplies for just such an event.
But Idaho has an additional and slightly more ironic add to the twist: That "World famous Idaho Potato" and the ability of them to keep in potato cellars(which don't need much active maintenance), for up to 7 years and remain human edible--they can last even longer if used as seed.
Which isn't to mention the various and sundry stockpiles of sugar beets, grains(in silos) and other various things scattered across the countryside.
Much of rural America wouldn't be hurting very much in regards to need for grains, their bigger challenge would be in getting it milled to the point that humans would consider it edible. :)
I think it's been claimed that we have something on the order of two to three years worth of grains stockpiled in silos across the country. ("Dollar cost averaging" and betting "rich years" against "lean years" is a thing that both individual farmers and large conglomerates and mega-corporations do) Ditto for the earlier comment about the Idaho Potato cellars.
And those stockpile longevity estimates are based on stable population, not a sudden population decline.
People would be able to eat for quite some time, even if they grow absolutely nothing for a couple years if they husband their resources well and know what to do and where to look. What they're going to run out of quickly is the pre-packaged food and the "fresh fruits and vegetables," as obviously that's going to stop quickly.
Edit: And yes, that means that very young child munching on french fries at the local burger joint may very well be eating a potato that is actually older than they are.
The country is easier to defend, since there are fewer people, and most have guns (hunting riles, if not multiple automatic assault rifles)
Semi-automatic rifle - one trigger pull, one round. In other words, the same as a semi-automatic pistol OR a revolver. Even a double-barreled shotgun has two triggers.
It is extremely difficult to get your hands on a fully automatic weapon (e.g. machine gun, military service rifles) in the US.
See: Firearm Owners Protection Act
Of course, you might be able to find them at a local military base or National Guard Armory in an apocalyptic scenario. Even if you did, 'full auto' simply wastes ammunition unless you're fighting a 'mass wave attack'. You're more better off with single rounds, or if you do have a 'select fire' automatic weapon, three-round bursts. It's unlikely you 'll need the suppressive fire for which a 'full auto' is generally needed.
Or so I believe. :-)
Even if you did, 'full auto' simply wastes ammunition unless you're fighting a 'mass wave attack'. You're more better off with single rounds, or if you do have a 'select fire' automatic weapon, three-round bursts. It's unlikely you 'll need the suppressive fire for which a 'full auto' is generally needed.
Or so I believe. :-)
We trained to use selective fire, or at least aimed 3 round bursts. Rock and roll (meaning fully automatic) with an M-16 or the M-4 that's used now is a real good way to empty your magazine in about a second, whereupon you now have a steel and plastic club.
We trained to use selective fire, or at least aimed 3 round bursts. Rock and roll (meaning fully automatic) with an M-16 or the M-4 that's used now is a real good way to empty your magazine in about a second, whereupon you now have a steel and plastic club.
That's what I've heard from the infantry types I've known as well. Although spec-ops will generally favor "double tap" over even three round burst. Full auto just makes for really lousy aim when using a weapon not mounted to something, mostly due to barrel climb.
Full auto just makes for really lousy aim when using a weapon not mounted to something, mostly due to barrel climb.
We did night fire training using tracers. with the clip-on bipod under the front sight, firing from prone position, and using the sling with our non-trigger hand to hold the front end down. Our backstop was, literally, a small mountain. We'd done some daylight firing on the range before it got dark, just so we knew what things looked like. Even with all that, barrel climb with the M-16 STILL sent tracer up and almost certainly OVER the mountain.
The fun times were when you're doing full auto fire with either a tripod mounted or jeep pintle mounted M-60. And those you STILL had to be careful with, because if you fired it at full cyclic rate (600 rounds per minute) you had to change the barrel after a single minute of firing. We had to train to fire 6 - 8 round bursts, so we'd only have to change the barrel every 10 minutes.
City:Suburban:Rural
That's been argued extensively among the preppers aka survivalist for decades. Usually the opinions are based on little to no facts with a heavy bias towards the individuals personal experiences.
Rather than pontificating, I would suggest looking for historical precedent. Venezuela, Middle East, China's/Mao great leap forward, Bosnia Herzegovina, collapse of the Soviet Union, the list is a long one of places in the last one hundred years, that have crashed as a result of one or another catastrophe.
After that, it's a matter of scaling.
Rather than pontificating, I would suggest looking for historical precedent. Venezuela, Middle East, China's/Mao great leap forward, Bosnia Herzegovina, collapse of the Soviet Union, the list is a long one of places in the last one hundred years, that have crashed as a result of one or another catastrophe.
Except, we're still talking about conformational bias here, as each of those events were caused by Political Disasters, where the local government collapses and despots started killing people at will. There are not examples of Natural Disasters. Thus they're examples of large communities where the citizens were already living in lawless communities, where people were welcoming of any help available, whether for good or ill.
The problem is most PA stories, is they're based almost exclusively on those same 'lawless' populations, and the stories are heavily biased towards the basic 'without laws and a strong police force, society will collapse in a matter of weeks' premise.
I'm just saying: since we're making up the stories anyway, why not change the assumptions in order to change the traditional outcomes? Why continue writing the same old, tired stories? You don't need to change everything, but it helps to change at least a couple of core points.
Except, we're still talking about conformational bias here, as each of those events were caused by Political Disasters, where the local government collapses and despots started killing people at will. There are not examples of Natural Disasters. Thus they're examples of large communities where the citizens were already living in lawless communities, where people were welcoming of any help available, whether for good or ill.
We can get into natural disasters if you wish, there are plenty of them to exemplify in history. That will not change the dynamics of reaction however. Think Tsunamis, earthquakes, Hurricanes, etc.
There is no confirmation bias at play.
Now go ahead and tell me I'm wrong since you apparently are incapable of being wrong and know all.
Now go ahead and tell me I'm wrong since you apparently are incapable of being wrong and know all.
Hardly. I'm often wrong on a number of fronts (like the amounts of crops per acre per person, though I still contend we're not discussing a 'normal' American diet under these circumstances).
However, my argument, here at least, was whether a society devolves into utter chaos and lawlessness simply because of a natural disaster while the government was in a stable environment before the disaster, as that's the main contention in most PA books.
I've done the post collapse/failure analysis on three box stores. There has been twenty three of them I'm aware of in the states.
I won't speak to the ones I had no direct involvement in, but for those three, the load didn't approach design. In two of them, it was faulty construction, and the last was faulty base materials. Moment connections not welded properly, bolting hand tight instead of torqued properly, falsification of material test reports for substandard steel. I am unaware of any report where the load exceeded design.
In two of those cases, people went to jail. Thankfully, none were killed in the three mentioned, but I am aware of some reports elsewhere where people were killed.
One thing that is sure, you do not want to risk clogging the drains for the rooftop of such a structure. The buildings with green design are specifically built to assure drainage the average warehouse store is not designed for that.
Nice try. Public safety and public management of its infrastructure are not good counter-arguments to the historically proven harm of soialism.
What was Britain like prior to Thatcher?
Perhaps you would like the return of National Socialists in Germany?
Is Zimbabwe a better economic model than Rhodesia?
That Bautista's were corrupt, but did they inflict as much death and harm as Castro and Che?
For all its faults, capitalism is still the most beneficial economic platform for humanity.
For all its faults, capitalism is still the most beneficial economic platform for humanity.
"For all its faults". That's the key point for every system. The pure form of each system is a disaster in itself and that goes for capitalism too. Imagine a 100% democratic system. Nothing would ever be done because everything must be decided by democratic vote. 100% capitalism? You better stay very healthy because if anything happens too you you're on your own. History has proven that a certain mix and some restriction is the best system for almost everyone in a civilized society. Most of the current western world has such a mix, still different and leaning more to one way or another but still a mix. And that goes for the economic part of the systems too.
"For all its faults". That's the key point for every system. The pure form of each system is a disaster in itself and that goes for capitalism too.
Your post seems to posit that a little bit of socialism isn't necessarily a bad thing as 100% of capitalism is definitely a bad thing. It definitely skirts the issue of the evils of a system heavily biased towards socialism.
The world's experience so far seems to have a sour experience with heavy government ownership of the means of production, e.g. Russia under Lenin/Stalin. And it seems to reward countries that move from socialism towards capitalism, e.g. China. And it seems to punish countries that move from capitalism to socialism/communism/fascism, e.g. Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe and now, maybe, South Africa.
But maybe there is an optimum mix between government/'worker' ownership of the means of production vs. individual ownership (the hallmark of capitalism). But I think history shows that if we are to err on the size of the mix, it is best to err on the side of individual ownership.
Because history has shown that capitalism is the single moving force in removing poverty. I'm talking the rank poverty that sees people starving, with huge swaths without basics like clean water, shelter and basic levels of healthcare. Not the 'poverty' in the U.S. of those living beneath the poverty line, with their air conditioning, two cars, enough food to induce obesity, computers, cell phones, etc. For solving the problem of the poor, nothing beats capitalism.
And why is that? Because capitalism generates wealth. Vast wealth. So much so that the imbalance that occurs in any society regardless of economic system, while still significant under capitalism, still allows for a vibrant middle class than is less possible under socialism/communism/fascism.
The true evil of socialism is something you pointed out in your post, "History has proven that a certain mix and some restriction is the best system....". It's those restrictions that bother me. Show me a socialist system that can coexist with individual freedoms and private property rights and I might have a look. Show me encroaching socialism/communism/fascism that doesn't take away individual rights, and in a lot of cases life, and I'll take a look at it. But until then, I will support what already works in removing humanity from poverty. Which, when you come down to it, is what it's all about.
I will support what already works in removing humanity from poverty.
Which is a mostly capitalist system with numerous restraints on the freedoms of individuals which may cause harm to others. Or as Keet described it, a mixed economy.
Show me a socialist system that can coexist with individual freedoms and private property rights and I might have a look.
The fallacy that a lack of individual freedoms is bad for the economy therefore more individual freedoms are always better was debunked by Adam Smith 240 years ago.
The fallacy that a lack of individual freedoms is bad for the economy therefore more individual freedoms is always better for it was debunked by Adam Smith over 240 years ago.
You must've read a different version of Adam Smith than I did. I thought his work rested on the precepts of classical liberalism.
In any case, I didn't argue for capitalism to exist because it generated such freedoms. I argue for it to continue because socialism/communism/fascism work to destroy it. Capitalism doesn't. Chicken/egg discussion here.
You must've read a different version of Adam Smith than I did.
I was thinking of the Tragedy of the Commons. I thought that was from Adam Smith but it wasn't. It was William Forster Lloyd in 1833.
I was thinking of the Tragedy of the Commons. I thought that was from Adam Smith but it wasn't. It was William Forster Lloyd in 1833.
I thought that pointed out the perils that when no one owned a resource, it would likely be depleted or overused.
Certainly not preserved or managed.
I thought that pointed out the perils that when no one owned a resource, it would likely be depleted or overused.
It didn't identify the lack of private ownership as the cause of that, but the lack of any restraints on individuals' actions.
It didn't identify the lack of private ownership as the cause of that, but the lack of any restraints on individuals' actions.
So who provides the restraints on overgrazing your herd of cows on the Commons? Government? Or a private owner? That seems to be the crux, dontchyathink?
So who provides the restraints on overgrazing your herd of cows on the Commons? Government? Or a private owner? That seems to be the crux, dontchyathink?
It looks like you're assuming everybody knows that control by private individuals is always better than control by governments. I consider that belief is moronic.
It looks like you're assuming everybody knows that control by private individuals is always better than control by governments. I consider that belief is moronic.
You either buy into the mystique of self reliance, or you don't. And given your home country, I'm not surprised at the points made. Both of them.
Doubt we'll ever agree.
So who provides the restraints on overgrazing your herd of cows on the Commons? Government? Or a private owner? That seems to be the crux, dontchyathink?
If it has a private owner, it probably isn't much of a commons anymore(at least when it comes to grazing animals). :)
In any case, I didn't argue for capitalism to exist because it generated such freedoms. I argue for it to continue because socialism/communism/fascism work to destroy it. Capitalism doesn't. Chicken/egg discussion here.
Communism and fascism are not the same as socialism. I'm not a great fan of socialism but I do recognize that some socialistic influence is needed for a livable society. Things like taking care of the elderly, basic infrastructures, affordable health care (if done right like we have here) and things like that. You think of socialism as just giving up freedoms and have a blind eye for the other side.
The true evil of socialism is something you pointed out in your post, "History has proven that a certain mix and some restriction is the best system....". It's those restrictions that bother me. Show me a socialist system that can coexist with individual freedoms and private property rights and I might have a look.
You seem to totally misinterpreted my post. You just focus on "restrictions". You live in the US? You have laws? Those are mainly restrictions, and some are heavy restrictions, and most for good reasons. The mix with socialism I was talking about is what most of Europe is like and the US is just a different type of mix leaning more towards the capitalism side of the equation then we have in Europe. Yes, we have personal property, thank you very much. I have nothing against the US people or it's system but you couldn't pay me enough for even visiting.
I have nothing against the US people or it's system but you couldn't pay me enough for even visiting.
Visit Australia instead.
Nah, I don't like the local fauna ;)
It's true Australia has some of the most lethal snakes and spiders in the world; and there's sharks, crocodiles, and various other unfriendlies if you go anywhere near water; but the fact is more people are killed by horses and cattle than all other fauna combined.
And you definitely won't get shot by the police on suspicion of being suntanned.
It's true Australia has some of the most lethal snakes and spiders in the world; and there's sharks, crocodiles, and various other unfriendlies if you go anywhere near water; but the fact is more people are killed by horses and cattle than all other fauna combined.
And you definitely won't get shot by the police on suspicion of being suntanned.
True, I was just kidding. But it is too warm for for most of the year. If it gets above 26C I stay inside beside the airco.
True, I was just kidding. But it is too warm for for most of the year. If it gets above 26C I stay inside beside the airco.
So, the south-east of Australia, including Sydney and Melbourne, would be an ideal escape from the heat in Europe during July and August.
So, the south-east of Australia, including Sydney and Melbourne, would be an ideal escape from the heat in Europe during July and August.
We had about a month of 32-38C a couple of weeks ago, which is a bit unusual for us, but thankfully it's now back to 19C and a nice breeze. Perfect for me.
If it gets above 26C I stay inside beside the airco.
I keep my house set at 75 (basically 24). Typically outside it's around mid-80's to mid-90's (30 - 35) all summer, although we did have a week where it peaked at 112 (44) for a couple of days. Winter for us and cold is 50 (10), although we will end up with a month or so right at freezing or just below.
Enjoy some variation in your temperatures - it's good for you!
Enjoy some variation in your temperatures - it's good for you!
Sorry, not for me. COPD forces me to do things slowly and with higher temperatures the smallest activity literally takes my breath aways.
One other thing to consider is how the plants propagate - do they use seeds like most grains, do they use a related root with a grafted branch like some type of trees.
Another thing to consider. How much of the space being used to grow crops would you need in order to have the seeds needed for the next season?
How much of the space being used to grow crops would you need in order to have the seeds needed for the next season?
Have you guys never cut open a fresh plant from your own garden? A single bell pepper typically has enough seeds inside that even if only 10% of them propagate normally when started indoors approximately 7 weeks before you'd plant them outside, you'd still end up with 20 plants. And those seeds will typically keep for two years just having them in a bag with a drying agent. That's from ONE pepper - and the single bell pepper plant I have growing in my own back yard has 4 peppers on it. My two tomato plants (which ALSO will produce a about 200 seeds PER fruit) have at least 4 fruits on each of them.
Also, especially if you have time, you don't start your seeds outside, you start them INSIDE. Then you move your surviving (and strongest) seedlings OUTSIDE several weeks later.
Have you guys never cut open a fresh plant from your own garden? A single bell pepper typically has enough seeds inside...
You do realize GMO plants cannot produce viable seeds right? You would need heritage seeds for that scenario to work.
You do realize GMO plants cannot produce viable seeds right?
1. That is true in many, but not all cases. There have been several cases of legal disputes between farmers who save some of their crops for seed and Monsanto because their fields were cross pollinated from nearby farms using Monsanto GMO crops.
The contracts between Monsanto and the farmers who use their GMO "Roundup Ready" crops explicitly prohibit seed saving. There would be no need for such contract provisions if the GMO crops couldn't produce viable seeds.
2. Not just GMO plants. There are major agricultural seed stocks that predate genetic engineering that require special conditions before the seeds will germinate. Conditions that have been kept as trade secrets by the seed companies.
Also, especially if you have time, you don't start your seeds outside, you start them INSIDE. Then you move your surviving (and strongest) seedlings OUTSIDE several weeks later.
That works for small personal gardens. It does not work for large scale agriculture needed to feed hundreds or thousands of people. No farmers anywhere in the world handle planting that way, and there is a good reason for that.
Say you're giving 1 pound of cooked rice to a single person per day, and you have to feed 100 people. To get 300 pounds cooked, you cook 100 pounds - so two bags every three days. 240 bags (6 pallets) = 360 days worth of rice for 100 people.
Typical pallet of rice will by 2,000 pounds worth. Six pallets would be 12,000 pounds. Dividing that up by 100 people means 120 pounds per person, for a year or 1/3rd of the original quote.
Put another way, if monster pallets of 6,000 pounds each were available, it would be 36,000 pounds / 240. Each bag would have to be 150 pounds each.
Been a lot of places in the world, and can't say as I've ever seen that particular form of rice bag anywhere. The biggest bag is usually 100 pounds with 25 and 50 pound bags being more usual. After 100, it usually skips to large industrial sizes of 500 pounds plus.
Typical pallet of rice will by 2,000 pounds worth. Six pallets would be 12,000 pounds. Dividing that up by 100 people means 120 pounds per person, for a year or 1/3rd of the original quote.
12,000 pounds of UNCOOKED rice equals 36,000 pounds of COOKED rice.
12,000 pounds of UNCOOKED rice equals 36,000 pounds of COOKED rice.
You seem to be getting perturbed about it all. In my opinion, the premise and the math doesn't work out. However, I'm not writing the story, so my opinion doesn't really matter does it now?
Hope it works out for you.
You seem to be getting perturbed about it all. In my opinion, the premise and the math doesn't work out. However, I'm not writing the story, so my opinion doesn't really matter does it now?
If your opinion didn't matter, I wouldn't argue the point.
One of the authors I read a lot when I was growing up mentioned in an article about a novel he wrote that he was in the middle of a scene and was trying to describe something. He realized that he didn't know the answer, and in this era of pre-internet, it wasn't like he could just look it up. Since it did involve engineering and math, and he was an engineer, he spent two days figuring out the math for what ended up being one line in an entire novel. His comment was that nearly everyone who read the book just went, yeah, and read right past that line. But he KNEW it was right.
That's what I'm striving for here. Even though this is what is effectively a Zombie apocalypse story, I want my survivors to be doing things right and NOT subject to Hollywood corrections so you don't have to suspend disbelief.
I'm trying to become a better author. It's fairly easy to write a book in a universe where magic works, or where there's alternate tech like nuclear thruster powered robots. It's quite another to write something in what is, effectively, OUR universe. That's when we get into the detailed gun porn or car porn or local building code porn discussions.
I've designed and built living roofs. Almost without fail, the first and largest mistake made by wet behind the ears engineers is screwing up the load calculations. For a living roof, they assume the load is static, but in reality it's dynamic/transient.
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/recipe-plant-growth
As the plants grow, the load increases. Depending on the plant, it will be 50-95% water weight. Then there is photosynthesis. A smaller percentage of the weight is in the form of sequestered carbon. That carbon comes from photosynthesis alone.
Then there is another load to consider. The larger a plant grows, the larger it's surface area is to interact with wind. It's a minor load in most cases, but it still eventually transfers to the structure.
Living roofs are normally purpose built for a reason. Without structural modification, the average flat roof will not support what you envision long term.
As far as rice weight goes, not all rice is the same. Cook weight is added water, not nutrition. It also varies by the specific type of rice. Try eating a steady diet of only rice. I have, made it six days before I ran down to Jollibee for something different. I owed by brother in law a meal and some pesos for not being able to make it ten days. Living a few months in a rice heavy society is enlightening in that regards.
Those and other reasons, is what my opinion is based on.
With that I'll withdraw from further comment in this thread.
