Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

edited to add: In a PA setting or similar, the only requirement will be that it works and hopefully will continue to work with minimal risk and training.

I'd suggest that be "...acceptable risk and training".
There are some things where risk can only be minimised so far. But the circumstances people find themselves in can change what was considered an unacceptable level of risk to an acceptable one.

There are some things where risk can only be minimised so far. But the circumstances people find themselves in can change what was considered an unacceptable level of risk to an acceptable one.

True. I would also add that one major factor would be to use whatever tech is still working to prepare for when it will no longer work. Using tractors for example to prepare potential fields for growing crops that could later be maintained with horse drawn plows and equipment would be one example. Use it to prepare for when it stops working. Windmill generators might be poor power sources today, but its better than nothing at all (temporary probably unless someone can maintain the generators). Use what is available now to prepare for when its no longer available. Ongoing learning and training process would almost be mandatory for long term survival.

Exactly what should be done. Instead of trying to corner the market of petrochemical fuels, use what you have to help construct something to use when they run out or destabilize on you. That's the sort of change in direction I mean should be happening those stories.

Its okay to try and save as much Knowledge as possible for future generations either through books or other media. Computer equipment could be supplied enough energy to operate either with solar or windmill generators for example. Of course that process has to be considered a long range plan not a short range one. And with a PA setting or equivalent that would fit. Short range survival has to take top priority, but long range goals are important as well.

Windmill generators might be poor power sources today, but its better than nothing at all (temporary probably unless someone can maintain the generators).

Wind power is seriously uneconomical at grid scale. However, the smaller (home/farm) wind turbines can be very economical for those who don't have grid power available.

Not everything scales linearly. Wind and Solar power are top examples in the energy field of tech that is decent in small scale but can't scale to grid levels economically.

Wind power is seriously uneconomical at grid scale. However, the smaller (home/farm) wind turbines can be very economical for those who don't have grid power available.

Not everything scales linearly. Wind and Solar power are top examples in the energy field of tech that is decent in small scale but can't scale to grid levels economically.

Agreed, but also where we disagree. ;) They work great on micro scales, as grid balancing is a non-factor, and can help offset a lot of things. But then you have things like Queensland Australia where Solar was so widely adopted in some communities, that when paired with requirements for the power company to allow power backfeeding into the grid, that some towns nearly became power exporters.... Which in turn wrecked considerable havoc for the people balancing the electric load on the grid and needing to take baseline power plants offline at certain times of day. (Part of why power storage is now the big thing in Australia currently, as the regulatory environment adjusts to those issues and since they've already thrown down for all that @home solar, they're going to get their use out of it)

A whole lot of people doing micro can end up with macro results. They're not solutions by themselves, but they help. Although how much we want to disrupt natural marketplace behavior in the interim is another matter, and not relevant to a PA discussion as there is no market to distort.

Which in turn wrecked considerable havoc for the people balancing the electric load on the grid and needing to take baseline power plants offline at certain times of day.

Yes, because at the grid level power in has to perfectly balance power out on a second by second basis or things can literally start to explode.

Wind and Solar are both not only intermittent in whether they are generating power or not, but power output can vary significantly on very short time scales. This combined with relatively low energy densities is why they will never be viable at grid scales. No conceivable improvements in technology will change that.

Wind and Solar are both not only intermittent in whether they are generating power or not, but power output can vary significantly on very short time scales. This combined with relatively low energy densities is why they will never be viable at grid scales. No conceivable improvements in technology will change that.

Going well outside of PA for this.

This is where things like Smart Grid and it's associated appliances, big brother aspects aside, come into play. Particularly if you've also worked out a viable power storage option. (I know, a big if there, as it stands currently. At least at regional grid scales.)

You can use power storage to help even out the spikes both the highs and lows. Smart grid aware devices "phone home" in advance to notify when they're about to turn on or turn off. In some cases, "home" even phones them to ask them to turn off, or to say it's ok to turn on, so on and so forth depending on the device in question and a number of other things. I could see something like Tesla's Powerbank getting plugged into question smart grid and being used to help manage local(neighborhood) spikes/dips in the power grid if the homeowner agrees.

There have already been suggestions and efforts to likewise pursue a comparable thing for the hybrid and electric vehicles while tied into "charging stations" where the vehicle owner could set criteria that if met, their vehicle will instead start feeding power into the grid rather than taking it out.

Going back to smart grid associated techs, that includes communicating the rate they're paying for the power they're using(or giving). Which opens doors for the ability to charge the car at night when electric rates are low, and then have that cheaper electricity fed back into the grid later with the car owner pocketing the difference(the ultimate in "buy low, sell high"). Alternatively, if at home and not intending to go anywhere, charge the car at night, and run the house off some of the cars stored power when rates are high and cut the grid managers out entirely while you do so. But most people would want a battery good for hundreds of thousands of charge/discharge cycles before they're likely to be game for something like that.

There is the possibility for all kinds of weird synergies to start happening now between different technologies as devices become able to talk to each other. The privacy aspects of it all is rather disconcerting, and will be interesting to see where that ultimately leads.

Using tractors for example to prepare potential fields for growing crops that could later be maintained with horse drawn plows and equipment would be one example.

Somewhat pointless if you don't have horses and either the right kind of plows available or the knowledge/means to make one.

Ha-ha. How many metalsmiths do you run across on a daily basis?

None, that's my point.

Somewhat pointless if you don't have horses and either the right kind of plows available or the knowledge/means to make one.

I don't know about that. I don't necessarily need to revert back to single horse pulled plow when I can hook up a team of oxen or draft horses to a dumb set of disc plows that used to be pulled behind farmer Bob's John Deer tractor. Plow a field 3 feet at a time with one horse. Or plow a field 30 feet at a time with 6 draft horses? I know which one I'm going for.

I don't know about that. I don't necessarily need to revert back to single horse pulled plow when I can hook up a team of oxen or draft horses to a dumb set of disc plows that used to be pulled behind farmer Bob's John Deer tractor. Plow a field 3 feet at a time with one horse. Or plow a field 30 feet at a time with 6 draft horses? I know which one I'm going for.

1. I would take considerable amount of modification to make a disc plow designed to be pulled by a tractor usable with a team of horses.
2. If you think a disc plow designed to be pulled by a tractor with an ice engine output of in the range of 80 - 400 horse power can be used effectively being pulled by just 6 draft horses, you are delusional.

1. I would take considerable amount of modification to make a disc plow designed to be pulled by a tractor usable with a team of horses.

I think someone with the rights incentives, and the know-how to do some basic welding could figure it out. It's just working out the transfer of horsepower/torque from the team of horses/draft animals to what is essentially a drag that travels through the ground. VS how it interfaced with the tractor.

2. If you think a disc plow designed to be pulled by a tractor with an ice engine output of in the range of 80 - 400 horse power can be used effectively being pulled by just 6 draft horses, you are delusional.

Yeah, yeah 1 horsepower is supposed to be equivalent to the pulling power of 1 draft horse. Of course, the 400 horsepower engine is also using a lot of its horsepower to move the engine and the vehicle attached to it, rather than the implements. The Horse is using all of its "horsepower" to actually move what its attached to.

Also just because it is normally pulled by a tractor with that kind of power doesn't mean it actually needs that much power to work. A fair bit of that is going to depend on the type of soil you're using it on. If its really soft ground you're not going to need much. If it's almost hardpack with a lot of clay, you're going to need a LOT of power to move through it.

I will admit I pulled the number out of my nether regions, but it still stands, you can potentially adapt a lot of farm implements that were towed behind tractors and still use them in a PA setting, you just need to adapt for animals to be the means of propulsion rather than a tractor.

Another fun thing about many of those "drags" they use for preparing fields is some of them(in particular the older ones) are 2 man lift and come in sections a few feet across, so even if you can't pull the full assembly, using small sections of it is very possible. So you still don't need to necessarily find a blacksmith to build you a horse pulled plough, you just downsize something that already exists.

I will admit I pulled the number out of my nether regions, but it still stands, you can potentially adapt a lot of farm implements that were towed behind tractors and still use them in a PA setting, you just need to adapt for animals to be the means of propulsion rather than a tractor.

You claimed 6 horses doing 10 times the width of one horse with a traditional horse drawn plow. If you had said 10, I would probably have let it slide as a reasonable swag*. Thinking you can do 10 times the work with 6 times the number of horses is delusional even if you start with a plow specifically engineered from scratch to be pulled by a team of horses.

You are correct, many could be adapted given the proper tools and knowledge. However, you underestimate the knowledge needed. Who ever is doing the modifications would have to have at least a basic understanding of how traditional team hitches function. A poorly engineered hitch would not only reduce the animal's ability to pull the implement, but could actually injure the animals.

*SWAG = stupid wild ass guess.

Major point is humanity's adaptability factors. As a species we have adapted to all the major climates and areas in the world. The main point of the survival process is to allow time for that adaptation to occur. There is no way for me to estimate how long that process will take. As it will depend on too many variables. Not everyone will have the same abilities or be willing to work together towards the future. Many just as in the stories will become predators, destroying instead of building.

Who knows what they might come up with over a period of time. It could be better or worse than we think it will be.

set 6 horses up with a whipple tree and harness chains would require a space between horses, such that they would take up the space of 10 ten horses - which is what I think the above means.

1. Why on earth would you set them up like that instead of two columns of 3 they way a wagon team would be set up?

2. Even if they require 10 times the space of a single horse, they still couldn't pull 10 times the load, so while the team might end up 30 feet wide, they still couldn't plow a 30 foot width in one pass, which was the original claim.

Second, I never said anything about how much extra work they did, and the part I quoted spoke of space not work.

It spoke of the width being plowed in one pass (roughly equivalent the the amount of work being done) not the width of the team.

True the tractors can plow and prepare more ground in a day than a horse drawn plow or implement. But we also have to consider the fact that survivors would probably be treating equipment with extreme care because of the fact of its being non-replaceable.

For livestock for example you have to have pastures hopefully with the right mixtures of grass. This takes a huge amount of area. Now the preparation and distribution of seed for the pastures can be done faster by tractors. Its this type preparation that will be critical for a pa setting. Livestock should be available in almost any region. Gather them from farms and/or ranches where the owners have died before they escape and turn wild. Chickens and such can also be obtained. I am not saying any of it will be easy. But in long term survival its critical. Gather while there is still equipment usable to help. All of it is labor intensive even with using the equipment while it lasts, but better than waiting and doing it later.

Nothing will really be easy but some steps done early will definitely improve the long term odds of survival.

Hell, many areas could survive with a single oxen or even a pair of draft horses

1. Oxen is plural, the singular would be ox.

2. An ox or a pair of draft horses is useless if you don't have the right kind of plow. Converting a mechanized plow to horse/ox drawn would not be a simple operation.

ETA:

How many people these days even know what an ox is?

Oxen are castrated bulls. One ox is a castrated bull. Male Cattle. The testacies removed are Rocky Mountain Oysters. I know because I live in
C attle. Where the government treats us like cattle. Oh, they haven't gotten around to changing the spelling from Sea attle, but they will get around to it.

Oxen are castrated bulls. One ox is a castrated bull. Male Cattle.

Close but not quite. Oxen are castrated bulls that are raised/trained as draft animals. If it were being raised for meat, it would be called a steer.

You wouldn't give me a bum steer, would you?

You wouldn't give me a bum steer, would you?

No, for you it would have to be a pun steer.

picking cotton

I did that when I lived with my grandparents until I finished 1st grade. That darn bag I drug behind me was larger than I was. I have also gardened with as little as a shovel and a hoe in the way of equipment. Its surprising how much can be grown in a limited area. One method I loved was called the square foot gardening technique. Lot of production with a limited space requirement. For an example just watch the "Victory Garden" or the equivalent gardening shows their beds are usually about 4 foot wide.

Look on any seed package for any vegetable for example and you will find two different measurements. One is the spacing between plants (same seed/plant) and the other is the row space requirement. Important distance is the one for the distance between plants. Even weeds require a certain amount of space to grow properly. I used that method for a few years when I had a landlord that allowed it. Funny how much could be grown in as little as 4x4 square space with very little weeding.

The other thing we're missing, is assuming a 98% death rate, each farm would have much smaller food requirements. There would no longer be a need to farm 400 acres is 5 would do, and thus it's easier scaling back, even if you have to start from scratch with hand build wood technologies

The original definition of an acre was the amount of land a man could dig in a day. One of our magazines had a diagram of how to feed a family from a garden 25 feet square.
I think both of those are very optimistic but with a lot of care I have no doubt a family could live off an acre of land and with only 2% of the population left land would be readily available. Fertilizers would be a problem eventually but with the huge unused areas compost would be easy to make in huge quantities.
The problems would be a) animals of all description but would you really need oxen if you were farming such a small area? b) to feed animals you need large acreages to grow hay, oats etc. but oxen would not be economic when used to till for wheat, oats, barley, maybe rice for human consumption. c)cattle for milk and the same animals for food would need those crops but only the minimum needed per community remember that they can graze the unused land

many areas could survive with a single oxen or even a pair of draft horses, given enough nearby people to help out. And a return to the community support model would assist there.

Precisely

As for tools, surely they are freely available from the backs of barns, museums etc.? I have just sold six old horse drawn type tools for haymaking and my neighbours have plenty more.

As for tools, surely they are freely available from the backs of barns, museums etc.? I have just sold six old horse drawn type tools for haymaking and my neighbours have plenty more.

Perhaps, but how many of those antiques sitting around in barns are actually in working condition?

Perhaps, but how many of those antiques sitting around in barns are actually in working condition?

Depends. One of my hay turners could only be used for spares and the seat was missing on a hay cutter. Of course a bit of WD40, some oil and a stone to sharpen the cutter blades were necessary (though my neighbour's rubbish pile was full of old cutter blades which would fit). Under those conditions you da*n well make things work

That's not how it came across, sorry. Below is a link to the device I was talking about for draught animals.

Huh?

Here is the original statement to which I was replying:

Or plow a field 30 feet at a time with 6 draft horses?

How do you get a 30 foot wide team rather than a 30 foot wide plow out of that?

ETA:

Given a 6 horse team attached by a whippletree to a single standard horse draw plow blade, the team may be 30 feet wide, but they still only plow a 3 foot wide strip ground at one time.

That's not how it came across, sorry. Below is a link to the device I was talking about for draught animals.

I'd already looked it up. My question was not about how it was done, but about why?

Thinking you can do 10 times the work with 6 times the number of horses is delusional even if you start with a plow specifically engineered from scratch to be pulled by a team of horses.

Not necessarily, if you're using a more efficient method for doing the plowing, you can end up doing more with less. Maybe it's simply switching from one type of iron to another type of steel, or if you have the time and ability, some other alloy that does the same work, but with less mechanical effort.

The exact ratio seen may not match but you could still see a change. Would be an interesting engineering challenge for someone to undertake, but ultimately pointless,unless the apocalypse did come calling.

To think that using all the knowledge we have in various things that we couldn't do better than a horse drawn plow from 1860 at this point is perhaps a little overly pessimistic. But even going the pessimistic route, and it takes more beasts of burden to plow an equivalent amount of area using an adapted modern era farm implement(intended for tractors) when compared to the single horse plow from the mid 19th century, and checking wiki, looks like the drag barrow and disk harrow largely replaced the traditional plough even for the horse teams by the end of the 19th century in the U.S.

From a manpower perspective it may still be a net win. You reduce the man hours involved by a significant fraction, but in trade you increased the number of "beast hours" by some indeterminate amount.

Not necessarily, if you're using a more efficient method for doing the plowing, you can end up doing more with less.

There is no reason to believe that modern disc plows are more efficient in terms of the raw force required as they are designed to be pulled by tractors with power to spare.

To think that using all the knowledge we have in various things that we couldn't do better than a horse drawn plow from 1860 at this point is perhaps a little overly pessimistic.

I don't think that. But I rather doubt that someone with little to no knowledge of how either modern mechanized plows or traditional horse drawn plows work would be capable of doing so. In a PA situation, you don't have the internet to look things up. In a PA situation, knowledge that isn't in your head or in available from either others in your group or books you have on hand might as well not exist at all.

There is no reason to believe that modern disc plows are more efficient in terms of the raw force required as they are designed to be pulled by tractors with power to spare.

The use of alloys and composite materials(which are being used in modern disc harrows) create interesting dichotomies in this case. It can result in a lighter(easier to move), stronger, and possibly longer lasting mechanism being dragged along the (sub)surface. The problem being, the lighter it becomes, the less prone it becomes to sinking into ground which is a somewhat desirable outcome in this use case.

Which puts things in the realm of quickly diminishing returns, so I'll back off a fair bit on the initial claim, given the Amish example I cited earlier. Of course, the Amish aren't using modern materials in their ploughs, so there may still be gains to be had there when it comes to productivity with animals. But as we're going with PA, it is agreeable that such an outcome(someone being more efficient at using animals to prepare fields than the Amish are) is highly unlikely.

if you want something to do what it's doing you'll put in whatever effort and materials are needed to get the result you want. Since, in a Post Apoc Situation, you won't be making things to sell there is no commercial viability aspect to be concerned about. It comes down to do what you have to for what you need or forget it because you don't need it.

....until you determine that the effort required to keep ______ performing as desired is far more than you can reasonably justify putting in the effort to maintain.

Commercial viability and economic utility are different things, albeit closely linked. Just because commercial concerns cease to be a thing, doesn't mean the underlying economic considerations are invalid. Economics is a bit more diverse that, as it applies to a population of 1 just as readily as it does a population of billions.

If you decide something isn't worth spending hours/days/weeks to get working, then it won't continue working. Particularly early on in a PA scenario, many if not most people are going to be making bad calls in regards to the perceived utility of many things(in particular care and maintenance) as few people grasp the full breadth and depth of what they're actually using and dependent upon for their daily life. Even the ones that think they do probably don't.

It will take awhile to figure those things out. Then it is a question of how badly they screwed themselves in the interim.

Not really. If you don't want something to do what it's doing you aren't going to put in any effort or materials, and if you want something to do what it's doing you'll put in whatever effort and materials are needed to get the result you want.

Sorry, but no matter how much you want something, in a PA situation, if you put more energy/materials/effort into something than you get out of it in terms of energy/food calories then doing it negatively impacts your survival prospects.

There are some thing that you will need to do, despite being a resources drain, simply because failure to do them will mean total elimination. So while there is no actual resource return, there is a suitable benefit.

That's a value return, in other words, a profit.

For example, you want to dam off the end of your valley so the river in the next one doesn't flood you out in the spring melt flood. Expending all the time and effort to build the damn doesn't give you any return in resources you expend, but you want it so you don't get killed next spring.

Perhaps, but the cost in resources/effort has to be better than other available options. Simply moving to higher ground is likely to be less effort and has other potential benefits. High ground is easier to defend, whether against other people or dangerous animals.

For example, you want to dam off the end of your valley so the river in the next one doesn't flood you out in the spring melt flood. Expending all the time and effort to build the damn doesn't give you any return in resources you expend, but you want it so you don't get killed next spring.

Perhaps, but the cost in resources/effort has to be better than other available options. Simply moving to higher ground is likely to be less effort and has other potential benefits. High ground is easier to defend, whether against other people or dangerous animals.

Going to agree with Dominion here, there would have to be a very compelling reason for me to remain based in a known(to me) flood plain in a PA setting. I avoid living in flood plains in general anyhow, regardless of what the Corps of Engineers tells me. That isn't to say I wouldn't live near one, particularly if I don't need to be worried about any upstream nasties, as historically speaking, it was the getting regularly flooded part of things that makes flood plains so fertile(well, that and ready access to water). So in that respect, aside from an upstream nasty concern, I'd probably want the area to flood.

Unless there is something there that I want use of which I am unable to move that somehow is worth keeping intact, and so difficult to move that building a dam on a river or stream(that didn't previously exist? Why?) Makes more sense than just building a berm around it for protection during flood season.

Use human energy. Return to slavery. Maybe not a sideways step, more like a backward step, but one likely to be used once society collapses.

Human power for crop handling is horribly inefficient, if it falls back far enough that you lack even beasts of burden. You are going to be doing well to scratch out more than a meager subsistence level lifestyle, requiring hundreds of people to suffer at that level in order for more than a handful to live "comfortably" at whatever standard of living is possible. Because the energy/effort in vs energy/food out return is going to be very poor.

The economics of "plantation" agriculture are not a popular study as it is not politically correct. George and Martha Washington, and Thomas Jefferson seem to have lived well. There were some problems paying for imported luxuries from England, but food does not seem to have been a problem. Of course they had horses and "modern" (for the eighteenth century) technology. Even the slaves were fairly well fed. If they starved, they could not perform well. I doubt modern folk would want either the masters or the slaves diet, but it seems to have keep them alive and with a surplus to sell. Or in Post Ap. terms to invest in adding acreage and obtaining more slaves. I doubt a market economy would be available to sell anything to.

The economics of "plantation" agriculture are not a popular study as it is not politically correct. George and Martha Washington, and Thomas Jefferson seem to have lived well. There were some problems paying for imported luxuries from England, but food does not seem to have been a problem. Of course they had horses and "modern" (for the eighteenth century) technology. Even the slaves were fairly well fed. If they starved, they could not perform well. I doubt modern folk would want either the masters or the slaves diet, but it seems to have keep them alive and with a surplus to sell. Or in Post Ap. terms to invest in adding acreage and obtaining more slaves. I doubt a market economy would be available to sell anything to.

But they had plows, a fair degree of mechanization even then(and even more so in the 19th century), and made ready use of beasts of burden. Most (successful) plantations would use animal power over slave power whenever practical(probably with slaves overseeing some, but not all of the animals, don't want to arm the slave or give them a means of escape after all) as the beast could do more work for less effort put into it.

The economics of food for the slave plantation is probably as varied as the number of plantations. I imagine some were nearly self-sufficient for regular and some not-so daily needs, while others specialized and needed regular resupply to meet many of their daily needs.

Either method has it merits and failings, one being almost entirely beholden to the markets but able to profit nicely from them. While the other would be more stable, but not as profitable in the good years. With it being more able to handle bad years well. (Albeit, the self-sufficient method would be illegal under current laws, even without the slaves, from my understanding of laws/precedents in the U.S.)

But getting back to a PA perspective. If you don't even have the beasts of burden, then you're having to match the capabilities of that beast with manpower. Manpower you have to feed with human edibles, rather than the human inedibles most beasts of burden obtain much of their diet from. Which in turn means you're going to be putting much more in, for comparable amounts out.

Most PA stories avoid this topic, but there's every reason to believe that an event that wipes out 99% of all human life will also affect a significant segment of other life as well (i.e. no roving dog packs).

There are at least a few exceptions to this. A virus that wipes out a large percentage of humans might affect some other mammals, but it extremely unlikely to affect other types of animals and almost certain to have no affect on plants.

If mosquitoes feed on infected humans, then those same mosquitoes might spread the same infection to other animals, some not directly related to humans.

Yes, but viruses tend towards being specific, at least to order. Viruses that affect mammals generally don't affect reptiles. And there are many viruses that are even more specific, they won't jump species even with outside help.

And even among viruses that can jump species, there are many that are relatively innocuous in one species (i.e. effect level on the order of the common cold) and fatal to other species.

A virus that kills humans and only humans is not particularly far fetched.

Beyond the level of parasites, there aren't any species that are dependent on humans as a food source in the sense that they eat humans as a primary food source.

There are more than enough other mammals that even mosquitoes wouldn't go extinct as a result of humans being wiped out.

All this is nice, revert to horse and oxen - but does anyone of you know how to raise them, how to learn work with them, where to get equipment necessary to work with them (leather, iron tools, plows, etc...)

In case of apocalypse, make sure you know where the nearest Amish and / or Mennonite community is. They will have the knowledge you seek. :)

A blacksmith and/or a large animal veterinarian might also be helpful in how to handle horses, if Amish, etc. are not available. It probably would be good to have both, someone needs to fit horseshoes and treat illnesses or at least preside when mares give birth.

But the Amish are using multi-furrow plows, and a citation needed entry in wiki claims:

Yes, but those are still not even half as wide as modern mechanized plows.

I think it will go in stages:

1: Needed NOW

2: Needed tomorrow

3: Needed next week, etc.
4: Needed by future generations.

Each stage will have its own set of requirements. The nice part is that the steps can be combined in solving them as a whole.

But the risk also is that by the time you've stabilized the "right now" needs, the other things you needed to accomplish the more long-term objectives have already been lost, destroyed, or otherwise significantly compromised. As already mentioned, when a civilization collapses, there almost always are things which become lost in the process and are never recovered, or end up taking centuries to be rediscovered.

Another issue particularly relevant to our current age is we do have a significant raw material, specifically regarding energy sources, issue should we regress. The raw materials that remain are becoming increasing difficult to get to(due to how markets work, naturally the easy stuff is grabbed first), to the point that we're having trouble obtaining some of these things with all the technology and specialized knowledge we have.

Someone being forced to do the same from a 18th or 19th century technical capability is going to have problems getting things back to our current level.

Of course, some this is contingent on some other factors, if you have an out of control global warming scenario and coastal areas become submerged, they're even more screwed. However, if they have a major ice age epoch unleashed upon them, particularly if it matches the ice ago of 10,000+ years ago, then they have options available to them that we still have trouble with.

It's a lot easier to harvest a natural resource when you can just walk up to it, versus trying to get at it while it's under 50+ feet of water. Which isn't to mention all the wrecks that they'd possibly be able to get some degree of salvage from that we possibly haven't even found yet.

But the risk also is that by the time you've stabilized the "right now" needs, the other things you needed to accomplish the more long-term objectives have already been lost, destroyed, or otherwise significantly compromised.

True, but what part say's the steps cannot be combined. The priority of needs is the same to start with, but there is no rule that says the process can not be combined into one basic procedure. I notice how most of the PA stories only list the first few weeks or months at the best. But I also notice how after the first couple of days or so all the MC's start taking steps for long term survival. Funny part is due to the time period of the stories just a little bit can be shown or told as the case might be.

The raw materials that remain are becoming increasing difficult to get to(due to how markets work, naturally the easy stuff is grabbed first), to the point that we're having trouble obtaining some of these things with all the technology and specialized knowledge we have.

Actually, this is not particularly true. Technology for extraction is keeping pace.

If it were the case that the difficulty was increasing faster than extraction tech was improving, prices of those resources would rise drastically and that just isn't happening.

Granted, many of those resources we are currently extracting would be next to impossible to reach with 18th/19th century techniques/technology.

If it were the case that the difficulty was increasing faster than extraction tech was improving, prices of those resources would rise drastically and that just isn't happening.

The reason the price of those resources isn't rising, even though the costs of developing & producing new product are rising is because the current supply is more than enough to meet demand, hence the prices have been dropping.

The falling cost of oil, and the increasing costs of production are the main reasons why many proposed developments haven't proceeded, and much of the exploration work has been put on indefinite hold.

The reason the price of those resources isn't rising, even though the costs of developing & producing new product are rising is because the current supply is more than enough to meet demand, hence the prices have been dropping.

Sorry, if the cost per amount of resource was rising, producers would want higher prices. If there wasn't enough demand to support a price higher than the cost of extracting the resource, the producers would shut down production until demand rises. Producers will not produce at a loss for any extended period of time.

The falling cost of oil, and the increasing costs of production are the main reasons why many proposed developments haven't proceeded, and much of the exploration work has been put on indefinite hold.

Edited:

Costs of exploration/bringing new fields into production are not the same as production costs. These are fixed costs, at best indirectly related to the amount of oil produced. Yes, when prices are low, producers will not invest in increasing production capacity.

This applies as much to manufacturers of finished goods as it does to resource extraction. When demand is low and prices are falling, manufacturers will not spend money building new factories. However, the cost of building new factories has little or nothing to do with the cost of producing finished goods.

However, if the price of oil fell below production cots for existing wells, they would shut the wells down and stop producing all together.

However, if the price of oil fell below production cots for existing wells, they would shut the wells down and stop producing all together.

You would think so. Same for the iron ore industry.
However that is what quite a few companies have been doing for over 12 months now, pumping out ore & oil at below cost. The plan, which is now starting to take effect, was to force higher cost producers out of the market completely so they could then set the price once again.
Many of the smaller producers have been put out of business, and as a result prices have recovered slightly.
Where many of the smaller large players were losing money like there was no tomorrow they're now back in profit- barely.

What they didn't count on was the World economy pretty much coming to almost a standstill, so the demand that was once there isn't there any more. And it looks like demand could continue to soften for the next 6-18 months which could easily see some of those that barely came through the "maintain market share at any cost" and just keeping their heads above water succumbing just like the previous higher cost producers they spent all that money on to put out of business.

However that is what quite a few companies have been doing for over 12 months now, pumping out ore & oil at below cost.

I'm not going to believe a claim like that without a huge amount of evidence to back it up. It sounds like a conspiracy theory.

I'm not going to believe a claim like that without a huge amount of evidence to back it up. It sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Iron ore-

The numbers

http://edge.alluremedia.com.au/uploads/businessinsider/2015/04/IRON-ORE-AUSTRALIA-BREAKEVEN-UBS.jpg

The story

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-the-breakeven-cost-for-every-iron-ore-miner-in-australia-2015-4

Oil-

"In the case of the Saudis, Riyadh depends on oil sales for more than 70 per cent of government revenue, but last year it reportedly chomped through $US100 billion of its financial reserves - which now stand at $US630 billion ($876 billion).

...

In the wake of unveiling the country's biggest ever budget deficit (Saudi Arabia), the IMF this week warned the kingdom that in the absence of severe austerity measures, low oil prices could ruin it within five years - a dire forecast that was based on a generous oil price of $US50 ($70) per barrel, well above Friday's $US34".

The story

http://www.smh.com.au/world/oilproducing-nations-struggling-for-market-power-as-prices-drop-20160205-gmmf6o.html

EDIT- the break even cost for oil varies depending on who's doing the numbers, it generally appears to be around the $40-$50US mark for the majority of producers. OPEC producers are around the $20-$35US mark; the problem they have is that while they have extremely low production costs, they have been relying on the high price of oil to keep their countries functioning (see story linked to above).

Sorry falls far short of proving your claim.

On iron, you only have the costs side of the picture, and only for Australia.

the break even cost for oil varies depending on who's doing the numbers, it generally appears to be around the $40-$50US mark for the majority of producers. OPEC producers are around the $20-$35US mark

You expect me to accept a bare assertion of this?

Sorry falls far short of proving your claim.

On iron, you only have the costs side of the picture, and only for Australia.

*shrug*

You believe what you want to believe and choose to accept or ignore information based on those beliefs.

That's your choice to make, as it is for everyone else. Everyone finds things that don't support their beliefs difficult to accept, at best.

the break even cost for oil varies depending on who's doing the numbers, it generally appears to be around the $40-$50US mark for the majority of producers. OPEC producers are around the $20-$35US mark

You expect me to accept a bare assertion of this?

You expect me to provide references for everything you will just choose to ignore, discount, dismiss as irrelevant or just not accept?

There are plenty of other things I could do with my afternoon, and I'm sure you're capable of checking things out yourself if you were really interested.