<Oilwatch Monthly - April 2008The Oil DrumThe Energy Return of Nuclear Power (EROI on the Web-Part 4)>
<DrumBeat: April 21, 2008DrumBeatDrumBeat: April 23, 2008>

247 comments on DrumBeat: April 22, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

darwinsdog on April 22, 2008 - 10:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I disagree. I think that the less densely populated the region, the better. People living in really remote areas will fare better than those living in agricultural deserts, rural people will fare better than those in the suburbs, and suburbans will fare better than city dwellers. The more land, better topsoil & more water one has available the better, altho when mass starvation impends defending a crop from hungry marauders won't be easy.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gail the Actuary on April 22, 2008 - 2:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think it depends on how long electricity continues to be available most of the time. Once we get to serious electrical problems, the less dense areas will fare best, especially if people can get sufficient water and grow their own food. Areas with a very deep water table will have problems, especially if they don't get a lot of rain.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WinstonK on April 22, 2008 - 3:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I don't believe in the kind of apocalyptic collapse that many here do, but I would like to point out that a small farm is very difficult to defend against a fair sized number of armed men (say, 20). If one genuinely expects a collapse then it would make sense to get in a position where you're the guy in charge of the raging mob, wealthy and powerful enough to offer protection from the raging mob or a member of the clergy who often end up either in charge or acting in lieu of a justice system. At least that's the way it played out when Rome collapsed.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TheMagus on April 23, 2008 - 3:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

How did these 20 armed men get to the farm? On camels? You see, if things get that bad, transport will be back to animal/bicycle. I think that the more likely scenario in that case is that no one ever shows up.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
george in vermont on April 23, 2008 - 7:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

A well-organized group of people determined to rob and steal to survive, or even prosper at the expense of others during a period of lawlessness, will move from household to household, and from homestead to homestead, stealing supplies as they go. It is not improbable that they can hopscotch through the countryside this way.

People will not sit still and starve, and even some of those who would never have dreamt of harming a neighbor during good times, will rationalize "temporarily" setting aside their morality in order to feed their families. Rabble-rousers will demonize the "haves" as being either: 1) the rich who "got us into this mess," 2) "profiteeers" who have benefitted from chaos at the "average person's" expense, or 3) "hoarders" who are responsible for a scarcity of supplies and who are "holding out" on "the rest of us".

Protection will come as it always does, through an organized militia that is better coordinated and has better arms and communication than the roving bands of thieves. Justice will be dispensed locally. If a larger force comes one's way (an army), you'll give them what they want and profess loyalty to their cause, or flee and become a refugee.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.