Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to propose families have a no electrictity day. You can open the frig once, take out what you want. You can't again. Don't turn it off, since your doing a test and don't need to waste, but realistically when food starts getting warm, you use it quick.
No AC or electric heat. No tv, no music, no lights. Have any wind up clocks? If you power was off, would you have water? Do you need pumps to get it to your house? For purposes of the test, no water from the tap. Just what you have stored. Gas stoves might work, but not your microwave. Give it a weekend and see how you do. Think if it wasn't a test and ask how you'd feel. We live on this technological pyramid and never see it, but break the chain and it *could* all fall down.
For 2007, the US had 922,095,840 acres of farmland, 406,424,909 acres of cropland, 309,607,601 of harvested land, and 408,832,116 of pastures. This gives us a total of 2,046,960,466 acres of food-producing land. This is ignoring the 75,098,603 acres of woodland, and the 31,740,212 acres of land that's used (houses, buildings, roads, etc).
The US population is 311,591,917 as of July, 2011 (according to the US Census Bureau). Going off your model, of dividing land by population, this means that for every US citizen there is roughly 6.57 acres of food-producing land. It takes 2.5 acres to sustain a person, as you say.
Yes, there's no way to truck the food across the country. But, just because there's a million people living in a county that can only support 10,000, doesn't mean they'll all stay, and die of starvation. People will realize the situation they're in, and walk if they have to. I doubt the death toll would be as large as you say it is.
EDIT: I should add, according to this model, the US is theoretically capable of supporting nearly 819 million people, based on the 2.5 acres / person statistic. If some of the woodland and some of the developed land were to be repurposed into agricultural land, that number would go up.
Wow! I thought I wrote long posts! lol I'm in awe.
(I would point out though, that you used about a quarter of that post just making snarky comments...)
Quote:
You know how to mine iron and smelt it? No? Sorry, no Iron Age for you. You know how to mine copper and tin and smelt them into bronze? Sorry, no Bronze Age for you. {snip}
And you expect me to believe that Americans, who can't even find France on a map are going to find copper, tin and iron veins, plus coal veins? Is that part of your stand-up comedy routine?
If we should expect a massive die-off, which would be quite possible, particularly for those who live in the populated parts of this country, we would have recyclable metals for hundreds of years to come. No need to smelt or mine.
For that matter, in the pre-Industrial ages, it wasn't the average citizen who was smelting copper and tin or inventing the uses for coal. Those were the big thinkers of the age who did that. We still have those people...
BTW, smithing steel really isn't that difficult. My husband does it out in our garage.
You'd be surprised how common it actually is.
Quote:
You won't even be able to bury the dead like the Stone Age people did.
We would forget how to operate shovels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
Why would the entire world population of engineers not rebuild it?
I agree.
Granted, if we were talking about an entire system shut down of North America, it would be a massive effort that would probably take YEARS. But we live in a global society. Our allies and neighbors wouldn't just abandon us to our fate anymore than we would abandon them to theirs...
For 2007, the US had 922,095,840 acres of farmland, 406,424,909 acres of cropland, 309,607,601 of harvested land, and 408,832,116 of pastures. This gives us a total of 2,046,960,466 acres of food-producing land. This is ignoring the 75,098,603 acres of woodland, and the 31,740,212 acres of land that's used (houses, buildings, roads, etc).
The US population is 311,591,917 as of July, 2011 (according to the US Census Bureau). Going off your model, of dividing land by population, this means that for every US citizen there is roughly 6.57 acres of food-producing land. It takes 2.5 acres to sustain a person, as you say.
Yes, there's no way to truck the food across the country. But, just because there's a million people living in a county that can only support 10,000, doesn't mean they'll all stay, and die of starvation. People will realize the situation they're in, and walk if they have to. I doubt the death toll would be as large as you say it is.
EDIT: I should add, according to this model, the US is theoretically capable of supporting nearly 819 million people, based on the 2.5 acres / person statistic. If some of the woodland and some of the developed land were to be repurposed into agricultural land, that number would go up.
I think those numbers probably hinge on useing todays farming technology....Take away electricity/electronicaly controlled equipment etc... and I don't think that will happen......
...........Granted, if we were talking about an entire system shut down of North America, it would be a massive effort that would probably take YEARS. But we live in a global society. Our allies and neighbors wouldn't just abandon us to our fate anymore than we would abandon them to theirs...
Why make the assumption that US allies would not be similarly hit by EMP?
I think those numbers probably hinge on useing todays farming technology....Take away electricity/electronicaly controlled equipment etc... and I don't think that will happen......
Still, there's plenty of land. And, if you were just concerned with your own survival, 2.5 acres is not hard to farm by hand -- you don't need large machinery or anything. Most irrigation systems are gravity-fed. Valves on dams have hand controls, in the event of a loss of power; so some places might even still have irrigation. Most well water systems can be overridden by a simple hand pump. Yes, some people might die of starvation, but not as many as some people might suggest.
Looking at big city examples: Sure, there's no farmable land on Manhattan, and yet millions of people living there. Does that mean every last person on Manhattan is going to die of starvation? No. People would sooner leave than starve to death. Saying 250 million Americans would die, because there'll be no food in the city is ridiculous.
I'm still contemplating which would be a better bug-out idea: 2.5 acres in the middle of nowhere, and a small cabin or RV; or a sailboat?
And to the comments about mining / smithing metals: Why would we have to mine? After a permanent blackout scenario, we'd be sitting on tons of scrap devices, that we would no longer have use for. Melting down metals requires a large, hot fire, and not much else. People still use these trade-skills today, so we won't be at a complete loss. Guns will be popular, however modern bullets would run out, so the old-style rifles (shooting small, metal balls) would see a renewal. Bow and arrow would be a popular tool for hunting, and protection (I've got mine near by BOB, with around 20 good arrows). Horseback riding, and horse-drawn carts would certainly make a comeback, but what about cargo bikes? An EMP isn't going to make your bicycle stop working, and it's certainly a reliable way of getting around.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, just providing information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
Please cite one historical example of a long term social collapse. A little tiny one will suffice.
I'll take that bet, the European Dark Ages, certainly from the 5th Century to the 10th Century. There's also the Greek Dark Ages, from 1100-750 BCE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsMeFred
If we should expect a massive die-off, which would be quite possible, particularly for those who live in the populated parts of this country, we would have recyclable metals for hundreds of years to come. No need to smelt or mine.
For that matter, in the pre-Industrial ages, it wasn't the average citizen who was smelting copper and tin or inventing the uses for coal. Those were the big thinkers of the age who did that. We still have those people...
BTW, smithing steel really isn't that difficult. My husband does it out in our garage.
You'd be surprised how common it actually is.
The problem with recycling is that many modern metals cannot be simply smelted in a crucible in air. Many of the metals we use are not just not ferrous or contain other metals that are hazardous to heat to high temps in air, Aluminum alloys are preferred in many items from cars to cans (where metals are used at all) because of it's strength to weight ratio, you can't simply smelt aluminum with heat in a crucible and have useable aluminum at the end of it, you'll have a lot of aluminum oxide. Not to mention that often Aluminum is paired with Magnesium and we all know what that does when heated in the presence of oxygen. So you'd need to smelt in an oxygen free atmosphere, which means Nitrogen (most commonly), unless you can produce Nitrogen (or introduce some catalyst or impurity that will absorb the oxygen to the mix), you're likely SOL for smelting and recycling most modern alloys. You could forge the metals if you're careful (and hot forging) into something usable, but you're not likely to be casting, and casting at very least requires some form of mold most primitive casting is done using sand/clay and you need the right kind or you'll end up with a pool of hardened metal on the floor, or something that looks more like a spiderweb than whatever it is you're wanting.
Steel production is pretty simple, if you start from wrought iron (I'm using the technical term here, this isn't your garden gate although that could be used). I'm sure your husband does this, but it's in a controlled situation, bars or ingots of pre smelted refined stock, commercial grade charcoal, graphite, probably an Oxy-Acetylene or Electric Arc/Induction furnace, that are thermostatically controlled. It's not hand dug chunks of rock with sticks of home made charcoal powered by a forced air charcoal furnace, then there's the crucible itself, for steel (and by that I mean medium to low quality) you're looking for high content alumina clay (porcelain clay is ideal), and quartz sand to be on a par with Germany in the 18th Century, but you'll need to heat it to 1600 degrees Celsius (2912F) for a week before hammer forging it to mix the carbon and iron more consistently, and that process is starting with wrought iron, not steel.
While steel production may seem simple, it's actually pretty difficult when you consider what you may have available, and the two steps in the process, either smelting iron to pig iron then refining to steel, or using blooming to create wrought iron (which requires you do not melt the iron so is very temperature sensitive) and then adding just the right amount of carbon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsMeFred
The entire collection of first world countries are all going to be hit by nuclear warheads strong enough to knock out nations??
Seriously??
Nope but an X15 or higher solar flare could affect the northern or southern hemispheres entirely. Even if it doesn't then any trade partners of the US how depend on the US for critical supplies will need to scramble for those supplies, so they may be less able or immediately willing to assist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cab591
Most irrigation systems are gravity-fed. Valves on dams have hand controls, in the event of a loss of power; so some places might even still have irrigation. Most well water systems can be overridden by a simple hand pump. Yes, some people might die of starvation, but not as many as some people might suggest.
Dams that overfill burst, there's an assumption that someone has the forethought and motivation to go and relieve them of becoming overfilled. Or that fail safes aren't in place that cause the sluices to fully open in case of catastrophic power loss, so you no longer have a dam, you have a wall across a river.
Has anyone factored in the medication factor? How many are dependent on medicataion to stay alive or live a healty life? Most perscriptions are for thirty days, though you might get refills. As soon as people realize its not going to end so soon, they'll try to get what they can, but even if they succeed, its only temperary. Either life will end far sooner or its quality and the ability to survive hardship diminished. And consider those on psych meds. These are meds you cannot just stop. Since they too are dispensed thirty days at a time and appointments do get messed up, many people save a few back, forget a pill now and then, but thats temperary. The effect of stopping them is often debilitating, making them not likely to survive. Even if the withdrawl symptoms don't do it some of the conditions would reassert themselves quickly.
I think, given that we extend lifespans with our level of medical care and drugs now, if we lost that ability that would account for a large amount of deaths even if the problem was eased in a year.
I also think there would be a lot of sucides. We live in a society where we are seldom challenged sufficently to kick in that survival instinct. 'nothing to live for' would be a common reason. Ironically, those with more challenging lives, the poor and the homeless would have an immediate advantage since they already had passed that test.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
