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.
Well, California has oil, manufacturing, a large, technically trained population, military bases, and the crack, baton-weilding LAPD. Plus zillions of acres of agricultural land. So if you can avoid upheaval in the cities, California could make it.
Here are my thoughts about the states that don't make it, or simply slide back into pre-20th century living standards:
Massachusetts/Connecticut/Rhode Island/New Hampshire/Vermont. Not enough agricultural acreage to support its dense population. No energy resources. On plus side, highly educated populations.
New Jersey/Delaware.
Arizona/New Mexico/Nevada. Can't sustain population with existing agriculture.
Hawaii. Unless they figure out how to harness geothermal energy really quickly, they're living off pineapples and fish.
Hawaii could do fine on it's own. It was perfectly fine because James Cook landed.
Hawaii could do fine on it's own. It was perfectly fine because James Cook landed.
Georgia wouldn't survive because of a drought.
No energy resources on Hawaii. It would descend pretty quickly to pre-industrial civilization. Might not be pretty there.
I think Georgia would fare okay outside of Atlanta proper, mainly because it would have a water shortage if there was any planning. Stop watering the golf courses and lawns and it would have a good shot.
So you don't think that Texas, a state with one of the best economys and some of the best infrastructure, not to mention a population higher than many civilized countries and all that oil, would have a chance at survival?
No energy resources on Hawaii. It would descend pretty quickly to pre-industrial civilization. Might not be pretty there.
Hawaii already has everything brought in by ship-why would that change? If not from us, Asia is just around the way. And at this point in time, there is a very strong relationship between California(and OR, WI, HI and AZ) and Hawaii that would translate to a very amicable transnational business relationships.
Well, California has oil, manufacturing, a large, technically trained population, military bases, and the crack, baton-weilding LAPD. Plus zillions of acres of agricultural land. So if you can avoid upheaval in the cities, California could make it.
Here are my thoughts about the states that don't make it, or simply slide back into pre-20th century living standards:
Massachusetts/Connecticut/Rhode Island/New Hampshire/Vermont. Not enough agricultural acreage to support its dense population. No energy resources. On plus side, highly educated populations.
New Jersey/Delaware.
Arizona/New Mexico/Nevada. Can't sustain population with existing agriculture.
Hawaii. Unless they figure out how to harness geothermal energy really quickly, they're living off pineapples and fish.
!?! Okay, seems like you have plenty of faith in mankind, but you do seem to comprehend the question. Do you think that if society is collapsing people are going to think to themselves, "Hmmm....well, the **** is hitting the fan, better keep on farming because you know, all this mayhem is making people hungry." Give me a break.
Those five New England states that you mentioned......not enough agriculture to support the dense population? New Hampshire and Vermont dense? Dude, there are definitely more moose in both those states then people. Massachusetts out side of Boston? Rhode Island, only because it is so dang small. Connecticut, maybe.
Knowing what New England went through the first couple hundred years of it's existence might be an indicator that the place could survive just fine.
You're kidding right? The South has a larger industrial base than the North now, not to mention full-scale energy exporting to the north, petroleum, etc. etc. The South would do just fine. I'm thinking the Northeast would die on the vine.
An earlier poster discussing Hawaii missed my point: If your state could not rely on outside support and had to rely on its own resources, how would it fare? Hawaii has no ferrous metals, no energy resources, and no manufacturing. It just wouldn't make it.
!?! Okay, seems like you have plenty of faith in mankind, but you do seem to comprehend the question. Do you think that if society is collapsing people are going to think to themselves, "Hmmm....well, the **** is hitting the fan, better keep on farming because you know, all this mayhem is making people hungry." Give me a break.
Those five New England states that you mentioned......not enough agriculture to support the dense population? New Hampshire and Vermont dense? Dude, there are definitely more moose in both those states then people. Massachusetts out side of Boston? Rhode Island, only because it is so dang small. Connecticut, maybe.
Knowing what New England went through the first couple hundred years of it's existence might be an indicator that the place could survive just fine.
Read my original post. Each state would have to make it on its own with the resources it has. And, my qualifier is maintaining a somewhat modern society intact, rather than sliding back into pre-20th century conditions. New England agricultural just isn't that strong anymore, and is certainly not equipped to support the massive population of the area. At the same time, there are no energy resources in the New England states. So even if you could harvest enough food from farms, you wouldn't have enough fuel to transport the food.
If the Federal government were to collapse. The whole East Coast would be in a world of hurt. Way too many people that are reliant on everyone else to feed their teeming masses.
California would likely split in two. LA and southern CA in general is a very expensive problem. Again too many people without enough resources for all of them. I could easily imagine war between SoCal, Arizona, and Nevada. Whoever controls the Colorado gets to live. Without the Colorado river, the whole area becomes quite literally toast.
Without the inconvenient burden of the Federal Government that holds the union together, more than a handful of Northern Californians would consider SoCal as nothing more than a burden and would likely form a separate government and let Mexico Have LA. That may sound extreme but I think it would be a very real likelihood. Many in Northern CA feel that we'd be in a lot better shape if we were to separate ourselves from SoCal already. What many easterners don't realize is that CA is already self sufficient and about 20-30% of the food on the East coast dinner table in fact came from CA and not the Midwest, even more after October. CA has been the top food grower in the US for over 50 years and consistently outproduces the Midwest. As several posters have already stated, CA doesn't need anyone else. It might surprise many to learn that CA's primary industry is agriculture and not movies.
Many of the less populated states who though comparatively poor would do quite well since they don't have the population issues. They wouldn't suddenly rise to power but would pretty much continue as they had before. The Midwest and some central states would have some real issues with starving easterners migrating west for food.
All in all, it would get ugly with a few areas managing to keep it all together. If I had to place a bet on who'd come out on top, I'd say Northern CA, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Montana and Wyoming would fare the best. The Dakotas would go on just the same. There aren't many people there and the brutal winters and insane summer heat would tend to keep immigration to a minimum as it already does. They don't have a lot but they have enough to sustain their populations. If it really got to be a problem, the Dakotas have plenty of nukes....
Just between you, me, and the wall, if the government collapses I'm grabbing a boat, a fishing net and as much water as I can steal and setting sail for Australia.
If the Federal government were to collapse. The whole East Coast would be in a world of hurt. Way too many people that are reliant on everyone else to feed their teeming masses.
California would likely split in two. LA and southern CA in general is a very expensive problem. Again too many people without enough resources for all of them. I could easily imagine war between SoCal, Arizona, and Nevada. Whoever controls the Colorado gets to live. Without the Colorado river, the whole area becomes quite literally toast.
Without the inconvenient burden of the Federal Government that holds the union together, more than a handful of Northern Californians would consider SoCal as nothing more than a burden and would likely form a separate government and let Mexico Have LA. That may sound extreme but I think it would be a very real likelihood. Many in Northern CA feel that we'd be in a lot better shape if we were to separate ourselves from SoCal already. What many easterners don't realize is that CA is already self sufficient and about 20-30% of the food on the East coast dinner table in fact came from CA and not the Midwest, even more after October. CA has been the top food grower in the US for over 50 years and consistently outproduces the Midwest. As several posters have already stated, CA doesn't need anyone else. It might surprise many to learn that CA's primary industry is agriculture and not movies.
Many of the less populated states who though comparatively poor would do quite well since they don't have the population issues. They wouldn't suddenly rise to power but would pretty much continue as they had before. The Midwest and some central states would have some real issues with starving easterners migrating west for food.
All in all, it would get ugly with a few areas managing to keep it all together. If I had to place a bet on who'd come out on top, I'd say Northern CA, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Montana and Wyoming would fare the best. The Dakotas would go on just the same. There aren't many people there and the brutal winters and insane summer heat would tend to keep immigration to a minimum as it already does. They don't have a lot but they have enough to sustain their populations. If it really got to be a problem, the Dakotas have plenty of nukes....
Just between you, me, and the wall, if the government collapses I'm grabbing a boat, a fishing net and as much water as I can steal and setting sail for Australia.
Northern CA currently is home to 15 Million people but our water supply annually serves 23 Million(NorCal provides water for 8 Million Southern Californians) and currently statewide, Agriculture actually accounts for nearly 80% of our total water usage. We are a bit more frugal than most people know.
Speaking of frugal, California ranks 50th in per capita electricity usage, 50th in per capita natural gas usage and 50th in per capita gasoline usage. Our commitment to cleaner burning fuel and green technology will continue to lead not only the nation, but the world.
As far as being able to feed ourselves, California's numbers are quite stellar.
Agriculturally speaking, California produces roughly 50% of the fruits and vegetables in the United States annually. California is also the nation's largest dairy products producer and a major producer of grains and cereals-not to mention livestock and poultry
Annual Production figures from the California State Statistical Abstract
42,000 tons of artichokes
52,000 tons of asparagus
32,000 tons of beans
915,000 tons of broccoli
232,000 tons of cabbage
1,1 Million tons of carrots
269,000 tons of cauliflower
901,000 tons of celery
246,000 tons of sweet corn
62,000 tons of cucumbers
200,000 tons of garlic
3.8 Million tons of lettuce
1 Million tons of melons(all varieties)
1 Million tons of onions(all varieties)
414,000 tons of peppers(all kinds)
79,000 tons of pumpkins
263,000 tons of fresh spinach
340,000 tons of spinach
82,000 tons of squash
951,000 tons of tomatoes
915,000 tons of almonds
177,000 tons of apples
75,000 tons of apricots
151,000 tons of avocados
4,000 tons of blueberries
1,000 tons of boysenberries
41,000 tons of raspberries
1,029,000 tons of strawberries
52,000 tons of cherries
16,000 tons of dates
50,000 tons of figs
204,000 tons of grapefruit
6,978,000 tons of grapes(all kinds including raisins)
37,000 tons of kiwi
779,000 tons of lemons
239,000 tons of nectarines
142,000 tons of olives
2,418,000 tons of oranges(all kinds)
869,000 tons of peaches(all kinds)
202,000 tons of pears(all kinds)
2,000 tons of pecans
283,000 tons of pistachios
171,000 tons of plums
90,000 tons of dried plums(prunes)
108,000 tons of tangerines
215,000 tons of walnuts
90,000 tons of barley
69,000 tons of dry beans
389,000 toons of cotton
594,000 tons of cottonseed
529,000 tons of corn grain
25,000 tons of sorghum
8,935,000 tons of hay, alfalfa
24,000 tons of oats
756,000 tons of sweet potatoes
1,941,000 tons of rice
1,715,000 tons of sugar beets
844,000 tons of wheat
30,000,000 lbs of honey
37,000,000,000 lbs of milk and cream
14,900,000 lbs of turkey
3,500,000 lbs of wool
190,000 hogs and pigs
810,000 sheep and lambs
7,380,000 cattle, beef cows, heifers, milk cows and calves
30,170,000 chickens
24,646,000 lbs of anchovy
79,000 lbs of barracuda
5,800 lbs of giant sea bass
26,500 lbs of pacific bonito
5,900 lbs of butterfish
68,200 lbs of cabazon
16,900 lbs of carp
82,000 lbs of croacker
181,000 lbs of flounder
3,800 lbs of greenling kelp
294,000 lbs of grenadier
17,800 lbs of guitarfish
119,800 lbs of hagfish
917,000 lbs of hallibut
782,000 lbs of herring
9,700 lbs of jacksmelt
139,000 lbs of lingcod
7,591,000 lbs of mackerel
33,000 lbs of opah
11,000 lbs of opaleye
1,273,000 lbs of rockfish
3,582,000 lbs of sablefish
4,324,000 lbs of salmon
508,000 lbs of sanddab
76,290,000 lbs of pacific sardine
11,000 lbs of scorpionfish
3,000 lbs of staghorn sculpin
292,000 lbs of white seabass
389,000 lbs of shark
88,000 lbs of California spearhead
209,000 lbs of skate
220,000 lbs of smelt
7,682,000 lbs of sole
1,400 lbs of stingray
58,000 lbs of surfperch
447,000 lbs of swordfish
1,886,000 lbs of thornyhead
3,321,097 lbs of tuna
3,000 lbs of turbot
4,000 lbs of ocean whitefish
6,845,532 lbs of pacific whiting
21,374 lbs of yellowtail
10,722,000 lbs of crab
68,000 lbs of crayfish
752,000 lbs of lobster
327,000 lbs of prawns
2,611,000 lbs of shrimp
580,000 lbs of sea cucumber
4,000 lbs of sea stars
11,197,000 lbs of urchin
1,499 lbs of clams
2,033 lbs of mussel
4,100 lbs of octypus
1,685 lbs of oyster
122,176,000 lbs of squid
142,000 lbs of kellet's whelk
1,170 lbs of kelp
683,000 tons of boron minerals
12,310,000 tons of cement
28,000 tons of bentonite
1,132,000 tons of common clay
306,000 troy ounces of gold
6,327,000 tons of gypsum
166,624,000 tons of construction grade sand
1,986,000 tons of industrial sand
74,277,000 tons of crushed stone
45,200 tons of dimension stone
5,360,000 acres dedicated to timer-production
We just might be able to feed ourselves-ya think?
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.
