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.
The number has to be 5% or less that could actually survive for longer than a few months
Hypothetically if the grid, internet, comms, and everything went down for a year this is strictly my guess. Whatever your worst case scenario is where everything just suddenly has a cascading systemic failure and society breaks.
My take would follow a "curve" die off.
I think after 1 week we would have 95% of our population (there would be a noticable immediate die off)
After 1 month we would be around 90% population. Most people are still alive but beginning to show significant negative effects.
After 2 months drops to 80%. The weak are dying off steadily now.
After 3 months probably another 10% gone, do I'll say 70% are left.
I think around 3 months is where it gets really ugly and almost all store foods are gone and it's too soon for any gardening to really be harvesting (dependent on time of year)
At 4 months I think we're at like 50% left and it gets worse from there until we hit about 20% of the population and the rate of loss slows down as those who have made it that far are more likely to keep surviving.
Dependent on time of year my numbers could be way off. If hundreds of millions suddenly find themselves in a heatwave or arctic blast without anything they're screwed.
Hypothetically if the grid, internet, comms, and everything went down for a year this is strictly my guess. Whatever your worst case scenario is where everything just suddenly has a cascading systemic failure and society breaks.
My take would follow a "curve" die off.
...
Dependent on time of year my numbers could be way off. If hundreds of millions suddenly find themselves in a heatwave or arctic blast without anything they're screwed.
Time of year would be important, as would region.
All of the more populated regions would gravitate towards 500 people per sq.mile (psm) in the first couple months, and from there, more slowly towards 200 psm. Lesser populated regions would depopulate at a slightly slower initial rate, towards 50%, then slowly towards a level the environment could support.
This means places like NYC, Boston, Baltimore, and Philidelphia (all exceeding 10000 psm) would lose more than 90% in about 3 months. Places like where I live (64 psm) would fair better, but there are too many people with subtle health issues that would flair up and remove them, when exposed to the harsh grid down environment.
All of the more populated regions would gravitate towards 500 people per sq.mile (psm) in the first couple months, and from there, more slowly towards 200 psm. Lesser populated regions would depopulate at a slightly slower initial rate, towards 50%, then slowly towards a level the environment could support.
This means places like NYC, Boston, Baltimore, and Philidelphia (all exceeding 10000 psm) would lose more than 90% in about 3 months. Places like where I live (64 psm) would fair better, but there are too many people with subtle health issues that would flair up and remove them, when exposed to the harsh grid down environment.
Agree. The results would not be the same for every region and those results would also vary by season.
Agree. The results would not be the same for every region and those results would also vary by season.
My state is about 5 ppsm, however, results here would probably not follow models real well since there is soon much grain and livestock raised here as well as wild game and edibles.
Many people her have 2 or 3 freezers full of food ( and natural freezing refrigeration most of the year), aside from canned goods from the garden.
I'd say the determining factor would be the season as we have pretty severe winters. That said, very few places here don't have a fireplace or woodstove. It's just the way of life here.
We have a lot of dams producing hydro electric power, huge coal reserves, natural gas and oil, and we have refineries too as well as huge forests full of firewood. We have several wind farms too. Cut the transmission lines at the border, we'd have plenty of power.
As for comms, most of us have CB or shortwave radios because cell service is spotty outside city limits.
If something big did happen, with the governor we have now, the borders could be locked down I think we could do quite well since we only have a couple of densely populated areas.
Last edited by MTSilvertip; 03-09-2021 at 10:50 AM..
Hypothetically if the grid, internet, comms, and everything went down for a year this is strictly my guess. Whatever your worst case scenario is where everything just suddenly has a cascading systemic failure and society breaks.
My take would follow a "curve" die off.
I think after 1 week we would have 95% of our population (there would be a noticable immediate die off)
After 1 month we would be around 90% population. Most people are still alive but beginning to show significant negative effects.
After 2 months drops to 80%. The weak are dying off steadily now.
After 3 months probably another 10% gone, do I'll say 70% are left.
I think around 3 months is where it gets really ugly and almost all store foods are gone and it's too soon for any gardening to really be harvesting (dependent on time of year)
At 4 months I think we're at like 50% left and it gets worse from there until we hit about 20% of the population and the rate of loss slows down as those who have made it that far are more likely to keep surviving.
Dependent on time of year my numbers could be way off. If hundreds of millions suddenly find themselves in a heatwave or arctic blast without anything they're screwed.
No one really knows we're all just making educated guesses on a potential scenario where we don't even know what all the variables would be.
I like to just do thought exercises to try and think things out and see if it gets me to change any opinions that I have or to reevaluate my plans and ideas.
I also think there are quite a few smart posters here with good ideaa (and on another place feel free to PM me) if you're interested.
No one really knows we're all just making educated guesses on a potential scenario where we don't even know what all the variables would be.
I like to just do thought exercises to try and think things out and see if it gets me to change any opinions that I have or to reevaluate my plans and ideas.
I also think there are quite a few smart posters here with good ideaa (and on another place feel free to PM me) if you're interested.
Don’t forget a couple hundred rubber gloves per person. Could come in handy for hygiene when the water stops coming out of the faucet
I reckon you have 2 days of food, 1 shotgun with 12 shells and a gallon of water at home
I know that guy. You are being optimistic.
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.
