Which country will survive better

[Rifleman]

I think Australia because of the endless meat we have and we are in the top 10 in the Olympic Games.

[Patrick Carlson]

34 minutes ago, Rifleman said:

I think Australia because of the endless meat we have and we are in the top 10 in the Olympic Games.

Good points. I'd love to see Australia first-hand, somehow I think the Mad Max films don't do the place justice...

 

[cekivi]

Highly dependent really. The western world produces a surplus of food but that is heavily reliant on technology to maintain. With technology wiped out massive global famines would follow. Your best chances for survival are likely in places with low population that have a reliable independent food source. For instance, rural Canada would probably be OK (at least at the start) but the urban centers would be screwed. Plus, when those people roam out in search of food local support systems would be quickly overrun.

To put it into perspective 2% of humanity's total energy consumption (all electric plants, cars, etc.) is devoted solely to making ammonia for fertilizer so we don't starve. That is crazy. Take that away and a lot of people will be in a lot of trouble very quickly...

[Scyzara]

It's not a country, but my vote goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_of_the_Seven_Seas.

[Rifleman]

7 hours ago, Scyzara said:

It's not a country, but my vote goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_of_the_Seven_Seas.

If you google Australia it says that it's  a country.

[cekivi]

55 minutes ago, Rifleman said:

If you google Australia it says that it's  a country.

I think Australia would be in the same situation as Canada: the rural areas would start off fine but as the big urban centers empty out it would be famine and chaos.

[Rifleman]

25 minutes ago, cekivi said:

I think Australia would be in the same situation as Canada: the rural areas would start off fine but as the big urban centers empty out it would be famine and chaos.

With the endless meat Australia has I think they would last a bit longer than Canada.

[Scyzara]

I was referring to Edinburgh of the seven seas as "no country". It's just an island, although it of course belongs to a country (Great Britain). 

[Rifleman]

2 hours ago, Scyzara said:

I was referring to Edinburgh of the seven seas as "no country". It's just an island, although it of course belongs to a country (Great Britain). 

You didn't reply to cekivi so I didn't know who you where talking to.

[alone sniper]

Don't know about Cold but 

Heat??? we are at first!!! 
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HottestSpot/page2.php 
 

[cekivi]

15 hours ago, Rifleman said:

With the endless meat Australia has I think they would last a bit longer than Canada.

And Canada can produce enough grain to feed the entire planet. Plus cattle, sheep, pigs, etc. and all of the wildlife as well. The problem isn't the abundance of food. Canada and Australia both have plenty. The problem is getting the food to where it is needed without having any means of transporting it. In Canada's case, this is from the Prairies to the Windsor-Quebec corridor and the Greater Vancouver Area. The other major shift would be having no chemicals for crop management and no mechanized farming equipment. It's still doable - it would just be very, very challenging.

Canada's big advantage over Australia is, of course, more fresh water and more arable land. Downside is that we have a higher population, 300+ million hungry Americans to the south who may roam north, and a much larger land mass.

[Rifleman]

51 minutes ago, cekivi said:

And Canada can produce enough grain to feed the entire planet. Plus cattle, sheep, pigs, etc. and all of the wildlife as well. The problem isn't the abundance of food. Canada and Australia both have plenty. The problem is getting the food to where it is needed without having any means of transporting it. In Canada's case, this is from the Prairies to the Windsor-Quebec corridor and the Greater Vancouver Area. The other major shift would be having no chemicals for crop management and no mechanized farming equipment. It's still doable - it would just be very, very challenging.

Canada's big advantage over Australia is, of course, more fresh water and more arable land. Downside is that we have a higher population, 300+ million hungry Americans to the south who may roam north, and a much larger land mass.

The Australians will have plenty of water because the developers haven't fixed the endless water supply.

[cekivi]

53 minutes ago, Rifleman said:

The Australians will have plenty of water because the developers haven't fixed the endless water supply.

That's dependent on it snowing in Australia in the summer

When it's winter here isn't most of Australia on fire?

[Rifleman]

It gets up to 28-32 degrees in summer 

[cekivi]

11 minutes ago, Rifleman said:

It gets up to 28-32 degrees in summer 

Bleh. That's like GTA weather.

On topic, my guess would be smaller, isolated countries with stable governments. My money would be on New Zealand: small population, agricultural exporter, lots of fresh water and a stable country.

[Rifleman]

Gta 4 or 5

the weather in gta 4 is horrible because of 98% city and 2% forests 

gta 5 is better to live in since it's got a lot for nature in it 

[Wastelander]

I'd say isolated/uncontacted tribes in South America and some parts of the South Sea would do pretty well, considering most of them don't even use iron-age technology and they're doing fine. Hell, after a few years, they'd probably amongst the more technologized civilizations out there. 

I agree on Australia, at least parts of it, due to it being relatively sparsely populated. Same goes for large parts of Russia, China and central Asia. Japan, however, is completely and thoroughly done for, so no post-apocalyptic yakitori for you I guess (which is a shame because yakitori is awesome).

Germany and much of Europe will be mostly done for - nuclear reactors eventually overheat, spewing radioactive material everywhere, making the soil unarable for millenia. Think a couple dozen Pripyat Exclusion Zones. Also, a lot of our food in Germany at least is imported from Turkey, Spain, Israel and so on. Small pockets of rural communities, such as in the Sauerland in NRW or some towns in the East could survive. Poland, Romania etc. are much better of, despite the threat of nuclear reactors inviting you to a spontaeinous S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-reenactment, simply because they have a much stronger agricultural tradition than us Germans, at least - we have farms dying left and right, unfortunately.

Small island nations such as Tonga, Tuvalu and so on are at least endangered - granted, they can fish and plant some stuff, but that doesn't a) stop the ocean levels from rising and b) doesn't immediately bring results, so the initial food shortage due to lack of food imports would result in casualties. How these nations fared after that would be entirely dependant on the number of casualties.

If I were to bet my money on ONE community that would probably thrive after the initial "...what the hell just happened?" it's Appalachia. They don't have electricity to begin with. 

[cekivi]

13 hours ago, Rifleman said:

Gta 4 or 5

the weather in gta 4 is horrible because of 98% city and 2% forests 

gta 5 is better to live in since it's got a lot for nature in it 

Neither actually. GTA is shorthand for "Greater Toronto Area". It's Canada's largest population center.

[Wastelander]

9 hours ago, cekivi said:

Neither actually. GTA is shorthand for "Greater Toronto Area". It's Canada's largest population center.

However, a GTA game in Canada would be absolutely awesome. Especially if this happens. 

 

[Rifleman]

9 hours ago, cekivi said:

Neither actually. GTA is shorthand for "Greater Toronto Area". It's Canada's largest population center.

I thought you were talking about the popular game grand theft auto 5

[cekivi]

12 hours ago, Wastelander said:

However, a GTA game in Canada would be absolutely awesome. Especially if this happens. 

 

My country can be weird sometimes

[cekivi]

12 hours ago, Rifleman said:

I thought you were talking about the popular game grand theft auto 5

Fair assumption. It's a bad habit of mine to sometimes use short forms that aren't universal.

[Patrick Carlson]

On 8/15/2016 at 11:26 AM, Wastelander said:

 

Germany and much of Europe will be mostly done for - nuclear reactors eventually overheat, spewing radioactive material everywhere, making the soil unarable for millenia. Think a couple dozen Pripyat Exclusion Zones. Also, a lot of our food in Germany at least is imported from Turkey, Spain, Israel and so on. Small pockets of rural communities, such as in the Sauerland in NRW or some towns in the East could survive. Poland, Romania etc. are much better of, despite the threat of nuclear reactors inviting you to a spontaeinous S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-reenactment, simply because they have a much stronger agricultural tradition than us Germans, at least - we have farms dying left and right, unfortunately.

 

This is a really interesting point that doesn't get brought up enough in all conversations about a potential "collapse." How will abandoned industry affect the environment after a catastrophic event of some kind? And not just nuclear--but chemical plants, storage facilities, ect. ect. Germany (and much of Central Europe) is problematic because it is (relatively speaking) so densely populated. 

(looks like there are around 8-9 plants still online in German--http://www.dw.com/en/how-far-along-is-germanys-nuclear-phase-out/a-18547065)

[Wastelander]

1 hour ago, Patrick Carlson said:

This is a really interesting point that doesn't get brought up enough in all conversations about a potential "collapse." How will abandoned industry affect the environment after a catastrophic event of some kind? And not just nuclear--but chemical plants, storage facilities, ect. ect. Germany (and much of Central Europe) is problematic because it is (relatively speaking) so densely populated. 

 

I live relatively close to one of the densest chemical-industry-areas of the country, and a couple of friends of mine work there - Chemiepark Marl, if you're interested. The general consensus is that a prolonged blackout will result in a series of spills and fires which can devastate the entire area. A variety of chemicals need to be stored very cold and/or under pressure, and that cold and pressure is kept up by machines. There's a good book about the matter, "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman that describes a similar scenario in detail. If there is one book I would recommend to TLD fanfiction writers, it's this one.Also, the docufiction series "Life After People".

On the plus side, we don't have wolves in Germany outside of zoos. There are efforts to bring them back to German forests, but as soon as they kill a sheep they're getting hunted down again, same with bears. Wild boars could however pose a problem. Injuries are rare because most people who go into the woods in the first place have some kind of sense of self-preservation, but what if we suddenly don't have all these scary lights anymore?

As for power plants, nuclear reactors aren't the only threat - coal power plants without electrical regulation will continue to burn the fuel they have, possibly overheating. Ever seen a can of deodorant explode in a fire? Imagine this a million times larger - if my local power plant would suddenly go pop, it'd still be measurable in Paris. Wind turbines can fall over or catch fire. There are also trash-burning power plants, and they have a constant fire raging on.

Then there are the gas pipes. Eventually, something will leak, and eventually, a spark will set it off - there's no real arguing about this, it's when, not if.

Long story short, every densely populated area with at least a bit of industry is a fire hazard in a TLD-style event, and the best course of action is to go very, very far away.

[CarolinaSantAngelo]

I come as a representant of Argentina. If there is one thing that we always joke with people here is that while we do have technology and are dependant on it as much as anywhere else, If we go outside of the cities and towns we have a lot of space to hunt, to fish, (a lot of farm animals) and there are lots of crops, Argentina biggest production is agriculture based, so the point is, we know that if something like in TLD happened, would it be bad? yeap, definitely, but we would know how to survive. A good size of the population knows how to do all of the above or at least isn't so detached of it, because we aren't that far away from nature in the activities we do. Specially the ones that didn't grow up in big cities (I raise my hand). 

We wouldn't have a disaster in hand with Nuclear reactors, there aren't that many around big populated areas (most of them are in patagonia) and the country is a big one, compared to the size of the population, one could escape to better zones. 

Did I mention the presence of many horses too? Good thing to have around for this lol. 

But overall, South America is a good place,depends where though, Chile for example would be a terrible place to be inland, because their food production is mostly sea based, the amount of people around would be a good defining thing to take into account, how things could go to hell just because of people. Australia and any place that's remote and hasn't lost complete interaction with food production or nature would be good too. 

It has to be a place that hasn't destroyed good size of nature, because that's what we would need to survive.