Comment by toomanybeersies | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomanybeersies | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

toomanybeersies

I read a piece a while ago that basically said that the poor will be the ones to survive an apocalypse (of whatever cause).

Because the poor have always been surviving, since the day the were born. It's ingrained into their being. The rich don't have this instinct to survive, they're detached from it.

Anyway, it got me thinking about the rich people building bunkers in New Zealand.

I don't think they'd last very long to be honest. The farmers will be the ones to survive. The billionaire who's bought a bunker in Queenstown doesn't know how to handle their shit in the outdoors, it's not a boardroom out there. The cocky who's been walking up and down those hills all his life does. He's spent 12 hours a day out there for decades, he's probably hunted more animals than he could ever remember, he's used to being out there and handling his shit. He also probably owns a horse, which is going to go a lot further than a 4wd or a motorbike.

The survivors will survive, not the rich.

The poor in cities (e.g. New York City) will be no better off than the rich. They know as little about survival without civilization infrastructure as the rich.

This isn't like the homesteading days. Most of the poor still buy food from grocery stores (with cash or ebt) like anyone else.

>99% of people of in large cities (>500k) that experience prolonged and complete food loss will perish without massive measures taken by a number of people an order of magnitude greater than those effected. The Caribbean hurricanes are an excellent case study into the realities of dealing with a near complete breakdown in government. With some not insignificant work a model could be created from the volume of data readily available from numerous providers. One could then extrapolate a number of factors to consider and model when designing a persistence plan. Those living in rural areas are more likely to weather these crises as they are less reliant on modern infrastructure for minimally viable persistence.

The poor outside of cities who are not subsistence farmers will be in an equally bad spot. Modern farming has not been an independent activity that can be pursued without external inputs for several hundred years. No fertilizers, no hybrid seed shops, no machinery repair, no fuel or electricity means no farm. Rural residents who can hunt might last a bit longer, but I would put my money on a suburban hipster with an organic garden and chicken coop before I would bet on anyone who farms cereal crops or livestock.

They will have it easier to adapt to subsistence farming. They should be at least familiar with basic manual farming techniques and tools. Such people are also familiar with working in groups.

The main problem for them will be, as usual during war and upheaval, personal physical security. Probably access to potable water too as wells fell into disuse. And obviously getting to start - initial plants and seeds.

Machinists should be able to figure things out too reasonably quickly. Reuse is big in most such situations. The more advanced hardware might be less useful or hard to maintain, but again basics are reasonably easy.

Really? I spent part of my childhood on a farm and while I could attach the mower to the PTO of the tractor and cut some hay I would not have the slightest clue how to hitch up a team of horses to do the same let alone maintain the equipment. Modern farming is about as related to subsistence farming as web development is to relay logic.

And are those machinists able to do a lot of machining without power or delivery of new stock? You are still thinking several layers of interdependence and abstraction above the long-term reality of a breakdown of civil society -- you should think less industrial revolution and more 12th century technology IMHO.

Of course, now that I write all this out I realize where I would place my bet: the Amish will rule the post-apocalyptic future...

1. Yes, if pressed to, you would get it, in a better or worse way. At least you know what to do, if not how. You would know which plants are manageable, how to schedule crops, how soil needs to be aerated, watered and fertilized. You can figure out suitable replacements to everything if you put just a bit of mind to it. People, even simple, can pull off feats of intellect when pressed.

2. The most accessible power technologies are wind and tidal power. Plus you can use human and animal power easily enough. And it is easy enough to make big unwieldy batteries. This is at most 16th century tech with initial development in ancient times and was initially done with ancient equipment. As long as someone remembers how it is done and how electricity and motors work, it would get done.

The hardest part is metallurgy and more advanced chemistry. That took centuries to figure out very well, though a lot can be done with wood or reed.

You can do a lot without semiconductors or with very junk big ones scavenged from about anything. Scavenging plastics is easy too.

3. The biggest risk would again be personal security and mental health. These risks cannot be avoided but can be mitigated. Medicine would be set back by centuries. Advanced food preservation techniques would be unavailable... Leisure would be very limited at least initially.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com