Same would be true if you dropped off a million wild black bears in their natural habitat. The natural environment just can't support that many large animals in a small area.
Go look at Gaza or Lebanon if you want to look into the future of what being in a city that is dominated by a technologically capable adversary with no remorse would look like.
Hahaha, bless. I'm one of those people, I hunt, so I spend a lot of time out in the wilderness.
And if civilisation suddenly collapsed? My hunting and survival skills aren't going to do shit when I'm surrounded by thousands of other people who are competing for the same limited pool of resources. I might be able to identify the signs that a deer has browsed here recently, but so can many other people, and when we all turn up in the same forest looking for food en masse, well there's only so many deer a given area can support.
> Drop someone from humanity’s hunter-gatherer days into the same situation and they’d have a better chance of surviving than most contemporary humans.
Unfortunately, as the contemporary humans will likely resort to banditry to supplement their survival chances, your idealized hunter-gatherers are doomed to being stood over at best, murderered at worst.
A hunter-gatherer dropped into a metropolis where all the logistics has suddenly failed would be as dead as everybody else.
I didn’t suggest that it could, but the number that it can support is certainly more than zero. If that’s the only choice in a hypothetical scenario where global infrastructure goes kablooey, then people who can figure out how to provide for themselves will outlive those who can’t. From there it’s natural selection.
You're statistically likely to simply be stuck in collapsing logistics system alongside everyone else: whether you can kill and dress your own rabbit doesn't matter because their aren't any.
But then there's rabbit starvation... https://web.archive.org/web/20090405155151/https://www.westo...