You can’t build a long-lasting civilization on it, though. You can get maybe an early Jericho or a PacificNW-village-level culture out of it, but for more, you need to farm.
Why couldn’t we (I’ll allow for small-scale, non-intensive agriculture)? Sure, in the past we needed really big populations to survive against famine, plague, and the like, and to construct the big objects of civilization that survive for centuries, but couldn’t we hedge against disaster and build the structures we need with modern know-how and just a few thousand people?
Let’s say it’s the Pacific NW (which I’ve championed). We bring modern food-preservation knowledge… so we need small-scale glass-making, or tin-smelting, to make containers, and we sustainably fish, hunt, and gather, preserving our surplus fish/meat/fruit/etc. in cans and jars. With the bounty of sea-life and forest-life that region holds, we’ll probably have plenty of time to build the things and develop (small-scale) the industries that will give us the most comfortable life we can, while expanding slowly – no need for the 12 kids so 6 survive to gather in the summer harvest.
How does large-scale agriculture make it better? Besides beer, of course. And beer might be reason enough, I’ll grant you.
I suppose the faster you can get growing and expanding, the more chance you have of surviving disastrous weather events.
The Great Sun Jester makes an interesting point about religious leanings, and it’s part of a wider issue about why the people going have chosen to go. How many couples are going to get through the portal to the base camp, and then just fuck off in search of an unspoilt Niagara Falls or something to build their ‘perfect’ houses?
Isaac Asimov’s Living Space pretty much is exactly this scenario.
Only those with a suicide wish.
Whaddayamean? There’s TONS of tech in the PacNW! 
Just to deal with one thing already discussed here - you need a surplus of grain to provide the corn-based growth medium for antibiotic cultures to grow on.
I’m not saying you can’t survive as a group without agriculture. Mead is better than beer, after all. But you’ll always be restricted to one small area (PacNW, Levant, etc) and will have to control your population quite a bit. And I’m going to be in this colony : I like salmon and venison and berries, just not enough to base my entire diet around it…
If you want to do things like mine for iron for new tools, you’ll need more than a subsistence existence, even in a place as abundant as the PacNW. The pyramid of industry rests on a broad base of sustenance-providers. Or are you content to manage with stone tools when we know better?
(1) Where would you set up, given anywhere in the world?
Somewhere where there was fresh water and some sort of vegetation to make shelter out of and presumably some form of food. After I was established I may think about navigating to a different area if need be.
(2) What kit would you bring?
perhaps a knife, if I had one, otherwise I could find or make a sharp rock to do the same job. Not much that needs being done that can’t be done with a knife or sharp rock.
(3) Would you go with them?
Depends on who they were and where they were going. Just because someone is anxious and antsy and may appear to be leading the pack, doesn’t mean they are thinking rationally and making rational decisions.
You’ll still need the 12 kids for many generations until the population grows large enough to support the infrastructure required to keep them alive. Diseases and injuries will still be major killers for a century or more. You may be inoculated against tetanus, measles, smallpox, etc, but your children won’t be.
And don’t forget predators. Wolves, bears, lions, tigers, etc depending upon where you set up.
Geez…just think of how much ammo you’d need to take…
I kid, I kid
I’d start in mainland Europe, not England. Even in the current climate, winters can be harder that you’d expect, certainly without good shelter and heating, and who knows what alterna-Earth is like? At least on the mainland, there’s a good chance of travelling somewhere warmer, but in the first year I don’t see how the colony would safely get over the channel if winter got unexpectedly wild and cold.
Safer to start somewhere warmer, with the possibility of moving somewhere warmer still, at least until the first year or so has passed, and the settlement has reached the point where building large boats is more practical.
Graphite’s useful and all, but at a point where your first harvest is tiny because it was sown in rough ground, your chicken and sheep flocks are still establishing, the carpenters are starting from whole trees and everyone is frantically trying to learn the basics of survival in a new environment, it’s not the time to be worrying about being near stuff that will be useful to the group 20 years down the line. It’s not as though anyone else is going to get there first and take it.
As for would I go- it’d be tempting, very tempting; to get a chance to see animals no living human has seen (there’d still be moas! Aurochs! Maybe mammoths!), maybe even animals we don’t have any records of! To live somewhere where discovery was easy- go on a scouting trip, and every single thing you see was previously unseen by human eyes. To be part of founding of a new civilisation, maybe affecting the very way it develops, and the rules and traditions of the future.
On the other hand there’d be no Wi-Fi., and it would be a hell of a lot of work. And I’d probably get stuck growing wheat and chickens for the rest of my life, and never get to see anything anyway.
Wolves? They don’t attack humans as a rule, no matter what works of fiction wants you to believe. There’s no confirmed human deaths attributable to wolves within the last 200 years in Finland for example.
Bears are almost the same, though I guess that depends whether we are talking about Alaskan grizzlies or brown bears or what. As long as you don’t mess with them or their cubs at least the local brown bears leave humans alone. IIRC they’ve killed one human in the last 100 years in Finland. I’d be more afraid of lightning.
Lions or tigers are a bit scarier. One more reason to stay out of the tropical areas.
Predators are much more likely to be a problem when it comes to livestock, especially in the first few years when there are so few.
Also, though I agree that dangerous animals are a!much smaller threat than some people are suggesting, quite a bit of the noted reluctance of many animals to attack humans is simply due to the fact that we’ve killed those that weren’t wary of us.
Don’t forget about education. Presumably the warehouse o’ stuff would have a few tablets with the full “how to build a civilization, from farming to fission” wiki, but if you don’t have a means to keep the colonists educated and capable of accessing that knowledge, it’ll be next to worthless inside a few generations. The settlements need to be stable ASAP so that children can spend at least a portion of their time learning rather than helping their families struggle to exist.
And it might be the only time in human history that the M27/M3 corridor isn’t tailbacked up. Although there’s probably no guarantee sadly.
Okay, that’s a good point. I wonder if small-scale agriculture would be enough for this, or if we’d need very large scale agriculture.
I think this is assuming stone-age technology and know-how. With modern know-how, I think life could be far better than subsistence – I don’t see why agriculture would be necessary for things like metalwork, considering what we know now. In a place with the bounty of the PacNW, a few full time fishermen, hunters, and gatherers should be able to feed many, many more people who would be free to specialize in other industries.
My inclination against agriculture in this case is based mainly on the understanding (IIRC) that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle allows much, much more leisure time than intensive agriculture – as well as being much healthier. The main advantage of intensive agriculture, as I understand it, is the ability to support a much larger population on a smaller piece of land… but without automation, the farms require most of the population to work.
Dengue is treated by supportive care. Malaria is prevented by quinine and IIRC also treated by supportive care.
But it is a point that we probably wouldn’t need major antibiotics – though god knows what might happen with what modern humans and animals carry on/in their bodies.
If we change the terms of the OP slightly, does it change people’s answers? Say, if the portal was permanent. You can still only make one, so that’s your sole point of entry into the new world, but people and equipment can pretty much freely transfer between the two.
Where would you put that portal?
Either someplace in the ocean so that container ships can sail through, or a good place for a rail line hub. ETA: “freely” is something of a misnomer- it would put an absolute limit on shipping volume, which would strongly effect the price of anything moved between worlds.
A permanent portal changes the dynamic completely.
Except in this new world the predators have developed no such fear, because humans were absent. In southern Britain, you’d have to look out for cave bears (bigger & meaner than grizzlies), wolves, and just maybe lions and leopards.
A rampaging herd of mastodon / elephants might be an issue too.