A handful of people in the US are all the only known survivors of a global plague. Assume that (unlike on the TV show) they are serious about surviving indefinitely, where would be the best place for them to settle down?
Are cities still intact, just deserted? Or are have they been wiped out? Id resettle somewhere with existing, working infrastructure.
San Diego, easiest weather/temperature to survive in without heat/AC.
Let’s see . with rising sea levels , inland a bit would be good. and year round growing season.or like nomads of old . hunting and gathering, in a mobile mode.
Are they allowed to leave the borders of what was the US? If so, perhaps someplace like Greece might be good - not too cold, plenty of farmland, and plenty of nearby cities to scavenge for equipment and materials.
Since the answer to this will depend on the initial scenario and assumptions (some of which considerations have already been pointed out) I think this is better suited to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I think it depends on how large a group of people we’re talking about. Some place where the land is ready for farming and with access to fresh water would be important. If hydroelectric power plants can be maintained by the group Las Vegas would be a consideration (assuming no one in the group is named Flagg).
Not enough rain. You’d really need something like 30" annually to sustain crops. Combined with being reasonably warm year-round that’s more like a city on the Gulf Coast. Unfortunately, that opens up to hurricanes on the coast and tornados inland.
What about Northern California? Plus wouldn’t cities like San Francisco, Portland and maybe Seattle (all being within a days drive) also make it easy to resupply since I would assume people interested in sustainable living would live in all 3 cities.
Wait, when you say “only known survivors,” are you just talking about humans, or animals, too?
Assuming that the basic ecosystem has survived, the plague only infected humans, I would think about the pre-Columbian indians. Regions where they did well would be a logical first choice.
With that in mind, the middle Mississippi valley and southeast US look like good bets. Not to cold in the winter, plenty of water, relatively easy travel (rivers), lots of cities to scavenge from.
Probably the easiest place to find a reliable supply of food without agriculture is the coastal Pacific Northwest. It was one of the few places in the world that was productive enough to support settled (non-nomadic) hunter-gatherer cultures. Salmon runs and coastal shellfish and other marine resources provide lots of food without having to worry about growing crops. (You can do that too, but you don’t have to be dependent on it.) The maritime climate means it never gets too bitterly cold, either.
That’s what I was going to recommend. The Kumeyaay Indians lived here in very close to a state of nature. They’d migrate inland during the summer, then back to the coast in winter. There isn’t a lot of running water here…but enough for small groups.
On the TV show there are at least some domestic animals alive, so I’m going to assume all the animals survived. I’m also assuming that none of them are aircraft pilots so they would be restricted to where they could travel to by cars or boats small enough for them to handle.
San Diego does seem too dry; they wouldn’t be able to maintain major irrigation infrastructure. I like the idea of the Mississippi valley–at least in the south where the winters wouldn’t get too cold. Maybe central Mexico would suit. Would that be easy living?
I would think that would be a safe assumption, that none of the animals were pilots.
I have no real personal experience with Southern California, but that was my take on the area from reading a bit of history. I can see where the PNW would work as well, but with larger temperature extremes.
The OP gives “a handful” for the group size. There isn’t going to be anyway that a small group could maintain a hydroelectric power plant, but energy would be a consideration. I suppose that they could use gasoline or coal since CO2 output isn’t going to be a major problem anymore.
Someplace with a dry climate would be good for preserving the food, electronics, cars and whatever that they want to keep around since they wouldn’t be able to manufacturer any replacements.
Colibri’s answer was the first thing I thought of as well. Surely someone has mapped “shellfish middens”; eliminate those with modern industrial contamination (e.g., presumably, the Hudson River mouth area), and pick one with the gentlest climate. I’m guessing it will be around coastal Oregon, but perhaps it will be, say, coastal South Carolina.
My guess of South Carolina might work – it’s the one US location mentioned in this survey piece which includes a short list of key shell midden sites.
Sorry, that link was to the South Carolina site. Here’s the account of shell middens in general.