That’s not true. That article is focused on maintaining a small population on a space craft, where the population has to remain small for 8 to 10 generations. The most serious effects of inbreeding happen not when the population is reduced to a small number, but when it remains small over many generations. If a founder population was not constrained by availability of resources, it would rapidly expand and most genes originally present would be maintained in the population.
Inbreeding can cause problems, but lack of genetic diversity is not a death sentence for populations. The Cheetah has notoriously low genetic diversity (individuals can receive skin grafts from others without rejecting them), probably due to a past population bottleneck, but until recently it was highly successful with an enormous range across much of Africa and southern Asia.
One of the things I was thinking about this fall while sweeping up the leaves, and thinking about the variety of them. There are easily at least of ton of apples and stone fruit within a mile of my house every year. If you can can or even just dry it well enough to last till the next year you could have a good base to start from without even leaving my neighborhood. At least for a couple decades, you would probably need to learn to graft to continue it indefinitely.
I like to tell myself that growing up in a semi-rural area has given me boatloads of skills that would make me more likely to survive TEOTWAWKI than most of my Boston-Lowell-area brethren.
And the pandemic that killed of must of humanity also killed off most animals. There is one now, her calf, & a colony of crickets (the first insects the characters have seen in years).
If you have a better supported estimate for MVP in humans I’m interested to see it. This article was quoted in almost every other article I could find, whether talking about space travel or earth bound repopulation. Ones that did not use the study I linked to tend to have ludicrously high numbers, like an MVP of 5,000 adults (any given species) or incredibly broad rangeslike 100 - 10,000 adults (again, any given species).
The actual number is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine. This is the best I could find.
I would think solar and wind would be their best bet for electricity. Mining for coal or refining gasoline is going to be difficult for the little group whereas scavenging solar panels would be fairly easy especially if living in Southern California is the choice.
On the other hand I don’t think Southern California would be the best choice since without massive efforts to redirect water it would be a desert.
I think you may be misunderstanding the significance of MVP. My point is that the minimum viable population is one that will ensure survival at that level for a particular amount of time (often 100 to 1000 years) in the future at a 90-95 percent probability. It is not the minimum level to which population can be reduced for a single generation, which is much smaller. Therefore the estimate of a MVP of 160 individuals is irrelevant to what initial starting population would be the minimum. In fact, the minimum can be as low as two, depending on how much of the total species variability those two individuals encompass and how quickly the population can increase.
Lets’s assume an initial population containing five fertile women, and adequate food and other resources so that childhood mortality is not excessive. If we assume that each woman produces three female offspring and a generation time of 25 years, the total population will be well above the estimated MVP within a century (and will continue to increase after that).
The MVP is a figure relevant to a stable population, not an expanding one.
Commercial canned goods that are properly stored have a shelf life of only a few years. It goes without saying that the canned goods in all those stores and restaurants will be exposed to temperature extremes and, after the roofs start leaking, to moisture. We won’t be eating canned goods for very long.
You wouldn’t need much in terms of natural water sources to supply the needs of a handful of people. So if one of the reservoirs is still full, they could be OK.
Shelf life for canned goods is just a way of convincing people to throw out their old cans and buy new ones.
Canned goods that are free of rust can last for decades. Yes, if the cans get wet then they’re going to rust out very quickly. If they are kept away from moisture then you can open that can of Pork and Beans 20 years later and it will be mostly OK. Check out the can from the inside to make sure there are no rust spots inside or punctures, then go ahead. Big problem will be the labels falling off.
I do agree that stocks of canned food will be most useful in the first decade, the survivors better get used to foraging soon.
Well you could probably use coal, mind you I’ve never seen coal in my life and wouldn’t know where to find any. Refined gasoline on the other hand has a finite life span and unstabilized unleaded gasoline starts to break down and lose octane after 90 days. With a stabilizing agent you could possibly get it to last up the 3 years but that means getting the stabilizer out to all the gas pumps you can find as quickly as possible. Diesel will last up to a year depending on temperature and storage conditions I’m not sure about stabilizers but as diesel gets older a fine sediment and gum forms in the diesel brought about by the reaction of diesel components with oxygen from the air. The fine sediment and gum will block fuel filters, leading to fuel starvation and the engine stopping. Frequent filter changes are then required to keep the engine going. The gums and sediments do not burn in the engine very well and can lead to carbon and soot deposits on injectors and other combustion surfaces.
Either way within 5 years you’d better have either developed the ability to refine crude or found a different way to power your society. Hope one of your survivors was a petrochemical engineer.