Just finished The Passage, part of which portrays life for a small colony in S. California after a viral vampire apocalypse. Dependent on wind generation, decaying technology, very limited knowledge of the outside world, much shortened life expectency, essentially living as a subsistence farming village…
Canticle for Leibowitz is an enjoyable book, but its main premise of the postwar people all over the world deliberately destroying all technology is, well, unrealistic. Come to think of it, even if most societies out there go mad and do that, the ones that don’t will end up taking over the world and rebuilding it as a reasonably high tech place in short order. In practice this principle would work not just on the international level but also on the level of towns or regions within a single country. A disciplined, technically competent proto-state will always win out against the luddite hippies in the long run.
Dengue fever, which even now is making a comeback in Florida might also be a problem. However, I’m with Blake cold kills much more than hurricanes or fever.
I am currently working through Stirling’s Emberverse, which is alt history but still post-apocalypse. Starting with The Sunrise Lands and the books following it, it is over 20 year post Change.
Yes, except we have clothes, and houses, and fireplaces. So cold need not kill.
Hurricanes were a much more deadly force when we couldn’t see them coming. (See Galveston, 1900 – and that was with at least some forecasting capacity.) One reason they’re not so deadly now is that we have satellite weather views that allow us to see them coming and evacuate or batten down the hatches in advance. Hurricanes can strike surprisingly quickly (as at Galveston). In our post-apocalyptic world they would be a deadly threat to anyone foolish enough to live on the Florida coast.
Florida would be a nightmare of a place to live without air conditioning, weather forecasts and insecticides. There’s a reason it was the last part of the eastern seaboard to be populated.
You’re assuming that Florida isn’t already a nightmare to live in. 
There’s a reason Fark has a Florida tag.
So why do you think it won’t also return to Oregon, California and New York?
But we have clothes, and houses, and fireplaces today. And right now, today, cold kills tens of thousands of people every single year. So obviously cold *does *need to kill despite having clothes, and houses, and fireplaces.
Yep, worst hurricane in history. Killed 12, 000 people.
Cold killed more than thatlast year alone in the US, and last year was mild winter.
Kinda puts it into perspective, no?
But objectively they are orders of magnitude less of a threat than cold would be to anyone foolish enough to live north of Louisiana.
This is simply, provably and objectively not true.
As already noted, Miami had less of problem with insect borne diseases than New York or DC prior to the invention of insecticides.
Weather forecasts don’t do a damn thing to reduce cold deaths, which are orders of magnitude greater than any weather related deaths that ever occur in Florida.
Yes, because a lot of it *was *marsh, which we *didn’t *have the technology to drain. Note the use of past tense.
This is quite amusing. People all over theworld have always complained about the climates they didn’t grow up in. Romans complained about the climate in Northern Europe, Northern Europeans complained about the climate around the Mediterranean, Indians complained about the climate in England, English complained about the climate in India. Almost everybody thinks the climate they grew up in in is perfect and that weather everywhere else is hellish.
I had hoped the SDMB would be better, and that objective facts might play some role.
"Yep, worst hurricane in history. Killed 12, 000 people. Cold killed more than that last year alone in the US, and last year was mild winter.
Kinda puts it into perspective, no?"
You’re equating deaths in a small area with deaths across an entire country. The population pools are entirely different, and of course most of those deaths will be the elderly, while hurricanes will kill a wide range of ages, and could devastate a small colony.
Ie from your link:
“Not surprisingly, those hardest hit by both heat and cold waves are adults 75 years of age or older”.
There are also choices between Florida and Chicago, which is the kind of area they use as examples of severe cold effects.
Otara
It doesn’t kill anyone with brains and resources to stay indoors, wear clothes, and keep a fire. So what sort of people does cold kill? Homeless people and old people mostly. Sad, but not losses that would devastate our theoretical post-apocalyptic society, any more than they devastate our modern society.
Besides, it’s not just a question of raw numbers of deaths. Hurricanes don’t just kill people. They destroy infrastructure. Look at the pictures of Miami after the 1926 hurricane. Not really a risk we want to take with our fragile, rebuilding civilization, is it?
No, as Otara points out, you are comparing apples and oranges. A single incident in one location versus an entire season across the entire nation.
You must be joking. You really think the risk of freezing to death is a significant deterrent to settlement in, say, Arkansas, or Tennessee, or Virginia, or North Carolina? (All of which are north of Louisiana.)
That means nothing unless the stats are analyzed on a per capita basis. New York had more deaths because it was more populous. Few people were foolish enough to live in Florida before the advent of insecticides and air conditioning.
So you are under the impression that mosquitoes are not a problem in Florida? (I can hear Florida dopers laughing.)
Indeed. People’s ignorance of the climates in which they didn’t grow up is astounding.
(You did grow up in Florida, right?)
Not really, no.
The death rate from storms (including hurricanes) in Florida is 0.3/million. The death rate from cold in Oregon is 2.3. Heck, the death rate from storms in Oregon is 0.2. Florida is slightly smaller than Oregon, but it’s not 8 times smaller.
The death rate from cold in Ohio is 1.1/million, the death rate from storms in Ohio is 0.3/million, compared to a death rate from storm in Florida of 0.2/million. Florida is slightly larger than Ohio.
-
Hurricanes mostly kill people at sea.
-
We aren’t talking about a small colony. We are talking about 5 million people.
-
In a post-apocalyptic world, the people you could *least *afford to lose are the elderly. As already noted by, after 20 years there will be a surplus of young adults. What will be in short supply are educated adults with knowledge of the pre-apocalyptic world. The most crucial thing would be extending the lifespan of the elderly as long as possible.
The actual proposed areas were “Ohio” and “NW America”. I never used Chicago as an example, I used Ohio and Oregon because those were the proposals given.
Maybe there is some better area. As I said, there is no such thing as a perfect climate. In terms of weather, the safest places to live in mainland USA are Connecticut, New York and California. Florida ranks 9th. However those figures are going to be distorted by the proportion of elderly people living in the region, degree of development and so forth. Moreover the scenario requires us to factor in availability of resources such as agricultural land and water.
The point is that the objections raised to Florida, that it is climatically dangerous and disease prone, are provably not true. Florida is much less disease prone and has much less dangerous weather than any alternative region suggested so far.
This idea that anywhere the differs from the place you grew up is a hellhole has no basis in reality.
The Lancet says that you are completely and utterly wrong.
I trust the world’s premier, per reviewed medical journal over you.
Of course, whereas hurricanes and heat do devastate our modern society.
Oh wait, no they don’t.
You are quite right. I had quite forgotten that, and we all knowthat storms in otherregionsdon’t devastate infrastructure at all.
Oh hang on. They do. And far, far more frequently. They cause more damage,more frequently and it costs more to repair. Would you like to take a guess at what regions have the highest insurance claims for storm damage to structures? (Hint: it isn’t Florida).
Once again, you are looking at something dramatic and extremely rare and ignoring events that are common elsewhere. You don’t have to go back to 1923 to find photographs of comaparable infrastructure damage to the one you posted from Florida.
Where did I say anything remotely like that?
Do you believe that the risk of hurricane is a deterrent to settlement in Florida?
Done that. The per capita figures support my point even more clearly.
Once again, where did I ever say that?
You are however apparently of the belief that storms never cause any infrastructure damage outside of Florida.
In the sense of "Never went within a thousand miles of it before I was 18. Yeah. :rolleyes:
“4) In a post-apocalyptic world, the people you could least afford to lose are the elderly. As already noted by, after 20 years there will be a surplus of young adults. What will be in short supply are educated adults with knowledge of the pre-apocalyptic world. The most crucial thing would be extending the lifespan of the elderly as long as possible.”
An interesting point but a bit embarrassing if you do have a Galveston level event. Death rate doesnt take into account spikes in time so is not sufficient by itself when making comparisons.
Old people are valuable, but not if you have to risk the entire colony to preserve them. Yes there will be eventually 5 million people, but you had to start off with a much smaller number to get to that point, which would be far more vulnerable to point events like hurricanes.
Comes down to long term worse odds vs the chance of a rarer devastating event in my view. My hope would be for colonies in both areas so as to cover your bets.
Otara
Wrong. As already pointed out, 5 million is the starting number.
The population of North America is ~500 million. 1% of that is 5 million. You start with 5 million survivors.
Since no hurricane in the entire history of the world has come close to killing 5 million people or affecting an area greater than even 1% of Florida, it’s absurd to suggest that hurricanes are putting the entire colony at risk.
Even more absurd is ignoring the fact that hurricanes kill far, far fewer people in any time period than cold, and that hurricanes cause far, far less damage than storms elsewhere.
Considering factors that put the population at risk is worthwhile. Ignoring what are provably the greatest risks because hurricanes are rare and spectacular is absurd.
At least people seem to have given upon the idea that heat is somehow a problem, a contention raised three times earlier in the thread.
Now we just need to work on weather and disease. 
Yeah, I don’t hear any good reason you have to put all your eggs in the Florida basket. It’s true that Florida is a major agricultural center, but y’know you can easily put that produce on a train and send it to a population center further north-- and out of the path of devastating hurricanes. No need to have all your population in Florida just because farms are there.
You want to link something we can read, or shall we just take your word for it?
Anyway, the first article you linked made it clear that the elderly are the ones especially at risk from death by cold weather. From that article:
And if those people are as vital to our new civilization as you say, we will take steps to protect them from the cold. (And hmmm. “Both heat and cold.” Guess heat is a problem after all, huh?)
Haven’t been to New Orleans lately, have you? It is still struggling to recover from Katrina five years after the fact. And that is with the rest of the nation’s infrastructure to call upon. Imagine if it had been a stand-alone population center.
Not now that we can more-or-less accurately predict landfall. But people abandoned Miami in droves after the 1926 hurricane. So yeah, in a society without satellites, hurricanes are a serious deterrent.
Really? Where are they? Oh yeah, I guess we’ll have to take your word for it again.
And you are apparently unaware of the breadth and scope of hurricane damage, as compared to localized storms. Katrina devastated an enormous stretch of coastline. It didn’t just knock down a few power lines. Without the rest of the nation’s resources to draw upon, that kind of damage could send your fledgling civilization right back to square one.
Irony is wasted on you. I know you’re British. You are idealizing a climate (Florida’s) with which you are (obviously, painfully) unfamiliar. Based on what? A happy vacation there once, or even a few times? You are like a blind man describing an elephant.
It’s hardly my fault that you are arguing about a subject on which you lack both knowledge and the ability to research.
Well here’s a popular press article on the same data
Nobody ever said otherwise. What I am disgusted by is your claim that any old person who dies of cold is either stupid or poor to afford heating or stay inside.
But not from hurricanes. :rolleyes:
Gee, you can’t stop the strawmen form coming today, can you?
Who ever said otherwise? Some ignorant people suggested that hurricanes and heat would make Florida dangerous. I pointed out that heat and hurricanes combined kill far, far, far fewer people than cold.
Nobody ever said that heat wasn’t a problem, only that it is far less of a problem than cold. In fact I have said several times that there is no such thing as a perfect climate.
But hey, construct your strawmen if it allows you to blame old people for their own deaths and thus feel better about yourself. :rolleyes:
-
Do you realise that N. O isn’t in Florida? The South isn’t one big state. You do know that, right?
-
On December 14, 1987, a tornado killed six people and caused approximately $35 million in damage. The town had not recovered from the tornado damage when it flooded from twelve inches of rain on December 25, 1987. In addition to that, seven to ten inches of snow fell on January 6, 1988. When the snow began to melt, this added to the already existing flood problems and the destruction caused by the tornado.
-
So you pick the worst example in history, something that has literally never happened before, and use that as your standard?
How long did it take San Francisco to recover from the 1906 earthquake? So I guess that rules out California too, right?
how long did it take Heppner to recover after it;s floods? So I guess that rules out Oregon too, right?:rolleyes:
Are you really unaware of how absurd and ignorant this is? If you pick the single worst disaster in any region then of course it will have taken a long time time for the region to recover. this sort of hasty generalisation is why science and logical thinking relies on multiple data points.
But again, if it makes you feel better about yourself, go for it. Ignore the fact that the weather related death toll is much lower in Florida than in Oregon. Ignore the fact a far greater percentage of people died in Heppner than in N. O. Ignore the fact the it took SF far longer to recover form the earthquake than N.O from the floods.
You just keep cherry picking data that fits with your preconceptions while ignoring the actual facts if it makes you feel good.
Can you not read?
"The death rate from storms (including hurricanes) in Florida is 0.3/million. The death rate from cold in Oregon is 2.3. Heck, the death rate from storms in Oregon is 0.2. Florida is slightly smaller than Oregon, but it’s not 8 times smaller.
The death rate from cold in Ohio is 1.1/million, the death rate from storms in Ohio is 0.3/million, compared to a death rate from storm in Florida of 0.2/million. Florida is slightly larger than Ohio."
Once again, you are deliberately ignoring the facts so that you can cherry pick spectacular events that you think support your preconceived notions.
Well I’ve had enough. When I post figures and your then lie and say that I haven’t I see no point in continuing to engage with such a dishonest person.
You believe whatever you need to believe to be happy, and enjoy your life.
Galveston was devastated by a hurricane in 1900…and again in 1915.
New Orleans was clobbered by Hurricane Camille in 1969…and Katrina in 2005.
Miami was wiped out in 1926…and hit by Andrew in 1992.
Hurricanes hit somewhere in Florida almost every year. These are not rare events. The really powerful ones are further apart, but even those are hardly rare. See above.
And still you are ignoring the breadth of damage a major hurricane can cause, and the difficulty in recovering from that for a fledgling, Florida-only civilization.
Can you not read? My per capita comment related to deaths from malaria.
You can have Florida. I’m staying in the Midwest - where the soil is the best in the world for all sorts of staple crops and we get four distinct seasons. Currently, if someone dies in their home from a cold winter it’s because they couldn’t afford heat. In a post-apocalyptic scenario you’d have essentially limitless firewood for your woodburning stove.
I’d wager an agrarian society in proximity to the Mississippi River would fare extremely well. Transportation is much easier by using the river as your highway - especially for trading. Rivers require none of the maintenance of roads. Even in the total absence of motorized craft, respectable mileage can be had with a simple canoe. Flat-bottomed sailboats can be knocked together and run against the current surprisingly well - and through quite shallow water. You’d have a superhighway that runs the length of the country. I could see steamboats making a big comeback.
When there’s only 1% of people left, you’ll get your choice of house and location - so noone needs to live on a hundred year floodplain. A big river would be a good source of power too - whether it’s a waterwheel for a mill or a hydroelectric turbine.
Corn, soy, wheat, and loads of other crops/feed all thrive in this region. There’s plenty of grazing land for cattle and sheep too. Illinois and Missouri actually have some great up-and-coming vineyards as well. It has the potential to be idyllic.
Someone else who didn’t read the thread.
Blake, it’s entirely possible for people to read the thread and still think you’re wrong.
No cite you’ve provided gives us any information which conflicts with what drastic-quench wrote.
Nope, I read it. I disagree with your premise that heat is less of a problem than cold. When shade and liquids don’t cool you off enough, you need pretty advanced tech to get the job done - electric fans, AC, etc - and they all need power and maintenance. Cold? Fire and a fur. Lots of tech that we have to currently help keep us warm doesn’t require maintenance or a power grid, like layering up on wool, smartfibers, and using insulation in structures. If nearly everyone is dead, all of that will be lying around for the taking, and once they’re gone new batches are relatively easy to create - like wool and goose down. Clearly furnaces don’t fit this bill, but those are handily replaced by cast iron wood-burning stoves.