Humans have lived without plowed crops for millennia, and still do in some places. Potatoes, corn, squashes and dried beans for starch. Chickens and rabbits for protein. These are readily doable on small acreage, no plowing required. I’m not very serious about homesteading but I have a milk goat and a flock of hens and a summer vegetable and fruit garden. There’s also fishing, and in the projected human population collapse, game would make a comeback.
And the eastern Roman Empire kept going for quite some time after the west was swallowed up by the barbarians.
i disagree … think: if tomorrow the bombs fall, are you prepared to feed yourself and family for a year with your homesteading? the answer is most likely no
Presumably you could get by on canned and preserved foods while you figure out how to grow, forage or hunt other food.
Individuals can do that, but not all eight billion of us because the Earth’s current population is heavily dependent on global trade and industrialized agriculture. There won’t be agriculture based on chemical fertilizers, weed and insect control, or powered irrigation.
Isn’t the assumption that only some of the eight billion are still alive?
The issue is that seven billion people are not going to disappear in the Rapture. When you have eight billion people around and only enough food for one billion (or maybe less), there will be a lot of fighting by people trying to ensure that they and their family are among the minority that doesn’t starve. Once people realize that other people have to die in order for their own children to live, people will start seeing that other people are a threat just by being alive. And it’ll be virtually impossible to maintain any level of organization when that mentality sinks in.
There are so many different collapse scenarios that you perhaps should outline a particular scenario. Because outcomes would be radically different based on those scenarios. One poster proposes that there won’t be agriculture based on chemical fertilizer or powered irrigation? Why? There are certainly reasons that might happen, but can you specify them? Why is there food for a billion with eight billion people still around. Again, many possible scenarios, but please pick one.
i wonder if this has anything to do with the op
its made 10 mil this weekend
If infrastructure collapsed, but Earth’s population survived, then yes, the world would be laid waste by wars over food and water.
If there was an immense sudden calamity which killed 90% of humans but left the rest of Earth’s creatures alive, the remaining 10% could well live on the remains of civilization until they could stabilize their means of survival.
If there was a long-drawn-out decline into climate collapse, area wars expanding into global wars, poor countries experiencing permanent extreme famine and rich countries turning into autocracies ruled by warlords, I don’t hold out a lot of hope. This, indeed, is our most plausible trajectory.
I wonder about that. I don’t have much faith in humanity, and think that civilization would completely break down.
I don’t like humanity but I don’t underestimate the resourcefulness of the species. People are very good at surviving, given the impetus. The learned helplessness and passivity of modern society is a thin veneer.
Our current civilization would certainly break down.
Some other civilization(s) would eventually emerge. In the meantime, there would be some pockets of people doing better than others; by various techniques, some of those more pleasant than others.
Peak oil.
Feudalism. People would need to band together for protection and survival.
Actual real life violence is expensive. Even raiders need to maintain a home base, otherwise what’s the point. Come to think of it, probably a minority of our wars and violence have results from deprivation. They instead seem to happen when we have problems that could theoretically be solved, but one or many parties aren’t in agreement as to how that happens.
The Three Sisters (your corn, beans, and squash) sustained a lot of Native Americans… when supplemented with hunting and fishing. Potatoes grow a lot of calories for the space they need… as long as blight doesn’t hit.
In all cases, though, growing enough to actually feed yourself for a year takes more space and a LOT more work than the average suburbanite realizes. Then you have to know how preserve and store the surplus to see you through the winter.
You could, in the sense that it is possible, but most people just don’t have sufficient stored food to make it through the learning curve.
Yes, but how we get from where we are now to that point is going to be very, very ugly…
Also, some of them will figure out/remember that humans are made of meat. As I said, things will get very, very ugly…
But all that assumes are relatively sudden collapse. If the collapse is a series of set backs that occur over a few decades it could be gradual enough that you don’t get a Mad Max scenario because people have time to adapt. You’ll still have die-offs, just not as extreme or rapid.
Without modern agriculture, though, you won’t have eight billion humans. Subsistence agriculture isn’t efficient enough for that.
What is is the average net worth? I suppose “average” might not be the right specification.
“5 lbs*” of gold, costs about $160,000. Is the average adult in America worth $160,000? I don’t know. But I doubt it. Globally, no way.
*We’ll leave out the Troy lbs versus Avoirdupois lbs.
Sure, and then when post-apocalyptic Joe T Baker sees a nice 1 pound gold bracelet and says “that’ll be the bracelet for this loaf of bread or you can go hungry”, I hope that ~$32,000 goes far in the afterlife.
It is, but as someone smarter than I pointed out, nobody ever mounts an expedition to the bottom of the sea to recover some long lost monarchs checkbook. Currency is an obligation of the issuing agency, and they can renege or default. Which is a better speculation after a government collapses? The US dollar was long stashed by folks with sketchy governments and dodgy currencies around the world. They LOVED dollars when I was in Cambodia - but they were super picky - no tears, no bent corners or anything like that.
Gold, and silver to a lesser extent, are unique in that they have tended to be used as money for thousands of years, without any compulsion. Gold has actually been made illegal to use as money, but that didn’t make it un-valuable, just un-lawful.
The whole thing is nuts, certainly, but it sort of illustrates the problem. Money is an abstraction, but it used to be defined. The unit of account is important when we’re talking about economics or accounting, or anything else.
Well, yes, but that’s still my point. You can go around with a bunch of gold but saying “as valuable as” anything loses meaning.
Sure, gold probably has some value at that point but expecting a fixed volume of gold to have the same or similar buying power as it does at this moment makes no sense. 5 pounds of gold can mean you live like a king after a collapse. Or it can mean you have enough to live on for a month. It is unlikely to mean “same relative economic status as now”.