Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vattic]

Is it just the people or does everything non-regional disappear as has been suggested by other posters?

UK:
Pro:North Sea Oil, decent centres of learning, few guns, stable government, the whole of Europe to expand into, coastal.
Con:High population density, reliance on imports, weak industry, reliance on finance.

I think the UK would do reasonably so long as we could expand our population into Europe. From what I understand we have more mouths than the land can feed. Even if we could increase farming enough to feed everyone we certainly wouldn't be at full capacity before the apocalypse.

We do have some extreme groups over here but with everyone else gone I don't know if they'd still be upset about immigration or the EU. Few of them are likely to be armed and I'd imagine the government would use both the army and the police to keep trouble at bay. I expect shops to get robbed.

I could be wrong. There could be mass rioting and panic. The government might try and keep order only to get overwhelmed. Food would run low and there would be starvation. People would organise as they will into smaller groups trying to survive. Once things settle down expansion into Europe would definitely be on the horizon but anything more technical I really don't know.

[Hubris Incalculable]

Lower Mainland BC:

Pros: 
- Lots of decent farmland
- Fishing
- Fresh water
- Weed
- Lots of natural resources to exploit to the north and east.
- Temperate climate.

Cons:
- Coffee shortage would ruin our hipster culture.
- A lot of our tourism/computing/office work type jobs wouldn't be needed, giving us a shortage of labour and skills.


Hmm.  There is probably a lot more cons that I can think of right now, but I think all and all we'd be in a pretty good state.  Food and temperate climate counts for a lot.  Our biggest problem would be getting people to switch from white-collar jobs to blue-collar jobs before we starve to death.

Hey. That's my region. What are you doing here? 

note- Rabbitsford

[LordBucket]

In the apocalypse, would your home region survive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

"An apocalypse translated literally from Greek refers to a revelation of something hidden meaning - hidden from human knowledge in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception.

In religious contexts it is usually a revelation of hidden meaning"


Yes, I'm pretty sure California would survive transcending from an age of darkness and deception into an era of understanding and freedom from falsehood.

[Vattic]

Yes, I'm pretty sure California would survive transcending from an age of darkness and deception into an era of understanding and freedom from falsehood.

I don't know. The truth can be painful .

[Kilroy the Grand]

New YorK:

Depends. If it killed off a alarge number of humans, then absolutley. It has a absolutely massive reserve of materials, infrastructure, and other materials. It has fresh water, trees, and all sorts of good stuff. It doesn't ge tthat cold in the winter, and a short walk north will take care of summer heat.

If not, No, not really. We are all going to die. The upstaters are all going to be ****ing fine. They've got everything they need, and wiill be in driving distance from a city, where mechanics and electronics may still exist.

So yes, New york is screwed. Staten island will be fine. No one cares aout staten island. Up staters will inherit the state, unless some New yorkers are dead, in which case The city will quickly rebuild.

Its interesting answer, If say about half or probably more of the city dies,the rest of the state and the city will be able to easily and peacefully rebuild. We're pretty damn industrious. If most of the city survived, I'll go hide out in Maine for a few months, come back, and there will be enough dead to rebuild, though as what remains to be seen.

I live in upstate new york, and if the apocalypse did happen I wouldn't want to be anywhere near NYC, for several very good reasons. The first of which is that 8.25 million people eat quite a bit of food, food that they have no capacity to grow or obtain that food for themselves. The second is that few people in NYC have any sort of meaningful survival skills whatsoever.

What would happen is that people would leave the cities to find food, escape the people killing them for food, not to mention the looting that would happen. If there was an apocalypse and a group of people started to rummage through my garden I'd just shoot them.

[Nilik]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Why wouldn't any region be able to "survive" if everyone else suddenly vanished?

[Scelly9]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Why wouldn't any region be able to "survive" if everyone else suddenly vanished?

No food, no oil, no common sense. I think you underestimate the stupidity of people.

[misko27]

New YorK:

Depends. If it killed off a alarge number of humans, then absolutley. It has a absolutely massive reserve of materials, infrastructure, and other materials. It has fresh water, trees, and all sorts of good stuff. It doesn't ge tthat cold in the winter, and a short walk north will take care of summer heat.

If not, No, not really. We are all going to die. The upstaters are all going to be ****ing fine. They've got everything they need, and wiill be in driving distance from a city, where mechanics and electronics may still exist.

So yes, New york is screwed. Staten island will be fine. No one cares aout staten island. Up staters will inherit the state, unless some New yorkers are dead, in which case The city will quickly rebuild.

Its interesting answer, If say about half or probably more of the city dies,the rest of the state and the city will be able to easily and peacefully rebuild. We're pretty damn industrious. If most of the city survived, I'll go hide out in Maine for a few months, come back, and there will be enough dead to rebuild, though as what remains to be seen.

I live in upstate new york, and if the apocalypse did happen I wouldn't want to be anywhere near NYC, for several very good reasons. The first of which is that 8.25 million people eat quite a bit of food, food that they have no capacity to grow or obtain that food for themselves. The second is that few people in NYC have any sort of meaningful survival skills whatsoever.

What would happen is that people would leave the cities to find food, escape the people killing them for food, not to mention the looting that would happen. If there was an apocalypse and a group of people started to rummage through my garden I'd just shoot them.

My point exactly. If say, 3/4 of the city die, we should be fine. Theres alot left over. If not, everyone will die. except Staten island. Maybe I should go there instead... Nah, fate worse then death. Besides the'll attract looters and such. Hmm, but no one will be able to get there.... Eh, its only temporary. Yeah, NYC is screwed. Once most of them are dead It'll be fine. But until then, welcome to nightmare Land. Total collapse. Unless Bloomberg gies Military dictater (which he might!), and aggresively startes stealing resources from nearby areas, while undergoing aggresive anti-starvation measures. This all leads too:

Really, it depends on what apoacalypse this is. Nuclear? Societatal collapse? Meteor coming to earth? OP doesn't say.  NYC might have alot left over in fallout shelters (Most  people don't notice, but NYC has alot of fallout shelters.), but maybe not. It depends on alot.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

North Carolina: Tossup. We've got a lot of heavy conservatives in the rural areas who would love to destroy all sense of progress if they could. Most of our local agriculture is tobacco and cotton, so that's not good. Most of the edible agriculture is sweet potatoes. Lots of pigs, but I doubt we could keep that going if everyone else vanished. I foresee a lot of breakaways outside of the urbanized regions. Nuclear power wouldn't last long without a uranium supply, but domestic coal would.

Boone: Survival likely. Not a lot of people to feed, lots of wilderness, and ASU provides wind and solar power that could definitely be put into overdrive. Biggest problem would be political. ASU is very liberal, Boone natives are very conservative. Its like throwing together base and acid if things start to go bad.

Raleigh: Screwed. Most of the city will have to leave or starve.

[Xantalos]

Pacific Northwest:
Pro: Lots of farmland in the east, lots of townland in the west, tons of consumer goods. Electric Dam.
Con: Right wing nutjobs to the east, Bears, wolves, Me.

I'd be too busy watching and laughing to be a pro or a con, but still.

[misko27]

Pacific Northwest:
Pro: Lots of farmland in the east, lots of townland in the west, tons of consumer goods. Electric Dam.
Con: Right wing nutjobs to the east, Bears, wolves, Me.

I'd be too busy watching and laughing to be a pro or a con, but still.

Ih yes, I forgot, I am a substantial con to NYC. I can already imagine myself leading raiders.

[Scelly9]

Me and my robotics group would be making robotic tanks. Mwahahahaha.

[Xantalos]

Pacific Northwest:
Pro: Lots of farmland in the east, lots of townland in the west, tons of consumer goods. Electric Dam.
Con: Right wing nutjobs to the east, Bears, wolves, Me.

I'd be too busy watching and laughing to be a pro or a con, but still.

Ih yes, I forgot, I am a substantial con to NYC. I can already imagine myself leading raiders.

If I were nvolved, I imagine I'd either be of no import whatsoever, or a tyranical overlord.

[Loud Whispers]

I think the UK would do reasonably so long as we could expand our population into Europe. From what I understand we have more mouths than the land can feed. Even if we could increase farming enough to feed everyone we certainly wouldn't be at full capacity before the apocalypse.

Potato famine = GG

[Ancre]

France :

We're probably going to be fine. We already produce a lot of food, our cities aren't really car-dependent, and if we ever need something else, well there's the rest of Europe around us, and we can just walk there.

The biggest if is always energy. I don't know what resources France and its immediate neighbors have (we can always just settle in now-desert Germany for coal or something). I know we use a lot of nuclear for electricity, but I don't know how much reserves we have. But we probably have enough to send people to Niger or wherever nuclear-related ore is so we can start digging again.