> energy isn't so much a technological concern as it might be a political concern
This is what irks me about these kinds of "collapse fantasy". Somebody described the apocalypse novels of John Wyndham (Day of the Triffids etc) as "cosy catastrophe", and that very much applies here. The laser focus on technological detail-hoarding while having blinders on to any consideration of the politics of the situation, or what might be called "material conditions".
Historically few societies collapsed without external pressure. Societies do not collapse, they are collapsed. And the force that's doing the collapsing is the thing you need to worry about.
It also can take a very long time to wane; while Rome may have split from the Roman Empire in 395, the eastern successor Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1806. And the microstates provide even weirder examples, like the Maltese feudal knights with a WW2 air force!
Yeah, the brief thinking I've ever done about the collapse in these scenarios is to potentially band together with some like minded friends and try to setup some subsistence group with hunting, light farming and security.
Firearms are highly regulated where I am from which makes the first and last a little more difficult than they potentially could be.
I really never gave it that much thought to be perfectly frank. Though the point is I feel semi conductors are pretty far down the order of priorities.
Light farming and hunting won’t work unless something like >50% of the population dies off quickly. Even then you’d still need to have everyone spread out pretty evenly across the countryside, be able to learn how to plant and do it on time. You’d be going back to subsistence farming which is extremely hard work. Fertilizer and fuel for tractors would not be replenished. You’d have to learn how to save seeds, irrigate without power and pumps, eventually how to plow with draft animals. If you aren’t already doing this now chances are you wouldn’t make it. That’s the problem I have with collapse fantasies, you’re either all in now or you’re dead. The safer bet is on working to prevent a collapse since that’s something you can do now that probably has immediate payoff unlike going all in on prepping.
In the UK we only just survived the WW2 blockade, with a highly centrally planned push to expand local agriculture to cover missing imports. Loss of imports forever will kill over 50% of the population, slowly.
The problem with transitioning to draft animals is preventing them getting eaten in the collapse. We'd probably also run out of trees in a few years.
(Collapsists should make more study of WW2, such as Beevor's magnificent, horrifying Stalingrad. Or the siege of Leningrad. Surrounded Soviet civilians died by the millions. And that wasn't a collapse in the collapsist sense, the social, legal and technological order remained somewhat intact)
Firearms are highly regulated where I am from which makes the first and last a little more difficult than they potentially could be.
In a collapse they won't be, and those willing to seize them, will be at a great advantage, police dept. military bases, even countries whose population don't have access to an abundance of guns doesn't mean there isn't an abundance in the country.
In almost any scenario where government collapse can occur, people will become the largest threat to survival.
The problem with security against other humans in the long term, is that we are damn clever, and determined. Even with an overwhelming firepower, if you are in a fixed location, people will find a way.
As for Hunting, it can be done without firearms, Crossbows and Traps can be highly effective, and simply constructed. What you have to think about is how much and what sort of wildlife their is around you, and how rapidly they will be depleted by others.
As they say, Hell is other people, best bet since the time of the plague, you want to survive go where others aren't.
Crossbows require a permit as well :) Can't have the population undermining that monoploy on force ;)
But I get your point.
Like I said I hadn't given it much thought, though if one could get a sustainably large commune group with reasonable access to weaponry it would hopefully be a deterrent for most small groups.
I'm in Australia which rather large. Clean water is the likely the most valuable commodity. It would be interesting to see how much of the population would actually survive such a collapse.
The "sustainable" "collapse" (again, what does this mean? end of imports including oil? large scale political turmoil with no clear winner?) level of Australian population would probably be larger than Aboriginal pre-invasion times (estimated 700k?) but not much more than that if you lose access to mechanically pumped water. It's not a very habitable place but the introduction of European crops and animals has irrevocably improved this. You're still looking at the likely death of nineteen out of every twenty Australians in this scenario.
(actually, having thought about this, the "collapse" scenario I'd be most worried about in Australia is average temperatures above human survivable levels plus wildfires. Not so much a collapse as a thorough incineration)
The last 12 months have been quite pleasant :) Plenty of rain and we only just had our first real heat wave, which was unpleasant but nothing insane.
The centre of Australia is positively hot, always has been.
When i was refering to sustainable i meant the size of the "survivor commune", you can only realistically control a small area for sustenance with out significant order and coordination, think more tribe than state. There are millions of kangaroos i suppose :)
If you have a collapse, I don't think permits on weapons are going to be a large concern. And after the collapse, they are one of the more simple to craft, and easy to operate weapons.
MadMax should be your go to guide right? (just kidding)
Large targets, can be whittled away over time, you basically become under siege, your attackers can leave anytime in small groups to gather supplies, you would be stuck at your parameter.
Think castles, after a while, they all fall through starvation, contamination, sabotage, etc..
> Hell is other people, best bet since the time of the plague, you want to survive go where others aren't.
I have played for a while on a Minecraft "anarchy server"[1]. You could consider it a very, very rough approximation of how anarchy would play out in real life. Your statement (if you are in a fixed location, people will find a way) closely mirrors my experience.
Even though, in the Minecraft natural environment, there are things that are dangerous (e.g. wild animals, "monsters", ravines, etc.), nothing comes close to the danger of meeting another player, possibly armed.
If you are a new player, the most challenging part is escaping spawn (the area where new players start from, which is also the only crowded area in the game). This is pretty hard because spawn is a wasteland with no natural resources left (in Minecraft you have a hunger meter so if you can't find food you will eventually die), and in addition spawn is populated by armed players who kill new players as a pastime.
Once you get to about 20 kilometres from spawn (20k blocks in Minecraft) you start finding food (trees from which you can get fruit, wood for building fishing poles, seeds that you can plant to start a small farm). However, you can't stay in the same place for long, because in a few weeks at most, some other player will find your base and steal your stuff and/or destroy the base.
Once you get to about a hundred kilometres from spawn (100k blocks in Minecraft), you can build a temporary base and hope that it will last a few months (mine lasted about 3 months).
Currently I have a base that is over one million blocks from spawn (i.e. more than 1000 kms) and I expect this may last for a longer period, maybe even years, so I'm building larger structures.
Obviously this is just a Minecraft server and doesn't accurately reflect real life.
Some elements are realistic, for example travelling speed[2], or the way natural resources are either renewable (plants, animals) or non renewable (minerals).
Some other elements are not that realistic, for example the number of players on the server is way smaller than the population of a typical city. This means that the "safe distance" from spawn might not reflect the safe distance from a major city in real life.
Also, spawn is the only area with a high population. There are some larger bases across the map, but even the largest ones have a population of a few dozens players at most.
Another element that is not realistic is obviously construction. In real life, building a home or a farm means a lot of hard work, whereas in Minecraft you can do it in a few hours.
[2] walking speed is about 5 km/h, travelling through a "nether highway" you can go at about 45km/h so this could be compared to motorised transport in real life
> If you are a new player, the most challenging part is escaping spawn (the area where new players start from, which is also the only crowded area in the game). This is pretty hard because spawn is a wasteland with no natural resources left (in Minecraft you have a hunger meter so if you can't find food you will eventually die), and in addition spawn is populated by armed players who kill new players as a pastime.
No because in Minecraft a killed player just disappears in front of your eyes. However you can steal whatever items the player had in their inventory the moment they died (those items are dropped to the ground upon death).
Nitpicking: If the Holy Roman Empire is seen as a continuation of the Western Roman Empire, then the Russian Empire can be seen as the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire (e.g. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow,_third_Rome), and this lasted until 1917. Both claims are dubious at best though (IMHO).
This is what irks me about these kinds of "collapse fantasy". Somebody described the apocalypse novels of John Wyndham (Day of the Triffids etc) as "cosy catastrophe", and that very much applies here. The laser focus on technological detail-hoarding while having blinders on to any consideration of the politics of the situation, or what might be called "material conditions".
Historically few societies collapsed without external pressure. Societies do not collapse, they are collapsed. And the force that's doing the collapsing is the thing you need to worry about.
It also can take a very long time to wane; while Rome may have split from the Roman Empire in 395, the eastern successor Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1806. And the microstates provide even weirder examples, like the Maltese feudal knights with a WW2 air force!