If I were the last person left alive, I'm fairly sure I would die of starvation and/or insanity within a matter of, at most, a few months.
Even if we managed to get some seeds to sprout, all the steps from harvesting to edible product are mysterious to us.
??? Gardening=not rocket-science. Most things we eat, you could sit in your vegetable garden and eat raw. What steps are you talking about, other than normal cooking? (Well, grains, I suppose, but if wheat were too baffling, potatoes fill the same hole in the diet.)
"the world would be quickly overrun by animals. Rats and bunnies first,"
This is so very true. When we go, the rodents take over, and they know this.
You're cheating on this exercise. You'd do the same thing as your friend; it would just occur to you three days later. There are better and worse decisions, really dire situations throw those distinctions into stark relief, and people generally pick the better choices when offered to them.
But I was all "find an easily-defended, well-provisioned exurban structure that I can use as a base."
I think most people already understand that, if you had been born of good 'Merkin stock, you'd have been the Son of the Unabomber.
Cities would give you access to a lot of pilferable resources (canned food, bottled water, etc.) while increasing the likelihood of finding people but if it really was a pandemic or something, you'd have a lot of funky decaying bodies, so ewww.
Is it wrong that the first thing I can think of doing is heading for the nearest serious library to be raided for works on edible plants of the American NE, wilderness survival tips, archery 101, etc.?
you'd have been the Son of the Unabomber
It was a pretty funny moment when the words "easily defended" came out of my mouth, and his eyebrow went up, and I was revealed as Militia Man.
Is it wrong that the first thing I can think of doing is heading for the nearest serious library
No, that's sensible--I had something similar in mind, but of course first I'd try to find a generator to see if I still had internet access. I mean, come on--google and I could be the only one liveblogging the apocalypse.
The idea of childbirth as one of the last people on earth is really scary, too.
The idea of childbirth as one of the last people on earth is really scary, too.
Yeah, I think what I said last night was, "You can only knock up women you don't like."
I'm with LB. Apocalypse now? Study!
Aren't there a lot of movies explaining this situation? Wouldn't Rae Dawn Chong and the young Brooke Shields be around somewhere?
I imagine that the members of my harem could do the gardening when not attending to my other needs.
Sort of depends on the breakdown, but I'd want to stock up on cigarettes and liquor for bartering purposes before I left town. If you survive, at some point you'll run into other camps, and one of those might have something you need, and I'm guessing luxuries are the only currency in the new world order.
I'd be fighting LB for the library books. Why try to re-invent gardening and hunting when survivalists have done it for you? But I'd grab bottled water and canned goods first.
I don't know where I'd live. Most of the planet flat-out hates human beings, and tries to freeze, humidify, or burn them out. When that fails, it sends in mosquitos to eat you.
5:
Wheat cultivation: Sow wheat. When it looks ripe, (???) scythe it down. Acquire kine from someplace, and have them tread the corn, omitting to bind their mouths. Sweep up wheat. Grind,
Okay, maybe that is hard.
Luckily, I have a flint & steel.
We're talking about a decimation of the world sufficient to suggest that you may be the last person on earth. Food is not an issue. Resources are not an issue. If every person in your state had one can of food, you'd still have (say) 500K cans. That looks like about more than 500 years of food to me, at 3 cans a day.
It all depends on the reason for the apocalypse. Nuclear war? Damn right I'm getting out of Dodge. I'm getting out of Dodge and heading for someplace remote and non-militarized: like switzerland or chile or something.
Pandemic? Hm... well, I haven't died yet where I am, so I'll porobably stick there. Raid restaurants for food. But leaving bears the risk of catching the disease, so...
Asteroid or super-volcano? Somewhere in the southern hemisphere. Argentina for the cows.
Facist government? Let me be a 2000-era celebrity for a sec: I'm moving to Canada.
What other ways can the world end?
Cans don't last forever -- I think you've got ~5-10 years, not a lifetime.
How are you getting to Argentina?
And ogged's fear of beasties is silly. The deer can't magically appear; there has to be an algorithm that describes the upper bound of the population's growth.
20: You can't live healthily on canned food forever, I don't think. Don't a lot of nutrients leach out of canned food? Eventually you'd need fresh food for vitamins.
Furthermore, deer make for good eatin'.
I really don't care what the catastrophe is, I'll be heading to Austin.
21: How is there a Fascist government if I am the last person on earth?
The deer can't magically appear; there has to be an algorithm that describes the upper bound of the population's growth.
Yes, they'll proliferate, until they're either eating everything green in site, and some start to starve, or until a predator also proliferates enough to cull the population. Either way, beasties everywhere.
I'm stealing a plane to get there (hi mr. cia guy, we're doing a hypothetical here. read this in context!). Do I know how to fly? No.
28: You've instituted your reign of compulsory wood-working and incompetent ice skating. Even the bears tremble at the sound of your approaching footsteps.
Cans of food are heavy. Eventually you'd run out of the cans within a walkable distance, and have to start walking to get to the next city.
At which point, you'd starve to death.
21 : A fascist government of Zombies?
Or perhaps of hyper-intelligent-tired-of-being-eaten deers.
I think dehydration is a bigger worry than starvation. Water's heavy too, you know.
Oh, plus, we haven't even begun to take into account the problem of disease. One episode with typhus-laced water, and buh-bye human race.
Wait, how long does it take for gas not to be good anymore?
Yup, water's a problem. Even if you find fresh water, odds are that it'll have germies that you're not used to. That's when you re-invent religion.
How is there a Fascist government if I am the last person on earth?
If anybody could do that, it would be you, Jeremy.
33. Come on -- on good roads, you can cover an awful lot of distance very, very quickly. 3 miles an hour x only an 8 hour day walking gets you about a hundred miles every four days. If the cans didn't go bad, you wouldn't starve in a lifetime through having eaten through your available resources.
I am assuming that people have just magically disappeared off the face of the earth (ogged missed the Rapture - surprising) - otherwise the factors w-lfs-n mentioned come into play. In that case, go to the local hardware store. Steal as many personal generators as you can. Take your car (or that of anyone else) and go to the gas station. Get gas. Go home and play X-box. Hook one of the other generators up to the fridge. Call around, see if any of your friends were Left Behind.
You need a much better defined apocolypse before you get to "grow wheat."
37: When it gets released, it's no longer good for those around you.
We figured we'd eat a lot of fish, because nets are low-tech.
Have you ever tried to make one? Or a boat to use with them? There is an appalling amount of culture embedded in (and presupposed by) even the simplest objects (like flints, for instance). Dr B is right: if you really were completely by yourself, you'd be dead or mad within a fairly short while.
We all can agree, though, that "last person on earth" is way better than "one of small remnant of human race," right? Because I'm pretty sure in a Lord of the Flies situation most of us would end up being Piggy.
Are there any water germs that aren't killed by boiling it?
water's a problem? head yourself down to REI and pick up all the water purification gadgets you can carry. hell, that's the first thing you do, go down and get yourself a nice selection of camping equipment. then go get yourself a nice bike. then, fuck, i dunno, head for the nearest small coastal city with a good library and selection of porn stores?
Dr B is right: if you really were completely by yourself, you'd be dead or mad within a fairly short while.
Trust the Irish to see the sunny side of life.
I was thinking it would be a small, laboriously constructed net. Boat=big piece of wood.
#40: You might manage to subsist for a while by walking town to town, until you twisted your ankle or something. Or the weather got hot. Or cold. I mean, people die in goddamn national parks.
Water: Bleach, iodine, boiling, water filters looted from stores. Not a huge problem.
Once you make it through the first few months and all the bodies have rotted, the disease risk is going to drop way down, anyway. There's still giardia and such, but nothing that you're going to catch from other people.
Ogged really seems to be assuming that all of the natural resources have been destroyed, too. I mean "laboriously constructed net" and appropriating a piece of wood for a boat are really unnecessary. Even in Tuscany, you'd find that stuff lying around.
A bike! Hadn't thought of that, but it's brilliant. I was thinking I'd raid the Wal-Mart, but REI would also be excellent.
Big piece of wood? You're trying to land a big fish, which against all odds you've caught before dying of sunburn and/or exposure, and you fall in the water. The wood drifts away.
Dead.
Yeah, but there are no am/pms in national parks, or at least, they are a long, long way away from each other. I wonder if your perspective on this is informed by living in a small college town. In New York, assuming that Jeremy Osner's minions don't assassinate me, I think I'd be okay for a while. I might get lonely and depressed though, possibly enough to kill myself.
You'd be okay for a while, sure. Months, probably. Until you had an accident, got sick, or lost your can opener.
55 to 50. Why can't I drive? Are we assuming the roads are impassable? If so, why?
50: Oh, sure, you last until the first accident that leaves you needing medical care. But if you were lucky, that could be quite a while.
peoples,
just because it's the end of the world doesn't mean cars stopped working. it's not like you're going to do anymore damage. I'd go to a gas station, fill as many gascans as possible, and start driving away from where I was. that is, assuming the gas pumps still worked. otherwise, I'd start siphoning from other cars. might take a while, but...
I'm with Tia. I'd stay in NYC, moving into the Met, all Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler-style.
I would feel lost without the transvestite strip club industry. 55: I will hunt you down!
I mean "laboriously constructed net" and appropriating a piece of wood for a boat are really unnecessary. Even in Tuscany, you'd find that stuff lying around.
Yeah, you're totally right. It's fun to think about how helpless we'd be if it weren't, but after a pandemic, it would be. So you've got a decent shot at living out your natural life, I think.
i'd just go to a warm region (puerto rico or sicily being ideal!) and pick breadfruit and prickly pear off the trees, dig crabs from th e sea rocks, and be happy! except for the potential lack of good conversation, what's the problem?
i guess i would have to keep a good fire going at all times so i could boil my water (and boil off sea water to get salt)... but that's the only big technical difficulty, no?
all the beasties would be afraid of my fire, as would other human beings, and i'd be toasty too.
i'm not sure how this is psychologically revealing, except maybe the part about how i wouldn't immediately trust other humans, unlike your friend.
Fish coins out of the fountain to use in snack machines! Until you DIE.
Also: I'm pretty sure filling your car or gas cans at a gas station requires a working electric grid, or a generator and knowledge of where to connect it to power the pumps.
Even without, Robinson Crusoe was based on a true story. Isolated people stranded in the wilderness with very limited resources can survive for extended periods.
56: I concede that accidents and illness are a problem, but there is more than one can opener in New York
Are we talking about being the last person on Earth? In that case: cry, cry, masturbate. But if there's any reason to believe that once the dust settles you'll meet other survivors, even if it's just that you've survived and assume others have, I think I'd want not to throw in the towel. Try to create a stable situation and hope a wandering tribe finds you some day—certainly, I'm not leaving my perch in Austin if I can avoid it. The survival instinct, surely that's going to ward off madness for a while?
What kind of apocalypse is this?
Cala is the only one here I'd trust for a second.
Re cars: you don't really need gas, as you can just use the cars that are left, most of which will have some gas in the tank. Just pick ones parked outside homes, break in, find the keys, drive off.
66: Gas is available in free standing cans.
Water: Bleach, iodine, boiling, water filters looted from stores. Not a huge problem.
Where are you getting the water? I guess you live in NYC, no biggie.
#67: Yeah, but Selkirk was stranded on a temperate island with resources, and he had hope of returning (which would stave off the insanity)--*and* he was only there for a few months, not the 22 years (or however long it was) in Robinson Crusoe.
What kind of apocalypse is this?
Post-pandemic.
Without the parameters for apocalypse, it's pretty tough to decide what to do. Power supplies won't fail immediately simply because nobody is left to monitor them. But if they've been physically destroyed or damaged, then well... Ogged, what kind of apocalypse are you running here?
Becks, the Gugg's probably a much better fortress.
People are using wildly different conceptions of "calamity" here. There's no way to tell who's living and who's dying, and why, until we settle on what exactly the fuck happened.
(And how is it that you and almost no one else survived? That seems wildly implausible - I can't even think of a hypo. Either everyone's dead -- bang -- or there must be a relatively large number of people alive, even if they aren't in your immediate vicinity.
Oddly, I think my cat would be in better shape in CALAMITY® than I would. She'd be überpwning, what with all the rats around.
aha. since none of the rest of you have thought of salt (which is pretty important to survival), i would make a secret little sea-salt-recuperating set-up, trade with the rest of you survivors, and be a primitive rich magnate person with turquoise bracelets and lots of venison smoked over my fire, while the rest of you crash bikes and look for canopeners.
that's assuming supplies have disappeared from stores and all. yeah.
Re cars: you don't really need gas, as you can just use the cars that are left, most of which will have some gas in the tank.
Assuming you won't be making any long trips, anyway.
People are using wildly different conceptions of "calamity" here. There's no way to tell who's living and who's dying, and why, until we settle on what exactly the fuck happened.
(And how is it that you and almost no one else survived? That seems wildly implausible - I can't even think of a hypo. Either everyone's dead -- bang -- or there must be a relatively large number of people alive, even if they aren't in your immediate vicinity.)
Post-pandemic, I'm staying put. No point going somewhere else where I might get sick.
Assuming you won't be making any long trips, anyway.
You just need to get to the next town.
You just need to get to the next town.
That's true; in the next town you can get power-ups for your weapons.
What kind of apocalypse is this?
A shitty, ill-defined one. OTOH, after 70+ comments, it does appear to distinguish between at least two groups of people: those inclined to see the sky falling, and those not. I am rolling with TD, Becks, Tia, and (IIRC) fiend. You lot stay off our property.
And in the next town, armor and food just lies around in the open.
They've got zombies, though. Did a number on tourism.
71: what are the rest of us, chopped liver?
SCMT, you can be my copilot. After all, drinking alone is a sign of alcoholism.
weapons?!
Animals, I tell you! Animals! I really think they'd be the biggest threat to your survival, after pessimism.
What if none of the can openers survived the apocalypse either? Then it's really shitty.
And if all the people are dead, how are all the animals still alive? I think we all get killed by the same sorts of things, no?
So there are no animals to eat. Fish, maybe. What will quickly take over the earth are insects. Probably giant mutant ones, too. Have fun.
Sorry mmf!. You're totally in! You're outpost Cancun (or Puerto Rico), after all. (Also, why does your screen name include an "!"?)
And if all the people are dead, how are all the animals still alive? I think we all get killed by the same sorts of things, no?
Well, no, that's why bird flu is so distressing: it's a rare case where the same-ish disease kills two very different species. In case of a pandemic, there's a very good chance plenty of animals would survive. But you're right about the insects.
93 is like the far-side cartoon in the fallout shelter where they've forgotten the can-opener.
I really think they'd be the biggest threat to your survival, after pessimism.
Rats and other vermin, maybe. Deer and bears can only yield X kids per year, and I don't think their baseline numbers are great enough to be worrisome in your lifetime.
Animals, I tell you! Animals! I really think they'd be the biggest threat to your survival, after pessimism.
If animals and pessimism are your two biggest problems, you're doing pretty well for yourself.
I'm pretty sure in a Lord of the Flies situation most of us would end up being Piggy.
tell them you're a dentist. If someone gets a toothache, though, run away.
A shitty, ill-defined one.
I take umbrage. It says "pandemic" right in the post. It's just that the "no wheat" concern is probably misplaced, and confused people.
Rats and other vermin, maybe.
How many generations before the dogs are completely feral? Not many! Death by Boopsy.
97: Also ebola.
I didn't know that. Still, lots of animals would be left.
Deer and bears can only yield X kids per year, and I don't think their baseline numbers are great enough to be worrisome in your lifetime.
What's worrisome? Pennsylvania had to reinstitute bow hunting of deer a few years back because after a few year conservation program, 800,000 deer became 3 million deer, and they were eating the suburbs.
That said, I'm not worried about the bear, deer, and other animals too much. Deer don't eat people and venison is tasty. Bear don't eat people unless provoked.
I'd raid the local sporting goods store for a gun and ammo, though. No people = lots of available ammo, at least to give me enough time to find other people or learn to carve a bow.
Until you break your ankle and DIE of course. We're not meant to be solitary creatures. If we did, we'd have claws and not soft little bodies that pretty much suck.
How many generations before the dogs are completely feral? Not many! Death by Boopsy.
This raises a good question: would my own dog turn on me? How long would he keep following my commands once I no longer had any food to give him? Would he lead me to food and then share, or fight me for it?
Suddenly I am very afraid.
It says "pandemic" right in the post
Then the problem time is not when you're the last person on earth, but in the chaos leading up to it. What does a world look like when lots and lots of still living people believe there might not a future for them? Not good. If you survived the riots and the chaos, I like your chances when your biggest and worst possible competitors have been removed from earth.
(Also, why does your screen name include an "!"?)
I have always read her screen name as a grunt, an interjection -- hence the punctuation.
From Ogged's link:
Researchers regard the fossil of the ape-man, or australopethicus africanus, as evidence of the "missing link" in human evolution.
We need a better press corps. Our fossil record shows dozens of kinds of proto-men—what would distinguish any one of them as the link?
Deer don't eat people and venison is tasty. Bear don't eat people unless provoked.
Deer can kill people. And in the new world order, who's to say how the bears will behave?
you just have to do what you're supposed to do anyway, that is, keep boopsy convinced that you are the alpha bitch. or dog.
learn to carve a bow.
Also in that same sporting-goods store.
It's interesting, I find myself thinking as if I'd have access to about a year's worth of consumables, but no more, so things like gardening and archery rather than firearms would be important. But that is kind of silly.
On dogs -- problem. Packs of feral dogs suck. I would say you would want a large dog of your own for animal defense reasons. Probably a bitch, to maintain supply of puppies once she got old.
Who's been killed by a deer? Seriously?
would my own dog turn on me? How long would he keep following my commands once I no longer had any food to give him?
If the problem really is lack of food, my guess is you'd eat the dog before the dog ate you.
Elk are more dangerous than bears. But bears generally don't like to take chances on eating people when fish are easier to find. But still, neither of the species goes out of their way to chase down the madman with his cans and fire when there's other things to eat that taste better.
Plus, I don't think bears roam very far south. We're all staying out of the mountains and the north because the planet hates us anyway.
I always thought mmf! was about to speak when the thug behind her clapped a hand over her mouth. or its what lois lane says when she's gagged and tied to a chair, and superman bursts through the wall to rescue her.
I would say you would want a large dog of your own for animal defense reasons.
There are lots of things you would want, no? And as long as I'm just choosing things out of thin air, "a large dog" is not my first choice.
You want an awesome bow, not pilfered, you gotta take strips of horn and wood and bark and make a fatty glue and get all recurve on that shit.
71: Cala is the only one here I'd trust for a second.
I'm hurt.
In terms of dumbass-tourists-killed, in Canada's national parks elk are the greater culprit. Mostly because people think of elk as harmless and aren't as careful, whereas everyone but the idiots know not to try to touch the bear.
Who's been killed by a deer? Seriously?
Link.
There are numerous cases of people being killed by deer that they have raised. One of the most recent cases was in October 31, 2000 in Minnesota. According to the report in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, A Forest Lake man was killed when the family's pet whitetail buck gored him to death. In Kansas on September 16, 2000, a 75-year old woman was killed by an eight year old buck that she had raised. Her husband found the woman's body when she failed to return from feeding the deer. The 200-pound buck had gored and trampled her.
So raising pet deer when apocalypse comes is right out. Check.
A large dog is easily acquired. Spot feral pet, lost, alone, and hungry (do this quickly post-apocalypse, before it develops coping habits.) Open can of Alpo. When dog approaches, skritch behind ears saying "Who's a big boy, then?" Dogs that are used to people are easily befriended.
And a big dog would be awfully useful, defense wise, against all those other dogs who lack fear of people but are hungry.
122: do they kick you to death? or do they actually bite you? and what pisses them off? If we're talkin post-apocalypse, I bet there's plenty of room for me and the elks.
elk.
Of course, in my apocalyptic world, I ain't trying to domesticate Bambi.
Yum.
Yeah, but Selkirk was stranded on a temperate island with resources, and he had hope of returning (which would stave off the insanity)--*and* he was only there for a few months,
No, he was marooned for nearly four and a half years. However, when they found him he had a substantial collection of what he called "goat wives" that were keeping him warm through the temperate island nights. The goats he caught but didn't like, he ate.
what he called "goat wives"
Finally, Emerson is happy.
Usually it's a kick or an antler gore. They don't usually charge people though (on a hike this summer we passed elk munching leaves (about 50 ft way) and shared a campsite with a mule deer that lived in the shrubs); unless they're mating, territorial, and you try to approach them.
"goat wives"
Free sex, and no arguments about the patriarchy. Woot!
Discover Magazine had a fascinating article about what would happen if humans just disappeared, using NYC as the example. Unfortunately, only the first two paragraphs are online, and I'm pretty sure I've recycled the print mag already.
One surprise: roaches would die out really quickly.
Deer can be very dangerous in the spring. Don't approach that cute doe who came into the bar with the 12 point buck. His rack is bigger than yours, most likely. Don't get caught in a confined space, such as an elevator, with a deer. That goes double if you are 75 years old and can't hobble very fast.
Apo, give me a link and I'll see if I can LexisNexis that sucker.
roaches would die out really quickly.
I think roaches have no habitat outside of human dwellings.
136: Right, and they need the heat of our residences to survive the winter.
If there's a pandemic calamity, I want to be in the Bay Area. Not only do I know where the freshwater streams, salt flats, vinyards, mountain lions stalking grounds, etc. are, the native americans in that area had sufficient nutrition from gathering that they never bothered to move on to cultivating crops.
Too bad I'd have to get there first.
137 -- Wha'bout roaches that infest human dwellings in the tropics?
125 and others: I had no idea it would be this soon.
Ah, but somebody's got it saved on his site as a PDF!
And the roaring torrent of comments grinds to a shuddering halt as everybody reads the article...
Packs of feral bunnies are no problem, if you are careful not to disguise yourself as a giant carrot. Carrot scented massage oils are out, too.
To avoid dehydration, follow a watercourse. Streams may run fast, but they almost always leave a clear trail. Stick with it, and you'll catch up to the stream soon enough.
To get to San Francisco, go by way of Tehatchapi, don't use the Donner party's route. I think LB's estimate of travel speed is a bit high, but you should be able to walk there in 18 months. The problem is crossing the Mojave.
feral bunnies are no problem
Tell that to Jimmy Carter.
That is a great article. Are all of the dire allusions to earthquakes felling Manhattan assuming that the 125th St. fault is a serious threat? Cause I hadn't really heard that.
It seems like the article is only saying cockroaches would disappear from Manhattan Island -- and by extrapolation from other human-inhabited sites where it gets cold in the winter time.
148: Right, using NYC as the example, I said. They'd do just fine in warm climates.
I read somewhere, once, that Manhattan would probably be the longest surviving identifiable artifact in case of a total collapse of civilization lasting many, many thousands of years. Not the buildings, but all of the rectangular foundations blasted into the bedrock are going to be identifiable for a long, long, long time.
I fear the "unrecognizable broccoli ancestor" mentioned in the article.
I read somewhere, once, that Manhattan would probably be the longest surviving identifiable artifact in case of a total collapse of civilization lasting many, many thousands of years.
If Manhattan is the new Athens, what's the new Sparta? Jersey?
But it does say that feral dogs won't be a problem!
The concept of Ogged being killed by a deer is just too much fun.
so, does anyone else imagine the first kid to see an elephant-sized sloth asking his parents if he can take it home with them?
Tragically, it would probably be a female deer who might have consented if Ogged had just been a little more patient. Not all does are Cosmo-reading sluts who'll put out on the first date.
Elk are huge and not much like deer.
Does that regression to ancestors described in the article really occur? Why wouldn't those species just die out?
157: Deer go through an estrous cycle, so "I'm not in the mood" becomes a statement about biology, not affect. Timing is everything in such situations.
149: Ah, I see. I was misreading your initial comment.
Many of the things you have learned about courtship will have to be forgotten when you switch species.
160: Well, it wouldn't be immediate. But you'd probably get more natural genetic mutations (i.e. less cross-breading, etc.) so it probably would occur. Given a lot time, you'd probably get megafauna/flora again too. They weren't killed off because they were inefficient animals, but because they were hunted and killed. Given a regression to previous environments as put forth in the article, my layman's guess is that it would happen.
I don't think that regression to an ancestral type happens. As I understand it, evolution only goes in one direction. Of course, with artificial selection stopped, with people no longer culling disfavored animals, phenotypes which are not seen because they are culled at birth could survive and might well have a reproductive advantage
Did anybody read "The Evolution Man" by Roy Lewis? A seriously great book without much application to the topic at hand.
165: I agree. We've had artificial selection for a long time now. It's not necessarily that they've been culled at birth, but they've been wiped off the earth. Being foul-tasting and unrecognizable was probably advantageous, and it'd probably happen again.
There are a number of fun science fiction books/series along these lines. Off the top of my head:
The Postman by David Brin (nuclear war)
Wolf and Iron by Gordon R. Dickson (nuclear war(?))
Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle (Asteroid Strike)
Conquistador and the Island in the Sea of Time series by S.M. Stirling (alternate world/involuntary time travel, native populations largely destroyed by modern germs)
All good reads. I'm sure there are many more.
As I understand it, evolution only goes in one direction.
Evolution doesn't have a direction. It's only called "regression" in that article because the environment to which species would adapt happens to have existed in the past.
I don't think that regression to an ancestral type happens.
Well, breeds would remix, and the resulting mutts would probably look more like the raw material from which domestic horses/cattle/dogs had been bred than current domestic animals do. But you're right that there isn't some mystical snap-back function on evolution.
I think the snap-back function is ctrl-Z on God's keyboard.
168: Time of the Wolf by Michael Haneke (Hidden, The Piano Teacher) is a fantastic movie with similar theme, though there are a fair number of people around. Pretty much the opposite of a good read, though.
Isn't the Texas Longhorn an example of what happens when feral cattle are left to breed for a few generations? I don't think it woulld take too long to get back to the aurochs.
What about our current evolutionary situation is "artificial"? Today the top mammal is so dominant that it helps if he thinks you're tasty—that's a natural progression.
A lot of domestic animals and plants are not viable without extensive human care.
167: right, that too. After the dinoaurs, new megafauna evolved, but they didn't look a whole lot like the dinos. Things would evolved to fill niches that people have emptied (e.g. large predator niche) and the animals that have sacrificed adaptive advantage to tastiness (e.g. Tyson chickens) would go away
No, it doesn't help if he thinks you are tasty. He reduces the amount of natural variation, and tends to kill you. If you are untasty, he kills you and wastes your variation. Death is generally considered a not good state of being.
168: Also, Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell
177: I don't think that's so from the evolutionary standpoint. From the evolutionary standpoint, all that matters is successful breeding. Well, that's not true either, probably, but closeish.
Species aren't selected for on the basis of the fit individual, but the fit species. Tyson chickens are awfully fit. But not in my backyard!
168:
Emergence, by I can't quite remember. Maybe David Palmer? Post-biowar, 1/100,000 people survive, protagonist is an 11-year-old supergenius girl. Suitable for blog discussion, as large portions of the book are devoted to question of whether 11 is the post-apocalyptic age of consent.
Actually quite entertaining, if I remember from 20 years ago.
Charlton Heston's The omega man did this the best. The zombies couldn't come out during the daytime, so all of the things discussed above would be relevant. At night, you better be prepared to fuck up some zombies, though.
180: Continuous successful breeding matters. This requires living long enough to breed. Being tasty is often not conducive to living.
Jim Crace's next novel, so he said anyway at a reading last year, is all about American pandemic in which everybody dies, and the remnant left over and pack up and move to Europe—Tuscany, I think. Weird.
But the species is breeding regularly. It doesn't matter whether an individual survives to breed if his cousin chicken sires a gross of chicks. And I imagine the farmers are selecting close relatives of tasty chickens to breed.
But I don't get the "artificial" designation. We're mammals. We do stuff, it contributes in one way or another to selection. "Artificial" sounds right if we're talking about an agent outside the system (alien overlords) or some virtual ecosystem within the system (laboratory). But if it's on Earth, it's all in the game.
Okay, Matt Weiner Matt Weiner Matt Weiner. You can have ideas again.
I don't get the "artificial" designation
People conventionally use "artificial" to denote the products of human agency--point taken about us being mammals, but we're pretty well different from the rest.
Evolution doesn't have a direction.
It doesn't have a direction in the sense of forward/back, or progress/regress. However, it does always go from less reproductive success to more reproductive success. A very successful species is never replaced by a less successful species.
It's only called "regression" in that article because the environment to which species would adapt happens to have existed in the past
But environment doesn't dictate what will appear. Even if the earth slowly changed back into to what it was at dino time, there's no reason to believe that the same dinosaurs which lived 70 million years ago would re-emerge. Those niches might be filled by things evolved from mammals, or insects, of who knows what
188: I used 'artificial' in the sense of 'produced by artifice, made by people'. That may be my own ideosyncratic definition
On the off-chance that someone else was quietly freaking out about earthquakes in NYC, here is a nice worry-amplifying article.
well, since I have to defend myself here:
But I don't get the "artificial" designation.
Artificial selection, as I was using it there, means that humans as predators aren't killing naturally. Most of the adaptations in the non-human world have been dropped in favor of human machinated adaptation (tasty Broccoli or chicken's with large titties [so there Dr. B!]).
In re 187:
I'm not saying that the selection would happen right away. But I bet the chickens would start being selected for pretty quickly (smaller breasted chickens move more quickly I think).
168: also try A Canticle for Leibowitz for an interesting take on post-calamity earth.
But environment doesn't dictate what will appear.
Well, not precisely, but similar niches will tend to lead to convergent evolution. The Eastern Seaboard doesn't now have a niche for a 100 lb+ feline-type predator, but it used to. If it again had such a niche, I wouldn't be surprised if a population of lynx or something threw off a much bigger kitty.
I'm with you -- if there's anyone else around, I don't want to have to deal with them. Living by myself sounds great, as long as I don't ironically break my glasses right before I walk into the library.
197: It also depends which type of evolutionary theory you belong to. My guess it would be a gradual growth in the size of kitty until it became disadvantageous to grow any bigger.
194: Okay, start then. There's no longer a prohibition, that's all I know.
How are aliens not natural?
Once the Cardassians show up, sure, they're part of the ecosystem, or rather the old understanding of the global ecosystem disappears in favor of the new galactic (whatever) definition. Our current ecological understanding is pretty much limited to terrestrial agents.
Small breasted chickens move more quickly, and that can help them avoid an untimely end involving garlic and butter. But moving slowly can be advantageous, too. Sometimes a chicken has to slow down and smell the pheremones in order to reproduce. There's a conundrum here.
similar niches will tend to lead to convergent evolution
Convergence in form, yes. Bats look a lot like birds. But while I wouldn't be surprised by a 100+ lb feline, I would be equally unsurprised by a 100+ lb fox or badger
And, yeah, maybe I'm being a little obtuse about "artificial," but it's a problematic designation—do you draw that line at domestication? Mechanization? Genetic manipulation? Many different demarcations for human agency? Plus I think we should save the "artificial" superlative for our robot overlords.
I'm glad that while I was away someone brought up feral dogs, but I see Ogged dismissed the threat way too quickly. It's precisely *because* feral dogs couldn't compete that they'd end up eating you.
And anyway, the hypothesis offered was "lone survivor." I still say that if you *knew* you were the lone survivor (which seems implied, though how you'd know that I can't imagine), there would be very little point trying to survive, and one would be likely to kill oneself sooner rather than later. If one believed that others had survived, then of course you'd go out looking. At which point, wandering around, you'd get set on by feral dogs / dehydration / disease / twisted ankle and die that way.
203: I'd say manipulation of nature and breeding. Humans are the only animals I know of that breed other animals.
Man, Boy Scouts would totally come to the rescue for me. I would survive by teaching wilderness survival classes! The people would flock to me in droves.
Yeah, I spent time on a farm as a kid. I think I'd be ok.
Humans are the only animals I know of that breed other animals.
Don't insects breed flowers? Surely flowers wouldn't have evolved as they have without the choices made by insects
"Artificiality" means nothing, but many species bred for human use are just not viable in the wild. Milk cows produce more milk than calves can drink, apple tree produce more fruit than their branches can hold, turkeys are slow and stupid (wild turkeys are completely different), and so on. I'm pretty sure that dogs would revert to a very generic medium-sized mutt.
208: I don't think that's intentional breeding. That's like saying don't parasites breed hosts?
I'd head for Amish country, where there would be lots of old-fashioned farming implements around, good land, &c.
I would definitely not read this book, which is just about the most boring thing you could read about a man left alone in the aftermath of a viral plague that wiped out most of humanity.
Intentionality in breeding is an interesting landmark for us, but I don't see how it matters in describing evolution. I don't really think "the wild" is so useful either.
Right, but in the wild species breed for survival. We're breeding for food or pets, and we don't care if they can survive in the wild because they won't have to as long as we're around.
215-214. What I meant to say as well is that "the wild" isn't any better, but it's what will be left after humans disappear.
I still say that if you *knew* you were the lone survivor ... there would be very little point trying to survive ...
I'd hang in waiting for those nice elephantoids from Footfall to show up.
I don't think that's intentional breeding. That's like saying don't parasites breed hosts?
Parasites don't breed hosts?
I've always had trouble with the concept of intentionality, perhaps because so much of what I do turns out to have not been what I intended at all. But if you want to include intentionality in the definition of 'breed", and you don't think insects have intentions, okay.
sorry, 217 was me. I must seek to broaden my horizons, and accept cookies.
In the field of film drama about post-nuclear survival, Threads (more detail here) is the way-out-in-front leader. For a thorough survey (can you tell I'm writing a paper?) see Empty World.
196: I thought about throwing it in there, but Canticle is not in the immediate aftermath, it's hundreds of years later.
I'm liking my Amish plan better and better. See, if there were survivors among the Amish, they could teach you how to farm and be self-sufficient. I'm feeling really calm, thinking of it.
But if Harrison Ford were there too, I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation. Then I'd be cast into the wilderness.
Earth Abides, by George R. Stewart is still my favorite post-apocalyptic novel.
just about the most boring thing you could read
But eb! Ish reacts to the apocalypse by driving cross-country looking for a woman to share his misery with!
Intentionality in breeding is an interesting landmark for us, but I don't see how it matters in describing evolution. I don't really think "the wild" is so useful either.
I agree. Since we were talkiing about what would evolve absent people, I used 'artificial' as shorthand for "peoples' effects on the evolution of other animals". That was a mistake, because it implicates all kinds of other notions about what is natural, etc. Let's pretend it didn't happen.
219-
That Threads movie looks interesting. But films that aren't available on Netflix do not exist to me.
If human population is really small, food will be easier to get. Part of the difficulty with feeding people now is that almost all good land is already cultivated, and population has been increasing for millenia as agricultural production increased. Hunters and gatherers live OK as long as population is sparse. (Sahlins, "Stone Age Society").
Contemporary hunters and gatherers, if they still exist at all, have been driven to the least productive environemnts.
Nothing would evolve absent people. Other living things would live, die, and reproduce. Evolution is a human concept.
Nothing would evolve absent people. Other living things would live, die, and reproduce. Evolution is a human concept.
If I had a stronger understanding of epistemology, I'd say something more substantial than nuh-uh.
Nothing would evolve absent people. Other living things would live, die, and reproduce. Evolution is a human concept.
Life, death, and reproduction are human concepts.
Exactly, Ben! Once we're gone, everything ceases to exist!
Aw, man. I missed all the fun on this thread, despite pointless survival fantasies being one of my all-time favorite daydreams.
A post-epidemic wasteland would be cake. I suspect most omega men could live out the rest of their lives purely by moving from one walmart to another. There's an expire date on canned goods, but it's not really a hard and fast rule, as I understand it. Don't eat from burst, bloated or foul-smelling cans and I think you'll be fine.
A desert island Robinson Crusoe situation, though? You would be pretty well fucked. Making fire mechanically is really, really hard.
I'm pretty sure everything will cease to exist as soon as I'm gone.
Nothing would evolve absent people. Other living things would live, die, and reproduce. Evolution is a human concept.
Great, now we're going to spin off into philosophy. Or am I being trolled? The fact of evolution (if it is a fact) and the concept of evolution are not the same thing. The words "living," "things," "live", "die" and "reproduce" are also concepts, but you're happy to use them to talk about what would be happening absent people. Why rag on "evolution"?
And then you would DIE.
Making fire mechanically is really, really hard.
I think the trick is to wait for a lightning storm catches something on fire and to just keep the fire going all the time.
But why do you need fire anyway? Just move somewhere warm. And eat your food raw -- it's more nutritious that way.
Uh, Riddley Walker, anyone?
I like Canticle, too.
Kieran, you know I'm not a philosopher.
Sex is a human concept. This does not prevent inhuman animals from having sex. Likewise the fact that evolution is a human concept does not prevent it from occurring absent human observers.
Kieran, you know I'm not a philosopher.
Me neither.
I think it follows by modus tollens that if there were no people, there would be no people who were not philosophers.
241: Then stay out of our treehouse, goddammit!
Ooh, now *there's* a reason for an apacolypse...
This is what I meant by breeding.
And yes, I am shamelessy driving traffic through my site.
214: I don't really think "the wild" is so useful either.
apacolypse
You spelled the name of the movie wrong.
But why do you need fire anyway? Just move somewhere warm. And eat your food raw -- it's more nutritious that way.
But that's confusing the desert island and omega man brands of survivalism. If you can move elsewhere, you can make fire (but probably don't really need it for a variety of reasons). If you're stuck on an island you can't make fire easily but you DO need it, mainly for making food (and water, if you have a pot) safe for consumption. It'd also come in handy for warmth/scaring predators while you sleep/attracting rescuers.
I can't spell that fucking word. It's right up there with "recommend," which always wants two c's, I think.
Right on, ac. To Lancaster!
Mnemonic: apocalypse and apostropher begin the same way. Coincidence?
I'd want to find a house near some body of fresh water (water is a bigger problem than food), take all the canned food I could find from all the other houses and grocery stores, and get all the guns and ammo I could find for hunting and (I hope) killing whatever wants to eat me. I'd want to get a few dogs, before they all turned feral, so I'd have some sort of company. Maybe that would stop me from going completely nuts. (Having all the rest of humanity killed would be damned depressing, and one would probably run out of antidepressants before too long.) Get lots of books to read, and porn. Then cry, masturbate, read, play with the dogs, hunt, etc. Maybe get a goat-wife or something, too. I guess I could just let her outside to find her own food, but who knows if she'd come back. Try to find "How to Make Love to a Goat" book to learn how to keep her coming back for more.
Yes, SB. Let us gather a few sheep, and begin our new pastoral life, as all these nervous nellies run around from Walmart to Walmart.
Alpacalypse: world destroyed by rampaging yet strangely cute South American animals.
5. If you do find other people, and decide to procreate, there's pretty much no getting around the inbreeding problem.
Hey, we're all descended from Adam and Eve, and we've done OK, right?
Apostropher + Calypso = Apocalypse. Got it. Thanks!
I can't believe we're 250+ comments into this thread, and no one has mentioned the essential piece of equipment for post-apocalyptic survival.
Dogs would be good for keeping warm in the winter, too. A "three dog night" in the Australian outback is where it's so cold that you have to sleep with three dogs (not that way, you perverts) to stay warm.
Well, 259 was less safe-for-work than I would have preferred, given that I'm at work.
My Alter Ego raises a good point. A Real Doll would be more fun (I guess) than standard masturbation, and you wouldn't have to feed it.
the essential piece of equipment
More useful than this? I dunno. Maybe.
Sorry, Urple. I tend to assume that most people scan the URLs before clicking, especially at the Mineshaft. My bad.
But if you don't feed yourself, you die too.
You'd have to clean it, though.
Plus, how depressing.
You'd have to clean it, though.
The RealDoll or the bung dropper?
260 -- don't be silly. Everybody knows Three Dog Night is a moderately lame Califonia band from the late 60's/early 70's. One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do, man.
Plus, how depressing.
Dude, all of humanity has been wiped out. If you can deal with that and not kill yourself, you can deal with the fact that you're copulating with a mannikin (or womannikin).
Hard to believe that post only got one lonely comment. Now Ogged cut put up a transcript of armpit f*rts and 100 comments would drop before the hour was up.
One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do, man.
Are you knocking Harry Nilsson?
Two can be as bad as one; it's the loneliest number since the number one.
(I always thought that would make a pretty good counting song for people who were not yet up to three.)
to the person who asked why there's an '!' in my handle:
well at the time i just felt like it, having picked the handle intuitively after about 0.3 seconds after rejecting "hotbutteredrum."
i was going for a sublimation of "humph!" ... or transcribing a conversational sound people make...
and i like messing with language conventions like "punctuation is not a part of proper names" - it's funny.
but it isn't meant to bear a lot of analysis.
bung dropper
Good God! That's horrifying.
How does it work?
and i like messing with language conventions like "punctuation is not a part of proper names" - it's funny.
Just don't get all Jennifer 8. Lee on us, or you're in for it.
230: People should keep alert for a possible PZ Myers fatwa against Bitch. I think that his fatwae involve being torn apart by squid.
also, i am glad to see jim crace readers here!
(_Being Dead_)
260 -- don't be silly. Everybody knows Three Dog Night is a moderately lame Califonia band from the late 60's/early 70's.
You probably already know this, but:
Three Dog Night was an American rock and roll band active from 1968 to 1975. Their hits included; "Joy to the World", "Easy To Be Hard" from the musical Hair, and "Black and White".
. . .
The band was the protegé of Beach Boys producer, composer, vocalist, and instrumentalist Brian Wilson, and at the time went under the name Redwood. The band changed their name based on an article describing how Australian Aborigines slept with their dogs for warmth on cold nights, the coldest being a "three-dog night."
Re: 276
No offense, mmf!, but I've always imagined your handle as representing a sound of enthusiastic agreement made by someone whose mouth is full because they are...
Thanks for clearing that up, Fred.
278: NO WORRIES there. i might get a little futurist on you, maybe, but NOT jennifer 8. lee-ish.
ben, i went to school with her. do you know her (vaguely) too, or is it just the ny times fame?
282: eating licorice? cool, i knew we were on the same page.
(AHEM).
um, i am glad i sent your imaginations playing, all of you...
seriously, part of the interest in hanging out here sometimes is that most of your aesthetics are pretty different from mine...not to mention even our understanding of the word aesthetic, probably...so it will be hard to get me offended on that.
What I never got is, how did the aborigines convince their dogs (used to sleeping with them on cold nights), not to sleep with them when the weather was warm? In my experience dogs like to cuddle regardless of the temperature.
Just don't get all Jennifer 8. Lee on us, or you're in for it.
I always wondered about that name. The first time I saw it, I thought that the "8." must be a typo. Oddly, according to this Wikipedia article, "8." isn't an abbreviation -- "8" is her whole middle name. So why the period? (You probably knew all that already, ben, and are miles ahead of me as usual.)
284: You all realize what this means, don't you? Mmf! must be a data point in every single one of Jennifer 8. Lee's articles. Tell me, mmf!, have you ever been on a man date?
mmf!, I don't know her personally, just from the fatuous articles.
Because "8" isn't her whole middle name. "8." is her whole middle name.
The "S" in "Harry S. Truman" isn't short for anything, either, but one doesn't usually see "Harry S Truman" (does one?).
A bunch of friends of mine go to her barbecues.
292 -- yes, "Harry S Truman" without the period is the proper spelling.
bony protuberance of tissue
shouldn't that be "protuberance of bony tissue"?
I prefer to think of mmf! as Lois Lane being rescued by
Superman. "mmf! mmmf!" Gag is removed. "Look out, Superman! behind you!"
See e.g. this official biography
haha, you've got me laughing out loud, tia.
i'd better not say anymore, tempting as it is to be snarky, because i think this stuff is googlable (and i am with you on 290 ben). also i refuse to read a wikipedia article about j. but, as i recall, she changed her name herself because there are so many asian jennifer lees and she wanted something unique. so the typography is all her own.
Ideally, 293 will be read as idle, not snotty. I'm just looking to burn another half hour.
I was tempted to read 293 as damning of you by association.
But since Ben w-lfs-n cried, and Standpipe Bridgeplate laughed
,I'll see you in the back room, at the 'Shaft.
The "S" in "Harry S. Truman" isn't short for anything, either, but one doesn't usually see "Harry S Truman" (does one?).
True, but if one has completely written out one's middle name, one doesn't normally put a period after it: one doesn't write "John Fitzgerald. Kennedy." As for LB's explanation, according to the Wikipedia article, anyway, her parents gave her the Chinese character for "8" as her middle name, so I don't see why that would take a period. Here's what Truman said and did with his middle initial/name:
Truman did not have a middle name, but only a middle initial. It was a common practice in southern states, including Missouri, to use initials rather than names. Truman said the initial was a compromise between the names of his grandfathers, Anderson Shipp(e) Truman and Solomon Young. He once joked that the S was a name, not an initial, and it should not have a period, but official documents and his presidential library all use a period. Furthermore, the Harry S. Truman Library has numerous examples of the signature written at various times throughout Truman's lifetime where his own use of a period after the "S" is very obvious.
It's a long, hard road, young Jeremy. You must be pure of heart and strong of will. But if you're ready to undertake the journey, you must start by eating a black bean burrito.
Tia, I could help you market the instructional DVD.
(We'll be rich -- rich I tell you! Beyond our wildest dreams.)
while all of you are wasting time at the library, the Met, or some sporting goods store, pilfering gasoline, chasing Harrison Ford through the Amish wheat fields while the cows mate in the distance, bribing feral dogs with meat, here's where I'll be:
teaching myself to talk out of my ass with the unguarded Taco Bell stockpiles. A man (or woman) with a talking ass is never lonely.
"Part of the interest in hanging out here sometimes is that most of your aesthetics are pretty different from mine".
Of course, mmf! is stuck Paris where they have aesthetics up the yinyang, but it seems to me that she is steroetyping us here, and our aesthetics, in a potentially hurtful way, as if we were all more or less them same. She might just as well have said "you people".
This annoys me, and mmf! is pseudonymous, so I am taking steps per H.R.3402, Sec. 113, which amends 47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1).
Becks, the Gugg's probably a much better fortress.
I'm sticking with the Met. It's very solid and you've got both the comfy French bedrooms and the medieval weapons for hunting animals in Central Park.
Unrelated: When I was in the ticket line at the Gugg this weekend, the guy behind me convinced his date that the museum has a monthly "slide weekend" for members where you can ride down the ramp and that the ground floor is actually a pool that they cover up during the day that you splash into at the end of the ride. She truly, genuinely believed him. It was awesome.
oofda! john, i hardly expected it to hurt anyone, certainly not you. it's not intended to be read that way... apologies for any temporary sting.
i think you are extrapolating a lot from the fact that i'm in paris.
all that i meant was that i think about aesthetics for a living to some degree -- so i have all sorts of technical ideas about it that sometimes must seem very strange if one is thinking of different references from other fields. the last time i tried to post about books here that became pretty clear. my frame of references are continually very very different from most of the unfoggedariat's. whose interests seem to be computer science and analytic philosophy and politics/sociology... which all have very different ways of thinking and arguing from my field.
that's why i like coming here. i'm not setting up the difference as one that makes me superior or something.
finally, i took the comment i was responding to to be saying that he was imagining me with my mouth filled with, well, a human body part... you know? and i'd rather keep my pseudonym and not imagine that.
Re: 305, 307
I'd be happy to share my research notes with you.
I was totally kidding. I just wanted to use the lawsuit joke again.
My aesthetic is indeed different from almost anyone else's aesthetic.
Dude, you don't even have an aesthetic. Quit fronting.
308 (shakes head sadly): your heart is not pure, grasshopper. You may remedy this, but it involves a harrowing quest: to find the Bell of Taccho. You may encounter a feral text, who who will beat back all your attempts to interpret him, and this will be but the least of your perils.
a feral text, who who will beat back all your attempts to interpret him
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
Under the conditions given by Ogged, pornography as we know it will not disappear, but whoever survives will be facing a zero-sum "lump of porn" situation, since already-existing porn stocks will have to be divided up after the flow of new porn ceases.
ascetically pleasing
For some reason that sounds sort of painful.
The aesthetic I was issued at birth has scarcely been used. I'll grant you that.
Damn, I forgot that if you turn off javascript none of the information gets carried over into the signature boxes. 319 was me. It would be much easier if my browser didn't keep crashing when javascript is enabled.
phew. okay then. at least i got to say "oofda" in a post.
(which is the word in danish, norwegian, and north-dakotan for "wow," all you philistines out there).
Regarding the NYC article: when I'm standing on the subway platform waiting for the train, my mind often wanders to imagining what the subway tunnels will look like to the explorers who come down there someday after the city is gone, with their faded advertisements and the remnants of their mosaics. It always seems like a "when" and not an "if", like it's inevitable that the city will someday (not necessarily soon, but someday) be abandoned or destroyed and just as inevitable that it will be someday rediscovered and excavated. Oddly, this never makes me sad – it just feels like the course of civilization. Does this make me excessively weird or morbid?
No, though it seems an even more inevitable thought when contemplating the organic forms on the Paris Metro signs.
The New York subway - like many others - already has some abandoned tunnels, doesn't it? I remember seeing some of them in a photography collection somewhere.
327 - Yes, some are completely abandoned and some are just kind of abandoned and occasionally reopened for stuff like movie shoots.
Funnily enough, there's a self-evident URL for it
http://www.abandonedsubwaytunnels.com/
325: Becks, I've often thought about the destruction or abandonment of NYC--but I hadn't gotten around to adding earthquakes to the list of disasters to worry about. Plagues, nuclear bombs, chemical weapons attacks, hurricanes, tidal waves, insect invasions--check. Plus earthquakes. Now.
Mike Davis has a fun book about LA disaster scenarios. They're way ahead of you guys out there.
it's inevitable that the city will someday (not necessarily soon, but someday) be abandoned or destroyed and just as inevitable that it will be someday rediscovered and excavated.
Reminds me of that David Macaulay book, "Motel of the Mysteries".
168: Another one for the fall-of-civilization reading list -- Hyperosmia, by Spider Robinson. Way, way, goofy -- the premise is that a mad scientist designs a virus that makes everyone's sense of smell vastly more acute, and the stench of civilization drives everyone mad, I tell you, mad!! (There is no explanation for how dogs retain their sanity.)
But that's just the backstory -- the actual plotline got much, much sillier. A fine read.
[Post dump]
It always seems like a "when" and not an "if", like it's inevitable that the city will someday (not necessarily soon, but someday) be abandoned or destroyed and just as inevitable that it will be someday rediscovered and excavated. Oddly, this never makes me sad – it just feels like the course of civilization. Does this make me excessively weird or morbid?
I think about cities that way all the time. Since most of the cities (or 'cities' if you prefer) that have existed are dead.
That's the thing about cities (walking back to the point): they tend to be blown up, beseiged, fire-prone, disease-ridden, and otherwise generally dangerous. Or they used to be, until 20th century. And in the 20th century they depend on a lot of complex and finicky subsystems to make sure everything goes right.
ash
['Next!']
254: You hope to have to kill things? Bastard
Any city that was filled with a zillion corpses would be uninhabitable due to decomp for some time. The water supply would be shot, the power would fail (very quickly - unmanned hydroelectric power stations might stay up for awhile but things wear out - most modern buildings are uninhabitable due to power failure), and canned food goes bad in a year or two, unless it is specially treated. (Freeze-dried lasts quite a while.) The disease-carrying scavengers would die out, but they'd be inclined to reproduce madly and try to eat you beforehand (ever seen a flea infestation). I would point out that nuclear warheads may be targeted on your chosen large city (regardless of what they say), and those systems may be rigged to autolaunch. Certainly nuclear submarines have 'long-trigger' orders covering who to attack in the event things have gone in the toilet and they cannot communicate with high command. Cities are also great places to be ambushed (which is why urban combat is the worst kind for any commander to be facing).
Ergo, once you have looted and pillaged what you gotta have, I highly recommend you skedaddle. I'm not saying any given person could not survive in a city, but it is more dangerous, demands more caution (adopt the behaviours of a rat you might make out ok) and is basically unsustainable (depending on scenario).
I have also read every damn book mentioned on this thread except one, and quite a few unmentioned.
ash
['Why yes, I have thought about it, why do you ask?']
334: In the 20th century, we lost and rebuilt most of London, Dresden, Berlin, Stalingrad, Tokyo, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. To name a few.
"Calamity" is a scrivener's error for "catamity", the quality of being a catamite.
If you want to blame someone for this comment, blame Ben.
In the 20th century, we lost and rebuilt most of London, Dresden, Berlin, Stalingrad, Tokyo, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. To name a few.
Post-WWII, then.
ash
['{shrugs}']
And, yeah, maybe I'm being a little obtuse about "artificial," but it's a problematic designation—do you draw that line at domestication? Mechanization? Genetic manipulation? Many different demarcations for human agency? Plus I think we should save the "artificial" superlative for our robot overlords.
No it's simply a designation for human-made. Or you could be more restrictive and say human-made with tools.
I'm feeling a lot less sanguine about this "last person on Earth" thing after reading ash's comments.
I would point out that nuclear warheads may be targeted on your chosen large city (regardless of what they say), and those systems may be rigged to autolaunch. Certainly nuclear submarines have 'long-trigger' orders covering who to attack in the event things have gone in the toilet and they cannot communicate with high command.
I find this very, very hard to believe. I can imagine such orders being issued in certain situations, I suppose, but as a general rule? It just doesn't withstand scrutiny -- any number of scenarios can be imagined (particularly for the sub example) where communication would fail for reasons not calling for nuclear war. Obviously that's not an acceptable way of running things. You simply don't engineer critical systems in this way, both in terms of technology and protocol.
Tom, you priss, when the radio goes down you have 24 hours to fix it, otherwise, launch!
You simply don't engineer critical systems in this way, both in terms of technology and protocol.
You have to remember that the people who engineer those things are the tbroszs of the world.
Didn't this come up in the documentary Dr Strangelove? I vaguely remember dialogue like this:
"What's the point of a doomsday device if you don't tell the other side?"
"We were going to announce it next Tuesday"
Besides, hasn't US official defense policy abandoned deterrence through mutual assured destruction, and moved on the defense through pre-emptive engagement?
I find this very, very hard to believe.
You underestimate the need to protect our precious bodily fluids.
Fuck, I was pwned on the Strangelove reference.
Also, it wasn't quite a documentary. Though it probably almost could have been.
probably almost could have
Think I put enough qualifiers in there?
Maybe almost just nearly slightly fewer than enough.
Tom, you priss, when the radio goes down you have 24 hours to fix it, otherwise, launch!
Pfft. Everyone knows Denzel was the good guy in that movie. You're fighting a losing battle, ogged. Your warmongering day has passed!
Still, in general I find Under Siege to be a more compelling portrayal of modern naval life.
Another tangent to ponder for this whole "last person left alive" scenario:
Assuming you have taken care of the basic needs of food, water, shelter, etc., how long do you think you would cling to the more trivial aspects of civilized life? What I mean is, if there are no other humans for you to interact with, would you ever again give a moment's thought to whether your socks match or whether your hair is neatly trimmed?
That's an interesting question. I'd like to think I'd keep those up for as long as I could--both because I think it would keep me sane, and also because they're hopeful: maybe civilization will go on. But lord knows what I would actually do.
Hair, definitely, since there's a comfort aspect as well as the aesthetics. There's a sick part of me that thinks in addition to scavenging survival gear from an REI or something, I'd also grab a killer wardrobe from Banana Republic.
I'll be the best-dressed man in post-apocalyptic America.
I'll be the best-dressed man in post-apocalyptic America.
The competition will be fierce.
A belief you'll be able to maintain because no one will be around to say, "Um, Matt, Banana Republic"?
Fuck that. I'm getting me one of those badly-skinned-furs-and-chain-mail getups. And war paint!
With the sombrero? Magnifique!
Honestly, I was thinking one of those leather aviator helmets, with the earflaps and goggles. I take a Mad Max approach to my post-apocolytic ensemble.