1. I'd switch to solar power
2. I'd make my own religion
3. I'd rally followers and cull everyone who doesn't believe
4. I'd build a society, Believers are higher class citizens, everyone else is scum.
5. I would develope superweapons to conquer everything
6. I'd make spaceships, a big army, and arm them all with superweapons
7. I'd be supreme ruler of the universe
Congratulations, you survived the apocalypse, and became the supreme ruler of the universe.
Without electricity, how are you getting your solar cells? It's not like they can be made by cottage industry...
Also, superweapons aren't something you whip up in the shed out back, nor are spacecraft. You need a fairly advanced civilization to support either of those, much less both.
1. I'd switch to solar power
2. I'd make my own religion
3. I'd rally followers and cull everyone who doesn't believe
4. I'd build a society, Believers are higher class citizens, everyone else is scum.
5. I would develope superweapons to conquer everything
6. I'd make spaceships, a big army, and arm them all with superweapons
7. I'd be supreme ruler of the universe
Congratulations, you survived the apocalypse, and became the supreme ruler of the universe.
That sounds like a 4X Game: eXpand, eXplore, eXploit and eXterminate.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where
we started and know the place for the first time. T.S. Eliot
Without electricity, how are you getting your solar cells? It's not like they can be made by cottage industry...
Also, superweapons aren't something you whip up in the shed out back, nor are spacecraft. You need a fairly advanced civilization to support either of those, much less both.
I think he was joking, jonsills.
Anyway, if there were no electric power, for reasons like in "Revolution", I'd work on non-electrical, mechanical alternatives to stuff. E-readers, computers, and such would be toast, but refrigeration and cooking would just be more complicated. Wouldn't take too much to get a decent manufacturing base, although it would be very clunky and complicated. CO2 emissions would of course be a problem with large-scale industry, but we can assume that such industry would not be necessary if people just stopped having quite so many kids and were willing to endure a more primitive lifestyle (although flush toilets would still be an option; the trick would be filling the tank).
In the event of a "Revolution"-style scenario, after the starvation, plagues, powerless nuclear-power generators, and good old-fashioned human-on-human violence are done, you're probably looking at a total planetary population of less than a billion, down from our current 7 billion plus.
So I don't think carbon emissions from fires are going to be a major concern...
Edit: Oh, and what you'll need is for people to have more kids, not fewer. Increased childhood mortality, you know.
In the event of a "Revolution"-style scenario, after the starvation, plagues, powerless nuclear-power generators, and good old-fashioned human-on-human violence are done, you're probably looking at a total planetary population of less than a billion, down from our current 7 billion plus.
So I don't think carbon emissions from fires are going to be a major concern...
A billion is still a heck of a lot.
Nuke plants going boom eliminates NYC and a few other places; violence (guns, some incendiaries, even old-fashioned toys like swords) basically destroys the DRC, Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, and all surrounding countries. Russia is crippled, as is China; China probably suffers a massive famine. North America becomes a giant mess, with famines, cults, and other random hazards. South America and Europe implode from turf wars. South and Central America also suffer from massive drug wars and gang conflicts.
So...
Probably down to about 500 million in a year, what with disease outbreaks and all. Famine would be a big killer.
Well, it's not nuke plants going boom so much (they can't - wrong isotope of uranium) as overheating and melting down, because without electricity the cooling pumps don't work. So you get clouds of radioactive steam spreading downwind of every nuclear power plant in the world, and runoff into the rivers. Icky.
Well, it's not nuke plants going boom so much (they can't - wrong isotope of uranium) as overheating and melting down, because without electricity the cooling pumps don't work. So you get clouds of radioactive steam spreading downwind of every nuclear power plant in the world, and runoff into the rivers. Icky.
U-238 and its derivatives spreading everywhere is no less harmful than U-235 going boom. Probably more so, long-term.
If even one plant in the northeastern US went, that would be a good quarter of the country rendered uninhabitable, along with a good portion of the Atlantic irradiated.
Whatever technically happens? The result is unpleasant and effectively permanent.
If even one plant in the northeastern US went, that would be a good quarter of the country rendered uninhabitable, along with a good portion of the Atlantic irradiated. .
Actually, Chernobyl gave us a pretty good idea of the magnitude of contamination that results from a meltdown. Yes, the death and disease toll would be much higher in a more densely populated region, but it is reasonable to expect that the intensity (in units-of-radiation-per-square/cubic meter) and geographical extent of the contamination would be similar.
I've known for years that I am one of what Scrooge called "the surplus population." I am a civilized man, with no particular skills for pre-industrial survival; if civilization goes, I go with it.
Therefore, for some time I've had the plan (I'm good at making plans for utterly absurd and fantastic situations, the real world rather less so) to try to obtain a bottle of prescription sleeping pills from one of the local pharmacies before they're all completely looted; go up into the hills, away from most people; write out an explanatory note and seal it in a plastic bag, to protect it against the elements until someone might find it; and then, lie down and let modern chemistry do me one last service.
Get a gun instead.
Use it on others rather than yourself. There, chatastrophic scenario win!
P.S. If the other guy also has a gun, don't fight him, join him and do it together. Also easier.
Comments
1. I'd switch to solar power
2. I'd make my own religion
3. I'd rally followers and cull everyone who doesn't believe
4. I'd build a society, Believers are higher class citizens, everyone else is scum.
5. I would develope superweapons to conquer everything
6. I'd make spaceships, a big army, and arm them all with superweapons
7. I'd be supreme ruler of the universe
Congratulations, you survived the apocalypse, and became the supreme ruler of the universe.
Also, superweapons aren't something you whip up in the shed out back, nor are spacecraft. You need a fairly advanced civilization to support either of those, much less both.
That sounds like a 4X Game: eXpand, eXplore, eXploit and eXterminate.
We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where
we started and know the place for the first time. T.S. Eliot
I think he was joking, jonsills.
Anyway, if there were no electric power, for reasons like in "Revolution", I'd work on non-electrical, mechanical alternatives to stuff. E-readers, computers, and such would be toast, but refrigeration and cooking would just be more complicated. Wouldn't take too much to get a decent manufacturing base, although it would be very clunky and complicated. CO2 emissions would of course be a problem with large-scale industry, but we can assume that such industry would not be necessary if people just stopped having quite so many kids and were willing to endure a more primitive lifestyle (although flush toilets would still be an option; the trick would be filling the tank).
So I don't think carbon emissions from fires are going to be a major concern...
Edit: Oh, and what you'll need is for people to have more kids, not fewer. Increased childhood mortality, you know.
A billion is still a heck of a lot.
Nuke plants going boom eliminates NYC and a few other places; violence (guns, some incendiaries, even old-fashioned toys like swords) basically destroys the DRC, Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, and all surrounding countries. Russia is crippled, as is China; China probably suffers a massive famine. North America becomes a giant mess, with famines, cults, and other random hazards. South America and Europe implode from turf wars. South and Central America also suffer from massive drug wars and gang conflicts.
So...
Probably down to about 500 million in a year, what with disease outbreaks and all. Famine would be a big killer.
U-238 and its derivatives spreading everywhere is no less harmful than U-235 going boom. Probably more so, long-term.
If even one plant in the northeastern US went, that would be a good quarter of the country rendered uninhabitable, along with a good portion of the Atlantic irradiated.
Whatever technically happens? The result is unpleasant and effectively permanent.
system Lord Baal is dead
Actually, Chernobyl gave us a pretty good idea of the magnitude of contamination that results from a meltdown. Yes, the death and disease toll would be much higher in a more densely populated region, but it is reasonable to expect that the intensity (in units-of-radiation-per-square/cubic meter) and geographical extent of the contamination would be similar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQLbwOGT8eM
Get a gun instead.
Use it on others rather than yourself. There, chatastrophic scenario win!
P.S. If the other guy also has a gun, don't fight him, join him and do it together. Also easier.