[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]fraggle wrote:
Well, seeing as this is all for discussion purposes, I’m going to say that your best bet is remote areas in northern Canada and possibly the midwestern states.
As others have pointed out, Canada has large cities. However, most densely populated areas are clustered together, and would act as bottlenecks for those fleeing nearby. It would be pretty difficult for the population of say, Philadelphia for example, to filter out through the shitshow that would be New York or Michigan, let alone southern Ontario or Quebec. Fleeing to the midwest would be similar, as only those densely populated areas nearby wouldn’t have these other large cities to bypass.
The second reason is that even for those large cities near a sparsely populated area, the people would need to have sufficient ability to reach them. Assuming a full tank of gas, the average refugee could go 500kms (300 miles) without having to fill up, as driving conditions would be less than optimal. This assumes that most people are prepared with a full tank, and are more focused on fleeing than fighting, which probably won’t be the case.
At this point in time, fuel supplies in the area would be low, and there would be difficulty for most to access them. Running low on fuel and having difficulty securing more, a lot of people would probably try and hunker down somewhere safe until things settled down.
So most people would end up in an area around 500km’s away from a big city, because who are we kidding, how many are able to ruck another 100km. Sure, over time some would slowly spread out, but by then it would be more likely thousands rather than millions.
This would leave most of Canada, and good chunks of Montanna, North Dakota, Idaho, and Wyoming with a population density of less than a person per square mile, and plenty of fishing and hunting.
Bottom line, come live near me, I need a decent training partner.
[/quote]
There’s a reason much of Canada, Montana, North Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming are sparsely populated and wouldn’t necessarily be capable of supporting large amounts of apocalypse refugees - the long, harsh winters. That’s the way it’s always been since North America was first settled thousands of years ago and that’s the way it would continue after the hypothetical 2012 collapse.
Along that line the climate is simply not agriculture friendly enough to feed large numbers of people. [/quote]
Are you disagreeing with me about it these regions being a good place to be? I can’t really tell. I do agree about these places not being suitable for large populations. I was trying to say that for someone with half decent survival skills, you would probably be better served being in these areas.
I have disagree about the climate and agriculture though, as I live in a major agricultural region that is also pretty far north. It is probably more correct to say they aren’t agriculture friendly enough to support the massive infrastructure requirements needed for a large population.