"Someone was asking me to elaborate on my views of the best place to live after a hypothetical Peak Oil collapse.
Russia could probably support its current 150 million population as this is not much higher than what it had 100 years ago. It would have an ugly time fending off the migrating people from other, more densely populated regions, however.
Ireland actually has roughly 1/2 the population that it had in 1845, before the Potato Famine, so it's certainly not in as bad a shape in a collapse as England.
France is amazingly fertile and supported a population of 3-6 times that of England in the Middle Ages. Rough times for the Paris region, post-collapse, but France has preserved most of its agricultural land and would be back on its feet before most other European countries.
My vote among the English speaking countries would be New Zealand. Relatively mild climate and fairly low population for its size. Second would be the agricultural regions of the US heartland, especially those areas with ample water and/or close to the Mississippi.
Worst countries and/or regions in the world post-collapse: Japan, England, desert SW of the U.S., southern Florida, India, China, Sub-Saharan Africa, Mexico, the Middle East. All these areas have too many people for their agricultural resources."
I dont usually post from blogs, but I liked the reminder that we are too many for too little
Monday, July 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You *liked* this reminder? It doesn't keep you awake at night?
I am thinking we should sell our house in Oakland while prices are still high and buy a house in Illinois near the river, banking the remainder. But we don't like Illinois much... and hubby doesn't see things the way you and I do; it would be hard to convince him of the necessity of such a change.
I am, however, thinking of putting a food garden in my yard; and need to buy the family bicycles while they are still inexpensive.
Post a Comment