Thread: 2012?

Does anyone think there is a global catastrophe thats going to change the world as we know it? It doesn't seem that improbable if you look at the nature of our existence here on the east coast. Meaning, how many people live in a 100 square miles from manhattan? -And if you remove the influx of nutrients from all over the world, how many people can that same area provide for?

And if something like this were to happen - (Which is eventually will of course) - what do you think is the smallest possible occurence that can trigger such an event? As it is USA is practially bankrupt and I don't want to know how many more major natural disasters until we can't even muster up the bill to gas the trucks just to get to arrive at the next one.


(Sorry I was listening to Tool's "aenema" and my mind ran off).

Also, if the population of the world is an estimated 7 billion, how many people do you think could survive and where do you think that place would be? Also, do you think there will be any more "world wars"?

Originally Posted by JFalz1024

Does anyone think there is a global catastrophe thats going to change the world as we know it?

It's always a possibility.

Originally Posted by JFalz1024

It doesn't seem that improbable if you look at the nature of our existence here on the east coast. Meaning, how many people live in a 100 square miles from manhattan?

It's not exactly the answer to the question you asked, but according to this site, within approximately a 70 square mile area, there are just under 20 million people, making New York the fourth largest metro area in the world, after Tokyo, Seoul, and Mexico City. In terms of population density, though, it comes in 19/20 in the table, denser only than Moscow. (And very slightly, at that.) Note that the population density of the Karachi metro area is almost ten times that of the New York metro area.

Originally Posted by JFalz1024

-And if you remove the influx of nutrients from all over the world, how many people can that same area provide for?

I'm guessing, not very many, especially since the area isn't developed for farming that much.

Originally Posted by JFalz1024

And if something like this were to happen - (Which is eventually will of course) - what do you think is the smallest possible occurence that can trigger such an event?

I don't really know, but given that there are many cities even denser than New York, you could ask, how many times in the last 100 years has an event of the magnitude you are envisioning here happened? That could give you a rough-and-ready estimate. Keep in mind, though, construction standards are much better in a place like New York than Karachi, and transport is going to be much better too. The same magnitude of disaster tends to be much harder on poorer areas than richer areas.

Originally Posted by JFalz1024

As it is USA is practially bankrupt

Depends on whom you ask. As shown here, according to the S&P 500 organisation, only 110 out of the 126 countries ranked are in worse shape than the US, which has the second highest category of rating. Moodys and Fitch still have the US in the top category.

Originally Posted by JFalz1024

and I don't want to know how many more major natural disasters until we can't even muster up the bill to gas the trucks just to get to arrive at the next one.

It's been almost a year since I've been to the US, so I'm sorry things have gotten so bad you're concerned about it sinking to a North Korean or sub-Saharan African level of economic development. When I was there, it was still one of the most developed countries in the world.

Originally Posted by JFalz1024

Also, do you think there will be any more "world wars"?

I expect so, although I don't know when, how bad, or whether they'll be within the lifetimes of anyone on this board.

IF it does happen, and that's a big if, then the population of 7 billion will be greatly reduced to around 1 billion or less. I come with this prediction based on the understanding that most of the world's heavily populated centers are emerged deeply into technology, that when it is gone, they won't be able to adapt. For the locations of the survivors, they will no doubt be near the outskirts of the large cities that haven't been destroyed, speaking from a survivalist point of view, larger cities tend to have more food when the population is gone. World Wars...no. After the destruction of man, the only wars would be for getting what food you can. But, most people, believe it or not, when faced with the idea of death, they will help each other out to survive.

I know I would survive. My family too. Courtesy of a undisclosed location that I currently possess.

Is it...in Texas?

Originally Posted by grapes

Is it...in Texas?

That was my guess.

Too bad, Texas is going to be the first place to go.

Not in Texas, my friend. It's a location none would even consider. It is a safe haven. Free from anything. A modern day Eden.

So...it's a long way from where you are?

by normal definition: yes it is. But, by my definition...no. See, most would look at 1600 miles as a long way, but when you have a valuable accessory like I do, that distance is covered fairly quickly. I'm just a tad luckier than some, less fortunate than others, but I believe in sharing my wealth with people.

Originally Posted by Aaron Baker

by normal definition: yes it is. But, by my definition...no. See, most would look at 1600 miles as a long way, but when you have a valuable accessory like I do, that distance is covered fairly quickly. I'm just a tad luckier than some, less fortunate than others, but I believe in sharing my wealth with people.

1600 miles...?? wait! you're not coming here, are you?!

Are you 1600 miles north of houston, texas? If so...you might have the opportunity when the shtf to take shelter and survive.