158
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
158 points (97.6% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26749 readers
461 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think the immediate deaths would all be from people who need electricity to run medical devices.
Followed shortly by people who require refrigerated medication.
Followed by elderly who die from exposure to extreme, unconditioned temperatures.
and that would be in the first, oh, say... week or two.
Then, with fridges full of rotted food, your first major death wave will occur as masses of people lose their absolute goddamn minds in panic and fear and start food riots/try to rob from others/raid big industrial farms/neighborhood gardens/etc, which leads to mass deaths from starvation, exposure, exertion, desperation, and gunshot.
Which will even out after about a week or two.
Then you settle in for the slow burn. 3 months out you'll have another, comparatively small wave of deaths from people who run out of non-refridgeration requiring medications.
Then another slow burn until manufactured canned goods run out in stores and scavanged homes until a wave of starvation.
All in all, I'd say you'd probably be over the bulk of the mass deaths after 6 months, and with a significantly reduced population.. Which will be to the benefit of the survivors, since less people per mile will make farming/hunting easier, and life safer.. because while raiders/thieves will always be a overarching concern and safety issue, at this point, most of the desperation should have passed along with most of the desperate.
There will also be, for at least a generation, possibly two, the lingering unspoken understanding that more people than anyone would ever care to count only survived the famines and fall by eating the long pig.
Sorry, what's the long pig? Other humans?
You forgot water in your scenario.
To be fair most people in a first world country don't need to think about water since it's just "there", all the time.
But as soon as the electricity goes out the water supply goes out too.
No water supply means no water to drink, with no water the human body die within 3 days, so people will start to rely on any dirty water they can find.
About dirty water, no water also means no WC. I repeat: no WC so no evacuation of feces and urine. Within a few day a big city swill be covered with human excrement. Mixed with no clean water access it means that deadly waterborne diseases will spread extremely quickly.
I wonder about the population using non-refrigerated but still vital medication being "comparatively small." There are countless people who would no longer be getting things they need to live, and only a very small percentage of those folks would have the ability to grow a plant or something and refine themselves a substitute of some kind. I am really curious how those numbers would line up.
Username doesn't check out. I would watch that movie.
Yep. I'd have about a month and a half of insulin to use, since it lasts that long out of refrigeration. It would take a while to actually kill me probably, but yeah that would be what gets me I think.
So basically Walking Dead without zombies.
Even in TWD the bigger danger was from the living.
My post apocalypse strategy - and the only way to avoid prolonged suffering - is suicide on day 1.
Turns out that's not a good dinner party answer.
Bravo
You got it right. If you’re already in a hospital you’re screwed. Anyone on a ventilator etc. is dead in hours.Then there’s people who need special meds that require refrigeration. They’re dead in days. Depending on the season, many more are dead in weeks. Food would be an issue but there are lots of shelf stable/canned goods that could last for a bit. Scarcity would be the bigger concern.
The dead bodies themselves could also be an issue at scale.
The crazier issue in my mind are all the industrial plants, nuclear power plants, chemical processing facilities…
In any major catastrophe they are abandoned and likely the meltdown and other issues could render whole areas uninhabitable. Might be manageable in certain power loss scenarios… but anything major and sudden like if you’re country suffered a nuclear attack or a major natural catastrophe and you survived I’d stay away from nuclear plants or chemical processing facilities. Potable water will be hard enough to come by…