Modern life after an "apocalypse"?

[PlutonianEmpire]

No 2012 silliness here.

Basically, how might life [i]actually[i] be after a globe-spanning apocalyptic event? Specifically, one involving one or more major, naturally occurring calamity? A lot of times, I hear only about doom and gloom, where everything is dead or dying, all land is a barren waste-land, etc. Or, it is at least implied.

Although, earlier today, I came up with the concept of where there was some sort of global disaster, but yet, life went on, for the most part. Such as, rural areas being set back to, like, the equivalent of the early to mid 1800's (or earlier), while modern life, to an extent, continued on in the major cities, with the exception of a large reduction in world population.

Would that sort of "post-apocalyptic" scenario be feasible (for lack of a better word), depending on whatever the "apocalypse" was; or is it indeed the total, utter, soul-crushing doom and gloom so often suggested of?

(If a mod sees fit to move or lock this, I won't blame ya. I was just wondering if there could be a more scientific approach as to what might or might not be feasible after a globe-spanning major event.)

[Solfe]

I vote for global pandemic, something natural that only takes humans, centipedes, chinchillas, and goldfish. It is kind of an interesting scenario in the fact that you could see in the fossil record but it would be difficult if not impossible to prove a million years after the fact. Any survivors would still have some technology available, but only so long as the supply of fuel and parts lasted. Simpler items like wood fueled steam engines would be possible, so you could have electric lighting and such.

[PlutonianEmpire]

Yeah, I most certainly thought of pandemics, although I was wondering of something maybe a bit more destructive, like a natural disaster (eg, geologic or meteorological processes, or both; I don't know if space-related disasters would allow for the scenario I outlined).

One thing that came to mind, what would happen to all the trash (literal) we left behind? I know the bio-degradable ones could easily be re-absorbed after a while, although I'm curious as to what the survivors might do with the rest. First thing that comes to mind is trying to recycle some of it, in one form or another, if possible.

[Solfe]

A supervolcano would fit the bill.

[Scriitor]

You're describing a "cosy catastrophe" of the John Wyndham variety. Anything from a superflu, alien man-eating plants, or the kraken might be to blame.

[PlutonianEmpire]

You're describing a "cosy catastrophe" of the John Wyndham variety. Anything from a superflu, alien man-eating plants, or the kraken might be to blame.

Not quite.

I was thinking of at least a billion or two survivors.

[Ara Pacis]

The results will very much depend upon the event and how and where people are located. If people are removed from the living population randomly or evenly, then the result and the ability to carry on or rebuild would be different than if wide areas were affected and other areas not affected at all.

Secondary disasters would be problems. Some systems need to be maintained or safely shut done before they are abandoned or else they will fail catastrophically. Nuclear power plants and their spent fuel ponds is one example. Dams are another.

[R.A.F.]

... how might life actually be after a globe-spanning apocalyptic event?

Simple...not worth living...

[Noclevername]

Simple...not worth living...

I just want to make it clear to any post-apocalyptic wandering death squads who read this, R.A.F. does not speak for all of us. I prefer to rage against the dying of the light.

[KABOOM]

There are some scenarios posited that could result in an AGW-driven apocalyptic condition somewhere between 2030 and 2300.

The changes could take place much more suddenly than many realize, as quickly as a decade (per the analysis done by Ward in "Under a Green Sky).

Quick and dramatic decreases in global food sources due to ocean acidification and deserting of mega agricultural strips. The planet has 7 billion people (growing to 9 billion by 2050, then stabilizing per Nat Geographic absent "apocalypse"). Big swatches of population zones - 2 billion in strips of India, Bangaldash, China may starve first according to some assessments. Once a disaster of this magnitude starts - grave economic global chaos on a scale never seen before will take place with laser quickness. With a crashed financial system, trade flows will freeze. Governments around the world will quickly break down. Martial law, coups, and smaller regional footholds will replace by national governments. Resources available to areas such as technology, sceince will immediately dry up. Communication servers and technologies will crash. More starvation and death will ensue. In a matter of a few decades "survivors" will be blasted back to a pre-Industrial era way of life.

Long term this will expedite the global recovery as AGW will have dramatically decreased, but it is still likely to take many thousands of years.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[mike alexander]

A relevant read, still, would be George Stewart's Earth Abides.

[transreality]

Rather that a graceful return to a pre-industrial age, more likely a scavenging society may result. Where some technology based around robust artifacts would survive, but other evolved technologies would be lost and not reinvented. Would such a stressed survival culture develop the spoked wheels of the 19th century, produced with such care when they represented cutting edge technology, when steel wheel and rubber tyres are easy and abound. Similarly clockwork, steam powered shipping, or the literary society of that era evolved over many centuries, the post-apocalypse world may either have no need for these things, or have easier alternatives, such as re-developing batteries.

[Noclevername]

The level of scavenging and/or reinvention would depend greatly on the type and degree of catastrophe. If as stated above there are a billion or two survivors, it's likely that many of them would be skilled workers who would retain sufficient technological knowledge to restart factories and power plants.

[publiusr]

I wonder if steam power might make a comeback then. A combination of old and new. A nuclear reactor provides steam--and modern belt material is used to give new power to factories that had tools running before electrification. Heck--even certain belts might have printed information as one writer thought we might have. The result would be technology no EMP or hacker's code could bother. Yes there would still have to be means to still produce nuclear material which would require electricity in that spot--but it might be something to keep in mind perhaps for harsh off world conditions...

[primummobile]

The History Channel had a docudrama called After Armageddon a year or two back that was very un-History Channel like in that it wasn't about conspiracy theories or reality television. It followed one family for a period of about twenty years after a global pandemic wipes out most of the human race. "Expert" commentary was throughout.

It didn't really differ much from what I've always thought life would be like after a non-violent catastrophe. The basic message was that, in the beginning, you want plenty of food and water, medicine, and guns. You would want to keep as low a profile as possible and you would want to stay away from cities. In the story, I think it was ten years before life started to calm down and twenty years before there was any kind of return to normalcy, although the "normal" wasn't anything like what we are used to now.

Iirc, the main character died from a simple scratch that became infected and they were unable to get antibiotics.

[Robert Tulip]

There are some scenarios posited that could result in an AGW-driven apocalyptic condition somewhere between 2030 and 2300.

The changes could take place much more suddenly than many realize, as quickly as a decade (per the analysis done by Ward in "Under a Green Sky).

Quick and dramatic decreases in global food sources due to ocean acidification and deserting of mega agricultural strips. The planet has 7 billion people (growing to 9 billion by 2050, then stabilizing per Nat Geographic absent "apocalypse"). Big swatches of population zones - 2 billion in strips of India, Bangaldash, China may starve first according to some assessments. Once a disaster of this magnitude starts - grave economic global chaos on a scale never seen before will take place with laser quickness. With a crashed financial system, trade flows will freeze. Governments around the world will quickly break down. Martial law, coups, and smaller regional footholds will replace by national governments. Resources available to areas such as technology, sceince will immediately dry up. Communication servers and technologies will crash. More starvation and death will ensue. In a matter of a few decades "survivors" will be blasted back to a pre-Industrial era way of life.

Long term this will expedite the global recovery as AGW will have dramatically decreased, but it is still likely to take many thousands of years.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

The traditional four horsemen of the apocalypse are famine, plague, war and death. The contemporary planet is rather vulnerable to all these problems, especially as the current economy is only sustained by fossil fuels that create a devilish heating scenario - economic growth delivers stability but cooks the planet. Between the devil and the deep blue sea, I would choose the deep blue sea. If we can invent floating islands, supported by large bags of fresh water, there is the prospect of escape from the terrestrial turmoil. After all, 71% of the planet is sea, with average depth three miles.

[Solfe]

With two billion survivors, I think a "softer" event would be needed. A pandemic that takes two thirds of the population is pretty nasty.

What about a comet that breaks up on its first pass and then the Earth is pummeled years later? If the fragments were small enough to wreck a city without turning it into a big crater, if the warning is early enough, if the delay between impacts is predictable and long, then people themselves would be their own worst enemy.

Rather than the tired scenario of people being too foolish to get out of the way of the impactors, you could have a case where too many people move. The issue then becomes people can escape, but they can't bring their normal level of infrastructure with them. Too little water and food, fewer hospitals, people are off the normal transportation routes for supplies, on poorer land, etc. Plug in some violence and disease and the population plunges. It could take years though.

[Robert Tulip]

A good book on related issues is World War Zombie by Max Brooks. The author is the son of the great satirist Mel Brooks. He uses the fictional framework of a global zombie epidemic to explore how people would react to a genuine crisis.

The Chrysalids by John Wyndham is another good book on post-apocalyptic life, with the theme that people develop extreme intolerance towards mutation following a nuclear war.

[Doodler]

The History Channel had a docudrama called After Armageddon a year or two back that was very un-History Channel like in that it wasn't about conspiracy theories or reality television. It followed one family for a period of about twenty years after a global pandemic wipes out most of the human race. "Expert" commentary was throughout.

It didn't really differ much from what I've always thought life would be like after a non-violent catastrophe. The basic message was that, in the beginning, you want plenty of food and water, medicine, and guns. You would want to keep as low a profile as possible and you would want to stay away from cities. In the story, I think it was ten years before life started to calm down and twenty years before there was any kind of return to normalcy, although the "normal" wasn't anything like what we are used to now.

Iirc, the main character died from a simple scratch that became infected and they were unable to get antibiotics.

I remember that one. Had an interesting perspective on the mentality of a collapse, it would seem that Hollyweird occasionally gets one right. Particularly the town that falls back on Old West mentality when dealing with roving scavenger gangs. The father died of a scratch, the narration was done by the son.

[John Jaksich]

As for a scenario of how it goes down--there are truly too many bad situations to mention --IMO

However, humanity always finds a way to believe in itself--there are the resolute survivors who use their "hope" and their uncanny ability to survive during the darkest of times. It is as if some are hardwired to evolve, survive, and surmount the harshest of conditions.

[Cougar]

... life went on, for the most part. Such as, rural areas being set back to, like, the equivalent of the early to mid 1800's (or earlier)...

Most people now understand the cause of disease and sickness. They had little clue about this in the early 1800s. At least that's something that wouldn't be lost. Future survivors may not have the medicines and surgical abilities we now have, but just the knowledge of what causes disease would be helpful.

[Ara Pacis]

Most people now understand the cause of disease and sickness. They had little clue about this in the early 1800s. At least that's something that wouldn't be lost. Future survivors may not have the medicines and surgical abilities we now have, but just the knowledge of what causes disease would be helpful.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Lots of people might revert to superstition, especially if the people who survive either already believe in superstition instead of science, decide that the precipitating event is proof of superstition and is disproof of science, or simple wants to use superstition to control the survivors.

[Cougar]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Lots of people might revert to superstition....

Well, judging from the polls I've seen on scientific literacy, in the U.S. anyway, you might be right. But the germ theory of disease has been adopted by nearly every household, I would think and hope. Success breeds acceptance. Many things would revert to the ways of old. I'm thinking some things would not... ETA, ...due to what has been learned between, say, 1780 and today. Everyone knows humans have walked on the moon...

[PlutonianEmpire]

The traditional four horsemen of the apocalypse are famine, plague, war and death. The contemporary planet is rather vulnerable to all these problems, especially as the current economy is only sustained by fossil fuels that create a devilish heating scenario - economic growth delivers stability but cooks the planet. Between the devil and the deep blue sea, I would choose the deep blue sea. If we can invent floating islands, supported by large bags of fresh water, there is the prospect of escape from the terrestrial turmoil. After all, 71% of the planet is sea, with average depth three miles.

Somehow, I think people would still manage to bring their problems with them, regardless of what they try to do to escape it.

[Ara Pacis]

Well, judging from the polls I've seen on scientific literacy, in the U.S. anyway, you might be right. But the germ theory of disease has been adopted by nearly every household, I would think and hope. Success breeds acceptance. Many things would revert to the ways of old. I'm thinking some things would not... ETA, ...due to what has been learned between, say, 1780 and today. Everyone knows humans have walked on the moon...

Falls down laughing. Good one!

Unfortunately, a lot of preppers are HB/CT/ATM types. :-/

[Solfe]

Lots of people might revert to superstition...

Many people operate on superstition already. My daughter has to have treatments to remove a mass from her face. I noticed that no doctor, nurse, administrator, or insurance company will EVER refer to a "thirteenth treatment". She has series of 12 treatments and one assessment, then 12 more treatments and a second assessment and so on. It struck me as odd the first two times, shocking the third time, but now that she has had 4 assessments and is working towards her 5th, it is slightly embarrassing that pencil pushers and medical staff fear the number 13.

[Robert Tulip]

Somehow, I think people would still manage to bring their problems with them, regardless of what they try to do to escape it.

If somehow an extreme event occurred, say a climate tipping point caused the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets to fall into the sea, the population movements from low fertile areas such as Bangladesh and Vietnam would be immense.

The psychological shock might be so great that if people moved to the sea on floating cities, they would be open to establishing new institutional structures that would be scientific.

I mean, if delusory beliefs got blamed for the catastrophe, there would be strong pressure to abandon delusory beliefs.

[Noclevername]

Unfortunately, when people get scared or undergo massive change, they tend to cling more tightly to their beliefs rather than abandon them.

[toolazytotypemyname]

Most people now understand the cause of disease and sickness. They had little clue about this in the early 1800s. At least that's something that wouldn't be lost. Future survivors may not have the medicines and surgical abilities we now have, but just the knowledge of what causes disease would be helpful.

After a couple of generations what happens? There's these things in the air, that you can't see, that'll make you sick. Are they germs or evil spirits?

[swampyankee]

If somehow an extreme event occurred, say a climate tipping point caused the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets to fall into the sea, the population movements from low fertile areas such as Bangladesh and Vietnam would be immense.

The psychological shock might be so great that if people moved to the sea on floating cities, they would be open to establishing new institutional structures that would be scientific.

I mean, if delusory beliefs got blamed for the catastrophe, there would be strong pressure to abandon delusory beliefs.

More likely, the survivors who had been the strongest proponents of delusionary beliefs (we know who they are; they don't: they're delusional) would say that a global catastrophe was proof of their beliefs.

Incidentally, I think a catastrophe that's minor on the global scale, say a 500 m rock hitting Cheyenne Mountain, (granted, it be really bad for the locals) will trip a global nuclear war, which would (conservatively) kill billions.