Technology after the Apocalypse

[Ivan Druzhkov]

(I figured this was as good a place as any to talk about this, so here goes.)

One common thread that I've noticed in "collapse of civilization" stories is that, usually, the new society that arises out of the ashes can't progress much beyond a late-medieval tech level, thanks to our work at removing certain rare resources (oil, coal, and so such) from the Earth, and these civilizations have no way to replace them.

Well, I've been thinking a bit, and I think that such a civilization could probably do better for itself than many think. I don't see any real problem with a new Industrial Revolution, perhaps based on wood or peat instead of coal.

What do you think?

[jolo]

If enough people survive and can handle the radioactive and other toxins, climate problems and so on, there will be enough ressources and knowledge around to let society reach the same technological level pretty quickly - maybe even after a few months. New technologies will come about at a slower speed, because of the lower population and therefore specialization. Some complicated technologies with no spare parts might be unused but not forgotten until old population numbers are reached.

Only when population numbers are too low to even be able to preserve the current knowledge, or if anti-technology movements or religious extremists come to power after such a catastrophe, might there be a real return to medieval technological standards. But even then, enough old car wrecks, computers, power generators, gas tanks, radios, books, cd's and so on will be around to cause a "rennaissance" after some time.

[David S Poepoe]

Peat and wood may be initially used, but they aren't widely available. Coal will become king again.

[MerryPrankster]

I'm writing a post-apocalyptic serial story where in some parts of the nuke-ravaged US, there's still functioning technology (cell phones, radios, cars, etc). Largely in areas spared by nuclear strikes--an ICBM meant to destroy Mobile, Alabama malfunctioned and crashed into the ocean, leaving the city and a big hunk of Alabama intact.

The thing with post-apocalyptic scenarios is that most places are dependent on trade, and a global nuclear conflict, plague, etc. would ruin trade. In my scenario, gas is a rare, expensive commodity, and since most of the infrastructure is destroyed, communications are atrocious.

Even in a limited nuclear conflict, the oil and minerals the US imports from overseas will be a lot harder to get to, which will bollix any recovery something fierce.

[David S Poepoe]

I think in the aftermath of a nuclear war cellphones, as well as most electronic stuff, wouldn't work. Besides its the transmitters, etc. that make cellphones possible. Who's going around putting up new transmitting arrays. The onboard computers and electronics on modern cars are they Achilles' heel in such a scenario.

I would argue that the fact the US imports various oils and minerals since they are produced, or available, cheaper overseas than at home is important to remember. Recovery would probably be a little easier than you are projecting since there is so much that is closed off or stopped here in the US due to environmental laws, etc. Those won't be present and one can go a long while in construction before one needs any of the 'strategic minerals' to build anything.

[MerryPrankster]

The EMPs would wreck most electronics, but there might be places where there're still towers and limited service (places where the attacks were limited or the electronics in question were shielded somehow). In my scenario, that'd be Mobile and some other parts of the Gulf Coast.

The electronics in cars--that could be difficult. I remember a scene in "The Day After" where a highway full of cars shuts down b/c of a high-altitude EMP burst. However, I heard that cars inside buildings with lots of structural metal (parking decks, garages, etc) might be shielded from EMP. Some vehicles might still be in service, at least until the gasoline ruins out.

[jolo]

Most of todays electronics shouldn't have problems with an EMP, as they are shielded against most interferences. That was mainly a problem with the first electronic circuits.

Only things connected to a power or telephone line will have more problems, as there will be a lot of additional voltage running through the electric grid and other cables. But even that is usually under control in expensive equipment.

Cars also shouldn't be affected too much because of their metal "shielding" - except in movies.

[DuQuense]

Mississippi next door is a major oil producer. but I don't know about Refineries. Gas Shellacs in a couple of years [doesn't even burn] . You have all the ruins for metal, Do not have horse drawn Cars, People would be smart enuff to take the Cars apart and build new Wagons, with the parts. If you still have a little electricity you have Welding, and Arc Refining for the Metal.
It would be best if the people used this time to down build to a early 1900 tech level that wouldn't be lost in 2-3 generations. As that is the time frame, for losing that one essential piece of Information, when the only person knowing it slips in the Tub.

[Johnestauffer]

The down side of falling back on older energy sources is that there are still finite amounts of coal. Just like oil, the supplies are limited to specific areas and there is only so much remaining.
If we have to have to start over again, we will be using tremendous amounts of non-renewable energy sources until we rebuild a 21st century level of technology.
The environment would have been heavily polluted during whatever disasters occured. Add to this all the smoke and other emissions generated by coal & wood power plants.
More smoke in the atomsphere will negatively impact crops.
It won't be a pleasant time.

[Forum Lurker]

It depends on the scale of the calamity. If enough people are wiped out, the remaining fuel supplies will last those in the regions they're available (Texas, the Middle East, etc) for a millenia. In other regions, I'd guess that biofuels will become quite popular; with a much lower population load, and a higher percentage of population in agriculture, you can afford to turn crops over to make diesel for engines or solid biomass for generators.

[sunsurf]

The Promise of the Coming Dark Age (http://http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0716704978/qid=1118278360/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2550315-3219951?v=glance&s=books)
by Leften Stavros Stavrianos

published almost 30 years ago, has some interesting ideas.

Here are other books by him; I don't know anything else about him.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Leften%20Stavros%20Stavrianos/104-2550315-3219951

[Nik]

No way to organise the resource to keep a hi-tech open-cast mine going, but drift mines --dug in from the open face-- are viable. Mind you, wheeled trucks and pit-ponies will be a great advance on initial pick, shovel & woven baskets...

Then, beyond reach of the face, there's 'bell-mouth' mining, where you dig a well and burrow outwards. 'Grimes Graves' are remnants of prehistoric flint mines in UK using this technique...

I'm afraid most towns & cities will have to be 'mined' for materials and to reclaim bottom-land for farming...

Longer term, there must be a lot of use of light alloys, plywood and glass/ceramics-- because their raw materials are available. Just need *energy* from small dams, wind and/or tide mills, and charcoal from coppiced woodland...

Lots of low-tech bio-technology, too, harvesting and processing maple syrup, pine resin, wood-alcohol etc etc, not to mention the essential ingredients for booze... and the aspirin after.

[Midgard]

IMO there are various factors that would determine the potential development of technology after "Apocalypse" - two of the most important are, what happened, and who is left.

First, there has to have been an event that is extreme enough to wipe out the organized civilization on large scale, but not so extreme as to wipe out humanity altogether, or to make Earth completely uninhabitable. Therefore, it might make sense to rate the event on the level of damage caused to the environment. Is it the freak plague that wipes out most of humanity but select few, leaving the planet as such relatively intact? Is it a natural disaster that merely causes immediate global devastation to where its direct effects wipe out most of the planet's population? Is it the kind of disaster that instead of directly killing humans, changes the environment, causing large-scale migrations, and scarcity of resources - thus decreasing habitable/resource producing areas, and causing the end of civilization as we know it due to the breakdown of order?

Second, the question is of WHO is left, and how many of them there are. As in - is the survival of the "event" random, resulting in a random mixture of backgrounds, ethnic origins, skills, and motivations? Is the survival of the few due to some common feature, such as being genetically more resistant to whatever caused the ""event", or being of certain age group(s), or even simply due to them being isolated in specific areas? If the average survivor is a ten year old Amish, technology is not likely to rebound soon; on the other hand, if there is a sufficiently even mix of survivors from all ages and backgrounds, there is a much greater chance that they will be able to formulate plans on what to do next, and will be able to take advantage of the information and resources now widely available.

In the above scenario the survival rate would also matter - lower survival rate means less immediate impetus to reestablish civilization. For the purposes of the next passages, I define high survival rate as somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the planet's population; moderate survival rate as being in between 1 and 5 percent; low survival rate being at 0.1 to 1 percent; and, finally, extremely low survival rate as being below 0.1% of the human population. Thus, at an extremely low survival rate, the human population of the world would be about 6 million people or less; at low rate under 60 million, and so on.

So, there are several scenarios, all IMO depending on the above factors. I will only present my ideas on few of the scenarios, as there are simply too many possibilities to go into in detail. Therefore, there are going to be the "best case", "worst case", and a "moderate" scenario - however, the variables could be adjusted as needed.

1) "Best Case Scenario"

Low to no ecosphere damage, high survival rate, diverse survivor backgrounds. In this kind of environment, once initial organizational hurdles are overcome, the surviving population would be able to reestablish a relatively modern technology level within a few years, if not months - maybe not to 2005 levels, but at least to 1930s levels or so. There is going to be more of old infrastructure and social organization left, and more people with necessary skills remaining; with only a percentage of the population to feed and supply, the existing reserves of raw materials and other resources would last much longer until technological development could be reignited, and there are enough people who will be able to put existing technology to immediate use for the common benefit. Examples of such scenario would be the civilization-ending plagues, and, to an extent, some "zombie" scenarios, as well as civil disorder growing into destruction of government, but allowing isolated pockets of civilization to survive unscathed.

2) "Moderate Scenario"

Moderate ecosphere damage (large portions of the planet uninhabitable, but still enough space for everyone who survives), moderate survival rate, somewhat diverse survivor backgrounds (there are some common features as to why they survive, but there is still a relative diversity to skills, backgrounds, levels of knowledge, etc). Something akin to World War III, but only with limited use of nuclear weapons, combined with high lethality rate (say, by releasing a plague or two by the combatants), and destroying only some of the resource-gathering areas and areas of high technology could do it.

In this scenario the recovery could be still somewhat fast, maybe a matter of decades - while much of the old world's resources and knowledge would not be easily accessible (imagine having to go into a highly radioactive and/or potentially otherwise irrepairably damaged area to get books, large amounts of supplies, medicines, vehicles, and metal for construction - those who survive the first trip would not even think of going again), there is enough textbooks, supplies, and resources for moderate and somewhat disunited (as in being located very far from each other) populations, and even if true specialists in every area would be a highly prized find, there are going to be enough people who can at least make enough sense out of the books, machinery, and whatnot to build a working society that technologically would be at least at the 1800s or so level. When the societies begin contacting each other, and competition between them creates conflict, paranoia would become the driver behind technological development as it was in our world, resulting in OTL levels being reached within 50 to 150 years, depending on the need.


3) "Worst Case Scenario"

Let's presume high ecosphere damage (most cities and resource-producing areas are inaccessible or destroyed; the elements are just as much of a danger to the survivors as the other survivors, and possibly even more; the average life expectancy of survivors is fairly low due to environmental hazards); extremely low survival rate (think the only survivors are in isolated, rural areas, in some cases not even knowing what happened until much later); relatively homogenous backgrounds (along the lines of most survivors being farmers or Amish - and thus having only a very limited set of skills, especially dealing with technological issues not directly relevant to their daily chores). In this case, one possible example could be an almost-total nuclear (or otherwise extremely destructive) war, destroying all cities and large industry objects/installations, but leaving rural areas somewhat undisturbed, at least initially.

In this scenario, once the small number of survivors begins to realize what happened, their primary concern is going to be survival - thus expect salvaging basic mechanical technology, but forget about computers, cell phones, and all other things that are not the bare necessities of survival. While there are going to be individuals here and there that have necessary technological know-how or the background to gain it in order to quickly regain technology, there are going to be little implementations thereof, as, for one, the populations of isolated areas are going to be too small, and too concerned with their immediate survival to afford time and resources needed to recreate the pre-"event" civilization.

The resources necessary for high technology will also not be immediately accessible, and may not be accessible for centuries - thus even if the books are found (and in this case, it will be a fairly limited selection of books, as more specialized libraries would have been largely destroyed, and it would be up to chance on what survives), by the time the resources could be safely extracted from the cities enough generations have passed to where all with even a passing memory of the pre-"event" world are going to be long dead.

In this case, expect 1600s-era initial technology, that is, as soon as immediate supplies of oil, gasoline, etc run out, and machines stop working. The good news is that rural populations (if it is indeed them that survive) are going to adapt easier to reverting to using animals, and possibly generating limited wind or water-based electricity for the needs of the community (think doing it for the local hospital and town hall, but not for individual houses). The few areas that still have large enough caches of weapons or resources, and that are still inhabitable are going to become priceless for anyone with delusions of grandeur, and thus some areas are likely to see a form of "hydraulic despotism", when small group is in control of vital resource(s), and gets much larger population to submit to their will.

Finally, since the population is going to be small, and isolated, it could be years, decades, if not centuries until contact is reestablished - in which case new pseudo-nations would have developed, and instead of having the common "survivor" backgrounds (as might be the case shortly after the "event"), the disparate people are going to see the others of their species as potential enemies right away. In this scenario we are likely to see the longest "Dark Ages", as in order for technological development to restart, several conditions need to be met - large population base, need for development (economical, military, etc), and ability to set some of its resources aside for research and development instead of putting all of the society's energy into survival by the skin of its teeth. My prediction for this kind of scenario are a Dark Age of 200-500 years, depending on percentage of surviving population, where in the world these people are located, how far from each other they are, and the extent of environmental damage.

Of course, any change in variables could result in different scenario - IMO almost any "end of the world" scenario could be placed somewhere using those parameters, and the three scenarios I presented are in no way the definite say on the matter - rather the personal opinions illustrating the point. Anyway, here's my $0.02.

[Hermanubis]

Almost seems like you’ve thought of this even before the Dark Age Map TL…

[Ward]

Read Twilight 2000 and how the world was in 2002 this would help you .
Rember most of the Cities were not hit by the bomb but died as trade stop and riots started over food . What is a can ham worth when you have been eating rats . Rember most small town will be over run by people looking for food as will most farms . You will have small factories making amo . and weapons first then some drugs , But Civ is going to go down hill fast ,

[Forum Lurker]

It depends on what happens. A plague will pretty much eliminate competition for food, at least in North America; nukes will aggravate the problem, by killing off crops and lacing many more with fallout.

[Melvin Loh]

Well, couldn't there be some surviving PA societies- probably based on surviving US military personnel and installations- such as the Amtrak Federation in THE AMTRAK WARS, who are still able to utilise hitech equipment based on solar and electrical power ? I mean, the Trackers had solar-powered single-seat fighters. And of course by contrast there'd be other PA societies like the Medieval Japan-based Iron Masters who have a purely feudal society due to their abhorrence of the 'Dark Light' (electricity).

Then there'd also be a case of many different competing societies, as in Joe Dever's FREEWAY WARRIOR series or the scenario in FREEWAY FIGHTER, with communities of rugged citizens who wish to continue living their lives with law and order in their own fortified settlements, fighting for survival against lawless uncivilised elements who only wish to pillage and destroy like biker gangs et al, all of whom would be busy utilising and developing the remnants of pre-H technology.

[MerryPrankster]

Read Twilight 2000 and how the world was in 2002 this would help you .
Rember most of the Cities were not hit by the bomb but died as trade stop and riots started over food . What is a can ham worth when you have been eating rats . Rember most small town will be over run by people looking for food as will most farms . You will have small factories making amo . and weapons first then some drugs , But Civ is going to go down hill fast ,

You've played "Twilight 2000"? My uncle was really into that sort of thing when he was my age (late 1970s/early 1980s) and I gave it to me.

[Grimm Reaper]

Read Warrior, Wanderer, and Witch for a world where things went really to hell in a handbasket. By D. McQuinn.

[Midgard]

Almost seems like you’ve thought of this even before the Dark Age Map TL…

It's been an item of interest, yes. At least because of personal belief that if anything, the end of Cold War increased, not decreased the risk of global disaster, since there are not that many restraints such as M.A.D. on the people who might end up in possession of technology - or even release it unwittingly before it can be controled - thus scenarios like this could not only be the hypothetical speculation, but could also very well describe at least one of the likely futures of our civilization. Not to be pessimistic, but one can't help but feel this way even from watching the morning and evening news... :o

[Johnestauffer]

In most books & discussions of life after the collapse we rarely see mention of groups who have rejected new technology and are living a 'simpler' life, such as the Amish.
If any group of people was suited to survive it would this type. They could be the corner stone of new communities. Since they were not dependent on our 21st technology they would be in the best position to not only continue living, but to have a ethos and way of life at the same time.
People needing help would turn to these groups. Not only could they be helped but they would continue to have a structured community.
Maybe the post disaster paridigm is a Amish life style!

[Grimm Reaper]

Well, some of us have clearly considered the possibility of global apocalypse and the ramifications, but we aren't actually planning to DO anything about it.

At least, that's argument given when some of those with an alarming level of interest are confronted on the matter. ;)

[Forum Lurker]

In most books & discussions of life after the collapse we rarely see mention of groups who have rejected new technology and are living a 'simpler' life, such as the Amish.
If any group of people was suited to survive it would this type. They could be the corner stone of new communities. Since they were not dependent on our 21st technology they would be in the best position to not only continue living, but to have a ethos and way of life at the same time.
People needing help would turn to these groups. Not only could they be helped but they would continue to have a structured community.
Maybe the post disaster paridigm is a Amish life style!

This is quite true. One of my brother's favorite apocalypse scenarios requires that the event occur in the second week of August, so as to place some ten thousand members of the Society for Creative Anachronism (one of the largest collections of semi-practical knowledge regarding pre-industrial technology and warfare) in the immediate vicinity of a large population of Amish (the only people who can farm well enough without an industrial base to keep the SCA members, or for that matter any group of ten thousand refugees, alive long enough to put that knowledge to work).

[Faeelin]

[QUOTE=Johnestauffer]In most books & discussions of life after the collapse we rarely see mention of groups who have rejected new technology and are living a 'simpler' life, such as the Amish.p/QUOTE]

The Amish are nonviolent, aren't they?

I see a problem.

[Cloudy Vortex]

The Amish are nonviolent, aren't they?

I see a problem.

Ack, so do I. Then again, the Amish share (distent) roots with Baptists, and Baptist nonviolence is personal, not collective. The Amish could militiatize rapidly, if they so chose.

There is no way to accurately predict the outcome, but I like the attempts. Hey, if there is anyone equipped to predict the future, it's alternate historians. Think about it. What we do is pick a POD and predict the results based on historical patterns. Same as predicting the future, if's and all.

[Nik]

Found while googling for something completely different...

http://www.endtimesreport.com/Site_Index.htm

http://www.his.com/~tom/index.html

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/index.html

http://www.anvilmag.com/ai.htm
and...

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html

2/3 down, 'Farm Gumption (1910 ;-)' is one of the best reads I've had in
years.

[Forum Lurker]

[QUOTE=Johnestauffer]In most books & discussions of life after the collapse we rarely see mention of groups who have rejected new technology and are living a 'simpler' life, such as the Amish.p/QUOTE]

The Amish are nonviolent, aren't they?

I see a problem.

They are nonviolent themselves, but will probably be willing to compromise with some group willing to protect them for food.

[Molobo]

Depends on what you mean by "collapse of civilization".
In any case they are a lot of somewhat isolated places where human societies would surivive and quite likely remain technological knowledge allowing them to function on XIX/early XX level. Tasmania for example.

In case of nuclear war you have a lot of regions that aren't directly affected-large parts of Asia, Latin America, Africa, large parts of Pacific.Even some parts of Europe.

Somebody mention Twilight 2000.Well its continuation was 2300 AD, and authors made a point by showing how quickly human society would recover from nuclear war.

[Midgard]

Depends on what you mean by "collapse of civilization".
In any case they are a lot of somewhat isolated places where human societies would surivive and quite likely remain technological knowledge allowing them to function on XIX/early XX level. Tasmania for example.

In case of nuclear war you have a lot of regions that aren't directly affected-large parts of Asia, Latin America, Africa, large parts of Pacific.Even some parts of Europe.

Somebody mention Twilight 2000.Well its continuation was 2300 AD, and authors made a point by showing how quickly human society would recover from nuclear war.

Agreed. Besides, since IMO one of the key factors is what portion of pre-event population survives, most nuclear war scenarios would have anywhere between 20 and 50 percent of human population surviving the immediate event - despite the deaths that occur as an indirect result (but not directly due to) the event, there is still a large enough base of population available, and large enough variety of skills to put technological progress back on track in short time. On the other hand, extremely high lethality kind of an event, whether or not there is ecological damage - think "The Stand"-style plague, or something of the kind, would result in longer recovery simply because there are going to be less people available to spend time on anything other than bare survival - until there is sufficient population base available, and enough time that can be set aside for serious technological research, very little would get done.

[Forum Lurker]

I disagree. The larger the population base, the slower recovery will be, unless population is so small that it's vulnerable to genetic/cultural/skill drift. If a million people survived in the continental 48 states, that would be preferable to 100 million, since the smaller population requires vastly less infrastructure, and a much smaller proportion of service personnel, to survive.

[Midgard]

I disagree. The larger the population base, the slower recovery will be, unless population is so small that it's vulnerable to genetic/cultural/skill drift. If a million people survived in the continental 48 states, that would be preferable to 100 million, since the smaller population requires vastly less infrastructure, and a much smaller proportion of service personnel, to survive.

On the contrary, IMO larger population means more pre-event institutions are preserved, and more organization is left - if 100 million people in the continental US survive the "event", whatever the event might be, large enough numbers of military, police, etc forces would remain to keep some degree of order, and enough will remain in the chain of command in the government to have a relatively quick recovery - especially since it will be relatively easy to locate narrow specialists. Essentially the dip in technological progress would not be more than days, or weeks before the order is restored.

Of course, one can argue that in order to have "true" Apocalypse-style event, there has to be a threshhold at which it is considered such as opposed to "merely" highly destructive, highly fatal, but not society-ending event - think "black death" of the 1300s, which disrupted, but did not destroy the society, versus, I don't know, Stephen King's "The Stand" style plague - at least if one were to use it for example. As such, anything less than this "threshhold" is merely a modern equivalent of "black death" - scary, killing millions of people, but not halting the functions of the society in general.

On the other hand,

[Melvin Loh]

well, what do you fellas reckon bout THE POSTMAN and Kevin Costner's depiction of a PA landscape ?

[Forum Lurker]

On the contrary, IMO larger population means more pre-event institutions are preserved, and more organization is left - if 100 million people in the continental US survive the "event", whatever the event might be, large enough numbers of military, police, etc forces would remain to keep some degree of order, and enough will remain in the chain of command in the government to have a relatively quick recovery - especially since it will be relatively easy to locate narrow specialists. Essentially the dip in technological progress would not be more than days, or weeks before the order is restored.

Of course, one can argue that in order to have "true" Apocalypse-style event, there has to be a threshhold at which it is considered such as opposed to "merely" highly destructive, highly fatal, but not society-ending event - think "black death" of the 1300s, which disrupted, but did not destroy the society, versus, I don't know, Stephen King's "The Stand" style plague - at least if one were to use it for example. As such, anything less than this "threshhold" is merely a modern equivalent of "black death" - scary, killing millions of people, but not halting the functions of the society in general.

Yeah, I was assuming that society actually collapsed. If it does, small population is preferable, but larger population means it's less likely to collapse unless the apocalyptic event directly disrupts communications (a Dies the Fire ASB-event, or a near-future infocalypse which wipes out the overwhelming majority of the world's absolutely interconnected and absolutely critical information network).

[Wendell]

well, what do you fellas reckon bout THE POSTMAN and Kevin Costner's depiction of a PA landscape ?
It didn't strike me as being unreasonable.

[HelloLegend]

(I figured this was as good a place as any to talk about this, so here goes.)

One common thread that I've noticed in "collapse of civilization" stories is that, usually, the new society that arises out of the ashes can't progress much beyond a late-medieval tech level, thanks to our work at removing certain rare resources (oil, coal, and so such) from the Earth, and these civilizations have no way to replace them.

Well, I've been thinking a bit, and I think that such a civilization could probably do better for itself than many think. I don't see any real problem with a new Industrial Revolution, perhaps based on wood or peat instead of coal.

What do you think?

The problem with a post apoc civ is that it would lose the "structure of existing organization."

Pretend you time traveled 1000 people of mixed skills... i.e. auto mechanics, dentists, lawyers, computer programmers, football coaches... any 1000 people found in hometown usa... transport them back to the caveman days... without having an existing structure in place, the BEST they could do would be to build Jamestown, not Mircosoft HQ. This is because a computer programmer may have the knowledge to program visual basic, but who builts the steel factory and who the plastic factory to make the computer? Oh? the steel worker? Who goes and gets the rubber to build a tire after the steel worker has rebuilt the auto plant? Who rebuilds the power plant to produce electricity? Like I said, once the "structure of organization" is lost, the best you can do is a Jamestown because the Boy Scouts can teach football coach how to chop wood.

[DuQuense]

thus scenarios like this could not only be the hypothetical speculation, but could also very well describe at least one of the likely futures of our civilization. Not to be pessimistic, but one can't help but feel this way even from watching the morning and evening news...
one of the Reasons I have given up watching the News

[monkey]

Some people think the colapse of civilisation is inevitable

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html

[Sovereign12]

In most books & discussions of life after the collapse we rarely see mention of groups who have rejected new technology and are living a 'simpler' life, such as the Amish.
If any group of people was suited to survive it would this type. They could be the corner stone of new communities. Since they were not dependent on our 21st technology they would be in the best position to not only continue living, but to have a ethos and way of life at the same time.
People needing help would turn to these groups. Not only could they be helped but they would continue to have a structured community.
Maybe the post disaster paridigm is a Amish life style!


A decent book based on the Amish surviving is Leigh Brackett's The Long Tomorow. Its about a thirteenth amendment added to the US constitution, by the decendents of the Amish, prohibiting the building of more than two hundred buildings or one thousand people to a square mile, within US territory. Technology is also limited to the basic Amish lifestyle.

The basic plot has the character searching for the infamous location of the last high tech city/town on earth.

[Weapon M]

A lot of your survival-Y2K-disaster readiness web sites, groups, and publications cover a slew of possible PA tech...

Think solar power, steam generators, wind power....probably a lot of stuff that people are gearing toward anyway for cost reasons.......

[MerryPrankster]

How many people have the skills to survive a civilizational collapse? A lot of people don't even know how to change a tire, much less survive in the wilderness, repair vehicles, etc.

[Straha]

We've mined out alot of our heavy metals and easilly available fossil fuels so I'd think we'd end up having to use ceramics for construction and biofuels for energy.