|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Sept 1, 2015 19:29:24 GMT
With the players of all the other clubs having been wiped out, do Hibs win the Scottish Cup? Or lose the final to their own zombie reincarnations?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tangent on Sept 1, 2015 21:36:21 GMT
If we lose more than 50% of our population and other nations are much less affected, at least partial colonisation would be a matter of time, in my view. My own belief is that the basic structure of the state would survive as long as there are at least a million healthy adults in the UK forming a roughly similar sample to the pre-apocalypse population, although, as you get closer to that level, what you're likely to have is a military government with most civilian aspects of the state, including elections, being suspended or reduced to formality for at least a transitional period.
Below that level, I still think the state survives after a fashion, although it would be a state reduced to maintaining basic law and order, and controlling the population to maintain the basics of survival, and not much else. The apocalypse period would have had to have been protracted enough to allow enough preparation for the transition - say, mass conscription and training. Whether it survives would depend on whether those who found themselves as dictators could come up with a viable strategy. In any event, parts of the current UK would revert to being badlands outwith the law for a generation or so. There would be more likely to be a vastly different kind of state when stability returned.
I don’t see any organised state surviving below one hundred thousand healthy adults as a raw minimum - the effort of maintaining central control would be just too great. There might be ineffective central control, with entirely new states emerging.
(On the monarchist point: if the state survived, I think there would be an enormous instinctive desire for continuity and a link with the old days before The Evemt, and the monarchy would be one of the best ways of achieving that. Any surviving descendant of George V would probably rise to the challenge.)
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473 
|
Post by peterl on Sept 1, 2015 21:47:54 GMT
Of course, if a substantial portion of the population had been wiped out, any responsible local authority would make their priority arranging by elections to fill their inevitable vacancies. Anytown BC, So-and-So Ward Death of Councillor Joe Bloggs (killed in zombie attack)  |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 1, 2015 21:56:11 GMT
Depends on the nature, complexity and severity of the event. Urban communities would be less resilient with fewer useful skills in the hunting, skinning, making do vein. Also they would have less land and less kit. Their food would run out quicker and they would be far more likely to predate each other rather than co-operate. If it was a very serious event I think we would quickly revert to local tribalism with a strong man in charge and a short way with outsiders/immigrants! The monarchy would seem completely irrelevant instead of just mainly irrelevant. Puts a premium on stocking up now, acquiring arms and ammunition, derv, and generators. I am well sited in the Highlands.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843
|
Post by Crimson King on Sept 1, 2015 22:23:52 GMT
You also have to factor in the problem of dealing with the 90% or whatever rotting corpses post apocalypse. Another reason why rural communities (with space to dump the stiffs) might do better
|
|
pomofaced
Non-Aligned
Galactic Space Fascist
Posts: 1,013
|
Post by pomofaced on Sept 1, 2015 22:34:08 GMT
Not my favourite apocalyptic novel but one of the many I've read, Make Room Make Room, is that if I tweak the figures upwards, population and industrial production the result you get is............ the world as it is today where we aren't overpopulated and nearly all on welfare. A solid novel it must be said, written well and enjoyable but contains bad politics and economics of the doomongering variety that was all too common in the late 1960s. |
|
|
|
Post by Tangent on Sept 1, 2015 22:35:42 GMT
Unless urban areas were really wiped out, there is a good chance that, even with a much smaller population, they could take over the rural areas by sheer force of numbers, although this process would be brutal.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 1, 2015 22:36:14 GMT
Of course, if a substantial portion of the population had been wiped out, any responsible local authority would make their priority arranging by elections to fill their inevitable vacancies. Anytown BC, So-and-So Ward Death of Councillor Joe Bloggs (killed in zombie attack) but how many zombies does it take to call a by election? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 1, 2015 22:38:39 GMT
Depends on the nature, complexity and severity of the event. Urban communities would be less resilient with fewer useful skills in the hunting, skinning, making do vein. Also they would have less land and less kit. Their food would run out quicker and they would be far more likely to predate each other rather than co-operate. If it was a very serious event I think we would quickly revert to local tribalism with a strong man in charge and a short way with outsiders/immigrants! The monarchy would seem completely irrelevant instead of just mainly irrelevant. Puts a premium on stocking up now, acquiring arms and ammunition, derv, and generators. I am well sited in the Highlands. Except for the fact that your kettle has just bust...  |
|
|
|
Post by Tangent on Sept 1, 2015 22:44:47 GMT
My own favourite is The Day of the Triffids. I have gone so far as to sketch out part of a plot for a sequel (I know another author has done this already, and I haven't read his effort in full, but mine would be very different in tone.)
|
|
|
|
Post by timokane on Sept 2, 2015 5:35:11 GMT
A number of recent apocalyptic novels posit a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India and I think that the War Book stands head and shoulders above the rest. The rapid pace of the film might seem odd when you consider it is about policy forming but it is one that is helped if you watch the trailer first.
If I pick out one facet of the policy forming you will get the gist of the enormous problems it causes a British government. Hundreds of thousands of citizens in Mumbai are killed but millions are suffering from radiation sickness and need urgent medical help. They will include British nationals. Britain has her own stock of radiation sickness tablets but needs them if the situation escalates. With millions of refugees fleeing a war zone ? What is Britains response ?
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589
|
Post by cibwr on Sept 2, 2015 9:08:35 GMT
I am fond of Day of the Triffids, A Canticle for Leibowitz and The Chrysalids. As for surviving a post holocaust Wales, I am lucky enough to live very close to St Fagans, which as the Museum of Welsh Life has an incredible collection of artifacts and information that would make life in a post industrial society with a much reduced population much easier!
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 2, 2015 10:00:29 GMT
Again watched Threads a few years ago - it is fairly clear that the post-holocaust "government" is some sort of military dictatorship.
Intriguingly, the royal family never gets mentioned (before or after WW3)
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 2, 2015 10:30:56 GMT
Depends on the nature, complexity and severity of the event. Urban communities would be less resilient with fewer useful skills in the hunting, skinning, making do vein. Also they would have less land and less kit. Their food would run out quicker and they would be far more likely to predate each other rather than co-operate. If it was a very serious event I think we would quickly revert to local tribalism with a strong man in charge and a short way with outsiders/immigrants! The monarchy would seem completely irrelevant instead of just mainly irrelevant. Puts a premium on stocking up now, acquiring arms and ammunition, derv, and generators. I am well sited in the Highlands. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Any apocalypse meriting the name is going to knock out transport connections and infrastructure, and without easy access to motor transport most rural communities are isolated and not tremendously self-sufficient - there aren't many village shops left and those get resupplied from urban depots anyway; most people do not grow their own food; hunting is very much the minority part of 'hunting and gathering', but even there only a minority of the rural population has access to firearms and cartridges would probably be expended within a couple of months anyway; I presume the electricity would be gone and modern rural housing rarely has cellars, so storage would be a problem too. Arable farms would be OK, but nucleated villages would probably be some of the least sustainable communities. On the flip side, urban areas would have the advantage of better opportunities for scavenging from shops and particularly warehouses. Skinning is not difficult to learn and it's probably easier to find somebody who can teach butchery in a city. Co-operation would be necessary after the first few weeks and whilst there might be some predation, that's not a problem as a survival strategy if you've got a clear idea of an in group and an out group. Estates with a rough reputation and certain minority communities might actually do particularly well due to a tendency to identify together. The inner city would have limited appeal once the looting stopped, but areas on the edge of cities would have more land to put under the plough. The most successful areas would probably be on the edge of greenbelts and in close proximity to major supermarket depots - I suspect within a few generations there'd be a notable population concentration round motorway junctions, because it'd take a while to run down stockpiles of tinned goods. Strongman politics is probably the likeliest outcome, but it wouldn't be hostile to outsiders. Without petrol or electricity, mechanisation is dead, and that means you need a lot of agricultural labour. Said labour might not be treated well, but it wouldn't be smart to turn it away. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 2, 2015 10:42:08 GMT
Depends on the nature, complexity and severity of the event. Urban communities would be less resilient with fewer useful skills in the hunting, skinning, making do vein. Also they would have less land and less kit. Their food would run out quicker and they would be far more likely to predate each other rather than co-operate. If it was a very serious event I think we would quickly revert to local tribalism with a strong man in charge and a short way with outsiders/immigrants! The monarchy would seem completely irrelevant instead of just mainly irrelevant. Puts a premium on stocking up now, acquiring arms and ammunition, derv, and generators. I am well sited in the Highlands. Except for the fact that your kettle has just bust... I am still basking in the current sophisticated state of affairs and agonizing over our failed kettle. After the big change we shall be boiling with an old style kettle on the wood-burning stove to preserve our derv. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 2, 2015 10:45:28 GMT
With the players of all the other clubs having been wiped out, do Hibs win the Scottish Cup? Or lose the final to their own zombie reincarnations? No idea but I give it ten days before a Lib Dem Focus leaflet appears.... |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 2, 2015 10:55:33 GMT
EAL
You overlook the capacity of real remote rural to plan and store and self provide. We tend to have generators and large Derv tanks, plenty of deep freeze capacity and kit such as boats with outboards, lobster pots, chain saws, 4WDs and trailers. Many have guns and some can make own cartridges (I used to in the great rabbit clearance campaigns). We would be down to brassicas, roots, lamb, beef, fish and shell fish. Wine and whiskey will run down but we would be fine on fuel (mainly wood) and food.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 2, 2015 11:08:53 GMT
Yes, but really rural is irrelevant. You may be able to exist in perpetuity but you won't be producing a significant surplus nor acquiring many incomers. Without either of those things, such communities would be irrelevant to the new political structures developing. You might well be left alone, but that's just a reflection of the irrelevance of the western Highlands in a geopolitical context.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 2, 2015 11:30:13 GMT
Yes, but really rural is irrelevant. You may be able to exist in perpetuity but you won't be producing a significant surplus nor acquiring many incomers. Without either of those things, such communities would be irrelevant to the new political structures developing. You might well be left alone, but that's just a reflection of the irrelevance of the western Highlands in a geopolitical context. It is very relevant to me and my neighbours. We shall enjoy a good life with much unchanged. And why would you be 'more relevant'? And relevant to what? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 2, 2015 20:36:43 GMT
Relevant to anywhere beyond the western Highlands? There are good economic reasons why north-west Scotland has never been the centre of any major British polity and why even in the event of the collapse of modern civilisation political power would be concentrated more round the Thames than round Cape Wrath.
|
|
