Post apocalyptic politics and government.

[Crimson King]

None very realistic - I prefer my scenario

e.g. (b) would imply 100% mortality in SE asia and China (at 50%) overall with negligible loss elsewhere and nearly 100% and none elsewhere at 25% overall

[carlton43]

Sept 22, 2015 21:45:42 GMT Crimson King said:

None very realistic - I prefer my scenario

e.g. (b) would imply 100% mortality in SE asia and China (at 50%) overall with negligible loss elsewhere and nearly 100% and none elsewhere at 25% overall

I understood this to be a flight of fancy 'What If', not a carefully reasoned enquiry as to a real outcome of a real flu.  So I postulated outcomes with very different results to see what effect it would have here in Britain. One affects us with a drastic drop in population but Third World hardly affected.  One removing our major future markets and competition. One removing most of the world's Muslims.  And one removing a large proportion of the most poor and vulnerable. It was as simple as that.

[greenchristian]

One of the major questions with any post-apocalyptic scenario is dependence on oil. If there isn't sufficient supply of oil post-apocalypse, then those parts of the world that are more dependent on it will suffer a much bigger collapse in their society (so the USA could be in seriously deep trouble, given its dependence on private cars). Countries and regions with renewable energy technology should be able to maintain a lifestyle a bit closer to ours, assuming they can get hold of enough food. So Carlton's scenario d (deaths concentrated in Middle East) might prove more devastating for Western civilisation than his scenario c (deaths concentrated in the West).

[manchesterman]

I think this needs Boogie's further input in terms of who was killed by this flu epidemic (widespread or concentrated) otherwise we are 2nd and 3rd guessing his original intentions...

[boogieeck]

No vaccine is created, the epidemic runs it course globally. 25% of humanity dies, or 50% of humanity dies, before Mother Nature finishes deciding who got to live after a very nasty bout of flu or in some cases, no symptoms at all. Every nation suffers but perhaps not quite equally. I think it is logical that some racial makeups have slightly different responses, also that living in close proximity to others has an effect, also that children, the elderly, the infirm, will suffer disproportionately. Poverty will exacerbate the impact. No community suffers less than 15% loss however in the 25% scenario, nor less than 40% in the 50% scenario. But none more than 35% or 70% respectively.

We are looking please remember at the impact of government and politics. I chose the different figures because I think they represent the difference between government, democracy and the market economy surviving and collapsing.

At 25% or 50% globally, the UK can expect no help or interference from others, nor be in a position to help or interfere with others. We go it alone, as do they.  Borders get closed, which has we can see on TV today, is like farting against  thunder. Possibly the Carlton scenario of Troops opening fire with live rounds on crowds of  women and children and machine gunning boats off Dover might happen, but regardless of orders, it would not be universal. When the troops phoned home each night and learned of close relatives deaths and saw them in their ranks they would recognise the futility of their carnage.

If it happens quickly and ends quickly, say six weeks globally, then IMO the state can recover the situation before it breaks down irreparably. But this would involve martial law. If it happens slowly, maybe over three years, then the state has time to deal with it as it happens,

[johnr]

I think the question we really want answered, is are the deaths spread evenly, or are they concentrated in the marginal constituencies?

[carlton43]

Sept 22, 2015 23:06:12 GMT greenchristian said:

One of the major questions with any post-apocalyptic scenario is dependence on oil. If there isn't sufficient supply of oil post-apocalypse, then those parts of the world that are more dependent on it will suffer a much bigger collapse in their society (so the USA could be in seriously deep trouble, given its dependence on private cars). Countries and regions with renewable energy technology should be able to maintain a lifestyle a bit closer to ours, assuming they can get hold of enough food. So Carlton's scenario d (deaths concentrated in Middle East) might prove more devastating for Western civilisation than his scenario c (deaths concentrated in the West).

Not at all GC. It will be quick and easy to get the oilfields back on flow especially with no locals warring with each other. Flu does not damage plant. We can easily import labour.

[boogieeck]

The deaths are in all constituencies but as stated, the young, old, infirm and poor will have higher mortality rates. MPs therefore lower mortality rates, maybe 20% and 40% respectively.

First question, how big an event does it have to be before government suspends by elections? Assuming they hold the by elections, how does the catastrophe itself weigh on the voters? Does it make them put their trust in government, or blame government? The slightly variable attrition rate in electors, how does that impact on votes cast?

Parochial question, what does it do to the SNP and Yesser votes? On reflection last weeks scenario of a meteor hitting London would surely benefit the SNP business case for leaving a London-less England in crisis. What does global flu do?

[boogieeck]

Our economy is built upon confidence, upon debt and upon a housing bubble. 25% deaths doses not mean 25% of homes become vacant, many would be merely under occupied. Maybe 15% become unoccupied and I think there is that amount of unmet demand to allow them to be sold or let, albeit at a reduced cost. 50% results in massive numbers of homes being unoccupied, the debt and taxes on them unpaid and irrecoverable as price plummets to 10% of former value. Economy teeters.

I don't think 25% destroys the supply chain of food or the electric supply, nor the ability of the government to appear to remain in control. 50% probably does in many locations, so order breaks down. While 99% death rates allow peaceful looting/scavenging with plentiful supply relative to need, 50% does not.

If order did break down, how long till it was re-established and by what means? It may be that with regard merely to government, 50% is a tougher situation than 95%.

[greenchristian]

Sept 23, 2015 11:23:49 GMT carlton43 said:

Sept 22, 2015 23:06:12 GMT greenchristian said:

One of the major questions with any post-apocalyptic scenario is dependence on oil. If there isn't sufficient supply of oil post-apocalypse, then those parts of the world that are more dependent on it will suffer a much bigger collapse in their society (so the USA could be in seriously deep trouble, given its dependence on private cars). Countries and regions with renewable energy technology should be able to maintain a lifestyle a bit closer to ours, assuming they can get hold of enough food. So Carlton's scenario d (deaths concentrated in Middle East) might prove more devastating for Western civilisation than his scenario c (deaths concentrated in the West).

Not at all GC. It will be quick and easy to get the oilfields back on flow especially with no locals warring with each other. Flu does not damage plant. We can easily import labour.

Oil extraction requires a certain amount of skilled labour, which may be in relatively short supply. If the apocalypse is something like an epidemic, it might be months before it would be safe to move troops and workers in. If it's something like an asteroid strike or a supervolcano that makes transport more difficult, it might be even longer.

[carlton43]

Sept 23, 2015 21:18:08 GMT greenchristian said:

Sept 23, 2015 11:23:49 GMT carlton43 said:

Not at all GC. It will be quick and easy to get the oilfields back on flow especially with no locals warring with each other. Flu does not damage plant. We can easily import labour.

Oil extraction requires a certain amount of skilled labour, which may be in relatively short supply. If the apocalypse is something like an epidemic, it might be months before it would be safe to move troops and workers in. If it's something like an asteroid strike or a supervolcano that makes transport more difficult, it might be even longer.

The scenario was flu and devastation of the Middle East. That is what I replied to. My response was correct.

[boogieeck]

New scenario inspired by Carlton and his concern for farmers. is there any conceivable catastrophe that where the UKs ability to cope with it would be depend upon our ability to be self sufficient in agriculture? Does agriculture have any strategic importance at all beyond being a good little industry like whisky production?

[carlton43]

My initial response will be just to help the debate with a little flexing.

In both WW1 and WW2 we had a much smaller population, much larger merchant marine and a dominant RN. Even then we came far closer to starvation than most of you can possibly realize. The excellent WARAG Committees, brilliant MOF planning and rationing, dreadful losses at sea, just kept us fed. But as soon as it is over we soon forget all those lessons and let our merchant marine go, the RN decline and agriculture go hang out to dry.

Efficiency and free markets is not all there is when it come to strategic planning. We have suffered for at least 4-decades under governments that don't do 'strategic' at all. The RAF and RN reduced to rumps, no merchant marine to speak of, agriculture hardly considered, allotments sold off, building land and industry always a priority over farming. We let hops, apples, dairy and countless other things 'go' in a manner France and Germany would never have permitted.

Essentially the British have become a bunch of unthinking townies with no knowledge or concern over where their food comes from or the how and why. They just want lots of it preprepared, salty and sugary and cheap. They think there is no 'tomorrow' have no idea how close the import chain is to 'no food tomorrow'! We are acting in a very foolish manner. But then look at power generation and Middle East 'policy'!! These politicians are so short term in outlook that next week is a world away. They have no strategic sensibility at all.

[boogieeck]

I certainly agree on the issue of lacking any defined policy. Power generation and the Middle east are perhaps the most blatant issues, along with housing, immigration and the fetishizing of low interest rates. This government has been one of the worst with the only caveat that at least they are thinking strategically about welfare dependency.

I don't see agriculture as part of that however, nor ship building. No nation that is capable of blockading us lacks the ability to flatten us in six hours.

[carlton43]

An opponent interested in starving us into submission may well not wish to flatten us because use of the nuclear option could have short/medium term consequences for them as well; and they might want us as labour or the land to use? I know we are two to three generations away from experience of general shortage and hardship but I am very concerned how dependent we are on non-British sourcing of much that is vital to us....and how very small the reserves are (if any) for most of it. The concept of Just In Time makes bare economic sense providing one has no strategic outlook at all and costs and price trump everything. We are solely concerned with very short term bottom line and price always trumps value of any kind. At 72 I might not be affected by any of this but I am convinced most of you will live to see I was right, but possibly not much longer than that recognition!!

[boogieeck]

If anyone can blockade us for a month, then the global war has already been won. Fair play to them. Negotiate surrender

Today I am thinking of buying a second hand diesel VW. They are cheaper than they once were. But I got to thinking that if due to flu, 25% of the populace died, then there would be a lot of second hand motors on the market. My now second hand Micra would be worthless but a second hand Discovery would still be saleable albeit at a massive discount. However, if I can get a two year old Disco with 18000 miles on the clock for £6k why would I pay £10k for a new Micra?

Potentially more bad news for the boys in Sunderland, once they have attended the funerals of 25% of their colleagues.

[carlton43]

Oct 2, 2015 18:56:46 GMT boogieeck said:

If anyone can blockade us for a month, then the global war has already been won. Fair play to them. Negotiate surrender

Today I am thinking of buying a second hand diesel VW. They are cheaper than they once were. But I got to thinking that if due to flu, 25% of the populace died, then there would be a lot of second hand motors on the market. My now second hand Micra would be worthless but a second hand Discovery would still be saleable albeit at a massive discount. However, if I can get a two year old Disco with 18000 miles on the clock for £6k why would I pay £10k for a new Micra?

Potentially more bad news for the boys in Sunderland, once they have attended the funerals of 25% of their colleagues.

You probably made your choice on utility and running costs. Look at the fuel consumption, tyres, service and other spares for a Discovery. Reason enough?

[greenchristian]

Sept 25, 2015 8:29:17 GMT boogieeck said:

New scenario inspired by Carlton and his concern for farmers. is there any conceivable catastrophe that where the UKs ability to cope with it would be depend upon our ability to be self sufficient in agriculture? Does agriculture have any strategic importance at all beyond being a good little industry like whisky production?

There are plenty of conceivable catastrophes that could make transporting food by sea difficult or impossible (several varieties of asteroid strike or alien invasion count), as well as catastrophes that devastate some or all of our major food suppliers but don't directly affect us, or the rather sci-fi catastrophe of the nation being transported through time (as in iainbhx's Azure Main timeline).

[boogieeck]

Inspired by Gay News, I have a new scenario. Frankie Boyle tells a joke so offensive that it causes everyone who is a member of the mocked group to die of a heart attack. What are the consequences to the economy and society of their demise?

Left handed people; 10% of society, evenly spread across society. By far the biggest loss of life I shall contemplate and yet given the even spread, not very disruptive. Cricket becomes more aesthetically pleasing.

Red heads: 1-2% of global human population, but as high as 10% in Scotland and Ireland. Terrible personal loss to me, Includes Frankie Boyle.

Gay people. 1.6% of the UK population, but highest in London at 2.6% .Statistically this should be the least traumatic loss for our nation, but we can anticipate that it will cause the most angst on the BBC. No silences at football matches however due to the total absence of any gay footballers requiring remembrance. Virtually no impact on production of anything useful, but considerable impact on the production of that which is profitable. Light entertainment almost halved, hairdressing and hospitality badly hit. Supermarket replenishment unaffected, but checkouts a shambles due to losses among checkout supervisors. Political classes suffer losses approaching 25%. Many "straight" men forced to settle for the more limited menu of sexual practices on offer from their wife. Escort agencies report upturn in business. Candle in the Wind goes to Number One

[neilm]

I would be hard hit by a redhead wipeout- I've a penchant for fit gingers.