[Location] Where to live post peak

danbloom · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 01, 2008 Posts: 54

Left out of maps that are seen above are polar cities in Chile's south, and Tasmania and New Zealand.

cualcrees

Which country or countries would you say are the best ones to live in when the SHTF? Which countries would you avoid?

I live in Mexico and my Mom talks about moving to Chile (she's in love with that country). So, would that be a good choice?

Thanks!

misterno

stay from America as far as you can. The more the oil rises the more the dollar will fall.

rdberg1957 · Heavy Crude Joined: Jul 28, 2006 Posts: 124

It is hard to say. What do you know about Chile? What are its products (fruit for export, wine, fish)? What are its sources of energy? How much energy do Chileans use? Where in Chile would you live? What does Chile import? Answer these questions and you may have a better idea.

jlw61

IMHO, there are requirements no matter where you live.

1) Access to fresh water
2) Ownership of arable land
3) To be surrounded by neighbors who care if you live or die
4) The freedom, for the most part, to live as you wish and defend yourself
5) To be insulated by at least 40 miles from a large city that is unsustainable (> 100,000 people)
6) Somplace that does not get too cold or too hot for the number of people living there and is defensable from natural disasters

This is a good strategy pre and post PO, but it's vital post PO. Where? There are lots of places that would fit this bill. I know of locations in Virginia and Wisconsin that would fit this bill.

#5 - This is the bug in the mix as it's definable in so many ways. A city of under 100,000 where people have lots to support a 1000 sq ft and the local farms are productive enough, in an organic way, to provide food for the city is my idea of sustainable. Enough people to do things, and keep things going, but not enough to over extend the ecosystem too much. Such places did exist and will again if things don't collapse too far, too fast.

#6 - If you live where it get's below 45 F then heat becomes a vital requirement. If that is provided by wood, then you will need several acres per household to be sustainable. If you live where it gets to hot, people need a way to say cool.

As far as natural disasters are concerned, they are legion and the most common is probably weather and fire. At the least, the infrastructure must be capable of handling natural disasters because infrastructure repair can get quite costly.
_________________
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking

Cashmere · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Mar 27, 2008 Posts: 1971

energycity · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 22, 2008 Posts: 124

CarlosFerreira

Most Mediterranean countries have the required climate, but I don't trust the leaderships much. France has a long tradition of social caring, and so does Germany. Austria, maybe?

Suggestion; stay in your country. It will be tough enough if you speak the native language, all hell will break loose when someone realizes you're a foreigner.

Nicholai

Worst:
1. Bangladesh
2. Vietnam
3. Philippines
4. Indonesia
5. Sri Lanka

Best:
1. Norway
2. Finland
3. Canada
4. Siberia
5. New Zealand

eXpat · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jun 08, 2006 Posts: 971

CarlosFerreira

Kingcoal

IMO, it's all about productive land per capita. Productive as in food production. For example, the US has about 1.8 acres per person, meaning that for every person in the US, there is a field, one and a half acres in size producing crops year round. Abundant fresh water is the other thing.

If you look at that stat, you see some interesting contrasts. For example, China has less than 1/10th acre per person, which is usually assumed to be the reason for their largely vegetarian diet presently.

Assuming an almost complete lack of access to oil, all other things being equal, you are still better off in a farmland rich country. Less productive land means you need more land for the same amount of crop. If you are right at the minimum now... Well, I think you can figure that out for yourself.
_________________
"That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money

jlw61

My idea of the best places to be "pre-die off" are:

United States - Many places
Canada - Vancouver area

But that's mainly because I'm an english speaker who has a hard time picking up other languages.

Post die-off? Pick your spot.
_________________
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking

Nicholai

slesh · Tar Sands Joined: Jul 20, 2008 Posts: 43

I have read with great interest many of the posts here. They appear to have one flaw in them, the government isn't about to allow itself to lose control. There will of course be some rioting, starvation in the urban areas. Thats a natural thing considering thier inability to grow for themselves. Electricity will be available on a limited bases but the grid should remain intact. The military will grow with veterans from the energy wars leading the way. I do not, however, believe food will dissappear on such a large scale as is spoke of in the posts. All one need do is look back into the past with population numbers before oil and see that it was still growing even without oil. I grant you there will be a contraction of the population, but it should be short term and level off. The main concern I have is the grid. Electricity will still be needed and I don't see fast enough movement to secure it in place.
Just some thoughts.