Are densely populated regions more likely to survive an apocalyptic event?
Why are Americans so fucking salty?
>>43747557
sparsely populated areas would be more likely to survive because the living conditions there are more likely to be shit by default
>densetugal
The trick is living on the periphery of population centres right?
>>43747573
All the salt we put on the french fries that comes with our burgers.
>>43747599
>>Australia
>>43747557
Depends on the apocalyptic event.
If it's environmental in nature, that would have a different answer than if it was bacterial or nuclear.
>>43747651
>Depends on the apocalyptic event.
Supernatural?
>>43747649
You mean Freedom Fries.
>>43747680
Define. This could be heavily in favor of ye or nay depending entirely on how this shit goes down.
Depends. Complex societies may be better at surviving catastrophic events; but modern cities have logistical dependencies that make them deathtraps in the event of supply disruption, and the dense packing ensures epidemics don't safely burn out the way they do in populations scattered across small villages.
In general, no.
>>43747757
Demonic incursion?
>>43747680
Still needs to be more specific- are we talking ghosts, risen dead, demons, angels, nature spirits, angels, mythical beasts, invaders from faerieland?
As a general rule, I'd say the more able you are to fight a disaster in general, the more able a densely populated area can survive it, where as with a disaster it's harder to fight you're generally better off in less densely populated areas.
Though seeing as you said supernatural, in the case of risen dead you want to be somewhere with the lower population density over time - New York would be much better off than Rome, Paris or London
>>43747557
Unless this is an apocalypse where the Ents get pissed, no.
In fact, you'd probably have to concoct a very specific set of circumstances where living in a very densely populated area would increase your chances of surviving something apocalyptic.
>>43747877
Think about it.
A veritable army of semen demons draining men of their vitality day after day!
>>43747557
It completely depends on the type of apocalyptic event. It honestly could go either way...
Depends. For example in Mad Max all of the survivors are in interior Australia, which was already a wasteland so it was never nuked too hard. It's implied that the actually inhabitable areas of Australia (coasts and whatnot) have been rendered way worse than just desert.
>>43747557
>heavily populated area
>grocery stores run out of food and gas pumps run dry in three days at best
>apocalyptic survival
you would be seeing people kill each other for a couple cans of baked beans before the end of the second week.
>>43748775
>you would be seeing people kill each other for a couple cans of baked beans before the end of the second week.
And in this crucible a new warrior race will be forged. This race will inherit the earth.
>>43748857
Whoa man, don't pull a Hitler on us.
>>43749262
>implying Hitler did anything wrong
>>43747557
Less likely.
Shut off electricity, and cities die. All modern cities have a vast network to bring in food and supplies.
Nope, they're more likely to get fucked hard. Because they rely on the country to bring in food and major supplies. The city is also typically where you just get specialists at X thing, rather than handymen who can do anything because in the city you can afford not knowing how to, let's say, fix a car. In the country, you need to know that shit or you face a much harder time, especially since you're likely to be more poor.
So, once the country stops sending in those supplies, and specialists who knew how to do shit in the city get killed/stop doing shit, the entire system falls apart. People will still live, sure, but the odds are against you and you're more likely to have to kill people for shit and fight than the country where you most likely know all your neighbors and will work together from the start. Plus things like country people having more guns and knowing how to use them, and being more scattered out, they'd get hit a lot less.
Cities are pretty fucking fragile when you think about it.
>>43749447
>>43749545
I'd go with these guys.
Just think about how you go about living in a large modern city. Where do you get your food? How do you dispose of your waste? What things do you rely on for clothing, hygienic needs, and shelter?
The only skills I have as a city-dweller are how to do shit with computers and how to operate a CNC machine, and while those skills are fine for providing currency so I can live, neither will do jack once shit hits the fan.
On the flip side, a farming family in the middle of bumfuck nowhere already grow their own food, maintain their own homes, and while many of them use modern plumbing they've shoveled enough manure to know where to toss of their shit and they don't have a problem drawing water from that old well pump grandpa used to use.
>>43748857
And this new race would die out without people to pillage. And would fall against a united force of people fighting against them, whereas this new "warrior race" would be infighting a shitton.
Knowing how to be a warrior means nothing if you have no culture or society. Even warrior cultures in the past had a society of some kind and that's why they lasted as long as they did. Spartans, Mongols, or anybody else you wanna throw in there.
Your band of marauders would be wiped out fairly quickly. Just as the Goths and Visigoths (yes, your German warrior men) were. Rome fell, sure, but then they got assfucked and forced to recant their beliefs and become Christian. So, a united force works far better than a group of pillagers. Hence why humans are a social species and learned how to cooperate and form civilization.
>>43747599
More resources per person too. Not as much competition for said resources.
>>43747557
The correct answer to this is "OP is a faggot".
If you weren't, you have asked something like "what kind of apocalyptic events would a densely populated area be more likely to survive" instead of such a vague and open-ended piece of nonsense.
>>43747557
It depends on the apocalypse. I'll write down which concentration is favored.
>Natural Disaster: Densely populated, more resources for disaster relief.
>Zombie Apocalypse: Sparsely Populated. More people means more potential zombies.
>Pandemic: Sparsely Populated: Diseases spread better among a large group concentrated around a small place.
>Nuclear War: Sparsely populated. Densely populated areas are what will be targeted.
>Alien Invasion: Sparsely populated areas are less likely to be targeted for orbital bombardment.
>Demonic Incursion: Densely populated. More people that can fight, more weapons etc.
>Robot Uprising: Sparsely populated. Densely populated areas are where most of the machines will be.
![De_Gaulle-OWI[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/O5do7p3.jpg "De_Gaulle-OWI[2].jpg")
>>43747557
I guess it depends on the kind of apocalyptic event, but densely populated regions have more infrastructure and are more likely to recieve aid due to being considered high priority targets (the US government would probably prioritize New York over some Midwestern village if priorities need to be made).
>>43747687
>France
>Freedom
Are you implying there's a difference?
>>43750591
>Zombie Apocalypse: Sparsely Populated. More people means more potential zombies.
Here it depends on what kind of zombies. The shambling "braaaaiiiiiinzzz" types are nowhere near as dangerous as they are made out to be. With proper evacuation (which could happen better in a region with better infrastructure) the threat can be easily contained. Infectivity rates of zombieism are extremely low as well as the disease is not only one that is passed on through contact of bodily fluids, but contact of bodily fluids with a literal walking corpse that people would instinctively run away from anyway.
A few soldiers with a highly coordinated attack and some mechanical aid (in the form of tanks or perhaps helicopter gunships) could make quick work of zombies. Here too certain kinds of cities (the kinds that have large boulevards like Paris or London) would work against the zombies. They give the military enough space to act, yet also contain the zombie menace by not allowing them to flee in just any random direction.
Now that I think about it, New York's grid system would be even better.
>>43750318
>If you weren't, you have asked something like "what kind of apocalyptic events would a densely populated area be more likely to survive" instead of such a vague and open-ended piece of nonsense.
Can we just vote this in as the new topic. I want my judge dredd megacities
![da_ork_life_by_oevrlord-d5e1wp3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FiVVIux.jpg "da_ork_life_by_oevrlord-d5e1wp3[1].jpg")
>>43750848
Apocalyptic events: All Dredd megacities are invaded by marauding bands of orcs who want to do away with the law and instead have those who are best at WAAAAAAGH decide the rules in society.
What happens? For the sake of argument, let's assume maximum dakka.
I never understood why zombies don't a)decompose over time b)can't be defeated by defensive lines
>>43749994
Competition breeds strength
>>43750591
What about Beta Uprising?
![tumblr_m5806yQypg1rvr1kpo1_500[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/r0ElhO7.jpg "tumblr_m5806yQypg1rvr1kpo1_500[2].jpg")
>>43750992
Doomed to fail before it even starts. Even if the beta uprising can actually get started, it directs tis rage at the wrong source. They're mad at "Chads", the guys who somehow manage to win a horribly rigged game. They want to overthrow and replace them. The problem is that even if they succeed, they do not change the system. Instead they simply install a new nobility. A beta uprising isn't as much a revolution as it's a foreign invasion.
The "real" beta uprising is MGTOW, those who realize that women run this horribly rigged game, that the house always runs a profit and that the only winning move is not to play.
tl;dr: The "top" betas get assimilated into the Chad class.
>>43747687
>You mean Freedom Fries.
I have never ONCE heard this used in real life, and I live on the border between The Sticks, Suburbia, and the Projects in Houston, and frequent a great many burger joints, many of them local. I'm pretty sure this is just something Europeans have gotten into their head actually exists.
>>43747573
...What is there to be salty about here? Europe is more densely populated than the US, no shit, they've had 2000+ years of urban development compared to the US (barring a few exceptions).
>>43747927
>you'd probably have to concoct a very specific set of circumstances where living in a very densely populated area would increase your chances of surviving something apocalyptic.
Wendigo uprising.
>>43751241
It was in the White House kitchen in 2001.
>>43750879
>orcs who want to do away with the law
Anon, I have bad news for you
>>43749545
>Cities are pretty fucking fragile when you think about it.
Cities are to self-sufficient farmsteads what the human body is to a bacteria.
Is it just me or has /tg/ hardened over the past two years? People seem a lot more angry and hostile towards each other as of late. Sure, we still have /debate club/ over almost every subject under the sun, but the tone has shifted from pleasant discussion and exchange of rhetoric to heated arguments and general hostility.
>>43747557
As someone who worked at a grocery store as manger thru hurricane ike in Houston I would say hell no. Even with us knowing a good number of days ahead of time that it would hit our city we could not lower stocks of frozen goods (namely ice cream) to a level that it would not be a problem. Almost all of the Krogers in the area had major loss's of non-perishable food from the frozen melting onto them. Also even with us getting as much canned goods as we could get before my store ran out in 8 days. Not to say that there was a run panic or hoarders. We rightly limited the number of items per party in enter our store to ten that way there is some for everyone. Even with this we ran out of food in 9 days.
How were we even open? By paying double overtime to any employ who show up as long for as they want to work that day. My company was taking a net profit loss by doing so. The idea of cutting people off from their food supply was not morally acceptable.
In any event we were lucky because we got new shipments of food in after only being out for 2 days. What would of happened of it took longer to clear the roads of fallen tree? Well most people that I asked had one to four weeks of food inside their house. For my family it was 3 weeks, and that was the most common amount. This was with the memory of hurricane Katrina being in peoples minds and taking the matter seriously.In a really bad event I could easily see it taking more then 3 weeks to get the supply chain moving again.
TLDR: cities would run out of food.
>>43751758
It's 4chin in general, it attracts more and more edgy assholes who are unwilling and unable to stay in their goddamn containment boards and who probably learned how to argue on reddit.
>>43750770
>the boulevards
>meant to work against thinking human beings
>fails repeatedly
>maybe if we were facing completely brain dead enemies instead
Haussman vindicated at last
>>43747651
Fuck off, we have shit trying to kill us everyday
>>43751293
2003.
>>43747557
Infrastructure lets us comfortably house and feed more people in a given area. Without infrastructure significantly more square meters per person are required. What does this "apocalyptic event" do to infrastructure?
To be more specific, if your apocalypse involves the nuking of big cities then hell no. If your apocalypse involves big hungry critters assaulting humanity from the wilderness then yes.
>>43751241
It's almost as tasty as liberty cabbage.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02EEDB1031E03ABC4D51DFB2668383609EDE
>>43747557
Talkin about europe?
>Very likely
Slavs, they're already post apocalypse
Spain and portugal, they're already post-post apocalyse
Finland, :DDDDDD
>>43751253
>tfw the area I live in has been inhabited since forever and agriculture came around these parts 7000 years ago and it has been settled ever since.
I wish I could know more about all the people that lived here before I did.
>>43752835
They were dirty and poor and probably happier than you.
The initial survival chance depends a lot on the kind of apocalyptic event. But I don't think there is much of a difference between central Europe and let's say the middle east or eastern parts of Russia mid to long term.
Cities are death traps in an apocalyptic event and you'd want to leave them asap.
>>43747557
I guess that really depends on the event in question.
>>43752870
Economic collapses being an exception, Argentina suffered one and the cities weathered far better than the innawoods, who fell prey to bandits.
>>43747557
Densely populated areas would survive the event, itself, such as an earthquake or the impact of an asteroid.
However the aftermath is where it gets tougher, as higher densety of population means more individuals having basic needs like food and water - Resources that will quickly become scarce due to destroyed infrastructure and the fact that a dense population will have moved beyond local agriculture, so they know jackshit about actually growing food and preparing water.
In this regard, a densely populated area will have more survivors, but unless these survivors organise under a common goal to rebuild infrastructure to ensure support of the locals, the survivors will disperse due to sarcity of basic requirements to survive.
>>43751758
I think it's the same thing that happened to /co/. it was a pretty chill place, but lot of comics based movies and video-games were made (that were actually kind of good) and user from other, more aggressive board flooded the place. ironically they stayed because the board was less a shithole that where they were coming from.
there also asshole that went on a campaign to demonize everything tumblr/Sjw, so now they just call you "tumblr" everytime that you express the idea that perhaps gay people have the right to live, that hitler did in fact lot of things wrong or that people fleeing Isis doesn't deserve to be put in camp and kill.
that led to many user to leave or stop contributing.
most of thoose thing happened on /tg/ too, but with less intensity.
but don't get me wrong, you are one good movie or video game away from destruction.
fear warhammer:total war.
>>43752868
Nah, until the industrial revolution, it had always been pretty prosperous. Then there were suddenly masses of poorly paid proles in the mines and factories.
>>43752919
>people fleeing Isis doesn't deserve to be put in camp and kill.
I know very few people who aren't just making a Germany joke when they suggest this (Germany is literally housing refugees in a barracks at Dachau, it's hilarious), but I'm not going to lie, the number of military aged males in the refugees is disgusting. I'm all for providing safe haven for the women, children, and old men, but if you're 16-45, fuck off back to your home and try to do something about those psychos.
That and the real refugees are the ones in the camps in Jordan, the ones that make it to Europe have spent thousands of euros on the journey, and thus their sympathetic status is diminished.
>>43753576
>if you're 16-45, fuck off back to your home and try to do something about those psychos.
is that what you would have advised to german-jew in the 30?
>That and the real refugees are the ones in the camps in Jordan, the ones that make it to Europe have spent thousands of euros on the journey, and thus their sympathetic status is diminished.
so the real refuges of nazi germany were the one that fled in france and poland, instead of england and the US? because that didn't work very well for them.
more generally why man should go and die for their country? they have no obligation to do so, especially when you're in the middle of a three way civil war and all groups are horrible. running away for your life is a perfectly reasonable response. fleeing away to start anew instead of trying to fix the fuck up of your country is how the US was founded.
>>43749629
>united force of people fighting against them
who?
>>43749390
He killed Hitler.
>>43747599
Could you explain yourself? That doesn't make sense at all.
>>43747791
That feeling when modern cities have a lifeline of about 7-8 days, with another 5-10 days in outskirt storages.
>>43754596
Reality of a post modern society(yes, literally that) is that people who have done conscription will have survived, and passed that on.
There will be 3-8 generations of these people passing on morals. So there won't be a raider bully force, there will be trained conscripts to kill off those raiders.
Raider phase will happen after a descent back to feudalism, simply because feudal farmland is hard to defend when decentralized. Those raiders will still have the issue of having their homes sacked and taken hostage.
>>43750591
Pandemic: Isolated, not sparsely populated. We live in a world of global trade and travel. You can live in bumfuck nowhere and go on world trips a lot. Because the car and train and plane exists.
Remember: The entire reason a pandemic spreads, is because pandemic diseases have incubation periods. In a world where you can global travel over 12-13 hours, yeah.
>>43754632
Then again he also killed the guy who killed Hitler.
Honestly? No. Densely populated means more people relying on a stable infrastructure to provide them with every single one of their basic needs. If a apocalypse did happen and it knocked out the infrastructure for even a two week period there'd be chaos and riots and lots of people getting killed. If infrastructure gets knocked out for a month or more there's a near guarantee that cities would lose a lot of people due to starvation/thirst/looters, mainly in the poorer areas. Anything longer than a month and the cities would be death zones.
>>43754657
not him, but if you can survive in a shitty area, you are naturally more adept at surviving when the entire world goes to shit.
The logic is sound
>>43754657
He's saying what a person in a city would call post apoc conditions(no power, no running water, having to grow your own food)people out in bumfuck nowhere call tuesday. Plus in a smaller community people tend to know each other better and have an easier time trusting them, which is essential in that kind of condition, because you gotta sleep eventually, and when you do, you're gonna want someone you can trust standing watch.
>>43753576
> but if you're 16-45, fuck off back to your home and try to do something about those psychos
Teach them your ways, keyboard soldier.
Most people are not up for bullshit wars.
>That and the real refugees are the ones in the camps in Jordan
Were they don't have enough to eat because most countires do not pay enough into the fond that handles that stuff.
Austra: not a cent.
Hungary: not a cent.
Germany: About 25% of the agreed sum.
France: Nothing, but produces more refugees with it's air strikes.
GB: same
US: same
> the ones that make it to Europe have spent thousands of euros on the journey, and thus their sympathetic status is diminished.
That's the price to get into our fortress. Capitalism ho!
>>43755179
>Nothing, but produces more refugees with it's air strikes.
2 quoi mec? If they are making more "refugees" by bombing the fucking ISLAMIC STATE, we shouldn't even want those refugees.
And a significant portion of those "refugees" aren't even Syrian. They've been on Europe's borders since forever, they've just figured out that by discarding your passport and pretending you're Syrian you get an easy way in.
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/refugee-crisis-in-europe-something-fishy-among-migrant-flood-as-discarded-id-papers-appear/news-story/a6ea84cc839bd39632b0c7f6b514a7e7
Nobody in their right mind would argue for accepting these refugees. Such a problem that the plebs think with their hearts rather than their heads and the political class is more than willing to whore themselves out to the masses.
I think we should start screencapping disasters like this thread and start a game:
/tg/ or /pol/?
>>43755179
>That's the price to get into our fortress. Capitalism ho!
That would've been nice if the money went into national budget(s) rather than into mafia coffers. Sure, you could argue that they are a fiscal help for the economy regardless, if you pretended that crime and activity of criminals is something that's economically desirable.
I do wonder however how much EU or its constituents could raise if they did actually sell "asylum tickets" at their embassies...
>>43755383
>start
you speak as if it were some sort of recent fad...
>>43751151
>The problem is that even if they succeed, they do not change the system. Instead they simply install a new nobility. A beta uprising isn't as much a revolution as it's a foreign invasion.
That's the very definition of a revolution. The successful "freedom fighters" pretty much always become those "idiot guys in power".
Mostly because nobody ever agrees 100% on how any given place or institution should be run, so it's inevitable that some of those not in power will resent the decisions o those in power.
>>43755179
Fuck you.
Nothing else, just fuck you.
