Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zappo" data-source="post: 277472" data-attributes="member: 633"><p>It's odd AND normal at the same time. Now that's odd! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Weeell, it depends. You can probably find books about how to get half-decent steel from iron and coal, but for semiconductors, synthetic fibers and kevlar, knowledge is not enough. You need facilities. To build those, you need more books, and more people. You can't be able to make everything by yourself. It would take several lifetimes.Lots and lots, assuming that 95% of the population is gone. And if that isn't the case, then producing more food isn't a problem, because you have the manpower and knowledge to do it. Oh, the initial lack of tech would make the whole thing less efficient for some time, but not to the point of starvation.From the next grocery store or supermarket. The more people have died, the more the reserves will last. The less people have died, the less time it will take to become able to replenish those reserves.People in our society are not used to fight for food. They won't do it until the food really starts to run out. Which won't happen, if they act smart and immediately start restoring agriculture. If it comes to fight - it's unreasonable, but knowing mankind... - the fight won't be with clubs and spears, but with guns. Ammo reserves would last much, much longer than food.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification