I wavered over which forum to put this in, and settled on P&R.
I was having an interesting conversation with my buddies the other night and posed this question with all sincerity: If (when?) the power goes out – like, OUT. Forever. – how long before we are eating each other?
We know it’s longer than 2 weeks, because in August 2003 we survived the power going out over the entire Northeast. But what if the entire power grid is disabled permanently? Think of all the things in modern North American life which rely on electricity. It’s pretty much everything.
Price gouging on essentials would start almost immediately, I figure. Looting probably within a couple days (though, who would steal a TV when there’s no more power?). Total lawlessness (robbing, raping, murder) probably within 3 weeks, complete societal breakdown not much after that. I figure we’re no more from 60 or 90 days before there are people eating each other.
We have institutions (military, national guard) specifically trained to keep operating in extremely adverse conditions and presumably tasked with preventing societal breakdown. Given some time, there are ways to adapt to or work around lots of disasters. So I would guess it would be longer than a few months.
I would wager a lot longer than that. I think your timeline assumes that there is not inherent part of society that would strive to assist each other as soon as the lights go out, that there aren’t relatives, neighbors, neighborhoods, townships, cities, states, etc that would assist in helping for a period of time in which it was possible. Due to that I would wager the answer as months, if not even to the point of being more than a year. That doesn’t mean no hardship or loss of life. To be fair that would happen much SOONER than weeks (think of those relying on medications or powered medical care as an example.)
There are a number of things still possible without power but certainly scarcity of food would become one of the biggest driving factors in a very short amount of time.
I guess for the best I can do would be to note that a number of, “doomsday,” timeline books I read seem to have differing answers for your question based on where people are when the lights go out. It’s inherent in most of those plots that those in cities would not fare well, and those in rural areas would. I don’t know if that’s completely true, but that’s about the best I’ve got. To answer your question, I think about this stuff enough to enjoy reading fiction about it. But I don’t prepare for it in any way.
There are a number of series that cover some of your question, I think specifically Discover channel had one on post-apocalypse scenario or similar.
Pretty quickly this wouldn’t be true - it’s really only the peculiar, individualistic and misanthropic strain of antisocial / antigovernmental fantasies of kinds of Americanism that where this would actually be the case. You’re far more likely to suffer random violence alone in the woods than, after a bit, in whatever city-state-local authority re-establishes itself. Forming governments is a feature of human psychology and this is something we would instinctively do.
The problem for the US vs the rest of the world is the fantasy of individualistic self reliance, the dream of there still being “nature” on which you could run away to and survive, and the ownership of hundreds of millions of guns. It’s highly likely that among Western nations such a disaster would be far worse in the US because of those factors.
Or, in short, only when everyone believes in the zombie apocalypse do we get a zombie apocalypse.
It’s also worth pointing out that need is a big driver of action. You’d see every single yard in the US ripped out and planted with vegetables/grains/fruits/squashes/whatever almost instantly. People aren’t going to just sit on their reclining sofa staring at a blank TV slowly burning their overweight bums thin while waiting for their shows to return.
Well, most people might not.
There probably would be some large amount “attrition” just naturally, rather than from interpersonal violence, as many people whose unhealthy lifestyles enabled by plentiful energy, cheap food, and safe and secure circumstances were suddenly forced to live a less sedentary and more physical and energetic lifestyle. All those whose health depended heavily on our current medical infrastructure would certainly lose out as well.
I think about this all the time, but so far haven’t acted on the fear. But living in a city of 12 million people, it’s not hard to understand how bad it could go.
I did have a friend once who suddenly bought a house deep in the Canadian forest and disappeared, and before he left I asked him why the move? It was a mumble of some kind of paranoia that I didn’t press further, but I’m thinking he was thinking zombies.
There are two kinds of zombies though - physical and metaphysical. How can you tell you’re not living in the zombie apocalypse right now. #theylive
If you’re really really paranoid, and rich… get a boat. No bunker is truly safe. The true survivors are going to be enjoying the tropical breeze on their multi-million dollar yachts with Instagram hotties and their giant supplies of food and medicine they’ve squirreled away. Pretty much only ex-military vessels are going to have the capacity to find you.
The siege of Leningrad is comparable to what you describe. People did not descend into widespread rape, and only a small minority killed each other over food. There was a lot more death by starvation than cannibalism. The latter was usually not accompanied by murder.
People only descend to wholesale slaughter and lawlessness in fiction and racist news accounts. So the answer would probably be - a long long time, except in isolated communities.
All I know is that if I somehow don’t immediately die like the soft, cowardly, weakling that I am, I will cook y’all in a really tasteful and attractive manner. You’ll become a meal that you’d be proud of, by god.
