rural population

[Sunna]

if theirs no big die off and the ptb do not feed and water the public , they will come,more so the younger fitter ones .
i thought i was safer in my small village but when i found out that within a 15 ml area of my home theirs 400, 000 people i was shocked .
without a big die off [quote dads army ] were doomed .

[bigpaul]

(27 September 2013, 09:49)Midnitemo Wrote: most of the people on the move will avoid population centres if they know whats good for them.

that may be, but aren't the "population centres" going to be where MOST of any available food will be? I mean, by the time they get to my small town ALL the food in the shop will be gone anyway. they'd be better off heading for the M5 where all the supermarket warehouses are located.

---

not #warehouses#..distribution centres!

[Skean Dhude]

It is just opinion but I believe;
Many will stay awaiting TPTB to help them
Many will stay because they cannot move far or have large families.
Those that are younger with families won't go far because they need to return with food
Some will make the journey.
Those that remain will become too weak to make the trek when what is holding them there is removed, (dies)

15 miles isn't much but when you are uncertain what is there you go nearer or to higher population areas expecting more there.

In the meantime you will hide your preps, be out of the house and watching from afar when you get warning that refugees are on their way.

[Mortblanc]

(27 September 2013, 12:42)Sunna Wrote: if theirs no big die off and the ptb do not feed and water the public , they will come,more so the younger fitter ones .
i thought i was safer in my small village but when i found out that within a 15 ml area of my home theirs 400, 000 people i was shocked .
without a big die off [quote dads army ] were doomed .

Do the math for your 15 mile circle!

Even with a 90% die off the population density will still be 250 psm. Subsistence agriculture will not support that population.

No die off in the history of GB has been more than 30%. That will leave you more than 1,000 psm. 64 PEOPLE PER ACRE!

Your little patch of wilderness is going to be flooded with "locals" stripping the trees for firewood and eating anything that can not outrun them. You are already having trouble hiding you "stealth camp" from the dog walkers, wait until the woods is flooded with people hunting every plant, animal and grub they can possibly eat.

And that is just your small rural area with no migration from the "population centers".

Do not fall into the trap of believing that starving city dwellers will do the logical and rational thing, stay on the roads and obey the traffic lights as they empty the warehouses, dutifully heading back home to wife and family with their plunder.

Neither will "family ties" keep them close to home. For the worst of the lot the gang is their family and they are not sure which kid from which girl belongs to whom. No connections to even break there.

Even among the members of this group "family connections" do not exist for all practical purposes. We have discussed family shortcomings often enough and I have noticed many here do not even consider a spouse in their planning.

One must also consider all those urban preppers that have planned the place you are sitting as their "bug out location". After all, only a fraction of the people on this very board own/have legal claim to the locations they intend to occupy post-shtf.

It's a jungle out there!

[BDG]

(27 September 2013, 17:25)Mortblanc Wrote: Do the math for your 15 mile circle!

OK. I will write the numbers down. So we are saying that in a 15 mile radius circle, 400,000 people live, and that:

(27 September 2013, 17:25)Mortblanc Wrote: Even with a 90% die off the population density will still be 250 psm.

When 90% of those people are dead, their will be 250 people per square mile and so you can make the statement:

(27 September 2013, 17:25)Mortblanc Wrote: Subsistence agriculture will not support that population.

OK, so to calculate the area of a circle, its PiR^2. So

3.14162X15X15= 706.8645 square miles.

When 400,000 live in 706.8645 square miles, that is a population density of 565.88 per square mile. There are 640 acres in a square mile.

That 1.13 acres per person, as it stands. Granted, not all of them are useful for farming.

However, if we have a 90% die off, that means we really only have 56.5 people per square mile in that area. That would mean there was 11.3 acres per person.

I think people would get by on that.

What other maths should we do?






No die off in the history of GB has been more than 30%. That will leave you more than 1,000 psm. 64 PEOPLE PER ACRE!

Your little patch of wilderness is going to be flooded with "locals" stripping the trees for firewood and eating anything that can not outrun them. You are already having trouble hiding you "stealth camp" from the dog walkers, wait until the woods is flooded with people hunting every plant, animal and grub they can possibly eat.

And that is just your small rural area with no migration from the "population centers".

Do not fall into the trap of believing that starving city dwellers will do the logical and rational thing, stay on the roads and obey the traffic lights as they empty the warehouses, dutifully heading back home to wife and family with their plunder.

Neither will "family ties" keep them close to home. For the worst of the lot the gang is their family and they are not sure which kid from which girl belongs to whom. No connections to even break there.

Even among the members of this group "family connections" do not exist for all practical purposes. We have discussed family shortcomings often enough and I have noticed many here do not even consider a spouse in their planning.

One must also consider all those urban preppers that have planned the place you are sitting as their "bug out location". After all, only a fraction of the people on this very board own/have legal claim to the locations they intend to occupy post-shtf.

It's a jungle out there!
[/quote]

[Skean Dhude]

This is the UK. When people think of food they think of cities not little villages in general. Remember many children have not seen a cow. They get frightened at being out in the woods. Sure, starving people will consider other options but not until they try the ones they like first.

I still believe that in today society where the land will not support the population the die off will be greater as they strip the food from the land around them and fight among themselves. Only then will they look wider and travel out into the country. Sure, they won't all follow the roads but after the first 100 fields in which they find nothing because they don't know what they are looking for and what they do know is already gone they will stick to the roads as much as possible in an effort to find houses and food.

Eventually it will settle down to a level that the food supply will support but I think it will dip down well under that before it stabilises and builds up over a while.

[BDG]

^^Wish could edit, but hey.

Anyway, so even if it was only a 30% die off in that area, you would still have 1.61 acres per person.

What happens however, when too many people have not enough land, is migration and conflict.

People that live on main routes will be hit hardest. Those on the little roads out of the way will more than likely get missed. I know several villages in Hampshire that are at the end of a track at the end of a bad road that seemed to be a road that was going absolutely no where.

I have also noticed on Google earth some homes nearby that I have went to check out the area where you cannot see the houses or have any indication they are there, either surrounded by natural and man made features that I think may have a good chance of no one even bothering with them.

[Mortblanc]

(27 September 2013, 22:41)BDG Wrote:

(27 September 2013, 17:25)Mortblanc Wrote: Do the math for your 15 mile circle!

OK. I will write the numbers down. So we are saying that in a 15 mile radius circle, 400,000 people live, and that:

(27 September 2013, 17:25)Mortblanc Wrote: Even with a 90% die off the population density will still be 250 psm.

When 90% of those people are dead, their will be 250 people per square mile and so you can make the statement:

(27 September 2013, 17:25)Mortblanc Wrote: Subsistence agriculture will not support that population.

OK, so to calculate the area of a circle, its PiR^2. So

3.14162X15X15= 706.8645 square miles.

When 400,000 live in 706.8645 square miles, that is a population density of 565.88 per square mile. There are 640 acres in a square mile.

That 1.13 acres per person, as it stands. Granted, not all of them are useful for farming.

However, if we have a 90% die off, that means we really only have 56.5 people per square mile in that area. That would mean there was 11.3 acres per person.

I think people would get by on that.

What other maths should we do?






No die off in the history of GB has been more than 30%. That will leave you more than 1,000 psm. 64 PEOPLE PER ACRE!

Your little patch of wilderness is going to be flooded with "locals" stripping the trees for firewood and eating anything that can not outrun them. You are already having trouble hiding you "stealth camp" from the dog walkers, wait until the woods is flooded with people hunting every plant, animal and grub they can possibly eat.

And that is just your small rural area with no migration from the "population centers".

Do not fall into the trap of believing that starving city dwellers will do the logical and rational thing, stay on the roads and obey the traffic lights as they empty the warehouses, dutifully heading back home to wife and family with their plunder.

Neither will "family ties" keep them close to home. For the worst of the lot the gang is their family and they are not sure which kid from which girl belongs to whom. No connections to even break there.

Even among the members of this group "family connections" do not exist for all practical purposes. We have discussed family shortcomings often enough and I have noticed many here do not even consider a spouse in their planning.

One must also consider all those urban preppers that have planned the place you are sitting as their "bug out location". After all, only a fraction of the people on this very board own/have legal claim to the locations they intend to occupy post-shtf.

It's a jungle out there!

[/quote]

Area of a circle is 3.14x radius squared (3.14x49=153 sq/mi NOT 706)

So your 400,000 are inside 153 miles, not 706.

---

Even with 90% die off, which will never occur, you would have 40,000 in that 153 sq/mi circle.

[bigpaul]

in a large die off the British countryside would soon become impassable, hedges need cutting, ditches need emptying, fallen trees need removing, weeds then scrub then finally trees would start growing in the once pasture fields, some sheep and non dairy cattle might survive on their own but the dairy cattle would die in agony without being milked, probably long before the so called "golden hordes" even though about leaving the cities, it dosent take mother nature long to regain her own as any gardener or allotment holder knows.

[bigpaul]

and the roads wouldn't fare any better without road crews to repair them, recently we've had 3 roads in the area drop off into the river, the A377 one of the main roads from Barnstaple to Exeter is currently cordoned off with a large detour for drivers for this very reason. post collapse these repairs wont happen.