Britain one of the five nations likely to survive a future collapse

[kenneal - lagger]

According to a study referred to in this article Britain and Ireland are among the five most likely places to survive a future collapse.

But does that take into account the fact that we already import 50% of our food and that a lot of people are intent on increasing our population even further either to bolster economic growth or because there is a queue of nice people in France wanting to enter the country because it is a much nicer place to live than their own country and also France, it would seem?

[clv101]

I read the paper, it's junk. One of the metrics that makes the UK more 'sustainable' than Germany for example is that we have more agricultural land per capita.

This ignores the fact we only have so much agriculture land due to deforestation - Germany still has the forests, also ignores that a significant amount is low output upland grazing.

[BritDownUnder]

Ireland would probably do OK so long as they can keep 'refugees' out.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ireland would probably do OK so long as they can keep 'refugees' out.

Ireland's biggest problem may turn out to be keeping the English out.

[adam2]

The UK does have a number of advantages that would assist in surviving a collapse.

A generally mild climate, in which many crops can be grown without much or any drainage or irrigation.
A fairy low population density. being able to produce about half our own food is better than many other nations.
Areas not suited for crops will often support sheep and the hardier breeds of cattle.
No significant numbers of dangerous predators. (beware the odd zoo escapes.)
Some edible wildlife, larger birds, rabbits, deer, and livestock that has gone feral.

Much of the UK has fresh water available from upland streams or from shallow wells.

A lot of horses, extremely useful in the absence of vehicle fuel.

Enough trees to supply a reduced population with building timber and fire wood.

I suspect that the UK may be a bit better placed than many of our neighbours. In the event of a slow collapse, then being able to produce even a little natural gas and oil would put us in a better position than places without supplies of these fuels.
The growing number of large PV arrays would produce electricity for as long as the grid survives, and afterwards could be scavenged for other uses.

[UndercoverElephant]

a reduced population

...is the key. This needs to be endlessly rammed down the unwilling throats of the overpopulation deniers. It must loom perpetually over the whole debate.

[kenneal - lagger]

I agree that a reduced population is the key but that is only likely to happen if there are mass deaths. I would think that there will be a mass immigration to Europe from the Middle East and Northern Africa and some of that will carry on to the "promised land" across the channel. Only machine guns on the beaches will stop them, the numbers will be so large. When the numbers get that big the French will be actively assisting them rather than passively doing so.

There could well be the problem of a much slower if not completely stopped AMOC to add to the woes. That would cause us much colder, dryer weather which would cause havoc with growing food and only producing 50% of our food would be a huge problem as that percentage produced would drop quite a bit: only for a short while though, long enough for enough people to die off/be killed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-c ... 6.html?amp

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/1 ... ation/amp/

Note to self:- Must get that sunken polytunnel built to hedge against both higher and lower temperatures. Also must get the rain water storage under ground for both security and better keeping.