If the power grid went down, the government estimated that 90% of the population would die within a year.
How did they figure that out?
It was actually pretty straightforward. They looked at the population that could survive before electricity existed. Back then, the U.S. supported about 30 million people. That was the sustainable number.
So, saying 90% would survive a grid-down situation? That would be wildly optimistic.
Today, the food at your grocery store travels an average of 1,500 miles to get there. Most of our food comes from massive commercial farms or is imported from other countries, especially things like coffee and tropical fruits. I’ve seen steak in many grocery stores from Australia.
Before electricity, everything was local. Food came from nearby farms and gardens. Most people grew, raised, or made their own food. They were self-sufficient, resourceful, and tough because they had no other choice.
If you weren’t tough, you didn’t survive.
Now? Maybe 1,000,000 people in the entire country could live completely self-sufficient lives. Even fewer—less than 1%—could band together and use their combined skills to build a community capable of surviving. For most people, the learning curve would be harsh, steep, and unforgiving.
Most people can’t live without electricity. Many don’t even know how to start thinking about survival. Basic skills—like starting a fire to stay warm—are foreign to them. This is especially true for those in cities, where survival skills are almost nonexistent.
Most people wouldn’t know how to find, purify, or store water. Without these essentials, disease would spread rapidly. Illness would take over.
The government’s estimate of 90% dying is optimistic at best.
Remember the basic survival rules: you can survive 3 days without water and about 30 days without food(maybe). Yet, the average person goes to the grocery store 1-2 times per week and usually keeps less than three days’ worth of food at home. Many have even less.
The weak and sick would die first.
The phrase “only the strong survive” isn’t quite right. In a desperate situation, only the ruthless survive.
As resources run out, desperate people will abandon their morals and ethics. Those willing to do whatever it takes will take control.
Within 90 days, most of the population would be gone or well on the way. Many survivors would become hardened, brutal, and without mercy—whether for good or for bad. That’s the only way to make it through.
━━━━━━━❰✭❱━━━━━━━━
Those who prepare ahead of time would fare much better than the general population. Geographic location, as well as population density, would be relevant. Local community make-up would be very important in the ability to survive. Just for $hits and grins, consider a complete grid collapse, and those living in the middle of Boston, Massachusetts, compared to those on the outskirts of Chester, SC. 650,000 people versus around 5,000. A population density of 13,841 versus 1,593. Common sense would suggest that Boston would be a maniacal Killzone compared to the country town of Chester, SC.
Even better would be Plymouth, Maine, with a population density of 45 people per square mile. But I digress.
Bottomline: We live in an unpredictable world and anything is possible. While most live in a world where “everything will be OK sweetheart” we know better. Numerous events here in the States as well as around the world have shown that bad thing s happen to regular, ordinary, good people.
So – stock up on food, water, medicine, and other supplies. Make plans to be able to fend for yourself and be as independent as possible. Be smart.
Take care all. We are in for a helluva ride.
Rourke
