|
|
|
|
|
by pjc50
1972 days ago
|
|
The "sustainable" "collapse" (again, what does this mean? end of imports including oil? large scale political turmoil with no clear winner?) level of Australian population would probably be larger than Aboriginal pre-invasion times (estimated 700k?) but not much more than that if you lose access to mechanically pumped water. It's not a very habitable place but the introduction of European crops and animals has irrevocably improved this. You're still looking at the likely death of nineteen out of every twenty Australians in this scenario. (actually, having thought about this, the "collapse" scenario I'd be most worried about in Australia is average temperatures above human survivable levels plus wildfires. Not so much a collapse as a thorough incineration) |
|
The centre of Australia is positively hot, always has been.
When i was refering to sustainable i meant the size of the "survivor commune", you can only realistically control a small area for sustenance with out significant order and coordination, think more tribe than state. There are millions of kangaroos i suppose :)