[mordae]

Stone age? Hardly. More like 18th century.

I am more worried that we do not have that many attempts at rebuilding, because coal and oil are finite. OTOH a slower 2nd iteration might actually work better than this one.

[cynicalpeace]

"I know others will disagree, but it's not something you wanna take a gamble on."

Far more important than 18th century vs stone age debate is the fact that there are people in charge that would lead us down either path.

[verisimi]

> there are people in charge that would lead us down either path

Must you follow?

[cynicalpeace]

Would love not to. But I'm not the decider whether we head down the path of nuclear armageddon.

[bonzini]

If we lost access to electricity, we'd be completely screwed; we can't even get drinkable water in many places without electricity.

For example where I live there is water around 10-20m depth, but it's polluted (it may be usable for agriculture but not for human consumption); you'd have to dig a well over 100m below the surface.

[generic92034]

The standards for what is fit for human consumption might drastically change in a post-apocalyptic scenario, though.

[kortilla]

Boil it