reply to post by thoughtsfull
In my humble opinion, the best chance of survival for this type of event is to move underground. For at least 2 - 5 years. Further, the absolute
best way is in a group of like-minded individuals, with varying skills/knowledge, but limited to less than 12 or so. Too many people will cause
problems down the road.
I've read many people that think ocean survival is the way, but I personally disagree. The problem with ocean survival is: instability (some claims
have put waves/tsunamis upwards of 2500 - 3000 km), rising landmasses where previously there was just ocean, navigation/orientation (this would be a
problem if there is a pole reversal), larger ocean animals that have survived before (sharks, crocs, etc), lack of food (the oceans face the
possiblity of becoming overheated and killing a large amount of fish), plus contamination. Water / food storage tends to be a problem since, unless
once again you are very wealthy, you more than likely wouldn't be floating around in something the size of a sub.
The problem with trying to survive above ground is going to be the number of unprepared people. Starving to death is a terrible way to go -- and a
great number of people will be fighting to the death for whatever food they can find. Plus, of course, all of the natural catastrophies (i.e.
earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, etc.). The land would also look quite different -- when all of these buildings, bridges, skyscrapers, etc
come crashing down, it is going to make travelling extrememly difficult and tiresome. As I said before, we are not going to be left with a wide open
space simply devoid of people.
Further, if anything like this were to actually happen, much of North America would be covered in ice. Siberia, on the other hand, should become a
beautiful temperate area. There are some that believe events such as this are what change the landscape of the Earth (desert to fertile, etc.).
I've looked into a bit, and i think it's a possibility. Again, just my humble opinion.
As a final thought, the areas of the world that are "best" for survival are far and few between. In order to steer clear of nuclear power plants,
volcanos, fault lines, coast lines, densely populated areas, but still stay close enough to natural water sources at a high elevation -- the choices
Think: South Africa / Ethiopia / Madagascar -- places like that.
Again, this is all just my opinion and I certainly don't claim to be an expert or an insider or anything -- just someone fascinated with the
possibilty that has read a bunch of books and stuff.
PS - the other problem with a situation like this is that it is not going to take much for people to suddenly declare "oh my -- 2012 is real" -- and
at that point, chaos will rule. For example, if Yellowstone erupts, people will see this as a 'sign' even if it's not necessarily. Once chaos
begins, hoarding and looting will immediately follow, and with the general increasing political divide within the US at least -- it will all go
downhill very quickly. That is why, again in my opinion, that one would need a 2 - 5 year window. Panic/chaos will most likely be the first issue to
survive -- way before any actual massive world-wide catastrophe.
[edit on 21-11-2009 by lpowell0627]