Some of you may have seen this posted elsewhere:
Yes, I imagine it's pretty hopeless for the cities. Let's break the essential needs down by availability in Boston. Water: The Charles river runs through the center of Boston. Even if it becomes contaminated, the water can be boiled, and our flat rooftops can collect our adequate precipitation. So, water is not a huge problem. Shelter & security: The houses are almost all made of brick or stone, and the 1st floor windows tend to be high, so shelter & security won't be an insurmountable problem. We have very little violent crime anyway. Food: Gardens can be grown on roofs and local parks, and fished/gathered from the nearby ocean and river. Even so, it won't be enough to keep half of the population from starving. Heat: a quarter of the city apartments have working fireplaces, and the rest can improvise something, but lack of wood and house fires will become a big problem. Toilets: Boston has a huge reservoir that will keep the water running for weeks on the lower floors, but after that, there are few places to put human waste. Diseases will spread, likely most seriously affecting those who do not find hygienic solutions.
Though each city and each community will have its own unique challenges, at least 2/3rds of the population is sure to die. -But neighborhoods whose residents work together intelligently and productively will be more likely to survive, though it will still be a difficult and needy life for them. I estimate that a half million, out of the current 2.5 million in Boston, will be able to survive longer than a year. Luckily, I live outside the city and have much more abundant resources.
My personal opinion is the poster, though hopeful and well-meaning, is clueless and delusional. I could easily be wrong (and hope I am) but it's hard to believe a half million would survive - and much of his thinking isn't, well, realistically thought through, imo.
What I'm asking you guys is this: When you run across something you believe is not realistic - do you say something...or just let it go?
Recently here, a few of you ignored something I'd posted and at first I was pissed because you didn't feel like you could tell me I was clueless or full of shit - but now, after reading that guys post, I understand the kindness that might have been to just let it ride. Is that making sense?
Maybe we speak up when it matters, and roll past it when it doesn't... but how do we decide if it matters? Or maybe nothing matters and we just interact when we feel like it.
Any thought welcome, if you feel like replying. If not, no harm no foul.