Survival Strategies → Shelter → Location → City, Town, Village or Outback
Can one best survive living in a city, town, village or somewhere more remote?
Remote Property, Isle of Gigha, Argyll, Scotland
Source: Rightmove.co.uk https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/articles/dream-properties/remote-quiet-homes-for-sale/
Settlement Types
Where one lives, in terms of settlement type, may be one of the most important factors for survival.
Essentially there are 5 basic settlement types, viz.,
1 - cities (urban areas with a population greater than 200,000)
2 - medium to large towns (populations of 20,000 to 200,000)
3 - small towns (populations 5,000 to 20,000)
4 - villages (populations 0 to 5,000)
5 - remote rural locations (outback).
Discussion
Cities - Although living in a city is excellent in terms of supportive infrastructure, it has many disadvantages from a survival standpoint. Firstly,
a city is most likely to be a focus for attack in a war (conventional or nuclear). The results of such an attack could be destruction,
fires, broken infrastructure and a high concentration of dead and injured people. In an epidemic/pandemic you have lots of people
living close together in cities, so disease would be spread more rapidly and more easily. In an economic collapse or given political strife, again you may have lots of
angry people living in close proximity, leading inevitably to disorder and violence.
If you live in the suburbs, you would be unlikely to fare any better.
Hungry and desperate people spilling
out from a devastated inner city would first target the suburbs, looting supermarkets, shops, petrol stations etc., and individual
households. Whether the police
could control this level of mass disorder is unlikely, so the rapid breakdown of law and order would be inevitable.
Towns - It is unlikely that a large or even smaller town would fare any better. The problem remains the high concentration of people
within a small area. These individuals will inevitably spill outwards once all local resources have been consumed.
Villages - Villages, I think, are slightly different. People are less concentrated and are more likely to know each other. They
would also be unlikely to have been impacted by infrastructure damage from war, particularly a nuclear blast. However, they are unlikely to survive intact once the spill out of the surviving
hoards from the cities and towns have finished their pillage of the surrounding suburbs.
Remote/Rural Locations - Maybe better, because you are more isolated, but because you will be on your own, once the hoards from the cities
and towns find you, you will have little chance of survival unless heavily protected.
So where is it best to live?
My thought is a very small town or village because you can get together and get organised. Create local defences and a local
militia to protect yourself from the city hoards. Organise local resources such as your local police, water and food suplies etc.
Perhaps our ancestors had the right idea!
Maiden Castle, an Iron Age hill fort, Dorset
Source: BBC. See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z7g98hv