Reply to an email on surviving

Question:
Peak-oil problems have started ('it's happening'), so I'm thinking seriously to relocate. I work and live on an island now (Curaçao) in the Caribbean, but an island seems to me one of the worst places to be in a few years from now. Or maybe possible is an island with much less people (1000-2000) and own agriculture. Maybe even the best if there is a lot of ground water (and rain). What is your opinion regarding this ? Your recommend Russia or Brazil as the best. France (nuclear power) don't seem too bad, but what happens when no food is available in the (big) cities ? Hide and survive in the countryside for 6 weeks? Norway maybe, but same problem with food-availability I think.

Answer:
The problem with an island, especially a small one, is that, as newcomers arrive, or the society grows or splits, they cannot easily expand. The idea of a large group of people putting all their belongings into a ship and sailing off to a virgin island is unlikely. On the other hand, you are likely to get fewer outsiders arriving to settle once the costs of flying discourage overseas travel and a smallish island with a strong government is quite a self-contained environment (as with Cuba). The climate is generally better, food sources are more ample and it is easier to defend.

The page about “Which Country” is meant to make people think about suitability rather than be an absolute guide. Obviously you cannot class a whole country as good or bad for survival – a rich man in Bangladesh is going to be better off than a poor man in Norway, although Norway as a country will probably cope better than Bangladesh. France’s nuclear power I see as a potential disaster – 39% of its primary energy consumption comes from nuclear (79% of its electricity) and 36% from oil. We know that oil is going to decline and, if there are problems with uranium, it will find three quarters of its energy coming from two uncertain fuels. France has no native uranium so, if there is a big rush for nuclear in the future, it could find it difficult to procure enough. That is not a good situation to be in.

Survivability depends on your small scale situation. I would think the worst place to be would be a megalopolis like Mexico City, Rio or London. With millions of people and almost all food and energy having to be brought in, they are not attractive areas to be as things fall apart. The surrounding lands, both urban and rural, are also under threat from refugees from the cities.

A completely rural settlement is not necessarily that attractive either. A small village will have few amenities which means having to go to nearby towns for food and goods, and the small number of people is not good for security (in the sense of coping with normal problems as well as defending against intruders).

Probably the best grouping would be a larger village or a small town which has the infrastructure, amenities and population to cope while being small enough to retain a sense of community. Some sense of isolation, such as being far from major areas of population (eg. Cornwall) would be beneficial. People in cities would be envious of these areas but the long distances are likely to dissuade many.