|
Torrannor posted:Can you give examples of inhabited places in Alaska and Siberia that are unsustainable? Numerous outposts where the only activity is resource extraction and selling things to the resource extracting crews and the population present is almost solely people flown in and out on multiweek shifts with just about no local resources to keep things going without deliveries. The native populations would tend to only be in those areas for a few weeks at a time at most, and keep moving en route to better places.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
    
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:You might be right here, and it might be possible for Antarctica to sustain a very small population of humans without outside support. I'm sure there's some geothermal activity around Mount Erebus, for example, that could be harnessed. Still, there is no expanse of land on the planet as vast as Antarctica that is so poorly-suited to human habitation. Torrannor posted:This has nothing to do with your post, but could you perhaps visit us in the Marriage Equality thread and tell the people the difference between Scandinavian and Nordic countries, and whether Finland belongs to one of them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:As a Dane, I will of course happily assist a fellow Germanic poster in keeping the Finns out of our kool kids klub. Sweden's former colonies are going to rise up and conquer Scandanavia, then turn around and direct their ire on Russia. Maybe Poland can get cut into the deal somewhere too
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Sweden's former colonies are going to rise up and conquer Scandanavia, then turn around and direct their ire on Russia. Maybe Poland can get cut into the deal somewhere too Why would Poland want bits of burned down Sweden / Denmark?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
I think there may be a difference between a place being sustainable at a modern lifestyle and a place being sustainable at the lifestyle that most of the people who spent the last few thousand years in the place lived.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
withak posted:I think there may be a difference between a place being sustainable at a modern lifestyle and a place being sustainable at the lifestyle that most of the people who spent the last few thousand years in the place lived. People didn't live long term in the places I talked about, or did but only when the climate was different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Large amounts of "populated" areas on Greenland. Several towns and areas in Alaska and Siberia. A few desert areas as well. And of course there's dozens of scattered islands around the world that have permanent populations only because they get sustained by subsidized ship visits from the home country. Greenland has a forest on the southern tip and has sustained itself with wood from that forest for centuries. It can (and continues to be) easily shipped up either the east or west coast to other settlements. Not that they needed wood anyway since they traditionally built there houses from peat and burnt it for fuel too; in Antarctica you're either standing on rock or a mile of ice. The north of Greenland is considered a Polar Desert, as is the entirety of Antarctica. Just like the Antarctic Desert Greenlands isn't permanently occupied either. Now if your definition of "which places are permanently inhabitable" is "in which places can you be guaranteed you'd be able to get food, shelter and warmth without outside help" then most, if not all, of the inhabitabed parts of Greenland, Alaska and Siberia fit the definition. But even then people have been trading with other people since humans crawled out of the sea and as long as you can keep your trading routes open your settlement will survive. But nothing will survive in the Antarctic. People literally spend the entire winter there because their ship got stuck in ice. It's ridiculously cold, extremely dry and just overall hostile. It doesn't like humans. In the northern parts of Alaska, Greenland and Siberia, provided you started in the summer, you'd have a decent chance of stockpiling food and fuel and building shelter for the winter. In Antarctica, provided you could even find two twigs to rub together (which you can't), you wouldn't stand a chance of starting a fire even in the summer months. You're just hosed overall. And on that note let's get politically loaded: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:Greenland has a forest on the southern tip and has sustained itself with wood from that forest for centuries. It can (and continues to be) easily shipped up either the east or west coast to other settlements. Not that they needed wood anyway since they traditionally built there houses from peat and burnt it for fuel too; in Antarctica you're either standing on rock or a mile of ice. The north of Greenland is considered a Polar Desert, as is the entirety of Antarctica. Just like the Antarctic Desert Greenlands isn't permanently occupied either. This is utterly irrelevant. The resources at the tip of Greenland don't mean much to places much farther up the coasts where human habitation only exists supplied by the outside world. If Greenland counts as habitable because the tip is habitable, then you must consider Antarctica habitable because it similarly has areas of habitability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
This is a ridiculous argument. If your claim is that there are no sustainable, aboriginal communities in the Far North that's patently false. The Inuit have lived in Canada's North for thousands of years through a relatively broad range of climate conditions -- there's substantial archaeological proof of that. The fact that they were nomadic people in the north doesn't change the fact that they survived purely in the Arctic and on the basis of the resources available in that environment without any modern technology. They didn't move through the Arctic, the Inuit are the people of the Arctic. I'm from an area of Canada with a large Inuit population. I'm certain there are other aboriginal groups in Siberia and Alaska who similarly survived for thousands of years in the Arctic. I would also speculate that people could probably survive in small numbers on the coast of Antarctica adopting a similar lifestyle. I assume they'd have to mostly eat whales, penguins and other large marine mammals but it's not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Gleri posted:This is a ridiculous argument. If your claim is that there are no sustainable, aboriginal communities in the Far North that's patently false. Good thing that's not my claim. My claim is that there's plenty of places where the native population have long refused to stay long term, because they're lovely places for anything more than traveling or temporary seasonal use. Many of these places now have "permanent" settlement which relies on connection to the outside world to be "permanent" at all - just like Antarctica. Also, especially on Greenland, there were a lot of places that used to be suitable for year round living that have lost that ability due to climate changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Yet the crazy ranchers are from animal-less Nevada.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Yet the crazy ranchers are from animal-less Nevada. Its like you have to be crazy to graze cattle in a huge desert....
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
lol at the scale
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
That's assumed nuclear targets. Purple triangles assuming something like 250 warheads, black for 400.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:That's assumed nuclear targets. Purple triangles assuming something like 250 warheads, black for 400. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:As a resident, I would love to know why the Russians hate Monterey Bay so much. I believe that map shows both a first strike on the US (mainly targeting strategic sites, such as missile silos in North Dakota) and also in purple a "revenge strike" designed to screw over the US as much as possible by hitting civilian targets. I guess Monterey shows on both lists - must be the Presidio?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:As a resident, I would love to know why the Russians hate Monterey Bay so much. At one point we based subs there, and there was a major army base there. I think a large part of UC Santa Cruz (near there) is actually on the old grounds for the army base or something. Alternatively the aquarium was really a cover for some cetacean warfare project.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I believe that map shows both a first strike on the US (mainly targeting strategic sites, such as missile silos in North Dakota) and also a "revenge strike" designed to screw over the US as much as possible by hitting civilian targets. I guess Monterey shows on both lists - must be the Presidio?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Could be due to Fort Ord as well which is now closed. Yeah, at certain points in the Cold War, hitting Fort Ord would wipe out 50,000 military personnel in a single swoop, as well as a bunch of logistics infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Yet the crazy ranchers are from animal-less Nevada.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
So in the Nuclear Holocaust US apparently Yoopers escape relatively unscathed. E: Also they spelled "Pittsburgh" wrong. 
Tedd_Not_Ed fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:As a resident, I would love to know why the Russians hate Monterey Bay so much. Black dots are the counter-force, first strike scenario, which I believe was 1000 warheads. Targets are silos and military installations. The goal would be to knock out the US military and nuclear forces to such a degree that they are unable to respond. If your house has a black dot, it's because it's near one of those things. The existence of SLBMs makes this scenario essentially guaranteed to fail. Purple dots are a counter-value, retaliatory strike, 250 warheads for the purposes of the map. In this scenario, the US has struck first, Russia is now hitting back. Since the silos are all empty, there's no sense in hitting those. Instead you just target all major population centers, aiming to kill as many people as humanly possible. If your house has a purple triangle, it's because you either live near lots of other people, or near a much smaller number of still important military installations. Tedd_Not_Ed posted:So in the Nuclear Holocaust US apparently Yoopers escape relatively unscathed.  Nobody there to kill. Of course if it's a first strike, all those silo ground bursts are going to create an enormous amount of fallout, and that'd probably kill them as a bonus of sorts. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:41
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Tedd_Not_Ed posted:So in the Nuclear Holocaust US apparently Yoopers escape relatively unscathed.   Oregon seems like the real winner here. e: Maine would seem like it comes out clean-ish too, except all of these maps assume not one nuke will hit Canada. Ofaloaf fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Is this a four dimensional alpha blended color ramp Is the intended audience like mantis shrimp geography nerds or something
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:As a resident, I would love to know why the Russians hate Monterey Bay so much. Didn't you see Star Trek IV? That's where the whales are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Oregon seems like the real winner here. Oregon is the winner "if the winds at all elevations blew continuously from the west at 25 mph".
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Edit: nvm, I'm dumb
DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is utterly irrelevant. The resources at the tip of Greenland don't mean much to places much farther up the coasts where human habitation only exists supplied by the outside world. I wasn't being clear here. Most of the coastline of Greenland is climate classification ET (Polar Tundra, where trees and bushes can grow) and the interior is EF (Ice Cap, where you might find some moss if you're lucky). All of Antarctica, including the bit I assume you think has a similar level of habitability (the Antarctic Penninsular) is classed as EF. Living in an ET climate is incredibly challenging. The Inuit who live in these areas moved up from sub-arctic areas in North America, learning their techniques along the way and knowing how to live off the land. Their existence was/is grim by modern standards but people can certainly survive in this environment. If animals can survive up there, humans can. The Arctic Fox has a range stretching all round the Greenlandic coast and onto pack ice near the North Pole; the closest "land" animal to the South Pole is the penguin, and they only get about ten miles inland to breed before returning to the sea. The Southern Ocean is literally less hostile than Antarctica. Sustaining a human population in an EF climate without massive outside support is virtually impossible, but humans have been surviving unassisted in ET climates for thousands of years. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:And on that note let's get politically loaded: One of my favourite things about that map is that the Argentine claims on the Antarctic are mutually exclusive with the ones on the Falklands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
What would it take to make human habitation of Antarctica self-sustaining? Is there any significant geothermal activity there? I've heard that some bases have greenhouses, would it be possible to feed a population using an extensive enough greenhouse system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:What would it take to make human habitation of Antarctica self-sustaining? Is there any significant geothermal activity there? I've heard that some bases have greenhouses, would it be possible to feed a population using an extensive enough greenhouse system? Probably wouldn't be possible before the ice melts (at least enough so you can clear off the snow).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
As a North Jerseyite, world peace suddenly becomes an extremely attractive concept. Failing that, well, New Jeresy has never really a great location for a home, has it? Edit: VV Heh, I figured that the time would eventually come when someone quotes my post before I've edited it. VerdantSquire fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
VerdantSquire posted:As a North Jerseyite, world peace suddenly becomes an extremely attractive concept. Failing that, Oregon may not be such a bad choice for a new home. Be warned that there's a reason why Oregon is not targeted:  I really loving love this state though (even/especially the eastern 2/3) and I hope to live there in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Be warned that there's a reason why Oregon is not targeted: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:What would it take to make human habitation of Antarctica self-sustaining? Is there any significant geothermal activity there? I've heard that some bases have greenhouses, would it be possible to feed a population using an extensive enough greenhouse system? Greenhouses would need electric lighting and heating; you'd need to import the energy I'd think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Oregon has a desert? I don't know/care if this is sarcasm but for about six or seven years as a kid we would load up our car each summer and drive from Idaho to the Oregon coast (usually Newport because my dad went to Oregon State and it's an hour drive from Corvallis) and we'd just see this wonderful geography. Sometimes we'd also stay at these touristy things they set up, usually around large bodies of water (We definitely went to Summer Lake at least once). Alright, end nostalgia trip. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't know/care if this is sarcasm but for about six or seven years as a kid we would load up our car each summer and drive from Idaho to the Oregon coast (usually Newport because my dad went to Oregon State and it's an hour drive from Corvallis) and we'd just see this wonderful geography. Sometimes we'd also stay at these touristy things they set up, usually around large bodies of water (We definitely went to Summer Lake at least once).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
Count Roland posted:Greenhouses would need electric lighting and heating; you'd need to import the energy I'd think. Also sunlight. Three months of darkness are tough on greenhouses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:58
|
|