Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
Disclaimer: Nothing of what follows is intended either to initiate or sustain a “canon feud”. Where interpretations of undocumented items, like the number of survivors in California or a specific region of a state, differ I think it’s worthwhile to have a conversation about the thought process leading to the differences of opinion.
Certainly, I would not try to shout down your vision. If “a few hundred thousand” means about 300,000 (often, a few is three), then we’re talking a tenfold difference—rather substantial. I do think that the difference in our numbers is the basis for a conversation.
|
I'm totally up for a conversation and don't see such a conversation as a canon feud in anyway. Apologies for the late response. I usually browse this site on a mobile device which makes any posts more than a few sentances a real chore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
One of the factors I try to bear in mind when I am doing the creative work of assigning population levels is the total number of survivors as given in Howling Wilderness. The total loss of population through July 2000 is 52%, amounting to 135 million people. The surviving 48% amount to about 125 million. The population will drop even further by early 2001, but I want to focus on the July 2000 population for now.
|
My personal vision of how things is based on a rejection of the Howling Wilderness numbers. I personally believe that 135 million people is simply too large of a number to be alive given how or economy and agriculture where structured before the war.
When I looked at how America was structured last time the population was 135 million, which was roughly around 1940. Given the state of industry, agriculture, oil resources, etc in 2000 I just dont see that infrastructure being able to feed 135 million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
The San Francisco Bay Area (hereafter referred to as the Bay Area) has a pre-war population of about 10 million. Southern California has a population of about 15 million, leaving 6-7 million more Californians scattered throughout the rest of the state (by 1997 population estimates).
|
10 million is a little too high I think. The 2000 census if I recall correctly put around 7 million people living in the bay area counties total.
Finally, when it comes to my personal vision, for it to work the way I want I need the South Bay to be largely devoid of life so it can become a starting point for recovery. If there are a million people in Santa Clara Valley that means large numbers of structures are still occupied, structures that aren't have been pillaged for everything thats useful.
I really liked the idea that you and Matt Wiser have of Alameda being alive and still functioning. In some of the work I've done in my head and on paper I have Moffet Field being the center of salvage operations for the South Bay. I modeled my recovery teams kinda like SG-1. Small teams scouting the area looking for good stuff then they call in larger more organized teams to due the real work.
Is that realistic? I dunno, its just something I thought was cool. And for it to work properly I have to kill off lots of people.
So in summary, my vision really comes from two places, first I'm not following the canon number of survivors and second, my personal narrative needs a largely empty Bay Area.
Now, if we are to go by canon. I don't really disagree with the logic you presented and the numbers. I might move a lot more people in California to the Central Valley, but overall if we are going to have 150 or so million survivors California does present some advantages. You dont ever have to heat or cool your home in the Bay Area, you make do with extra sweaters if it gets cold or sleeping in your undies or less if its gets too hot. Nobody is gonna freeze from sub-zero weather in San Jose or Oakland. The key thing is getting population access to water. That dominates everything in California and without power we'd have to rely on gravity and that would in my opinion reshape where people would concentrate.