View Single Post
  #20  
Old 02-15-2013, 01:42 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,761
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
There's historical precedence to look at. My AP U.S. History students are currently studying the Great Depression and I've been doing a fair bit of reading about American agriculture during the first half of the 20th century. The Dust Bowl of the mid thirties was an ecological distaster previously unseen in American history. Tens of millions of acres of farmland were effectively put out of use for two years (in some regions, significantly longer). America's Breadbasket was badly hurt by the Dust Bowl but the country didn't starve.
The caloric numbers that HW presents as being available represents about 2% the US's prewar production (of the 7 major grains and excluding all other food sources). Given I expect that the percentage of Americans involved in agriculture (or other food acquisition) would increase at least fivefold in the intervening years, and the fact that this is the 4th harvest after TDM, that number just seems ridiculous to me.

Last edited by kato13; 02-15-2013 at 02:26 PM.
Reply With Quote