who would last longer.... North vs South

[prolific 0]

imagine there being a world war, nuclear attack, or massive natural disaster in the uk.

would the north or south fair better or worse?

[K1Machine 10]

The rich and privileged would last longer no matter where in the country they live.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

21 minutes ago, K1Machine said:

The rich and privileged would last longer no matter where in the country they live.

Only until their possessions run out.

 

Then those who are used to struggling to survive will do best.

[ECCOnoob 1,043]

What a load of crock.  "Used to struggling to survive".

 

In the event of a full-scale disaster as described stop trying to make out that poorer people are some Bear Grylls in waiting just ready to get on with it.  Complete nonsense.

 

Even the poorest of the poor in this country don't know the meaning of the words.  The vast majority of those living on the so-called poverty line are living in purpose built properties with utilities at the touch of a button or the flick of a switch surrounded by mass produce consumer goods.  Despite their supposed pitiful incomes either through low level employment or government handouts these oh so street smart and poverty hardened people get into their private vehicles or use amply available public transport to stroll into a supermarket which provides a wealth of choice of fresh and preserve food that those REALLY in poverty could only dream of in their lifetime.  

 

Neither the north or the South would favour in the event of such disasters.

Which part of the country are you living is totally irrelevant.  After all there are plenty of poor parts down south too.

 

What is relevant, as has already been said, is how much someone already has and how much available money they have to rebuild and buy again.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[retep 68]

1 hour ago, K1Machine said:

The rich and privileged would last longer no matter where in the country they live.

Ever tried eating a credit/bank card?

[Anna B 1,414]

The strongest, and the most ruthless with the strongest survival instinct will survive, although the rich will also have some definite advantages going for them. 

 

Frankly, in those circumstances, they're welcome to it.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

28 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

The vast majority of those living on the so-called poverty line are living in purpose built properties with utilities at the touch of a button or the flick of a switch surrounded by mass produce consumer goods.  

Really?

 

I'm sure those people living in some of the poorer parts of sub saharan Africa would be very happy to hear they have utilities at the touch of a button and are surrounded by consumer goods!

 

 

[hackey lad 3,976]

Pretty sure Ecco was talking about the UK , as mentioned in the op

[Mister M 1,625]

I 'm sure people of Sheffield would have a better chance of survival more than most. 

We've got the advantage of experience - anyone remember Threads 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

7 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Pretty sure Ecco was talking about the UK , as mentioned in the op

My mistake.

 

I read it as North or South hemispheres.

[melthebell 863]

The only reason the rich would last longer would be because they could afford a bunker for immediate survival.

 

There is people who do have survival instincts on the lower end of the scale, doing physical extremes, eating from bins, being alone, killing people

[Happ 25]

16 hours ago, prolific said:

imagine there being a world war, nuclear attack, or massive natural disaster...

The vast majority would never be able to envisage such an example so the question and answers are without any merit. As mentioned above, the film “Threads” is probably the most realistic example of nuclear fallout and the aftermath, even decades after it was made.