Centralization is bad for survivability
Sep. 3rd, 2005 05:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragoness_eScenario 1:
You get your food from the supermarket, your water from the city water main, and your power from the regional grid. You communicate via cell phones, which require intact cell towers and switching system, or via The Phone Company's lines.
Scenario 2:
You live out in the country, and grow some of your own food, get your water from your own well, and have a back-up generator and a generous fuel supply. You maintain and use a ham radio.
What happens when a massive disaster strikes in either case? See New Orleans for scenario 1. As for scenario 2, I know people in a similar situation out in the country. Sometimes they get cut off from town by ice-storms and blizzards. No big deal.
The upside of centralization is efficiency of scale; it's less costly in money and resources to have a powerplant capable of supplying a 100,000 household with electricity than it is to have 100,000 households with generators and fuel of their own.
The downside is survivability. When the centralized part gets wiped out--power in southeast Louisiana, cell towers in New Orleans, phone system, etc--everyone is out of luck. No one has power/water/etc, and no individual can get it for themselves. They just have to wait, helplessly, until the central generation or distribution units are restored to function.
If one guy loses his well, or generator, it doesn't mean his neighbors are out of luck. In fact, his neighbors can probably help him out, instead of also sitting about helplessly.
No, we can't all live self-sufficient lives in the country. Not enough land, not enough rural jobs. So, basically, those of us who lived in the centralized economy of the city or town are screwed when natural disasters strike.
Can we mitigate it? Perhaps. Ham radio requires only power for communications, and one can install back-up generators. A supply of non-perishable food can be set aside. Water can be bottled and stored. Keep a camp stove and full cans of fuel around. Be ready to bug out if something like a killer hurricane looms on the horizon. Have friends you can stay with.
Having friends is a great mitigator for all kinds of disaster. You never know when you might need help or shelter in a distant city. Make friends wherever you go; don't make enemies if you can help it.
The de-centralized nature of the internet is a winner here, too. Sure, we lose nodes in a region--but I can get my e-mail from my distant refuge; my daughter can send me notes from a wireless node that happened to be up when cell phones were barely working; I can post to my livejournal. Every New Orleans based website that matters that I checked, Entergy, my church, Nola.com, was up. If they were even hosted in New Orleans in the first place, they were rapidly mirrored elsewhere. I can get information if I can get any communication channel with the internet open. Woot!
You get your food from the supermarket, your water from the city water main, and your power from the regional grid. You communicate via cell phones, which require intact cell towers and switching system, or via The Phone Company's lines.
Scenario 2:
You live out in the country, and grow some of your own food, get your water from your own well, and have a back-up generator and a generous fuel supply. You maintain and use a ham radio.
What happens when a massive disaster strikes in either case? See New Orleans for scenario 1. As for scenario 2, I know people in a similar situation out in the country. Sometimes they get cut off from town by ice-storms and blizzards. No big deal.
The upside of centralization is efficiency of scale; it's less costly in money and resources to have a powerplant capable of supplying a 100,000 household with electricity than it is to have 100,000 households with generators and fuel of their own.
The downside is survivability. When the centralized part gets wiped out--power in southeast Louisiana, cell towers in New Orleans, phone system, etc--everyone is out of luck. No one has power/water/etc, and no individual can get it for themselves. They just have to wait, helplessly, until the central generation or distribution units are restored to function.
If one guy loses his well, or generator, it doesn't mean his neighbors are out of luck. In fact, his neighbors can probably help him out, instead of also sitting about helplessly.
No, we can't all live self-sufficient lives in the country. Not enough land, not enough rural jobs. So, basically, those of us who lived in the centralized economy of the city or town are screwed when natural disasters strike.
Can we mitigate it? Perhaps. Ham radio requires only power for communications, and one can install back-up generators. A supply of non-perishable food can be set aside. Water can be bottled and stored. Keep a camp stove and full cans of fuel around. Be ready to bug out if something like a killer hurricane looms on the horizon. Have friends you can stay with.
Having friends is a great mitigator for all kinds of disaster. You never know when you might need help or shelter in a distant city. Make friends wherever you go; don't make enemies if you can help it.
The de-centralized nature of the internet is a winner here, too. Sure, we lose nodes in a region--but I can get my e-mail from my distant refuge; my daughter can send me notes from a wireless node that happened to be up when cell phones were barely working; I can post to my livejournal. Every New Orleans based website that matters that I checked, Entergy, my church, Nola.com, was up. If they were even hosted in New Orleans in the first place, they were rapidly mirrored elsewhere. I can get information if I can get any communication channel with the internet open. Woot!
Hey
Date: 2006-02-23 02:15 pm (UTC)