Which Country is Safest in an APOCALYPSE? - TLDR News
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2021
- TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
If an apocalypse was about to happen, which country would you be safest in? Well, it turns out there's data on that. So in this video we discover what's necessary for a country to be prepared for a post-apocalyptic reality and which countries are the most ready for such a terrible scenario.
Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
I'm sorry, but their method here is complete garbage. The factors used seem reasonable, but dividing by a position in someone else's ranking is just stupid, especially when that ranking has a value attached that could be used instead. You also didn't mention that their top 5 were actually just the top 5 on their measures, nothing to do with the Notre Dame study. The ND study was only used to order the top 5 after the rest had been cut. If they think the Notre Dame study is important enough to use, then why are they only throwing it in somewhat arbitrarily at the end? Any competent statistician will tell you that Norway should be on the list based on the methodology they used, by virtue of being top of the Notre Dame study, but they've screwed around so much that I can only assume they were trying to get this answer. The stupid thing is, there are less ridiculous ways to get the same top 5 in a different order. I've tried combining the ND score with their score in various different ways and NZ invariably comes out on top. It's hard to know exactly how that should be done fairly (as the whole thing is pretty arbitrary anyway) but Norway, Sweden and Finland are usually in or around the top 5. It's such a shame that they did things this way. The idea of reviewing countries' apocalypse readiness is a good one, but there's just no way this should be taken seriously now by anyone who looks beyond the headline. Why exactly did you cover it, btw?
I have no background in statistics and even I can see that dividing by a position in a separate study is just nonsense.
I believe in all of that there should also have a geopolitic context because it's not precised which type of apocalyptic would happen if it's a nuke war Britain would not be safer than France or any other country Australia neither with the recent AUKUS ... New Zealand might be more safe tho yes
Pop science at its finest
@@Ionao Norway and Iceland might be safer than Britain in the case of nuclear war due to being in the periphery of Europe, lower population and lower threat.
Britain would definitely be one of the targets, the nordic countries might get a hit on their capitals too, or along the border if there's NATO troops stationed there, but much of those countries would probably just be bombed with conventional weapons in the case of nuclear war, to save the nuclear arsenal for bigger threats.
The nordic countries low population density would simply ensure that most of us would probably be okayish I think.
The division of A/B is shown in table 4 and never used or mentioned again. They scaled back the scope of the paper by limiting stage-one of the analysis to the top 20 countries from NG-Gain. They scaled back the rest of the analysis to just the 5 countries with a combined "Further Analysis Score" greater than 10 and sorted things by the ND-Gain ranking.
It is lazy, but not bad statistics.
The actual analysis which gave these analysis scores on the other hand... 2 of the three columns were purely a British dude using his gut to map a qualitative description to a number and big surprise, countries with a culture similar to his tended to score highly there.
I'm curious which are the top 5 safest countries in an apocalypse that _aren't_ islands.
Denmark, Antarctica
@@dadikkedude Antartica is not a country
@@Haris1 and it is an island.
Waiting for the "Australia is a continent" people
@@Shredding101 Australia is an island
How to survive the apocalypse:
Step 1: Speak english
Step 2: Live on an island
why inglish?
@@almond3963 all the countries in the video have large english speaking populations.
How I love australia and our soon to be 8th state new zealand.
Except that the majority of these so called “safe places” will be primary military targets in the event of a world war given the UK & Australia’s association with NATO members. Australia & New Zealand would be 1 of China’s primarily invasion targets in the event of WW3. Let’s not even start with England or anywhere in Europe for that matter lol. The so called study is a load bias British BS.
@@DJHASDIMONDS So? Iceland evidently speaks Icelandic, yes people speak very good English, how's that relevant?
This is probably the worst possible way of trying to determine an adequate ranking of the countries? Dividing it by the ranking? It's like they have never presented any data before. If that's the case, what's Norway's score then? If Norway just got a score of 7 out of 15, it will blow New Zealand out of the water simply because it's ranked #1 in the previous chart.
how much arable land does it have?
@@1littlelee Ouch
That methodology is a bit weird. A) find a ranking. B) assign marks out of 15 for various categories. C) divide ranking by score. Why would you do this, it makes no dimensional sense. You really shouldn't mix ordinal and cardinal values.
You must not be from New Zealand smh.
They are stupid, in case you had not realized.
Also apparently desperate for money, at this point they realize they failed to be news, so they do clickbait listicals now.
It's a perfect case study on how to make something abitrary be even more abitrary. It's checking all the boxes. Seriously, who is funding this shit?
@@aenorist2431 I don't blame TL;DR news. I'm blaming the authors of the paper.
Did this mean that Norway scored less than 1 if it couldn't even place higher than Ireland?
I swear to god if you say New Zealand... I'll scream!!
EDIT: he said New Zealand...
Inhale deep
What’s wrong with New Zealand? Stop ragging on my country man.
I'm confused too....someone explain?
@@greyerbaby3323 I live in your country man, I'm tired of us only being known for Zombie Apocalypses
@@jojivlogs1323 - Its is a known fact NZ is the safest countries and yes the various disrupt effects like health, weather, etc of a planet warming is a reality.
Ironically, this “research” appears to be about as complex as a bachelor’s thesis.
Bachelor candidates do theses?
@@richardlinter4111 Depends on university and the thing you are studding. I did wrote thesis to get my diploma in Hydrology. My friend who studied civil engineering didn`t (he simply had an exam).
We in NZ have people buying doomsday bunkers here. Was pretty sure we were gonna be number 1 for this reason.
by that reasoning, Switzerland would be number 1
More like people are buying those because it’s a good place to be in an apocalypse
So basically, we just watched a commercial for NZ doomsday bunkers.
@@sparky6855 agreed the Swiss have enough for the entire population of the Swiss they’d fair better
PLUS swiss is a neutral country so the chances of them having anything happen
It's 3150, Icelandic has become the new globally dominant language after mankinds resurgence from the Climate Apocalypse...
Icelanders will probably abolish icelandic in favor of English long before then lol
@@Maxoverpower You're severely underestimating the amount of effort and pride already being taken in preserving the language in the face of global pressures. Icelandic survived the Danish, it'll survive global English.
@@Maxoverpower yes we will switch from our language that we've been using for over 1000 years. and has hardly even changed. to a language which you couldn't even understand a couple of hundred years ago, yeah no we will still be using Icelandic in 1000 years,
Old West Norse lives, forsooth. English a relict found in the Frisian islands...
This study has a large error margin prone to alternative outcomes and some indication of an authors' bias.
4/5 in the Top5 are mainly English-speaking countries in this study conducted by two UK authors from a UK institute.
Put this together with the very tweakable calculation of their total score and you end up with my summary from the top.
But don't mind, most English-speaking countries look safe...
I wouldn't disagree with your judgement. But most English-speaking academics would conclude the UK and other English speaking countries are finished.
I think you will find the majority of people in all 5 of these countries can speak English.
it would have been interesting to see other countries outside that top 20, as for example, Argentina or Chile, both chek well on some of those boxes, to New Zealand would still number one
Anything outside the top 20 would score less than 0.75 (fifteen stars divided by rank twenty) so the best anywhere could do would be to knock Ireland out of fifth place, and anywhere outside the top 27 couldn't even do that - if #25 got 15 stars, they'd score 0.6, and it would depend what Ireland's precise score is that's been rounded to 0.6 (assuming it's not exact).
Also, it appears that Ireland isn't in the top 20 itself - at least, I haven't been able to find it looking at the list of 20 names in the video.
Oh, and for Norway, #1 in the original list, to not be in the top five, either it must have got 0 stars, or TLDR have missed something in their explanation.
While they are not likely to be targeted by nukes Argentina's government would just collapse on the following economic crisis after it, and you don't want to be in Somalia 2.0 after a nuclear war.
New Zealand's fresh water supply and farm land is being abused right now with over farming and their water ways are toxic so New Zealand is not number one.
How the hell does the UK rank as number 3, and tie with Australia.
The UK only survives because of complex trade networks. If these go down the UK is in a mess.
Compared to Australia which has abundant agriculture, resources and a comparatively small population.
Depends on what the emergency is. I would rather live in the UK if there was constant global heatwaves causing draughts.
Almost 70 millions people stuck on a ~250 000km² island while shit is about to hit the fan? Seems like the perfect recipe for the most massive battle royal ever to me. Not really a cozy place where I'd hang out while the world is burning. There's a long list of countries I'd pick over the UK.
The UK is generally fine for natural resources, the issue is that those same resources are available elsewhere for much less cost which is why we import them.
In a global apocalypse, all bets are off - you can dig for your own expensive coal if all the other coalmines in the world are now overrun with zombies or whatever. Food might be an issue, although modern agriculture is much more productive than the middle ages (when famines were a thing in England) the population of the British Isles is much, much greater now.
@@patriarch7237 Are you seriously saying that the UK and Australia are comparable?
Australia has 8 times the arable land as the UK, while having less than half as many people.
Also, does the UK even have Zinc and Copper supplies?
Place your trust in her majesty
the UK is having shortages just because it left the EU. imagine if there was an APOCALYPSE
That's because we still want to maintain what we eat, push comes to shove we'd eat anything to survive and I think that's what the paper looks at
To be fair, they didn't exactly say the place would go without issue, just the likelihood that the society could stay functional
I don't remember who did the study but given the outcome I'm guessing it was someone in the UK.
Not arguing about NZ and Iceland though. They're probably a good place to be if shit hits the fan.
NZ and Iceland would be great till they ran out of spare parts. The UK is probably the only one on that list that has a manufacturing industry.
TLDR of the TLDR : New Zealand is the safest
(according to heavily biased study)
Unless they anger China!
when ur waiting to hear about Ireland, but then they don't ;(
and Australia
Having now read the paper I cannot really help but conclude that this paper fails to properly take into account follow-on effects of numerous global de-complexification events...
Climate first impact would be drowning island nations, yet we have 5 here at the top.
Complete Bs
They should have added: "The follow-on effects are beyond the scope of this paper"
@@zaydalaoui9397 The islands in the top 5 are not going to drown. Sea-level will rise, yes, but New Zealand, Iceland and the UK will all remain completely viable landmasses.
@@steffenscheibler5849 good for them, but still doesn’t make any sense to divide a score based on facts by a ranking in another study. Completely unscientific
Electrical Self Sufficiency is all well and good ...
But what about Self Sufficiency in the ability to manufacture their electronics...
The study conflates Energy with Industry Self Sufficiency, even though the two are not nessesarily related. No state in that list has meaningful electronics manufacturing industries except for maybe Britain. Electricity generation is irrelevant without electronics
I think dividing by the rank is a bit much. It means that rank 1 would be twice as good as rank 2 if all else is the same. But it could be rank 1 is just a tiny bit ahead of 2 in reality.
Never mentioned that Iceland has high output on geothermal energy. Plus hot springs can be nice even with the volcano risks.
NZ had geothermal energy as far back as the 1950's. Looked it up. The other pioneer was Italy.
yeah living near volcanos is pretty safe tbh
Solar energy in Iceland... did they miss that the sun barely even shine there in winter? Sure, it shine aplenty in summer, but that only makes it a seasonal source of energy. Iceland is the world leader in geothermal energy, wouldn't it been more mention worthy than solar in one of the few countries where sun doesn't always shine?
John Wyndham beat the authors to this in The Chrysalid, he selected New Zealand as the surviving complex society. The UK is a bit surprising.
Considering the hostility of the local wildlife to human life i'm surprised Australia isn't already considered in a permanent state of apocalypse
hence why we can't be impacted by any additional ones :P
It is a pity they did not look at more countries from the 3rd world. Take Laos for example. Plenty of power from the dams, low population, socially structured into villages, only one small city (700,000), 85% of the population have land holdings, and plenty of land to grow food on.
Surely countries that aren’t particularly technologically advanced, whose inhabitants already live in rural, farming communities that raise livestock and live off the land, would do the best in some ways?
I don’t see why technological powerhouses with populations that are use to luxury, populations that have never even had to kill an animal before, would do the best in apocalyptic circumstances? The UK goes to shit when it snows…..
I put my money on Papua New Guinea 🇵🇬
I was going to say that PNG would do best based on your criteria :) Yup, in most circumstances, their "undiscovered peoples" wouldn't even know a disaster had occurred, life for them would continue as normal, just like it has throughout covid
Commenting before watching it is Switzerland.
Edit: So after watching this it is all about climate change and not about apocalypse events like nuclear winter, eruption of super volcano or meteor impacts. In that case when climate change "apocalypse" is considered Russia would be most persistent since it has everything it needs by it self.
1) Switzerland is a relatively safe country but is close to large populations of France and Germany
@@Haris1 And? They can not be invaded not successfully anyway.
@@skyrask1948 An invasion and 10's of millions of refugees are not at all equivalent.
@@Haris1 But they have good gun laws (which would be necesary), electricity comes from hydro and nuclear, and fresh water will always be available due to the proximities to mountains
@@TzarLatok I don’t think those millions will head to Russia 😂 Russophobic rhetoric of last century will keep Russia relatively unpopular
Haven't watched the video, but New Zealand?
I'd have thought Tristan Da Cunha would have a pretty good shot at survival on its own. Barring the volcano, although that doesn't seem to stop Iceland from making it to second.
The safest country is the penguin country of Antarctica
It is not a country
No infrastructure no farmland extreme weather conditions no energy Sources .
Shall i go one ?
@@Haris1 r/wooosh
@@swissbulgarianprod I was just correcting your lie
Still waiting for them to proclaim independence
I bet it's New Zealand. It's in that sweet spot of large enough to be self sufficient if necessary in key resources and with large enough of population to maintain a complex industrial society.
And of course far away from everything.
The only problem is, NZ would have to put up with will be the climate refugees from Australia😧
@@chrismckellar9350 Theoretically NZ can feed itself and Australia.
We could lose 80-90% of food production and still feed ourselves.
@@roryhebberd9766 - I agree with you. NIWA computer modelling shows NZ can produce food if adapt food production adapts to sustainable environmentally friendly 'produce to suit the land and climate' production, NZ could feed its self even with a population of 10-15 million comfortably and exports the rest to Australia. Australia is going to struggle with its food product especial in the eastern states. I think NZ will probably see 5 million 'climate refugees' from Australia over the next 20-30 years.
Reliance on renewables might seem a good position to be in, until you look at the maintenance requirements for those renewables. It it nice having all those wind turbines in the North Sea, until you have to go out and fix a breakdown in one of the turbines, and find all the supporting technology to repair the turbine is no longer sustainable.
In many ways, a far simpler coal fired power station, with local coal supplies (especially if the coal can be obtained without complex deep mining) is more sustainable than high tech renewable power generation.
UK agriculture may be fairly efficient, but again that efficiency depends on high tech solutions.
For any place to be survivable in a serious global decomplexification it needs an economy that it currently as low tech as possible.
And coal plants have no chance of breaking down and requiring no longer sustainable supporting technology?
I vote we try preventing catastrophic climate change first, before we all move to New Zealand.
A global thermonuclear war should suffice.
It's a bit ironic that UK is the 3 best, when a small hickup as Brexit can cause so big headache as we can see. Whoo know, it's difficult to judge.
Islands are good refuge
@@aaxe1766 that is true, but as we see from Brexit not the best place if the domestic production isn't the best. It's a bit troublesome that even the basic logistics is struggling without foraging workers help. Hope things get better there. Anyway it's not bashing the UK, there are many wonderful people there, it's just a bit curious that the UK is the third safest place on earth despite having serious issues without natural disasters. I hope this is not true, because that would mean other places would suffer badly.
@@gene8194 brexit isn’t an apocolypse and it isn’t a good way to see how well the uk would do in an apocolypse. If any country went through huge trade changes then they would find similar logistical problems that the UK saw.
@@maxdavis7722 well said
If by headache you mean struggling to deliver pigs in blankets in time for Christmas- that's a problem caused by the desires of a wealthy first world country. In an apocalypse we wouldn't even be driving cars. We would be forced to live off the land and revert to a traditional diet like our ancestors did for thousands of years. Brexit is not relevant in the context of an apocalypse because the modern lifestyle of the past 40 years (which exists because of globalisation) would have no place in an apocalypse :/
Being cold, isolated, landlocked, or less complex to begin with could mean those usual countries in these lists collapse more instead. Also note how they even put Singapore up there.
I was looking forward to an assessment of Ireland which is what you scoped in the first place. I recommend doing a lower scope scenario of: where would the best place to be if ... And include all the nations you chose!!
THIS EXPLAINS SO MUCH...
I MEAN... MAD MAX!!!!
I assume this paper was published before the UK decided to actually see what stuffing up global supply chains would do to a society?
not to mention AUKUS agreements & their impact on countries like Australia in the event of nuclear war. Major shifts in the UK & Australia in recent weeks in relation to rankings like given here aren't there!
the formula is insane. dividing by its numerical placement on the list rather than its actual score?
2:10 - Good thing I can freely move to Iceland.
The 5 countries you mention, they are all islands, that might give you a change to ring fence yourself off from any chaos. UK could further improve it's self reliance with tidal and green hydrogen storage and transport.
feel like Bhutan would b pretty prepared (hydroelectric power, geographical isolation, most of the population involved in agriculture, etc) for the apocalypse but I don't think it was included in this study...
Norway in particular because our mountains and up-and-down terrain shield us from disasters both natural and man-made, and our population is decentralized already.
Was hoping to see your opinion on how Canada would do.
Overflowed by refugees from South I guess.
“The De-Complexification Event”
That sounds like a cool movie title! Anyone?
thats the most important part of news for our year xD
Easy, anywhere far from the US, becouse as the saying goes life imitates art.
Australia's as far from the US as you can get geographically, but Pine Gap & AUKUS mean it's not politically distant & would be a high value target as a result
Decomplexification is my new favorite word
Iceland has a lot of potential geothermal energy as well
This is seriously one of the main reasons I never intend to move away from Australia
Why do Norway drop so much? Because its not an island? It has mountains and is still pretty hard to get to. I would view it as equal hard to get to as UK (which probably will have more people nearby trying reaching it).
7:20 "Creating highly advanced generators which require functioning global supply chains would be less desirable than relying simply on renewable energy"
I don't know of any renewable renewable energy technologies that are manufactured in the UK. The metals are specific to some regions of the world let alone the factories. All other considerations aside, the most self sufficient source of energy is nuclear power, as long as you stockpile enough uranium or thorium.
and in reality, on that front we're all screwed! Most of the supplies come from Australia BUT only China has the capacity to process them into finished materials, so we're all hostage to China for those metals - including even Australia, let alone the UK
My Plague Inc. games all end with Greenland.
They adapt faster than whatever I throw at them.
Ireland wasn't on the top 20 list for dealing with climate change
The whole paper seems garbage
True
@The Leaprachaun you from Ireland as well
That's nice
Fun fact: The US has a zombie contingency plan.
The things there analyzing make sense in general, but it really depends on what kind of apocalypse your worried about. The UK and Australia are more likely than many other countries to be involved in a nuclear war for instance. The Notre Dam study was presumably about global warming, meaning that it's validity in a global cooling event like nuclear/volcanic/impact winter is limited. (Notably, supervolcanoes and apocalyptic impacts, though eventually inevitable, are very unlikely to happen soon.) These events as well as plagues or even things like a conquering robot army (which are both maybe more likely) obviously are more dangerous near wherever the event happens. The logic that self-sufficient islands are the best places to be is still very sound in all these situations, though - even more so in a plague than in other sorts of disasters that just make the rest of the world not very useful rather than actually dangerous to contact. COVID19 taught us that what matters more in a plague is how much trade/travel there is between countries, though, because crossing oceans is easy in plane. Military considerations also matter in a war situation even besides the question of who is involved in a nuclear war (e.g., in that robot army situation, though they might use also nukes if intelligent enough).
Finally! A proper, relevant journalism.
lol
what the governments will end up being is far more important to me than anything else, since i plan to be off-grid, and that's basically unpredictable as far as i can tell
I am actually surprised how high Australia was.
The closest hungry hostiles are Indonesia, and the Aussies are ready for them. We returned to NZ from Oz just before Covid hit hard, and well recall the faint paranoia about the neighbors to the north.
Finally, My Precious, my Fishes are mentioned....
Even you couldn't say no to fish and chips...
Nice Plague Inc reference. I approve
In what World UK is in the list ... it can barely survive Brexit, let alone end of the world event.... I agree with the rest of the list though, could be that Norway or Canada should be there instead of UK.
I think Australia would be above the UK. Australia would not have a problem with food and should be completely fine producing electricity too.
Coal electricity*
Australia burns down every year?
@@Maxoverpower I didn't say it was clean electricity, just that it was easy to get access to and use.
What is flabbergasting is the unbeatable lead in the metric. I mean, 6 or more for NZ versus about 1 for the closest also-ran (Iceland)?
It's really not that hard to cross La Manche. People can do it with a kayak or a boat... Some people can even swim the distance).
Those sneaky New Zealanders, hiding in the corner of the map :p
Quite often it isn't even shown *on* the map
On some world maps we (NZ) have fallen off the bottom right hand corner.
Oh dear! How sad! Never mind!
It's because new zealand isn't actually a real place; I should know, I live there.
@@Emsworth377 Unsurprising that billionaires like Gabe Newell are financing our budding bunker-buiding industry here then.
Many countries, like the UK, wouldn't have to increase agricultural output to be self-sustaining food-wise after an apocalypse, their populations would just have to get used to a more plant-based diet and a daily caloric intake that's not at obesity-level.
Wait for Brexit to properly kick in and we will see how many Brits remain fed.
@@richardlinter4111 Do you mean "fed" (by copious amounts of sugary drinks, burgers and greasy bacon), or fed as in a diet that's mostly plant/insect-based and doesn't make them the fattest country in Europe?
@@gulliverdeboer5836 : Either. From the 1820s British agriculture only kept pace with population to the extent that outside resources were available, like guano-based fertilizers after ~1840.
@@richardlinter4111 Take away exports, take advantage of improved strains, and technology, reduce waste, overconsumption, and animal protein, and you'll find that even with today's population size, and even without imported fertilizer the UK population could be fed from just UK agriculture.
Case in point, the UK population survived just fine on rations during WWI and WWII (and population size was much larger than in 1820) when imports were meagre, in fact, during WWII the population actually became healthier because the rations were healthier than what they had been eating before.
@@gulliverdeboer5836 : "even without imported fertilizer the UK population could be fed from just UK agriculture." No. Not a chance. And WWII illustrates the point. Even with land girls, without the shipping lifeline Britain would have starved. This is in fact well documented historically.
Looks like no one is considering a possibile event causing also a shut down of the Gulf Stream. Good luck farming in Island, Ireland and the UK without it.
I said NZ once I saw the video title. The common main theme I see here is actually that they are all island nations.
Humanity as Lazarus taxon, forsooth, with a relict of Gondwana as refugium.
why divide by the notre dame ranking instead of the score ?
I actually guessed Ireland would be on that list outta sheer luck.
I have *significant* questions about this. With the UK’s high population density, and Europe right on its doorstep, seems far worse off for famine risks and conflict issues than pretty well all of Canada. Especially Western Canada. The US has a large population, sure, it’s also much larger than European nations. North America as a whole has significantly fewer people than Europe over over twice the land area. Newfoundland, as well, runs mostly on Hydro electricity, is more isolated than Ireland or the UK, has a similar population to Iceland, and significantly more farmland.
If the apocolypse happens I'm taking the first flight up to Nunavut.
Someone got really "high" with UK on the 3rd place 🤣🤣🤦🏻♂️
My apocalypse formula goes like this:
NZ with hardly any military but loads of space and food, divided by Rest of World with loads of military but hardly any food or space, multiplied by the number of zombies and triffids.. What was I talking about again?
The "Alaska or New Zealand" debate looks settled but I'd still be interested in avoiding the type of scenario where it's relevant.
Global populations are expected to peak in the 2050s, renewable energy is scaling fast and agricultural output has been able to feed 10 billion people for decades.
I am, my self, interested in approximating autark live but would prefer opportunitys from global interconnection to supplement that.
This scoring method is utterly ridiculous. Simply dividing by the ranking in the Global Adaption Index will give massively skewed results. Take Switzerland (placed 4) & Sweden (placed 5) for example, with a respective score of 72.5 & 72.4, only 0.1 points apart. Their respective score on this new index will be calculated with x/4 and x/5 respectively, meaning Sweden automatically is 20% worse in the ranking before factoring in anything else, even though they are pretty much equally good when it comes to climate change adaptation.
This isn't peer reviewed science but simply one study, meaning one look, on a complex topic and these two aren't a deciding authority.Viewers should take this with a grain of salt and you might have wanted to approach this a bit more critically and just present it as the thought experiment that it basically is.
yes ,,,this analyst guys is very bias n stupid,,,
Renewable energy might not be particularly high tech, but it is dependent on a complex global supply chain. At least to reach its current levels of efficiency. Solar panels in particular I'd be surprised if were produced through pure local means in the UK after an apocalypse. Wind and hydro are more simple, but still would be quite limited in efficiency if advanced components and materials were not available.
I’d be interested in what the worst 5 are.
My home is the safest untill zombies start popping up near windows
Can you make a video on the State Senates of the US and their purpose on TLDR News US, like the United States as a whole has a senate whose job is to represent each State equally but what is the purpose of Senates of each individual American State, there doesn't seem to make any video on UA-cam about it...
I live in the U.S. ,but if apocalyptic events happen. I would try to head back to Africa. Reasoning is Africa is not as reliant on many of the technology and structure as Europe and U.S. .Africa has basically been existing in a slight apocalyptic grey area for last 400+ years. People there survive on less.
Bruh one reason why mainly islands make this list is because of the expected hundreds of millions of climate refugees from Africa and the middle east
Meanwhile Australia's response to covid was to just set up road blocks in Aboriginal areas to stop whites getting near them & let them live their traditional lives unimpacted by covid. I'd say Australia's better than Africa in that regard, but preferable that you go to Africa, as it makes it easier for us to defend our border in Australia :)
Think I would rather not be alive In any apocalyptic scenario don't fancy becoming a cannibals or cannibalised once the food runs out
Another key factor is having red, white, and blue in your flag. Or at least being mistaken for part of a country that has red, white, and blue in it's flag.
That looks like the stupidest methodology i’ve ever seen to pretend something is scientific. I don’t even know where to start…
Don’t be overly dependent on technology, the shit is glitchy
Anyone familiar with Fred Dagg would realise that New Zealand is definitely not a “Node of Persisting Complexity”.
Eh, we shipped him off to Straya. The IQ of both countries increased.
In all fairness, I do quite like John Clarke, but as a New Zealander, I am legally obligated to give Australia a ribbing at every opportunity I get.
@@fraserrose4209 : Yes, they noticed. So sit back with popcorn. Best family sitcom ever.
depends on the nature of the apocalypse. in the case of nuclear war, Switzerland is a great place to be. they have enough nuclear bunkers to accommodate more than 100% of the population
you wrong,,,best place is tropical island or tropical country ,,,,better life in tropical forest than under bunker ,,,food most important if you want survive
The twofold trick is getting in the bunker on time, and surviving the fallout.
@@richardlinter4111 Eating afterwards?
@@roryhebberd9766 mushrooms :)
The apocalypse asks - " do you speak English?" "No?! Ok I'll go somewhere else"...
I don't think this study has comprehensively considered other key factors regarding surviving in an apocalypse era - for example, the risks of natural disaster or national security. Both NZ and Iceland are very prone to volcano and earthquake, and dooming levels of volcano eruption and earthquakes are expected in the near future in both countries. Finland, Sweden and Norway were ranked top in the original study conducted by Notre Dame University (which only considers climate change), but these countries, particularly Finland and Norway, has border with Russia, which imposes significant risks of national security.
Humans survived here for 800 years volcanoes and all.
I think my home country should change it's flag colors to red, white and blue to get a better chance at surviving a zombie apocalypse
If the world's billionaires start moving there, you know you're about to get f'ed.
I'm sorry Sam, they have been moving here for several years now :(
Yeah soz sam i live in nz and have been putting massive windows in billionaire houses for the past 4 yrs...
You've been big on the whole nuclear apocalypse lately. Are you suggesting something, TPDR?!
Yeah UK doin great nowadays with shortages
I think Canada and Russia are very well positioned. They have the largest amount of land and their climates will become more friendly with climate change. Also because they have so much land, sea level rises won’t be as big of a deal. The US isn’t in a terrible spot since we have a lot of land in the Northern half of our country that will remain tolerable (can’t say the same about Florida).
I don’t think being far away from people is necessarily a good thing in the long run. But that is because I think global trade would eventually reestablish itself,especially scaled down trade like between neighboring countries, and places like New Zealand will be more isolated and hard to reach. And I think being around people is a good thing as long as an area isn’t overpopulated relative to its resources.
The Russians are extremely worried about climate change because of the catastrophic permafrost melting under way right now. As for their southern agricultural lands, they mostly hived off with the breakup of the old Soviet Union, including especially the Ukraine, and the rest are not well cared for.
Norway was nr 1, above Iceland on the Climate ranking, yet scored less than 1?
Land borders with other countries, so could get swamped by refugees. I'm guessing not great for food production either. Should score well for population density and natural resources though.
The Mars Colony, if someone can get there in time.
Aaah, yes. That famed repository of arable land.
@@RealityDysfunction : Pinching ideas from Benson or Bear, let's remake ourselves as autotrophic robots. Outer space for aeons, here we come.
Venus makes more sense than Mars
"Cheap renewable energy" are highly advanced (Wind turbine, water-generators, Solar panels), and vital components are often produced in other countries... So the questions is really, what country produces a complete Wind-farm/Hydro dam/etc "in house", and can resupply and maintenance this on their own. That list will be very short, I think... Yes, some countries are in a favourable position to use some sort of hydro-energy, but most countries will dig for coal and oil, and use that. And wars will sort out the rest... :( The cascade effect will take the left of us back to the time of steam-power....
I don't get how Australia isn't the best. It has the most potential for solar and wind energy, the most coal and iron, the most arable land, and the most isolation (even between its own cities) out of all the listed countries.
270 million people in Indonesia, within visual distance of Australia & you say it's isolated????? Also a US military base in the middle of the country that conducts all electronic operations for the middle east, making it a prime target for attack. As an Aussie, I'm sorry to say our Kiwi cousins do win this one. We still do well, but not as well as them
Seems pointless to put it all into one list. It´s so dependant on what the apocalypse actually is that an overall score is essentially meaningless.
I mean if we take a nuclear war as an example. The UK or Australia would certainly not be well positioned to make it through that.
My thoughts exactly, the UK will be one of the first countries turned into a nuclear wasteland. Australia and New Zealand will fare better at this though
Australia's a really interesting one in that regard, the primary military targets aren't anywhere near any populated areas. I agree with you though
@@mehere8038 In a full on nuclear war the population centers will quickly become primary targets.
@@XMysticHerox Do they? If so why? Does anyone really want to bother? I'm really not sure if they do or not & in reality, if that happens, NZ goes too as an allie to Australia & even if not from that, it goes down to the radiation that travels across from the east coast of Australia, just like the bushfire smoke did. Tasmania or WA could end up less impacted than NZ if Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne & Brisbane are hit
@@mehere8038 That was the plan in the cold war. Doubt it changed fundamentally. If you are saying that nuclear war is stupid yes I agree.
I don't know, it seems a little biased. I am sure that countries in Africa, which are already used to living in societies which are more self-reliant and less "complex" would fare a lot better in such scenarios than most developed countries where people would not be able to feed themselves either not knowing how to grow food or hunt, let alone heal themselves or build shelters.
keep in mind that people will migrate to where ever there is easy access to food and water so whichever african nation your thinking of would get swamped and no be able to sustain its self thats why islands are best
They looked at climate change specifically. And there Africa sits perfectly in the you're fucked zone. The main reasons all top performers on that list are islands is because you cannot migrate there unless you have a boat and they let you in.
Ok, I understand the argument in the context of global warming. But in the context of apocalypse (and there are millions of options for that), most of them would involve a dramatic end of all life on the planet, except if lucky, some individuals. So the migration variable is much less important as there wouldn’t be anyone to move in mass anyway
@@maxxie84 yeah but this paper is mostly focused on climate change...change the crises and you will see different outcomes