ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: Right now, I think we are worse off than the dinosaurs, at least they knew > how to scavenge. If we lose power for an extended period of time due to a > natural disaster we are hosed. >
Winston Churchill described that in his 1932 essay, "Fifty Years Hence." I can dig up the quote here once the power comes back. (Irony!) In essence he said population density has risen, urban density has risen, and technology which was once a luxury such as electricity was now necessary for survival. I think that modern technology has become more robust, and survivable, but the dollar cost remains high. I mean that it is easily disrupted, but the disruptions are easily and swiftly repaired. The power companies have large number of trucks which they dispatch at any time of day or night. You pay for all those trucks and skilled crews in your electric bill. As I said, I expect that future technology will grow less and less dependent on nature, until it can be used off-planet with no links to production centers, with whatever raw materials you find on the moon or Mars. In the 19th century people did know how to get along without help from large organizations from the cities, or without infrastructure. On the other hand, they often did not get along. They died. During the Civil War, Sherman's campaign from Tennessee through Georgia was largely a fight over infrastructure: first the railroads, then factories and farms. In the first phase, Sherman depended on the railroad from Chattanooga to Atlanta. His troops would have starved or run out of ammunition without it. He needed as many soldiers defending the rail line and rebuilding after Confederate attacks as he had fighting. In earlier wars, rivers and roads were the lines of supply and communication, and less vulnerable to disruption by enemy troops. After taking Atlanta, Sherman decided to send all wounded and disabled troops home on the rail link, then he deliberately destroyed the rail line, freeing up the troops that were guarding it. He then foraged from Atlanta to Savannah and through the Carolinas. This was a revolutionary strategy. The Confederate armies did not expect it. They had gone west and north, hoping to lure him to follow. They did not think a modern army could survive by foraging. They knew there was food, but they thought Sherman's army would run short of horses and ammunition. It did not, although if it had run against major opposition it might have. The soldiers carried 200 rounds each. Sherman was a master at evasion, feint, and what is called "horns of the dilemma" tactic where the enemy cannot tell where you are going, and you go wherever it does not concentrate. You destroy the weaker forces, in detail. See: B. Alexander, "How Great Generals Win." In my opinion, Sherman was the best general on either side of the Civil War. If the other Union generals had used his tactics, it would have saved a hundred thousand lives. Sherman won by destroying property, barns and railroads, and thereby spared the lives of soldiers on both sides. He destroyed two enemy armies mainly by disrupting and confusing them, and cutting them off from supplies, rather than by killing them in direct attacks. - Jed
