Food In The Bunker: Surviving A "deep Impact"

[Eclipse Now]

Hi all,

I watched Deep Impact with my 12 year old the other day. He wanted to know what it would take to feed 1 million people in the 2 years of dark following the E.L.E. (Extinction Level Event).

 

Considering they also tried to create an 'ark' to re-establish ecosystems afterwards, and had many parrots, mammals and animals they were taking with them into the bunker, including elephants and giraffes etc, I'm wondering what kind of underground ecosystem they would have created?

 

Surely to survive this... and feed a million people... we're talking a DEEP underground civilisation run on nukes, and plenty of Mars-quality hydroponic gardens lined with grow-lights to keep those crops growing.

 

2 years underground? No light on the surface? We're talking a Mars base, but here on earth!

 

[JMJones0424]

Granted, we are talking about feats never before attempted, but I am of the opinion that "Mars-quality hydroponic gardens" would not be the way to go. Hydroponics in space is preferable because you are dealing with an extremely limited amount of weight that you can affordably blast off of the Earth. In an underground ark scenario, I would much rather focus on mimicking natural processes as much as possible rather than mechanizing them as you would need to do with hydroponics. True organic hydroponics is an absolute nightmare, and even with access to massive reserves of fertilizer salts to prepare nutrient solution for conventional hydroponics, I would think that dealing with waste buildup would be easier with soil agriculture rather than relying on mechanical systems. It all boils down to reducing the possible points of failure in order to make a more reliable and long-lasting system. Without the weight and space limitations that would be found in space, and especially since the goal is to maintain a replacement for the biosphere for a number of years, I think hydroponics isn't necessarily the way to go.

 

Also, should we consider storing viable DNA for all of the various species, especially those higher up the food chain, and actually maintaining only a relatively small representative sampling as living organisms? For instance, I would argue that maintaining only a few mating pairs of any species would be just marginally better than none, and since we would not be able to feed 500 maiting pairs of every species simply because of food requirements, perhaps we could identify suitable "host" species and maintain those while keeping species specific DNA samples viable. Rather than trying to feed and care for 1000 of each of the 372 parrot species, identify one or a handful that can be easily raised in captivity and used as the parent stock for recreating each lost species, such as has been proposed for the mammoth

[Turtle]

Hi all,

I watched Deep Impact with my 12 year old the other day. He wanted to know what it would take to feed 1 million people in the 2 years of dark following the E.L.E. (Extinction Level Event).

 

Considering they also tried to create an 'ark' to re-establish ecosystems afterwards, and had many parrots, mammals and animals they were taking with them into the bunker, including elephants and giraffes etc, I'm wondering what kind of underground ecosystem they would have created?

 

Surely to survive this... and feed a million people... we're talking a DEEP underground civilisation run on nukes, and plenty of Mars-quality hydroponic gardens lined with grow-lights to keep those crops growing.

 

2 years underground? No light on the surface? We're talking a Mars base, but here on earth!

 

 

well, i don't think there will be any saving a million people if you mean having them all together. i would expect things to go tribal pretty quickly with the groups maxing out around 100 people. i don't think anyone has built or is building for a deep impact. whatever we made for officials & military during the cold war is all there is, some of those are getting shut down & none of them is set up to go for years. people are gonna be on their own, relatively speaking.

 

just a comment that the picture isn't right; there would be a plasma jet extending into space.

 

here's a thread i started a couple years back, and i had a poll too on disaster kits but that section is not working right now. one problem with building a bunker is you have to do it before the shot and just where is a safe place from a deep impact? i love this stuff! :lightning goin' to hell in a chamber pot fo shizzle.

 

The Philosophy of Disaster Preparedness

 

 

ps here's my approach & a project for you & your boy. :boy:

 

 

Survival Wagon Idea - Recreation Or Reality TV

[Eclipse Now]

It's just that I remember some permaculture people saying that a minimum for a good lifestyle is about 2 acres per person.

 

2 ACRE's per person! But that probably involves supplying fibre and clothing and energy needs as well.

 

We would need a number of nukes to be buried in this mega-bunker. We would need some kind of underground stream. We would need stackable trays of soil with grow lights growing our food 24/7.

 

Maybe we could learn something from these guys? We're talking about surviving an extinction level event. I take it money is no problem... the government would just build this thing underground no matter what it takes. But a million people?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farm

[Turtle]

...Maybe we could learn something from these guys? We're talking about surviving an extinction level event. I take it money is no problem... the government would just build this thing underground no matter what it takes. But a million people?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farm

 

so again , one problem with a bunker - no matter what it took to build it - is that it has as good a chance as any location to be hit by a deep impact object in which case that would be all she wrote for the occupants. even if the bunker were outside the immediate destruction zone, such a strike is an earth altering event in more ways than a dusty & poisoned atmosphere. earthquakes would continue, water courses & aquifers would change, volcanoes & fires & storms & flooding would rage, and no end of potential death knells on account of committing to a fixed location. a cave might be handy to survive the initial impact, but i think mobility would be key to carrying on for years afterward. don't want all our eggs in one basket do we? :lightning

[Eclipse Now]

As a species, no, Australia might have our own bunker, European countries theirs, Asian countries theirs, etc.

 

But the goal here is to survive the worldwide firestorms and atmospheric acid and chaos.

 

Being mobile won't help survive 2 years of darkness. (Unless of course you are talking about having grown and prepared ALL your food prior to the event, and being mobile in a series of trucks).

 

If we knew one was coming, each country would just have to build it and take our chances. It's the biodiversity I'm worried about. A worldwide E.L.E. is just too big to really grasp... plant-life dies off on a worldwide basis, and then all ecosystems on top of that. Even phytoplankton... what do we do about the oceans?

 

Then there's the threat of an instant ice age.

 

This is one nasty scenario.

 

Wow...we'd better get out into space to have a greater chance of stopping this happening, and having an off-world pocket of life if it does.

[JMJones0424]

It's just that I remember some permaculture people saying that a minimum for a good lifestyle is about 2 acres per person.2 ACRE's per person! But that probably involves supplying fibre and clothing and energy needs as well.

 

Given the ability to specifically tailor the environment to a given crop's needs, and being able to grow crops 365 days a year, I think a conservative estimate of 1/8 to 1/4 an acre per person would be more in line if we heavily reduce the amount of meat protein consumption. This site estimates 1/4 acre per person with only one harvest a year. The biointensive method was centered around growing the caloric needs for one person on a vegan diet on an eighth of an acre closed system. Obviously hamburgers would not likely be on the menu for the time we are living in the ark.

 

It's the biodiversity I'm worried about. A worldwide E.L.E. is just too big to really grasp... plant-life dies off on a worldwide basis, and then all ecosystems on top of that. Even phytoplankton... what do we do about the oceans?

 

This is the problem. If keeping humans alive for two years is our only concern, then this can easily be accomplished with stored extended shelf-life foodstuffs. But if our aim is to preserve a representative sampling of the biosphere as we know it, the task becomes much larger. Realistically, I think we would need advancements in some type of suspended animation or a way to compile vast DNA libraries (tens of thousands of individuals of each species) with some way of bringing those species back after the dust has settled to have a realistic expectation of pulling this off. Or we could take a more cynical approach and assume the extinction of nearly all current species and focus specifically on saving those that are required to reconstruct a working ecosystem after we emerge from the bunker.

[Boerseun]

Just a quick idea - for mammals it might be better to just keep a bunch of females and then have frozen sperm on hand for artificial insemination once the surface is habitable again. The benefit of this is that you have fewer animals to feed, you have a vast genepool (females can be repeatedly inseminated after giving birth with sperm from different donors), and you don't have to deal with the vicious effect of lots of testosterone in small spaces. I should think a good selection of a few healthy, young females should do the trick, plus sperm from a good selection of donors. It should make for a much more peaceful "ark", and a much better and more varied "recovery" after the event.

[Eclipse Now]

Just a quick idea - for mammals it might be better to just keep a bunch of females and then have frozen sperm on hand for artificial insemination once the surface is habitable again. The benefit of this is that you have fewer animals to feed, you have a vast genepool (females can be repeatedly inseminated after giving birth with sperm from different donors), and you don't have to deal with the vicious effect of lots of testosterone in small spaces. I should think a good selection of a few healthy, young females should do the trick, plus sperm from a good selection of donors. It should make for a much more peaceful "ark", and a much better and more varied "recovery" after the event.

 

I like it. And have young females that don't require too much food, but on the other hand not so young that they require too much care. Or... maybe caring for something will help all those humans with too much time on their hands sitting underground worrying about the end of the world!? Patting a young deer might be good therapy.

 

But again, seeds for plant ecosystems can survive quite a while, so the challenge really seems to be with animal life, all those birds, mammals, and reptiles. Any other ideas? Any new technologies around the corner that might be possibly help?

 

EG: I saw a show on growing fodder for cows in Siberia. A stream of fresh milk for the survivors would come in handy. Grow lights and a small scattering of soil or nutrients, 5 or 6 racks high in the barn. It was weird to see what looked like a 'shelf' of gras, and even weirder to watch the farmer just walk in and grab a few meters of it for his cows that day.

 

Electricity in Siberia must have been cheaper than just getting the milk imported from a sunnier area?

[Eclipse Now]

I guess what I'm really trying to ask:

 

Given 2 years warning, and a scenario where we are not sure that our nukes would destroy or deflect the asteroid, do you guys and gals think we'd make it in our backup bunker?

[Rade]

Have available dried milk and water and add the few needed amino acids and vitamins to the dried milk. Milk is as close to being the perfect food for humans as you can find (I mean, there is an evolutionary reason for breast milk). Dried milk and water will keep many people alive for a very long time.

[Eclipse Now]

Have available dried milk and water and add the few needed amino acids and vitamins to the dried milk. Milk is as close to being the perfect food for humans as you can find (I mean, there is an evolutionary reason for breast milk). Dried milk and water will keep many people alive for a very long time.

 

Yeah, it's pretty good from all accounts. I haven't tried just living off milk but did modifast a while back. (Now called Optifast).

 

But I guess the real challenge is how much of an 'ark' could we build to survive 2 years of night?

[Eclipse Now]

In the real world we've got peak oil to survive first... that alone will probably cause a Greater Depression because the western world, including my home country of Australia, have left it too late to wean off oil without major pain (that will make the GFC look like a dress-rehearsal).

 

But yeah! I like the idea of a backup bunker. Maybe if there was some way to have a zoo on the outside, with the major species on display, theme park rides, etc... and the profits going into running the DNA / egg freezer's and seed-banks on the inside.

 

Then, if Armageddon ever happens, it's just a matter of moving the female animals in, getting the nation's top scientists and engineers and agriculturalists and essential personal inside, and locking the doors.

 

Some nations are already doing this with seed banks anyway, as nature is already surviving a slow-motion Extinction Level Event: us! We've caused the 'Anthropocene.' We're paving over and ploughing up nature. We may never know how much we have already lost. So seed-saver programs are already quite important, and involve planting out seeds every few years so that they don't go 'stale'. Combine the zoological element and survival quarters and rations, and we've got both a major conservation effort AND an ELE bunker in one. Add a few theme park rides, and it might even turn a profit! At least, until we have to use the thing. :blink:

[Moontanman]

This might be of interest...

 

http://www.livescience.com/environment/rice-stored-in-doomsday-seed-vault-101108.html

 

'Doomsday Vault' Gets New, Large Shipment of Rice

 

In hopes of bolstering our defenses in the event of a major food crisis, researchers sent tens of thousands of seeds from different types of rice last week to a "doomsday vault" in the archipelago Svalbard.

[Eclipse Now]

Yes, thanks Moontanman, that's exactly what I had in mind. Now add the zoo, the bunker for a significant population, and theme park rides... in an 'attempt' to make it economic... we could treat it as a tax deductible charity.

 

'The Ark Park' :rolleyes:

 

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

[Boerseun]

In all the discussions I've read about such a doomsday scenario, and how to survive it, the discussion always gets stuck on the logistics of it. I don't think it's such a big deal. You get your animals, you get your seed, you get your food, and if the hole is too small you simply dig it bigger. You seal the whole deal hermetically, and there you go. It's simply a matter of scale and resources. It all depends on the size of your shovel and how much lead time you have before the catastrophe strikes.

 

The biggest problem, in my mind, is human nature and what form politics will take in such a crowded area. Sociology will play a bigger role than logistics to survive like that for any given stretch of time. Obviously, normal run-of-the-mill democracy will have to be suspended or severely limited. It's no use the air outside is still poisoned, and the vast majority of ark-inhabitants vote to open the doors. Such a vote will obviously have to be ignored. So, would you have a Council of Commoners, subject to a Council of Scientists with veto powers? And what if any one Scientist with an evil bent gathers too much power? Scientists are also people, after all, subject to the same temptations of power as normal folks. Martial law? I don't know. It would be much simpler if the entire population have been hand-picked and they agree to these limitations beforehand, but if they are elected lottery-style ala "Deep Impact", you might have a few problems on your hands.

 

This is no simple matter. Consider crime, for instance. Humans being humans, you will still end up with theft, murder and rape if you have a million people living close together. However, you cannot afford room for jail space or time for long drawn-out court cases. So, justice must be swift and punishment severe. I know that the sociological part of this exercise might not make for the most interesting of discussions compared to the daunting technical aspects thereof, but I do think that it will be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

[Boerseun]

To add to the above, what about we follow the same plan for humans that we do with mammals? Only put females in the "ark", together with a ginormous sperm bank. If you only have females, you remove all the proven societal ills caused by testosterone in crowded spaces, and once they're back on the surface, they have a much bigger gene pool to select from than if they only had the males who went through the ark with them to pick from. Crime will also be virtually non-existent if you remove males from the equation - look at prison populations and gender, for instance.

 

That might be a bit harsh and quite severe, but it makes perfect sense, scientifically. And that brings us back to who and what will be in control of such an ark. The commoners who will vote for men to tag along (with the undeniable increase in crime and violence that will ensue) or the scientists, who will vote men out of the ark (with the relative peace and much more diversified gene pool if only frozen sperm were to be used from a much bigger donor base than what you'd have if men were to go along). The latter should, in the long run, be much better for the species.