Not that I normally delve into these matters from experience, but seems to me an interesting enough subject matter in consideration to the possibilities of a collapse in civilization. Having watched a recent National Geographic Channel episode, or at least a few of these shows sort of leads me to some pointed criticisms here. Citing here some issues to be considered.
1. The siege weapon. Considering the history of the catapult whose intent and design were aimed more likely at fortified structures, it would seem to me unless equipped in some incendiary, explosive, or shrapnel producing manner to be less effective for the use as a means of protecting a band of marauders or anything of this kind of mobile brigand, and its area of effect use should likewise be considered no less. If its power were used in the nature of kinetic ballistics it could prove useful likewise, but the rate of fire and loading are also important, or in other words, what good is a weapon of this type if it weren't: easily maneuverable in terms of line of sight targeting, and proved quite slow in reloading. Hence more likely were targets were fixed a more powerful weapon of a kinetic type (driven by non explosive kinetic means).
2. Fortification. Naturally it should seem that if enough societal disorder were prevalent, and the lack of coherent law enforcement and legal structures were in place, it would seem the problem of the modern home today were that it were quite vulnerable in the context of entry. While in some sense one could think of any homes in design that weren't so much different today, these sorts of problems might have been encountered in the context of security. If having access to stone quarries and had a decent enough group of masons to handle the task of building structure that were less penetrable in the context of manned entry (neither possessing firepower or explosives), then stone, cement based, or earthen based structures could prove more optimal here. One would likely expect only a re birth of these types of structures with the collapse of coherent securities in a given area. If you looked at the layout and structures of townships, villages, and hamlets of the past, more likely you might have seen layouts built around natural geological structures which served as natural fortification, and you might have seen something like perimeter walls built to serve to protect not just individual families but groups of households here. This would imply likely the synthesis of local armed militias, for instance, used in protecting such a place likewise. The town in some way might be also devised in a manner also to serve and protect the space used in growing staple crop grains.
The positives that I had seen were food storage, obviously there in the immediate context of buffering loss of food supplies but not a long term solution to the problem of food supply production problems for a given population.
For livestock, while individual goats may produce less typically then say a dairy cow. I'd almost be inclined to say the goat could be an excellent life stock choice for the following reason:
Relative the cow, the goat ( an ancestral relative of deer) are able to forage on a whole host of plant life. They keep neater and tidier pens, and can be trained to use the bathroom like dogs outdoors as opposed to inside their pens. Alongside potentially providing as a meat source, they can also produce dairy which can in turn be used not only for direct milk consumption but longer shelf life dairy products like farm cheeses. Chickens it would seem are also probably one of the easier live stocks to raise here.
Food production should be considered relative the amount of energy spent in producing. Obviously meat production comes at a higher cost relative say the grain or land energy used in producing the equivalent calories in grains. Obviously wild game hunting could be problematic in the long term if relative to a given human population, not enough exists in the sustainable context to feed all those in a given location. While these supplementation could have proved adequate in the more ancient context where human populations were smaller, in today's world, one could imagine the disaster of wild life collapses if these sources were to become more concerted. Not to mention the rise in problems of environmental death zones were industrial toxins released in an environment were owing to industrial infrastructures collapse. If still something of technology were to exist enough so in the context of food production, this still could prove to be a saving grace here, if something agronomic science were applied. Those developed crops with high yield ratios should be just as important in such context, as it were today, or in other words, this means, if you could use less land and resources to produce the same amount of necessary food, you would be better off in terms of energy spent.
Adding to this the potentiality of science in food production, it seems if human societies were willing (as has sometimes been the case) in exploring potential alternatives to the common sources of food, it would seem this could be added benefit. However, I'd mention often times maybe its not the food weren't there to be eaten we've found so much around us that were potentially there to be unappealing. As it turns out, this maxim were no less true in the older worlds of the past as it were today, where bouts of starvation might have been staved off.
As unappealing as this sounds, compelled, for instance, by a recent Time magazine article Grow a burger. What if in some fashion are society had produced something of cottage microbiological production industries where any small household could grow their own meat in a petri dish. Of course, this idea seems in some ways disgusting if not for the cultural notions that we have of our sun, that any once living sentient live stock having once roamed the earth were consuming the organic products that in turn came from our sun...and still given the thousands of years of civilization and that to this day, more commonly you might find in certain cultures distaste for cultivation and production of alternatives to common pulses and grains, or live stock food commodities, I'd imagine the petri dish for food production might prove unfavorable even in times of doomsday disaster, but maybe its something worth considering?
1. The siege weapon. Considering the history of the catapult whose intent and design were aimed more likely at fortified structures, it would seem to me unless equipped in some incendiary, explosive, or shrapnel producing manner to be less effective for the use as a means of protecting a band of marauders or anything of this kind of mobile brigand, and its area of effect use should likewise be considered no less. If its power were used in the nature of kinetic ballistics it could prove useful likewise, but the rate of fire and loading are also important, or in other words, what good is a weapon of this type if it weren't: easily maneuverable in terms of line of sight targeting, and proved quite slow in reloading. Hence more likely were targets were fixed a more powerful weapon of a kinetic type (driven by non explosive kinetic means).
2. Fortification. Naturally it should seem that if enough societal disorder were prevalent, and the lack of coherent law enforcement and legal structures were in place, it would seem the problem of the modern home today were that it were quite vulnerable in the context of entry. While in some sense one could think of any homes in design that weren't so much different today, these sorts of problems might have been encountered in the context of security. If having access to stone quarries and had a decent enough group of masons to handle the task of building structure that were less penetrable in the context of manned entry (neither possessing firepower or explosives), then stone, cement based, or earthen based structures could prove more optimal here. One would likely expect only a re birth of these types of structures with the collapse of coherent securities in a given area. If you looked at the layout and structures of townships, villages, and hamlets of the past, more likely you might have seen layouts built around natural geological structures which served as natural fortification, and you might have seen something like perimeter walls built to serve to protect not just individual families but groups of households here. This would imply likely the synthesis of local armed militias, for instance, used in protecting such a place likewise. The town in some way might be also devised in a manner also to serve and protect the space used in growing staple crop grains.
The positives that I had seen were food storage, obviously there in the immediate context of buffering loss of food supplies but not a long term solution to the problem of food supply production problems for a given population.
For livestock, while individual goats may produce less typically then say a dairy cow. I'd almost be inclined to say the goat could be an excellent life stock choice for the following reason:
Relative the cow, the goat ( an ancestral relative of deer) are able to forage on a whole host of plant life. They keep neater and tidier pens, and can be trained to use the bathroom like dogs outdoors as opposed to inside their pens. Alongside potentially providing as a meat source, they can also produce dairy which can in turn be used not only for direct milk consumption but longer shelf life dairy products like farm cheeses. Chickens it would seem are also probably one of the easier live stocks to raise here.
Food production should be considered relative the amount of energy spent in producing. Obviously meat production comes at a higher cost relative say the grain or land energy used in producing the equivalent calories in grains. Obviously wild game hunting could be problematic in the long term if relative to a given human population, not enough exists in the sustainable context to feed all those in a given location. While these supplementation could have proved adequate in the more ancient context where human populations were smaller, in today's world, one could imagine the disaster of wild life collapses if these sources were to become more concerted. Not to mention the rise in problems of environmental death zones were industrial toxins released in an environment were owing to industrial infrastructures collapse. If still something of technology were to exist enough so in the context of food production, this still could prove to be a saving grace here, if something agronomic science were applied. Those developed crops with high yield ratios should be just as important in such context, as it were today, or in other words, this means, if you could use less land and resources to produce the same amount of necessary food, you would be better off in terms of energy spent.
Adding to this the potentiality of science in food production, it seems if human societies were willing (as has sometimes been the case) in exploring potential alternatives to the common sources of food, it would seem this could be added benefit. However, I'd mention often times maybe its not the food weren't there to be eaten we've found so much around us that were potentially there to be unappealing. As it turns out, this maxim were no less true in the older worlds of the past as it were today, where bouts of starvation might have been staved off.
As unappealing as this sounds, compelled, for instance, by a recent Time magazine article Grow a burger. What if in some fashion are society had produced something of cottage microbiological production industries where any small household could grow their own meat in a petri dish. Of course, this idea seems in some ways disgusting if not for the cultural notions that we have of our sun, that any once living sentient live stock having once roamed the earth were consuming the organic products that in turn came from our sun...and still given the thousands of years of civilization and that to this day, more commonly you might find in certain cultures distaste for cultivation and production of alternatives to common pulses and grains, or live stock food commodities, I'd imagine the petri dish for food production might prove unfavorable even in times of doomsday disaster, but maybe its something worth considering?
