The study assessed the resilience of states based, among other things, on how well the country is able to grow food for the population and protect borders from large numbers of migrants.
New Zealand, Iceland, Britain, Ireland and Australian Tasmania are, according to a recent study, places where people could best survive if society collapsed.
A social collapse could be caused by, for example, a serious economic crisis, the consequences of climate change, the destruction of nature or an even worse pandemic than a coronavirus.
The study assessed the resilience of states based on their ability to grow food for the population, protect borders from large numbers of migrants, and maintain electricity grids and some form of productive capacity.
The study targeted 20 countries that have been estimated to be the least vulnerable in a previous study. The countries were Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore, Austria, Iceland, Germany, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Australia, South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands, France, Canada, the United States and Ireland.
Best the success of the comparator countries was largely due to the fact that they are island states with a reasonably low population density.
The end result did not come as a surprise to the researchers. In New Zealand, for example, millionaires have been reported to be buying land on which they are building bunkers to prepare for the end of the world.
New Zealand is estimated to do better than others due to the high use of geothermal and hydropower in electricity generation, the abundance of agricultural land and its sparse population.
Only Britain’s good ranking was a little surprising, as the area is densely populated, production is outsourced and the country produces only 50 per cent of the food used. According to researchers at the Global Sustainability Institute at Angusk Ruskin University in the UK, Britain still has the potential to withstand upheavals.
Worst of all of the 20 countries in the comparison, Luxembourg and Singapore fared. Finland was in the middle caste.
Finland’s advantages were considered to be, among other things, the fact that the population is small and the country is located far from the population concentration of Europe. What was problematic, however, was that there was little agricultural land per inhabitant.