example it has a lot of hydroelectric resources so much so that it could in theory produce more than it uses this is a bit of a double-edged sword though as it leaves new zealand susceptible to natural hazards such as volcanoes and seismic activity it also has a lot of agricultural land which would help it in apocalyptic scenarios additionally it's far away from any large populations that may have to relocate in such scenarios meaning that you'd remain self-sustaining clearly then it makes sense why new zealand is in such a good place to be in a doomsday scenario let's move down the list and have a look at iceland similar to new zealand iceland can produce a lot of hydroelectric energy which in combination with its potential to use solar energy very much helps them to be self-reliant in decomplexification again as with new zealand their geographic features that help them with energy production can be seen as a risk when looked at from a natural disaster perspective for example iceland would be more at risk from volcanoes as well as for agricultural land iceland does have some admittedly it's not massive but due to the relatively small population it doesn't need to be it's also helped by well-established fisheries again iceland is properly far away from any large populations making it ideal for locking down and trying to survive whatever decomplexification event has hurt the rest of the world moving down the list again to the third best country for apocalyptic scenarios we'll look at the uk the uk has a more complex energy base than other nations while it does rely a lot on nuclear power and fossil fuels the uk's reliance on renewable energy is increasing similarly the uk has a low per capita availability of agricultural land but the authors claim this is simply due to its very large population additionally it is generally increasing its agricultural output an output that is already quite varied unlike new zealand and iceland the uk is not prone to natural hazards although the authors do point out that extreme weather could damage agricultural output this is particularly an issue when you consider the small land mass of the uk so while generally the uk is in a pretty good situation when it comes to potential apocalyptic scenarios there are some things it could do to improve firstly would be to more quickly increase its own domestic agricultural output perhaps clarkson's farm could inspire some more britons to become farmers secondly it could more quickly increase its reliance on renewable energy instead of fossil fuels nonetheless though it is still in a pretty top spot irrespective of these improvements it's worth now quickly discussing why the factors that the top three safest places actually make them safe the authors begin by discussing future climatic conditions in effect the effects of climate change they claim that such events will reduce the habitability of whole regions and therefore having variation in agriculture is a big advantage they then move on to talk about carrying capacity basically the resources required to maintain a population as the world becomes more globalized nations have tended to rely on global supply chains for these resources meaning that if these chains were to break in for instance a decomplexification event then such nations would to put it bluntly be pretty stuffed therefore countries that are self-dependent are more likely to be safe this includes agriculture but also specifically electricity modern society is dependent on electricity to remain functioning so to
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN