Meh. The criteria they used is fine I am just dumbfounded by the cities that rated well.
The criteria were defensibility, access to food resources over time, and having the best possibility of developing a cure.
So this is community survival. Not lone wolf survival. They seem to be looking for a city that can survive intact. A metropolis that is an island in a sea of Zed.
And a city can score high in one criteria and that can boost its ranks. Hence, Boston scores well because of sea access, maybe? But more from intellectual capital for finding a cure. And it is hard to feed yourself in Manhattan with all those other mouths about. But Utah scores very high on defensibility.
They rated Best:
1. Boston, MassachusettsAnd Worst:
2. Salt Lake City, Utah
3. Columbus, Ohio
4. Baltimore, Maryland
5. Virginia Beach and Norfolk, Virginia
49. Chicago, Illinois
50. Riverside/ San Bernadino, California
51. Los Angeles, California
52. Tampa, Florida,
53. New York, New York
No comments:
Post a Comment
I reserve the right to delete patently offensive comments. Or, really, any comment I feel like. Or I might leave a really juicy comment up for private ridicule. Also spammers.
You can always offend hippies in the comment section. Chances are, those will be held up as a proper example...