>>95522353
>The realistic depiction of a post apocolypse isn't trying to live in a half broken building with resources that spawn out of no where.

This is my intelligent criticism of the genre as well; visual aesthetic is often more important than any kind of internal consistently. The apocalypse happened, and the audience needs to know that, but the only way they seem to know how to communicate that is through explicit visual examples: everything needs to perpetually look as if the world ended 30-50 years ago, people need to live in garbage, etc.

>>95521939
>>95522078

The "Anthropocene hothouse" would have to be truly insanely roasty toasty dry and dusty, for agriculture to be completely impossible.
The Cretaceous thermal maximum was had a global average temperature of 40 something Celsius, along with x4 levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and it allowed plant life to grow and flourish in perpetuity (it's how dinosaurs got so fat and sassy). The planet could become a humid greenhouse jungle hell and food would grow effortlessly like weeds: bananas, cassava, peanuts, beans, corn, sweet potatoes, etc. Granted, it's less about heat and more about humidity: if it's super fucking dry, for whatever reason, everything does just become impossible.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/tg/

Thread:

Does anyone get a bit frustrated at all these depictions of "cozy apocalypses"? Look, those ruined buildings are going to collapse real…

Does anyone get a bit frustrated at all these depictions of "cozy apocalypses"?
Look, those ruined buildings are going to collapse real…