What cities or towns in the US or Canada that can theoretically survive an event as traumatic as an ISOT or in other words transported back in time?

Created
Status
Ongoing
Watchers
12
Recent readers
0

Between the Paleolithic period to the 1800s; what cities or towns in the US or Canada that can theoretically survive an event as traumatic as an ISOT or in other words being transported back in time?

Please leave any suggestions on cities or towns that you would think could survive that can theoretically survive an event as traumatic as an ISOT or in other words being transported back in time.
Edit: I should have said 19 century not 1800s.
Last edited:
ISOT
Between the Paleolithic period to the 1800s; what cities or towns in the US or Canada that can theoretically survive an event as traumatic as an ISOT or in other words being transported back in time?

Please leave any suggestions on cities or towns that you would think could survive that can theoretically survive an event as traumatic as an ISOT or in other words being transported back in time.
Edit: I should have said 19 century not 1800s.
 
Last edited:
Between the Paleolithic period to the 1800s; what cities or towns in the US or Canada that can theoretically survive an event as traumatic as an ISOT or in other words being transported back in time?

Please leave any suggestions on cities or towns that you would think could survive that can theoretically survive an event as traumatic as an ISOT or in other words being transported back in time.

There are a few competing and contradictory issues here that affect the ability of a city or town to survive an ISOT event that the books themselves, I think, radically underestimate. The ISOT assumptions are that small towns are going to do better, relatively speaking, because they're more isolated and resilient to outside shocks, but:
  • It turns out that this isn't really the case, because supply chains are truly global and small towns themselves are pretty dependent on imports and exports. In fact, often they have less capacity to spin up local substitutes. The US-China trade war's costs fell most heavily on rural states for a reason. You might note that in the case of an ISOT, having even really, really crappy local substitutes might be helpful but:
  • Process knowledge is important, and small towns are unlikely to have the industry needed to substitute for a lot of the stuff that's necessary for their current standard of living. This doesn't mean they'd collapse and implode inherently, but:
  • A lot of these things are actually pretty important. The small town in question will rapidly run out of modern medicine and have no capacity to produce more because all of them are based on precursor chemicals they have no idea how to derive, they will be unlikely to have any serious capability of producing ammunition, they probably won't be able to produce high-grade steel, so on and so forth. Things like farm tools, fertilizer, and so on, are all going to be huge issues, to say nothing about how you're going to replace high-tech infrastructure - and that productivity improvement is baked into how your city or town is structured.
I think the best choice would literally be the largest possible city/town you could find with enough local dirty power generation and agricultural capability so that it doens't immediately run into a food crisis, assuming the region also magically reappeared somewhere where there were enough raw resources to keep itself fed and powered. That increases the chance that you'll have sufficient process knowledge and manpower to actually be able to make do.
 
Almost all of them. People are remarkably flexible and while there may be some unrest, religious fanaticism, or periods of rapid political change any disaster scenario, as long as a majority of the population survives - and they probably will - within a few years people will have adapted to their new environment.

In some ways an ISOT is the "cleanest" disaster scenario; infrastructure within the ISOTed area isn't harmed, the population is completely intact, and most of the time they're left free of external meddling (though there are exceptions!).
 
First of all, one of the problems of this question is that there's a huge difference between "Paleolithic" and 1800s. It's the difference between being sent to a world there there is no support, to being sent to a land that has an increasingly developed railroad network and an industrial base of its own, which allows the ISOT land to barter for that they need--in addition to being able to turn the geniuses of a nation loose on their science.

So presuming they can make contact, and make deals, the 1800s mean that most small and medium sized cities should be able to do well-ish.

Palaeolithic is a lot different. Food and water security will be a thing, although the presence of far more animals will make hunting more viable--but equally, fuel will be an issue, and without anyone else to borrow from or trade with, the community will face hard times.
 
Also depending on when in Paleolithic you are talking about Most of Canada and parts what is the northern, mid western and western US were under massive ice sheets, which means any settlement going back in time in those areas would likely die quickly.
 
Last edited:
Also for the 18th century, don't underetimate how quickly technology is going to explode. Sure, nobody is going to be making cell phones, but most small and medium towns, especially ones with junior colleges, have about 99 percent of human knowledge locked up interms of concepts and even technology.

Let the best and brightest of say, 1860 America look through books on technology and electronics, and you're probably talking about a decade before transistors become a thing, less for electric generators and advanced materials processing, (in terms of say, 1940s level).

An error of a lot of ISOT stories is to treat the locals as passive recipients of the genius of the uptimers--in reality, they're just as smart, and more than a few geniuses will apply themselves to learning the new technology.*

*And thinks like process management and R&D techniques are going to revolutionize more than simple technology.
 
Denton TX has 100k people, two hospitals, two universities, a large ag sector, a big brewery (Miller coors), a huge tractor-trailer plant that could be repurposed, a medium size chem fertilizer plant, and a population with a ton of guns. A lot of oil extraction tech too. You could definitely establish a 50-60s level economy with some longevity, and scale up once you got some extraction built. Not much mining wealth near by though, that would be an issue
 
Last edited:
Also for the 18th century, don't underetimate how quickly technology is going to explode. Sure, nobody is going to be making cell phones, but most small and medium towns, especially ones with junior colleges, have about 99 percent of human knowledge locked up interms of concepts and even technology.

Let the best and brightest of say, 1860 America look through books on technology and electronics, and you're probably talking about a decade before transistors become a thing, less for electric generators and advanced materials processing, (in terms of say, 1940s level).

An error of a lot of ISOT stories is to treat the locals as passive recipients of the genius of the uptimers--in reality, they're just as smart, and more than a few geniuses will apply themselves to learning the new technology.*

*And thinks like process management and R&D techniques are going to revolutionize more than simple technology.

This is both true and... not really true.

The technical knowledge is there but the big problem is that the process knowledge for this sort of advanced technology doesn't. A lot of technology, period, is having a workforce with the retained skills and experience to make shit work without fumbling around on it.

Your small and medium town might have plenty of people who understand the complicated concepts, but it's not going to have the people who can make practical use of it. And process knowledge is actually much harder to build up than people think. Even fairly simple things, like modern ballpoint pen bearings, are actually very hard to manufacture well without that process knowledge being gradually built up over the course of years. Basic transistors and vacuum tubes are less "sophisticated" than a modern IC, but your electrical engineers are going to be taught the techniques and constraints necessary to do modern IC design, and are going to be nearly as bumblefuck at doing it as someone who just learned from the word 'go.' A F-35 is more advanced than a WW2 fighter, but if you took all of Lockheed Martin and told them to design a P-51 clone, I suspect the result of that would be more likely to end up an overpriced and embarrassing tire fire that gets rejected by the WW2-era US than any high-quality product simply because people there no longer have the process knowledge to build these sorts of propeller-driven fighters.

This is why "downteching" is also a huge issue and much harder than a lot of these books and timelines assume it is. The less advanced technologies of yesteryear aren't just modern technology but suckier, they often require different tools and different skills and different experiences that people won't have. The downtimers are going to fuck up and fumble at reaching uptime technology, while the uptimers are likely to fuck up and fumble at building uptime and downtime technology.
 
Though depending on the records available the downtimers could learn something about what didn't work and why from from records could still be useful information.

A lot of innovations and inventions involved decades of working though what didn't work before finding stuff that did work via process of elimination or sometimes just accidently after all.
 
Yeah. I mean, nobody's talking about "Riveriside, CA arrives on June 1st, 1860, and by December 1st 1860, they have a working jet engine."

But equally, I know that RCC has in their library, a book on aluminum, and it's a thick ass book, including both the history of aluminium and how it's produced--with detailed chemical and engineering drawings an dfigures.

Now, is it a blueprint? No. Is it the kind of roadmap that can convert decades to years? yes.
So instead of becoming developed in 1889, the Hall-Herout process probably becomes common in say, 1865, 5 years after arrival.

More advanced steel processes are probably even faster to be adapted, due to the existence of similar processes.

So again, you won't be building a cell phone any time soon, but you'll be compressing decades into years of development, and that becomes additive, as things like better steel and aluminum, to say nothing of vaccination, start creating a more prosperous society, that now has more money to toss at projects.

Hell, just consider one example--the Mosquitos role in Malaria transmission wasn't discovered until 1897. John Snow doesn't discover the reason for cholera transmission in London until 1854. Those are both examples of knowledge that is going to have an instant effect--no advanced tech needed.

Now, this is for the 1800s where the scientific method is known and we have nascant science groups around. If you're talking about say, 6,000 BC, yeah, gonna take a lot longer.
 
Also depending on when in Paleolithic you are talking about Most of Canada and parts what is the northern, mid western and western US were under massive ice sheets, which means any settlement going back in time in those areas would likely die quickly.
It could be any where in the world or time as long there on land and or between the times of the Paleolithic period to the 1800s so for example American town could be transported in Europe in 753 BC or an Canadian city could be transported on the Japanese coast in 1850.
 
I also think for the discussion we should avoid places where the answer is: everyone died in a few days. Because well, that's what you get if they appear on an ice-sheet.

The best size city would be small or moderately sized for an early appearance, because they would have the best chance of getting enough food via hunting/gahtering to survive in the short term.

If you're town is LA... yeah, you're going to have starvation--even in the 1800s, there wouldn't be enough carrying capacity to support such a city.
 
Though depending on the records available the downtimers could learn something about what didn't work and why from from records could still be useful information.

A lot of innovations and inventions involved decades of working though what didn't work before finding stuff that did work via process of elimination or sometimes just accidently after all.

Having access to knowledge about what works and what didn't work would speed up things a lot, but technological advancement likely still wouldn't be as fast as people think it would be, and would be full of many of the same implementation pitfalls. Especially because the constant temptation would be to try to skip intermediate steps to get to your end step faster, rather than accept that your technology is just going to suck for a generation or two and you're going to have to go through that painful process of sucking and gradually learning to suck less until you can actually build something that works well enough to fully industrialize and build out from.

And oftentimes people will indulge in that temptation and get burned for it by finding out that the infrastructure surrounding them simply can't support that leapfrogging attempt.
 
Virtually none of them.

Our world is vastly interconnected, and interdependent.

Any major metropolitan area is about a week from being out of just about everything on a stores shelf. Our lives come into the city by truck daily.

Any city you drop outside a modern infrastructure network starves to death, quickly. Power failure accelerates the problem.

Without the municipal water systems the city rapidly becomes a public health crisis of epic proportions. It took us to WW2 as a species before enemy action killed more soldiers in a war than sickness. We take it for granted now, but general hygiene is a big deal. Arguably the biggest deal.

Speaking of public health, the first time you meet the locals will be immune system roulette to find out if the time displaced versions of the common bugs are close enough for your immune system to notice. And the reverse could happen too. Better hope its not 1350.

The idea of retaining a tech base is a joke. Our technology is far too specialized. No one person knows how to build anything anymore, they know how to build parts. Even worse, maybe you know a guy who knows how to design a silicon chip to start making CPU's, but does anybody know how to build the tools that allow nanometer scale construction? We're instantly demoted to whatever can be turned out on a lathe. (The simplest machine that can construct all the parts needed to make a copy of itself.) Even something as basic as a battery is now a high tech device, with multiple parts, and a complex process behind it. Best case scenario, you're a college town and some high end text books are floating around that you can use to direct research for existing experts. Let them skip the innovation phase and just go right to reproducing work they now know is possible.

Unless you didn't get sent back very far, and were close enough to a major power to get folded into their infrastructure networks rapidly, it'd be a fairly apocalyptic scenario.
 
Last edited:
Having access to knowledge about what works and what didn't work would speed up things a lot, but technological advancement likely still wouldn't be as fast as people think it would be, and would be full of many of the same implementation pitfalls. Especially because the constant temptation would be to try to skip intermediate steps to get to your end step faster, rather than accept that your technology is just going to suck for a generation or two and you're going to have to go through that painful process of sucking and gradually learning to suck less until you can actually build something that works well enough to fully industrialize and build out from.

And oftentimes people will indulge in that temptation and get burned for it by finding out that the infrastructure surrounding them simply can't support that leapfrogging attempt.

Just to use one thing that's often overlooked in this kind of thing--schools. Our technology is dependent on a vast amount of education.

In 1850 America (since I was doing some stuff for the California ISOT aprocrapha), education, as we know it barely exists. The idea of a community college would be insane to the people of the time.

And yet, if you want to uplift, in the sense of having more than a few prototypes sitting in the labs of the rich, you need that; you need education on a level beyond anything 1850s America has dreamed of.

But just handing the books out doesn't help. Because the teaching profession, as we understand it, also doesn't exist. You have to establish the schools to train the teachers to teach the future engineers--and yet this is going to run into massive resistance.

Which is not to say that there won't be massive changes--I mean, just introducing a lot of new concepts even if they can be made with downtime the, changes everything, like the King Road Drag . I mean that little thing, would revolutionize transport and can be done easily.

But high tech? Yeah, that's years or more, probably decades for anything advanced, especially since you have to train the people to use the stuff, which means you have to build the schools first.
 
No small or medium sized town is going to be able to feed itself, even if you include a significant part of the surrounding area, without immediate and substantial external support. That's going to put a serious crimp in saving any kind of knowledge, especially since local libraries aren't going to contain much that's useful beyond basic concepts and maybe a few wilderness survival books. Even people who have big home gardens are going to be SOL when they run out of gas for their tillers, let alone large-scale agriculture that relies on combines.
 
Another way I'd think about it is what kind of community could rapidly, and relatively painlessly, integrate into a pre-modern civilization?

Like what kind of place could land in the past and start trading and doing commerce the very next day, so that it can start hoovering up food, and exporting goods, and ride along whatever existing stocks of spare parts for a few decades, as it hacks together hybrid parts to make it all work. Like... what kind of place could get jumped into the past, and start trading, so that the locals are happy to give them food in exchange for goods, and be the kind of place that can keep producing goods. Maybe need to shift to higher-labor modes of production, but that has productive capacity already there to continue chugging along.

So for that I'd like to propose as an example Frankenmnth MI, as a sort of example case; it has a lot of local agriculture, and historically it was a place local sheep-farmers took their wool to be processed. The town has since pivoted to tourism but it's still got a few places around town that take in raw wool and turn it into processed goods, such as socks or sheets. They mostly seem to be boutique/organic/"foodie" products looking at websites, which means they're going to be relatively vertically integrated and relatively low capital compared to real serious modern factories. But that's good for ISOT because when they're magically cut off from supply chains, it's not the main product line that's missing links, it's stuff that supports that main chain, so to speak. (That's how I found the town, looking for places on the internet that advertised they'd turn raw wool into yarn etc).

So you've got a place that still has some sheep, that has the direct production line to turn wool into finished goods, in a town of 5000 people. Yeah it's still got all the massive secondary dependencies (electricity, and chemicals, and so on) but because it's low tech relative to modern factories, it could probably limp along without needing spare parts for a pretty good while.

And meanwhile you can trade modern-quality socks for food with the locals pretty much immediately, and keep producing socks, and probably retool a pretty good chunk of town into a sock-and-clothing production zone, which would generate the wealth needed to sustain a modern community with extreme labor specialization.


Well the other example case I guess would be like a national arsenal (not a place that stores fighter jets, a place that stores rifles and has literally a billion rounds of ammo) that could extract what it needs by military force rather than trade, but that would get pretty damn ugly, I don't really want to think about it in depth. I bet Fort Benning could do an awful lot of conquering just with having like three infantry brigades stationed there; no need for fancy planes, and they probably already have enough ammo to kill everyone else in the world anyway. Accursed place has an awful lot of personnel scandals too, probably a good chance the officers there could talk themselves into doing a conquest bender.
 
If it has to be before 1900, then maybe the Chicago metro sometime from 1850 to 1899? It would be massive for any premodern city, but it should also have enough of an agricultural base to support much of that on its own. It would also be pretty self-sufficient industrially, having the trifecta of transportation, refining, and fabrication all in place for many core industries of the era.

For a couple added bonus points, Chicago of the 1890s would also see Frank Lloyd Wright opening his own architecture firm and (most importantly) predates the abomination that is Chicago deep dish pizza by at least a couple decades.
 
Most likely any rural small town in the US could survive for a surprisingly long time in most situations.

Rural America and Canada tend to have the highest concentration of gun owners, are able to produce enough agricultural goods to either feed themselves or trade for a stable food supply, and normally have at least some sort of basic industry even if it is just the few guys in the neighborhood who have machining tools in their shed.

Many areas, particularly in Appalachia, the Midwest, and Central-Canada even have basic oil industries to provide themselves with fuel and most powerplants tend to be located away from cities and closer to small towns.
 
I'm not sure if a town or city is the best administrative unit for an ISOT scenario due to the unlikeliness of said town having everything it needs to operate near full capacity (unless your goal is to create a disaster for the uptimers). I generally prefer to ISOT an entire state or territory or region or even a country (although an ISOTed United States would probably dominate everything forever).
 
I'm not sure if a town or city is the best administrative unit for an ISOT scenario due to the unlikeliness of said town having everything it needs to operate near full capacity (unless your goal is to create a disaster for the uptimers). I generally prefer to ISOT an entire state or territory or region or even a country (although an ISOTed United States would probably dominate everything forever).

I'm inclined to agree. I just think that as OP has stated, he wants just a city or town to be ISOTed. While no town or city nowadays can truly be called self sufficient, smaller communities will as a general rule of thumb be able to survive much better than say dropping the whole of Manhattan down in circa 1300s New York harbor due to having less mouths to feed, a more closely nit community, and being able to produce and maintain the limited resources they need and have more efficiently.

Ideally an entire state or region would be the best bet at surviving long term in a reasonably recognizable status quo, but under the circumstances listed, small is better.
 
Most likely any rural small town in the US could survive for a surprisingly long time in most situations.

Rural America and Canada tend to have the highest concentration of gun owners, are able to produce enough agricultural goods to either feed themselves or trade for a stable food supply, and normally have at least some sort of basic industry even if it is just the few guys in the neighborhood who have machining tools in their shed.

Many areas, particularly in Appalachia, the Midwest, and Central-Canada even have basic oil industries to provide themselves with fuel and most powerplants tend to be located away from cities and closer to small towns.
The OP asks for towns, they do not stipulate that agricultural land surrounding them or "nearby" power plants come with.
And and these power plants (as well as the basic oil industry) are not exactly self-sustaining. They rely on a constant influx of outside experts and spare parts to keep running. The on-site stock is almost never large or comprehensive enough to do more than emergency fixes while waiting for the proper parts.

The self-feeding idea is a pipe dream for the most part too. It relies on one, having enough staples in store for immediate survival, two, being close enough to harvest (and having the correct crops already on the fields for it) to take over as the stores run out, and three, having a diverse enough crop able to sustain without herbicides and insecticides. And then the tractors break down.
As for trading for food - availability of stock to be traded in the local area is not a given, sufficient transport capacity to supply the town is not a given, availability of trade goods the locals are willing to take for food is not a given either. Nor that the many gun owners don't piss off the locals at the first sign of not being home anymore.

Overall the whole idea relies on too many things being just right - beyond the town itself - to claim that it's going to work.
 
The self-feeding idea is a pipe dream for the most part too. It relies on one, having enough staples in store for immediate survival, two, being close enough to harvest (and having the correct crops already on the fields for it) to take over as the stores run out, and three, having a diverse enough crop able to sustain

And processing.

100 acres of wheat doesn't turn into bread by it self. How far away is the local mill? And does it still function? Long gone are the days of a rock and a wind or water wheel, today's mills are industrial establishments just like any other factory. So is the baking for that matter. Speaking of which, how many ovens in your city still work when the power goes out, and the gas stops flowing?

Nothing we do anymore is self contained. Everything relies on outside everything else.
 
Back
Top