clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

OT Friday: Where would you hunker down post-apocalyptically?

New, 73 comments

Why Tucson?

Here?
Here?
Kevin Hagen/Getty Images

With the uneven but still mostly funny first season of Last Man on Earth winding down this weekend, a question (that I'm forced to paraphrase for lack of remembering its precise phrasing) from last week's episode has stuck with me: why Tucson? After all, this is the same place about which Steve Coogan's character in Hamlet 2 had the following to say:

Dana Marschz: Chuy, you're going to have a magical life. Because no matter where you go, it's always going to be better than Tucson.

Moving past ***SPOILER ALERT*** the introduction of a second Phil Miller that eventually relegates the original and titular character to Tandy status, which has played hilariously thus far ***END ALERT***, the rationale behind choosing a place as inhospitable as Tucson always struck me as odd. After all, it is not near an abundant source of natural fresh water that is suitable for drinking, and it would seem that the soil wouldn't be particularly conducive to agriculture, jalapeno seeds or otherwise.

This thinking brings me to the question if a virus, apocalypse, etc., were to wipe out mankind, leaving only you to tend to the earth but had not rendered Earth's climate unlivable or its soil averse to letting plant life take hold, where would you decide to try to set down roots? For what reasons would you have chosen that setting?