chrispi said:There were at least three or four species of Homo at the time, and yes Yellowstone had a role in their evolution/extinction; Homo neanderthalensis arose in this environment.
There is only one species of Homo now. The whole of the human race has less variation than a troop of chimps, and this will make human adaptation to the new environment much harder. IOW a population of 6,000 chimps/hominids has as good a chance of survival as a population of 6,000,000,000 humans today. The first humans to die in a global catastrophe such as this are those in agricultural societies, especially modern ones; coincidentally these are the ones who spread furthest across the earth and have the least genetic diversity.
Even genetic engineering won't help, first because society is destroyed and therefore technology is useless, second because even if we could engineer a human to adapt we would be able to engineer enough of them for a viable population.
Possibly the hardiest humans wrt surviving global catastrophes are the San of the Kalahari.
There are a lot of humans, with little genetic variety, because we are more adaptable than other species without it. This line of resoning only works if every human on earth had the planning, reasoning, and tool using capabilities of a chimp. ASB, to put it mildly.
In the scenario, the USA is gone as a country. No way to survive. Massive waves of refugees flood Mexico and Canada. (Whom I don't think would be doing that well either.)
The rest of the world has a bad spell. Poor weather reduces crop yields. Loss is less severe than the previous volcanic incidents becuse we have a lot more agricultural technology and know-how today. More norhtrnly countries should be able to blunt the effects more, as their agriculture is already more intervention-intensive. But they are also more vulnerable to the effects.
Fishing as a second food source is a great advantage.
Southern hemisphere does better, weather patterns are severely blunted crossing the equator.
Secondary political effects from the power-vacuum generated by the loss of the USA may do a lot more damage than the eruption, long term.
I see something like this over the next years:
-The EU suddenly gets some incentive to pull together. Agricultural surplus is an advantge, and suddenly there are lots of jobs to be done.
-The northern non-EU nations of Norway and Iceland has a good fishing food base, and is used to severe winters. Moderate cursing happens.
-Russia moves south. Emergency turns military and autocratic. Much fighting in Iran-Iraq follows.
-China goes for Taiwan, and anything else it feels like.
-India and Pakistan settle their differences.
-A sore of invasions happen as nations adjust borders and absorb each other with no superpowers watching.
-Australia watches.