>>2854558I want to rephrase your question as 'where will it take the longest for me to succunb to exposure and malnutrition?'
I believe it could be argued that areas which, historically were or even presently are known to inhabit actual hunterer gatherers or primitive people. Areas where sedentary humans never became much of a thing.
So examples would be areas of africa, inhabited by San and closely related people, like botsuana, SA, namibia, sambia.
Australian bushes where aboriginies managed to survive that way.
Amazon rain forest, where we know that uncontacted peoples exist to this day.
But:
This assessment may be short sighted. I've said it before: Those people manage to scrape by because of traditions and knowledge they hold and because they were raised like that. Airdropping you there might lead to a sooner demise than other places.
Assuming you're not going to manage to feed yourself in any place, I would prioritise in this order:
-Temperature, not too cold at night so you don't die and prefferably get some sleep. Not too hot during the day that you'll be unable to make anything out of it.
-Easily accessible water. Depending on how fat you are you'll die in months from malnutrition. But you'll die much sooner from a lack of water.
-Food. With the above covered you might now survive long enough to worry about feeding yourself. On the long run you'll probably want wild game, fish and honey. But fruit only will do fine in extending your misery a bit.
-Predation. Absence of predation just statistically gives you better odds and also better sleep which improves your odds overall. If I was you and you were doing this I'd consider modern man a potential predator.
With all that checked I would give you 2 months.
