prepardness

I am married to a former scoutmaster and also helped lead a form of survival training for kids in one of my former lives. So yes, learning what plants and critters you can access bare handed is a good thing to know as well as how to build a shelter against the elements, etc. etc. All this is useful for small groups who are stranded in the wild for whatever reason.

But I was just thinking if all the folks in Albuquerque, population around 400,000 or the entire metro area--another couple of hundred thousand--were all out there on the desert trying to live off whatever game is out there, or whatever plants survived during the winter, or fishing the not all that abundant Rio Grande, I just don't see that as feasible.

And then consider the millions of LA, Chicago, New York City, Houston. All of them hunting or fishing or searching for edible plants at the same time? Pretty chaotic wouldn't you think?

Then again, what happens when you and your neighbors are the only ones in the area who prepared and there are roving bands of hungry and desperate people who are coming to take it from you. What do you do?

I simply can't find any good solutions to any of this. Probably we worker ants could take care of a few grasshoppers who didn't prepare, but I just don't see any good scenarios for a long term survival plan unless pretty much everybody participates.

The future belongs to those who prepare. Sadly not everyone bothers to imagine the worst that future could hold, let alone prepare for it.
 
I am married to a former scoutmaster and also helped lead a form of survival training for kids in one of my former lives. So yes, learning what plants and critters you can access bare handed is a good thing to know as well as how to build a shelter against the elements, etc. etc. All this is useful for small groups who are stranded in the wild for whatever reason.

But I was just thinking if all the folks in Albuquerque, population around 400,000 or the entire metro area--another couple of hundred thousand--were all out there on the desert trying to live off whatever game is out there, or whatever plants survived during the winter, or fishing the not all that abundant Rio Grande, I just don't see that as feasible.

And then consider the millions of LA, Chicago, New York City, Houston. All of them hunting or fishing or searching for edible plants at the same time? Pretty chaotic wouldn't you think?

Then again, what happens when you and your neighbors are the only ones in the area who prepared and there are roving bands of hungry and desperate people who are coming to take it from you. What do you do?

I simply can't find any good solutions to any of this. Probably we worker ants could take care of a few grasshoppers who didn't prepare, but I just don't see any good scenarios for a long term survival plan unless pretty much everybody participates.

The future belongs to those who prepare. Sadly not everyone bothers to imagine the worst that future could hold, let alone prepare for it.

Well, I don't know how much preparation would be feasible for the very worst. Underhill is right that there is a difference between being prepared and being paranoid. So what could happen to create a large scale disaster? The first thing coming to mind is an asteroid strike that would wipe out most living thngs on Earth. Another is a new ice age or shift in magnetic poles. Of the manmade variety would be a successful terrorist attack on our vulnerable and totally connected power grid on a scale that we could be without electric power for months.

Regional disasters are usually fairly temporary as far as serious deprivation of essential food, water, shelter, and aid will always be forthcoming. But a nationwide or worldwide disaster where everybody is in the same boat would be something else again.

The question is. In a 'global killer' kind of event, would you want to be one of the remnant to restart the human race?
 
I am married to a former scoutmaster and also helped lead a form of survival training for kids in one of my former lives. So yes, learning what plants and critters you can access bare handed is a good thing to know as well as how to build a shelter against the elements, etc. etc. All this is useful for small groups who are stranded in the wild for whatever reason.

But I was just thinking if all the folks in Albuquerque, population around 400,000 or the entire metro area--another couple of hundred thousand--were all out there on the desert trying to live off whatever game is out there, or whatever plants survived during the winter, or fishing the not all that abundant Rio Grande, I just don't see that as feasible.

And then consider the millions of LA, Chicago, New York City, Houston. All of them hunting or fishing or searching for edible plants at the same time? Pretty chaotic wouldn't you think?

Then again, what happens when you and your neighbors are the only ones in the area who prepared and there are roving bands of hungry and desperate people who are coming to take it from you. What do you do?

I simply can't find any good solutions to any of this. Probably we worker ants could take care of a few grasshoppers who didn't prepare, but I just don't see any good scenarios for a long term survival plan unless pretty much everybody participates.

The future belongs to those who prepare. Sadly not everyone bothers to imagine the worst that future could hold, let alone prepare for it.

Well, I don't know how much preparation would be feasible for the very worst. Underhill is right that there is a difference between being prepared and being paranoid. So what could happen to create a large scale disaster? The first thing coming to mind is an asteroid strike that would wipe out most living thngs on Earth. Another is a new ice age or shift in magnetic poles. Of the manmade variety would be a successful terrorist attack on our vulnerable and totally connected power grid on a scale that we could be without electric power for months.

Regional disasters are usually fairly temporary as far as serious deprivation of essential food, water, shelter, and aid will always be forthcoming. But a nationwide or worldwide disaster where everybody is in the same boat would be something else again.

The question is. In a 'global killer' kind of event, would you want to be one of the remnant to restart the human race?

I'll take the job. As long as most of the other males are gone and the females survive...
:muahaha:
 
Well, I don't know how much preparation would be feasible for the very worst. Underhill is right that there is a difference between being prepared and being paranoid. So what could happen to create a large scale disaster? The first thing coming to mind is an asteroid strike that would wipe out most living thngs on Earth. Another is a new ice age or shift in magnetic poles. Of the manmade variety would be a successful terrorist attack on our vulnerable and totally connected power grid on a scale that we could be without electric power for months.

Regional disasters are usually fairly temporary as far as serious deprivation of essential food, water, shelter, and aid will always be forthcoming. But a nationwide or worldwide disaster where everybody is in the same boat would be something else again.

The question is. In a 'global killer' kind of event, would you want to be one of the remnant to restart the human race?

Well, if an ELE (Extinction Level Event) happens, there is not much you can do about it really. However, most of what you mentioned are not anywhere close to that.

For Geomagnetic Reversal, there would be very little effect at all. No extinctions, simply the polar fields reversing, so the South Pointing Needle on your magnetic compass now points up instead of the North Needle. But since the vast majority of navigation is through either GPS or gyroscopic compasses (that would not be affected), do not expect much from that.

Like Interstatials, Ice Ages are very long and slow in starting. Humans have been through many of them, and generally just migrate. That may be a problem with our current global population density, but is not going to cause extinctions in humans. Although like it does every time expect extinctions in flaura and fauna that can't adapt or move.

If we were to face a "global killer", 2 would be true killers, 1 would be survivable. I place the most deadly as asteroid impacts and supervolcanos. You could survive the latter, depending on where you are and how well you prepared. But you would almost need a bunker with a decade's worth of supplies.

The last and most surviveable would be from plagues. Getting to a remote area and essentially quarenteening yourself and your family would work, as long as you could survive that way for the few years while it burned itself out. That is why most large cities were major death traps, while more remote communities (or islands) were hardly touched.

And of all of those, I think plague would be the most likely. We have not had a good plague for almost a century, and one is definately overdue. And with all the outbreaks from Asia the last 2 decades, it is obvious that the biosphere is trying to do what it does when any fauna population exceeds it's natural boundries. We have been lucky so far, but it is simply a matter of time.
 
Ever hear the old adage, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you..."

The same really applies for preparedness in a doomsday scenario. If a large percentage of the population is wiped out by catastrophe, just surviving longer than most would dramatically increase your odds.

I can think of very few scenarios where I would need a years food to survive. In the city maybe, but in the city, chances are you would have trouble keeping supplies if mass starvation is a factor.

I visited Africa some years back and witnessed poverty like we've never seen in America. And in that sort of environment, having a stash makes you a target. Your best bet is to have a skill that is useful in any economy. The people who survive in these place are those who can make and sell pottery, clothing and other goods everyone needs.
 
Ever hear the old adage, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you..."

The same really applies for preparedness in a doomsday scenario. If a large percentage of the population is wiped out by catastrophe, just surviving longer than most would dramatically increase your odds.

I can think of very few scenarios where I would need a years food to survive. In the city maybe, but in the city, chances are you would have trouble keeping supplies if mass starvation is a factor.

I visited Africa some years back and witnessed poverty like we've never seen in America. And in that sort of environment, having a stash makes you a target. Your best bet is to have a skill that is useful in any economy. The people who survive in these place are those who can make and sell pottery, clothing and other goods everyone needs.

Yes, those with marketable skills will prosper in a newly forming post disaster society/culture. But first the disaster must be survived.

We have folks out in western New Mexico who are so remote that must use satellite phones and they use propane lighting when there isn't enough wind for their wind chargers. And as they are in areas where there is a plentiful supply of wood if the propane sources should be obliterated, they are those who will be best off in a large scale long term disaster. That is unless they are discovered by hordes of starving people desperate for food.

Here in the city, I can see us neighbors all coming together, pooling our resources, and setting up a ration plan to survive. But then again, there will be hordes of others who didn't prepare who will likely challenge us for whatever food and essential supplies we have. And whether we would have the will to fight them off is anybody's guess. If we don't have the will, then everybody perishes.

So being realistic about the prognosis, I guess I see it sufficient to lay in enough stores to get us through a major power outage or natural disaster for a reasonable number of days or weeks. But would I want to survive a worldwide disaster resulting in a survival of the fittest situation for awhile? I'm not at all sure that I would.
 
I am married to a former scoutmaster and also helped lead a form of survival training for kids in one of my former lives. So yes, learning what plants and critters you can access bare handed is a good thing to know as well as how to build a shelter against the elements, etc. etc. All this is useful for small groups who are stranded in the wild for whatever reason.

But I was just thinking if all the folks in Albuquerque, population around 400,000 or the entire metro area--another couple of hundred thousand--were all out there on the desert trying to live off whatever game is out there, or whatever plants survived during the winter, or fishing the not all that abundant Rio Grande, I just don't see that as feasible.

And then consider the millions of LA, Chicago, New York City, Houston. All of them hunting or fishing or searching for edible plants at the same time? Pretty chaotic wouldn't you think?

Then again, what happens when you and your neighbors are the only ones in the area who prepared and there are roving bands of hungry and desperate people who are coming to take it from you. What do you do?

I simply can't find any good solutions to any of this. Probably we worker ants could take care of a few grasshoppers who didn't prepare, but I just don't see any good scenarios for a long term survival plan unless pretty much everybody participates.

The future belongs to those who prepare. Sadly not everyone bothers to imagine the worst that future could hold, let alone prepare for it.

Well, I don't know how much preparation would be feasible for the very worst. Underhill is right that there is a difference between being prepared and being paranoid. So what could happen to create a large scale disaster? The first thing coming to mind is an asteroid strike that would wipe out most living thngs on Earth. Another is a new ice age or shift in magnetic poles. Of the manmade variety would be a successful terrorist attack on our vulnerable and totally connected power grid on a scale that we could be without electric power for months.

Regional disasters are usually fairly temporary as far as serious deprivation of essential food, water, shelter, and aid will always be forthcoming. But a nationwide or worldwide disaster where everybody is in the same boat would be something else again.

The question is. In a 'global killer' kind of event, would you want to be one of the remnant to restart the human race?

Underhill is indeed right that there is a difference between being prepared and paranoid.

Personally speaking, I think that building or paying for an expensive fallout shelter and basing your day-to-day life on the possibility that the world as we know it could come to a smouldering end is paranoid and bordering on insane. It would also be very damaging to let - or encourage - an overspill of that fear/paranoia into the lives of loved ones and friends. However, I believe that considering and taking sensible and reasonable precaution even beyond something like that of Katrina is pragmatic.

Anyway...

Personally, I think that the only kind of world-changing disaster we can reasonably expect isn't so much the event itself, but rather what comes afterwards. That's not to say that any of the scenarios you've listed aren't going to happen, they could, but there are contigency plans in place to deal with terrorist attacks on power grids and essential infrastructure and environmental/climatic anomalies.

My biggest worry would be the power vacuum that would follow in the wake of a scenario where we see a progressive decline in essential services. One where wages aren't getting paid, and the guardians of peace, law and order are forced to abandon their posts to look after their loved ones and leave us to our own destiny and devices. A scenario that sees the complete collapse of authority, where there's little to no accountability, save that at the hands of - easily influenced - vigilante mobs. A scenario where there's little to nothing standing in the way of dominant (better armed/equiped) groups fighting for power and control. A scenario where anyone with enough manpower and/or firepower can vie for power. A complete shake-up of the socio-political status-quo as we know it.

Would I want to survive a world changing event? Possibly.

If the world had been ravaged beyond all recognision and the ability to sustain growth, then no, probably not. I wouldn't want to scratch out an existance where all greenary, pasture and meadowland had been scorched from the earth.

Would I like to be one of the few survivors of an outbreak that had dealt a devastating blow to mankind alone? Yes, I probably would. I'd be devastated by the loss of loved ones, and would face the daily angst of wondering if they hadn't perished and were out there, somewhere. But I'm a curious creature. And admit to a there being a certain element of excitement surrounding the prospect of being one of the few survivors, and how we'd go about restoring joy and order in our new world.
 
Last edited:
There is a tremendous amount of survivalism going on now, at all levels: for instance, the local Home Depot stores cannot keep generators in stock.

It's not a good sign when so much of the population, us included, so carefully plans and stocks up for an expected failure of public supplies. It has been my opinion for some years now that this country is getting ready for a revolution. The gun nut thing is obvious, but so is the preparedness movement.
 
There is a tremendous amount of survivalism going on now, at all levels: for instance, the local Home Depot stores cannot keep generators in stock.

It's not a good sign when so much of the population, us included, so carefully plans and stocks up for an expected failure of public supplies. It has been my opinion for some years now that this country is getting ready for a revolution. The gun nut thing is obvious, but so is the preparedness movement.

I just think that the last 10 years or so have finally gotten a larger percentage of people to wake up to the actual needs of preperation.

In LA, a big shock to many was the Northridge Earthquake. To those in the South, Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina. And in the NE, Hurricane Sandy.

A lot of people who had not really faced a real disaster in decades if not generations suddenly had one smack them right in the face, and now that the horse is loose they are securing the barn door.

But do not expect it to last. One buddy I helped prepare a survival kit in 1994 admitted to me 6 years later just before Y2K admitted to me that he had not touched it in years. And going through it, everything was long expired, and the water had a really nasty taste to it.

This is no different. Those that go through a disaster normally claim they will not be caught that way again. Yet they are, over and over and over again.

And it is the same way with the "gun nuts". The vast majority get something that looks scarey, thinking that will "keep them safe". But they might pull it out of the closet once a year to show a friend, and likely have not fired it for a decade or more. And have never taken a course other then the mandated basic safety course.

I am not really scared of them. An untrained individual with a weapon is more of a danger to themselves then they are to me. And I have likely forgotten more about combat then they ever knew (outside of reading SoF Magazine).
 
Ever hear the old adage, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you..."

The same really applies for preparedness in a doomsday scenario. If a large percentage of the population is wiped out by catastrophe, just surviving longer than most would dramatically increase your odds.

I can think of very few scenarios where I would need a years food to survive. In the city maybe, but in the city, chances are you would have trouble keeping supplies if mass starvation is a factor.

I visited Africa some years back and witnessed poverty like we've never seen in America. And in that sort of environment, having a stash makes you a target. Your best bet is to have a skill that is useful in any economy. The people who survive in these place are those who can make and sell pottery, clothing and other goods everyone needs.

Yes, those with marketable skills will prosper in a newly forming post disaster society/culture. But first the disaster must be survived.

We have folks out in western New Mexico who are so remote that must use satellite phones and they use propane lighting when there isn't enough wind for their wind chargers. And as they are in areas where there is a plentiful supply of wood if the propane sources should be obliterated, they are those who will be best off in a large scale long term disaster. That is unless they are discovered by hordes of starving people desperate for food.

Here in the city, I can see us neighbors all coming together, pooling our resources, and setting up a ration plan to survive. But then again, there will be hordes of others who didn't prepare who will likely challenge us for whatever food and essential supplies we have. And whether we would have the will to fight them off is anybody's guess. If we don't have the will, then everybody perishes.

So being realistic about the prognosis, I guess I see it sufficient to lay in enough stores to get us through a major power outage or natural disaster for a reasonable number of days or weeks. But would I want to survive a worldwide disaster resulting in a survival of the fittest situation for awhile? I'm not at all sure that I would.

I could make the argument that where I live is better than New Mexico. Not quite so remote, but I'm in a county with 10k people. I live in the middle of forest with vast tracks in every direction. The nearest town is 200 people and the nearest city of any size is 100 miles away. We have a garden and some poultry. Short of a nuke hitting nearby, or a asteroid, we are set.

And we don't need a sat phone or power generation. Hell, we don't need power. I have a wood stove as back up heat in the basement.
 
Ever hear the old adage, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you..."

The same really applies for preparedness in a doomsday scenario. If a large percentage of the population is wiped out by catastrophe, just surviving longer than most would dramatically increase your odds.

I can think of very few scenarios where I would need a years food to survive. In the city maybe, but in the city, chances are you would have trouble keeping supplies if mass starvation is a factor.

I visited Africa some years back and witnessed poverty like we've never seen in America. And in that sort of environment, having a stash makes you a target. Your best bet is to have a skill that is useful in any economy. The people who survive in these place are those who can make and sell pottery, clothing and other goods everyone needs.

Yes, those with marketable skills will prosper in a newly forming post disaster society/culture. But first the disaster must be survived.

We have folks out in western New Mexico who are so remote that must use satellite phones and they use propane lighting when there isn't enough wind for their wind chargers. And as they are in areas where there is a plentiful supply of wood if the propane sources should be obliterated, they are those who will be best off in a large scale long term disaster. That is unless they are discovered by hordes of starving people desperate for food.

Here in the city, I can see us neighbors all coming together, pooling our resources, and setting up a ration plan to survive. But then again, there will be hordes of others who didn't prepare who will likely challenge us for whatever food and essential supplies we have. And whether we would have the will to fight them off is anybody's guess. If we don't have the will, then everybody perishes.

So being realistic about the prognosis, I guess I see it sufficient to lay in enough stores to get us through a major power outage or natural disaster for a reasonable number of days or weeks. But would I want to survive a worldwide disaster resulting in a survival of the fittest situation for awhile? I'm not at all sure that I would.

I could make the argument that where I live is better than New Mexico. Not quite so remote, but I'm in a county with 10k people. I live in the middle of forest with vast tracks in every direction. The nearest town is 200 people and the nearest city of any size is 100 miles away. We have a garden and some poultry. Short of a nuke hitting nearby, or a asteroid, we are set.

And we don't need a sat phone or power generation. Hell, we don't need power. I have a wood stove as back up heat in the basement.

Yes the small, sparsely populated countries, especially those where conditions are most primitive, are most likely to host small pockets of survivors who will persist following a major worldwide disaster. The USA with 300+ million people and counting has a lot of land area but so many people that it would be a huge problem. People in China, India, etc. would also be extremely disadvantaged.

And thinking about Swagger's post. Yes, if I was still young, strong, and 'invincible', I too would have wanted to be on the space ship off to colonize some new world or to be among those who would organize and procreate a new civilization here on Earth.

At my current stage in life, however, I would want to give as many resources as possible to the young, but I don't think I would have the stamina or zest for doing it myself. But you never know. It ain't over until it's over.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top