prepardness

[Missourian]

Oops!

I see you are in Washington State. Ignore that recommendation.

That's an "East of the Rockies" book.

I don't know how closely your west coast flora matches ours.

dang...now I gotta take it out of my cart.

Sorry.

I've never been to Washington, but I read somewhere that foraging books for the East are not very helpful for those of you on the west coast.

 

[Againsheila]

Oops!

I see you are in Washington State. Ignore that recommendation.

That's an "East of the Rockies" book.

I don't know how closely your west coast flora matches ours.

dang...now I gotta take it out of my cart.

Sorry.

I've never been to Washington, but I read somewhere that foraging books for the East are not very helpful for those of you on the west coast.

I'm pretty sure you're right on that. Just glad I didn't buy it yet. No harm done, I just like to whine...

 

[Foxfyre]

The last time I was on one of these 'preppers' threads, I estimated we had enough food in the house for a week or two and deemed that sufficient. Since then I've analyzed it more thoroughly and considered our stock of canned goods, staples, and stuff in the freezer, and with some minor rationing, we could hold out for at least a month. But that is only if our neighbors do the same, because I can't imagine having somebody show up on my doorstep hungry and not feed him or her.

The fact is few of us are self sufficient with capability of furnishing our own water, heat, or growing/butchering our own food these days. And even if we know HOW to live primitively, we no longer have the resources or ability to do so.

All this is to say, yes it is good to have some provisions laid back for the temporary emergencies. But for the long haul, I am reconciled that we are pretty well screwed unless we are willing to fight off our own neighbors.

 

[Againsheila]

The last time I was on one of these 'preppers' threads, I estimated we had enough food in the house for a week or two and deemed that sufficient. Since then I've analyzed it more thoroughly and considered our stock of canned goods, staples, and stuff in the freezer, and with some minor rationing, we could hold out for at least a month. But that is only if our neighbors do the same, because I can't imagine having somebody show up on my doorstep hungry and not feed him or her.

The fact is few of us are self sufficient with capability of furnishing our own water, heat, or growing/butchering our own food these days. And even if we know HOW to live primitively, we no longer have the resources or ability to do so.

All this is to say, yes it is good to have some provisions laid back for the temporary emergencies. But for the long haul, I am reconciled that we are pretty well screwed unless we are willing to fight off our own neighbors.

I figure if the situation is dire enough and if everyone is prepared, you won't be fighting off your neighbors, but cooperating with them for the good of the neighborhood. Some people will be good at some things and others will be good at other things. Me? I'm looking for a really good Red Cross first aid class to take. It's been so long and now that I'm a house manager for the theater, it's time I got certified for first aid again. I got my liquor license for the theater but I really can't see how that will help in an emergency.

Hopefully there won't be a "long haul" but seems there has been for the victims of Sandy.

 

[Pogo]

The last time I was on one of these 'preppers' threads, I estimated we had enough food in the house for a week or two and deemed that sufficient. Since then I've analyzed it more thoroughly and considered our stock of canned goods, staples, and stuff in the freezer, and with some minor rationing, we could hold out for at least a month. But that is only if our neighbors do the same, because I can't imagine having somebody show up on my doorstep hungry and not feed him or her.

The fact is few of us are self sufficient with capability of furnishing our own water, heat, or growing/butchering our own food these days. And even if we know HOW to live primitively, we no longer have the resources or ability to do so.

All this is to say, yes it is good to have some provisions laid back for the temporary emergencies. But for the long haul, I am reconciled that we are pretty well screwed unless we are willing to fight off our own neighbors.

I would love to agree with this whole sentiment, but it's the end that gets me. I just don't get this black-cloud mentality that some emergency event means we strike adversarial positions against our neighbors and/or our government. I just find that idea bizarre. (20,000 rounds of ammo? Seriouslly? Or was that facetious? It's hard to tell) -- plus it directly contradicts the compassion at the beginning of the same post (in bold).

How is it some of you can come to the conclusion that some emergency situation turns people against each other? In every experience I can think of, the exact opposite is true. I mean, what a perverse way to look at the world...

 

[paravani]

Hi again, Sheila!

I'm sorry that I wasn't able to help out more at the theater over the holidays, but it's 180 miles round trip for us, and Jeff and I got lost for over an hour after the last time. When we finally figured out where we were, we were still nearly two hours from home, and we didn't get back to the house until after midnight.

I'm afraid we're just getting too old and night-blinded to be wandering around on dark, twisting back roads late at night.

However, I was glad to see that you did find a few volunteers closer to the theater. Good work! I hope those folks at the theater appreciate you!

Me? I'm looking for a really good Red Cross first aid class to take. It's been so long and now that I'm a house manager for the theater, it's time I got certified for first aid again. I got my liquor license for the theater but I really can't see how that will help in an emergency.

Hopefully there won't be a "long haul" but seems there has been for the victims of Sandy.

For good disaster-prep first aid training, look into training classes for your local CERT -- Citizen Emergency Response Team. They're usually offered by your local emergency planning office, and they're free. They'll also help you get organized with other citizen responders in your neighborhood, which means that you'll learn who has the ham radio, where and how emergency response will be coordinated, and how to make sure that you and your family are safe and "in the loop" when the earthquake happens.

CERT classes teach you about basic first aid necessities, what you need to have in your own emergency planning kit, what kinds of buildings are most likely to collapse in an earthquake, how to do triage to determine which injuries need to be treated first and which ones can wait -- all kinds of stuff that you'll be glad you learned when the time comes that you need it.

Take care, and thanks for starting this thread!

-- Paravani

 

[Foxfyre]

The last time I was on one of these 'preppers' threads, I estimated we had enough food in the house for a week or two and deemed that sufficient. Since then I've analyzed it more thoroughly and considered our stock of canned goods, staples, and stuff in the freezer, and with some minor rationing, we could hold out for at least a month. But that is only if our neighbors do the same, because I can't imagine having somebody show up on my doorstep hungry and not feed him or her.

The fact is few of us are self sufficient with capability of furnishing our own water, heat, or growing/butchering our own food these days. And even if we know HOW to live primitively, we no longer have the resources or ability to do so.

All this is to say, yes it is good to have some provisions laid back for the temporary emergencies. But for the long haul, I am reconciled that we are pretty well screwed unless we are willing to fight off our own neighbors.

I would love to agree with this whole sentiment, but it's the end that gets me. I just don't get this black-cloud mentality that some emergency event means we strike adversarial positions against our neighbors and/or our government. I just find that idea bizarre. (20,000 rounds of ammo? Seriouslly? Or was that facetious? It's hard to tell) -- plus it directly contradicts the compassion at the beginning of the same post (in bold).

How is it some of you can come to the conclusion that some emergency situation turns people against each other? In every experience I can think of, the exact opposite is true. I mean, what a perverse way to look at the world...

Not really if you look throughout all human history. Famine has been the incentive for wars and neighbor turning against neighbor. If your kids are hungry and begging for food and you don't have any and know your neighbor does? How assertive would you be to feed your starving children?

But that wasn't my argument in this context at all. My argument was my own inability to turn down a hungry person if I have food and they don't. In the end we might all starve together. It is a different kind of dynamic than knowing there are hungry children elsewhere in the world but we don't see that up close and personal so it is easier to emotionally distance ourselves from it.

But I could not hoard food for myself when I know my neighbor is starving, most especially when he is on my porch asking for food. Could you?

 

[Pogo]

The last time I was on one of these 'preppers' threads, I estimated we had enough food in the house for a week or two and deemed that sufficient. Since then I've analyzed it more thoroughly and considered our stock of canned goods, staples, and stuff in the freezer, and with some minor rationing, we could hold out for at least a month. But that is only if our neighbors do the same, because I can't imagine having somebody show up on my doorstep hungry and not feed him or her.

The fact is few of us are self sufficient with capability of furnishing our own water, heat, or growing/butchering our own food these days. And even if we know HOW to live primitively, we no longer have the resources or ability to do so.

All this is to say, yes it is good to have some provisions laid back for the temporary emergencies. But for the long haul, I am reconciled that we are pretty well screwed unless we are willing to fight off our own neighbors.

I would love to agree with this whole sentiment, but it's the end that gets me. I just don't get this black-cloud mentality that some emergency event means we strike adversarial positions against our neighbors and/or our government. I just find that idea bizarre. (20,000 rounds of ammo? Seriouslly? Or was that facetious? It's hard to tell) -- plus it directly contradicts the compassion at the beginning of the same post (in bold).

How is it some of you can come to the conclusion that some emergency situation turns people against each other? In every experience I can think of, the exact opposite is true. I mean, what a perverse way to look at the world...

Not really if you look throughout all human history. Famine has been the incentive for wars and neighbor turning against neighbor. If your kids are hungry and begging for food and you don't have any and know your neighbor does? How assertive would you be to feed your starving children?

But that wasn't my argument in this context at all. My argument was my own inability to turn down a hungry person if I have food and they don't. In the end we might all starve together. It is a different kind of dynamic than knowing there are hungry children elsewhere in the world but we don't see that up close and personal so it is easier to emotionally distance ourselves from it.

But I could not hoard food for myself when I know my neighbor is starving, most especially when he is on my porch asking for food. Could you?

Of course not, no way in the world. I'd share my last crumb, so with this I agree wholeheartedly.

That's why I can't reconcile "fighting off neighbors" and "20,000 rounds of ammo". Those are the last things you'd want to do in dire consequences.
It makes no sense to go anti-social ballistic. Food shortages and other survival challenges are the whole reason we humans, like other animals, began living in communities in the first place. Why would our first instinct be to destroy that? That's what I can't get my head around.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would love to agree with this whole sentiment, but it's the end that gets me. I just don't get this black-cloud mentality that some emergency event means we strike adversarial positions against our neighbors and/or our government. I just find that idea bizarre. (20,000 rounds of ammo? Seriouslly? Or was that facetious? It's hard to tell) -- plus it directly contradicts the compassion at the beginning of the same post (in bold).

How is it some of you can come to the conclusion that some emergency situation turns people against each other? In every experience I can think of, the exact opposite is true. I mean, what a perverse way to look at the world...

Not really if you look throughout all human history. Famine has been the incentive for wars and neighbor turning against neighbor. If your kids are hungry and begging for food and you don't have any and know your neighbor does? How assertive would you be to feed your starving children?

But that wasn't my argument in this context at all. My argument was my own inability to turn down a hungry person if I have food and they don't. In the end we might all starve together. It is a different kind of dynamic than knowing there are hungry children elsewhere in the world but we don't see that up close and personal so it is easier to emotionally distance ourselves from it.

But I could not hoard food for myself when I know my neighbor is starving, most especially when he is on my porch asking for food. Could you?

Of course not, no way in the world. I'd share my last crumb, so with this I agree wholeheartedly.

That's why I can't reconcile "fighting off neighbors" and "20,000 rounds of ammo". Those are the last things you'd want to do in dire consequences. It makes no sense.

It makes no emotional sense for those of us who recoil at the very thought of it. But if it comes down to survival of the fittest (or most prepared), it could be necessary in order for anybody to survive. And while you and I would share our last crumb with our hungry neighbor, I have pondered what lengths I would go to prevent somebody from coming in to kill us all and take what we have or he or she who would presume to take food from my children and leave them to starve?

You see it isn't so simple or cut and dried as we wish it could be. We don't know what we are capable of until we are faced with the problem. How calm and civil would the victims of Katrina or Sandy be if they couldn't get out, they couldn't get food, and there was no quick relief effort to make sure folks didn't starve? If it is your baby crying with hunger. . . .

 

[Againsheila]

The last time I was on one of these 'preppers' threads, I estimated we had enough food in the house for a week or two and deemed that sufficient. Since then I've analyzed it more thoroughly and considered our stock of canned goods, staples, and stuff in the freezer, and with some minor rationing, we could hold out for at least a month. But that is only if our neighbors do the same, because I can't imagine having somebody show up on my doorstep hungry and not feed him or her.

The fact is few of us are self sufficient with capability of furnishing our own water, heat, or growing/butchering our own food these days. And even if we know HOW to live primitively, we no longer have the resources or ability to do so.

All this is to say, yes it is good to have some provisions laid back for the temporary emergencies. But for the long haul, I am reconciled that we are pretty well screwed unless we are willing to fight off our own neighbors.

I would love to agree with this whole sentiment, but it's the end that gets me. I just don't get this black-cloud mentality that some emergency event means we strike adversarial positions against our neighbors and/or our government. I just find that idea bizarre. (20,000 rounds of ammo? Seriouslly? Or was that facetious? It's hard to tell) -- plus it directly contradicts the compassion at the beginning of the same post (in bold).

How is it some of you can come to the conclusion that some emergency situation turns people against each other? In every experience I can think of, the exact opposite is true. I mean, what a perverse way to look at the world...

Really, you don't remember Katrina and the people being shot on the bridge? You don't remember the looting? The Rodney King riots?

In some emergency situations people are brought closer together and help each other but what happens when the food runs out? do you think they'll still be helping each other? Or trying to get food for their family any way possible?

I think that I am saying is that if we all prepare for the worst, then we will all be prepared and there will be no masses of hungry people trying to take from others and others will have enough to share with those less fortunate. The problem is that we know, at least where I live that there will be a big earthquake sooner or later. This earthquake will be of such disastrous proportions that a tidal-wave will take out part of Japan. We know this because it's happened at least 4 times in the past, one being 300 years ago, one being 300 years before that and another being 1000 years before that. It's not a matter of if this earthquake will happen but when and what we need to do to be prepared. It's easy to say that we will help each other out but what if help can't get here? What if the roads are out? How do the trucks bring in supplies? If you don't have some food and some way to keep warm and dry then you are out of luck. I have no problems helping my neighbors but my food will only go so far. A years supply of food for 2 people isn't going to help hundreds of people for very long and why should I starve because others didn't prepare? They still haven't recovered from Sandy, in fact, they still haven't completely recovered from Katrina and this earthquake that is coming promises to be much much worse. I don't have thousands of pounds of ammo, so if push comes to shove, my family, being prepared for this earthquake will most likely die because others who didn't prepare are starving and will have no problems killing us to get our food. I suggest an alternate scenario. Let's ALL be prepared for a natural disaster. Let's all be prepared for something to happen where we might not be able to get help for awhile. If we are ALL prepared, there won't be any roving bands of starving people looking to steal from or kill others because they are hungry. We should all be prepared anyway, it just makes sense. If you can't put away enough food for a year, at least put together a bag so that if a disaster happens you can leave and go somewhere where you can get help. I've done both, but the truth is that we're old enough that I doubt we'd be able to make a long journey on foot, which is the only way you'd be able to travel after that big earthquake.

There are other disasters to consider too. EMPs is a big thing, a nuclear strike in our atmosphere will take out all of our transformers and we don't have enough to replace them which means our entire country would go without electricity for approximately 2 years. An EMP doesn't have to come from a nuclear device either, sunspots are another source and we're due for a big solar flare. There is a historical record of one in the 1800s that if it happened today would take out our electrical grid.

Not everyone can be prepared for everything but we can all try. Like I said, minimum 3 months supply of food and water or access to water. One year is what I really recommend and that's what I'm working on. I also have some water stored but it takes up a lot of room and I have to put pills in to keep the water good. I'm thinking of getting a water storage set up by my drain spouts. We get a lot of rain here and that would solve a lot of our water problems. Plus there are a couple of lakes and a stream nearby. As long as I can filter the water, we should be fine.

I'm just trying to say that people who prepare for disasters are smart and shouldn't be ridiculed, but should be examples for the rest of us. We should all be working towards being prepared. I realize for some that means guns and ammo but IMO to everyone it should mean food and water and energy and first aid.

Nobody can do it all at once, just do a little at a time, that's all I'm asking.

 

[Pogo]

Not really if you look throughout all human history. Famine has been the incentive for wars and neighbor turning against neighbor. If your kids are hungry and begging for food and you don't have any and know your neighbor does? How assertive would you be to feed your starving children?

But that wasn't my argument in this context at all. My argument was my own inability to turn down a hungry person if I have food and they don't. In the end we might all starve together. It is a different kind of dynamic than knowing there are hungry children elsewhere in the world but we don't see that up close and personal so it is easier to emotionally distance ourselves from it.

But I could not hoard food for myself when I know my neighbor is starving, most especially when he is on my porch asking for food. Could you?

Of course not, no way in the world. I'd share my last crumb, so with this I agree wholeheartedly.

That's why I can't reconcile "fighting off neighbors" and "20,000 rounds of ammo". Those are the last things you'd want to do in dire consequences. It makes no sense.

It makes no emotional sense for those of us who recoil at the very thought of it. But if it comes down to survival of the fittest (or most prepared), it could be necessary in order for anybody to survive. And while you and I would share our last crumb with our hungry neighbor, I have pondered what lengths I would go to prevent somebody from coming in to kill us all and take what we have or he or she who would presume to take food from my children and leave them to starve?

You see it isn't so simple or cut and dried as we wish it could be. We don't know what we are capable of until we are faced with the problem. How calm and civil would the victims of Katrina or Sandy be if they couldn't get out, they couldn't get food, and there was no quick relief effort to make sure folks didn't starve? If it is your baby crying with hunger. . . .

I'm sorry but "somebody coming in to kill us all" just comes off as comic-book drama to me. There's just no rational reason to imagine real life outside a TV cop show would actually work that way, nor does it sync with any situation of emergency I've ever seen. People who don't normally interact find themselves working together to find water, food and shelter. It's how we work as humans. Common need does that.

Again, the whole reason we live in a community (this town/this neighborhood/this street) is to pool our survival resources, and we've done that since we were monkeys. It just makes no sense at all to suddenly abandon all that and go "every man for himself" rogue. It has no basis in rationality or in history.

Are we really down to this kind of view of the world in this country? Is that what's wrong with us?

 

[Againsheila]

Of course not, no way in the world. I'd share my last crumb, so with this I agree wholeheartedly.

That's why I can't reconcile "fighting off neighbors" and "20,000 rounds of ammo". Those are the last things you'd want to do in dire consequences. It makes no sense.

It makes no emotional sense for those of us who recoil at the very thought of it. But if it comes down to survival of the fittest (or most prepared), it could be necessary in order for anybody to survive. And while you and I would share our last crumb with our hungry neighbor, I have pondered what lengths I would go to prevent somebody from coming in to kill us all and take what we have or he or she who would presume to take food from my children and leave them to starve?

You see it isn't so simple or cut and dried as we wish it could be. We don't know what we are capable of until we are faced with the problem. How calm and civil would the victims of Katrina or Sandy be if they couldn't get out, they couldn't get food, and there was no quick relief effort to make sure folks didn't starve? If it is your baby crying with hunger. . . .

I'm sorry but "somebody coming in to kill us all" just comes off as comic-book drama to me. There's just no rational reason to imagine real life outside a TV cop show would actually work that way, nor does it sync with any situation of emergency I've ever seen. People who don't normally interact find themselves working together to find water, food and shelter. It's how we work as humans. Common need does that.

Again, the whole reason we live in a community (this town/this neighborhood/this street) is to pool our survival resources, and we've done that since we were monkeys. It just makes no sense at all to suddenly abandon all that and go "every man for himself" rogue. It has no basis in rationality or in history.

Are we really down to this kind of view of the world in this country? Is that what's wrong with us?

If everyone is prepared, no one has to contemplate hordes of people coming to take what is theirs. If you do not prepare and you know someone who has and you are hungry, what are you going to do? If you ask them nicely for food and they don't give you any, will you go away quietly and starve to death? Or will you join with some of your other neighbors who didn't prepare and take that food from them "for the good of everyone"?

When you and your neighbors who didn't prepare show up to take/steal their food and water, what do you expect them to do? Hand it over without a fight?

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course not, no way in the world. I'd share my last crumb, so with this I agree wholeheartedly.

That's why I can't reconcile "fighting off neighbors" and "20,000 rounds of ammo". Those are the last things you'd want to do in dire consequences. It makes no sense.

It makes no emotional sense for those of us who recoil at the very thought of it. But if it comes down to survival of the fittest (or most prepared), it could be necessary in order for anybody to survive. And while you and I would share our last crumb with our hungry neighbor, I have pondered what lengths I would go to prevent somebody from coming in to kill us all and take what we have or he or she who would presume to take food from my children and leave them to starve?

You see it isn't so simple or cut and dried as we wish it could be. We don't know what we are capable of until we are faced with the problem. How calm and civil would the victims of Katrina or Sandy be if they couldn't get out, they couldn't get food, and there was no quick relief effort to make sure folks didn't starve? If it is your baby crying with hunger. . . .

I'm sorry but "somebody coming in to kill us all" just comes off as comic-book drama to me. There's just no rational reason to imagine real life outside a TV cop show would actually work that way, nor does it sync with any situation of emergency I've ever seen. People who don't normally interact find themselves working together to find water, food and shelter. It's how we work as humans. Common need does that.

Again, the whole reason we live in a community (this town/this neighborhood/this street) is to pool our survival resources, and we've done that since we were monkeys. It just makes no sense at all to suddenly abandon all that and go "every man for himself" rogue. It has no basis in rationality or in history.

Are we really down to this kind of view of the world in this country? Is that what's wrong with us?

Essentially I agree with you. In a major long term crisis, I can easily see our neighborhood getting together to pool resources, share, and come up with a survival strategy. That is what most people do.

But I also am an avid student of history and have observed the mob mentality and the forces that drive people to do what decent people consider unconsionable. And that has happened throughout human history, including our own here in the USA. You have the sociopathic mob moving through the city or countryside commiting mayhem and not caring who they hurt in order to have their way for their own self serving interests.

To assume that would not happen now in a large scale crisis is just simply naive.

 

[Pogo]

The last time I was on one of these 'preppers' threads, I estimated we had enough food in the house for a week or two and deemed that sufficient. Since then I've analyzed it more thoroughly and considered our stock of canned goods, staples, and stuff in the freezer, and with some minor rationing, we could hold out for at least a month. But that is only if our neighbors do the same, because I can't imagine having somebody show up on my doorstep hungry and not feed him or her.

The fact is few of us are self sufficient with capability of furnishing our own water, heat, or growing/butchering our own food these days. And even if we know HOW to live primitively, we no longer have the resources or ability to do so.

All this is to say, yes it is good to have some provisions laid back for the temporary emergencies. But for the long haul, I am reconciled that we are pretty well screwed unless we are willing to fight off our own neighbors.

I would love to agree with this whole sentiment, but it's the end that gets me. I just don't get this black-cloud mentality that some emergency event means we strike adversarial positions against our neighbors and/or our government. I just find that idea bizarre. (20,000 rounds of ammo? Seriouslly? Or was that facetious? It's hard to tell) -- plus it directly contradicts the compassion at the beginning of the same post (in bold).

How is it some of you can come to the conclusion that some emergency situation turns people against each other? In every experience I can think of, the exact opposite is true. I mean, what a perverse way to look at the world...

Really, you don't remember Katrina and the people being shot on the bridge? You don't remember the looting? The Rodney King riots?

In some emergency situations people are brought closer together and help each other but what happens when the food runs out? do you think they'll still be helping each other? Or trying to get food for their family any way possible?

I think that I am saying is that if we all prepare for the worst, then we will all be prepared and there will be no masses of hungry people trying to take from others and others will have enough to share with those less fortunate. The problem is that we know, at least where I live that there will be a big earthquake sooner or later. This earthquake will be of such disastrous proportions that a tidal-wave will take out part of Japan. We know this because it's happened at least 4 times in the past, one being 300 years ago, one being 300 years before that and another being 1000 years before that. It's not a matter of if this earthquake will happen but when and what we need to do to be prepared. It's easy to say that we will help each other out but what if help can't get here? What if the roads are out? How do the trucks bring in supplies? If you don't have some food and some way to keep warm and dry then you are out of luck. I have no problems helping my neighbors but my food will only go so far. A years supply of food for 2 people isn't going to help hundreds of people for very long and why should I starve because others didn't prepare? They still haven't recovered from Sandy, in fact, they still haven't completely recovered from Katrina and this earthquake that is coming promises to be much much worse. I don't have thousands of pounds of ammo, so if push comes to shove, my family, being prepared for this earthquake will most likely die because others who didn't prepare are starving and will have no problems killing us to get our food. I suggest an alternate scenario. Let's ALL be prepared for a natural disaster. Let's all be prepared for something to happen where we might not be able to get help for awhile. If we are ALL prepared, there won't be any roving bands of starving people looking to steal from or kill others because they are hungry. We should all be prepared anyway, it just makes sense. If you can't put away enough food for a year, at least put together a bag so that if a disaster happens you can leave and go somewhere where you can get help. I've done both, but the truth is that we're old enough that I doubt we'd be able to make a long journey on foot, which is the only way you'd be able to travel after that big earthquake.

There are other disasters to consider too. EMPs is a big thing, a nuclear strike in our atmosphere will take out all of our transformers and we don't have enough to replace them which means our entire country would go without electricity for approximately 2 years. An EMP doesn't have to come from a nuclear device either, sunspots are another source and we're due for a big solar flare. There is a historical record of one in the 1800s that if it happened today would take out our electrical grid.

Not everyone can be prepared for everything but we can all try. Like I said, minimum 3 months supply of food and water or access to water. One year is what I really recommend and that's what I'm working on. I also have some water stored but it takes up a lot of room and I have to put pills in to keep the water good. I'm thinking of getting a water storage set up by my drain spouts. We get a lot of rain here and that would solve a lot of our water problems. Plus there are a couple of lakes and a stream nearby. As long as I can filter the water, we should be fine.

I'm just trying to say that people who prepare for disasters are smart and shouldn't be ridiculed, but should be examples for the rest of us. We should all be working towards being prepared. I realize for some that means guns and ammo but IMO to everyone it should mean food and water and energy and first aid.

Nobody can do it all at once, just do a little at a time, that's all I'm asking.

Sheila, I'm a Katrinite. I remember the bridge, the convention center, the looting of guns from Wal-Mart, all of that, and I remember that some of it was rumor and all of it came to us through the distorted lens of television, so I take it all with the requisite grain of salt. My real-life neighbors who stayed through it had no such issues. At all. Maybe that's why I see the cynical scenario as a paranoia without a real foundation; I know the difference between the reality and the TV reality.

I completely agree with you as I said from the beginning, on being prepared for food, heat, water, etc. What I don't agree with is this dark fatalistic fantasy that when the chips are down people launch into attack mode. I seriously wonder if y'all might be watching too many movies, or that episode of the twilight zone with the fallout shelter. In real-life situations, everybody has the same survival needs. The fact is you're not going to live long going it alone, whether that means as a perpetrator stealing from others, or as a hunkered-down figure fighting off those intruders. And experience shows that in such real-life situations, that's just not what happens. Not that it never happens; it's just far more melodramatic than realistic. To the extent these things did happen in Katrina, and I submit it was a far lesser extent than the boob tube would have us believe, it was viewed by the rest of the community as counterproductive to the way everybody else wanted to handle it -- in other words, the tiniest minority of the big picture.

This is again exactly why we adopted community in the first place eons ago; to channel our common needs into common resources. We're a social animal and have been since before we were even human. That's why the "20,000 rounds of ammo" mentality strikes me as innately bizarre. I hope that was a bad joke. I'm not sure.

 

[Pogo]

It makes no emotional sense for those of us who recoil at the very thought of it. But if it comes down to survival of the fittest (or most prepared), it could be necessary in order for anybody to survive. And while you and I would share our last crumb with our hungry neighbor, I have pondered what lengths I would go to prevent somebody from coming in to kill us all and take what we have or he or she who would presume to take food from my children and leave them to starve?

You see it isn't so simple or cut and dried as we wish it could be. We don't know what we are capable of until we are faced with the problem. How calm and civil would the victims of Katrina or Sandy be if they couldn't get out, they couldn't get food, and there was no quick relief effort to make sure folks didn't starve? If it is your baby crying with hunger. . . .

I'm sorry but "somebody coming in to kill us all" just comes off as comic-book drama to me. There's just no rational reason to imagine real life outside a TV cop show would actually work that way, nor does it sync with any situation of emergency I've ever seen. People who don't normally interact find themselves working together to find water, food and shelter. It's how we work as humans. Common need does that.

Again, the whole reason we live in a community (this town/this neighborhood/this street) is to pool our survival resources, and we've done that since we were monkeys. It just makes no sense at all to suddenly abandon all that and go "every man for himself" rogue. It has no basis in rationality or in history.

Are we really down to this kind of view of the world in this country? Is that what's wrong with us?

Essentially I agree with you. In a major long term crisis, I can easily see our neighborhood getting together to pool resources, share, and come up with a survival strategy. That is what most people do.

But I also am an avid student of history and have observed the mob mentality and the forces that drive people to do what decent people consider unconsionable. And that has happened throughout human history, including our own here in the USA. You have the sociopathic mob moving through the city or countryside commiting mayhem and not caring who they hurt in order to have their way for their own self serving interests.

To assume that would not happen now in a large scale crisis is just simply naive.

It's not "naïve"; it's realistic. And based on experiential observation. I just can't live my life like a TV script. Those things may exist, but they're just not in the realm of the rationally reasonably expected.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Of course not, no way in the world. I'd share my last crumb, so with this I agree wholeheartedly.

That's why I can't reconcile "fighting off neighbors" and "20,000 rounds of ammo". Those are the last things you'd want to do in dire consequences. It makes no sense.

It makes no emotional sense for those of us who recoil at the very thought of it. But if it comes down to survival of the fittest (or most prepared), it could be necessary in order for anybody to survive. And while you and I would share our last crumb with our hungry neighbor, I have pondered what lengths I would go to prevent somebody from coming in to kill us all and take what we have or he or she who would presume to take food from my children and leave them to starve?

You see it isn't so simple or cut and dried as we wish it could be. We don't know what we are capable of until we are faced with the problem. How calm and civil would the victims of Katrina or Sandy be if they couldn't get out, they couldn't get food, and there was no quick relief effort to make sure folks didn't starve? If it is your baby crying with hunger. . . .

I'm sorry but "somebody coming in to kill us all" just comes off as comic-book drama to me. There's just no rational reason to imagine real life outside a TV cop show would actually work that way, nor does it sync with any situation of emergency I've ever seen. People who don't normally interact find themselves working together to find water, food and shelter. It's how we work as humans. Common need does that.

Again, the whole reason we live in a community (this town/this neighborhood/this street) is to pool our survival resources, and we've done that since we were monkeys. It just makes no sense at all to suddenly abandon all that and go "every man for himself" rogue. It has no basis in rationality or in history.

Are we really down to this kind of view of the world in this country? Is that what's wrong with us?

I think there will be some of that. That's what "civilized" people would do. But, there are bad actors in society. There are people whose first instinct is not, "how can I make something," rather it's, "how can I take something." These are the people who become the "mob" that the others are referring to. If you haven't experienced these folks personally (I don't know your background), there are plenty of them. You can pick up the local paper and read the police blotter it's full of their current deeds. Not all of these are criminals either. Politely put, they are easily led. If they are not prepared, they can fall in with the other unprepared. A mob loves people. Once formed a mob is unpredictable and usually not in a good way.

I don't think that a hungry mob would necessarily "come in to kill us all" rather, killing us all is more of a byproduct of "feeding them all." We're simply in the way and making feeding more difficult.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm sorry but "somebody coming in to kill us all" just comes off as comic-book drama to me. There's just no rational reason to imagine real life outside a TV cop show would actually work that way, nor does it sync with any situation of emergency I've ever seen. People who don't normally interact find themselves working together to find water, food and shelter. It's how we work as humans. Common need does that.

Again, the whole reason we live in a community (this town/this neighborhood/this street) is to pool our survival resources, and we've done that since we were monkeys. It just makes no sense at all to suddenly abandon all that and go "every man for himself" rogue. It has no basis in rationality or in history.

Are we really down to this kind of view of the world in this country? Is that what's wrong with us?

Essentially I agree with you. In a major long term crisis, I can easily see our neighborhood getting together to pool resources, share, and come up with a survival strategy. That is what most people do.

But I also am an avid student of history and have observed the mob mentality and the forces that drive people to do what decent people consider unconsionable. And that has happened throughout human history, including our own here in the USA. You have the sociopathic mob moving through the city or countryside commiting mayhem and not caring who they hurt in order to have their way for their own self serving interests.

To assume that would not happen now in a large scale crisis is just simply naive.

It's not "naïve"; it's realistic. And based on experiential observation. I just can't live my life like a TV script. Those things may exist, but they're just not in the realm of the rationally reasonably expected.

Quite right. As long as things continue along as they are. No dramatic turns for the worse or anything, then you are good to go and people preparing for anything worse have wasted their time and effort.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry but "somebody coming in to kill us all" just comes off as comic-book drama to me. There's just no rational reason to imagine real life outside a TV cop show would actually work that way, nor does it sync with any situation of emergency I've ever seen. People who don't normally interact find themselves working together to find water, food and shelter. It's how we work as humans. Common need does that.

Again, the whole reason we live in a community (this town/this neighborhood/this street) is to pool our survival resources, and we've done that since we were monkeys. It just makes no sense at all to suddenly abandon all that and go "every man for himself" rogue. It has no basis in rationality or in history.

Are we really down to this kind of view of the world in this country? Is that what's wrong with us?

Essentially I agree with you. In a major long term crisis, I can easily see our neighborhood getting together to pool resources, share, and come up with a survival strategy. That is what most people do.

But I also am an avid student of history and have observed the mob mentality and the forces that drive people to do what decent people consider unconsionable. And that has happened throughout human history, including our own here in the USA. You have the sociopathic mob moving through the city or countryside commiting mayhem and not caring who they hurt in order to have their way for their own self serving interests.

To assume that would not happen now in a large scale crisis is just simply naive.

It's not "naïve"; it's realistic. And based on experiential observation. I just can't live my life like a TV script. Those things may exist, but they're just not in the realm of the rationally reasonably expected.

I fully agree that many such scenarios are over exaggerated. Nevertheless there has been mob violence in the USA since its inception, and our very first settlers had a very strong sense of community and a strong moral center of right and wrong.

But from the union mobs of the 19th century, to roving bands of Civil War mauraders, to Watts to the OSD stupidity of this past year, the mob mentality is real, it is dangerous to anybody who is in its path, and I think at the time one of these hits your neighborhood is not the time to decide to prepare to deal with it any more than we would wait until we have a burglary to reinforce our locks and home security system.

 

[Pogo]

Essentially I agree with you. In a major long term crisis, I can easily see our neighborhood getting together to pool resources, share, and come up with a survival strategy. That is what most people do.

But I also am an avid student of history and have observed the mob mentality and the forces that drive people to do what decent people consider unconsionable. And that has happened throughout human history, including our own here in the USA. You have the sociopathic mob moving through the city or countryside commiting mayhem and not caring who they hurt in order to have their way for their own self serving interests.

To assume that would not happen now in a large scale crisis is just simply naive.

It's not "naïve"; it's realistic. And based on experiential observation. I just can't live my life like a TV script. Those things may exist, but they're just not in the realm of the rationally reasonably expected.

I fully agree that many such scenarios are over exaggerated. Nevertheless there has been mob violence in the USA since its inception, and our very first settlers had a very strong sense of community and a strong moral center of right and wrong.

But from the union mobs of the 19th century, to roving bands of Civil War mauraders, to Watts to the OSD stupidity of this past year, the mob mentality is real, it is dangerous to anybody who is in its path, and I think at the time one of these hits your neighborhood is not the time to decide to prepare to deal with it any more than we would wait until we have a burglary to reinforce our locks and home security system.

What I'm delineating is the difference between "real" and "realistic". "Real" means I could get hit with a meteor at any moment; that doesn't mean I should walk around with a cast-iron umbrella over my head. That wouldn't be realistic. Certainly I've heard of mob marauder mentality; I've never actually experienced it. Have you? That's the distinction I'm after.

Sure, bad apples exist but that's a far far different thing from saying they're inevitable or even likely. If our wish is to find the worst scenarios we can go searching for it in police blotters or movie scripts, but the real world that actually happens to us just doesn't sync with it.

I guess we're down to a philosophical question of the nature of humanity - 'basically good' or 'basically evil' (?) I have to say I've never in my life been considered an "optimist" but I just can't get my head around some of this bunker-think.

And no (back at Tech_Esq) I don't think it's ever a waste of time to be prepared. I just think when one does so, one prepares realistically.

 

[Swagger]

I find hypothetical discussions of this nature gripping to say the least. But before I jump in, I need some clarification/to establish some paramters.

In this post-something or other world, has this man-made or natural disaster rendered the governemt and all its peripheral agencies obsolete/beyond repair? Or is it more isolated, and thus affected citizenry are expecting outside assistance? The reason I ask is because in the event of a disaster that topples society as we know it nation/worldwide, to me the Katrina argument seems somewhat redundant, because the people in New Orleans and surrounding areas knew that the U.S. government was under pressure to act, thus, despite all that had happened, they had far greater pievce of mind than those who might find themselves in a landscape where no-one was coming to their rescue.