prepardness

[Pogo]

Not to stray off-tangent but... dare I ask what the "union mobs of the 19th century" means?

Before you answer, be advised I have Pinkertons in my pocket
(and you thought I was just happy to see you )

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

This is the other part of dynamic that I touched on earlier. In Katrina and Sandy and similar disasters, the people become frustrated and angry when they think relief is too slow getting to them, but the people overall are confident that help will be forthcoming and they won't starve or succumb to the elements or whatever. And that helps keep civilized people civil or at least, except for the looters and other opportnists, keeps their more primitive instincts in check.

I can see a much different dynamic at work in a scenario in which the people know that there won't be help anytime soon, the government is powerless to get to them in the near term, and they will need to dig in for the long haul. It is easy to view these things in the abstract and objectively when the problem is still a hypothetical. But I suspect a very different response kicks in when it is your kid who is hungry, dehydrated, begging for food and water. I suspect a lot of us might be capable of things we didn't know we were capable of.

 

[Pogo]

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.

It is a good philosophical question, innit?

This is a good question too but keep in mind such a populace, in either scenario, may have no idea what to expect from outside authorities due to lack of communications. This also includes the scenario Sheila mentioned of an EMP wiping out communication abilities. Even if an EMP were the only event that happened, the lack of outside word has consequences that can't be overstated.

EMPs are real and happen on a small scale every week (I'm a radio freak), although having a megasunspot flare up is prolly in the probability realm of earth being hit by an asteroid.

I find it interesting that that Wiki link notes, "In military terminology, a nuclear warhead detonated hundreds of kilometers above the Earth's surface is known as a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) device" Well that's different. If we're going to detonate a Hemp device into the atmosphere I don't think there will be any marauding at all.

(^^ speaking of supplies to be prepared with...

 

[Pogo]

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.

This is the other part of dynamic that I touched on earlier. In Katrina and Sandy and similar disasters, the people become frustrated and angry when they think relief is too slow getting to them, but the people overall are confident that help will be forthcoming and they won't starve or succumb to the elements or whatever. And that helps keep civilized people civil or at least, except for the looters and other opportnists, keeps their more primitive instincts in check.

I can see a much different dynamic at work in a scenario in which the people know that there won't be help anytime soon, the government is powerless to get to them in the near term, and they will need to dig in for the long haul. It is easy to view these things in the abstract and objectively when the problem is still a hypothetical. But I suspect a very different response kicks in when it is your kid who is hungry, dehydrated, begging for food and water. I suspect a lot of us might be capable of things we didn't know we were capable of.

Right there is what I mean by realism being "rational" or not. Your basis there is entirely emotional. Once we start doing that we lose rationality. They're mutually exclusive.

 

[Mushroom]

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...

It all depends on your experience.

One that leaps to my mind immediately is the 1977 New York Blackout. I also lived through 2 riots in LA, one of which even spread to other cities like San Francisco.

Now I am not saying that everybody should "arm up", but having at least something for basic defense (even a stun gun or pepper spray) is not a bad idea at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not to stray off-tangent but... dare I ask what the "union mobs of the 19th century" means?

Before you answer, be advised I have Pinkertons in my pocket
(and you thought I was just happy to see you )

LOL. I have a couple of uncles who were Pinkerton detectives for a short while. Or at least that is in the family lore.

By the union violence, I mean all the union uprisings, both pro union and anti union, that made the history books during the 19th century. Events like the railroad strike of 1877 and the Haymarket riot of 1886 and many others. Now admittedly these were fairly localized and were not a result of any major disaster, but innocent people who got in the way did get hurt. When you're dealing with a determined mob, it is very wise not to get in the path of it.

But looking back over human history, there has been a lot of violent behavior committed by people for no better reason than they were hungry and they wanted food.

 

[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.

It is a good philosophical question, innit?

This is a good question too but keep in mind such a populace, in either scenario, may have no idea what to expect from outside authorities due to lack of communications. This also includes the scenario Sheila mentioned of an EMP wiping out communication abilities. Even if an EMP were the only event that happened, the lack of outside word has consequences that can't be overstated.

EMPs are real and happen on a small scale every week (I'm a radio freak), although having a megasunspot flare up is prolly in the probability realm of earth being hit by an asteroid.

I find it interesting that that Wiki link notes, "In military terminology, a nuclear warhead detonated hundreds of kilometers above the Earth's surface is known as a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) device" Well that's different. If we're going to detonate a Hemp device into the atmosphere I don't think there will be any marauding at all.

Yes, but word-of-mouth would almost immediately begin to spread. Humans are hardwired - like most beings on the planet - to remove themselves from dangerous situations. In the Katrina scenario, this was the rising and/or raging bodies of water. But in this scenario, the further they moved away from the affected areas, the sooner they came into contact with disaster relief agencies, who reassured them that help from the federal government was on its way. And the people outside looking in were expecting something to happen, perhaps more to satisfy their own curiousity and reassure themselves that if the same (isolated) fate befell them, that they could rely on the government's emergency planning. In short, word on the refugee grape vine that help would be on its way would calm and afford reassurance to those affected. The sight of helicopters and other aircraft would also go towards relieving anxiety, as those helicopters and spotter aircraft have to land somewhere, and in that somewhere lies other, more positive possibilities.

In a scenario where refugees are fanning out hudreds of miles away from the danger that forced them out of their homes, and aren't encountering help or any word that it's on its way, then unabatable panic will set in and people will unburden themselves with the conventions of law some of us take for granted. And over time, the situation will become progessively uglier.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

Since I never said anything about 20,000 rounds of ammo, I don't know if it was a joke or not. I'm more concerned with people having food and water stored than guns and ammo.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

This is the other part of dynamic that I touched on earlier. In Katrina and Sandy and similar disasters, the people become frustrated and angry when they think relief is too slow getting to them, but the people overall are confident that help will be forthcoming and they won't starve or succumb to the elements or whatever. And that helps keep civilized people civil or at least, except for the looters and other opportnists, keeps their more primitive instincts in check.

I can see a much different dynamic at work in a scenario in which the people know that there won't be help anytime soon, the government is powerless to get to them in the near term, and they will need to dig in for the long haul. It is easy to view these things in the abstract and objectively when the problem is still a hypothetical. But I suspect a very different response kicks in when it is your kid who is hungry, dehydrated, begging for food and water. I suspect a lot of us might be capable of things we didn't know we were capable of.

Right there is what I mean by realism being "rational" or not. Your basis there is entirely emotional. Once we start doing that we lose rationality. They're mutually exclusive.

Emotional or not or rational or not, if it is my kid who is starving or dehydrated or otherwise in grave danger, I'm pretty sure I would do what I had to do to protect or take care of my kid. I would expect other parents to feel the same way.

 

[Pogo]

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...

It all depends on your experience.

One that leaps to my mind immediately is the 1977 New York Blackout. I also lived through 2 riots in LA, one of which even spread to other cities like San Francisco.

Now I am not saying that everybody should "arm up", but having at least something for basic defense (even a stun gun or pepper spray) is not a bad idea at all.

Well, I fully agree there. That's much more in the field of rational. Then there are critters too, such as racoons and bears; they too are hungry.

As far as blackouts, I don't know about 1977 but when I hear reference to the Northeast blackout of 1965 the first thing I think of is the fact that nine months after that date there was a spike in births for those areas. Just sayin', as long as we're talking about human nature and how people react...

Then again a simple power outage isn't really on a scale of the kind of disaster I think the OP means. But here in the boonies if we were to get snowed in and lose power for days, I would fully expect to see, and I would be one of them, neighbors going door to door to see if everybody was OK and if not, to help with what they needed. Being met with 20,000 rounds of ammo would be the last thing I'd expect.

I don't remember now who posted that, but it was in here.

 

[Pogo]

Emotional or not or rational or not, if it is my kid who is starving or dehydrated or otherwise in grave danger, I'm pretty sure I would do what I had to do to protect or take care of my kid. I would expect other parents to feel the same way.

But again your verb is feel, and that's emotional. You don't want to be making decisions based on emotions but on realism. Otherwise you're going to be prepared for the emotional and not for the reality.

But looking back over human history, there has been a lot of violent behavior committed by people for no better reason than they were hungry and they wanted food.

Sure. You know that because you're interested in history, and I am too. But again my question is: we know these things exist in the abstract -- but do they really exist in our world?

 

[Pogo]

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.

It is a good philosophical question, innit?

This is a good question too but keep in mind such a populace, in either scenario, may have no idea what to expect from outside authorities due to lack of communications. This also includes the scenario Sheila mentioned of an EMP wiping out communication abilities. Even if an EMP were the only event that happened, the lack of outside word has consequences that can't be overstated.

EMPs are real and happen on a small scale every week (I'm a radio freak), although having a megasunspot flare up is prolly in the probability realm of earth being hit by an asteroid.

I find it interesting that that Wiki link notes, "In military terminology, a nuclear warhead detonated hundreds of kilometers above the Earth's surface is known as a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) device" Well that's different. If we're going to detonate a Hemp device into the atmosphere I don't think there will be any marauding at all.

Yes, but word-of-mouth would almost immediately begin to spread. Humans are hardwired - like most beings on the planet - to remove themselves from dangerous situations. In the Katrina scenario, this was the rising and/or raging bodies of water. But in this scenario, the further they moved away from the affected areas, the sooner they came into contact with disaster relief agencies, who reassured them that help from the federal government was on its way. And the people outside looking in were expecting something to happen, perhaps more to satisfy their own curiousity and reassure themselves that if the same (isolated) fate befell them, that they could rely on the government's emergency planning. In short, word on the refugee grape vine that help would be on its way would calm and afford reassurance to those affected. The sight of helicopters and other aircraft would also go towards relieving anxiety, as those helicopters and spotter aircraft have to land somewhere, and in that somewhere lies other, more positive possibilities.

In a scenario where refugees are fanning out hudreds of miles away from the danger that forced them out of their homes, and aren't encountering help or any word that it's on its way, then unabatable panic will set in and people will unburden themselves with the conventions of law some of us take for granted. And over time, the situation will become progessively uglier.

OK, let's take it from that point-- a population of whatever size, cut off from all signs of what might be expected in the way of aid. They have no idea whatsoever.

In this collective mental tabula rasa, what do humans do -- tend to get self-destructive and individualistic? Or to pool their resources to survive? I'd put my money on the latter without hesitation. Any of the weaker ones who panic would, as in Katrina, quickly be seen as counterproductive to that survival and be put in line* for the greater good.

*(This would be an excellent spot to employ the "hemp device" )

 

[Swagger]

It is a good philosophical question, innit?

This is a good question too but keep in mind such a populace, in either scenario, may have no idea what to expect from outside authorities due to lack of communications. This also includes the scenario Sheila mentioned of an EMP wiping out communication abilities. Even if an EMP were the only event that happened, the lack of outside word has consequences that can't be overstated.

EMPs are real and happen on a small scale every week (I'm a radio freak), although having a megasunspot flare up is prolly in the probability realm of earth being hit by an asteroid.

I find it interesting that that Wiki link notes, "In military terminology, a nuclear warhead detonated hundreds of kilometers above the Earth's surface is known as a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) device" Well that's different. If we're going to detonate a Hemp device into the atmosphere I don't think there will be any marauding at all.

Yes, but word-of-mouth would almost immediately begin to spread. Humans are hardwired - like most beings on the planet - to remove themselves from dangerous situations. In the Katrina scenario, this was the rising and/or raging bodies of water. But in this scenario, the further they moved away from the affected areas, the sooner they came into contact with disaster relief agencies, who reassured them that help from the federal government was on its way. And the people outside looking in were expecting something to happen, perhaps more to satisfy their own curiousity and reassure themselves that if the same (isolated) fate befell them, that they could rely on the government's emergency planning. In short, word on the refugee grape vine that help would be on its way would calm and afford reassurance to those affected. The sight of helicopters and other aircraft would also go towards relieving anxiety, as those helicopters and spotter aircraft have to land somewhere, and in that somewhere lies other, more positive possibilities.

In a scenario where refugees are fanning out hudreds of miles away from the danger that forced them out of their homes, and aren't encountering help or any word that it's on its way, then unabatable panic will set in and people will unburden themselves with the conventions of law some of us take for granted. And over time, the situation will become progessively uglier.

OK, let's take it from that point-- a population of whatever size, cut off from all signs of what might be expected in the way of aid. They have no idea whatsoever.

In this collective mental tabula rasa, what do humans do -- tend to get self-destructive and individualistic? Or to pool their resources to survive? I'd put my money on the latter without hesitation. Any of the weaker ones who panic would, as in Katrina, quickly be seen as counterproductive to that survival and be put in line* for the greater good.

*(This would be an excellent spot to employ the "hemp device" )

Without any real experience, I can only hypothosise with evidence I've seen presented before me by experts and theorists.

In the scenario you've illustrated, I'd say they'd band together. Individuals would determine who they trust and feel safe(r) with based on experience of one another and visual and behavioural indicators. They'd then seek to establish a secure, defendable dwelling with those they feel safe around, or not, depending on circumstances. After they'd established themselves on the landscape with some degree of security and confidence, they'd then venture out in small, organised groups in search of others.

I don't envisage a sudden breakout of violent and irrational panic and anxiety among people who've been thrown together by circumstances. But I regard weapons/firearms as essential in securing their longterm survival in a landscape where it's each individual and group for themselves before any semblance of order can be established.

 

[Pogo]

That analysis sounds entirely rational to me.

 

[paravani]

In the scenario you've illustrated, I'd say they'd band together. Individuals would determine who they trust and feel safe(r) with based on experience of one another and visual and behavioural indicators. They'd then seek to establish a secure, defendable dwelling with those they feel safe around, or not, depending on circumstances. After they'd established themselves on the landscape with some degree of security and confidence, they'd then venture out in small, organised groups in search of others.

Human beings are clannish, particularly in difficult times. So, the first part of your analysis is spot-on -- yes, confused and frightened people would band together in a crisis and try to help each other.

The trouble is, people don't band together in groups of 20,000 or more. They band together in small groups that identify with each other -- WE are all the law enforcement officers, WE are all the residents of this neighborhood, WE are all the members of this church, WE are all drug users who are going through withdrawal and need a fix...

WE, whoever WE are, will not include as part of our group everyone WE meet.

WE will separate into groups, gangs, and roving bands; and whoever isn't a member of our group is our competition for limited resources.

I believe that this is the reason thoughtful people who prepare for disaster in advance move away from centers of population and establish close ties with their near neighbors. I believe that this is also why they keep firearms -- to defend their group from rapacious others if and when necessary.

-- Paravani
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Againsheila]

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...

It all depends on your experience.

One that leaps to my mind immediately is the 1977 New York Blackout. I also lived through 2 riots in LA, one of which even spread to other cities like San Francisco.

Now I am not saying that everybody should "arm up", but having at least something for basic defense (even a stun gun or pepper spray) is not a bad idea at all.

Well, I fully agree there. That's much more in the field of rational. Then there are critters too, such as racoons and bears; they too are hungry.

As far as blackouts, I don't know about 1977 but when I hear reference to the Northeast blackout of 1965 the first thing I think of is the fact that nine months after that date there was a spike in births for those areas. Just sayin', as long as we're talking about human nature and how people react...

Then again a simple power outage isn't really on a scale of the kind of disaster I think the OP means. But here in the boonies if we were to get snowed in and lose power for days, I would fully expect to see, and I would be one of them, neighbors going door to door to see if everybody was OK and if not, to help with what they needed. Being met with 20,000 rounds of ammo would be the last thing I'd expect.

I don't remember now who posted that, but it was in here.

I think it may have been on the "doomsday preppers" thread which is a whole other thing and why I started this thread.

 

[paravani]

Since I never said anything about 20,000 rounds of ammo, I don't know if it was a joke or not. I'm more concerned with people having food and water stored than guns and ammo.

My family could easily survive a year without going to a grocery store. Obviously we would have to do without many things, but we could survive.

Ammunition, I'd say 20,000 rounds with provisions for another 10,000.

Whole home generator with enough diesel to run it for probably 3 months.

I'm a hoarder in some ways though, has nothing to do with "in case of emergency" and I'm certainly not worried that the government is going to take over and I might need my guns and food to survive.

There ya go.

-- Paravani

 

[Swagger]

In the scenario you've illustrated, I'd say they'd band together. Individuals would determine who they trust and feel safe(r) with based on experience of one another and visual and behavioural indicators. They'd then seek to establish a secure, defendable dwelling with those they feel safe around, or not, depending on circumstances. After they'd established themselves on the landscape with some degree of security and confidence, they'd then venture out in small, organised groups in search of others.

Human beings are clannish, particularly in difficult times. So, the first part of your analysis is spot-on -- yes, confused and frightened people would band together in a crisis and try to help each other.

The trouble is, people don't band together in groups of 20,000 or more. They band together in small groups that identify with each other -- WE are all the law enforcement officers, WE are all the residents of this neighborhood, WE are all the members of this church, WE are all drug users who are going through withdrawal and need a fix...

WE, whoever WE are, will not include as part of our group everyone WE meet.

WE will separate into groups, gangs, and roving bands; and whoever isn't a member of our group is our competition for limited resources.

I believe that this is the reason thoughtful people who prepare for disaster in advance move away from centers of population and establish close ties with their near neighbors. I believe that this is also why they keep firearms -- to defend their group from rapacious others if and when necessary.

-- Paravani
.
.
.
.
.

Yes, I agree entirely. I just assumed that anyone reading would (reasonably) assume that I meant a more personable group, as opposed to a body of thousands.

I also think that after being unburdened with the threat of being ostracised by society for not following multicultural values, that race will be a common bond among these groups of (10-15?) individuals.

And whilst I don't think that conflict would be as common as some have suggested - though that would ultimately depend on the nature and human cost of the disaster we found ourselves in the wake of - I still think that waryness of others would disproportionately affect interaction with groups your group comes into contact with. And thus there'd be more potential for bloodshed. In short, we'd find ourselves in the dark ages, and would have to adapt in accordance with that period's lack of order - and consequences/accountability - in order to survive.

 

[Againsheila]

In the scenario you've illustrated, I'd say they'd band together. Individuals would determine who they trust and feel safe(r) with based on experience of one another and visual and behavioural indicators. They'd then seek to establish a secure, defendable dwelling with those they feel safe around, or not, depending on circumstances. After they'd established themselves on the landscape with some degree of security and confidence, they'd then venture out in small, organised groups in search of others.

Human beings are clannish, particularly in difficult times. So, the first part of your analysis is spot-on -- yes, confused and frightened people would band together in a crisis and try to help each other.

The trouble is, people don't band together in groups of 20,000 or more. They band together in small groups that identify with each other -- WE are all the law enforcement officers, WE are all the residents of this neighborhood, WE are all the members of this church, WE are all drug users who are going through withdrawal and need a fix...

WE, whoever WE are, will not include as part of our group everyone WE meet.

WE will separate into groups, gangs, and roving bands; and whoever isn't a member of our group is our competition for limited resources.

I believe that this is the reason thoughtful people who prepare for disaster in advance move away from centers of population and establish close ties with their near neighbors. I believe that this is also why they keep firearms -- to defend their group from rapacious others if and when necessary.

-- Paravani
.
.
.
.
.

Yes, I agree entirely. I just assumed that anyone reading would (reasonably) assume that I meant a more personable group, as opposed to a body of thousands.

I also think that after being unburdened with the threat of being ostracised by society for not following multicultural values, that race will be a common bond among these groups of (10-15?) individuals.

And whilst I don't think that conflict would be as common as some have suggested - though that would ultimately depend on the nature and human cost of the disaster we found ourselves in the wake of - I still think that waryness of others would disproportionately affect interaction with groups your group comes into contact with. And thus there'd be more potential for bloodshed. In short, we'd find ourselves in the dark ages, and would have to adapt in accordance with that period's lack of order - and consequences/accountability - in order to survive.

Considering my neighborhood is multi cultural and that's where I plan to stay, I wouldn't think that would go away at all. I have a multi cultural family too, though they don't live all that close to me.

 

[Pogo]

In the scenario you've illustrated, I'd say they'd band together. Individuals would determine who they trust and feel safe(r) with based on experience of one another and visual and behavioural indicators. They'd then seek to establish a secure, defendable dwelling with those they feel safe around, or not, depending on circumstances. After they'd established themselves on the landscape with some degree of security and confidence, they'd then venture out in small, organised groups in search of others.

Human beings are clannish, particularly in difficult times. So, the first part of your analysis is spot-on -- yes, confused and frightened people would band together in a crisis and try to help each other.

The trouble is, people don't band together in groups of 20,000 or more. They band together in small groups that identify with each other -- WE are all the law enforcement officers, WE are all the residents of this neighborhood, WE are all the members of this church, WE are all drug users who are going through withdrawal and need a fix...

WE, whoever WE are, will not include as part of our group everyone WE meet.

WE will separate into groups, gangs, and roving bands; and whoever isn't a member of our group is our competition for limited resources.

I believe that this is the reason thoughtful people who prepare for disaster in advance move away from centers of population and establish close ties with their near neighbors. I believe that this is also why they keep firearms -- to defend their group from rapacious others if and when necessary.

-- Paravani
.
.
.
.
.

Yes, I agree entirely. I just assumed that anyone reading would (reasonably) assume that I meant a more personable group, as opposed to a body of thousands.

I also think that after being unburdened with the threat of being ostracised by society for not following multicultural values, that race will be a common bond among these groups of (10-15?) individuals.

And whilst I don't think that conflict would be as common as some have suggested - though that would ultimately depend on the nature and human cost of the disaster we found ourselves in the wake of - I still think that waryness of others would disproportionately affect interaction with groups your group comes into contact with. And thus there'd be more potential for bloodshed. In short, we'd find ourselves in the dark ages, and would have to adapt in accordance with that period's lack of order - and consequences/accountability - in order to survive.

Straining to remember my anthropology classes, I'd say maybe on the order of 30 to 50 as a natural community or "tribe". But certainly you don't coalesce into a city of 20,000 or more. That's done over time as a coalition of already-existing tribes. But the formation of that tribe is, I agree, what we should expect would naturally occur. I don't necessarily agree with more potential for bloodshed; I don't see how that follows. If tribe A has abundant food but lacks water and tribe B has the opposite, it would be to their mutual benefit to cooperate, not to compete.

I also don't see any basis for racial competition in this scenario; given that survival is a common need, race would take a back seat. I suspect racism can only take hold in an atmosphere of abundance-- when that common need is less urgent.

Ammunition, I'd say 20,000 rounds with provisions for another 10,000.

Yup, that was it. Thanks.