Long term Survivial

[phxbigdog]

Howdy,
There was a show on the other night on the Travel Channel, "Tribal Life" about the natives of Vanuatu. It showed a tribe cutting out a canoe and the using of the native plants. That really impressed me. Along with the native cooking and rituals. It got me thinking about long term survivial. Yes I know the show was more about Aboriginal living skills than survivial. But I started to look into folks that survived long term. I ran across Eric Rudolph's home page. Now I dont belive in that guys crap and, killing is never the right answer to political differences, but it suprised me that even though Rudolph was a county boy and ex-military, he had to scavenge to survive. It kind of reminded me of that book "No surrender" about a Japanese soldier that kept fighting long after WW2 was over. I read the book but can't recall his name right now, but he and his men survived mostly by scavenging from the islanders too.

Just throwing this out there. Not trying to start a war.

 

[abo4ster]

Just my opinion here, but if we are talking about indefinite as far as the term, long term survival is really primitive living - at least that is what I equate it to.

 

[North61]

In Kochanski's lectures he talks about the knowlege base of primal man. These lads were at least as smart as modern man and used this intelligence to learn their environment in a visceral way. Knowlege of plants, seasonal movement of animals and resources was encyclopedic. Even then it took a big family group of differentiated talent to really thrive.

I have booked some time in the wilderness with Inuit and Dene elders and these boys know a huge ammount but only a fraction of their great grandparents from 100 years ago. To really survive long term without a rifle and other modern gear is likely a good chunk of a life time being instructed, shown and given guided practice.

By comparison most of us moderns are simple hacks who tool around in the outdoors like kindergarted kids. Lots of fun but I don't kid myself on my own skill level.

 

[Thomas Linton]

I certainly agree with North61 about the compartive wilderness knowledge of today's homosap vs those in the distant past.

One edge we do have, is that most know about those little, unseen critters that kill more than all the seeable criters combined. Think of Civl War surgeons cleaning off their saws on their trousers between "operations." In that war, the "runs" ("camp fever" for the temp spike towards the end) killed more than all other causes combined. Hopefully, we know not to dig the privy uphill from the well.

Otherwise, we're way behind, knowledge-wise.

 

[rebeltf]

There was a show on the other night on the Travel Channel, "Tribal Life" about the natives of Vanuatu. It showed a tribe cutting out a canoe and the using of the native plants. That really impressed me

I saw that same show on Travel channel , fascinating channel....
Anyways , I was thinking the same thing, these guys are "primitive" by our standards but , if it came down to TEOTWAWKI they would have a far better chance of survival than most of us.
We may think we're savvy and top of the food chain with our Ipods and hybrid cars and High def TV but if things came down to it , most Westerners would die off from disease and starvation and the like.

Say if for instance , something cataclysmic (sic) took place like a meteor hitting Earth or some widespread plague , nukes etc.
Imagine how fast supermarket shelves would empty , imagine how fast gas would be gone once the infrastructure took a dump.
Certain groups of Americans have been reproducing at an insane rate , how would they feed all thier children , much less themselves ?
Our society would collapse like a house of cards in no time flat , food riots would burn down entire cities , rape , looting... Look at what took place in New Orleans with just a hurricane , imagine that on a global scale....
That being said, our best defense is our brains , reading , learning all we can about "primitive skills" is a good bet , practicing those skills is even better.
Say I decided to stick it out at home , in my apartment , lol.... Well I guess I could for a while but with a mini ghetto within walking distance I can forsee fighting off the Huns before too long , and then what ? Drive off into the sunset after procuring a young maiden ?
I have family to look out for , namely my folks who are up in thier years and I know they wouldnt budge unless the house was on fire , so I would look out for them , hopefully forming a militia of sorts with thier neighborhood , although that is wishful , I think.
s I was looking thru my closet yesterday I realized the amount of stuff I would need to load in my truck if I wanted to melt into the hills , as they say.
The ammunition alone would wiegh far more than I could carry , even if I was in top shape.
What would I take ? I have sort of narrowed it down to certain items with everything else being on the "nice to have" list.
I keep about $200 in 'junk' silver American coins , that sack would add considerable wieght to any pack I chose , but I would want to have it.
One day I hope to transplant to a more rural setting , where I would not have to worry so much about bugging out on foot or by wheel.
Hmm , all of this is good food for though.

 

[woodsmoke]

Long term survival is about using all the resources available. Ragnar Benson in one of his books talks about Wild Bill Moreland who lived as a recluse and renegade in the Bitterroot Mountains for decades. He lived as harshly as anyone could imagine but live free he did. He used hollow logs as shelter, snared, foraged and stole to survive in this wilderness where Lewis and Clark nearly starved to death a century earlier. Old Wild Bill was not into purist notions of survival. He raided Forest Service cabins for wire, clothes and food. When they finally ran him to ground he had on him a jackknife, rubber boots, a sheet of canvas that he used for a tent that his feet stuck out of, a few other items and a .22 with some shells. The .22 he had recently stolen from some campers. He was without a firearm for years. Like Rudolph and Lt. Onada ( the WW2 Japanese survivor who only surrendered in the 1970's), survival has no rules. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

 

[SirJames]

North61 has it correct, you need a community to be primitive. That being said, while we learn primitive skills (or going without) our real goal should be not to fall into a dark age. A dark age would happen because we do not have the knowledge and the morals that primitive man had. It would be much harder to build a community after TSHTF than it would be to start one now.

Sadly I am in the same boat as rebeltf, living in an apartment with a ghetto across the street. But there are ways to make due, you just need to read the ton of various books out there (learning from the tribe) and use your brain. One of the biggest road blocks to survival are all this people on the net who think they can live of the land when they don't know, or think that buckets of silver see them through anything. Skills and materials will get you through, silver is no more than a third-party method of exchange and not the real goods or needs.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I certainly agree with North61 about the compartive wilderness knowledge of today's homosap vs those in the distant past.

While I would agree there are things that we used to know that we don't now, this was always the case and there is in general far too much romantic rewriting of the past, there is a reason primitive living was abandoned as soon as possible. I don't have to go back any further than my grandparents to find pure subsistance settlers. They grew up with no electricity and no indoor plumbing. They made their own soap, spun yarn from sheeps wool, built their houses from wood they cut and of course farmed, fished and hunted. They also had to take their children out of school generally by grade 3-5 because they were needed to work. There was also no ability to "retire" or take a vacation and if you got sick or injured then life got very rough very fast.

My grandfater saw the introduction of electricity, moved to power tools for carpentry, used a tractor for farming and this allowed more productivity, more money and the abiliy to buy things instead of make them which they quickly did. Try making soap, using a scrubbing board, hanging out clothes to dry for a large family and doing this every day of your life starting from when you are ten. I have done lots of "basic" things just to see how hard they are, and when you do it becomes really obvious why people left them behind very quickly. This doesn't even consider other things such as all the people who were in less than perfect health due to physical or mental disabilities, consider how they lived back then compared to now. There are also far worse conditions for women generally who didn't have the choices they do now.

We don't have have less wilderness knowledge than previous man, it is just of a different type because our relationship with the "wilderness" has changed. When man first developed the hand axe he moved beyond using his hands and teeth. Just like when they went beyond using caves and built shelters to move out of the "wilderness" and shape the land to a less hostile enviroment. Farming vs foraging for vegetation continues the same trend. As equipment grew in power and out knowledge of how to work the land increased then people began to be able to produce far more than they themselves needed and thus not everyone needed to do it. The knowledge is still there for anyone that wants it, however in general very few people who lived it were sorry to see it pass. I don't have any desire to go back to a washboard and lye soap.

Yes in the case of a horrible disaster we could lose all infrastructure and many people would be novices initially, however they could learn the skills if needed. Many settlers who came over here were not experienced farmers or fisherman, they learned through doing as necessary. It is too bad though that a more careful record was not kept to preserve our older knowledge. A lot of people now are rediscovering/reinventing them, both recreationally and as well as funded scientific work which is kind of ironic, using a computer to figure out how a hand axe works. Discovery had a blurb on this awhile back where they showed how that basic tool evolved with different materials.

-Cliff

 

[Thomas Linton]

OK. Life was brutish and short. No argument there. (As short as seventy-odd years ago 65 was selected for "retirement age" because relatively few would reach that age.)

Our only point was that, given the general state of knowledge of "primitive skills," it would be even shorter and more brutish for the vast majority without our "modern" stuff.

 

[RokJok]

...if things came down to it , most Westerners would die off from disease and starvation and the like...Look at what took place in New Orleans with just a hurricane , imagine that on a global scale.

You forgot to list what is IMHO the most likely cause of death in a SHTF & collapse of society situation: predation from fellow human beings.

When the SHTF comes, the animal nature inherent in all humans will kick in and resources will go to whoever can beat/kill their competition out of them. It will be survival of the fittest (i.e. biggest, strongest, fastest, best armed, best organized group, etc).

Groups will have huge advantages over the "lone cowboy" or "lone wolf" individuals who attempt to fulfill all the survival requirements on their own. The forming of these alliances and groups will also IMHO be the genesis of whatever society is going to look like after TSHTF. It will be highly advantageous to have what were the "primitive" skills and tools of a hundred years ago to get by and be a constructive and contributing member of such an ad hoc society. Think how valuable will be gardening tools/seeds, manual carpentry ala' Roy Underhill [no battery/electrical tools], rope/knot skills, etc.

In citing the aftermath of last year's hurricanes in the southern USA, you bring up what is the best and latest instance of how tenuously our (or any other country's) social fabric is maintained.

That being said, our best defense is our brains

.... and the collective group security/firepower to keep the brain alive.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Do I think that such a SHTF scenario is likely? No. IMHO there is still enough collective individual vested self-interest floating around to keep us (mostly) operating inside the social contract that has been in place traditionally (however tenuously). But I think that the Boy Scouts' "Be Prepared!!" and the Mormon philosophy of a year's worth of groceries in the basement are a good start toward being able to provide for your own, whatever the current social circumstances happen to be.

Just my $0.02 worth of opinion.

 

[Thomas Linton]

You forgot to list what is IMHO the most likely cause of death in a SHTF & collapse of society situation: predation from fellow human beings.

I see that, in the end (of your post), you didn't believe this was true. In fact, that has not been the lesson of history. For example, Leningrad under siege in WW II was pretty SHTF. The leading cause of death was starvation. Second was disease. Third was hypothermia. Fourth was German bombs, shells, etc. -- pretty typical of despirate sieges. Was Katrina "SHTF" for NOLA? If so, the number who died from hostile human action was a truly trival proportion of the death toll after the storm -- the media got it all wrong in their typical fashion. Same for Indonesia after the tsunami, London during the Black Death, Berlin in the last hours before Red conquest in 1945, the world as tens of millions died in the "Spanish Flu" pandemic. Doomer porn aside, "every man for himself" is a possible but unlikely scenario.

Groups will have huge advantages over the "lone cowboy" or "lone wolf" individuals who attempt to fulfill all the survival requirements on their own. The forming of these alliances and groups will also IMHO be the genesis of whatever society is going to look like after TSHTF.

And group action IS historically the common reaction. We are pack animals.

It will be highly advantageous to have what were the "primitive" skills and tools of a hundred years ago to get by and be a constructive and contributing member of such an ad hoc society. Think how valuable will be gardening tools/seeds, manual carpentry ala' Roy Underhill [no battery/electrical tools], rope/knot skills, etc.

:thumbup:

AFTERTHOUGHT: Do I think that such a SHTF scenario is likely? No. IMHO there is still enough collective individual vested self-interest floating around to keep us (mostly) operating inside the social contract that has been in place traditionally (however tenuously). But I think that the Boy Scouts' "Be Prepared!!" and the Mormon philosophy of a year's worth of groceries in the basement are a good start toward being able to provide for your own, whatever the current social circumstances happen to be.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

And despite the wisdom of being prepared for life's bumps and WACKS, most don't have food for week - or even $$ on hand to buy a new water heater without taking out a loan. So they don't manage a crisis; it manages them.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Our only point was that, given the general state of knowledge of "primitive skills," it would be even shorter and more brutish for the vast majority without our "modern" stuff.

Yes if for some reason people decided to not learn and adapt and just sit there and die, I don't know why you would assume that though. As noted, settlers than came over here were not masters of primitive bushcraft however they still carved out subsistance settlements readily learning skills as necessary using the materials available and adapting to any new technology as it was avaliable to improve the quality of life..

In general modern man may be ignorant of very primitive living but that doesn't mean they can't learn them and it isn't like actual intelligence is decreasing and people can learn less now than they could before. Discovery has shows like this on a regular basis where they take ordinary people and stick them back in very low tech times and they all survive on subsistence living, learning how to fish, farm, make coal, use a forge, etc. .

Of course if they were not restricted the engineers and tradesmen would soon start building equipment and it would not be primitive for very long and the fisherman would quickly start building nets and moving away from hand lines and towards traps and so on and basically advance the same path we have taken already with the medically inclinced as well doing their part.

-Cliff

 

[Thomas Linton]

Yes if for some reason people decided to not learn and adapt and just sit there and die, I don't know why you would assume that though.

I do not. "People" - the species - thrown into a survival situation where "primitive" skills are needed will learn and adapt. Not the majority, if history is any lesson.

As noted, settlers than came over here were not masters of primitive bushcraft however they still carved out subsistance settlements readily learning skills as necessary using the materials available and adapting to any new technology as it was avaliable to improve the quality of life.

In the earliest settlement efforts, the great majority died in the first year. Furthermore, in some examples, much critical information was taught by those societies already in place and using the "primitive" skills, so the settlers they did not need to start from scratch.

In general modern man may be ignorant of very primitive living but that doesn't mean they can't learn them and it isn't like actual intelligence is decreasing and people can learn less now than they could before.

Sure. But there is a big difference in survival rate if some knowledge is possessed by someone vs. starting at a base of zero knowledge. Intelligence will not replace trial and error in the latter case, and the margin for error may well be slim -- resulting in deaths. Again, "man" will survive, just not most men.

Discovery has shows like this on a regular basis where they take ordinary people and stick them back in very low tech times and they all survive on subsistence living, learning how to fish, farm, make coal, use a forge, etc.

Hardly a scientific experiment. These "ordinary people" are selected volunteers. After all, if no problems were solved, the program would not be entertaining. Above all, these volunteers know they will not be allowed to die or suffer greatly, solving some of the biggest psychological barriers to survival. Even then, some "quit" and go home -- not an option is a real survival situation where it's quit and die.

Of course if they were not restricted the engineers and tradesmen would soon start building equipment and it would not be primitive for very long and the fisherman would quickly start building nets and moving away from hand lines and towards traps and so on and basically advance the same path we have taken already with the medically inclinced as well doing their part.

-Cliff

The fishermen would first have to learn to make cordage from natural materials, a neglected art even amongst "survival" types today. Traps might well prove easier.


Cliff, let's take a pretty basic "primitive" survival tool -- fire. Pick ten -- hell, twenty -- people at random off the streets of Toronto. What do you suspect the odds are that one of them could start a fire with no "modern" gear -- in the Summer? Winter? Wet Spring? I have seen the results with Scouts AND their adult leaders (U.S., Canadian, Japanese, and Mexican), a supposedly outdoorsy crowd. Not impressive.

Would the result be better in a rural area of Canada? I suspect the daily need to adapt would be higher in such areas. Perhaps just wishful thinking.

 

[Halfneck]

I think there would be a helluva bunch of "Rednecks" and "Country Folk" where I live laughing at all those "City Folk" south of us in Atlanta.

While there would be some issues during a major disaster, there is a stronger sense of community here. People would look out for each other more. Also there are more people around this rural area that still know how to provide shelter & food (either farming or hunting) and the available land to provide this. 180 bed County Hospital so we have good Medical Care - Even if no power this at least gives us a a group of Trained Medical Professionals. Local National Guard Unit, Police Dept, Sherrif's Dept, and State Patrol to provide Security and enforce Law.

The biggest thing is making sure there is strong leadership to make sure the community pulls together as a whole. Other than that the only threat is from the incoming population fleeing from places that collapsed.

 

[rebeltf]

I hear ya Rokjok.

Where I live (Fresno, Ca) there is plenty of cover and places to go if something big were to happen.
I'm 30 minutes from the foothills of the Sierra's and about an hour from the Coastal range , the San Jauquin river is easy walking distance from my apartment.
If it came down to widespread riot/loot/rape etc , it would behoove me to get the hell out of the city but like some posters have previously stated , us "city slickers" may not be welcome at all in the hills and who can blame the mountain folk.
Talk radio , in the mid to latter 90's was so much more interesting than it is now , the local AM 580 had some very good shows , as did Truth Radio out of Delano , there was lots of talk about survival and so forth.. One lady caller I remember said pointedly that "we wouldnt let city people up here" , in the event of a SHTF scenario , I'm sure her sentiment is echoed by many but hopefully not all.

The human animal factor can only be disuaded by extreme use of force , those who hesitate because of "law" or morality are soon to become dungmittel. Cities would become living hell very fast , especially places like NY and LA with high populations of welfare recipients and poor.
Fresno wouldnt be much better off. A smaller town in a not so populated state would be one's best bet and , I'm starting to ramble on , my meds are kicking in... sigh.

 

[the possum]

Re: Fishing nets

The fishermen would first have to learn to make cordage from natural materials, a neglected art even amongst "survival" types today. Traps might well prove easier.
... Pick ten -- hell, twenty -- people at random off the streets of Toronto. What do you suspect the odds are that one of them could start a fire with no "modern" gear -- in the Summer? Winter? Wet Spring? I have seen the results with Scouts AND their adult leaders... Not impressive.

Nothing real to add here. This post just reminded me of something I read long ago in a book about various Indian beliefs and traditions. One story was about how a certain tribe got fire way back when. A brave morphed himself into a rabbit, ( ) ran into an enemy camp and set his fur on fire, thus stealing it from a more advanced tribe. The thing I thought interesting, was that the fire was guarded by an old man (any elderly man of the tribe) whose job it was to keep the fire going, and weave fish nets all day to pass the time while he watched the fire. Even the Indians didn't bother with a bow drill or what have you every day. When the camp woke up in the morning, they all went to the old man's tent and got a glowing coal to start their own fires. (as per the story) As long as one of those twenty city slickers knows how to keep a fire going, the rest can benefit until they learn on their own.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

But there is a big difference in survival rate if some knowledge is possessed by someone vs. starting at a base of zero knowledge.

Yes, and in general such knowledge tends to be enviroment specific. We have adpated to our enviroment just as past man has adapted to his and has his enviroment changed so did he. We have been dependent on "gear" for a very long time. Consider domesticated animals for example. In some cases we have created animals that don't even exist in the wild anymore. Does this dependence make those culture less knowledgeable about the "wilderness"? An interesting question would be who is more flexible and who has a greater ability to adapt. In general as man has advanced he has become more capable through selection of intelligence. The counter to this is that our "wilderness" is so very different than it was just a hundred years ago that the basic skills have dramatically diverged.

Intelligence will not replace trial and error in the latter case, and the margin for error may well be slim -- resulting in deaths.

Intelligence is what allowed those skills to develop in the first place and it is far easier to replicate something than to actually come up with the idea out of nothing. It would be an interesting experiment to see how long it would take for the average modern day man to recreate basic skills because they know they are possible, both for those with knoweldge directly along those lines such as engineers and those that don't such as lawyers.

I think it is obvious if you took modern man and put him and a native in the natives enviroment then the native would fare better immediately because his knowledge and physical attributes more suited to that enviroment. However long term poses a different question and the equation changes greatly when there is more than one person because one person can keep a group of people together who will all fail individually.

A more interesting question would be take the same two people and move them to an enviroment unfamiliar to both. How would an inuit compare to a modern malaysian man both in that "jungle" at 35+ C. Or even consider two fairly similar "jungles". There are no animals here which have significant venom so what is the probability that a local past indian would have had problems in a place where this was common compated to a modern individual living in a city there but basically familiar with those dangers.

Hardly a scientific experiment.

Scientific just means done in such a way to learn something. Can you really learn nothing from it? Now of course you could learn more if it was done in different ways, but you can always improve and learn more. How scientific something is depends specifically on what you are trying to learn.

The fishermen would first have to learn to make cordage from natural materials, a neglected art even amongst "survival" types today.

It would not be the first task. First they would address immediate needs, those are long term goals such as setting up farm land, that only comes after immedate foraging obviously.

Pick ten -- hell, twenty -- people at random off the streets of Toronto. What do you suspect the odds are that one of them could start a fire with no "modern" gear -- in the Summer? Winter? Wet Spring?

Probably none immediately. How many would eventually would depend on their desire, determination and intelligence.

Would the result be better in a rural area of Canada? I suspect the daily need to adapt would be higher in such areas. Perhaps just wishful thinking.

The need for primitive skills is fairly rare in Canada even in the isolated outport communities in regards to extreme tasks like friction fire building. In general a significant percentage of people will have experience with fire building because wood stoves are common as well as hunting and fishing, but the fires are all started with lighters/matches. I have never seen a ferro rod let alone a fire plow used. Most know however that you can spark from steel but few have ever put it into practice.

-Cliff

 

[Thomas Linton]

It has been argued that much of "modern" society is an effort to prevent the operation of natural selection.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Natural selection will always run, all that changes are the critera needed for "fittest". It has been a very long time since we didn't attempt to shape our enviroment to match us rather than adapt to it, construction of shelters, use of fire, support of the eldery/infirm who could not survive on their own out of compassion. Few would argue that primitive selection processes would be preferred, these tend to be rather violent in nature.

-Cliff

 

[bigbcustom]

Very interesting discussion. I think that small isolated communities such as might be found in the northern states, Canada, and Alaska would be just fine. The human vs human violence would take place in the cities right about the time the food started to run out. I think in the latter scenario, you would have what amounts to street gangs starting to set up small kingdoms. You would also have the local military/ng either setting up to help out, or setting up their own kingdom depending on the mentality of the CO. All that being said, the likelyhood of things breaking down to that extent is pretty much non-existant. It does make for good discussion though.