Real World Scenarios....

The problem with my SHTF scenario is that among my family and friends I am the go-to guy as it is now. I love them all very, very much, but they are helpless in providing even the most basic of needs. As my life sits right now with it being just my wife and me, the bunker situation is not an option. We could bunker up the house, but that would be a bad idea. Suburbia is not my ideal place to ride anything out. Young children and older folks abound. I feel that my wife and I could live pretty easily nomadicly for a bit. There are tons of vacant old barns that could provide a good-'nuff shelter until we could make it to a haven or things stabilized.
Actually, my mother has the ideal SHTF set up right now, although she is going to be moving soon. She lives in a house with a full basement that is protected on three sides with earth. The back is the only open part, but has a full view and is escapable should the need come to pass. Also, she lives out in a traditional Catholic community. Most of these folks are kin, know how to work, and will pull EVERYONE together in a crisis.
As far as the single mother of three goes, well i guess she could could bring the little troops along if we were going to travel in my pick up. We wouldn't be packing many durable goods, but the bed would be full of water, sheltering supplies, fuel, etc. Probably enough room to have them ride along like Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies. However, if we were hoofing it or going by bicycle or motorcycle, they would obviously have to stay behind.

Jake
 
I need to start selling end of the world insurance shares in the munk compound.


munk
 
TomFetter said:
By all means, I'd embrace self-reliance, and I'm not advocating murder/suicide. I agree that's a cowardly approach.

But my personal belief system wouldn't go to the extent of shooting folks who came looking for help either, or turning them away. The big lesson to learn while we're alive in this world is how to do compassion, in my view. It may take more courage to do that, knowing that you've put your own survival at risk by helping other folks. There's a passage in scripture about weeping while you sow grain ... because you know that by sowing the seed grain instead of eating it, you're going to lose some family members to starvation before the harvest comes.

Mine certainly isn't a common viewpoint, and I'm not trying to impose it on you folks. It comes down to what one believes is the "right thing," and for that question, I don't think that there's only one "right answer."

T.
Click to expand...

This is good to hear. You are one of the most knowledgable knife and survival people on this forum. Your first post had me worried.

You may be right about compassion, but soon the resources would be overrun with helpless city people and your medicines would be used up by unrelated elderly. Then I get to watch my kids die because of my generosity. Sorry, but this situation isn't going to be civilized. In a mild catastrophy such as Katrina, I believe in generosity, compassion, and charity. In a real SHTF situation you'd be pulled apart for your hoard of food, water and medicine. You wouldn't be turning away kind people in need. You'd be warding off desperate people. When you are learning to be a lifeguard you learn not to swim right up to the drowning person. They'll drown you in their panic. Is that inhumane, or just smart?
 
I hear you - and I agree that in any SHTF scenario, we'd be really talking about anarchy.

Once the food/water/medical supplies ran out, essentially, we'd be tossed into the "real life" situation of many who now live in lawless parts of Africa. Darfur, etc. comes to mind.

I guess that I think civilization is effected by being civilized, despite the reality of chaos. As you say, many would die, going this route. Quite possibly me and mine. But as Gandhi said about another situation ... "there is no pain in your preferred path?"

I've just got a different perspective - this isn't the only place, or the only life. I'd like to have some learning to show for my time here.

Don't know how to say this without coming over all weird ... my wife and sister in law each have had a number of mystical experiences. And out-of-body experiences. Both my 14 year old daughter and to a lesser extent by 7 year old son see quite literal ghosts all through our old city ... every day. Many of them. Folks who've got lost, or become so attached to this place that they can't seem to get to the next one.

I don't have these experiences myself, but I've no reason to doubt them. There have been enough unexplainable, "spooky" events around these things that I really don't have any concern that we're not alive after our bodies die here. For me, given my personal certainty in that knowledge, it's come down to how do I want to live here, now, in the time I've got. And a whole raft of things which I once thought were important, really aren't ... so long as I keep my head screwed on straight.

So I've got a different perspective. I truly don't mind if trying to live out compassion gets me "dead" sooner than another approach might. In my weirded-out view of the world, that trade is worth making.

t.
 
If there was no one to see them, would there still be ghosts?

I've not seen ghosts, but I've had experiences in my life which tell me we may continue after death. I hope it is true. I think its true.




munk
 
I think thats a beautiful philosophy Tom, and its nice to hear of someone who is so at ease with his mortality. I also truly believe your family's strange stories. My family has had some creepy runins with the unexplainable. No reason to doubt it. You have a healthier perspective than myslef IMHO, but I'd defend my family and my little piece of dirt until they tore me from it. I believe we could live off of our little plot of land quite comfortably. It would take some getting used to, but I think we're survivors. Once things died down I'd like to think we'd become a part of a new type of community. Much more like the communities of old where you support one another and deal in trades more than in currency. If there is one thing Rome taught us its that you can be on top of the world one moment and gone the next. Life goes on, and the anarchy doesn't last forever. We'd try to ride out the badness with the hope of emerging on the bright side.
 
I'd let them in also. Munk is right, eventually you'd have to start turning away folks... can't feed everyone.

I like the idea of banding together. Get your street together, pool resources, block off the road and provide security together. Similar to the novel "Lucifer's Hammer," a great sci-fi book by Jerry Pournell and Larry Niven (I think). Basic premise is a comet hits the earth... and the above conditions are created. A good read.

Alan
 
This is called "lifeboat theory."

Too many in the lifeboat, and all are lost.

But no one's asked the most important question-

Is she radioactive or Zombieinfected?

No glowin' or decomposing shelterseekers in the mikebunker.

I'll toss them an MRE- the one with the lousy mexican food in it. Not fit for a Z., that one.

Mike
 
...and does she carry a military designed plague with her?


and as every post-Apocalypse book or film has addressed; is she still breedable?

The kids are actually a very good thing. In no time at all they will be watching your back and loyal to the Clan.




munk
 
Why do folks all want to have to defend a place?

Perhaps the nomadic choice would be better...
 
Nasty said:
Why do folks all want to have to defend a place?

Perhaps the nomadic choice would be better...
Click to expand...

A place can provide shelter, and storage of supplies. A place can provide food and water. Most nomadic peoples moved from place to place using up these resources then moved on. How, in post apocalyptic America, would you live as a nomad?
 
And someone is going to have to plant wheat, corn and rice, and stay by it long enough to see it to harvest.




munk
 
I'd let them in, and more, and when we ran out we'd go looking for more.

That's why most primitive people form tribes. The idea that everyone could hole up every man for himself might work for a month, and even then the people that banded together right off would be way ahead.

It's part of the American individualistic myth, in reality almost all great advances or even mere survival of people have been the result of cooperation and not competition:thumbup:
 
I guess it depends on your idea and time frame of when the SHTF. I mean, right after the bombs stop dropping/zombies stop rising/etc, i think i'll take to the road. Luckily, i don't live very far from the wilds...or whats left of them. My wife and I could go very far if we travel light on a motorcycle. Heck, they probably are on to something like in the Mad Max type movies. I would think that a convoy of small fuel efficient bikes and vehicles protecting a slower moving fuel transportation center would get you pretty far. Even if the truck consumed 30% of the gas, the bikes could get 40-60 mpg. Camps couple be set up easily as all the needed gear could be transported on the truck. scouting and hunting parties could be fast and agile with the rest of the clan protecting the life blood. I could see a transportation chain as the link between two friendly communities. Two places growing grain on a homestead, but needing information and safe passage thru the lawless open to another village. In return for the safe passage, the nomads would be paid in food and allowed to set up camp for a rest.
I dunno, the more i think about it, the nomadic lifestyle would fit me well in that situation.

Jake
 
TomFetter said:
...The big lesson to learn while we're alive in this world is how to do compassion, in my view. It may take more courage to do that, knowing that you've put your own survival at risk by helping other folks. There's a passage in scripture about weeping while you sow grain ... because you know that by sowing the seed grain instead of eating it, you're going to lose some family members to starvation before the harvest comes.
Click to expand...

Psalms, psalm 126



...

"5": They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.

"6": He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The old tai chi master Cheng Man Ching also wrote about "investing in loss." I think there is a lot of depth to this idea. What seems to be the safest and least risky path in the short term may not be the safest and least risky path in the long term.

TomFetter said:
I guess that I think civilization is effected by being civilized, despite the reality of chaos. As you say, many would die, going this route. Quite possibly me and mine. But as Gandhi said about another situation ... "there is no pain in your preferred path?"
...
So I've got a different perspective. I truly don't mind if trying to live out compassion gets me "dead" sooner than another approach might. In my weirded-out view of the world, that trade is worth making.
Click to expand...

The paradox is that your attitude may give you a survival advantage that is not obvious to others. Scientific American did an article on cave bats a while back. It seems that the bats need to eat at least every other day or so or they will not be strong enough to forage food and will die. Successful bats "buddy up" with other bats. If the buddy does not find food they regurgitate some for the buddy, leaving both of them enough energy to forage the next day. They did an analysis of the situation. It went something like this. Each day a bat would have a 1/10 chance of not finding food. The probability of a two day foodless string for a single bat would be 1/10 * 1/10 = 1/100. It wouldn't take long to hit such a string. If you have a buddy not only you but also your buddy have to hit foodless days, so the probability improves to 1/100 * 1/100 = 1/10,000, which is more acceptable given the lifespan of a bat. However, if the bat looks only at the short term it is always better not to regurgitate the food it found.

Humans have much more complex interdependencies than the cave bats. Human groups almost always seem to win out over the isolated individuals, and the large groups seem to win out over the small groups. Small group advantages often are short-term, while the larger group advantages tend to be longer term. Puting oneself outside the community may have hidden drawbacks and dangers that are not immediately evident in the short term.
 
I look at all of your replies...and I see good people...

Good minds...strong opinions...strong character...

Gives me hope....

Hi John!

Honestly don't have time for computer stuff anymore...

Working my arse off trying to pay hospital bills....

Selling everything I got to help...

I may even be selling my knifemaking stuff...including the power hammer...

Having been a bill collector...I hate to get those calls...so I am doing ewhat a good dad does...I guess...

Prolly by end of month I will pull the plug on this computer for good...it is just another bill I pay that I don't get much use out of...

So I wanted to throw out a couple of odd threads before I go....

Hope all is well!

SHane
 
Its a loaded question . Almost no-one can answer it objectively without subjecting their present experiences as the basis for their judgement . In other words almost no-one can state what they would do . Certainly there are those among us who have faced adversity . There are maybe even a couple who have come close to this situation . I prefer not to speculate upon others misfortune at this present time . There is enough of that going around already . Eat well, stay fit . Its the best thing anyone can do .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top