Who Will Die First when SHTF

[Hawkings]

There was a time in rural America when families had no choice but to have gardens, hunt, work with wood, can/preserve food, make and/or mend their own garments, know about and be able to administer home remedies for ailments and anything else involved in staying alive. Kids were born at home and the dead laid out (waked) on the dining room table so family and friends could pay their last respects before they buried them out back.
Every family member eventually knew how to do just about anything that needed to be done. They were almost self-sufficient.
Technology has slowly changed things.

In a SHTF situation, the elderly may be the ticket to staying alive.
Nothing in that video was shocking. I don't agree with all the generalizations she made but she's probably right on most of it.

Why is her blouse open?

Yes but most are thin and mostly skin, they don't have enough meat on them for a real meal.

 

[PayetteRucker]

Coldwood, there are still places where people rely heavily off the land and states that produce way more cattle and where people hunt large game, birds and fish to store up year round as a major food source. Wyoming, North Dakota, Nevada, Idaho, parts of Washington, Oregon, Texas... Texas has alot of big cities but there's so much open cattle country it's insane. In some places it IS possible to live off the land, especially when people know how to to ensure that it IS a renewable resource.

 

[JCavSD]

My question is: where is the romance in this sort of scenario? What makes it attractive? Is there a yearning for a me-against-the-world situation? A thrill associated with the fantasy of societal collapse? A radical individualist's desire to make the threat of deadly force the arbiter of every aspect of life?

Good question. Being somewhat of Joseph Campbell fan... I'm guessing some of this attitude stems from deep personal dissatisfaction and a desire to throw off the shackles of the mundane and immerse themselves in their concept of the hero's journey. For those who can't find or create heroism in their daily lives, the twisted romance associated with surviving a SHTF scenario may be particularly appealing.

 

[night man]

I live in a town of about 1500 and the biggest town withen about 60 miles from me has a population of about 20,000 so I live in a pretty rural area and I feel very confident that our little community could band together and survive for a long time, probably longer than I would guess. There is a lot of woodlands around with plenty of streams and creeks near the town and in it and 2 rivers withen about 15 miles of the town and there are a lot of farmers who still know how to do it the old fashioned way.

 

[ttoney83]

I think it is important to remember that we are all human beings and that, beyond the "first to die", once the panic wears off after the first few hours or days, what one is left with is mostly a bunch of people who have different abilities and capacities to survive over the long term. What one ought to look at after the initial shock of whatever event caused the SHTF scenario is how to establish stability within a community of 30 to 1000 souls. A true "survivor' of a SHTF scenario will recognize that no human culture, or even tribe, has ever survived, or thrived over the long haul, without the SINgle most important survival tool in "Man's" survival kit- Social interaction and cooperation.

I'm not worried about my personal survival. If I can make it out of the D.C. area and back to my home or that of a freind nearby, I'll be fine. My personal survival and safety is enhanced by others, and I have skills which can enhance the survival and quality of life of others and am ready and willing to offer my skills to help another.
Most human beings are not my enemy. Most human beings want the same for their families that I want for mine and I recognize that in 99 percent of all situations, neither I nor they need to do without in order for me to survive and thrive. In fact, the cooperation generally enhances the lives of all those who lawfully and cooperatively participate with the benefit of the other first in mind and heart.
Of course, one must also be ever vigilant for that one turd who views the world from the opposite perspective and be prepared to cap his antisocial arse before he/she kills a REAL human being!

 

[ttoney83]

I live in a town of about 1500 and the biggest town withen about 60 miles from me has a population of about 20,000 so I live in a pretty rural area and I feel very confident that our little community could band together and survive for a long time, probably longer than I would guess. There is a lot of woodlands around with plenty of streams and creeks near the town and in it and 2 rivers withen about 15 miles of the town and there are a lot of farmers who still know how to do it the old fashioned way.

I live in an area similar to this too. I agree that in a SHTF scenario, there will be enough left of smaller towns and their established governance and administration that most of us will only have to offer our services for the benefit of the community, to recieve the benefit of association with a larger community.

 

[Coldwood]

Coldwood, there are still places where people rely heavily off the land and states that produce way more cattle and where people hunt large game, birds and fish to store up year round as a major food source. Wyoming, North Dakota, Nevada, Idaho, parts of Washington, Oregon, Texas... Texas has alot of big cities but there's so much open cattle country it's insane. In some places it IS possible to live off the land, especially when people know how to to ensure that it IS a renewable resource.

Come wintertime, those places are uninhabitable unless you have a real house with a well and a years supply of food and firewood. I expect most of the folks you mention are on the grid, drive trucks, depend on the snowplows, etc. No refugees will be pitching tents there with any hope to survive the winter, on their own.

I've seen the open cattle country in Texas and even the cows don't like it.

Edit: Throughout history, people have survived by forming communities and maximizing their resources. The big shift for hunter/gatherers came when they began to maximize horticulture/agriculture. They continued to hunt and gather but depended on their produce grown on the land, and their protection within their community.

 

[Smash05]

Less traffic in the event of evac, less likely to catch human borne illnesses due to less proximity to less people. More resources per person, more wilderness based skills when it comes to obtaining and maintaining tools and other resources like food and water. I can't think of anything an urban area would offer more of beneficially, other than maybe initial access to preserved food...

Your assuming alot about "urban" folk. Assuming you are right about disease, our immunity is better, we have access to better and more plentiful health resources, brain trust, etc. There are far more health care professionals per capita in an urban environment. Also, more people trained in emergency and disaster response. I think different skill sets and human resources exist in different places - knowing how to use what you have at hand is important, not what you have.

 

[Coldwood]

Your assuming alot about "urban" folk. Assuming you are right about disease, our immunity is better, we have access to better and more plentiful health resources, brain trust, etc. There are far more health care professionals per capita in an urban environment. Also, more people trained in emergency and disaster response. I think different skill sets and human resources exist in different places - knowing how to use what you have at hand is important, not what you have.

Well said. During Katrina, people were forced OUT of their homes by flooding. In the case of nuclear/chemical/biological contamination, I think people would be forced INTO their homes.

In my rural community, the only practicing physician is a veterinarian. She could become the town doctor. We're so conditioned by modern medical practice that we drive 30 miles to the local hospital and diagnostic facilities.

 

[arowanana]

No, you may not

:jerkit: I wasn't asking you. It was a rhetorical question. I think that girl is spewing a bunch of drivel and her video was a waste of my time.

 

[reconranger]

Come wintertime, those places are uninhabitable unless you have a real house with a well and a years supply of food and firewood. I expect most of the folks you mention are on the grid, drive trucks, depend on the snowplows, etc. No refugees will be pitching tents there with any hope to survive the winter, on their own.

For all its theoretical disadvantages, the one huge advantage in the southwest is a mild climate and a year round growing season. While you are freezing your assets off and shoveling snow, I am walking around in sirtsleves and eating strawberries fresh picked out of the garden.

And....I don't think anybody has mentioned the huge advantage of being near the ocean, where you can fish you heart out.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Coldwood, there are still places where people rely heavily off the land and states that produce way more cattle and where people hunt large game, birds and fish to store up year round as a major food source. Wyoming, North Dakota, Nevada, Idaho, parts of Washington, Oregon, Texas... Texas has alot of big cities but there's so much open cattle country it's insane. In some places it IS possible to live off the land, especially when people know how to to ensure that it IS a renewable resource.

Come wintertime, those places are uninhabitable unless you have a real house with a well and a years supply of food and firewood. I expect most of the folks you mention are on the grid, drive trucks, depend on the snowplows, etc. No refugees will be pitching tents there with any hope to survive the winter, on their own.

I've seen the open cattle country in Texas and even the cows don't like it.

Edit: Throughout history, people have survived by forming communities and maximizing their resources. The big shift for hunter/gatherers came when they began to maximize horticulture/agriculture. They continued to hunt and gather but depended on their produce grown on the land, and their protection within their community.

I'm going top back PR on this. Plenty of people live in those areas (and Montana, which he left out) doing the off the grid thing. Not only that, but people lived there just fine, long before trucks, gasoline and electricity. Of course they have homes. Living there isn't a fallacious thing, the fallacy is when you have guys that think they are going to load up a backpack and live -- anywhere -- for the rest of their lives out of it. To be fair, OK, they are probably right about that, they just don't understand how long -- or short -- that life will be.

:jerkit: I wasn't asking you. It was a rhetorical question. I think that girl is spewing a bunch of drivel and her video was a waste of my time.

Her generalizations were pretty spot-on. You may complain that they don't apply across the board, but that's the nature of generalizations.

 

[not2sharp]

Well said. During Katrina, people were forced OUT of their homes by flooding. In the case of nuclear/chemical/biological contamination, I think people would be forced INTO their homes.

In my rural community, the only practicing physician is a veterinarian. She could become the town doctor. We're so conditioned by modern medical practice that we drive 30 miles to the local hospital and diagnostic facilities.

Also, consider what you can do when millions of those who fled the cities end up pilled up on your doorstep. We have seen plenty of refugee migrations like this, during times of war, and the out look for small rural communities is not what it appears to be on the surface.

Your small town may look like this after a week.

n2s

 

[texastonydobbs]

not a bad video ,why wear sunglasses ???

 

[Alvaro Candanedo]

Also, consider what you can do when millions of those who fled the cities end up pilled up on your doorstep. We have seen plenty of refugee migrations like this, during times of war, and the out look for small rural communities is not what it appears to be on the surface.

Your small town may look like this after a week.

n2s

True, and besides, I think you didn't mention that it's one thing a natural disaster or epidemic, in a developed, first world country and that same situation in third world one. For example: Katrina, and the Haiti earthquake.
In the second situation the area or country affected, is going to depend almost exclusively on foreign aid and we all know what happens in places like Haiti or Myammar or any other place where there is a non-democratic form of government (think Somalia). Now what is going to happen in a disaster situation (whatever the cause), when you have thousands of people trying to get to a safe place (your country). I don't see as too farfetched the idea of a government closing the borders with the military tasked with the mission of stopping foreigners (by whatever means necessary).
On the other hand, the cities are going to become magnets for people looking for food, shelter, medical care and if the situation is dire enough, very soon the hospital, shelters, etc. are going to be overwhelmed, well beyond their capacity for response. It that situation, rural comunities, don't sound all that bad.
Just a thought

 

[Coldwood]

Also, consider what you can do when millions of those who fled the cities end up pilled up on your doorstep. We have seen plenty of refugee migrations like this, during times of war, and the out look for small rural communities is not what it appears to be on the surface.

Your small town may look like this after a week.

n2s

Great picture! I would guess those folks are Indian and are already used to living under harsh conditions. This may be a photo from a religious festival. I imagine a tent city like this could happen in Texas cattle country. However, I don't see Americans expecting to survive like that.

Without doubt, some people can live off the land...but they're already doing it, not planning it as an emergency survival technique.

It won't be happening in my neck of the woods...there's a reason we call it "Coldwood"...we already have snow in the mountains and it will be around until April

 

[Zombie Zeke]

I know its kind of taboo but if society really did collapse, screw anyone that's not kin or friend, really, where I live it would be all about water even though we are less than a mile from the aquaduct.

We are packing up, we and it's a big one too, going up to where we camp in the summer and settle down till things calm down a bit. There are around 80 of us now, nurses, hunters, soldiers, butchers, engineers, mechanics, even some of those so-called quick to die neo hippies, well rounded folk that seem to be more on the producer than consumer side. Natural springs, and plenty of game, don't think for a second we wouldn't be playing king of the hill either.

 

[Erasmus]

I know its kind of taboo but if society really did collapse, screw anyone that's not kin or friend, really, where I live it would be all about water even though we are less than a mile from the aquaduct.

We are packing up, we and it's a big one too, going up to where we camp in the summer and settle down till things calm down a bit. There are around 80 of us now, nurses, hunters, soldiers, butchers, engineers, mechanics, even some of those so-called quick to die neo hippies, well rounded folk that seem to be more on the producer than consumer side. Natural springs, and plenty of game, don't think for a second we wouldn't be playing king of the hill either.[/QUOTE]


Your army is composed of close family, so

How casualty averse are you? If you want to play rough, there's always someone else around that is way smarter, and plays way rougher. It goes without saying they might easily be competent and practiced, given all the wars we've been having lately.

This kind of thing comes up in my thinking when I watched Kevin Costner in that Wyatt Earp film of a few years back. He was VERY casualty averse, but didn't realize it till his family was heavily shot up.

Have you guys thought this through? Also, what will you do with prisoners? Are you even taking prisoners? Your opponents may well not be.

Resentful invaders who aren't strong enough to take what you've got may just shoot a few of you guys with their sniper rifles [read that "deer rifles"], and then split, "defeated," before your Quick Reaction Force can get in on the shooting. How many of these Pyrric victories can you afford to win?

Just a little food for thought. I have no stake in your outcome, either way.

 

[ttoney83]

I know its kind of taboo but if society really did collapse, screw anyone that's not kin or friend, really, where I live it would be all about water even though we are less than a mile from the aquaduct.

We are packing up, we and it's a big one too, going up to where we camp in the summer and settle down till things calm down a bit. There are around 80 of us now, nurses, hunters, soldiers, butchers, engineers, mechanics, even some of those so-called quick to die neo hippies, well rounded folk that seem to be more on the producer than consumer side. Natural springs, and plenty of game, don't think for a second we wouldn't be playing king of the hill either.[/QUOTE]


Your army is composed of close family, so

How casualty averse are you? If you want to play rough, there's always someone else around that is way smarter, and plays way rougher. It goes without saying they might easily be competent and practiced, given all the wars we've been having lately.

This kind of thing comes up in my thinking when I watched Kevin Costner in that Wyatt Earp film of a few years back. He was VERY casualty averse, but didn't realize it till his family was heavily shot up.

Have you guys thought this through? Also, what will you do with prisoners? Are you even taking prisoners? Your opponents may well not be.

Resentful invaders who aren't strong enough to take what you've got may just shoot a few of you guys with their sniper rifles [read that "deer rifles"], and then split, "defeated," before your Quick Reaction Force can get in on the shooting. How many of these Pyrric victories can you afford to win?

Just a little food for thought. I have no stake in your outcome, either way.

I think that many who "fantasize" about the SHTF scenarios DON't think it through. I damn sure wouldn't be lookin for a fight. I will pretty much be like I always am, freindly, a relationship builder in my job, I'll be a relationship builder in a SHTF scenario, expanding the group, enhancing it's abilities and encouraging members of the group to do the same. The fewer the casualties the better it is for all.
How tragic that would be for some wanna be badass survivalist to suddenly realize th reality when their son or daughter's face can no longer be recognized.....Tough talk is just talk with 90 percent of the world's population. Best to keep it real and freindly as much as possible. I think it could be done with relative ease since most people don't want to fight anyway and most have never even been in a fight for real.

 

[Stainz]

The fourth group, unmentioned in the video, is the gravediggers. If burying the fatties doesn't kill them, digging bunches of holes for those on the public dole - and their offspring - will. Then there are the yuppee's - and their 'which tree to be buried by' requirement. Yeah, the gravediggers will work themselves to death!

I plan on being a challenge... a fattie of the first order - with allergies - and retired (... on the public bill!) - watchout!

I will searchout the hoarder of the Charmin T.P....

Stainz