Surviving the end of the world as we know it?

[Gawen]

I am curious of your thoughts from those that see my overly dramatic title. Honestly, with war with Pakistan and the Taliban right around the corner, possible war with Iran, World economics disheveled in general, individual countries defaulting specifically and the rush to build them back up and China's emerging, very large and powerful shoddy economics, conservative religious presidential candidates ready to push all the red buttons of America's war machine, conflicts in various corners of the world (the Korea's, Taiwan as examples), etc., etc., etc., how much more can we hold out?

Do you think it'll all go down the toilet? Do you think there is any hope to fix all the money woes, no matter who's elected, whoever is in power? Is there a very real and dangerous socioeconomic crises or collapse looming on the horizon?
What all these questions boil down to is:
Do you think there is any merit in the "Survivalist" mentality? Should we, as an act of insurance of self preservation, be stockpiling food and water, fuels and implements of personal protection and allying ourselves with those of like mind?

There are more people out there than you would think that think like this. I have talked with other employees where I work, mostly acquaintances (people I run into from time to time due to my job or theirs) that have mentioned this in passing when the inevitable political conversation comes up. Surprising to say the least, that a couple of them, I never would have thought would ever think of Survivalism.

I have been giving "Survivalism" some serious thought lately. I would like to know yours...and don't mince words.

[OldGit]

It doesn't bother me; I'm old and in very poor health, I've not long left and wouldn't last as a survivalist any longer than my last pen of insulin.

But my grandson's future doesn't look very bright.  When his parents were discussing things to teach him, a year or two ago, I said they should teach him to make flint axes.  I wasn't joking.

I've been saying for years now that the historians of future civilisations will set an agreed endpoint for the collapse of this one, just like the arbitrary 410AD now usually quoted for the fall of Roman Britain,  and that that date will be in our past - earlier than 2011.

[Siz]

I can definitely see a major social breakdown happening at some point in the future, but I would guess at this not happening for another several hundred years. There will, I'm sure, be a time in which the classes will be so divided that the 'under' classes will be forced to revert to the vagrantism of the middle-ages and the privileged few will be so wrapped up in their own well-being that they will despise and hide from the 'unders'. I think the dictatorships currently prevalent in some countries of Africa will be a model for so-called 1st world societies in the future. I don't believe humans as a group are sufficiently altruistic to prevent this from happening. The 'haves' will control the wealth and power and will not be sharing it out.

I am saddened to think that human technology will not evolve sufficiently quickly to provide answers to the major ills of an overpopulated world. And this is also true of global enlightenment whereby the god-believing majority will not have the motivation to make the necessary changes to their lives to make a noticeable difference. They will be the barrier to change, believing that it's all Gods plan, or at least that He'll come to the rescue. And when it comes to sharing their wealth, they won't be able to put their money where there mouths are. Jesus' words will be lost from the vocabulary of the selfish.

My cousin who lives in VA is a HUGE survivalist and is already stockpiling. He gives lectures on how to survive and has a fair following. I think he's a century or two premature.

[Crow]

In terms of the end of America's superpower global dominance I personally think it has already begun. Mainly due to the fact that economically the country is starting to stagnate, the rise of strange political bodies getting mass media attention... which evidently have no idea how to run a country, whilst appearing war hungry. With a weakening of the traditionally strong party due to the rise of the crazies.

Even though proven wrong I think that Igor Panarin was onto something, the demise will come from within not from external sources, perhaps except for destabilization encouraged by other nations through manipulation of industry and the banking system.

Throughout history we know that the States has been military aggressive but not the aggressor and plan in advance for any possible military threats, such as war plans; orange, red, black, grey, brown, tan, yellow, gold, green, indigo, purple, violet, and white (give them a read they are interesting, especially red and orange). So I wouldn't be surprised if they have plans for the possible wars that Gawen mentioned, but realistically which wars would potential pose the greatest threat to American soil? The countries that could realistically pose a threat would be North Korea and China, but the latter has never been military aggressive to other nations and North Korea has threats closer to home to make a push toward the states very unlikely if war did break out. Iran and Pakistan could pose a larger threat than initially thought due to the location and the effect they could have on oil supplies, there is also the issue of how a war would be perceived in the middle-east on either of the two countries which could help create a alliance that would have been previously unlikely. At the moment even though the countries mentioned are perceived as the enemy's by the states the threat isn't that great, if any war was to take place with events as they currently are then America would be the aggressor and if that was the case they wouldn't have NATO or UN support unless a bull shit story was made up like it was for Iraq. So I think it is an unlikely scenario and a hyperbole created by the news outlets to grab ratings.

The US economy is a greater threat than that of any war, especially with the knock on effect that it is having to other countries, it means that countries that are usually tight with the States on economic terms will want to distance themselves to try and preserve themselves. Which would help weaken the States even more.

But what you really need to look out for are the cats 

[Tank]

Building a bunker tomorrow.

[xSilverPhinx]

Do you think there is any merit in the "Survivalist" mentality? Should we, as an act of insurance of self preservation, be stockpiling food and water, fuels and implements of personal protection and allying ourselves with those of like mind?

In a word? Definitely. Though, like Scissorlegs said, it's probably a century or two early, but always better safe than sorry.

I've been saying for years now that the historians of future civilisations will set an agreed endpoint for the collapse of this one, just like the arbitrary 410AD now usually quoted for the fall of Roman Britain,  and that that date will be in our past - earlier than 2011.

Going slightly off topic here: I actually prefer that China is a superpower to the US (and by extension, any western empire, to be honest...problem is, I don't know how that would balance out the Arab east.




Is it odd that I find that picture absolutely mesmerizing?

[Recusant]

China... has never been military aggressive to other nations...

Though I agree with most of your post, the above assertion is highly debatable.

[Crow]

China... has never been military aggressive to other nations...

Though I agree with most of your post, the above assertion is highly debatable.

Yeah I did over exaggerate that not intentionally but mainly out of laziness, most examples of the wars as the aggressor have been against countries that share a boarder, you don't get a nation that large without military action, from the history of china it shows that they don't fuck about and if attacked wouldn't show any mercy. The assertion I made was referring to global military action/dominance and the historical stance that the Chinese have taken, they have been directly involved in larger wars that have had international repercussions such as the opium wars and the Sino-Japanese wars but have always been on the defensive in these cases. They do get involved in foreign wars (such as Vietnam) but always seems to be from a infrastructure/engineering help rather than battlefield help.

[Gawen]

Hmmmmm.....

Interesting replies, all of them.

Still...we're in over our heads in every facet. God is no solution, politicians are unable or unwilling, the people are unhappy, economists are all over the place with their theories on how to fix it, etc. While I am not an economist, I can see no viable solution in the near future - only further backsliding. If there is going to be some sort of economic collapse, it'll be a lot closer than a couple hundred years, I think. We're so close to hyper-inflation right now that scenes from 1920's Germany could be felt once again.

[Tank]

Communism collapsed as it didn't get the balence right between the individual and the state. Capitalism will collapse as it relies on the law of the cancer, 'grow at all costs'. We need to find a sustainable balance that puts long term group survival before personal greed.

[Stevil]

We've seen far worse than what we are facing today
The Great Depression
The Great War
World War II

The Roman Empire got toppled, the British Empire got overtaken by the American and now the American could quite possibly be overtaken by the Chinese.

The world itself has gone through Ice Ages

I certainly don't view the American dominance as a the Freedom and Sunshine that they have been making themselves out to be. They have been very aggressive, creating wars over oil, pretending to do free trade but really only protecting their world dominance position while keeping others at bay.

Chinese could quite possibly be worse. They are heavy handed with their neighbors and their own people, they like to micro control and don't respect individual freedoms, Western nations are already bowing down to their demands e.g. South Africa refusing the Dahla Lama a Visa.

But every dog has its day.
I doubt China has a solid enough economic foundation to last too long, they still have massive poverty and repressed people. What they are doing today, has never been done before, they are at the bleeding edge.

America will be forced to join a coallition with Western Europe, they will not simply go down with a wimper.

[Asmodean]

America will be forced to join a coallition with Western Europe, they will not simply go down with a wimper.

When that day comes, I wonder if the Old World will still be wanting the USA in their coalition...

[Crow]

Western nations are already bowing down to their demands e.g. South Africa refusing the Dahla Lama a Visa.

This is a very good point in term of how China have influenced other nations. If you look at what China are doing in Africa it highlights how the Chinese are supporting various countries in the continent, the west has a bad track record of exploiting the regions natural resources at the expense of the people and don't have a good reputation, however China have taken a very different approach by helping rebuild local infrastructures from the ground up and providing jobs for locals. The BBC did a very good season of reports and news documentaries on the subject this is the only link I could find with a quick google: China in Africa

I agree with you on the strength of the Chinese economy at the moment has rocky foundations, but the oppression in the region is largely over hyped. Its relationship with religion is very interesting and one of the largest forms of oppression (as well as anti-government protestors), for example it is illegal to celebrate your faith in public and to do so will result in arrest unless prior consent is given [example].

We've seen far worse than what we are facing today.

Totally agree. Power shifts have always happened throughout history and isn't a cause to panic about.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Sadly, I think people can take a whole lot before they "snap" and start an actual revolution. Things are looking pretty bad for the U.S, but I think there's a lot of fear-mongering for political purposes going on, as well. The standard for what will cause an actual revolution is the day-to-day living standards of your average American. I don't live there, so I can't really say for certain, but most Americans (compared to a lot of other places in the world) still seem to have pretty liveable lives. Yes, they might be pissed because things aren't as good as they used to be, and they seem to be getting worse, but there is still a lot to lose to uproot the whole system. People who have nothing, or very little to lose, are usually the people who start a revolution, and I don't think the states are there just yet.

I agree with the others that say the next few generations will be crucial. There are some real economic, environmental and political tests coming up, and if the U.S. fails, I can see things getting really bad.

[Tank]

Being prepared isn't necessarily the same as panicking. People who panic are generally un-prepared.