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.
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.
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.
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 :o
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.ffffound.com%2Fstatic-data%2Fassets%2F6%2F9efae113c6e43f79fd4370e9af86425068880114_m.gif&hash=6b9d39bc0dc9f184dfdf27fd563bc732dcb4a4d1)
Building a bunker tomorrow.
Quote from: Gawen on October 09, 2011, 01:15:25 PM
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.
Quote from: OldGit on October 09, 2011, 02:32:22 PM
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.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.ffffound.com%2Fstatic-data%2Fassets%2F6%2F9efae113c6e43f79fd4370e9af86425068880114_m.gif&hash=6b9d39bc0dc9f184dfdf27fd563bc732dcb4a4d1)
Is it odd that I find that picture absolutely mesmerizing? ::)
Quote from: Crow on October 09, 2011, 04:31:13 PM
China... has never been military aggressive to other nations...
Though I agree with most of your post, the above assertion is highly debatable.
Quote from: Recusant on October 09, 2011, 09:38:02 PM
Quote from: Crow on October 09, 2011, 04:31:13 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Stevil on October 10, 2011, 11:03:27 AM
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...
Quote from: Stevil on October 10, 2011, 11:03:27 AM
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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7086777.stm)
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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/shouwang-church-arrests-bejing-china)].
QuoteWe'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.
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.
Being prepared isn't necessarily the same as panicking. People who panic are generally un-prepared.
I wasn't talking about revolution. Just a collapse. Still, I think it's a good idea for people to become self reliant as much as they can...as much as finances, time and space will allow. Having a good 3 month plus supply of food and the means to cook it...along with various toiletry items would be handy when someone loses their job. A garden and canning are thoughts I'm entertaining.
Yeah, I think it's time for me to become more reliant on myself than reliant on the grocery store.
Putting ideas of collapse followed by revolutions aside, I think that
QuoteYeah, I think it's time for me to become more reliant on myself than reliant on the grocery store.
is always a good idea.
However, what do you expect to do, assuming that you do find yourself in that sort of desperate situation, after your supplies are depleted?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 10, 2011, 06:42:55 PM
However, what do you expect to do, assuming that you do find yourself in that sort of desperate situation, after your supplies are depleted?
You become entrepeneural, or go to a food bank, or steal, or join a "tribe"
Quote from: Gawen on October 10, 2011, 06:31:35 PM
I wasn't talking about revolution. Just a collapse. Still, I think it's a good idea for people to become self reliant as much as they can...as much as finances, time and space will allow. Having a good 3 month plus supply of food and the means to cook it...along with various toiletry items would be handy when someone loses their job. A garden and canning are thoughts I'm entertaining.
Yeah, I think it's time for me to become more reliant on myself than reliant on the grocery store.
I agree, self-sufficiency, in general, is a good thing.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx
However, what do you expect to do, assuming that you do find yourself in that sort of desperate situation, after your supplies are depleted?
The idea is to have enough supplies for a year. To have a seed bank to plant a garden that's frozen in the freezer. And an energy source not dependent on petroleum. The LDS people are mandated to have a one year supply of food per person in the family and that includes water and medicine. There are websites from them and all over, and even forums that cater to this.
It has been proven that in a catastrophic state, the population is 3 days away from anarchy. This was seen most recently after Hurricane Katrina. I can't find the source of that, but will try to find it.
The problem with a complete national or, at worst, worldwide socioeconomic collapse is that it will take years to come out of it. The next problem after the collapse is watching out for local or national martial law. When that breaks down, and it will...ya wing it.
The possibility of a total collapse is real, IMHO. In that case, anyone who has stockpiled anything will simply be a target for marauding bands of brigands and insanely hungry people. So I've decided to follow Jesus' advice and not worry about tomorrow. I can't do a damn thing about it anyway. I'm enjoying life now. When the collapse comes, the meek will inherit the earth.
You might want to stay away from missile silos and large military bases. They will be targets. Be prepared to be a hunter-gatherer. Learn to live off the land. Again, if you stockpile, someone else will simply take it away from you.
In the case of a total collapse, I suspect that water will be the killer problem long before people die of hunger. Big cities will become deserts as soon as the pumped water supply breaks down - that will be when the electricity stops.
Pyongyang is also a player in this end of the world scenario in Asia. I think they're gunning for Japan's destruction. The US and China are probably the States that keep them at bay for now. I live in forested residential area so I think I'll dig a hole.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 10, 2011, 10:31:19 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 10, 2011, 06:31:35 PM
I wasn't talking about revolution. Just a collapse. Still, I think it's a good idea for people to become self reliant as much as they can...as much as finances, time and space will allow. Having a good 3 month plus supply of food and the means to cook it...along with various toiletry items would be handy when someone loses their job. A garden and canning are thoughts I'm entertaining.
Yeah, I think it's time for me to become more reliant on myself than reliant on the grocery store.
I agree, self-sufficiency, in general, is a good thing.
We've learned the economic depression of self-sufficiency in the manorial economics during the Dark Ages. Poverty was a common problem on self-sufficient manors. I just don't know whether self-sufficiency will thrive today.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 11, 2011, 04:07:32 AM
The possibility of a total collapse is real, IMHO. In that case, anyone who has stockpiled anything will simply be a target for marauding bands of brigands and insanely hungry people. So I've decided to follow Jesus' advice and not worry about tomorrow. I can't do a damn thing about it anyway. I'm enjoying life now. When the collapse comes, the meek will inherit the earth.
You have perfectly illustrated my earlier point, Ecurb. Spectacularly irresponsible. Your misguided passivity will seal our fate.
The meek will inherit the earth...and do what with it? They will quickly be trampled by the motivated selfish. I dont suppose the motivated meek will survive too long.
Quote from: OldGit on October 11, 2011, 09:46:31 AM
In the case of a total collapse, I suspect that water will be the killer problem long before people die of hunger. Big cities will become deserts as soon as the pumped water supply breaks down - that will be when the electricity stops.
It isn't difficult to see how things MIGHT happen. An economic collapse and subsequent social unrest most likely would not happen over night (this is of course not considering a nuclear or biological cause). When things get real bad, though, I can see martial law becoming active to try and keep things running and safe. But when people aren't getting paid or money just doesn't buy what it used to and martial law forces people to work without pay, people will leave in droves from entities such as the military and public works when they are forced to continue working.
The first thing I can see getting worse is sewer. Water can be trucked in. Sewer can't be trucked out.
Ecurb's post will have to wait for lunchtime or after work.
Quote from: wildfire_emissary on October 11, 2011, 09:57:33 AM
We've learned the economic depression of self-sufficiency in the manorial economics during the Dark Ages. Poverty was a common problem on self-sufficient manors. I just don't know whether self-sufficiency will thrive today.
It would be tougher without your own strip of land, I guess (which you would have to learn how to protect from invasion). You'd have to resort to stealing and scavenging.
Quote from: Gawen on October 11, 2011, 12:59:57 PM
It isn't difficult to see how things MIGHT happen. An economic collapse and subsequent social unrest most likely would not happen over night (this is of course not considering a nuclear or biological cause).
It's not too difficult actually, and doesn't need anything as drastic as nuclear or biological warfare. Cut all power to major cities and see how long it takes for it's complex sustained structure to undo itself. We're actually incredibly vulnerable :(
Ecurb's comment to remain meek and maintain a "no thought for the morrow" frame of mind bolsters Hitchens (and mine) opinion that religion is a poison. Apparently, Ecurb is not as versed with the human condition and human nature; the meek will be the first to go if society collapses.
Meek: enduring injury with patience and without resentment
2: deficient in spirit and courage : submissive
3: not violent or strong
Poisoning minds from poisoned advice to not stand up for yourself, your loved ones, chucking away self-preservation and self reliance is a no-no, yeah, Jesus is a real hero philosopher. He'll learn that when the first gangs (maybe with some known members from his own neighbourhood) come round for food. Of course, they'll not be asking any to politely. And this coming from the same guy in the thread he started saying he believed it is good to be active in society.
SP, you're right. One dirty nuke in any large city will cause chaos for that city and send ripples all the way to Washington that everyone will feel. Wipe out that colossal natural gas rail hub round Denver and send heating costs through the roof and massive shortages for everyone that uses it for heating. A van driving around a metropolitan area spraying anthrax out of canisters...injecting typhiod into water systems. These are all easy, but local or regional catastrophies (unless many people perpetrate a mass attack).
I'm not thinking as dramatic as that. I'm not even thinking locally, as in Katrina or other natural disasters. A simple and massive worldwide depression with hyper-inflation is what I think has a better chance to happen.
Self preservation is a right to all humans. Relying on local, regional, state, or federal government, adhereing to Jesus' commands of meekness or the mindframe of "I can't do anything about it" to see you through are certainly no ways I would work that out with.
I think Jesus' advice only stands in any situation where it's best not to escalate violence, but in survival situations, it won't get anybody very far. Though if you're still not wanting to resort to violence, then it's best to build some strong defensive foundation you can rely on. Maybe starting with energy - simple, primitive movement-to-energy-conversion technology and rechargeable batteries.
(I actually find these post-apocalyptic situations strangely fascinating)
I think the best thing we can learn from our evolution is that humanity works at its peak when banded together. Those that will triumph will be those that stick together, with those that can provide a supply of food and water will be those that gain leadership. Thief's and lone wolves will be the first to go due to the fact that people will be more protective of resources and will deal harsh penalties and be scared of individuals. I don't think life would go back to the hunter gatherer stage of humanity but rather the bronze age small communities.
Quote from: Crow on October 11, 2011, 09:31:09 PM
I don't think life would go back to the hunter gatherer stage of humanity but rather the bronze age small communities.
This ^
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 11, 2011, 10:49:42 PM
Quote from: Crow on October 11, 2011, 09:31:09 PM
I don't think life would go back to the hunter gatherer stage of humanity but rather the bronze age small communities.
This ^
I can see a Mad Max Thunderdome sort of life. Small, close knit communities using a barter system. Almost like Old West communitees without money. Perhaps something like Stephen Kings The Stand, but more communitees. And what would be the high cost commodities? Guns, ammo, alcohol, tobacco, medicine, clean water, certain foods, gasoline clothing, batteries.
If the shit hits the fan, in 6 months, after all the grocery stores have run out of food and the people in the military have deserted to be with their families - tired of arresting and shooting their own countrymen...the out of the way convenience stores have been robbed clean...when all the gasoline is dried up...the authorities have searched your houses for those that have stockpiled everything and thrown them in jail or press ganged...when the government is virtually powerless and the anarchy finally subsides...after all the power plants have shut down, people will have no choice but to band together.
I plan to be far enough under the radar in a place far enough away to never be noticed by the authorities and only by those looking for trouble.
Quote from: Gawen on October 12, 2011, 06:45:45 PM
I can see a Mad Max Thunderdome sort of life...
Or the corporations take over, people are attracted to companies such as BP due to their resources and infrastructures, with a commodity everybody wants they swiftly take over.
Mad Max is exactly what I was thinking about ;D
I think some more modern version of feudalism is highly plausible, where people essentially contracted back into more sustainable groups.
With corporate leaders as the new kings, of course.
Quote from: Crow on October 12, 2011, 07:51:13 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 12, 2011, 06:45:45 PM
I can see a Mad Max Thunderdome sort of life...
Or the corporations take over, people are attracted to companies such as BP due to their resources and infrastructures, with a commodity everybody wants they swiftly take over.
It's a thought. But if the economic situation is basically null, what would the corporations do to pay employees? What would buyers use for money?
I'm thinking total collapse. Perhaps 6 months to a year after everyone realises it's just no good. Try as they might, local, state, federal governments are powerless to fix the problem or to maintain martial law.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 12, 2011, 08:37:47 PM
Mad Max is exactly what I was thinking about ;D
I think some more modern version of feudalism is highly plausible, where people essentially contracted back into more sustainable groups.
With corporate leaders as the new kings, of course.
'Corporations' will take on new forms. Whoever has control of even one considered commodity will have some sort of control over their locality. The Thunderdome scenario was lacking because all they had was energy, in the middle of a desert with no way to exploit it. It would be interesting to see what happens 20 years after the 'meltdown'.
I'm more interested in the first couple years. It'll be total chaos. A hard time to live and a harder time to stay alive. But I think it can be done with proper preparations and good people at your side. And no more than 30 good people at your side. It is difficult to maintain control with more than 30 people in a group.