...would you survive? [Read and take poll]I view this assessment as useful but incomplete, as it doesn't take into account will and willingness. In some cases, we won't know until we're put to the test just what we're capable of doing and just how much of our mental/emotional/moral conditioning we're capable of overcoming.
Would you rescue and take in children in need? Even if you'd only made provisions for your family?
Etc. I'm sure we could think up a thousand more scenarios that would require an on-the-spot moral/intellectual/survival decision and still end up astonished by the one that confronts us.
That's not to put down preparation in terms of hardware, training, supplies--just my observation that we must not neglect the "soft" aspect of things, which just may prove the hardest to prepare for.
6 comments:
Regarding the "soft" aspect, that is indeed one of the hardest thoughts I've had regarding that kind of situation.
Can you shoot otherwise good people because they intend to take your supplies, and I'm talking women and even possible youths. Can you turn down a group of refugees because you know all of you will starve? Should you?
While I have a small stock of supplies, and am building a resilient community of like minded friends, I'm still in the suburbs of Dallas and know that if anything serious happened, my first move would have to be getting as far away from the city as I could, and hopefully attempting to squat or settle somewhere in the country. Just don't have the resources to get land or make other more permanent out of city preps.
And if it turns out someone has legitimate claim to where you're squatting, what do you do when he tells you to leave or else? With lives depending on your needing to be where you are...?
See how fun this game is?
:)
It would be tough, but my family could last a while.
I made a post earlier in which I stated that others have the right to defend themselves, or not.
I've spoken to neighbors about what's happening in this country, and they're content to well, do nothing. I certainly won't share with them what I'm doing.
It would be a tough call, but my family would last a lot longer if I chose not to help these people. If I did, I would be putting my family at risk.
A friend of mine, who happens to be an economist, made the point that this country has seen the largest businesses and banks go belly-up, and we have a national debt larger than the GDP of the entire world, yet most people choose to do nothing.
Like minded people can stick together and likely last longer. But I refuse to help those who won't help themselves.
Until I die does not appear to be an option.
David - I think you've raised a very good point. I've become fairly familiar with contingency planning over the years and find that despite the worth of this approach - it falls short in some regards. It's been my experience that flexibility and resilience are often the traits that really can 'save the day' and that people who are chronic planners and scenario scripters often fail to nurture those attributes. By all means - plan and prepare - but my first plan and prep is for the unexpected!
As to the survival business... about 150 years ago the soldiers tasked with tracking and subduing the Apache would say that you could drop an Apache woman anywhere with a sharp knife and they would not only survive, but thrive. If necessary that'd be my model.
Indeed... where you are located, the type of community you have around you, and your ability to defend what you have prepared are all more important than the actual number of sacks of beans, etc.
Nobody can be truly "self sufficient." Nobody can produce ALL of the things they need to live even a most primitive life... else trade would never have developed.
And you can't defend what you do have all alone forever either. Human beings need mutual aid and defense, voluntary cooperation and mutual accountability/trust.
What we don't need is the nanny state and forced "cooperation" that ultimately benefits only the enforcers.
Post a Comment