The future of the world...

[Prepper1]

(22 October 2012, 13:44)cryingfreeman Wrote: @ Prepper1... You must have missed this thread then: http://forum.survivaluk.net/showthread.php?tid=2749

I have since removed the map as I'm working on an e-book on the subject and didn't want some other researcher / writer finding it and saying ta v much. But there are a lot more than just four primary targets!!!

I thought the subject seemed familiar, thanks for the posts though.
Lets just hope this scenario doesn't come to pass, I dont fancy playing fallout boy for real...

[HunterNurturer]

(22 October 2012, 13:23)bigpaul Wrote:

(22 October 2012, 12:43)Rupert Wrote: If there was nuclear strike then social darwinism would be the order of the day.

i thought darwinism was survival of the fittest...please explain "social" darwinism??

Somebody on here had a very good sig with a quote from Darwin along the lines of "It's not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the fittest or most intelligent, it is the one the is the most adaptable to change". Which is a much more accurate definition than the commonly thought "survival of the fittest".

Anyway, social darwinism is probably more accurately described as "survival of the fittest", but amongst groups rather than individuals.
ie. the group that were smart enough to make fire outlive the group who freeze to death.
Or the group that were smart enough to move to where the soil is fertile live better lives than those who stay in the African deserts for millenia...

But of course, "social darwinism" is racist, because it's racist to imply that the world is anything but full of people who are 100% equal to each other in every way

[Prepper1]

Do you know what I'm sick to the back teeth of in prepping/survivalism?
Groups are better than loners, loners wont survive without a group.
Groups, groups, groups, does my head in.
Don't be on your own it wont work...
You must have a network...
BOLLOCKS!!! that's what I say..... grrrrr!!!! arrrrgggghhh!!! phaaaa!!
fluck social darwinism....

[NorthernRaider]

I've been a survivalist since the mids 70s, not needed groups yet, just my families support.

[Skean Dhude]

NR, What event have you been surviving then?

I don't believe you need a group to survive. I just think you need groups if our species is to survive.

[cryingfreeman]

The subject of going it alone versus groups is important because if you get it wrong, you really will be in a survival situation in grid-down.

1. The Rawlesian way (i.e. that espoused and promoted by JW Rawles of survivalblog.com) advocates living in a self-sufficient isolated retreat with room for a minimum of 2 other families, all udner the same roof. The logic is that one man or one family alone cannot guard and defend such a setup and hence extra manpower is needed. So this is a kind of group methodology, but one which critics say is founded in rose-tinted idealism. For example, it takes no account of the weaknesses in human nature at the best of times, never mind under the prolonged duress of a total collapse scenario. Wives are bitchy even in good times, kids get bored and lose discipline, libidos start to stir (a real problem where part of the plan is to have young, unattached males in the compound), petty jealousies / arguments flare up, and of course, as my good friend FerFal (Argentinian survivalist guy) points out, a team of bad guys will show up sooner or later in with more manpower and firepower than can be withstood.

2. The Lone Wolf way. This is predicated on one person - plus possibly wife and kids - roughing it out on their own, again usually in a remote, isolated area. In Alaska, guys like this are known as "Sourdoughs" and then to be loners by nature anyway with the kind of bushcraft capabilities of someone like Ray Mears and possibly with a large part of their plan factoring in caching and mobility by foot / kayak i.e. under their own steam. It's fine if you're well trained, in good shape, know your terrain inside out and don't have any drag anchors, i.e., slow-mo wife or young children. But you're in trouble if you fall ill, break a leg, etc. Even pre grid-down, you're in trouble in that setup, much as you might be in a Rawles setup if you slip and fall in, for example, a blizzard. No helicopters, no ambulances, nothing.

3. Self-reliant community. My personal - but reluctant - preference. People need their own space (sorry Rawles, but it's true) so this setup sees a hamlet / village in a rural area, where everyone is used to maybe going shopping once a month (think remoter parts of the Highlands) and thus are used to a degree of hoarding by default and many of whom know how to grow their own veg, farm a few chickens, etc. It's not ideal unless everyone in the village is a switched-on ex SAS member with extensive farming and medical skills, but I think it probably offers the best solution in terms of defensibility against marauders as a village watch can be set up.

Just my thoughts in brief for now...

[bigpaul]

I am working on the "lone wolf" + OH principle, there are no other preppers in my neck of the woods, the only one i know of is on the Devon/Somerset border and i wouldn't trust 99% of the people on this estate as far as i could throw them, groups with preppers you already know is one thing but i wouldnt trust a group of STRANGERS...

[Tibbs735]

Without a common Christian faith to hold the group together, I don't think the Rawlesian model could work very well for long. The Amish model is more attractive; people live their own lives in a small community, but come together for crop harvesting or to face off external threats.

[bigpaul]

(23 October 2012, 09:43)Tibbs735 Wrote: Without a common Christian faith to hold the group together, I don't think the Rawlesian model could work very well for long. The Amish model is more attractive; people live their own lives in a small community, but come together for crop harvesting or to face off external threats.

we DONT need religion , we are all preppers-thats our religion!

[Tartar Horde]

The Lone Wolf versus the group survival scenario can often seem to be a "one or the other" choice. I think our choices would have to be adaptable enough to change as and when the situation requires it. The Lone Wolf approach is a valid standpoint, but only as long as your environment allows you to follow this route. In a scenario of a short time 6-12months breakdown of society happens i will take the Lone Wolf path, and be confident of toughing it out. If on the other hand we have a total breakdown with no hope of recovering our previous civilization, after a year I would have to start looking for other communities in the hope of starting an agrarian based economy. When the things we associate with our present technological way of life start to break down our survival choices as a solitary unit will be greatly reduced.