Mental preparation and the Stark reality of SHTF

[dragongoddess]

In another thread the question was:

what's your Bug out gun for?

my reply was:
My bug out weapons would be for personal protection and acquisition of supplies.

Much discussion followed until the thread was closed. The following are my thoughts.



The fact is if there is a break down in the social order and our society is no longer functional it will become a survival of the fittest situation. There is no denying that.

I also agree that after some time you will see the basis of civilization start to recover in the form of small tribal groups. It could take 1,5 10 or 50 years for this step to take hold. Then over time you will see a new society form but its not an overnight happening. Its going to be a multi decade undertaking as all of the old problems must be faced all over again.

Yet still you will be fighting for survival doing what I honestly admitted I would do if faced with a SHTF situation where said civilization fractured and there was no order. You will fight for survival and take from others what is needed for your individual or tribes survival. That's the natural way of things. Doesn't matter if it offends your sensibilities. Its reality and that is what we all must deal with in a SHTF scenario where society has broken down with the resultant chaos that follows such an event.

Now there is really only one SHTF scenario that you really need to prepare for and that is a breakdown of Society. All the others are just localized events that inconvience people and with some simple planning one can ride out the event.

As long as you are alive and social order is in place you can recover. Granted there are going to be some rough times for those in those areas affected but if social order is still in place for the whole the small segement facing hardship will survive.

 

[Joe Demko]

Sorry, but dressing it up with "survival of the fittest" doesn't make it anything more than what it is. You are planning on being a looter. BTW, when Darwin coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," he did not mean survival of whoever is the most ruthless or brutal. It has been interpreted that way by those who wish to rationalize ruthlessness and brutality, but 'taint so.

 

[Biker]

In the most dire of situations, it's very hard to imagine any armed human to allow his/herself to starve to death if weapons are at hand that would enable one to procure food by any means.

Just the cold hard facts. People aren't naturally wired to suicide and altrusim tends to fly out the window in such situations.

Biker

 

[Joe Demko]

Fine, but using adjectives like "Stark" and "cold, hard" still doesn't make it any different from what it is. You may like to picture yourself as a clear-eyed realist and choose words that paint it in the most favorable light for you; but let's describe it for what it is. Own up to what you are saying: "I'll murder my neighbors and take what they have if I feel desperate enough." Criminals have already made that decision and do so every day. Do not kid yourself that because you describe this with Mad Max set dressings that your mind-set is any different from that of a heroin junkie who caves in an old lady's skull for her social security money.

 

[Biker]

Seems to me you're putting words in my mouth, Joe, and getting a bit emotional in the process. Read my post again then try a more rational reply.

Biker

 

[Joe Demko]

Alright, let's approach this in an adjective-free fashion.

Most everybody at this board already has expressed willingness to kill another in self-defense. We're not talking about self-defense, though, in this thread. We are talking about an expressed willingness to kill another_who is in same straits as you_in order to take what that person has.
How does this differ from the mind-set of a looter?

 

[BobTheTomato]

I have to agree with dragongoddess and Biker. If my little daughter was starving to death I think that I would do whatever I had to in order to make sure she stayed alive. Because of this I know that there are alot of other people out there who will do the same thing to get at what I have to feed their families. I must agree with the orginal post. Society will recover at some point in time and it could be several years (and millions of people starving to death) before a trading economy develops. Until that point it WILL BE survival of the fittest.

 

[Glockfan.45]

I belive my post in the thread that spawned this one was taken out of context. My statement was not a personal attack on any one person. It was a general expression of my own personal viewpoints. I apologize to anyone in the previous thread who felt I may have been attacking them. That being said I still stand by my convictions and previous statements.

 

[dragongoddess]

The problem I'm seeing is that people think that the water will always be there when you turn the faucet on. That when you flip the switch the electricity will be there. That when you go to the store the food will be there. When someone vandalizes your car the police will be there. That there is always a safe place to go. While an event may have occured here I can go over to bon-bon-ville where everything is just fine and wait out the problems at home.

Not so if the social order is broken. Then the infrastructure we have built up to serve all of us in this society of ours will be gone overnight. No doctors,no hospitals,no law enforcement,no food deliveries.No local,state or national government. Each and everyone of us will be thrown from our support systems. How do you survive when the support systems you have depended on are no longer available. You do what you must to survive.

This is what one must mentally prepare for if they intend to survive a situation where the social bonds and support systems of our society are no longer there. Preparation is the basis for survival and one must be prepared for the worst otherwise one dies.

This has been the whole point behind my reply to the inital question. Its to get you thinking, to acknowledge and prepare.


I noticed the definition of loot. The defination is fine in the context that a civilization exists and there is a social order. The term and its definition becomes moot when no social order exists.

 

[Biker]

Okay, Joe. Let's boil this down to a very basic level.
You're sitting in a room with another man. He has plenty of food and you haven't eaten in a long time and despite every attempt you've made to trade with this man for food, he refuses to share.
You're rapidly weakening and it's time to do or die.
Do you lay down and die or forcibly take some the food?

Biker

 

[Joe Demko]

Biker,
You're adding conditions. For example, "he refuses to share." Let's keep this focused on the core matter. You and another person are caught in the same conditions. That person has something you want. You kill him in order to take it. How does that make you different from a looter?

The problem I'm seeing is that people think that the water will always be there when you turn the faucet on. That when you flip the switch the electricity will be there. That when you go to the store the food will be there. When someone vandalizes your car the police will be there. That there is always a safe place to go. While an event may have occured here I can go over to bon-bon-ville where everything is just fine and wait out the problems at home.

I see no such assumptions on anybody's part. Can point to a specific instance of it?

 

[torpid]

History (the Thirty Year's War is a good example) gives us a good guide of what the human animal is capable of when reduced to survivalism.

Some would choose to survive at all costs and live to deal with their actions later, and others would choose to stay within the mores of society even if it meant their end.

One thing history illustrates is that groups often are the key to survival, and they tend to rationalize their actions and create their own "tribal" rules of conduct and morality with the welfare of the group coming first.

For many the "tribe" mindset begins at their immediate and extended family, and as the group eventually gets larger it becomes its own sort of family, regardless of blood ties. This eventually paves the way back toward "civilization" in the long term.

Frankly, despite our beliefs and projections, I honestly am not sure where most of us would really end up during a catastrophe of world altering proportions.

For many folks, I suspect survival in an amoral feral state may not be worth it even if they had the means. Mostly I assume that the majority would be driven by the basic instinct to keep on living.

 

[riverdog]

the other side of the coin. . .

Many (most/but probably not all) folks who stockpile and prepare for bad times specifically prepare to defend what they have. Having a gun in your SHTF bag of goodies is one thing. Using it to take from another prepared individual is another -- easier said than done.

 

[GEM]

Learn how to farm and in the short run, eat your weaker neighbors.

That will be the end game after a few months of total civilization failure.

The idea that the average bloke will stock up MREs and 223 ammo and survive for a normal life span is silly. Famines, plagues, violence, etc. will sweep away the isolate gun forum survivalist. Only tough and organized groups will make it.

Food comes from the land. There is not enough wild game to support a large population. It will be gone in a few months.

You will have to farm. Do you live near land that is suitable for such> Can you defend it for the long haul?

 

[Joe Demko]

My point was that Joe was misusing the term "looter" by attempting to apply it to a person who takes by force, what is needed for their very survival.

Supply what you consider a more accurate term.

 

[silliman89]

Although I agree that most people will do what they have to do to survive when their back is against the wall, I think it is a very different thing to plan on it in advance.

Completely aside from the moral issue already being discussed, it's not practical to wander around shooting people and taking their stuff. Word will get out and other people will unite to put you down. You can be the world's toughest badass, but you have to sleep some time. It's just not a good long term plan.

 

[torpid]

History is filled with situations of everyday "civilized" people acting in ways they never ever dreamed they would act (even within the framework of an existing civilization).

It's looking like some of the folks here simply choose to take that into account when envisioning a hypothetical global breakdown of society, and what may actually become of them in it. That might very well be realistic, but it's not a polite or popular subject in civilized company.

I know the kind of man I'd strive to be that kind of situation, but then again, my most pressing challenge at the moment is needing to make another cup of tea, so I do not claim any sort of clairvoyance.

 

[hso]

The problem I'm seeing is that people think that the water will always be there when you turn the faucet on. That when you flip the switch the electricity will be there. That when you go to the store the food will be there. When someone vandalizes your car the police will be there. That there is always a safe place to go. While an event may have occured here I can go over to bon-bon-ville where everything is just fine and wait out the problems at home.

That's a simple ad hominem debate fallacy that's patently unsupportable. Just because some members don't agree with your premise doesn’t make them stupid or naive. Using such an approach drags the discussion down and indicates you have a weak argument for your position. Even if you feel that way you're smarter than to pull something so obvious.

Let's keep this on the high road. It's a very thorny question of mindset. We've discussed needing to reconcile your willingness to kill to defend life with your day to day normal life. We've discussed needing to prepare yourself to use violence to defend yourself from attack. There's no reason this can't be discussed as calmly even though it's a tough ethical issue.

 

[Lonestar]

I'm in the suburbs and at a neighborhood function, and the 72 hour BOB / SHTF subject came up and I was shocked that most of my neighbors are not prepared for anything. Some thought that having a BOB was stupid and was just some government plot to make Halliburton rich, while other just assumed that they will have enough to get by in the house. I have a BOB plus about 1 months worth of extra food in the house and I consider my supply lacking .

I'm going to assume that if some major long term SHTF event happens in my area, things will get desperate for my unprepared neighbors. I hate to think it, but I may have to defend my home from people that I am friends with, the parents of kids in the neighborhood that play with my kids.

Also I got few real "hippie" neighbors. Nice people, but a little TOO NICE. They don't own firearms, because guns are BAD. They don't lock their doors, they don't put up fences, or get alarms systems, because they assume nothing bad will ever happen. I really like to have the entire neighborhood ban together, but with the people unprepared in the food, and defense categories, it just will not work.

My plan if I need to bug in, is to make bonds with like minded people in my neighborhood, Lay low, and unfortunately defend myself from the desperate whoever they may be, until only the organized are left. I'll try to help my close friends in the neighborhood, but my family comes first.

I really don't think I would need to lower my morals and do something bad like steal supplies with my firearms, because I am already prepared better than most.

 

[XavierBreath]

I think that a major part of the problem is too many people do not know how to obtain food from any place other than the grocery store.
There is no need to kill a man for his happy meal.

Doesn't anyone here know how to gig a frog, pluck a bird or skin a rat?

There are many people who would not kill a human being to obtain food.
It's just that there are some who know no other way.

 

[Jeff White]

THR isn't the place for this discussion. If you all want to take it to PM or APS that's fine.

I don't think there is any forum on THR where this discussion fits in. This is a moral question more suited to a psychology or religious discussion group. It's in no way, shape or form a mndset question.

This one is done. Don't start this conversation anywhere else on THR.

Jeff