Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The inner city animals would decimate each other over turf control, block by block.
And those 'hillbillies' you refer to are excellent shots, have plenty of ammo and they know the terrain. Inner city gangs venturing into 'hillbilly' country wouldn't make it far.
Please. If there is a catastrophic planet altering event, no one but the very few are going to survive, if that. The dinosaurs didn't have ammo. Your average rural dweller of milk and honey America, who is just as used to Amazon, mechinization and technology as anyone in Brooklyn, are going to fare no better if the sun is blocked from the sky for 20 years.
I love this child like understanding of what events like this would look like so that you can make some unimportant "liberals are weak" argument.
A society crippling event would destroy American politics as we know it. Yes, the progressive ideology would most likely disappear complete, but so too would this "anti-PC" crowd of conservatives. Society would devolve into Hobbesian style authoritarianism because only an authoritarian state would be able to maintain social order in a world where the water isn't safe to drink, where crop yield is decimated by artificial winters, and were basic social utilities that liberals and conservatives alike enjoy are a thing of the past.
mmm, no. they'd be there, they just wouldn't have the PC crap to deal with any more.
Please. If there is a catastrophic planet altering event, no one but the very few are going to survive, if that. The dinosaurs didn't have ammo. Your average rural dweller of milk and honey America, who is just as used to Amazon, mechinization and technology as anyone in Brooklyn, are going to fare no better if the sun is blocked from the sky for 20 years.
That depends entirely on the nature of the event. In a huge meteor or comet strike... yes, most people would die. However, in a massive EMP event similar to the Carrington event (which is far more likely than a massive object strike) almost everyone would survive the initial event. Mass death would occur later. In the interim the scenario I described is virtually certain.
Though some find comfort in believing that authoritarian societies do best in difficult circumstances, it depends on if those in authority have their wits about them.
Endurance by Alfred Lansing describes how Shackleton lead his crew for almost two years in their struggle for survival during a 1914 Antarctic expedition gone to hell.
While there is plenty of praise for Shackleton's leadership skills, can't help but realize that he was the reason they got in that fix in the first place.
Have had similar conversations with relatives who are preppers. While they all have more five gallon plastic buckets of dehydrated soup than you can shake a stick at, none grow gardens.
They all have guns and talk endlessly about how they plan to shoot their neighbors when these grasshopper types try to take their food.
When the SHTF (heavily used term among peppers), I want to get along with my neighbors, work together on survival, not shoot them. Well, there's a couple of neighbors I wouldn't mind...
I'm guessing that those that survive will be the ones that can create a cohesive society.
Progressive ideology is a luxurious social excess that is courtesy of a single factor: wealth.
That's why you only see it in wealthy cities of wealthy nations.
Conservative social rules facilitate the growth of social order, and thus political power, and thus the accumulation of resources.
This is a large reason why one observes that most poor nations have poor social order, even if this poor social order is conservatism done poorly (to extreme excess, etc.).
This poor social order is not caused by excessive poverty, but the poor social order is instead the primary reason for the poverty.
People who are "natural liberals", that is people who can not or will not form a strict social order, tend to remain in poverty outside of wealthy societies because they can not form the deeper and wider family and community social bonds needed that allow for enough sociopolitical cooperation that would allow them to both maintain law and order and accumulate resources in any meaningful way.
When resources are accumulated to a certain level, excess resources begin to be claimed by or for those at the bottom of the pyramid. In addition, the wealthy have more leisure time. This facilitates thinking that tends to be divorced from the needs of the core social structure of the society (the family), even though that is the core social structure that allowed for the wealth to be accumulated in the first place. The excess wealth causes people to forget how structure society to accumulate wealth for their specific group.
The excess wealth leads to widespread thinking that we don't need the social bonds at all, then the values that create these social bonds are de-emphasized, and the values of the individual (liberalism) become ascendant. Ironically, this allows a large social space for the people who could not form enough of a functional community to dig themselves out of poverty and form a functional first world civilization to begin with.
That long explanation was to get to this one: if a cataclysm ever comes, all of the excess wealth will disappear and we will instantly revert to strict traditional social order for people who can implement it, as well as general social Darwinism as a matter of survival. Whatever assists survival will rule, and that will be a hierarchical society. As it was for 99%.99+ of our existence
Disagree. We'd have communism and feminism!!!
Most of our existence consisted of hunter and gathering societies that were much more equalitarian than later social groupings. Both politically and in between-sex relations. Men with their greater strength and speed tended to hunt but since the margin of existence was so narrow women were prized as gathers. The ability to store food was limited; each member worked to obtain the necessary calories to survive. It was not until cultures discovered agriculture that food surplus and increasing wealth promoted specialization and the development of hierarchical relationships (priests, chieftains and so on).
Forget a massive global catastrophe, what about something like a chemical attack by terrorists or another 9/11 large terrorist attack. When so much of the democratic party "base" and future is based on open borders, the "browning" of America and globalism and multiculturalism, they would be dead in the water but the mainstream republican party would be as well. The truth is most mainstream republicans have been no better at protecting the border and are just as globalist.
...
Not @ all. Mexicans & Mexican-Americans (in the US), if they're close to their culinary traditions, can still butcher meat on the hoof (or @ least they've likely seen it done). Especially Mexicans who originally came out of rural backgrounds/locations. Islam has similar customs - the ritual slaughter of animals for the yearly feast, for instance. Multicultural peoples - well, it would depend on where exactly they're from, & @ what level of society.
Anyone from a tribal or out in the boonies background can likely go from tracking to hunting to killing to butchering animals for food. It's a rite of passage, &/or a hobby/recreation for people out in the wild in the US, the outback in Australia, & so on. If you're already living @ the edge of US popular culture, that meat on the table may be basic to your diet - & so not really a hobby nor recreation.
Tribes of Native People still flourish in Mexico, Canada, Central & South America, here & there in the US. Some of the US tribes - the Navajo, for instance - are working to maintain their contact with the land & the animals & crops. As long as they're doing NP-style sustainable ag/ranching, they could probably continue to do so, disaster or no.
Most of our existence consisted of hunter and gathering societies that were much more equalitarian than later social groupings. Both politically and in between-sex relations. Men with their greater strength and speed tended to hunt but since the margin of existence was so narrow women were prized as gathers. The ability to store food was limited; each member worked to obtain the necessary calories to survive. It was not until cultures developed in agriculture that food surplus and increasing wealth promoted specialization and the development of hierarchical relationships (priests, chieftains and so on).
Your thesis is incorrect in my opinion. You're spinning what a "hunter and gatherer" society meant. What it actually meant is a hierarchy based on brute strength and ability to kill competitors for food and, probably, competitors for women. Personally, I doubt that women had much a say as to who they partnered with, at least for the bulk of our evolution. That's why psychologists and sociologists have long found residual rape fantasies to be integral to female sexual psychology.
I'm not saying that we would revert that far, unless we were forced into a primitive state for an excessively long time, just that strength and male leadership hierarchy, due to the fact that physical strength largely dictates the ability to gather and defend resources outside of a legal system, would once again dominate. No one is going to grant anyone else a position of leadership, or grant them resources, in such a scenario when they can just take it and increase their survival chance.
Family resource sharing is not communism, nor is tribal resource sharing. It's closer to National Socialism.
Communism indicates a political priority on social individualism. In a post-cataclysmic society, the social value of the individual, outside of the leader, would be vastly diminished in favor of tribal survival. For example: in a communist society, an individual with aberrant sexual preferences would be protected no matter what the effect on the social cohesion of the larger tribe would be. In a society that prioritizes survival, anything that might be seen to socially threaten the tribe would likely be suppressed in the interest of tribal survival.
Communism is primarily social liberalism, not economic socialism. Contrary to popular perception. The economic socialism is merely a red herring and a (false) social placeholder to distract from the fact that communism's primary aim is to remove social bonds.
Have had similar conversations with relatives who are preppers. While they all have more five gallon plastic buckets of dehydrated soup than you can shake a stick at, none grow gardens.
Gardens yield low caloric density food that spikes insulin and this creates higher calorie demand by the body.
Though, one could keep a farm, not a garden, to raise enough corn to feed cows. That would be a good strategy. Cows produce high caloric density butterfat.
For those without farmland access, stocking up on clarified butter, or ghee, would likely be the most economical decision as far as planning for long term survival is concerned. One can eat very little of that to prevent starvation, and it causes a flat insulin response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
I'm guessing that those that survive will be the ones that can create a cohesive society.
Agreed. Though, I think that such a survival community would necessarily include a healthy thread of social Darwinism within it. I doubt that much welfare would be accorded to anyone who was not elderly or a child.
Progressivism would cease to exist. Progressive ideas would only be tolerated in a world that is relatively stable, safe, and that has an abundance of resources.
However....
In a world altering, chaotic, life or death event, our basic instincts, driven by the urge to survive, would kick in. Since most of the tenets of progressivism run counter to the natural order of things (survival of the fittest, natural selection, etc. ) progressivism would be the first thing to die off.
No, Sparta & Athens managed to coexist for a long time, before Common Era. Rome rose, China & Japan rose, Islam rose. Judaism & Christianity rose - & in order to do away altogether with Progressive ideas in the West, you'd also have to do away with Judaism & Christianity. Which isn't likely to happen, my opinion. It would depend on the exact nature of whatever disaster, I suppose.
survival of the fittest & natural selection are referring to the same thing, BTW, although I think survival of is a paraphrase that Darwin never used. That was an invention of the Social Darwinists, so- called.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A nation of shopkeepers
