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.
Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but this thread made me think of this. Do preppers (not even sure if that is the accepted term) generally want there to be more people or less people prepared if something happens? Is it a better situation to be one of a few that has their act together or would it be better if there were more people to band together?
Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 04-12-2012 at 02:24 PM..
Reason: Added link to the thread this was originally posted in
It seems to me that in the case of a disaster, the more people who are prepared, the less suffering, panic, and violence there would be in the aftermath.
More preppers would mean more people thinking about what can happen to them, and thinking and researching about ways to mitigate the things that could happen to them.They would start taking responsibility for themselves, not expecting someone else to take care of them, not depending on this or that government agency to feed, clothe, house, warm them - even if nothing happened at all, they would be taking steps towards living independently and productively. They would save money instead of blowing it on the next pretty toy, jewelry, or bit of clothing. They would start to think and plan and reason, instead of living life to the edge of their paycheck every month; they wouldn't fall for the next Madoff or housing bubble because it wouldn't be in their plan.
A 'prepper' in the middle of a city (not the ones who try to hook gas generators to their apartment thermostats) would think for him/herself; would determine risks and try to alleviate them. A 'prepper' group might form, might start a protection group, might start helping watch each others' homes and kids, might start taking care of each other and reporting/defending each other against drive-bys, meth labs, drug deals that endanger their community. A prepper in the middle of a rural area would be able to work with other preppers; co-ordinate efforts like one raises chickens, another cattle, another vegetables, another hay - and everyone could work together and trade - and later forge trade with other similar entities -with profit for all.
Even the most distant hermit, who found himself with a sudden emergency like a devastating illness or injury, or even getting trapped on the dirt path to his house by a blizzard or avalanche, could be part of a prepper network who would notice that he wasn't coming around to sell his pumpkins, and they could co-ordinate a rescue if necessary. Yet - since he and everyone else would be prepping, too - there would be less need of a rescue, because he would be more efficient at taking care of himself, as would all of those folks who dial 911 to get out of an apple orchard or get stuck in their car in a blizzard with 1/4 tank of gas and 1/2 bag of M&Ms.
Health costs would be lowered because people would be taking care of their own colds, not rushing to the ER or clinic for splinters or cramps, not begging for scripts to fix every little ache and pain, real or imagined.
Drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and even child and spousal abuse numbers would be lowered, because people with definite plans won't want to waste their time being the town drunk, meth-head, or pothead, or waste their energy being married to a numnutz who hasn't got any better sense than to beat his/her co-worker. Hard work would be exalted, and lazy, good-for-nothing braggarts with more mouth than muscle and no ability/inclination to fend for themselves, much less help others, would be shunned, ignored, and left to either learn or do without. Bureaucrats and pork-barrel politicians would be a thing of the past; they'd either have to do productive work or do without. Drama queens would be eliminated; no one would have the time or energy, much less the inclination, to put up with their Sturm und Drang.
Why else do you think that so many in power denigrate and even call 'domestic terrorists' all of the people with their 'guns and bibles' who are trying to make a better life for themselves and their families without government dependence? If people became independent thinkers, learned to plan and take care of themselves, carved their own lives out of the world around them, and didn't fall for every politician's promise or unctuous bureaucrat's "help", the "power people" would be out of power - and they know it.
I guess this went in a different direction than I was thinking. It was more thinking about after the disaster occurred (whatever that may be) and not really what impact it would have on people pre disaster.
Let's say that because of the "disaster" there are limited supplies of food/water/medical supplies. Would you prefer to have more competition for those resources from well prepared people like yourselves or less competition from people running around not knowing what to do?
I guess this went in a different direction than I was thinking. It was more thinking about after the disaster occurred (whatever that may be) and not really what impact it would have on people pre disaster.
Let's say that because of the "disaster" there are limited supplies of food/water/medical supplies. Would you prefer to have more competition for those resources from well prepared people like yourselves or less competition from people running around not knowing what to do?
More people being prepared means, by definition that there is more food/water/medical supplies on hand prior to this disaster, thus lessening competition, particularly among those who already have the necessary supplies on hand.
I guess this went in a different direction than I was thinking. It was more thinking about after the disaster occurred (whatever that may be) and not really what impact it would have on people pre disaster.
Let's say that because of the "disaster" there are limited supplies of food/water/medical supplies. Would you prefer to have more competition for those resources from well prepared people like yourselves or less competition from people running around not knowing what to do?
I don't think that you are thinking too clearly; at least your suppositions and reasonings are ill-defined. If more people have what they need on hand, then how do you have "limited supplies" unless you are one of the ones who didn't prepare and suddenly have your supply chain cut? If they already have food, water, fuel to cook and heat with, how do you consider them "competition"? If they have these things on hand already, they are not out there 'competing' with the hoi polloi - they have them.
Prepping isn't just going out and killing all of the wild animals in walking distance to survive, or wandering from place to place as a Cro-Magnon hunter-gatherer, or even stocking up on freeze-dried foods and MREs - prepping is planning, forethought, mitigation, and having the wherewithal to survive, short- or long-term... no matter what anyone else has or hasn't got.
Let's say that because of the "disaster" there are limited supplies of food/water/medical supplies. Would you prefer to have more competition for those resources from well prepared people like yourselves or less competition from people running around not knowing what to do?
This is actually an "AND" situation, not an "OR" situation.
Post-event, most remaining supplies will already be in the hands of those who prepared/stocked-up AND there will be less competition for "wild" resources because 1) the prepared survivors already have or can produce most of what they need; and 2) those running around not knowing what to do won't survive very long to be much competition.
The more people who prep, the more "pre-event" resources will be available to them and for trade. The more people who prep with intention of becoming self-sufficient, the more sustainable post-event resources will be available for them and for trade. So more prepped & self-sufficient people means less problems short-term and more stability long-term.
In a total collapse, there will be a pinch period when the unprepared & dependent will be a burden/threat/competition, but it won't last very long because they'll either adapt or die. In a partial collapse, the pinch period may be longer, but interruptions wouldn't likely be extreme or long enough to create overwhelming competition for resources. In the event of a prolonged partial collapse, more prepped people will drastically reduce the risks of the unprepared impact on resources... at best, there will be less demand; at worst, there will be more defenses.
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.
Which is better... More or Less Preppers?
