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.
I was watching the Walking Dead last night and had a thought about prepping.
If we take out the zombies we have a group of people who are trying to survive after a catastrophic event. In the last few seasons the group has had much more to fear from other people than the zombies. They have faced enemies who have tried to steal their supplies to enemies that have taken up cannibalism.
The group tried to stay put in a prison which gave them security and they tried to farm veggies and raise pigs to eat but that failed. All along they scavenged to homes and towns in their immediate area until the supplies were exhausted. They were eventually set on the run by a more powerful group of survivors.
The show has them currently on the road, living day to day and near their end where some are questioning why they are trying so hard to stay alive. The group is actually becoming the ones to be feared after suffering some very hard losses to other people and zombies.
With prepping I think even the best prepared would eventually find themselves roaming the land scavenging what they could find.
Remove the zombies and insert another natural disaster and I think this is how the survivors would end up in the post apocalyptic world.
depends on the survival rate, I would imagine a lot of people would not survive, the elderly, the infirm, the very old and the very young, anyone having lifesaving treatment, lack of medication, people needing "care" from outside the family, druggies, alcoholics, and the just plain lazy.
Remove the zombies and insert another natural disaster and I think this is how the survivors would end up in the post apocalyptic world.
What do you think?
I don't think zombies are real...but if there were a "natural" disaster, or even a "man-made" disaster, having deep supplies put aside would probably ensure your survival long enough for some semblance of society to re-emerge. The idea of long-term apocalyptic survival for just a few probably isn't realistic.
I don't think zombies are real...but if there were a "natural" disaster, or even a "man-made" disaster, having deep supplies put aside would probably ensure your survival long enough for some semblance of society to re-emerge. The idea of long-term apocalyptic survival for just a few probably isn't realistic.
I don't think zombies are real either.
Long-term survival will be reserved for the people whose LIFESTYLE is to have a big garden, source of food they can perpetuate and so on. Defending that from others will be the issue. This is where a cohesive small town might be of value. However, it would imply living in the small town. If you are outside on the farm 30 miles from the tiny town, you are on your own and are a pretty decent target. Someone willing enough and hungry enough will most likely be successful in getting what they want.
Look to places like Bosnia or Africa for experiences of recent wars (which would be something like the above scenario).
a BIG garden or a farm is not really necessary for the average family survival, a lot can be grown in small spaces and in "raised beds", I grow a lot of stuff in tyres/tires in very small areas and have done so for the last 15 years at least. "companion" planting can be done so that it camouflages the food plants and makes them harder to spot, also "guerrilla" gardening can be done in out of the way locations. you'd be surprised how little the average citizen knows about food growing when they buy all theirs from the supermarket.
I don't think zombies are real...but if there were a "natural" disaster, or even a "man-made" disaster, having deep supplies put aside would probably ensure your survival long enough for some semblance of society to re-emerge. The idea of long-term apocalyptic survival for just a few probably isn't realistic.
generally speaking in the UK without any food imports(we import about 40% of all our food) it will not be possible to feed all the current population of 64 million, we would only be able to feed about 16 million or about 25% of the population given the land acreage available in this country. before "industrialisation" around 1750 the population only numbered 6 million less than 10% of those currently living here today.
I've never seen The Walking Dead, so that puts me at a disadvantage in this discussion.
My opinion, what would happen depends upon the disaster. It also depends a lot upon the location. What happens in a big city that has extensive slums and a lot of gang action is going to be different than what happens out in cattle country, where everyone keeps lots of supplies, everyone deals with weather disasters every year, and neighbors watch out for each other.
There aren't many scenarios where the whole country would fall apart. In most disaster scenarios, Uncle would be there in a week or two with some inefficient help and some National Guard to shoot to kill until order was reestablished.
In the case where the government is gone, or a portion of the country is quarntined due to horendous contagius disease, again it depends upon the disaster. In a foreign invasion, I think that the locals tend to band together against their common enemy. History has shown resistance movements, underground railroads, that sort of thing.
Zombies are not real but the situation the Walking Dead characters find themselves in could be in the wake of a disaster.
The need to defend what you planted and built, There is the rub. If you have enough people to defend against marauders then you are going to need more food to feed those extra mouths.
It would be difficult to impossible to farm and defend it with a small group. In the walking dead they spent one TV season in the prison which gave them security until a more powerful force with a tank battered down the gates.
In any SHTF survival situation those that have will be in fear of the have nots. Would it be better to roam about like early man did and become a hunter gatherer or to settle down and defend what you have?
Who has the better chance at survival? The Roamers or the Planters?
Zombies are not real but the situation the Walking Dead characters find themselves in could be in the wake of a disaster.
The need to defend what you planted and built, There is the rub. If you have enough people to defend against marauders then you are going to need more food to feed those extra mouths.
It would be difficult to impossible to farm and defend it with a small group. In the walking dead they spent one TV season in the prison which gave them security until a more powerful force with a tank battered down the gates.
In any SHTF survival situation those that have will be in fear of the have nots. Would it be better to roam about like early man did and become a hunter gatherer or to settle down and defend what you have?
Who has the better chance at survival? The Roamers or the Planters?
There is another part to the equation, how far you are from population centers.
Most of the bands of thugs in a disaster will be close to population centers because that's where they live and that's where all the stuff they can steal is.
Without fuel and transportation, unless they know of a rich target making the trip worthwhile, very few thug gangs are going to trek cross country for many miles in hopes of finding a farm they can steal from.
The closest metro area to me is about 500 miles in any direction. Throw in really bad weather for most of the year, questionable water availability during the summer, then add rattlesnakes, biting flies and large carnivores, passing through the territories of many armed people who won't give up their own stuff without a fight, just trying to find my small place in an area of hundreds of thousands of square miles is kind of a low success possibility.
If I had to, I could retreat into the wilderness and make it even more difficult to find me as that little 2 track dirt road would no longer be pointing its way to me.
Even in a scenario where most of the population is gone such as an EMP event, that would put me even further out of reach of the survivors.
I was watching the Walking Dead last night and had a thought about prepping.
If we take out the zombies we have a group of people who are trying to survive after a catastrophic event. In the last few seasons the group has had much more to fear from other people than the zombies. They have faced enemies who have tried to steal their supplies to enemies that have taken up cannibalism.
The group tried to stay put in a prison which gave them security and they tried to farm veggies and raise pigs to eat but that failed. All along they scavenged to homes and towns in their immediate area until the supplies were exhausted. They were eventually set on the run by a more powerful group of survivors.
The show has them currently on the road, living day to day and near their end where some are questioning why they are trying so hard to stay alive. The group is actually becoming the ones to be feared after suffering some very hard losses to other people and zombies.
With prepping I think even the best prepared would eventually find themselves roaming the land scavenging what they could find.
Remove the zombies and insert another natural disaster and I think this is how the survivors would end up in the post apocalyptic world.
What do you think?
I think you may be watching TOO MUCH TV!
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.
