Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Self-Sufficiency and Preparedness
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2016, 07:52 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,167,958 times
Reputation: 5239

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe33 View Post
That was Selco I think.

Like I said, If you are properly prepared.

THere is lots of stuff in cities. Lots of it. The food will run out in no time and with that the people will either starve or move out but either way, they will be gone. Most at least.

There is nothing in the countryside. There will be food, but that is about it and whatever production of it will fall of rapidly.
When I was in Rwanda, the genocide didnt end by foreign intervention or troops or anything like that. It ended because everyone ran out of food. In the end, they were BBQ ing their dogs. That only took 2 months. Just remember. this is in a place where most food was produced locally. This is because as soon as the genocide started, the economy stopped. Things stopped moving. People stopped breeding their animals. Of course the cities ran out of food first. Then many left to the countryside and devoured everything there. Even today the flora and fauna hasent recovered from those 3 months. If I recall, 65% of the forests were destroyed and where wildlife was plentiful it is very rare today..
Yes, many refugees were killed but you cant stop the hoard. I watched mainly unarmed people overrun fully armed army barracks with 100's of soldiers. The soldiers didnt stand a chance.

So people who think that they are going to set up their little survival redoubt's in the hills are in for a big surprise when the cities empty out. The best thing to do is hide for at least 3 months. More likely 6. People will do all sorts of crazy things to get the next meal so until they are gone, you dont stand a chance against them.

But, if you made it past that, The cities are the place where all the resources will be. The countryside will be destroyed.



in a small country such as rwanda you can say that. the USA is much larger and more spread out. it is quite hard for the massive hoards to go out foraging into the countryside on an empty stomach when they may have to walk 150+ miles to get their next meal.

plus the fact when times are tough, neighbors and small towns tend to stick together, when big cities are going up in flames.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2016, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
15,293 posts, read 17,622,363 times
Reputation: 25231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
If the SHTF, all of us are dead within a year. Even the survivalists.
Most of us will be dead before natural causes take us. I figure the long term carrying capacity of the planet is somewhere between 1 billion and 1.5 billion. In a collapse you can expect some undershoot, but probably 500 million to 750 million will survive worldwide, mostly the young and healthy. If you are over 50, forget it. You are toast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Missouri
1,875 posts, read 1,320,009 times
Reputation: 3116
What if in the meanwhile... you absolutely need 50mbps internet for work?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
15,293 posts, read 17,622,363 times
Reputation: 25231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe33 View Post
That was Selco I think.

Like I said, If you are properly prepared.

THere is lots of stuff in cities. Lots of it. The food will run out in no time and with that the people will either starve or move out but either way, they will be gone. Most at least.

There is nothing in the countryside. There will be food, but that is about it and whatever production of it will fall of rapidly.
When I was in Rwanda, the genocide didnt end by foreign intervention or troops or anything like that. It ended because everyone ran out of food. In the end, they were BBQ ing their dogs. That only took 2 months. Just remember. this is in a place where most food was produced locally. This is because as soon as the genocide started, the economy stopped. Things stopped moving. People stopped breeding their animals. Of course the cities ran out of food first. Then many left to the countryside and devoured everything there. Even today the flora and fauna hasent recovered from those 3 months. If I recall, 65% of the forests were destroyed and where wildlife was plentiful it is very rare today..
Yes, many refugees were killed but you cant stop the hoard. I watched mainly unarmed people overrun fully armed army barracks with 100's of soldiers. The soldiers didnt stand a chance.

So people who think that they are going to set up their little survival redoubt's in the hills are in for a big surprise when the cities empty out. The best thing to do is hide for at least 3 months. More likely 6. People will do all sorts of crazy things to get the next meal so until they are gone, you dont stand a chance against them.

But, if you made it past that, The cities are the place where all the resources will be. The countryside will be destroyed.
That's a common misconception. Rwanda is not the USA. It has no industrial food base. If you were shopping for groceries in May, you saw outrageously cheap sales on canned and frozen foods, because the producers have to clear out the previous year's overstock to accommodate the new crop. At any given time, the USA has a couple of years of canned food on hand. When you see empty shelves associated with natural disasters, that is just hoarding and panic buying. The shelves will be empty until the next truck or railroad car arrives. If things get really tough, fuel rationing will guarantee that there is adequate transportation to distribute food, and the distribution points will be in cities. People will cluster in cities just like they do now.

If we finally run out of food, it will be after all the fuel is exhausted, so those ravening hordes will be on foot. They will be debilitated, because the last food deliveries will be sporadic. Their shoes and socks will be 3 or 4 years old, and they will be limited to what they can carry on a bicycle or in a garden cart. Most of them won't make it 100 miles before somebody steals everything they have and leaves them to die. Most of the hordes will kill each other off long before they get out of urban areas. You hear that people hike 50 miles a day, and a full marathon is 26 miles, but that is the tiny percentage of the adult population that is in excellent physical condition with support and supplies en route. If you are foraging for food in an area that has already been stripped of everything, setting up and breaking camp, and hauling along a couple of kids, you are going to be lucky to do 10 miles a day. Those who don't die die of hypothermia or heat stroke will die from dysentery, thirst or starvation. It will be 5 years after SHTF before things get that bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
15,293 posts, read 17,622,363 times
Reputation: 25231
Quote:
Originally Posted by eqttrdr View Post
What if in the meanwhile... you absolutely need 50mbps internet for work?
Change jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 11:05 AM
 
Location: USA
6,230 posts, read 6,905,777 times
Reputation: 10778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe33 View Post
That was Selco I think.

Like I said, If you are properly prepared.

THere is lots of stuff in cities. Lots of it. The food will run out in no time and with that the people will either starve or move out but either way, they will be gone. Most at least.

There is nothing in the countryside. There will be food, but that is about it and whatever production of it will fall of rapidly.
When I was in Rwanda, the genocide didnt end by foreign intervention or troops or anything like that. It ended because everyone ran out of food. In the end, they were BBQ ing their dogs. That only took 2 months. Just remember. this is in a place where most food was produced locally. This is because as soon as the genocide started, the economy stopped. Things stopped moving. People stopped breeding their animals. Of course the cities ran out of food first. Then many left to the countryside and devoured everything there. Even today the flora and fauna hasent recovered from those 3 months. If I recall, 65% of the forests were destroyed and where wildlife was plentiful it is very rare today..
Yes, many refugees were killed but you cant stop the hoard. I watched mainly unarmed people overrun fully armed army barracks with 100's of soldiers. The soldiers didnt stand a chance.

So people who think that they are going to set up their little survival redoubt's in the hills are in for a big surprise when the cities empty out. The best thing to do is hide for at least 3 months. More likely 6. People will do all sorts of crazy things to get the next meal so until they are gone, you dont stand a chance against them.

But, if you made it past that, The cities are the place where all the resources will be. The countryside will be destroyed.
Lately I have been closely following the war in Syria. The various pro Assad factions are making their way to the city of Aleppo, where thousands of people are trapped. I saw a video of people who tried to escape the city were quickly killed by snipers or whoever on the wild anything goes territory leading out of the city. The only chance people have are to stay in the city and wait it out. Urban combat in a dense area can be very devastating for an invading army. The small villages and towns were quickly overrun and the population slaughtered by ISIS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 11:10 AM
 
1,168 posts, read 1,221,932 times
Reputation: 1435
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
in a small country such as rwanda you can say that. the USA is much larger and more spread out. it is quite hard for the massive hoards to go out foraging into the countryside on an empty stomach when they may have to walk 150+ miles to get their next meal.

plus the fact when times are tough, neighbors and small towns tend to stick together, when big cities are going up in flames.
Its about the size of LA county and kern county with a population of 5 million at the time. (today is it 12 million after losing a million during the genocide) So think of it as the typical metropolitan area and population. Multiply that times 150 to account for all the metropolitan areas in the states.

Anyhow Im just trying to pass along first hand info from a real event. Take it or leave it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2016, 08:21 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,167,958 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe33 View Post
Its about the size of LA county and kern county with a population of 5 million at the time. (today is it 12 million after losing a million during the genocide) So think of it as the typical metropolitan area and population. Multiply that times 150 to account for all the metropolitan areas in the states.

Anyhow Im just trying to pass along first hand info from a real event. Take it or leave it.

I understood your meaning and intent. in metropolitan areas it may hold true if SHTF, but in rural areas i do not think so, as most of the food the concrete dwellers eat comes from the rural areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2016, 07:59 PM
 
2,182 posts, read 1,375,954 times
Reputation: 2346
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6.7traveler View Post
Whose "low income and hates their betters"? Because a lot of us (on the self sufficency/Prepardness forum of all places) pointed out that it's not the greatest idea to buy a $450k house in a city? Even going an hour outside of town buys you a lot more for a lot less. Why you wouldn't at least consider this if you worked from home 99.9% of the time is beyond me.

On the off chance your above low income comment was referring to me, I don't believe we've ever discussed financial situations. I may not be the richest guy on here but I'm only 28, own my own place with no mortgage, no debt, positive cash flow with left over for savings and I'm living my dream. I don't hate anyone and certainly not anyone that's "better" or richer than me.

You're only 28 ? I thought were older than that. Congratulations of what you've accomplished so far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2016, 08:51 PM
 
28,896 posts, read 54,042,483 times
Reputation: 46669
I think the entire fallacy about SHTF is the belief that every trace of civil order -- police, fire, emergency, local government, state government, national guard -- goes poof. Yeah, it's the masturbatory fantasy of the tinfoil hat brigade and those obsessed with eschatology, but it's really doubtful that it would go down that way barring all-out nuclear war, a meteor smacking the earth, or the Yellowstone Caldera getting frisky. If one of those three happen, well God help us all. So the odds of your retreating to your cabin in the woods and plinking off interlopers with your rifle more than a couple of weeks is pretty much non-existent.

The more likely scenario is one of balkanization with control shifting from the national level to the regional or state level. After all, a governor can call up the National Guard, declare martial law and co-opt the local police forces, and usually has his own emergency planning staff. And all those local organizations have a stake in following his commands. So really what we're talking about is what parts of the country actually have all the pieces in place to provide some kind of sustainable civil society. If you think about it, most states are larger than many countries. I mean, even Mississippi has a GDP higher than a relatively developed country such as Croatia.

What that means is we'll still have government. In fact, we'll likely have government less inclined to tiptoe around all those tedious civil rights during the emergency, especially some loopy survivalists holed up outside of town. So that means that the guy who has been stocking up on beans and AR15s for the past umpteen years, smug in the belief that he'll keep his family safe, will probably be the first one to have his door kicked in by the local SWAT team. The authorities won't be looking over their shoulders to make sure they're observing the legal niceties laid down by the Justice Department. Meanwhile the bookkeepers back in town might miss a few meals, but will likely continue filling out the forms. Yeah, some grocery stores might be looted. But sooner rather than later, a few looters will get strung up on a gibbet outside the Kroger and everyone else will get the message.

That means that there will continue to be hospitals, although short on medicine and supplies until alternative sources can be developed. That means there will be schools and universities, except likely not a lot of room on the curriculum for feminist studies degree programs. Being a self-organizing species, we will endure the initial shock and start forming committees, trying to figure out who does what. And for those those who don't believe a smaller political unit can survive, remember that some of the most vibrant, innovative cultures in history were the Greek city states before the Macedonian conquests and the Italian city states of the Renaissance.

So where would it work best? What regions are better suited for long-term survival if only using its own resources?

Northeast? No. Too crowded and too dependent on energy and food from outside.
Midatlantic? Most of the same problems, except with more agriculture.
Midwest? Certainly possible. Lots of farmland. Same for Great Plains.
Rocky Mountains? Outside of Denver and SLC, thinly populated. Might be hard to have a self-sufficient economy.
The Southwest? It really depends on maintaining a reliable source of water.
The Northwest? Certainly the brainpower, electrical power, and agriculture.

My bet would be someplace in the South. Long growing seasons. Lots of water and sunlight. Plenty of energy resources in terms of oil, gas, coal, and refining capacity. A strong transportation network, including river systems. A strong manufacturing base. A strong military culture and a cohesive, communitarian society. And, based on the original premise, $450K buys a lot of land out in the exurbs in those parts. The band from Texas across to Georgia and South Carolina would likely be the sweet spot.

Last edited by cpg35223; 07-12-2016 at 10:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Self-Sufficiency and Preparedness

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top