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.
anyone who has never lived in this country probably thinks its covered in concrete, sure we have some big cities-well big for the UK that is, as I've already said 85% of the population lives in cities because that is where the work is, but as a result of that there are areas where few people live, get away from the cities and the coast and the population drops rapidly. yes anyone in a big city or a large town may HAVE to join a group to survive post SHTF because of sheer weight of numbers(even a small % of survivors would be a large number in a city) but in a rural area where the numbers are already low? all tribal settlements first started just after the last ice age as family "units" and expanded as the numbers grew, and that is how groups will start-as family units, strangers will be treated with suspicion until people know them better-its always been like that in the British countryside, people have been programmed over centuries to "herd" together for support and company, the problem with this in the modern age is that people(especially in cities) have become so crowded together they no longer have any "personal space" and that's where arguments and "problem families" and anti social behaviour start. I grew up in a city so I have seen what the "human" animal is capable of inflicting on members of its own species and it not pretty. so a few people will become LWs, Hermits and Recluses post SHTF. also there seems to be this assumption that in an event everyone will survive, such will not be the case, and some people who were relying on a family or a group may find that they are the only survivor of that family or group, ergo they are a LW. living alone is not impossible(I have done it) but it takes a certain sort of person to do it, not everybody can.
I've always enjoyed reading accounts of either 100% hermits living off on their own or small families/groups living off on their own. It is especially interesting when they have had no contact with the "modern world" (or at least very, very little) for years and years. There have been a few threads over the years posted here about such people.
As for solo vs group: I think it totally depends on who you are and where you are. I'm not in agreement that a community or group always has an advantage for everyone. It certainly can for the right people. But so can isolation, either completely alone or small family/group, for some folks.
There are such people around my area to the west. It's a huge desert with many isolated areas... with many hermits and small communites way off on their own. It's certainly not for everyone, but neither is collectivism. There are advantages and disadvantages for both, dependent completely on the participants of each lifestyle. At least that's my view on the matter.
As for solo vs group: I think it totally depends on who you are and where you are. I'm not in agreement that a community or group always has an advantage for everyone. It certainly can for the right people. But so can isolation, either completely alone or small family/group, for some folks.
You know. I've been thinkimg this over for the last few days...obseving people alone and in groups. Please understand that we are not in a particularly nerve-wracking state of affairs at the moment. My observations show young folks addicted to their phones and to Facebook, young children either out of control or medicated into a stupor, retirees barely making it between SS checks, and many able-bodied working adults stressed out beyond imagining, trying to deal with all of the above. And this is with the grid operating, the water flowing, plenty of food in the stores, gas at the pumps, ATMs all working, etc. If any ONE of these "conveniences" stops for more than a few days, can you imagine the angst? People who can barely get along with each other now, are expected to settle peaceably amongst each other, to defend the common good? Why does this not ring true to me? Especially amongst the unprepared? Remember Walmart on Black Fridays?
Bigpaul. you are right about the "lone wolf" being stereotyped as the outcast, the "gun nut", the weirdo. Yet I notice a loneliness, an isolation, in this country, among singles and couples. They do not trust, and perhaps with good reason. Who wants to be associated with the "survival group" who may, under incredible stress, begin bickering with each other? Who's going to want to put up with their neighbors' unruly, spoiled kids? How are these people, who all lead separate lives today, supposed to deal with someone they barely know, except that such a person, or a family, has "prepped"? Maybe they are not so well prepared.
The idea of carrying the 'division of labor' concept from times of normality, into a stressed-out group, may not be so advantageous. I can see the stronger taking advantage of the weaker, group members being outcast, any number of scenarios. The worst part may be, that everybody's OP SEC may be breached, and a group of aggressors may take supplies from the weaker or outcast ex-members. Not everybody is kind or "fair".
"A wise man keeps his own counsel". My vote goes to the loner, the couple, the small family.
You know. I've been thinkimg this over for the last few days...obseving people alone and in groups. Please understand that we are not in a particularly nerve-wracking state of affairs at the moment. My observations show young folks addicted to their phones and to Facebook, young children either out of control or medicated into a stupor, retirees barely making it between SS checks, and many able-bodied working adults stressed out beyond imagining, trying to deal with all of the above. And this is with the grid operating, the water flowing, plenty of food in the stores, gas at the pumps, ATMs all working, etc. If any ONE of these "conveniences" stops for more than a few days, can you imagine the angst? People who can barely get along with each other now, are expected to settle peaceably amongst each other, to defend the common good? Why does this not ring true to me? Especially amongst the unprepared? Remember Walmart on Black Fridays?
Bigpaul. you are right about the "lone wolf" being stereotyped as the outcast, the "gun nut", the weirdo. Yet I notice a loneliness, an isolation, in this country, among singles and couples. They do not trust, and perhaps with good reason. Who wants to be associated with the "survival group" who may, under incredible stress, begin bickering with each other? Who's going to want to put up with their neighbors' unruly, spoiled kids? How are these people, who all lead separate lives today, supposed to deal with someone they barely know, except that such a person, or a family, has "prepped"? Maybe they are not so well prepared.
The idea of carrying the 'division of labor' concept from times of normality, into a stressed-out group, may not be so advantageous. I can see the stronger taking advantage of the weaker, group members being outcast, any number of scenarios. The worst part may be, that everybody's OP SEC may be breached, and a group of aggressors may take supplies from the weaker or outcast ex-members. Not everybody is kind or "fair".
"A wise man keeps his own counsel". My vote goes to the loner, the couple, the small family.
We are on the same wavelength here.
I believe that for a group to function properly in "trying times," that group has best chances as a small group of like-minded individuals who largely share the same goals, philosophies, religion or belief system, morals, and are socially quite similar.
I have nothing against "diversity" per se. It seems to be a big buzz-word goal in our modern society. But unfortunately that same diversity is generally going to cause some major rifts in bad times. It's hard enough to keep like-minded people from becoming aggressive with one another. Folks who share next to nothing culturally/socially have a much reduced chance of success when things go south.
As you said... individual, family, or small group/community. That's where the greatest chance for harmonious success lies (this is assuming they are left to themselves and their own means).
As for the "group hypnosis" of smartphones, tablets, etc... I read a novel by Stephen King a few years back called "Cell." It was quite entertaining and King had an obvious message about cell phones (he doesn't like them in real life at all). The details seemed way over the top at the time. But as the years have gone by, his premise doesn't seem so far-fetched any more. I think the details would still be considered over the top, BUT the idea that cell phones/smartphones are actually changing our brain function and psychology is not all that far out, in my opinion. The idea in the book is that, ultimately, all cell phones emitted a sort of frequency that turned anyone who was on the phone into a sort of a zombie in a collective "hive." In a way, I think that actually does happen, although not to the extreme he portrayed it. It's been interesting to watch the cell phone technology over the years as, essentially, an "outsider" who has never really gotten into any of the technology beyond talking on the phone as I did 40 years ago. When I get on a bus and (seriously) 95% of the riders have their faces planted in an LCD screen, you can't tell me that smartphones have not affected the psychology of the populace or that there is not a sort of "dependency" and thought pattern change developing more and more each year.
we have had a few programmes on British tv concerning groups and although this is "reality" tv and is not real in any sense of the word it does give us an idea how total strangers formed into a group might behave, in all cases it has ended up with 2 people doing all the work and the rest sitting around eating and drinking, moaning and complaining. I have had some personal experience of a group setting myself and although they are great at making decisions carrying them out is a different matter"too many chiefs and not enough Indians" as we say here, or "if you want something doing properly do it yourself". division of labour would be good if it actually happened but it usually ends up with the few carrying the rest. I have heard over the years of lone people or very small family units who have survived away from the modern world for decades so its obviously possible to do.
As for the "group hypnosis" of smartphones, tablets, etc...It's been interesting to watch the cell phone technology over the years as, essentially, an "outsider" who has never really gotten into any of the technology beyond talking on the phone as I did 40 years ago. When I get on a bus and (seriously) 95% of the riders have their faces planted in an LCD screen, you can't tell me that smartphones have not affected the psychology of the populace or that there is not a sort of "dependency" and thought pattern change developing more and more each year.
Totally agree. Us 'old geezers' are always shouted down by the youth...I have seen ppl in their 50s and 60s (none in their 70s, yet) immersed in this stuff. Who knows but they might be playing Candy Crush, or looking for the game score, or just trying to look cool but most of the older ones are not texting or posting on Facebook. I have a little flip phone, a Tracfone that takes minute cards from Wallyworld, and my grandkids text me on it...always nice to hear . When it comes to the wife (also a flip phone, but with a service plan) the conversation is always speaking, not text (same with my brother, and BIL). We also use CB and Ham radio, which is in all the trucks and cars, plus a unit in our kitchen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpaul
we have had a few programmes on British tv concerning groups and although this is "reality" tv and is not real in any sense of the word it does give us an idea how total strangers formed into a group might behave, in all cases it has ended up with 2 people doing all the work and the rest sitting around eating and drinking, moaning and complaining. I have had some personal experience of a group setting myself and although they are great at making decisions carrying them out is a different matter"too many chiefs and not enough Indians" as we say here, or "if you want something doing properly do it yourself". division of labour would be good if it actually happened but it usually ends up with the few carrying the rest. I have heard over the years of lone people or very small family units who have survived away from the modern world for decades so its obviously possible to do.
Yup. that's always the way it goes. But the real problem I see with groups is, what I mentioned in my post above, is the group splitting up...only now, the rest of the group knows where your retreat is, or where your supplies are, how many and what kind. Talk about "zombies" - who needs to worry about them, when your former best friends and fellow preppers come after you! Better to stick with the folks you've known for years, somebody with a stake in it, 'skin in the game' as they say - a spouse, close family member, or long-term trusted friend. I won't be joining any "groups"!
Yup. that's always the way it goes. But the real problem I see with groups is, what I mentioned in my post above, is the group splitting up...only now, the rest of the group knows where your retreat is, or where your supplies are, how many and what kind. Talk about "zombies" - who needs to worry about them, when your former best friends and fellow preppers come after you! Better to stick with the folks you've known for years, somebody with a stake in it, 'skin in the game' as they say - a spouse, close family member, or long-term trusted friend. I won't be joining any "groups"!
yes, that's why OPSEC has always been top of my agenda, I tell no one what I have and very few people know where I live. in my case our group is me +1(the wife....)
I favor the medium sized family unit in a remote area with infrastructure in place to support the unit. I agree with Oregon, as a lone wolf, no matter how capable, sleeping is a biological necessity and one not easily gotten with one eye open constantly. I don't believe that small roving groups have a chance against a prepared, skilled and entrenched local family group. It will tax the rovers considerably to even get where I plan to be, the wear and tear of doing so eating away at their numbers, supplies and relative health.
I see diseases kept at bay presently by modern sanitation, accidents caused by panicked individuals, infections from minor injury and unnecessary violence as a major cause of death in the weeks/months following a crisis unless a somewhat immediate restoration is to happen. A lack of water in the desert areas presently artificially propped up by our modern water systems in all but the monsoon season will cause huge problems for the population there. In the north in winter there will be lots of uncontained fires will be started by inexperienced people attempting to burn solid fuel. Complete and utter cluelessness as to how to eat, drink, stay warm or cool and healthy will take many urban dwellers before they get too far from their homes. I think many will sit and wait for someone to come save them. Others will kill wantonly without need. I don't discount suicide if things are really bad.
I think the actual chances of the type of scenario being discussed happening on a wide scale as being relatively low in probability. Areal disasters without the benefit of external aid, somewhat like the first week after Katrina, that I see as a possibility. So for that and worse I am prepared but no matter how capable, prepared and skilled I and my husband are, we are too few in number to have a realistic chance at long term survival which is what we are all after.
anyone who has never lived in this country probably thinks its covered in concrete,
I've never thought it was covered in concrete, personally, I just think that the "rural" areas are still quite crowded. Kind of like rural Vermont... It's not urban, perhaps, but it's sure not remote, like what someone like me thinks of as "rural."
BTW, I recently read a statistic that stated that if the world population were to revert to a hunter/gatherer model, based on pure numbers and acreage required to do so, only 6.75 percent of the world's population would feasibly survive, but noted in that statistic, it admits that it does not take into consideration the sterile/semi sterile acreage of deserts, tall mountain ranges, tundra and the fact that many of the animals typically eaten by our ancestors are pretty much gone so the actual numbers would be much lower. IOW we've too vastly outgrown our nest to return to that type of living in any situation that isn't uncontained desperation. That tidbit is FWIW.
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.
but most of the older ones are not texting or posting on Facebook. I have a little flip phone, a Tracfone that takes minute cards from Wallyworld, and my grandkids text me on it...always nice to hear 
. When it comes to the wife (also a flip phone, but with a service plan) the conversation is always speaking, not text (same with my brother, and BIL). We also use CB and Ham radio, which is in all the trucks and cars, plus a unit in our kitchen.
Better to stick with the folks you've known for years, somebody with a stake in it, 'skin in the game' as they say - a spouse, close family member, or long-term trusted friend. I won't be joining any "groups"!
