Disaster planning for regular folks (2015)(lcamtuf.coredump.cx)
lcamtuf.coredump.cx
Disaster planning for regular folks (2015)
https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/index-old.shtml
21 comments
Enjoyed this comment. Vibes with an essay by Cory Doctorow about needing a “bug in bag” not a “bug out bag”, to run towards community to help versus running to the mountains, as you need collective action to survive.
https://boingboing.net/2015/12/21/a-survivalist-on-why-you-s...
https://boingboing.net/2008/07/13/postapocalypse-witho.html
https://boingboing.net/2015/12/21/a-survivalist-on-why-you-s...
https://boingboing.net/2008/07/13/postapocalypse-witho.html
That's how the Japanese do it.
If you have noticed, they do a really good job of responding to disasters. In fact, one of the funniest aspects, is that the Yakuza (Japanese mobsters) often are the first ones on the scene, and seem to take pleasure at beating the government response.
I suspect that part of the reason is that organized crime tends to have an incredibly robust infrastructure, hardened against unpredictable stressors.
Personally, I have no intentions of living in the type of feudal/fascist society that most preppers seem to yearn for.
BTDT.
I (legitimately) would rather croak.
If you have noticed, they do a really good job of responding to disasters. In fact, one of the funniest aspects, is that the Yakuza (Japanese mobsters) often are the first ones on the scene, and seem to take pleasure at beating the government response.
I suspect that part of the reason is that organized crime tends to have an incredibly robust infrastructure, hardened against unpredictable stressors.
Personally, I have no intentions of living in the type of feudal/fascist society that most preppers seem to yearn for.
BTDT.
I (legitimately) would rather croak.
(Speaking totally out of turn and without any sort of knowledge of the situation)
The rapid response of the Yakuza may simply be opportunistic and predatory.
Food, clothes, shelter, help to save precious heirlooms, those are all inflexible needs.
Borrowing on "social credit" on inflexible needs can be exploitatively steep later.
In the Yakuza-as-"helpers" model, they're taking advantage of chaos and economics theories.
I think you can see what is really happening if we switch out "Yakuza" with any outlaw criminal organization in the States like as in "During the floods of '22, I got help to save my photos of my great grandparents from the Gambino's...", or "During the hurricane and disasters of '22, I needed antibiotics for my daughter, the Hell's Angel's helped me..."
The rapid response of the Yakuza may simply be opportunistic and predatory.
Food, clothes, shelter, help to save precious heirlooms, those are all inflexible needs.
Borrowing on "social credit" on inflexible needs can be exploitatively steep later.
In the Yakuza-as-"helpers" model, they're taking advantage of chaos and economics theories.
I think you can see what is really happening if we switch out "Yakuza" with any outlaw criminal organization in the States like as in "During the floods of '22, I got help to save my photos of my great grandparents from the Gambino's...", or "During the hurricane and disasters of '22, I needed antibiotics for my daughter, the Hell's Angel's helped me..."
My knowledge of the Yakuza is limited to a single ~1-hour interview with a former member...
But that said, hearing it from the source has made me inclined to believe the more charitable interpretation.
I found the interview for anyone who is especially interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVmt80EXNGI
Obviously this is not some sort of definitive source, but he goes into "What is the real Yakuza vs. that which we see in pop culture" very quickly, which is sort of the heart of this idea.
Note: The guys runs an anime channel, but it's a very serious interview all the same.
But that said, hearing it from the source has made me inclined to believe the more charitable interpretation.
I found the interview for anyone who is especially interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVmt80EXNGI
Obviously this is not some sort of definitive source, but he goes into "What is the real Yakuza vs. that which we see in pop culture" very quickly, which is sort of the heart of this idea.
Note: The guys runs an anime channel, but it's a very serious interview all the same.
I'm not too versed in the subject but I have a feeling that in disaster scenarios it's better to take the Ronald McDonald House charity model than the payday loans model for organized crime.
People don't forget when you take advantage of them when down and they'll be loathe to do business with you in the future when they're not.
It's a PR move.
People don't forget when you take advantage of them when down and they'll be loathe to do business with you in the future when they're not.
It's a PR move.
And you think the government is doing it out of transcendant charity?
I think there's value in borrowing a bit from various cultures. American individualism has a role in creating a strong sense of self and instilling confidence (but take it too far and you get the examples enumerated here about isolationist preppers), while Japan and Europe have strong sense of community (leaning more towards Europe due to Japan's culture causing a bit of oppression around individual identity in deference to the whole) and coalescing around shared struggle and overcoming that struggle.
There is a reason they break you down and build you back up as a team in military bootcamp.
There is a reason they break you down and build you back up as a team in military bootcamp.
> Yakuza (Japanese mobsters) often are the first ones on the scene, and seem to take pleasure at beating the government response.
That's what mobs do. If you take the protection out of a protection racket, you end with an empty organization and people asking why they should pay you if they'll get beaten either way.
That's what mobs do. If you take the protection out of a protection racket, you end with an empty organization and people asking why they should pay you if they'll get beaten either way.
I don't think there is a clean distinction between a fuedal/fascist society, and one where organized crime, historically often tied to ultranationalist far right parties, leads the response in crises. That is what I'd expect in a fascist society, an active para-government organization tied to particular politicians and parties.
(That being said, I don't really think the Yakuza even meets this romanticized vision that is pretty much fascism. There is more fiction presenting them as cruel but competent organization builders, and less presenting them as violent meth addicts.)
(That being said, I don't really think the Yakuza even meets this romanticized vision that is pretty much fascism. There is more fiction presenting them as cruel but competent organization builders, and less presenting them as violent meth addicts.)
These were two different things.
In the kind of world that preppers dream of, they are the “rulers,” because they hoarded the goods, and have the weapons.
What would actually happen, if someone spent more than thirty seconds, thinking it through, is that a few badasses (probably organized crime), would take the stash and the weapons, and kill the preppers, if they even hinted at a fight. This is what already happens, in areas where the rule of law deteriorates.
In countries with strong social infrastructure, we are more likely to see people helping each other, as opposed to themselves.
BTW: Japan doesn't have much of a meth problem. You can buy damn good speed, OTC. I think that the Philippines have a pretty bad meth problem.
In the kind of world that preppers dream of, they are the “rulers,” because they hoarded the goods, and have the weapons.
What would actually happen, if someone spent more than thirty seconds, thinking it through, is that a few badasses (probably organized crime), would take the stash and the weapons, and kill the preppers, if they even hinted at a fight. This is what already happens, in areas where the rule of law deteriorates.
In countries with strong social infrastructure, we are more likely to see people helping each other, as opposed to themselves.
BTW: Japan doesn't have much of a meth problem. You can buy damn good speed, OTC. I think that the Philippines have a pretty bad meth problem.
In and of itself, the "bug out bag" doesn't necessarily imply running off to the wilderness but the fact that you might have to abandon your residence due damage (fire, quake-related structural damage, advancing enemy force).
If you have a bug-in bag you ought to have a bug-out bag for the simple fact that "Shit Happens."
If you have a bug-in bag you ought to have a bug-out bag for the simple fact that "Shit Happens."
Doctorow also wrote a story titled "Masque of the Red Death" (yes, like the Poe story) which directly depicts the fate of an isolationist bunker in a post-apocalyptic scenario.
Good story. It is collected in Radicalized (ISBN 978-1-78954-494-7) which contains four of his novellas (including this one) about dystopian futures. I can recommend it.
I think survivalism can get a little bit solipsistic. Realistically, once you've survived whatever made society collapse to begin with your continued existence will depend very much on how much practical help you can give a community rather than abstract things like money or pre-collapse social status. We're social creatures to the bone, it'll likely be the most effective co-operators who will ultimately win out in a post-apocalyptic society rather than the most violent or the most self-sufficient.
I think of 'prepping' more as about acquiring useful practical skills you can offer the community in a post-apocalyptic society than storing tons of tinned tomatoes in a bunker.
I think of 'prepping' more as about acquiring useful practical skills you can offer the community in a post-apocalyptic society than storing tons of tinned tomatoes in a bunker.
I've always thought the way to prepare for / survive such hardships is to have a strong community, not some elaborate individualistic prepper bunker scenario.
A "strong community" full of people with no resources isn't going to work so well, though.
Best way to get into that "small community" is to have something to offer. Of course, it may not be a "bunker", but if all you're bringing to your "strong community" is another mouth to feed and some free time, don't expect the community to celebrate your arrival.
Indeed, they may not even let you in. It would be a time of strong communities, yes, but not the "let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya in our glorious unity"-style strong communities. It's going to be working hard together to survive. Those who don't have something to contribute aren't going to find themselves very welcome.
Basically, what I'm saying is, don't think "oh, I'll just have a strong community to fall back on so I don't need to do any prep". Especially if you're not already in one! If nothing else, prep today as your contribution to that strong community tomorrow.
(And I mean "prep" as the document does, sensible precautions to increase your robustness and decrease your reliance on resources that will be stretched thin in event of catastrophe, things that might actually happen, not necessarily piling 4 years of food into a bunker. Considering one of the "things that will never happen" just happened you have a more clear view than ever of what sort of things might go wrong, and, well, even if the virus is basically done there's plenty of reasons to believe the consequences of it are not.)
Best way to get into that "small community" is to have something to offer. Of course, it may not be a "bunker", but if all you're bringing to your "strong community" is another mouth to feed and some free time, don't expect the community to celebrate your arrival.
Indeed, they may not even let you in. It would be a time of strong communities, yes, but not the "let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya in our glorious unity"-style strong communities. It's going to be working hard together to survive. Those who don't have something to contribute aren't going to find themselves very welcome.
Basically, what I'm saying is, don't think "oh, I'll just have a strong community to fall back on so I don't need to do any prep". Especially if you're not already in one! If nothing else, prep today as your contribution to that strong community tomorrow.
(And I mean "prep" as the document does, sensible precautions to increase your robustness and decrease your reliance on resources that will be stretched thin in event of catastrophe, things that might actually happen, not necessarily piling 4 years of food into a bunker. Considering one of the "things that will never happen" just happened you have a more clear view than ever of what sort of things might go wrong, and, well, even if the virus is basically done there's plenty of reasons to believe the consequences of it are not.)
Even if you are a prepper, there is always the risk that you aren't able to get home. Maybe you are on a trip across the ocean, maybe you died in the initial attack. As such you should tell your friends who might be able to get to your bunker how to get in without you. Maybe you save a friend even if you can't save yourself.
Also it is easy to have enough food to last for a year or two, but what after that? It is a lot easier to survive if you have a village with you. A village protects against loneliness/depression. A village planting fields makes it more likely not all of them fail (rain/hail is often unevenly distributed even across a small village). A village makes it more likely that useful skills survive - medical doctors (even without modern infrastructure they can still do a lot), various trades can often figure out useful things (if there are enough engineers and some sort of easy power source you might even be able to get an electric grid for your village). With enough people it is more likely someone actually knows enough about gardening to help you grow food.
Also it is easy to have enough food to last for a year or two, but what after that? It is a lot easier to survive if you have a village with you. A village protects against loneliness/depression. A village planting fields makes it more likely not all of them fail (rain/hail is often unevenly distributed even across a small village). A village makes it more likely that useful skills survive - medical doctors (even without modern infrastructure they can still do a lot), various trades can often figure out useful things (if there are enough engineers and some sort of easy power source you might even be able to get an electric grid for your village). With enough people it is more likely someone actually knows enough about gardening to help you grow food.
Why not both?
What good is your strong economy if one weak link in its supply chain just ceases?
What good is your strong economy if one weak link in its supply chain just ceases?
You need some good ingredients in your community too. Otherwise it's a dead mass maybe ?
Since we are talking about books I’d like to add “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy to the reading list. It’s almost unimaginably bleak but just completely incredible.
I just read Parable of the Sower by Butler and it's also very relevant I think.
[deleted]
Eternity is fiction. It isn't evidence, it's a story.
Compare Lord of the Flies with https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-... .
There will be a range of outcomes.
That said, my plan is to become Mormon.
Compare Lord of the Flies with https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-... .
There will be a range of outcomes.
That said, my plan is to become Mormon.
“If you want to go fast go alone; if you want to go far go together.”
Self-preparedness and self-reliance is not mutually exclusive with community.
A community whose members are all self-prepared and self-reliant is a stronger community.
In the disaster preparedness books I have read being the "lone wolf" was never advocated and was actively discouraged.
A community whose members are all self-prepared and self-reliant is a stronger community.
In the disaster preparedness books I have read being the "lone wolf" was never advocated and was actively discouraged.
Here in Denmark, it's impossible to get more than maybe ten kilometers from a settlement of 500+ people.
I am, by local standards, comparatively out in the sticks, but I'm still no more than a few hours walk from a city of a 100,000. Even if something happened that wiped out 90% of them, that's still a lot of people who are likely to walk by here and want my food.
Prepping for just myself would be a solipsistic fantasy.
I am, by local standards, comparatively out in the sticks, but I'm still no more than a few hours walk from a city of a 100,000. Even if something happened that wiped out 90% of them, that's still a lot of people who are likely to walk by here and want my food.
Prepping for just myself would be a solipsistic fantasy.
Yes. I am unfortunately not a doctor, but seeing a few up close, I think that knowing how to treat injuries and diseases will be much more useful, than any amount of guns, ammo, and food.
Directly followed by the ability to repair, and build, stuff. From tools to machines and infrastructure.
i've sometimes thought i should accumulate a small stockpile of salt. to paraphrase umberto eco in "the mysterious flame of queen loana"
> without salt nothing tastes like nothing
seems plausible i could gather enough to share without too much trouble. now i'm thinking of it, msg would be another good one.
> without salt nothing tastes like nothing
seems plausible i could gather enough to share without too much trouble. now i'm thinking of it, msg would be another good one.
There was a Simpsons episode were they had a bunker but not for enough people.
Flanders had not enough space and was left outside. Then everyine started to emerge from the bunker.
People who think they want to survive an apocalypse so badly that they romantify a bunker live might not have thought through it deep enough.
I want to be protected from a fallout so I can move out of my region after the fallout but that means survival of a few days not month or years. And I definitely don't care much for lifing on a totally destroyed planet.
Flanders had not enough space and was left outside. Then everyine started to emerge from the bunker.
People who think they want to survive an apocalypse so badly that they romantify a bunker live might not have thought through it deep enough.
I want to be protected from a fallout so I can move out of my region after the fallout but that means survival of a few days not month or years. And I definitely don't care much for lifing on a totally destroyed planet.
The joke was that it was Flanders' bunker.
Que Sera Sera
>But many people survive, and a society quickly develops post-war. But it is dominated not by those who were most individually prepared, but by those who contributed the most to their neighbors and communities.
This is exactly what all the "prepper" survival types don't seem to understand. In a nuclear apocalypse, your supply stores will be nothing but a resource cache for roaming bands of killers. And your supply of 50 guns with ammunition will just be an extra fun treat for them. The only way to survive is alliances, trade, and mutual defense. Life will revert to feudalism very quickly.
This is exactly what all the "prepper" survival types don't seem to understand. In a nuclear apocalypse, your supply stores will be nothing but a resource cache for roaming bands of killers. And your supply of 50 guns with ammunition will just be an extra fun treat for them. The only way to survive is alliances, trade, and mutual defense. Life will revert to feudalism very quickly.
I don't think feudalism is the correct term here, that was a very specific system where hereditary lords provided military aid to a king in exchange for the land which the serfs belonging to the lords worked. That seems closer to what you imagine prepper survival types want with the gun nuts lording over everyone else.
I don't believe most preppers think or act the way you imagine. The gun crazy redneck with a bunker is a trope from movies and reality TV.
I don't believe most preppers think or act the way you imagine. The gun crazy redneck with a bunker is a trope from movies and reality TV.
As someone who has never had to truly live through a disaster (knock on wood), I found this story to be compelling in thinking about disaster planning: http://www.theplacewithnoname.com/blogs/klessons/index.html
>On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina became the largest natural disaster in United States history. After the levees failed, it became the largest man-made disaster in United States history. This blog is a chronicle of what happened to myself and my family during those events. It is also a documentation of lessons learned from a survival and recovery viewpoint.
I think it delivers a lot more backstory on what happens when you don't prepare for something, which you don't get simply reading a how-to list.
>On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina became the largest natural disaster in United States history. After the levees failed, it became the largest man-made disaster in United States history. This blog is a chronicle of what happened to myself and my family during those events. It is also a documentation of lessons learned from a survival and recovery viewpoint.
I think it delivers a lot more backstory on what happens when you don't prepare for something, which you don't get simply reading a how-to list.
This is a much more practical and realistic prepping guide than what a lot of self-labeled preppers tend to practice.
Suggestions such as getting in shape and building good relationships with your neighbors are great suggestions for both good times and disasters. It’s also easy to map these suggestions to recent disasters and see how people who practiced them would be (or were) better off.
There’s a weird element to the prepper community that leans toward a sort of role-play: Some get into prepping because they imagine it will be something like a heroic disaster movie, where they’re going to need a lot of guns and ammunition and a lot of expensive technology gear. Maybe fun to buy and collect, but most of those things are useless in real-world situations where people really need shelter, food, water, and support of the community.
Suggestions such as getting in shape and building good relationships with your neighbors are great suggestions for both good times and disasters. It’s also easy to map these suggestions to recent disasters and see how people who practiced them would be (or were) better off.
There’s a weird element to the prepper community that leans toward a sort of role-play: Some get into prepping because they imagine it will be something like a heroic disaster movie, where they’re going to need a lot of guns and ammunition and a lot of expensive technology gear. Maybe fun to buy and collect, but most of those things are useless in real-world situations where people really need shelter, food, water, and support of the community.
It is worth noting that even the worst disaster in human history, while sometimes toppling empires, failed to really destroy communities within less than a couple of generations. And after more than one generation a community changed, or migrated, more than it was destroyed.
The plague didn't do it Europe. All the earth quakes and other natural disasters didn't do it long term (immediate effects are catastrphic so). Famines come close, and even then communities rebuild and survive. I have yet to see a real world example of a Walking Dead like scenario. The dinosaurs and the asteroid maybe, but those dinosaurs left so little documebtation, it's a shame.
The plague didn't do it Europe. All the earth quakes and other natural disasters didn't do it long term (immediate effects are catastrphic so). Famines come close, and even then communities rebuild and survive. I have yet to see a real world example of a Walking Dead like scenario. The dinosaurs and the asteroid maybe, but those dinosaurs left so little documebtation, it's a shame.
> Putting somewhere around 30-40% of your emergency stash into the stock market may be a good call.
> The fundamental rule is to not be greedy: within the scope of this guide, your goal should be to preserve capital, not to take wild risks. It's best to pick about 10-20 boring companies that seem to be valued fairly, that are free of crippling debt, and that have robust prospects for the coming years.
> It is worth noting that many personal finance experts advise against hand-picking your investments. Instead, they advocate a process known as "indexing": buying into an investment vehicle comprising hundreds of stocks, structured to represent the stock market as a whole. The proponents of indexing have a point: most people who try to pick individual winners in the stock market usually fare no better than an index fund. But in the context of prepping, I think this is advice is flawed. To remain calm in tumultuous times, it is important to maintain a firm grasp of the merits of your investments. One can convincingly reason about the financial condition, the valuation, or the long-term prospects of a paper mill; the same can't be said of an S&P 500 index fund - which, among other things, contains the shares of about a hundred global financial conglomerates.
Oh come on. He's advocating putting 40% of your emergency fund into the stock of a handful of companies. This is hard to take seriously.
> The fundamental rule is to not be greedy: within the scope of this guide, your goal should be to preserve capital, not to take wild risks. It's best to pick about 10-20 boring companies that seem to be valued fairly, that are free of crippling debt, and that have robust prospects for the coming years.
> It is worth noting that many personal finance experts advise against hand-picking your investments. Instead, they advocate a process known as "indexing": buying into an investment vehicle comprising hundreds of stocks, structured to represent the stock market as a whole. The proponents of indexing have a point: most people who try to pick individual winners in the stock market usually fare no better than an index fund. But in the context of prepping, I think this is advice is flawed. To remain calm in tumultuous times, it is important to maintain a firm grasp of the merits of your investments. One can convincingly reason about the financial condition, the valuation, or the long-term prospects of a paper mill; the same can't be said of an S&P 500 index fund - which, among other things, contains the shares of about a hundred global financial conglomerates.
Oh come on. He's advocating putting 40% of your emergency fund into the stock of a handful of companies. This is hard to take seriously.
I also disagree with his take here, but I think there is some merit to the advice of "understand what you've invested in".
It's fairly hard to personally evaluate companies in a fund - it is somewhat easier to evaluate a single company (or even 10 single companies).
If I assume he means "~40% of non-retirement emergency funds" I can let this skate by.
---
I also think there's some risk to index funds precisely because they appear like such low-risk investments. If the majority of investments are in index funds, I suspect there are systemic risks that we just don't understand very well yet, because the vehicle is so young. Whether that's low liquidity, poor capital allocation, fraud, etc - it's hard to say exactly what risks come with that market structure, since we have no real history to look at.
(side note - I'm about 80% invested in index funds... so certainly don't read this as me recommending against them)
It's fairly hard to personally evaluate companies in a fund - it is somewhat easier to evaluate a single company (or even 10 single companies).
If I assume he means "~40% of non-retirement emergency funds" I can let this skate by.
---
I also think there's some risk to index funds precisely because they appear like such low-risk investments. If the majority of investments are in index funds, I suspect there are systemic risks that we just don't understand very well yet, because the vehicle is so young. Whether that's low liquidity, poor capital allocation, fraud, etc - it's hard to say exactly what risks come with that market structure, since we have no real history to look at.
(side note - I'm about 80% invested in index funds... so certainly don't read this as me recommending against them)
It seems like Berkshire Hathaway would be as hard to evaluate as an index fund. For example, do you understand or even know the other companies they are invested in? At the same time, they are probably more diversified than most mutual funds.
Sure - if you pick an investing conglomerate like berkshire, evaluation is still hard.
It's less difficult (although still not a breeze) for companies like Tyson, John Deere, Cargill, etc. If you pick a major manufacturing company near you, that's producing non-luxury goods or essential goods, you can expect to have a reasonable idea of how they'll hold their value in adverse market conditions.
I want to be really clear - I'm assuming ALL of the advice in this article is "disaster planning" advice. It's not going to maximize returns, but it can give you ownership of an asset that is likely to survive things like rapid inflation, or other unexpected series of events.
Maximizing returns is often counter to this idea - because it almost always implies taking on additional risk, which is not ideal for disaster scenarios.
It's less difficult (although still not a breeze) for companies like Tyson, John Deere, Cargill, etc. If you pick a major manufacturing company near you, that's producing non-luxury goods or essential goods, you can expect to have a reasonable idea of how they'll hold their value in adverse market conditions.
I want to be really clear - I'm assuming ALL of the advice in this article is "disaster planning" advice. It's not going to maximize returns, but it can give you ownership of an asset that is likely to survive things like rapid inflation, or other unexpected series of events.
Maximizing returns is often counter to this idea - because it almost always implies taking on additional risk, which is not ideal for disaster scenarios.
For me, planning for a five day power outage in the winter seems like it's something that takes only a limited amount of effort and resources and could come in very handy indeed. Make sure you have enough water (and a way to make it potable), heat, food, light, 1st aid and communications.
Going all in and getting a year of supplies seems excessive.
As always, YMMV :-)
PS: In Germany, the BMI (interior ministry) publishes a free guide for preparedness at https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/bevoelkerungsschutz/zivil-... They recommend a 10 day food and water supply.
Going all in and getting a year of supplies seems excessive.
As always, YMMV :-)
PS: In Germany, the BMI (interior ministry) publishes a free guide for preparedness at https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/bevoelkerungsschutz/zivil-... They recommend a 10 day food and water supply.
For heat in northern climates, unfortunately there's only so much you can do (outside of a backup generator with a big propane tank). A wood stove/fireplace can keep you comfortable but you'll still probably end up with frozen/broken pipes.
But I agree with your basic point. Early on in the pandemic there were people stocking up on 6 months of rice/pasta/etc. In cities. You basically plan for relatively short outages or you plan for civilizational collapse which probably involves getting out of cities and preparing for people trying to take stuff from you.
But I agree with your basic point. Early on in the pandemic there were people stocking up on 6 months of rice/pasta/etc. In cities. You basically plan for relatively short outages or you plan for civilizational collapse which probably involves getting out of cities and preparing for people trying to take stuff from you.
If you keep the pipes running, they might not freeze. It's also usually not too difficult to drain the majority of the pipes depending on the plumbing design.
If you have forced hot water heating, it's more difficult.
Isn't there a way to have some antifreeze additives in pipes where a pipe freeze is actually a realistic scenario?
You can absolutely winterize a house. My dad did it in Maine for a number of years when he was leaving the house for the winter. But as I recall it was something of an operation to both winterize it and dewinterize it--which he called a plumber in for.
One of the problems with winter power outages is that even if you're prepared to winterize everything by yourself, you probably don't know that it's going to be an extended outage (which is generally rare) so it doesn't make sense to immediately take drastic steps.
One of the problems with winter power outages is that even if you're prepared to winterize everything by yourself, you probably don't know that it's going to be an extended outage (which is generally rare) so it doesn't make sense to immediately take drastic steps.
Isolated pipes, preferably in door, and your good to go. Isolations also helps to limit heat loss, so generaly a good idea.
Not really. It's more difficult to refill them and get all the air out than to drain them.
> A wood stove/fireplace can keep you comfortable but you'll still probably end up with frozen/broken pipes.
Primarily a problem with old school copper pipes. Plastic / PEX pipes may be less of an issue:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOeBJ8mDr8Q
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9W466z5Cwk
Primarily a problem with old school copper pipes. Plastic / PEX pipes may be less of an issue:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOeBJ8mDr8Q
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9W466z5Cwk
> the BMI (interior ministry)
Remember that these are the guys who coordinated the Corona and Ahrtal responses, and understand that if they say 10 days is enough, it is prudent to plan for 30 days upwards.
Remember that these are the guys who coordinated the Corona and Ahrtal responses, and understand that if they say 10 days is enough, it is prudent to plan for 30 days upwards.
[deleted]
This also reduces the first respond burden.
After that a lot of people would dye sooner than later.
After that a lot of people would dye sooner than later.
Some decent guides from government:
* https://www.ready.gov
* https://www.getprepared.gc.ca/index-en.aspx
To start: have an emergency fund for 3-6 months' worth of expenses, be able to cook/eat/drink/clean/toilet and heat your abode for 3 days in case the power goes out.
Then prepare for 7d, 14, one month, etc: stop when you think you have "enough". Some will feel comfortable for more time and some less. One piece of advice I heard: make sure you have enough food in your pantry to survive to cover two pay cycles in case there's a hiccup with pay roll. Having your emergency fund at a second bank in case your primary one has (e.g., IT) issues.
Perhaps have a bag of necessities (clothes, toiletries) in case you have to evacuate your abode quickly.
* https://www.ready.gov
* https://www.getprepared.gc.ca/index-en.aspx
To start: have an emergency fund for 3-6 months' worth of expenses, be able to cook/eat/drink/clean/toilet and heat your abode for 3 days in case the power goes out.
Then prepare for 7d, 14, one month, etc: stop when you think you have "enough". Some will feel comfortable for more time and some less. One piece of advice I heard: make sure you have enough food in your pantry to survive to cover two pay cycles in case there's a hiccup with pay roll. Having your emergency fund at a second bank in case your primary one has (e.g., IT) issues.
Perhaps have a bag of necessities (clothes, toiletries) in case you have to evacuate your abode quickly.
Ot's funny how close you automatically get there if your favoured vacation style is camping. Even during those periods when you don't prepare for a trip.
One aspect that the article does not cover enough is the importance of training. Whether that's medical training, self-defense training, survival training or general preparedness training, training is what makes gear/supplies useful. Far too many people will purchase x, y, and z in order to be "prepared", but if you can't properly apply that tourniquet you bought a dozen of, then it is useless, and so are you in the event of an emergency.
Circa 2006 or so, I decided to start spending my free/vacation time on training across a wide spectrum of skills. My motto: "Always become more deadly, or harder to kill." I've learned how to do a lot of things that I will very likely never have to do, but if I do, I hope that I am more prepared than I would be without the training. As with any training, the skills are generally perishable, so you have to work to maintain competency, but, personally, I'd rather spend my time learning important things than wasting it on the bread and circuses provided as "mass entertainment".
Circa 2006 or so, I decided to start spending my free/vacation time on training across a wide spectrum of skills. My motto: "Always become more deadly, or harder to kill." I've learned how to do a lot of things that I will very likely never have to do, but if I do, I hope that I am more prepared than I would be without the training. As with any training, the skills are generally perishable, so you have to work to maintain competency, but, personally, I'd rather spend my time learning important things than wasting it on the bread and circuses provided as "mass entertainment".
Why not training in stuff like gardening (the food stuff variety), repair, house building, emergency medical care? Even in pre-feudal societies there was only so much need for "warriors".
> Even in pre-feudal societies there was only so much need for "warriors".
No the user you've replied to, but it's not "either or" that you (might) imply. I would also like to emphasize, pre-Feudal society was as it was due to pre-Fedual technology. The AR-15 and Glock 19 aren't going to disappear with the COVID-23 epidemic or the nuclear flash.
One can learn basic marksmanship fairly well at a local shooting range, but something like Close-Quarters Battle or other necessary-but-uncommon (to civilians) training will require some amount of professional training. How effectively can you clear a room with a pistol or rifle (solo, partnered)? Are you aware of the effects of glass (home, auto) on a round?
Best not to learn these things the hard way.
Let us not forgot, in the original iteration of the American Republic, we (able-bodied men, at least) were all the militia. Even in this ideal "community sticks together" outcome in a SHTF world, you need to have some competencies in shooting.
To contrast, one can more casually learn primitive cooking or home gardening... at home. I, personally, practice martial arts... that's the gist of my daily fitness training.
Though I very much agree, the medical training is one you're going to want to go to a professional for and should not be forgotten amongst the High-Speed Low-Drag oper9r culture that co-travels in survivalist circles.
No the user you've replied to, but it's not "either or" that you (might) imply. I would also like to emphasize, pre-Feudal society was as it was due to pre-Fedual technology. The AR-15 and Glock 19 aren't going to disappear with the COVID-23 epidemic or the nuclear flash.
One can learn basic marksmanship fairly well at a local shooting range, but something like Close-Quarters Battle or other necessary-but-uncommon (to civilians) training will require some amount of professional training. How effectively can you clear a room with a pistol or rifle (solo, partnered)? Are you aware of the effects of glass (home, auto) on a round?
Best not to learn these things the hard way.
Let us not forgot, in the original iteration of the American Republic, we (able-bodied men, at least) were all the militia. Even in this ideal "community sticks together" outcome in a SHTF world, you need to have some competencies in shooting.
To contrast, one can more casually learn primitive cooking or home gardening... at home. I, personally, practice martial arts... that's the gist of my daily fitness training.
Though I very much agree, the medical training is one you're going to want to go to a professional for and should not be forgotten amongst the High-Speed Low-Drag oper9r culture that co-travels in survivalist circles.
This focus on combat for survival thing is so American. In Civil War combatants are quickly trained by warlords, and quite expendable. No amout of training will allow a single person to survive alone. In case of warfare, there are armies.
For all other circumstances, combat skills are negligable. Repair, food "gathering" and medical skills are so much more important. Followed by organising people and stuff.
For all other circumstances, combat skills are negligable. Repair, food "gathering" and medical skills are so much more important. Followed by organising people and stuff.
"Combat skills" include medical skills, communications skills, planning, coordination, and effective teamwork skills. None of the training I've ever been involved with has been focused on turning a single person into Rambo, but more along the lines of turning 4 or 12 people into an effective team, able to accomplish specific tasks under decent amounts of stress.
These are also the skills you'd learn in e.g. a volunteer firefighting brigade or search and rescue team, you'd just be applying them to the task of putting out fires and finding lost tourists rather than killing a building full of people.
Honest question, did you receive this training in a military or disaster relieve organisation? If so, good!
You forgot one, very relevant, support skill (since we include a lot of enabling skills now it seems): logistics.
You forgot one, very relevant, support skill (since we include a lot of enabling skills now it seems): logistics.
Yes, to both; the latter as the result of my experience with the former. But I would say that the vast majority of the training that I have received the most use out of was obtained outside of either, though often from trainers who are generally focused on servicing both of those fields, generally.
And yes, logistics skills are very important. I would say that most of my logistics knowledge comes from vocational exposure, and though I've looked for civilian logistics-type training (I'm old, I have a toddler, and I'm not going back into service at this point), I have not found much available. That may be a failure on my searching skills, though.
I have found a number of valuable references, written, over time, but that's not the same thing as experiential training, at least from the perspective of how I best consume information with an expectation to retain it.
And yes, logistics skills are very important. I would say that most of my logistics knowledge comes from vocational exposure, and though I've looked for civilian logistics-type training (I'm old, I have a toddler, and I'm not going back into service at this point), I have not found much available. That may be a failure on my searching skills, though.
I have found a number of valuable references, written, over time, but that's not the same thing as experiential training, at least from the perspective of how I best consume information with an expectation to retain it.
I linked the Sarajevo Survival Guide in another thread (about refugees) today, but it's again relevant. One of the things it points out is that a "disaster" isn't always an all or nothing deal. In many likely scenarios (including the siege of Sarajevo), skills like carpentry, mechanics and ham radio operators were in high demand.
Training is training, and it's all beneficial. And a good portion of my training has been in trauma care, medical response, and techniques. It resulted in my getting my EMT license, though I never used it. It all falls under "harder to kill".
So you have some basic medical yraining, but no experience. Skills deteriorate when not used in real life.
I train periodically for a small subset of medical response skills, but I'm not dedicating the kind of time to it that would be required to keep the license up to date.
And I would hardly assume "no experience"; though I've not done paid paramedic duties, I have been the first person or persons on the scene of multiple vehicular accidents and other trauma events, and able to positively contribute to keeping people alive and stable until FD or medics arrive. If I see something bad happen, I stop to help, because that was what I was trained to do, and because it is the right thing to do.
And I would hardly assume "no experience"; though I've not done paid paramedic duties, I have been the first person or persons on the scene of multiple vehicular accidents and other trauma events, and able to positively contribute to keeping people alive and stable until FD or medics arrive. If I see something bad happen, I stop to help, because that was what I was trained to do, and because it is the right thing to do.
The thing is, you don't have to be a Doomsday Prepper to just be prepared. It's about mitigating the risk of the disasters you are likely to face in your locality.
I lived through the 2011 Super Outbreak [0]. Following the tornadoes, we had no actual damage (and most places didn't, tornadoes are pretty localized disasters, even in big outbreaks), but we had no power for about eight days because the tornadoes tore up all the transmission lines that feed the town.
The biggest lessons I took from that were:
1. Have enough supplies on hand for the duration of the event. I now keep 10 days of food and water for everyone in the family. It's not a lot and it won't win awards - mostly shelf-stable canned goods and bottled water that gets rotated out regularly - but it will keep us fed and watered. Things like toilet paper, a hatchet, matches, a first aid kit, etc. All in my "tornado box."
2. Keep enough cash on hand to last you 10 days with minimal spending. At one point during the outages that followed the Super Outbreak, we went to a pharmacy to pick up some supplies. Obviously with no power it was cash only. They were "ringing" up by writing things down on paper and manually tallying up with a pocket calculator. We were able to get some essentials using the cash my wife and I had in our wallets, but we were fortunate because we usually don't carry cash. I now keep $500 in cash in a safe in the house.
3. Keep at least a half tank of gas in both our vehicles. Basically enough to get us a few hours away from town. These days if I know we're going to have a big storm I top off. That's enough to get us to our family that lives a couple hours away, should we need to bail.
4. Have a crisis communications plan. When the power went out, initially the cell network stayed up in a degraded form on backup generators. But when those ran out, we lost cell coverage. On the third day I drove about 45 minutes down the highway to where I could get a cell signal and let everyone know we were fine. My Mom was so freaked out that she couldn't reach us after the tornadoes happened that she almost drove over to look for us. Now, they know to wait 48 hours before worrying.
Now, it's easy to say "that was a unique event." And you would be right. The 2011 Super Outbreak was a "once in a generation" event. But I have lived through so many rare events in my life so far that it makes sense to be prepared for another one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Super_Outbreak
I lived through the 2011 Super Outbreak [0]. Following the tornadoes, we had no actual damage (and most places didn't, tornadoes are pretty localized disasters, even in big outbreaks), but we had no power for about eight days because the tornadoes tore up all the transmission lines that feed the town.
The biggest lessons I took from that were:
1. Have enough supplies on hand for the duration of the event. I now keep 10 days of food and water for everyone in the family. It's not a lot and it won't win awards - mostly shelf-stable canned goods and bottled water that gets rotated out regularly - but it will keep us fed and watered. Things like toilet paper, a hatchet, matches, a first aid kit, etc. All in my "tornado box."
2. Keep enough cash on hand to last you 10 days with minimal spending. At one point during the outages that followed the Super Outbreak, we went to a pharmacy to pick up some supplies. Obviously with no power it was cash only. They were "ringing" up by writing things down on paper and manually tallying up with a pocket calculator. We were able to get some essentials using the cash my wife and I had in our wallets, but we were fortunate because we usually don't carry cash. I now keep $500 in cash in a safe in the house.
3. Keep at least a half tank of gas in both our vehicles. Basically enough to get us a few hours away from town. These days if I know we're going to have a big storm I top off. That's enough to get us to our family that lives a couple hours away, should we need to bail.
4. Have a crisis communications plan. When the power went out, initially the cell network stayed up in a degraded form on backup generators. But when those ran out, we lost cell coverage. On the third day I drove about 45 minutes down the highway to where I could get a cell signal and let everyone know we were fine. My Mom was so freaked out that she couldn't reach us after the tornadoes happened that she almost drove over to look for us. Now, they know to wait 48 hours before worrying.
Now, it's easy to say "that was a unique event." And you would be right. The 2011 Super Outbreak was a "once in a generation" event. But I have lived through so many rare events in my life so far that it makes sense to be prepared for another one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Super_Outbreak
WRT fuel, it is logistically difficult to keep gasoline fresh and rotated.
BUT, if you don’t mind paying $20 per gallon, you can buy a 5 gallon sealed can of stabilized, pre mixed, chainsaw gas.
It is 50:1 and 94 octane - and it is absolutely safe and reasonable to run in any car (or generator, etc.) - it will likely be the nicest gas that engine will ever consume.
You can store and use it for years.
Also, you can just use it for chainsaws.
EDIT: This is the brand I use:
https://vpracingfuels.com/product/501-premixed-small-engine-...
"Remains stable 2 years in the tank and 5 years in the sealed container"
BUT, if you don’t mind paying $20 per gallon, you can buy a 5 gallon sealed can of stabilized, pre mixed, chainsaw gas.
It is 50:1 and 94 octane - and it is absolutely safe and reasonable to run in any car (or generator, etc.) - it will likely be the nicest gas that engine will ever consume.
You can store and use it for years.
Also, you can just use it for chainsaws.
EDIT: This is the brand I use:
https://vpracingfuels.com/product/501-premixed-small-engine-...
"Remains stable 2 years in the tank and 5 years in the sealed container"
re: communications - in the events that cellphone and internet infrastructure fails, what are the viable alternatives? Are landlines intrinsically more robust (or they share the internet fiber)? Shortwave seems obvious, but there’s an obvious education/investment/network barrier (no one I would want to communicate with is a HAM).
In my case it is predicated on a disaster being localized. Basically it assumes that I will have 48 hours to get a message out.
Where I live is six hours from the coast so hurricanes and tsunamis are not a threat. An earthquake on the New Madrid fault [0] is a possibility although a fairly remote one in any given year. The disaster I optimize for is tornado outbreaks, because it's the most likely to happen. Those occur fairly regularly every few years and are contained enough that I could get a message out probably within 48 hours just by going down the highway an hour or so to get cell coverage.
But to more directly answer your question, pretty much everything depends on power. When the power goes out you have a limited amount of time before backup generators run out of fuel. Even landline telecom systems need power at the switching end. A widespread outage that lasts more than a couple days basically means nothing works and you're reduced to using (like you mentioned) amateur radio or other point-to-point methods that don't rely on ground-based power.
During the Super Outbreak, the cell network stayed "up" for a couple days before going offline completely. But it was impossible to get a message out, most likely because of either demand or damage to the interconnects.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone
Where I live is six hours from the coast so hurricanes and tsunamis are not a threat. An earthquake on the New Madrid fault [0] is a possibility although a fairly remote one in any given year. The disaster I optimize for is tornado outbreaks, because it's the most likely to happen. Those occur fairly regularly every few years and are contained enough that I could get a message out probably within 48 hours just by going down the highway an hour or so to get cell coverage.
But to more directly answer your question, pretty much everything depends on power. When the power goes out you have a limited amount of time before backup generators run out of fuel. Even landline telecom systems need power at the switching end. A widespread outage that lasts more than a couple days basically means nothing works and you're reduced to using (like you mentioned) amateur radio or other point-to-point methods that don't rely on ground-based power.
During the Super Outbreak, the cell network stayed "up" for a couple days before going offline completely. But it was impossible to get a message out, most likely because of either demand or damage to the interconnects.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone
Well, the plan could be as simple as telling loved ones that you'll aim to get a message to them within 3 days, and they shouldn't panic if they haven't heard from you after 2 days.
Satellite phones or BGAN.
If you want to learn how to do disaster planning as an organisation, a really good example to follow is Waffle House, who take it extremely seriously. https://disasterphilanthropy.org/blog/preparedness/disaster-...
I bet a good thing to know is all the Waffle House locations within a 100 mile radius.
Of course, there is a non-trivial cost to spending time dealing with this stuff, particularly the less likely outcomes.
As with any risk assessment, one has to judge the probability of certain events and act accordingly.
The thing that bugs me about this culture -- and I don't include the author of this piece, who sounds imminently rational and level-headed -- is that a lot of people in this space seem to want these outcomes. In some extreme cases, they relish it or see it as a forgone or morally good outcome.
We should be putting most of our energy into avoiding catastrophic scenarios, and making these outcomes less and less feasible. But I fear that it is increasingly difficult for people across the political spectrum and below a certain socio-economic line to not be extremely cynical about society, and therefore the future. The result is "prepping" getting more attention than building a better world.
As with any risk assessment, one has to judge the probability of certain events and act accordingly.
The thing that bugs me about this culture -- and I don't include the author of this piece, who sounds imminently rational and level-headed -- is that a lot of people in this space seem to want these outcomes. In some extreme cases, they relish it or see it as a forgone or morally good outcome.
We should be putting most of our energy into avoiding catastrophic scenarios, and making these outcomes less and less feasible. But I fear that it is increasingly difficult for people across the political spectrum and below a certain socio-economic line to not be extremely cynical about society, and therefore the future. The result is "prepping" getting more attention than building a better world.
But, many of the catastrophic scenarios are nature-made instead of man-made. I’m not aware of any way to avoid volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, drought, etc. unless you are suggesting that everyone move to someplace where none of these things can exist.
Yup. Also people who write things like CollapseOS, and many HAM radio people. They fantasize about being relevant and important, and their hobby is a way to indulge in those fantasies. No wonder they secretly want the worst to come to pass – it’s the actual point of it all.
That's why I can't spend time on places like the Collapse subreddit. There are many people that fetishize the idea. This clouds their judgment and predictive power, and you see so many poor predictions of outcomes of world events there.
I've noticed (from an external point of view) that 1/ many people use it for some kind of escaping (myself somewhat included) 2/ Fantasize about being the hero of a post-apocalyptic novelbut IRL
You put that beautifully - it really is the case that "normal" preppers seem to be totally relishing becoming the next Mad Max hero, roaming the wilderness with their stash of weaponry...
What's really great about this piece apart from the fact it isn't this ^ is that it is beautifully written...
What's really great about this piece apart from the fact it isn't this ^ is that it is beautifully written...
I always wonder how many of those preppers have the actual skil, and yes gear, to roam the country side for long. Orientation, navigation, endurance, you name it. I'll take any long distance hiker for tjose scenarios than some wpuld be prepper siting on a stash of gear that would need a small truck to haul around.
I liked the book from lcamtuf "Silence on the Wire" , I used to read what this guy writes.
But then as i recall he started to work for google. Probably helped there with browser security and user tracking.
He wrote some good open source tools thou.
He wrote some good open source tools thou.
Pretty weak rationale to dismiss (?) someone who's contributed quite a lot to the world over the past ~20 years.
The author seems to be missing some important developments:
Written by [email protected], Dec 2015, minor updates Jul 2021.
Pandemic. It's been a while since the highly developed world experienced a devastating outbreak, but it may be premature to flat out dismiss the risk. In 1918, an unusual strain of flu managed to kill 75 million people. Few years later, a mysterious sleeping sickness - probably also of viral origin - swept the globe, crippling millions, some for life. We aren't necessarily better prepared for similar events today.> In the US in the 90s, your lifetime likelihood of victimization was estimated to be around 80%; the odds of suffering criminal injury hovered at 40%.
Any source? These figures seem absurdly high, and I say that as a former resident of NYC in the 90s.
Any source? These figures seem absurdly high, and I say that as a former resident of NYC in the 90s.
I decided to run a binomial on it, because these sort of things can be quite counter-intuitive, and I was also curious! My only assumption was a lifetime of 80 years. And it turns out the magic rate to get a 40% criminal injury expectation (over a lifetime of 80 years) is if you're in an area with a violent crime rate of at least 6.4 crimes per 1000 people per year.
The FBI gives [1] a national violent crime rate (in 2019) of 366.7 per 100,000, so 3.7 per 1000. However, in the 90s the violent crime rate peaked at 7.6 per 1000 [2] and wouldn't fall below 6.4 until 1996. So the conclusion is that his numbers seem pretty much spot on.
Of course it's also somewhat misleading in another way though. Violent crime is not normally distributed and influenced heavily by demographics and location. Detroit has an aggravated assault rate (which is just one component of the criminal injury rate) of 15.2 per 1000 people, while Irvine, California has a rate of 0.2 per 1000 people. It's one of the many cases where the average doesn't really tell you anything at all about your own chances for an outcome.
[1] - https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
[2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-...
The FBI gives [1] a national violent crime rate (in 2019) of 366.7 per 100,000, so 3.7 per 1000. However, in the 90s the violent crime rate peaked at 7.6 per 1000 [2] and wouldn't fall below 6.4 until 1996. So the conclusion is that his numbers seem pretty much spot on.
Of course it's also somewhat misleading in another way though. Violent crime is not normally distributed and influenced heavily by demographics and location. Detroit has an aggravated assault rate (which is just one component of the criminal injury rate) of 15.2 per 1000 people, while Irvine, California has a rate of 0.2 per 1000 people. It's one of the many cases where the average doesn't really tell you anything at all about your own chances for an outcome.
[1] - https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
[2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-...
The 80% lifetime chance of being a victim of a crime sounds about right. How many people can say they've never had some sort of property stolen?
The 40% lifetime injury chance sounds a little high. I wouldn't be surprised if it was around 25% though. Obviously this is all anecdotal.
The 40% lifetime injury chance sounds a little high. I wouldn't be surprised if it was around 25% though. Obviously this is all anecdotal.
I found a 1987 report from the bureau of justice statistics: https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/lifetime-likelihood...
Uses data from approximately the 1975-1985 period, so not about the 90s.
Uses data from approximately the 1975-1985 period, so not about the 90s.
>> Any source? These figures seem absurdly high, and I say that as a former resident of NYC in the 90s.
> Uses data from approximately the 1975-1985 period, so not about the 90s.
Also, wasn't violent crime notoriously high during that period? For instance, my understanding was Times Square used to be gritty and a little dangerous, then Giuliani turned it into a Disneyland in the 90s.
> Uses data from approximately the 1975-1985 period, so not about the 90s.
Also, wasn't violent crime notoriously high during that period? For instance, my understanding was Times Square used to be gritty and a little dangerous, then Giuliani turned it into a Disneyland in the 90s.
I don't know how actively dangerous Times Square was but for it and 42nd Street "gritty" is a pretty good description. You see remnants of it at e.g. the Port Authority, aka one of the world's worst bus stations. Being there late at night was... interesting (as I once was). For a lot of people who knew NYC in that era, the "Disneyfication" isn't the worst thing that could have happened.
My dad commuted to his office somewhere in Midtown Manhattan in the 1980s. One day I was rummaging through his briefcase and found a steel baton. I asked him what it was for and he said it was to protect himself from the bad guys.
As a kid I distinctly remember being somewhat afraid whenever my family had reason to go into NYC from our home in NJ.
I know he's controversial, but that fear subsided at some point during Guiliani's term. Yes I know today he seems to have become a total crazy loon, but I highly respected him as mayor for making large swathes of NYC feel safer. And yes, I know some people loathe him even for his tenureship as mayor.
As a kid I distinctly remember being somewhat afraid whenever my family had reason to go into NYC from our home in NJ.
I know he's controversial, but that fear subsided at some point during Guiliani's term. Yes I know today he seems to have become a total crazy loon, but I highly respected him as mayor for making large swathes of NYC feel safer. And yes, I know some people loathe him even for his tenureship as mayor.
I was visiting NYC a fair bit in the late 80s-00s and even worked there for a summer. But, while my friends there would roll their eyes a bit at "the proctor's" recorded messages in taxi cabs about buckling your seatbelt and things like that, in general they seemed to mostly think that Disneyfication was better than what preceded it. While I'm sure things were never as bad as they were in my younger imagination, there were a lot of places I would not have been comfortable walking, especially at night.
For the most intense emergency situations: If you take up wilderness camping (hiking, floating, snow travel based) you accrue the kinds of equipment that can carry you through most realistic emergency situations. But, more importantly, you learn to use and maintain that gear to keep you hydrated, fed and warm. Beyond that it's a matter of knowing where to collect water and having or finding enough calories.
The skills and equipment acquired in this pursuit of fun is far more practical than watching youtube doomsday preppers tie 30 different knots for tarps or ordering a barrel of MREs.
The skills and equipment acquired in this pursuit of fun is far more practical than watching youtube doomsday preppers tie 30 different knots for tarps or ordering a barrel of MREs.
But is it tactical?
Cash on hand, a gun with ammunition, canned food, and bottled water.
> Cash on hand, a gun with ammunition, canned food, and bottled water.
Contrary to popular opinion, people generally pull together in disasters rather than society falling apart. Good book on what happened in various situations ( 1917 explosion that tore up Halifax, Nova Scotia, the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans)
* http://rebeccasolnit.net/book/a-paradise-built-in-hell/
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6444492-a-paradise-built...
It's an area / sub-field of study:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_disaster
Contrary to popular opinion, people generally pull together in disasters rather than society falling apart. Good book on what happened in various situations ( 1917 explosion that tore up Halifax, Nova Scotia, the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans)
* http://rebeccasolnit.net/book/a-paradise-built-in-hell/
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6444492-a-paradise-built...
It's an area / sub-field of study:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_disaster
Ever seen Threads (1984) though? Or for something less outright depressing, perhaps the first few episodes of James Burke's Connections?
Both make it clear that should something cataclysmic befall us all we'd be faced with the near-impossible problem of restarting agriculture. Modern, surplus-generating, agriculture isn't possible without modern society, starting with the basics like fuel and fertilizers (and everything else that's connected: the rule of law, supply chains, logistics, PhD-level domain knowledge and expertise, and so on). Those who survive "the event" would be forced into a life of sustenance farming for generations - and while you might think some semblance of modern civilization could be reestablished within a few years, consider that if everyone is sustenance farming for themselves, that leaves almost no-one left to do the actual reconstruction work, and that includes rebuilding fertilizer plants, fuel refineries, oil extraction, and agricultural machinery production.
Without anything close to today's industrialization and automation being restored within a few years (hint: very unlikely) it only gets worse: our modern society depends on an educated workforce. Under a "everyone sustenance farms for themselves"-scenario that means there's no-one to sufficiently educate the tens of millions of school and university-age people, assuming those kids aren't press-ganged into farming for their local district before they can even read or write, so with that outlook what hope is there to rebuild and operate oil refineries from scratch?
And "rebuild from scratch" is the word. While Russia might no-longer have enough strategic warheads to completely obliterate the northern hemisphere (at least for now), I'd bet a week's worth of my future postwar turnip ration that Russia has all of North America's oil refineries and related infrastructure marked as primary-targets, such is total war - so in the aftermath it definitely wouldn't be as simple as reconnecting some broken pipework and wiring-up a generator: the entire gulf-coast's set of oil refineries would be obliterated.
So, yes, you're not wrong: we will all band together, but I'll add that we'll band-together for a world of suck for 10-20 years before we mostly succumb to then-untreatable cancers, and our offspring will grow up as illiterate and uneducated serfs.
I must say, relocating to Chile or New Zealand is looking very attractive right now...
Both make it clear that should something cataclysmic befall us all we'd be faced with the near-impossible problem of restarting agriculture. Modern, surplus-generating, agriculture isn't possible without modern society, starting with the basics like fuel and fertilizers (and everything else that's connected: the rule of law, supply chains, logistics, PhD-level domain knowledge and expertise, and so on). Those who survive "the event" would be forced into a life of sustenance farming for generations - and while you might think some semblance of modern civilization could be reestablished within a few years, consider that if everyone is sustenance farming for themselves, that leaves almost no-one left to do the actual reconstruction work, and that includes rebuilding fertilizer plants, fuel refineries, oil extraction, and agricultural machinery production.
Without anything close to today's industrialization and automation being restored within a few years (hint: very unlikely) it only gets worse: our modern society depends on an educated workforce. Under a "everyone sustenance farms for themselves"-scenario that means there's no-one to sufficiently educate the tens of millions of school and university-age people, assuming those kids aren't press-ganged into farming for their local district before they can even read or write, so with that outlook what hope is there to rebuild and operate oil refineries from scratch?
And "rebuild from scratch" is the word. While Russia might no-longer have enough strategic warheads to completely obliterate the northern hemisphere (at least for now), I'd bet a week's worth of my future postwar turnip ration that Russia has all of North America's oil refineries and related infrastructure marked as primary-targets, such is total war - so in the aftermath it definitely wouldn't be as simple as reconnecting some broken pipework and wiring-up a generator: the entire gulf-coast's set of oil refineries would be obliterated.
So, yes, you're not wrong: we will all band together, but I'll add that we'll band-together for a world of suck for 10-20 years before we mostly succumb to then-untreatable cancers, and our offspring will grow up as illiterate and uneducated serfs.
I must say, relocating to Chile or New Zealand is looking very attractive right now...
This assumes a rapid, catastrophic collapse, which seems unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. More likely are localized disasters and gradual, sometimes imperceptible decline. These things have trickle-down impacts (migration, food shortages, etc) but are generally unlikely to trigger full on survival scenarios for most people. This isn't to say our industrialized food chain isn't problematic, it certainly is, but a gun is less likely to aid most people in day to day survival.
> This assumes a rapid, catastrophic collapse, which seems unlikely.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently set the Doomsday clock to 100s to midnight.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently set the Doomsday clock to 100s to midnight.
OK? But I'm not sure of your point. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists doesn't know much more than the rest of us do about this. Anyone can tell you there's lots of nuclear weapons and that using them would lead to a massive social collapse. But a nuke hasn't been deployed in anger for nearly 80 years. In that time there's been countless natural disasters, pandemics, conflicts and social upheavals. I know what I'm planning for.
We also haven't had a proper pandemic for a century, and then we had one. Nukes aren't something you can do much about, but excluding then entirely from one's disaster planning feels like a mistake.
> We also haven't had a proper pandemic for a century, and then we had one.
I disagree. COVID-19 has certainly been the widest scales pandemic, but in addition to high profile localized pandemics (Ebola and Zika), we've had several smaller serious outbreaks (H1N1 killed between 200,000 and 500,000 people worldwide, and also overwhelmingly impacted younger people).
> Nukes aren't something you can do much about, but excluding then entirely from one's disaster planning feels like a mistake.
Nor would I suggest you should exclude it. But as the parent comment stated, the real problem in such as situation is social (restarting industrial systems), which isn't really something I can prepare for.
I disagree. COVID-19 has certainly been the widest scales pandemic, but in addition to high profile localized pandemics (Ebola and Zika), we've had several smaller serious outbreaks (H1N1 killed between 200,000 and 500,000 people worldwide, and also overwhelmingly impacted younger people).
> Nukes aren't something you can do much about, but excluding then entirely from one's disaster planning feels like a mistake.
Nor would I suggest you should exclude it. But as the parent comment stated, the real problem in such as situation is social (restarting industrial systems), which isn't really something I can prepare for.
Disasters, yes, not collapse.
Totally agree. Nuclear war is something completely different. There is nothing to come back to.
Resource scarcity would turn things violent really quickly for the survivors.
Resource scarcity would turn things violent really quickly for the survivors.
What use is cash in the case of a true catastrophe? And I don’t see the benefit of having a gun with or without ammunition. I would never ever be willing to shoot another person (or even an animal), even to protect myself or mine. I’d rather we are raped, tortured, and killed than harm another person.
> What use is cash in the case of a true catastrophe?
Not much long term in a civilizational collapse, but even then it might still be useful before everyone realizes what's going on.
> And I don’t see the benefit of having a gun with or without ammunition. I would never ever be willing to shoot another person (or even an animal), even to protect myself or mine. I’d rather we are raped, tortured, and killed than harm another person.
I think that's probably an unusually high level of commitment to nonviolence.
It's also creates moral dilemmas: allowing someone to be "raped, tortured, and killed" by others is harming that person. All your principle may mean in practice is the innocent are the ones harmed and the guilty are left unharmed.
Not much long term in a civilizational collapse, but even then it might still be useful before everyone realizes what's going on.
> And I don’t see the benefit of having a gun with or without ammunition. I would never ever be willing to shoot another person (or even an animal), even to protect myself or mine. I’d rather we are raped, tortured, and killed than harm another person.
I think that's probably an unusually high level of commitment to nonviolence.
It's also creates moral dilemmas: allowing someone to be "raped, tortured, and killed" by others is harming that person. All your principle may mean in practice is the innocent are the ones harmed and the guilty are left unharmed.
If you live in a more rural area, a gun with ammunition can be a viable source of food. The shelf life of ammunition is a squishy subject, but with good storage it's reasonable to expect it to last on the order of a human lifespan.
Absent a complete ecosystem breakdown, game feeds itself. Obviously if too many people are hunting, there's the risk of killing off all of the game. Which is another excellent reason that is would be a strategy better suited to a less populated area.
It's hard to imagine a more efficient way (measured in money and space required) to supply food for potentially decades.
Absent a complete ecosystem breakdown, game feeds itself. Obviously if too many people are hunting, there's the risk of killing off all of the game. Which is another excellent reason that is would be a strategy better suited to a less populated area.
It's hard to imagine a more efficient way (measured in money and space required) to supply food for potentially decades.
While I understand non-violent, sometimes violence is the worst of your bad choices. I have no plan on shooting another human, but I need to reserve that right because there are people who will shoot me (Russia if you are in Ukraine)
Unless you are an active combatant in a war, or civil war, that's usually not your problem.
I plan to keep out of war. However those live in Ukraine a week ago you have no choice in the matter - I cannot ignore the possibility that the same might happen to me (though it does seem like a remote chance)
Yep, we are all (in certaim age groups and qualification levels) one general mobilization away from being meat for the meat grinder. The basic "this dangerous end of rifle, point at enemy, pull there" training will be provided in those cases so.
[deleted]
>>I’d rather we are raped, tortured, and killed than harm another person.
What a truly bizarre statement, and I seriously doubt you mean it.
What a truly bizarre statement, and I seriously doubt you mean it.
Did you notice the poster's name?
Cash on hand is important for basic trade. There are plenty boring examples of extended power outages where people fall back on cash for buying groceries and such.
That's an interesting take. Do you have any personal experience with those types of victimization and their impacts? You also say "we". Do the other members of the group share the same position?
Honestly, I think if you had resources you would eventually run into someone who would use violence to take those resources and the last line in your post is exactly what would happen.
Defending against real harm is reasonable. Just don't be pro-active about it.
If you don't have to worry about hingry predators, large ones like bears or wolves, tigers and lions, I think an axe and a saw for fire and construction wood is a better alternative than a gun.
EDIT: Hunting, a gun can be used for hunting. If you know how to, if you don't it's still pretty useless.
EDIT: Hunting, a gun can be used for hunting. If you know how to, if you don't it's still pretty useless.
The most likely one is missing I think - full collapse of the financial systems globally.
Everything is interconnected and incredibly fragile and correlated.
Everything is interconnected and incredibly fragile and correlated.
I was thinking about this earlier. To me a high priority would be movement, be able to get out of the disaster zone and be able to move to safer locations.
"(...) putting the rest of their money in a rainy-day fund (...)"
What do we do when we are outcast from the financial system or it ceases to function?
What do we do when we are outcast from the financial system or it ceases to function?
Buy a house, whenever possible and reasonable.
First line, from 2015.
"In the public consciousness, its portrayals have all the makings of a doomsday cult: a tribe of unkempt misfits who hoard gold bullion, study herbalism, and preach about the imminent collapse of our society."
Well, that hasn't aged well...
"In the public consciousness, its portrayals have all the makings of a doomsday cult: a tribe of unkempt misfits who hoard gold bullion, study herbalism, and preach about the imminent collapse of our society."
Well, that hasn't aged well...
Why?
Do you think that society is more coherent now, after the past 2 years? Are things improving or are the wheels coming off? The Canadian government was freezing people's bank accounts like they are North Korea, and most cheer this on? With Russia going to war? Etc etc.
If you had bought gold 7 years ago, you would have doubled its value.
If you had bought gold 7 years ago, you would have doubled its value.
Turn off the news and step outside to interact with real people. The situation is much nicer when you’re not letting a 24/7 stream of news and hot takes teleport your attention to whatever the worst event in the entire world happens to be at the current moment.
> If you had bought gold 7 years ago, you would have doubled its value.
And you would have made the wrong investment choice, because the stock market outperformed gold.
Gold has a reputation as a great inflation hedge but it hasn’t really lived up to that reputation at all in recent history.
> If you had bought gold 7 years ago, you would have doubled its value.
And you would have made the wrong investment choice, because the stock market outperformed gold.
Gold has a reputation as a great inflation hedge but it hasn’t really lived up to that reputation at all in recent history.
> Turn off the news and step outside to interact with real people. The situation is much nicer when you’re not letting a 24/7 stream of news and hot takes teleport your attention to whatever the worst event in the entire world happens to be at the current moment.
I go outside a lot. I don't watch the news, I watch people. Have you seen people in the past 2 years? Do you think they are acting normally? Were they always insane?
Do you also think that there is a planned reset going on? One that involves us moving to technocracy? With govcoins (aka UBI), bio-medical-security-id, energy rationing, etc.
Does the stock market meaningfully relate to reality? Does crypto? Did you know that Western governments have the ability to seize people's wealth from their banks, like in Canada?
My view is that the preppers sounded crazy then to me, but sound a lot less now. I reckon in 5 years time, they will appear to be modern sages.
I go outside a lot. I don't watch the news, I watch people. Have you seen people in the past 2 years? Do you think they are acting normally? Were they always insane?
Do you also think that there is a planned reset going on? One that involves us moving to technocracy? With govcoins (aka UBI), bio-medical-security-id, energy rationing, etc.
Does the stock market meaningfully relate to reality? Does crypto? Did you know that Western governments have the ability to seize people's wealth from their banks, like in Canada?
My view is that the preppers sounded crazy then to me, but sound a lot less now. I reckon in 5 years time, they will appear to be modern sages.
> If you had bought gold 7 years ago, you would have doubled its value.
Over five years VTI is up 77% vs gold at 54%. VTI is up over 100% since Jan 2015. GLD is only up 45%.
Over five years VTI is up 77% vs gold at 54%. VTI is up over 100% since Jan 2015. GLD is only up 45%.
Re-read the first four words. This is a description of the public perception, and it was spot on then and is largely still true now. (Add in some racist/white nationalist overtones, they seem to have been layered into the persona as well)
> a tribe of unkempt misfits
If anything, it's an accurate description of preppers. Together with the unsustainable individualism.
If anything, it's an accurate description of preppers. Together with the unsustainable individualism.
How many people would an all out nuclear war kill?
Darn it, I thought this was going to be about IT backup and recovery strategies, which is much more relevant to me than whatever this nonsense is.
But many people survive, and a society quickly develops post-war. But it is dominated not by those who were most individually prepared, but by those who contributed the most to their neighbors and communities.
There is some overlap of course; some preppers have a lot to give and do so. But the ones who isolate in compounds with their hoard for too long emerge into the new society to be met with scorn, or even outright violence in some cases.
I had not thought about it that way but it kind of makes sense. It’s easy to like someone who is helping you. And shared hardship can bond a group of people.
It’s a great book, in addition to this aspect (which is a somewhat minor part of it).