Global catastrophe / SHTF "survivable locations"

[Wotname]

This is a very interesting thread and covers a very broad range of opinions but I can't help thinking that like the frog in the ever increasing hot water, we might not realise exactly when the SHTF until way too late.

An example - if the following observation is correct (i have no reason to doubt it), then maybe the SHTF has already occurred.

........ Some guys looted, some killed the pesky guy next door, some got scared and waved guns. That is normal and happens every day in US metropolitan areas. .........

If this happened daily in my location, it would be considered as a collapse of society.

Maybe it's a inherited DNA thing. Maybe we are seeing different breeds of Homo Sapiens developing. My terrier has some different ideas of dealing with a wounded duck compared to the neighbour's retriever and it is all to do with the breeding.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I keep going back to it is all too complicated to predict. A lot has to deal with how efficient fight is at moving food around. And in the longer term how they compensate farmers.

In theory the USA and Canada should be relatively secure, both food exporters. If that is not handled well the outcome could be very different.
.

you would think so till you look at what has happened just this year due to weather conditions. Now throw in loss on the mains power grid for the continent and your really screwed.

ice age farmer :: grand solar minimum crop loss map

one Carrington event away
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

... if I understand your analysis it seems more focused on immediate crisis type of Shyte. Active shooter, earthquake, terrorist attack. In these moments our fight-or-flight response will tend to overwhelm other neural functions such as empathy or love. But this is a short-term, immediate response. Humans can’t exist forever in this heightened state. When the ground stops shaking or the bullets stop flying, most people will start to come together to help and rebuild.

I suppose I mean to mainly refer to the time period between when the lights go out, and when the supply of food/water reaches parity with demand. When I think global catastrophe, I'm only thinking power grid going down. All other global catastrophes are either slow-onset/manageable, or, practically unsurvivable. After that, for sure it's back to community politics as usual.

Originally Posted by hpeer

I read a book, Taste of War, looking at WWII from a food perspective. It changed my thinking on risks. Taking its message and looking forward things don’t look good for China or India. It’s still sometime in the future.

I remember as a kid watching WWII films showing carpet bombing of cities and thinking to myself "Okay, that was 1943, did anyone living in that city in 1942 think 'hey, I need to move out of the city?'" Accordingly, I've always looked at my city in that manner. Otherwise as an adult I spent a year in St. Petersburg in the early 90s...young people then were intimately aware of the siege of Leningrad and its horrors during the war.

Originally Posted by Wotname

This is a very interesting thread and covers a very broad range of opinions but I can't help thinking that like the frog in the ever increasing hot water, we might not realise exactly when the SHTF until way too late...
...Maybe it's a inherited DNA thing. Maybe we are seeing different breeds of Homo Sapiens developing. My terrier has some different ideas of dealing with a wounded duck compared to the neighbour's retriever and it is all to do with the breeding.

Not to commingle SHTF too much with sociology, but for sure we've got old-fashioned societal breakdown in spots, if not passed the overall tipping point in some countries. A high percent of adolescents and young adults nowadays test at stress levels that 60 years ago would make them candidates for sanatorium---adult frogs that have been boiling for a while scoff and their tadpoles who haven't had 40 years to get used to the temperature. People laugh at university "safe spaces" but there's a logical reason for this.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Gandhi and/or Millennial battle plan
"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" - African proverb.

In the big picture on societal conflicts, famous guy Steven Pinker writes that all of our advances as a species makes us less violent by historical measure. If one believes in the law of large numbers, regression to the mean, etc, then we indeed have another thing coming at some point. I do strongly to believe that Jesus was right and that the meek will inherit the earth...up in Newfoundland, and places like it.

[wingssail]

I'm just not sure about the "Survivable Locations" bit. There are so many people on this planet who, in a SHTF situation, are going to want to get to a good place, I think even Mike's NFLND location will soon be overrun. His community might need some defending.

I thought I had a cool place (though it was a long ways from where I am now) until I read a comment about others who thought the same thing about the same place. Competition!

But I realize that, unless it is a real global disaster, the wealthy will be fine. The poor will struggle. On a relative term, I among the wealthy even though I feel quite poor compared to my peers at times. I am still better off than most of the people in the world.

So, many people might die (they already are) but those of us from the first world, with enough discretionary money to have sailboats, (or two of them!) will have the resources and less trouble trying to live. The starving may come to rob or kill but quite possibly we'll escape notice, or actually escape.

But Hey, I'm in my 70's. It hasn't happened yet. All I need is another 20 years and it will definitely be my kid's problem. So I'm not going to worry about it.

For now.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I'm just not sure about the "Survivable Locations" bit. There are so many people on this planet who, in a SHTF situation, are going to want to get to a good place, I think even Mike's NFLND location will soon be overrun. His community might need some defending.

I thought I had a cool place (though it was a long ways from where I am now) until I read a comment about others who thought the same thing about the same place. Competition!

But I realize that, unless it is a real global disaster, the wealthy will be fine. The poor will struggle. On a relative term, I among the wealthy even though I feel quite poor compared to my peers at times. I am still better off than most of the people in the world.

So, many people might die (they already are) but those of us from the first world, with enough discretionary money to have sailboats, (or two of them!) will have the resources and less trouble trying to live. The starving may come to rob or kill but quite possibly we'll escape notice, or actually escape.

But Hey, I'm in my 70's. It hasn't happened yet. All I need is another 20 years and it will definitely be my kid's problem. So I'm not going to worry about it.

For now.

many if not most government scenarios for a major shtf situation like large asteroid strike or cme like event there is going to be approximately a 1/3 population lost within the first 30 days . At a minimum. And about a third of those left signing 6 to 8 months . So if your family can hold out for 30 days your chances for survival go up significantly.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by newhaul

many if not most government scenarios for a major shtf situation like large asteroid strike or cme like event there is going to be approximately a 1/3 population lost within the first 30 days . At a minimum. And about a third of those left signing 6 to 8 months . So if your family can hold out for 30 days your chances for survival go up significantly.

What, you think you'll just screw down the bomb proof hatch on your bunker and wait for 30 days then look out to see if it looks safe?

You're fantasizing.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by wingssail

What, you think you'll just screw down the bomb proof hatch on your bunker and wait for 30 days then look out to see if it looks safe?

You're fantasizing.

nope I'm going fishing for a few weeks. Then check in with lots of fish to trade and see what's happening:-)

I'm just 2 days sail from prime tuna grounds.
Before a my home area is either one of the big survive areas or one ofthe the first time.
Real heavy military presence.

[newhaul]

Here's a scary one I bet many of us saw but didn't actually read the report on
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-climate-alarm
In the middle of it is the truth about all of it .
Quote
Now, four decades later, a larger group of scientists is sounding another, much more urgent alarm. More than 11,000 experts from around the world are calling for a critical addition to the main strategy of dumping fossil fuels for renewable energy: there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet.

Scary isn't it .
Eugenics is alive and well in the globalist elites world.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Eugenics is alive and well in the globalist elites world.

Quite a paradoxical view. Changing the environment is the exact opposite of eugenics. Eugenics implies implementing artificial selection to create offspring that can better succeed in a given environment. Even if you remove "dummy" people, all the "smart" offspring are left in a more competitive (i.e. less favorable) environment (unless someone with a heavy hand directs competition...hardly an improvement).

Changing the environment could be seen as imposing a preferential environment to selected offspring, but it's practically impossible to predict which offspring would receive a benefit, other than the kids of those whose parents derive income from changing the environment...with that income ending up benefiting the offspring of such parents.

Related tangent: the guy (Galton) who came up with eugenics in the first place is also the same guy who ~invented the concepts of statistical correlation and regression to the mean. Short of hitting the reset button on 7.5 billion people at the same time, Galton proved that eugenics can't work...in the big picture.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I'm just not sure about the "Survivable Locations" bit. There are so many people on this planet who, in a SHTF situation, are going to want to get to a good place, I think even Mike's NFLND location will soon be overrun. His community might need some defending.
…

Perhaps. But I know that people in these communities will do their best to help as much as they can. Their first thought is not “I’ve got mine Jack, so screw you.” Their first thought will be, “you’re in need. How can I help.”

Both these statements are over-simplifications, but I think they are fundamentally true. There are people who exist within functioning communities. Their first response is not to put up walls, and to turn away people in need. Their first response is to see how they can help. These people are not martyrs or saints. They are simply being human.

I think it takes a lot of effort to beat this kind of basic human response out of people. But I realize a lot of the people in so-called “developed” nations now exhibit this kind of dark behaviour, probably due to the slow frog boil of stress and fear that now passes for normal.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here's a scary one I bet many of us saw but didn't actually read the report on
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-climate-alarm
In the middle of it is the truth about all of it .
Quote
Now, four decades later, a larger group of scientists is sounding another, much more urgent alarm. More than 11,000 experts from around the world are calling for a critical addition to the main strategy of dumping fossil fuels for renewable energy: there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet.

Scary isn't it .
Eugenics is alive and well in the globalist elites world.

This has nothing to do with eugenics NH. Suggesting otherwise is disengenuous. And there’s nothing new or “scary” about citing over-population as one of the drivers of rapid climate change.

But it is only ONE. And it’s not even the most important factor, as the report (that you say you’ve read) clearly states. Its top-line concern is stated clearly:

"The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle.”

The paper, which is short and easily accessible to anyone (https://watermark.silverchair.com/bi...b-sCx1Ki0t9gFE), highlights six areas where effort must be focused. It makes recommendations in:

Energy: The world must quickly implement massive energy efficiency and conservation practices and must replace fossil fuels with low-carbon renewables. … Wealthier countries need to support poorer nations in transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Short-lived pollutants: We need to promptly reduce the emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, including methane, black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

Nature: We must protect and restore Earth’s ecosystems. Phytoplankton, coral reefs, forests, savannas, grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, soils, mangroves, and sea grasses contribute greatly to sequestration of atmospheric CO2. … We need to quickly curtail habitat and biodiversity loss, protecting the remaining primary and intact forests, …

Food: Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products, especially ruminant livestock, can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions … We need to drastically reduce the enormous amount of food waste around the world.

Economy: … Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality.

(and finally)

Population: … the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity.

(NOTE: No hint of “eugenics” is included in the report. Indeed, an equitable approach is recommended.)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Perhaps. But I know that people in these communities will do their best to help as much as they can. Their first thought is not “I’ve got mine Jack, so screw you.” Their first thought will be, “you’re in need. How can I help.”

Both these statements are over-simplifications, but I think they are fundamentally true. There are people who exist within functioning communities. Their first response is not to put up walls, and to turn away people in need. Their first response is to see how they can help. These people are not martyrs or saints. They are simply being human.

I think it takes a lot of effort to beat this kind of basic human response out of people. But I realize a lot of the people in so-called “developed” nations now exhibit this kind of dark behaviour, probably due to the slow frog boil of stress and fear that now passes for normal.



This has nothing to do with eugenics NH. Suggesting otherwise is disengenuous. And there’s nothing new or “scary” about citing over-population as one of the drivers of rapid climate change.

But it is only ONE. And it’s not even the most important factor, as the report (that you say you’ve read) clearly states. Its top-line concern is stated clearly:

The paper, which is short and easily accessible to anyone (https://watermark.silverchair.com/bi...b-sCx1Ki0t9gFE), highlights six areas where effort must be focused. It makes recommendations in:

Energy: The world must quickly implement massive energy efficiency and conservation practices and must replace fossil fuels with low-carbon renewables. … Wealthier countries need to support poorer nations in transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Short-lived pollutants: We need to promptly reduce the emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, including methane, black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

Nature: We must protect and restore Earth’s ecosystems. Phytoplankton, coral reefs, forests, savannas, grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, soils, mangroves, and sea grasses contribute greatly to sequestration of atmospheric CO2. … We need to quickly curtail habitat and biodiversity loss, protecting the remaining primary and intact forests, …

Food: Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products, especially ruminant livestock, can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions … We need to drastically reduce the enormous amount of food waste around the world.

Economy: … Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality.

(and finally)

Population: … the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity.

(NOTE: No hint of “eugenics” is included in the report. Indeed, an equitable approach is recommended.)

you really don't understand the true politics of the eugenics movement.


Here is another part of the article than you must have read

The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control.

Now do you really think they would be overt about their objectives?

Here is one to consider

https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-s...cine-2/5678295

and then look at this population projections chart

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you really don't understand the true politics of the eugenics movement.

No … I don’t. Because it doesn’t exist. There is no “movement.” A few wingnuts does not make a movement.

Besides, eugenics is not about population control. It’s about shaping the population, which is clearly NOT what this report even remotely recommends.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here is another part of the article than you must have read

The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control.

Now do you really think they would be overt about their objectives?

You’re quoting a media story, NOT the paper. Here’s the paper. Who cares what some babbler thinks? Surely not you.

I suggest you read the actual paper, and quote from it:

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/...biz088/5610806

But here’s the ENTIRE section on population. No where does it even hint at a eugenics approach. Quite the opposite in fact.

Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day (figure 1a–b), the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women (Bongaarts and O’Neill 2018).

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you really don't understand the true politics of the eugenics movement....
The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control.

Now do you really think they would be overt about their objectives?

Here is one to consider

https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-s...cine-2/5678295

and then look at this population projections chart

1) Population control/planning is not eugenics.
2) The referenced article is BS proportionate to the BS "research" it references. The BS research didn't test for antigens, and it's otherwise like an $8 test to see if any woman actually has produces antibodies against HCG (demonstrating sterilization by antigen exposure).

Something tells me that many SHTF bug-out kit are overstocked with tin foil.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Singularity

1) Population control/planning is not eugenics.
2) The referenced article is BS proportionate to the BS "research" it references. The BS research didn't test for antigens, and it's otherwise like an $8 test to see if any woman actually has produces antibodies against HCG (demonstrating sterilization by antigen exposure).

Something tells me that many SHTF bug-out kit are overstocked with tin foil.

I am ret navy engineer it was my job to fix the shtf situation . So I always plan that way .

How many manual bilge pumps are on your boat in addition to the requisite backup electric ones . I have 2 for the tender and 3 for the boat:-):-)

[crankysailor]

Originally Posted by Rumpi

Thanks, but still, where is the collaps of society in Katrina? Statisticly all the crimes are not relevant. Some guys looted, some killed the pesky guy next door, some got scared and waved guns. That is normal and happens every day in US metropolitan areas.

I dunno man.. vigilante justice, no services, no water, no food, no police or police abuses and brutality, looting and rapings..if that ain't a breakdown of society and you guys consider that the normal state of affairs in a US city, I think the SHTF long ago and you just didn't notice!!

On the other hand I think Mike does have a point about catastrophe also bringing out the best and not only the worst in people. There are enough examples in history. For example Germany after WWII is a case where there are plenty of accounts of the surviving civilian population just pulling together and helping each other and rebuilding etc. But there are also plenty of other cases of war ravaged zones where the people just never seem to have recovered. I think unfortunately one must conclude that not all societies are equal and it makes a difference if the SHTF scenario happens in Norway or Newfoundland, or if it happens in New Orleans or some other place with deep seated socioeconomic, racial or religious problems as it were.

So choose your community of like minded people and yeah invest time and energy now in knitting and strengthening those bonds. And in the end who cares if the SHTF or if it never does, it seems like a very nice way to have a very nice life today :-)