Societal Collapse Scenario 1

[BryanK]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

What happens if everyone else has this plan to hunt though and the wildlife starts running out? In the book One Second After, this is what happens. The wild animals all get hunted down to zero essentially. I would definitely say to have those skills you are talking about, but unless you have a bug-out shelter you can get to that is hundreds of miles out into the middle of nowhere in say the forests of Canada or something, then I'd also have a food supply.

The thing about wild animals is, they're smarter than most people. Most people lack the skills necessary to quietly stalk and harvest game. Trapping for that matter is a lost art to most, even among the hunting community. Bullets could go pretty quick in a scenario like this as well, hence trapping and bow hunting skills (quiet, reusable tools) would be paramount. So, to think that just because people start romping through the forest like Hansel and Gretel killing off all the animals is a bit of a stretch.

Preparations are good, but realistic goals are good too. I can't see the average prepper managing to fend off the hordes for long enough to warrant a massive food supply. On the flip side, I can't see the average American surviving past 60 days. Waterborne illnesses, injuries, lack of nourishment, depression/suicides, desperation, and gangs will take out a significant portion within that timeframe.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by BryanK

... So, to think that just because people start romping through the forest like Hansel and Gretel killing off all the animals is a bit of a stretch....

Start with the ones within arms reach. Anyone with a bird feeder has squirrels and pigeons/doves. My neighborhood also has a number of rabbits - but you have to be out early to see them. Practice with a simple trap - and .22s aren't that loud.

Wild don't have to be big.

[Mills]

Trick question.

People that have very few useful skills........are not my friends.

Haha

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Pete

How did he get to my house?

Why is he and his family still alive?

This got me thinking. He must know I'm reliable to an extent or he sold me out already and led the marauders to my house. Now that I look at the card it doesn't say anything about his family being with at the time of his plea for help.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

This got me thinking. He must know I'm reliable to an extent or he sold me out already and led the marauders to my house. Now that I look at the card it doesn't say anything about his family being with at the time of his plea for help.

This would be a time that lesser men (spineless cowards) would sell their soul to protect themselves over all others.

Everything should be suspect.

[PSM]

This scenario got me thinking about the Amish and Mennonite communities. From one of their FAQs page:

Q: I understand the Amish belief in nonresistance and pacifism. Does this principle extend to personal situations where you are confronted with imminent evil -- say a known murderer confronting you and your family in your home? Can you use force to preserve your life in this situation? To what extent? What is the Biblical basis for your position?

A: Both Amish and Mennonites are committed to a lifestyle of peace and non- violence. Yes, this pervades every aspect of life. However, no one can predict with certainty how anyone would really react to an absolutely unprecedented crisis such as described above. Emotions as well as thoughts are involved and the situation is personalized. Having said this, we would hope that as people who have practiced a lifestyle of peace, we would not resort to force and violence in a crisis situation such as the one described.

We must briefly make several points:

There is no assurance that use of force would save my life or the life of my family if confronted by an attacker.

We could recall many accounts of unhoped for deliverances, whether by mediation, nature, or divine Providence, when Christians refused to use force when confronted by an attacker.

If the result is death at the hands of the attacker, so be it; death is not threatening to us as Christians. Hopefully the attacker will have at least had a glimpse of the love of Christ in our nonviolent response.

The Christian does not choose a nonviolent approach to conflict because of assurance it will always work; rather the Christian chooses this approach because of his / her commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord.

The analogy to war in the situation described above tends to break down when we think of the vast preparations for war -- accumulation of weapons, training of the military, etc. War is planned and seldom is aggression so clearly defined with the defense staying on its home turf.

Some of the Biblical references for peace and non-resistance are: Matthew 5:38-48; John 18:36; Romans 12:18-21; and I Corinthians 6:18.

Link: http://amishreligiousfreedom.org/amishfaq.htm#pacif

This seems to pose an interesting conundrum. They would certainly make themselves easy prey, yet they possess primitive (or at least archaic) skills that would be very useful. If they won't defend themselves, would they allow others to defend them in trade? And if so, would they admit it if approached before the need arrises?

Pat

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The Amish have a website!? That sure strikes me as ironic!

Probably Mennonite.

Pat

[Pericles]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

When someone says, "I'm coming to your house if XYZ happens, my standard response is, "What are you bringing?"

My standard response is "What makes you think that I will be home?"

[Ape Man]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The Amish have a website!? That sure strikes me as ironic!

Website explicitly says that they are not Amish. Just people who have contact with the Amish either via family or business.

[Ape Man]

Originally Posted by PSM

This scenario got me thinking about the Amish and Mennonite communities. From one of their FAQs page:



This seems to pose an interesting conundrum. They would certainly make themselves easy prey, yet they possess primitive (or at least archaic) skills that would be very useful. If they won't defend themselves, would they allow others to defend them in trade? And if so, would they admit it if approached before the need arrises?

Pat

Who knows what people would do in a real situation. Historically speaking, the Amish/Mennonites have often fled until they found a place that would protect them. If fleeing was not an option, a lot of them died for their faith or were imprisoned. Others decided they did not want to be Mennonites anymore. Along that line, Ben Franklin recounted a story of some Mennonites that decided to fight after a brutal Indian raid.

I suspect that you would see a lot of the Amish change their ways if serious trouble came across the land. The modern Amish have never seen persecution like their forebears endured. Having not been tested, I doubt a lot of them have the same conviction.

I hope we never have to find out.

[Ape Man]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

The police and local structure in a small town might stay intact and helpful and keep it together when the world goes to shit. Large cities would be a Charlie Foxtrot.

Do you live in a small town/small city? Or are you responding to a romantic notion of how you think the world should work? Maybe it is because of the part of the country I live in but I have yet to see a small town cop that I could respect. Not saying they were bad people, but you get what you pay for and small towns/cities don't pay much. A lot of the time, they are not local or have another job in the community. In one local town, almost all of them also work as security at the local plant. Sheriffs departments seem a little better but they are a mixed bag.

The good things about small towns is that everyone knows everyone else. There is usually a few key extended families who have the numbers, collective wealth, and internal leadership structure to accomplish more then the local rent a cops ever could. Again, this is just my experience with the neighbors I grew up in and live in now. But in every town I know about around me, I could name the "families" that matter.

[Paslode]

I was re-thinking the friends and family thing again....

All I have to do to see the future here in the City during a collapse is look back to 2008-2009 when friends where looking for jobs.....Oh man I could really use some work....here today, gone tomorrow when they find something better.....then when that falls through they are back again.....it's an endless cycle and they will pull down with them if you aren't careful.

Gimme, Gimme, Gimme.


Your best off to tell those friends to f-off until they can bring something to the table.

[Monsoon65]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

When someone says, "I'm coming to your house if XYZ happens, my standard response is, "What are you bringing?"

When my sister in law and her family of five saw our pantry, those were the exact words out of her mouth.

My reply was the same; "What are you bringing?" Her answer was a blank stare.

[mugwump]

People greatly misunderstand "living off the land" in my opinion.

I've spent many an enjoyable evening listening to an old, full-blooded Ojibwe gentleman--my adopted son's grandfather--reminisce about his childhood and the "old ways." The Ojibwe have (had?) a strong oral tradition; he could name the warrior from his grandfather's day who killed the black bear that staved off starvation in their clan during a particularly rough stretch.

The Ojibwe were masters of their environment and yet regularly found themselves on the edge of starvation. Their warfare was usually predicated upon economics...displacing or exterminating tribes that competed for resources. For example, they drove the Lakota and Dakota out of Wisconsin/Minnesota/Ontario and onto the Great Plains. And pre-horse, the plains were a pretty shitty place to live.

Ojibwe life centered around constant seasonal migrations following their food sources: in the spring--sugaring, planting gardens, and netting/drying/smoking the great schools of spawning walleye; in the summer--drying roots, berries, fish and meat; in the fall--hunting, harvesting the spring planting, gathering wild rice, and making cattail root flour. I'm leaving a lot out but suffice to say they had knowledge, gathered over millenia, of probably a hundred food sources, they were extremely knowledgeable about long-term food storage, and possessed extremely sophisticated caching technology. Man, woman, and child worked like dogs all year to gather and preserve food.

And still they periodically starved.

If you're working hard, and long-term survival will be hard, an adult male will need 3000 calories per day (AT though-hikers estimate 3.3k kcals/day). A dressed rabbit will yield about 17 oz. of meat at 47 kcal/oz. That's 4 rabbits per adult male per day. Three, if you're an Ojibwe and you burn off the fur, pound the bunny into a pulp (bones, brains, guts, and skin) and throw the whole mess into the stew pot. If you're harvesting freshwater clams, you'll need about 5 pounds of clam meat per day--about 320 medium sized clams. Linguine con vongole isn't very filling without the pasta and olive oil.

That's why the Ojibwe went to war over a maple forest or a shallow bay...they were fighting for the calorie-dense maple sugar and wild rice.

And that's why in the PNW they went out in little boats to spear great big whales and the Innuit froze their asses off--for the blubber.

Good luck trying to support your family by hunting/foraging.

If you have six months of food when the SHTF, immediately search out a group that is forming a polity around communal defense/agriculture and try to barter your way in. You might get shot and your food appropriated, but you have about a zero percent chance of surviving on your own, anyway.

In a true grid-down scenario, memory serves that the DHS and DIA are estimating 119M deaths East of the Mississippi. (Either they didn't care enough about Westerners to calculate the odds, or we should all move out west.)

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by mugwump

----- In a true grid-down scenario, memory serves that the DHS and DIA are estimating 119M deaths East of the Mississippi. (Either they didn't care enough about Westerners to calculate the odds, or we should all move out west.)

The issue is population density vs. carrying capacity with civil unrest, pandemic, etc. factored in. In rural areas west of the Mississippi through almost to the Pacific coast the lower population density and different agricultural resources and social/cultural mores will likely reduce attrition. Deaths are still expected to be around 50% of pre-crisis population.