Any non-deranged survivalists out there?

[Toke]

Yup - the correct answer to "have you got a knife on you?" is "I've got my pants on don't I?"

Unless, of course, you don't have pants on.

Seconded.


This is not as macho as standart survivalist, it is rather 70´es hippie.
But still, having a big garden or smallholding mean you will have something to eat while survivaling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seymour_(author)
http://www.amazon.com/Self-sufficient-Life-How-Live/dp/0789493322
http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Self-Sufficient-Gardener-Illustrated-Preserving/dp/1405321334/ref=sr_1_2/279-9830912-0213137?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238368893&sr=8-2

(my parents have both in their bookshelf)

 

[TheDaver]

I've seen all the Ray Mears shows on Discovery, and he never said anything about guns.

Yeah, because self-defence is totally overrated in general, let alone in a survival situation.

 

[Egil]

Seconded.


This is not as macho as standart survivalist, it is rather 70´es hippie.
But still, having a big garden or smallholding mean you will have something to eat while survivaling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seymour_(author)
http://www.amazon.com/Self-sufficient-Life-How-Live/dp/0789493322
http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Self-Sufficient-Gardener-Illustrated-Preserving/dp/1405321334/ref=sr_1_2/279-9830912-0213137?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238368893&sr=8-2

(my parents have both in their bookshelf)

My grandfather is old school, having been born in 1927 and living through the Great Depression. My grandmother is even more old-school having been born in a cabin in the sticks without electricity, that cabin is no underwater. They both transfered a lot of knowledge to me.

He taught me to clean fish when I was 5, clean game animals when I was 10, build an emergency shelter, read tracks, identify scat.

In an urban survival situation, you want a gun. It is simple as that.

 

[Toke]

In an urban survival situation, you want a gun. It is simple as that.

Outside the city a gardening handbook would be quite handy too.

 

[Egil]

And a Firearm doesn't have to be a tricked out AR-15 or a Kalashnikov.

I went to Walmart to pick up some birdshot and saw a a Rossi survival rifle/shotgun combo. It fires .410 Shotgun and .22 LR. That'll do in the Wilderness. .22LR is about 10 dollars for 500 rounds. Don't know about .410. 12 gauge goes roughly a dollar per shell. The Rossi was about 150 dollars.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Having been involved with emergency management for years (Starting way back when it was known as Civil Defense- or "Silly Defense" by its detractors) and including a stint writing plans for how my state could survive a nuclear war, I'm a strong believer in folks knowing how to manage in all kinds of disasters. But I've always been frustrated by a lot of the survivalist literature out there. You get into what appears to be a good book or site about managing on your own, and there it is: A rant about the lack of religion in the schools, the dangers about the New World Order, the evil plots of the Jews, and on and on.

Preparing for likely (natural disaster) and unlikely (nuclear apocalypse) events by the GOVERNMENT is a good idea.

But I don't understand why any non-woo person who doesn't get paid for it would be a survivalist. Lets look at the expected return:

The council on foreign relations (cue woo frenzy!) has stated that the chance of a nuclear bomb attack in the United States is extraordinarily unlikely, even in the worst case scenario: worst case scenario. Its too bad they don't give probabilities, but the chances of it occurring in our life time IN AN AREA WHERE WE ARE AT is very low - generously, lets give it a probability of 0.001%. The chance of a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere on the earth during our lifetimes is higher, but were looking at the chance that you will be impacted by it since that's why you'd be a survivalist.

The cost for preparing for the nuclear apocalypse, according to the survival websites, varies on how paranoid you are. They will sale you pills and things like that for up to a few hundred dollars, all the way up to a deluxe nuclear bunker for 50 grand. Lets say your only slightly paranoid and want to drop $1,000 to survive this.

Now, if you were to survive the Nuclear Apocalypse it would mean a lot to you. According to Stanford economists the value of a human life is $129,000, but its your butt we're saving here so we'll bump that up to $250,000.00.

So in this case, where I've been very generous with the probabilities and estimates in the favor of the survivalist, your expected return is:

Supplies Cost: -$1,000 = $-1000
Value of Your Life: $250,000 * 0.001 = $+250

Your estimated return on this is that you lose 750 dollars.

Why would you do this? There is no scenario I can think of where your going to come up with a positive return given the probabilities except in the case of preparing for whatever types of natural disasters are likely to hit your area based on region/geography.

 

[Egil]

Why would you do this? There is no scenario I can think of where your going to come up with a positive return given the probabilities except in the case of preparing for whatever types of natural disasters are likely to hit your area based on region/geography.

Why would you not?

The investment is minor, a grand doesn't amount to a hill of beans if it saves your life. And you got piece of mind.

Plus it isn't only useful for SHTF situations.

Depending on jurisdiction: you'll pay 50 to 200 dollars for a hunting permit, a few dollars for ammo and you can buy a rifle capable of taking dear for as little as 200 dollars. In all, 500 dollars maximum.

Now, if you hunt your legal limit every year for food let us say 10 deer a year. Figure those ten deer has fifty pounds of meat on their bones. That is 500 pounds of consumable meat. Ground beef costs about 5 dollars a pound. 500 pounds of meat times 5 dollas equals 2500 dollars. How long do you think that 500 pounds of meat would last a family of 5 if used wisely? Probably the whole year.

So, for a 400-500 dollar investment you save 2000 or so dollars.

On top of the monetary savings you get an excercise and you eat much healthier than industrial beef.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Why would you not?

The investment is minor, a grand doesn't amount to a hill of beans if it saves your life. And you got piece of mind.

I have just demonstrated that survivalism is a negative return situation, and your response is "why would you not?"? Do you make all decisions in life like this, choosing to do things with your money where there is clearly no gain in it for you at ANY level (including emotional, see below). This is the same egregiously wrong argument insurance agents use to sell products which most people will never need nor see any positive return from - its fear mongering.

Why would you not? Let me count the ways:

Rational people do not spend money on "protection" and "peace of mind" when the chance of something happening which requires such protection is laughably small. Then there is the small problem that in the universe of things unlikely to happen to you that survivalists typically prepare for is absurdly large, which ones are you going to waste money on? The 0.001% chance of dying in a nuclear Armageddon or the 0.001% chance of being in an area with a food riot which requires you to stock up on food? There is no rational way to make the decision because all have a equally unlikely chance of happening, and all require you to spend money which you will are almost certain to see a negative return from. You spend $1,000 on enough "The End is Nigh" survival situations and you will be bankrupt, since only Bill Gates has enough money to protect from nearly every possible (and unlikely) vision of the apocalypse.

I suppose deranged survivalists might gain some level of pleasure from such preparations and could legitimately claim that such money pits are hobbies - if you find pleasure in dreaming of disaster and preparing for it, then you could simply claim it as entertainment. But the thread specifically talks about non-deranged survivalists, whom are supposedly sane enough not to get off on and take pleasure from visions of doom.

Plus it isn't only useful for SHTF situations.

No, not really. Unless you routinely shoot things and then skin them and eat them, or hide out in a nuclear bunker, these things really aren't useful.

Depending on jurisdiction: you'll pay 50 to 200 dollars for a hunting permit, a few dollars for ammo and you can buy a rifle capable of taking dear for as little as 200 dollars. In all, 500 dollars maximum.

Um, hunting is not equal to survivalist preparations for the Apocalypse. You could hunt for survival reasons I suppose, but what happens when the ammo runs out? Bow and arrows?

Now, if you hunt your legal limit every year for food let us say 10 deer a year. Figure those ten deer has fifty pounds of meat on their bones. That is 500 pounds of consumable meat. Ground beef costs about 5 dollars a pound. 500 pounds of meat times 5 dollas equals 2500 dollars. How long do you think that 500 pounds of meat would last a family of 5 if used wisely? Probably the whole year.

I don't know where you are shopping, but I've never paid that much for ground beef. Also, your scenario assumes that (1) the cost of your time, (2) the cost of all that assorted hunting gear (you don't just go out and shoot things), and (3) all the costs in time and materials for transporting, cutting up, and storing the meat is less than it would cost to buy it. This is rarely the case. Most people who do these comparisons do not take into account the full, real cost of their hunting expedition and do a simple analysis like you have just posted.

In conclusion - survivalist mindsets are insane propositions for rational people. You may enjoy going camping with minimum supplies. You may enjoy going hunting. Call it a hobby. When you start to actively plan for the Apocalypse, in any form, you have gone over to woo-woo territory.

 

[Egil]

Do you make all decisions in life like this, choosing to do things with your money where there is clearly no gain in it for you at ANY level (including emotional, see below). This is the same egregiously wrong argument insurance agents use to sell products which most people will never need nor see any positive return from - its fear mongering.

You are making the assumption that there is no reason to prepare for some bad things because bad things have a miniscule chance of happening.

Something bad happened in Kentucky recently, would it pay to have some preparations?

Rational people do not spend money on "protection" and "peace of mind" when the chance of something happening which requires such protection is laughably small. Then there is the small problem that in the universe of things unlikely to happen to you that survivalists typically prepare for is absurdly large, which ones are you going to waste money on? The 0.001% chance of dying in a nuclear Armageddon or the 0.001% chance of being in an area with a food riot which requires you to stock up on food? There is no rational way to make the decision because all have a equally unlikely chance of happening, and all require you to spend money which you will are almost certain to see a negative return from. You spend $1,000 on enough "The End is Nigh" survival situations and you will be bankrupt, since only Bill Gates has enough money to protect from nearly every possible (and unlikely) vision of the apocalypse.

Ask yourself this. What happens if an event happens where preparations or knowledge is important. Does it pay to have it or not?

Like the old saying Demolition Guys say: 'Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.'

Survival preparations are not event specific. They are preparations for a broad category of events that may crop up and that may be truly life altering or merely temporary. Such temporary events happened in Kentucky recently. They have also happened several times in California. Happen yearly in the American Mid-West and is happening in the Dakotas.

Back in 1984, I was about three at the time, an ice-storm hit the area and dropped tempertures 24 below zero. Ice built up on the powerlines and caused massive power failures. I think power was out for days.

I suppose deranged survivalists might gain some level of pleasure from such preparations and could legitimately claim that such money pits are hobbies - if you find pleasure in dreaming of disaster and preparing for it, then you could simply claim it as entertainment. But the thread specifically talks about non-deranged survivalists, whom are supposedly sane enough not to get off on and take pleasure from visions of doom.

Here is why I made a few preparations. We had hurricane Rita hit Texas. There were gas and diesel shortages around here. It was not bad as the 70s, but I asked myself, what if it is worse and what would the effects be. I figured the effects would be bad enough to warrant some preparations.

All I did was find a large freezer used and in need of repair which I did myself (having a set of manual skills is a great thing to have). I paid about 300 bucks for it. Put it at my grandparents home. It'll store the meat of several deer. Very miniscule investment. I got a mountain bike so severe gas shortage is not that big of a problem for me.

That is what I prepared for. I don't prepare for Ragnarok, Armageddon, the NWO to start rounding people up and putting them in camps or to fight against the Government.

Um, hunting is not equal to survivalist preparations for the Apocalypse. You could hunt for survival reasons I suppose, but what happens when the ammo runs out? Bow and arrows?

Hunting is a survivalist preparations. Doing it yearly keeps the instincts and skills sharp. It keeps you in shape. And when the SHTF, you'll be advantaged.

A friend of mine does reloading. He buys his stuff in bulk. He figured out that if he used ammunition only for hunting, his ammunition supply would last two decades. He reloads all the time.

His cost to reload is about half the cost of a box of ammo from the factory.

And yes, a bow and arrow or crossbow and bolt will kill deer. My grandfather has that.

hunting expedition

LOL, you make it sound like hunters are going into the African Bush. Having to drive 40 miles. I can walk a half mile and run into deer where I live, they are becoming a nuisance, a hundred yards and there is a thicket where rabbit live.

On top of that, they are amazingly used to Humans. There is a TVA dam nearby and Deer congregate around it. You can approach within ten feet of them.

The hunting investment is mostly a one time deal (clothing, gun, knife, hunter's safety) and this will be paid off in a season. 20 dollas will buy you a season's worth of shells for rifle season and the 100-150 bucks for a license will be about your only yearly investment.

Time investment is not all that much, basically a few hours every weekend for about a month and a half. It helps if you like the taste of game.

In conclusion - survivalist mindsets are insane propositions for rational people. You may enjoy going camping with minimum supplies. You may enjoy going hunting. Call it a hobby. When you start to actively plan for the Apocalypse, in any form, you have gone over to woo-woo territory.

If you are referring to the biblical Apocalypse, than it is an emotional thing.

I do not prepare for nuclear war. The first reason is that it is unlikely and the second is I live in Oak Ridge which is one big target I'd probably not survive the opening shots. A 200 kiloton airburst at 1000 feet would more than likely get me as Y-12 is just over the ridge.

However, I have prepared mostly for the temporary events that can crop up such as an ice-storm that causes prolonged powerfailures or fuel shortages. I am also prepared if food prices increase as it becomes even more economical to hunt unless the government messes with fees and all that or the liberals tax the hell out of ammunition.

I don't got syrettes of atropomine laying around, nor sodium iodine tablets in boxes in the garage. I don't got MOPP gear and the single gas mask we do got is from my childhood. I don't got kevlar body armor. I wish I had Night-Vision equipment and I don't need GPS to find my way round East Tennessee.

 

[quarky]

Assuming a "crap-hits-the-fan" scenario, hunting game would be nearly useless.
Do the math. How many deer, vs how many hunters?
Expect non-licensed hunting and poaching.

result?

all big game gone on day one.

 

[Hamradioguy]

Preparing for likely (natural disaster) and unlikely (nuclear apocalypse) events by the GOVERNMENT is a good idea.

The council on foreign relations (cue woo frenzy!) has stated that the chance of a nuclear bomb attack in the United States is extraordinarily unlikely, even in the worst case scenario.
There is no scenario I can think of where your going to come up with a positive return given the probabilities except in the case of preparing for whatever types of natural disasters are likely to hit your area based on region/geography.

Good point. When I was State Radiological Defense Officer it was at the height of the Cold War, and there was a lot of saber rattling on both sides. Nonetheless, I was absolutely convinced the chances of an all-out nuclear exchange was vanishingly small. (Otherwise I'd have been digging a fallout shelter and stocking up on supplies rather than sitting in an office writing plans.) However, the FEMA civil defense budget at the time was 50 cents per person per year- pretty small potatoes even back then. Small risk but horrific consequences if the unthinkable happened. Most people back then when told that their government was spending 50 cents a year per person to protect them from nuclear attack thought that amount was way too low.

The government focus these days is more on natural disasters, but as Hurricane Katrina showed, one ought not assume the government is going to swoop in and solve all your problems after a large scale disaster. I have some recreational firearms a generator, and several days of food available (plus access to a good spring) and I think that's prudent and cost effective. I'm not about to buy several assault weapons, lay in a year's supply of food and install a thousand gallon underground gas tank, as I'm not sure that's cost effective: The most likely scenario at present is a natural disaster causing blocked roads or a loss of power for several days. That I can handle.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Ugh, I typed out a long detailed response and it went poof. All I have left to say then is this: survivalism has been demonstrated by me - and more importantly by common sense - to be something in which you are GUARANTEED in ALMOST EVERY SCENARIO to have A NEGATIVE EXPECTED RETURN. That means you are throwing your money away. There is nothing wrong with throwing your money away if you get some pleasure from it, like people do with all sorts of hobbies and entertainment. The problem is that you'd have to be a bit deranged and off your rocker to enjoy such preparations since it means you would find happiness in destruction.

I agree with hamradioguy - I have no problem with the state making such preparations - it is their job to anticipate the unthinkable Apocalypse and very likely natural disasters. Making sure you can handle a natural disaster that is likely to impact your region because it happens pretty frequently is not survivalist and all it involves is having enough cash and gas to get out of the area, or if its something like a earthquake a few blankets and flashlights. Building freezers not required.

 

[zaphod2016]

Non-deranged psuedo survivalist here. Some suggestions/opinions:

1. A basic firearm, pistol and/or shotgun is plenty. Your goal is to survive an emergency, not start a war.

2. I like to keep 10% of my retirement fund in precious metal coin in safes in my house. Anything more than 10% is a bit nutty IMO, and I'm not sure how useful it will be in a true doomsday scenerio.

3. A garden is a must. Paid about $200 including soil, seeds, plants and increased water use. I save about $20 on my weekly grocery bill; ROI is 10 weeks.

4. Fruit trees offer more bang for the buck. I recently planted a 30 gal navel orange tree, cost $300 including soil and increased water. I should get about 10 years of fruit. Assuming I buy $5 worth of oranges per week, ROI is 60 weeks; about 2 years because you'll only get fruit about 30 weeks out of the year.

I am blessed to live in a great climate; your mileage may vary- in Florida growing food is a smart move.

5. Water is a critical issue, and becoming more critical every year. I have planned a rain-recovery system to process rain water into drinking water at a cost of about $8,000. It would take more than 22 years to break even on this- theoretically I will never break even because I will retain city water, and have to pay a minimum monthly fee irregardless of consumption. I justify this move as a) emergency management (we often lose water in serious storms) and b) the assumption that water scarcity will force significantly higher prices in my lifetime.

6. Solar. I have planned a complete solar roof that should generate 120% of my electric needs at an estimated cost of $40k. Assuming I save $150 per month, break-even is 22 years. I expect the ROI will look better as economies of scale reduce solar prices with increased demand. Also, once the utility is equipped to buy-back surplus electricity, the ROI is even better.

I am holding off on 5 & 6, but intend to implement these long-term. My goal is to a) reduce my monthly expense b) emergency management c) living "green" and d) a psychological satisfaction I get from feeling "in control"

In truth, I am a grown up boy scout moreso than a survivalist, but I see value to the concept of self-sufficient living.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Making sure you can handle a natural disaster that is likely to impact your region because it happens pretty frequently is not survivalist and all it involves is having enough cash and gas to get out of the area, or if its something like a earthquake a few blankets and flashlights. Building freezers not required.

Well, building freezers is a bit silly because there won't be power and gas for a generator will be hard to come by, but as one who's been through several natural disasters, you really need to have something of a survivalist mentality. Even if you get out of the area of, say, a hurricane, recovery generally last longer than a few days. Chances are you coming back into a situation where there is no power or water or other basic services. You are going to want more than a few blankets and flashlights. If you don't have at least a couple of weeks of supplies at home, you are going to be stuck with either what the stores (that are open) have left (and it may be a while before a while before they get resupplied) or what the Gov't and private charities are going to give you.

I should point out that getting supplies from either of these places isn't exactly easy. Stores without power generally only let in a handful of people at a time, so expect lines and maybe some assertive behavior once inside. The FEMA stations are probably worse. The lines are longer and you generally wait in them in your car, idling for hours for your case of water and MRE's and a bag of ice. This hits you right in the gas tank, which you can't refill because the pumps aren't working.

That is, if you can even get to any of these places, since whatever caused the disaster in the first place is likely to have taken out a good many roads.

The government recommends that you have enough supplies in your house to last for 3 days without outside help. I'd go so far as to say a couple of weeks is better. More than that? Well, there will always be another storm. If you don't use it this time, you might use it the next. And, once you've been there, it's not hard to imagine a scenario where recover takes months instead of weeks. Wouldn't take too much really, just another storm meandering in the Gulf would be enough to keep the supply trucks out. Then once what's on hand has been used up, then things would get interesting.

Sure, we aren't talking a Fallout-style apocolyse here, but there are plenty of realistic scenarios, expecially in hurricane country, where the survivalist mindset is perfectly practical.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Non-deranged psuedo survivalist here. Some suggestions/opinions:

1. A basic firearm, pistol and/or shotgun is plenty. Your goal is to survive an emergency, not start a war.

2. I like to keep 10% of my retirement fund in precious metal coin in safes in my house. Anything more than 10% is a bit nutty IMO, and I'm not sure how useful it will be in a true doomsday scenerio.

3. A garden is a must. Paid about $200 including soil, seeds, plants and increased water use. I save about $20 on my weekly grocery bill; ROI is 10 weeks.

4. Fruit trees offer more bang for the buck. I recently planted a 30 gal navel orange tree, cost $300 including soil and increased water. I should get about 10 years of fruit. Assuming I buy $5 worth of oranges per week, ROI is 60 weeks; about 2 years because you'll only get fruit about 30 weeks out of the year.

I am blessed to live in a great climate; your mileage may vary- in Florida growing food is a smart move.

5. Water is a critical issue, and becoming more critical every year. I have planned a rain-recovery system to process rain water into drinking water at a cost of about $8,000. It would take more than 22 years to break even on this- theoretically I will never break even because I will retain city water, and have to pay a minimum monthly fee irregardless of consumption. I justify this move as a) emergency management (we often lose water in serious storms) and b) the assumption that water scarcity will force significantly higher prices in my lifetime.

6. Solar. I have planned a complete solar roof that should generate 120% of my electric needs at an estimated cost of $40k. Assuming I save $150 per month, break-even is 22 years. I expect the ROI will look better as economies of scale reduce solar prices with increased demand. Also, once the utility is equipped to buy-back surplus electricity, the ROI is even better.

I am holding off on 5 & 6, but intend to implement these long-term. My goal is to a) reduce my monthly expense b) emergency management c) living "green" and d) a psychological satisfaction I get from feeling "in control"

In truth, I am a grown up boy scout moreso than a survivalist, but I see value to the concept of self-sufficient living.

A) Dude, I didn't know you were a fellow Floridian.

B) Solar's not terribly wise money-wise in Florida. FPL doesn't allow for net metering, even though you'd be generating excess power on hot sunny days when they need it most. Batteries to store power are likely the biggest cost you're looking at there.

C) What part of Florida are you in? You could dig a well into the Biscayne aquifer depending on your location. It'd wouldn't be artesian, so you'll need a pump.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I've done some extended wilderness camping, without guns or knife. Those are fairly new tools, and unneccesary.
Here's what I found most useful:

Knowledge of and ability to fast, without freaking out. If you can easily manage a week or two without food, it takes a lot of the edge off. Best to practice a few times, prior.

Ability to be silent and still, for hours, if need be.

Willingness to eat insects.

You do realize our non-human ancestors made knives from rocks because even to a small brained naked ape, a sharp thing seems like a good thing to have around.?

 

[TheDaver]

Rational people do not spend money on "protection" and "peace of mind" when the chance of something happening which requires such protection is laughably small.

Funny thing… car insurance is mandatory in most US states, isn’t it? I guess that seems totally nuts to you.

Unless you routinely shoot things and then skin them and eat them

You say that as if it’s a foreign and disgusting concept.

You could hunt for survival reasons I suppose, but what happens when the ammo runs out? Bow and arrows?

Sure, it has worked well enough for millennia and people still do it for sport.

the cost of all that assorted hunting gear (you don't just go out and shoot things),

Really? Such as?

all the costs in time and materials for transporting, cutting up, and storing the meat is less than it would cost to buy it.

I think you’re just reasoning it out that way. Why don’t more people hunt, right? It must be because it’s an inefficient way of putting food on the table!

Most people who do these comparisons do not take into account the full, real cost of their hunting expedition and do a simple analysis like you have just posted.

Your “full, real” analysis is quite frankly silly. By the same logic I could say life is cruel because I have to waste so much of my hard-earned money putting food in my stomach, clothes on my back and a roof over my head just so that I can stay healthy enough to go keep going to work.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Funny thing… car insurance is mandatory in most US states, isn’t it? I guess that seems totally nuts to you.

You have to got to be kidding me, talk about a invalid metaphor. You are a hundred (and thats being conservative) times more likely to be in a car accident than being ground 0 in a Nuclear Apocalypse or any other survivalist scenario. There is a difference between a unlikely (car accident) and extraordinarily unlikely (survivalist scenario) event. If you cant perceive the difference between the two then I can't help you. And yes, most insurance is stupid for most people. That is why insurance companies make so much money.

You say that as if it’s a foreign and disgusting concept.


Sure, it has worked well enough for millennia and people still do it for sport.

Yet again, hobby =/ survivalism. If you enjoy shooting things with a bow and arrow knowing that its a waste of time and isn't going to help you in any Apocalyptic vision that you want to believe in - fine.

I think you’re just reasoning it out that way. Why don’t more people hunt, right? It must be because it’s an inefficient way of putting food on the table!

Reason seems to be the main enemy of survivalist it seems since logically the entire scheme doesn't work - its in a inefficient way of doing so unless you happen to get paid horrifically and have free access to the supplies and large amounts of time. That is not most people.

Your “full, real” analysis is quite frankly silly. By the same logic I could say life is cruel because I have to waste so much of my hard-earned money putting food in my stomach, clothes on my back and a roof over my head just so that I can stay healthy enough to go keep going to work.

And where is your comparision analysis? Oh you don't have any, you simply pronounce things to be silly because you know the facts are not on your side.

I guess the picture is clear - survivalists just don't understand and refuse to accept the logic of probabilities.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Well, building freezers is a bit silly because there won't be power and gas for a generator will be hard to come by, but as one who's been through several natural disasters, you really need to have something of a survivalist mentality. Even if you get out of the area of, say, a hurricane, recovery generally last longer than a few days. Chances are you coming back into a situation where there is no power or water or other basic services. You are going to want more than a few blankets and flashlights. If you don't have at least a couple of weeks of supplies at home, you are going to be stuck with either what the stores (that are open) have left (and it may be a while before a while before they get resupplied) or what the Gov't and private charities are going to give you.

I've been through so many hurricane's I can't count them all. Everything from weak category 1's to category 4's (evacuated on that one). It doesn't require a survivalist attitude at all, and stockpiling weeks of supplies is absurd.

I should point out that getting supplies from either of these places isn't exactly easy. Stores without power generally only let in a handful of people at a time, so expect lines and maybe some assertive behavior once inside. The FEMA stations are probably worse. The lines are longer and you generally wait in them in your car, idling for hours for your case of water and MRE's and a bag of ice. This hits you right in the gas tank, which you can't refill because the pumps aren't working.

Actually its incredibly easy. Stores gear up quickly after hurricanes to get back into business to make money off the situation. Red cross stations are every where. I've never waited more than 30 minutes in any line after a hurricane. And there has never been a scenario where there were 0 gas pumps available since. Since you have days, sometimes even a week, of foreknowledge that a hurricane is in your area you have plenty of time to get a full tank of gas even though the hysteria fueled by the media pre-hurricane always causes a gas panic. There is nothing you need to be doing in the week or so post-hurricane before everything goes back to normal that would result in you blowing an entire tank of gas unless you just want to go out and "experience" the town.

Sure, we aren't talking a Fallout-style apocolyse here, but there are plenty of realistic scenarios, expecially in hurricane country, where the survivalist mindset is perfectly practical.

As someone who lives in hurricane country, your description of post hurricane events is extremely exaggerated - probably in order to rationalize survivalist preparations. All you need is an ATM card to evacuate, and otherwise a few candles, canned food, and if you really want to blow yourself out a generator. Hurricane bunker not required. Again - I know and realize some people are sick and get off on things like hurricanes and that would make them deranged.

If survivalists are people who spend time and resources to prepare to live through events that are extremely unlikely to ever occur, then they are by definition not rational because they are choosing to spend money on something which in every conceivable case has a negative expected return. If someone enjoys hunting and building a nuclear bunker knowing that they are never going to need it for a Vision of the Apocalypse since such things are not likely to ever happen, you could call these things hobbies.

 

[TheDaver]

You have to got to be kidding me, talk about a invalid metaphor. You are a hundred (and thats being conservative) times more likely to be in a car accident than being ground 0 in a Nuclear Apocalypse or any other survivalist scenario. There is a difference between a unlikely (car accident) and extraordinarily unlikely (survivalist scenario) event. If you cant perceive the difference between the two then I can't help you.

Both are unlikely. Being prepared for both, by your logic, is silly. Why does it matter how unlikely they are? They’re unlikely, therefore, according to you, preparation is not just unnecessary, but unwise.

And yes, most insurance is stupid for most people. That is why insurance companies make so much money.

Yet again, hobby =/ survivalism. If you enjoy shooting things with a bow and arrow knowing that its a waste of time and isn't going to help you in any Apocalyptic vision that you want to believe in - fine.

Right, so all those thousands of bowhunters in the USA are completely ineffective. All the game they’ve ever tagged is just a complete figment of my imagination.…

And where is your comparision analysis? Oh you don't have any, you simply pronounce things to be silly because you know the facts are not on your side.

You’re projecting.

I guess the picture is clear - survivalists just don't understand and refuse to accept the logic of probabilities.

You’re just plain full of it.