Surviving the End of the World (Your Choice of Apocalypse) - Part I

*
Dr. Wenger recently commented on the Yahoo Imagestream forum:

...Indeed, I now have a half-dozen people willing to exchange and do some problem-solving together on the matter. (I have to get key information together and to them before I take off for South Africa several days hence.) That nucleus may be the start we need, especially since the task as I see it is to generate enough good ideas for contingency that as more of the crunch arrives people won't spiral all the way down into panicked hopelessness. The ideas will have had at least a minimal circulation and will be there in the back of people's awareness to be called-upon. National and world politics being what they are, the problem itself is going to get a lot worse before enough people are sufficientlty motivated to take actual significant action, I don't see any likely solutions to THAT problem; we are on track of the one possible solution that I've thus far seen to the main complex of problems. There are a few other things I must do soon to remain on track, however.

In human affairs, the geometric shortest distance between two points is a very zigzaggy line.

I responded:
I think I'll start that discussion in a minor way simply by posting a short exchange regarding general survival issues I had on another forum, found here:
http://diepunyhumans.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=475&page=1

Though I haven't elaborated on these points yet in this conversation, there are ways we can all draw people's attention to these problems while also addressing them ourselves *and* preparing ourselves for the consequences if they are not dealt with.

"Grimwell" is the handle of the person starting this thread. I'm "Dry Observer."

-----
Grimwell:

Quoting Dry Observer in another thread...

Your point about people dying off before they could react is exactly what I've been talking about in our disaster-preparedness discussions, Grimwell. If people have at least some margin of safety and some time to plan when the world starts coming apart, they're far more likely to survive and choose viable strategies than if they immediately end up as a starving refugee. Which is why I try to encourage people to plan for these kinds of problems.

A month of rice and other food, clean drinking water, an independent power supply and a place to live in relative safety -- these are the basics
everyone should be trying to insure in the event of an emergency. And for a long term emergency, some survival skills, critical equipment, the ability to replace/repair your most important technologies, and hopefully some friends and neighbors who can share the resources and survival skills you lack -- these are exactly what you need to carry on if everything shuts down for a couple months or years of rebuilding
(see Katrina) or if your corner of society shuts down and doesn't look like it's ever coming back...

A very valid hope, for a very valid concern should the underpinnings of the current world structure fail -- most people simply lack the preparedness, basic resources, and knowledge to survive a 'die off' event from happening. As DO observes, it's really not that hard to be prepared and survive the initial fest, but I'd counter that few people in the 'civilized world' are interested in stocking up on a big bag of rice, let alone knowing how to cook it in water that does not come out of the faucet and end up on their stovetop... when you tell people to be ready -- you are the crazy one.

Assuming that a goal is to prevent millions (or billions according to some resources) of people from dieing in a post-post-modern event, how do we convince people that they should take some basic precautions to get over the first major bumps? DPH is about future tracking, can we sort out how to choose a future we want? Or do we let 'em rot and pick the gold from their fillings when the bones dry out?

-----
Dry Observer:
I'd break that question down into two parts, Grimwell.

One: How do I survive, and how do I help the people I care about personally?

Two: How does society, or as much of the population as possible, both in my country and around the world, survive?

Both questions are challenging. I submit that the second question is as much about preventing societal disintegration as it is about keeping large numbers of people alive afterwards, because so many of the resources that would sustain multitudes post-collapse would be useful in staving off disaster beforehand.

For example, suppose your country can generate enough electricity and/or heating/cooling by alternative means such as wind, hydro-electric, geothermal and tidal power to maintain electrical power across your nation's power grid. There would still be issues of maintaining the equipment, replacing parts (though there would fewer involved than in your typical nuclear reactor or coal plant) and maintaining the electrical grid itself. Over a sustained period, remote areas far from power sources would be increasingly likely to lose their connection.

Nevertheless, this kind of resource would be to your country what a big bag of rice, stacks of canned goods, fresh water, propane and can opener would be to an adaptable survivor -- at least a potential short term lease on life. It doesn't solve all your problems, just like having food doesn't necessarily protect you from, say, roving bands of marauders. But it does help enormously with at least one challenge.

Regarding the first question, I think there's a point to be made about protecting your friends and loved ones. Though protecting those you care about seems like a purely altruistic decision, it's actually a very good survival strategy. Remember, if you are in a place which is relatively safe, having people around you that you can trust, who have some resources and skills to offer for the sake of communal survival can be absolutely vital. This is why some rural communities are apt to hang together even after a relatively devastating breakdown (at least in the short to medium term).

But having friends and family to call on, and whom you may have already helped out, can be good even for someone in the city who is convinced they will have to leave if something *really* bad happens.

For example, let's say you're a guy living in a major city. Let's call you "Warren" and the city, "London." Let's say you have a dependent or close friend you might want to get out of the city with you, or at least a teddy bear or something. What possible preparations can you make? (Since this covers a lot of us in urban areas, please think of this example in terms of your own life or that of some city-dwelling friend.)

Well, let's say our "Warren" has a little extra money saved, but can't necessarily afford his own personal, fully stocked and equipped retreat-farm in the British countryside, much less to hire someone to man it and drive off vandals or looters. But maybe he does know a friend or three with whom he could stay if things got bad in the city.

Great. But most farms could use a little hardening to handle a post-industrial world, so maybe he could use some of his (relatively meager) survival funds to help a couple of these friends install micro-hydro generators in their farms' creeks, or to get a special water purifier or ham radio or something (your priorities, after food, water and power, will vary). Maybe he actually stores a little extra food and water at each of these sites as an insurance policy. If things come apart, then, depending on "which way the fallout's blowing" and where he can get to, he'll pick just one of these places to go to. So if he arrives, his food and water are taken care of, and he'll just be another set of hands and skills. (Safety in numbers.) And any resources he's helped to acquire, like an independent power supply, will contribute substantially to the survival and welfare of his group.

I could go further into this strategy, and eventually I will. But the point is that generosity and an ability to work well with others can be critical survival traits -- for those who plan ahead. And that safety in numbers is more than a cliche, if you pick your ground and your companions well. Arguably, many of these ecological developments and alternative communities here in the U.S. could be excellent places to go to ground and survive... assuming they could protect themselves.

And that's another element of "safety in numbers." The larger the working, benevolent society around you, the less likely you are to be overwhelmed by one of the worst threats in most forms of collapse -- large numbers of desperate human beings. Yes, the welfare of those around you is a definite issue, and if you can't do much about the situation of your world or your country, you may still be able to keep your local city on its feet for as long as possible.

And again, every month of lead time you buy is that much more time for everyone involved to make plans and muster resources.

Tech
Future Imperative