We continue the back and forth with the Anonymous Reader who commented again on the Societal Collapse post:
I mostly agree with you about cities (big cities), but I do think if the crisis is "only" an economic collapse that we won't lose fire & law enforcement, hospitals, grocery stores, etc. So while Los Angeles or NY City might be dramatically more dangerous I do not think most cities, especially the smaller ones will be. However if we are talking about something far worse then all bets are off.
UrbanMan: I think an economic collapse can be gradual, like a slow sink into an economic depression with an alike gradual scarcity of foodstuffs and other commodities – and this would be the best case for survival, especially for people unprepared as the gradual slope from bad to worse would allow them some time to prepare….not the best case scenario, but one that would give the unprepared the best chance. I also think there is the chance of a dynamic economic collapse that would be devastating for the people caught unprepared. Be it from an dedicated EMP attack or EMP after effects from a nuclear attack; or a computer generated attack against cyber banking and financial systems. The threat to urban dwellers survival and security is linked to how quick the food supply dwindles and how long utilities stay on. Once water and electric are compromised, life in the urban areas will be as well, and an exodus to places perceived to be better off will transpire. I have seen some of these mass migration models and they are not pretty. I would suggest the Urban Survivalist as well as the rural based Survivalist conduct their own mass migration studies based on avenues of approach and likely destinations out of major population centers in order to better situate themselves at their safe locations.
I totally agree that another great depression will have worse consequences with our larger mostly urban population. I think it will be especially difficult for those on welfare because we would have to assume that a lot of these benefits would be slashed. Where I disagree is the who "have's" vs "have nots". Most of us here in the U.S. are middle class. Even poor people on welfare have more money, benefits and goods then the middle class in Europe does. Most of the poor people I know have two cars, three color TV's, air conditioners and eat steak a couple times a week. The few who are rich don't mingle with you and I and while it may irritate you that they are rich it makes ZERO difference in your life or how you live today or even after a depression. If they were poor tomorrow it wouldn't help you or me or the situation. So people will indeed be angry that their cushy lives have changed for the worse but there won't be any "have's" around to take it out on.
UrbanMan replies: I agree that a lot if not most people in the U.S. are “middle class”,….right now. I am really scared for my children’s future in a growing government juggernaut that just sucks up resources without providing product. Going the way we are heading now, most of the tax payments will go for government salaries,…I’m only half joking. The economically disadvantaged are increasing; the amount of people on welfare are increasing and the government, at some point, is not going to be able to pay for it. Combined with the people just above the poverty line and those that will be dragged down into this level, I see a large percentage of the population as becoming “have nots”. If and when the food and utilities run out or become so sporadic as to be ineffective, I would think anarchy will result. Nobody hopes this will not be the case more than me, so my pattern has been to prepare for the worse, hope for the best.
I do think we are today looking at the best last chance any people or any country has ever had. That is we can see this coming and we more or less know what to expect. But we could go to the store today and buy all of the necessities and it is relatively inexpensive. You can go out today and buy a years supply of canned, dried and fresh food and you could even use a credit card. Everyone should at least buy a years supply of food and necessities and store them in a closet, basement or garage. We don't have to go into this crisis like the people in New Orleans did.
UrbanMan replies: I agree with everything in your last paragraph. So do most of the people reading this site, or the host of other Survival Preparation sites on the web.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was generally talking about an economic collapse or depression or even some kind of societal collapse. In such a situation we would still have government at all levels. Perhaps fewer people manning the desks and less effectiveness but they would still be there. I make the assumption that in an economic collapse that government would be trying to keep the infrastructure functioning and making sure there was food and water, etc. Admittedly it all depends on how bad it gets and the cause. If the cause was a nuclear attack then all bets are off when it comes to predicting events.
ReplyDeleteI liked your answer in response to the have/have nots part of the discussion. Partly because after rereading my comments I thought they seemed strident. I often use "you" in a discussion when I simply mean "someone" or "everyone" but it comes off sounding like I mean "YOU". If you know what I mean. The only thing I can add to this is when we slide into a depression or whatever form it takes we will all pretty much be in the same boat. Mr. Smith next door might have a years supply of food in his cellar but unless he barbecues in his backyard everyday you probably won't know it. We will all be standing in line down at city hall waiting for a handout of food. We will all pretty much be in the same boat. I grew up poor but everyone I knew was poor and I never knew better, never got angry, didn't blame my neighbor, etc. Having said that I do agree that if this is something far worse then a simple great depression that it could get ugly. I will certainly, as you say, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.