group survival?

[rik_uk3]

[quote="rik_uk3]
A rabbit and some greens won't do you much good, you'll be loosing weight from day one, I presume you know about high protein diets/"rabbit starvartion" et al.

A group will give a classic division of labour, some hunt, some prep food, gather wood/fuel etc. I'm not talking about poorly trained groups or 'Walters' who think they can do it...they'll sink quick enough in the real world. This is a prepper site so lets stick with preppers and not slagging off the untrained.

Yes I'm well aware of rabbit starvation etc, but the principal regarding hunting and gathering food, until you are at a stage to be more self sufficient applies to whatever quarry you are targeting.

Yes a group of skilled individuals is great, but how realistic is that? How many of that group intend to bring along their extended families; inlaws; neighbours; children etc etc

What was planned as being a great group is now just your average group with those who can and those who can't; and don't ever forget those who simply won't! Plus the discussions and arguments etc etc ....

So yes there are disadvantages to being in a group.[/quote][/quote]

Easily done now, its all about planning, its fundamental prepping, done my end so how are you getting on? Really we are talking basic prep planning.

[grenfell]

Surely this isn't an either/or question. There are many variables in the equation , nature of any event , die off or not , how long it all lasts and wether we are talking survival of the individual or the continuation of our race.
I personally would go for a group but wouldn't dismiss the idea of lone survival. If it's some sort of pandemic then it may even be the best plan but if any situation lasts for generations then some sort of grouping becomes essential for the survival of the human race.
No body has mentioned ethics in this. What would we do with the old and infirm or more accurately what would you do with your own parents if and when they become old and infirm? Cast them out to die? If one's parents have passed away pre event then lone survival is an easier option. But if one cares for one's parents then a group becomes a better option. Ok so they can't work fields or hunt but they can prepare food , teach and perform other tasks.

[iSkynet]

A group of people can do more than one: more stock, easier to defend. And while being alone you can simply go crazy. Everyone in the group can be useful even kids.

Single survival will end after first injury or illness, none is insured from that , and the probability that after a certain time one will get it, tends to be one hundred percent. Loner breaking a leg will just die of thirst, hunger, or will be eaten by dogs, for example. In the group, even just family even in this simple example the security level is much higher. Motivation that single - invisible is wrong. Everyone leaves traces. Less food for one? But it is harder to get it as well.

Simply check statistics. You can't argue with it. Chance of survival in a group of lost or in a disaster many times more even if random people were gathered.

More people in group- more skills it can use. You simply can't build a house on your own.

[J23]

assuming that another financial crisis will cause total collapse - it is good to prepare with neighbours imo. Once something happens your group lives next door, close to you. also on one street there are people of different skills and professions. just for some reason I would feel stupid to mention my neighbours about prepping especially 1 month after moving in

[lonewolf]

very few people these days actually "know" their neighbours, in a lot of places its not wise to get too close to neighbours, maybe apart,like here, the odd "good morning" and a short chat about the weather, I don't know my neighbours(even in a small place like this) and I don't want to. very few people keep any amount of food in the house and don't have any skills apart from whatever their job is, so in a SHTF event they will become a problem not an asset. depending on the event and possible die off, a lot of us could find ourselves on our own...do we just give up?" oh no, I'm all alone, I'm DOOMED!!!" no we get on with it and do the best we can.

[Memphis]

I think this debate can go on and on. Ive personally got a good group of friends and a good family who i would want to care for if shtf, however they dont have much if any survival knowledge, theyre ready to rough it in a tent for a while but overall theyd be a bit clueless, along with my family which consists of elder parents who arent too strong and would need me for any physical tasks and dont have any survival skills, then my sister and her boyfriend, both young but just as unknowledgable, and my girlfriend, who can happily camp but again has no survivalist about her (yet!).

But having the knowledge i have i could keep them alive and teach them so that they can begin to contribute, and we could function as a strong group with different responsibilites, i wouldnt claim the role of leader, theyre all adult and would know what task would fit the skillset that they pick up the best. The group would be 13 strong, 13 appetites for food and water, shelter for 13, 13 lots of light and noise, but short of leaving them to die, the difficult option is the one for me.

I can also appreciate the loner way of thinking, without all of the above, fending and providing for yourself would be much simpler, and alone time is enjoyable, you may experience it for a week or so, but i dont think there is any telling how youd turn out after a month or 6 months or 2 years of no companionship.

Sent from my GT-N8010 using Tapatalk

[grenfell]

Just to throw something else into the mix. A persons age range will have a bearing on this too. Assuming that there is a die off and assuming it is at the level Lonewolf has previously stated he thinks it will be then his plans could be seen to make sense. When a population drops like that producing the next generation will become important for survival and by that I mean human survival rather than personal survival so women of child bearing age will become vital for society. In reality that probably means women 35ish and under. From what lonewolf and others have said I believe him to be a good decade or two older and while I'll be a gentleman and not ask his wife's age I'll assume she is of a similiar age and without children. This makes them in effect biologically redundant and as such of less use to society or a group as a younger couple . The principal was visited in Day of the Triffids I believe.
So from a personal perspective lonewolf's solo survival plan will be fine in his circumstances. He'll survive probably not as long as in a group but he'll survive. Joining a group would give him help when he becomes older but he'll not really add to the sum total of human survival to any significant degree.
Of course the other reason preppers are best off on their own is because they'll be insufferable post event with their " I Told You So" tee shirts and constant reminding about how they forecast all the doom and gloom

[lonewolf]

So from a personal perspective lonewolf's solo survival plan will be fine in his circumstances. He'll survive probably not as long as in a group but he'll survive. Joining a group would give him help when he becomes older but he'll not really add to the sum total of human survival to any significant degree.

quite so Grenfell, quite so, your reasoning is quite accurate, I have never had children and I have never wanted children and I shall not be adding to the human race biologically. so what happens to me post SHTF is of no consequence to anyone but myself.

[lonewolf]

I can also appreciate the loner way of thinking, without all of the above, fending and providing for yourself would be much simpler, and alone time is enjoyable, you may experience it for a week or so, but i dont think there is any telling how youd turn out after a month or 6 months or 2 years of no companionship.

some people don't need other people around them, I'm one of these, I prefer my own company and abhor the company of others, I would actually thrive on my own but would go downhill fast if in a group, I have spent so long living on my own that having to live with others and their quirks and attitudes would be impossible(dosent include the wife but does exclude the sister in law!)

[Vespa]

I've enjoyed this thread a lot but have resisted posting up until now as it's become quite heated at times and I'll not argue with any one. Actually I don't mind an argument in the form of an exchange of opinion, it's a slanging match I'll not get involved with.

It seams to me that post SHTF if there's a massive die off and people (groups or individuals) have to start to live by foraging/hunting/fishing and what they can grow that this future society will do pretty much what every other society has done in the past that have had to make a living fro foraging/hunting/fishing etc.

Certain technologies and knowledge may linger but people will emulate the Mesolithic and early Neolithic societies from the past that made a living from hunting/gathering. There aren't exactly many mesolithic societies in existence today but there have been many that have been studied in the recent past. From the bushmen of the Kalahari to the Aboriginal tribes of Australia to the Native Americans and more. Furthermore, there are many archaeological studies that can point to (but not definitively state) how people organised themselves in hunter/gather societies.

There really are many anthropological books written for the laymen such a me that are fascinating and give a clear explanation with evidence and reasoned thought available on Amazon.

They invariably describe small groups of upto 50 or so maximum people. There are leaders generally chosen by the group on merit, the leaders tend not to be bullies or the hard men (there's a very simple reason for this that's not intuitive) but often the elders with plenty of life experience. Food and other resources are invariably shared equally and evenly. There is a range of age groups from the very young to the old (the young grow into adult hunter/gathers whilst the adults hunt and gather and the aged look after the young and shell peas whilst the adults hunt and gather).

In short groups work for the individuals that belong to them and offer the best chance of survival for the individual and for passing on ones genes.

If you want to know what a futer hunter gatherer society would look like after TEOTWAWKI with little or no technology, no centralised national or regional government then just look to the past. Humans today are essentially the same in terms of intelligence, psychology and biology as those of 20,000 years ago when the mesolithic started, and will live and organise themselves in the same way given the same circumstances because it's in our nature to do so and just as importantly it works.

Just my two pen'oth