Who do you let in?

[BehindBlueI's]

Eons ago when I was still in school and the Cold War was just starting to thaw but the threat of nuclear exchanges was still a fairly common worry, we had a scenario in one of my classes. I don't recall if it was Pscyhology or Civics or what, same guy taught several of them.

Anywho, the set up was you had a bunker that could support so many people but had more people than that at the gate. I don't recall the exact numbers any longer, but I think it was something like 9 people could live in the bunker for the required time to let radiation get back to safe levels and you had 20 people. Students were assigned a role and the idea was you would debate and have votes of who had to leave. I was told I would be "the carpenter" since I was working construction at the time. As part of my role, I wore in my actual tool belt, complete with a framing hammer.

I don't recall all the roles any longer, either. I do remember:
1) Middle aged male carpenter
2) Male doctor in training (graduated pre-med, currently in medical school)
3) Male doctor in his mid 70's

There were assorted females and one gay guy (this was when being gay was still a pretty big deal and AIDS was still new and in the media constantly). One of the females was known to have slept around, but I don't recall if she was officially a prostitute or not.

I remember the main arguments being do you take in the "loose girl" who may bring in an STD and do you keep both doctors, given the old guy is probably going to hit end of natural life span soon but young guy isn't fully trained. Our class elected to keep both doctors. The gay guy and most of the non-child-bearing-age women were tossed without much debate. Guys with 'useless skills' for the new world as a bunch of 18-ish year olds imagined it were tossed. The banker never had a chance. The architect was solidly in. I think the architect may have been female as well, don't recall.

What I remember most is the "loose girl" was played by a girl in the class who was really shy and who, looking back, was probably bullied by the other girls. She was not someone I'd paid much attention to in school, but I could see just the real stress the debates on her (really, her character) were causing her. Things were pretty heated, but as the character had no skills so the debate was basically "can make babies" vs "may have an STD". I had been 'elected' the judge earlier, mostly due to the symbolism of my hammer as a gavel I believe. The vote was cast as our time limit ticked down and she was to be put out of the bunker. She was tearing up, and again this was just a scenario in a nice safe classroom where everyone involved was pretending to be someone else. The argument continued, despite the vote, and two boys stood up to physically take her out.

I took my hammer up and told them I'm brain the both of them if they didn't leave her be and the instructor called the scenario. I'd broken it, and I think he finally realized the toll it was taken on the particular student he'd assigned to be the 'loose girl'. I had meant the threat 'in character' and everyone realized that (today I'd probably be expelled for having the hammer in the first place) but the idea of physical force and coercion vs a nice orderly vote broke the scenario anyway and became it's own discussion.

I don't expect the bunker scenario to ever play out for me in reality, but I still have the hammer.

 

[spencer rifle]

"If we can just get them all here before the SHTF..." Right, another hurdle. What is the plan? Do you go and get them? Are they on their own? If they were not able to get to me, I would go and get them, regardless of the consequences, I would have to try.

But one is in Maryland, one in the Keys, one in coastal California, and the other possibly headed for Seattle. They will have to get here, and all know the message drops about where to find us. The likelihood of them all getting here is very small. Not in my hands, so I pray about it.

Thus the value of our MSG - "family of choice."

 

[spencer rifle]

I don't expect the bunker scenario to ever play out for me in reality, but I still have the hammer.

Maybe like the hero in "Earth Abides," except his was a geology hammer.

 

[JettaKnight]

This whole thread reminds me of Dr. Strangelove.

 

[Leadeye]

My thoughts are that if there's going to be trouble, it's going to come from a local source. Much like the family in American Blackout where a local comes around begging for food. I don't see most people traveling around to unfamiliar areas particularly if travel is difficult, most will rationalize following instructions from leadership, much like Katrina.

Be where you want to be, where the odds for you and your loved ones are best.

 

[Michigan Slim]

Want in my circle? Show up with food. Lots of it. Your in. Show up with a sob story, I'll make it better.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Maybe like the hero in "Earth Abides," except his was a geology hammer.

I just read the synopsis, and sort of similar, I think. One thing that young us didn't really consider is how much technology would be set back. Me as the 'carpenter' would not have dimensional lumber, modern nails, etc. There was some discussion of the value of advanced medical understanding if there were no diagnostic machines, pharmacies, etc and if the 'old doctor' knowledge was worth the space for someone close to end of life anyway and who wouldn't likely be able to pitch in for hunting, physical labor, etc.

It was an interesting thing to do that I'm sure is no longer done. And probably for good reason in some instances.

 

[jake blue]

This whole thread reminds me of Dr. Strangelove.

That is very much what it is. Academic discussions of who lives and dies and the cold, calculated costs of survival in the face of potential extinction of the species. Then the reality of how human nature taints all the calculations. I don't think humanity thought as much about the end of the world before the Cold War. Even WWI and WWII as costly as they were weren't viewed as potential extinction, it was always assumed someone is going to survive to carry on the species.

 

[Leadeye]

I've often wondered if hunting would be a good idea in these bad situations, unless done close to home.

 

[spencer rifle]

I've often wondered if hunting would be a good idea in these bad situations, unless done close to home.

Two problems:
- you will eventually exhaust the wildlife in your local area, and that will require you to go farther afield to get game, assuming someone else has not gotten it already.
- gunfire is likely to attract the wrong clientele.

 

[Steve]

Both good points. Bows and crossbows immediately come to mind. Silent, reusable ammo, and both highly effective for small or larger game. That is, if there is any game left. Both good choices for 4 legged critters. Save the loud ammo for the 2 legged varmints.

 

[jake blue]

Two problems:
- you will eventually exhaust the wildlife in your local area, and that will require you to go farther afield to get game, assuming someone else has not gotten it already.
- gunfire is likely to attract the wrong clientele.

Again depends on the nature of the crisis. Wildlife may still abound but be contaminated. If you lived fairly remote before that is unlikely to change post-crisis so wildlife in your area may well outnumber human survivors and thus be adequate in population to sustain your survivor group as long as you hunt them responsibly. The wildcard scenario would be if your area is sufficient to sustain your group but a nearby area with a survivor group that exhausts their local resources are going to begin tapping your area and it's resources and then do you try to bargain with them or does it become a territory war. This likely wouldn't happen in a short-term crisis but in a more apocalyptic situation where long-term survival of the fittest becomes the species's only law then it's a much more likely scenario.

 

[rem788]

"gunfire is likely to attract the wrong clientele." Interesting point. Like bears in Alaska that learn gunfire means easy food Does one go silent? Cutting firewood with a chainsaw, cutting lumber with a circular saw, driving an ATV, a vehicle, a lawn mower, anything that makes noise can attract unwanted attention. Depending on how remote your sanctuary is, noise could be your undoing.
BBI's post is a good example of the stress created even in a simulated situation. Imagine the stress in a life and death reality.
JB mentions resources. It ALL comes down to resources in the end. Someone who has collected gold, diamonds, etc, for barter, may find that food and water ultimately become more valuable and useful for trading.

 

[Ingomike]

I have always thought that the best and most thought provoking presentation of who to let in vs. who not too, and the other side of the coin, who to join, was created by the writers in Walking Dead. The first six seasons constantly wrestled with this issue.

 

[ditcherman]

I have always thought that the best and most thought provoking presentation of who to let in vs. who not too, and the other side of the coin, who to join, was created by the writers in Walking Dead. The first six seasons constantly wrestled with this issue.

And you can try to be a good person, and get suckered, and then you have those who are either inherently evil or have ulterior motives (greed, power) that cause wrong decisions as well.
Knowledge and facts, prepared ahead, not feelings, will rule the day.

 

[Ingomike]

Two problems:
- you will eventually exhaust the wildlife in your local area, and that will require you to go farther afield to get game, assuming someone else has not gotten it already.
- gunfire is likely to attract the wrong clientele.

30 million deer to 330 million people is not a long term ratio for survival.

For perspective, in the immediate aftermath of SHTF that is not even enough replace beef.

In 2017, the meat and poultry industry processed:9 billion chickens32.2 million cattle and calves241.7 million turkeys2.2 million sheep and lambs121 million hogs

 

[jake blue]

Yes, gold, silver, and gems are hedges against monetary collapse but far less useful in an apocalyptic scenario. They only work if there's a functional society that can establish the value of currency. In a bartering situation your more valuable resources are food, water, medicines and ammunition to name a few. Stuff that's necessary for survival but probably no longer produced (again because there's no functional society to support a manufacturing economy) and become more scarce the longer the situation lingers.

Basically in TEOTWAWKI we kind of walk backwards through our own history of innovation. By that I mean in the initial days or weeks, maybe up to a year following the 'event', the most heavily prepared preppers will be the most well off but only for a while. Having 4x4s and ATVs is nice for rapid evacuation and easier patrols initially but fuel reserves deplete and/or deteriorate over time. So I'd estimate within a year vehicle mobility dies off and we're all walking or riding domesticated animals. That's basically stepping back to pre-industrial revolution.

The same goes for fancy but energy-dependent bunkers/shelters. If it's completely self-sufficient AND non-consuming then that's great but without power if it becomes a cave then that's what you have is essentially a well-appointed cave. The ability to conduct basic functions manually/mechanically will be important otherwise that dwelling begins working against you instead of for you.

Even mechanicals can become problematic and if you're creative and mechanically savvy you can cope but if you can't you either have to barter with someone who has those skills or leave it behind. This shedding of tools of convenience drives us even further into the de-evolution as we basically become wandering nomads looking for the most basic resources of sustenance to prolong our existence by mere hours or days.

The catch of this is if the circumstances lead to that dire a situation, smaller groups or even solo is about the only way to survive. If on the other hand you have sufficient community and cross-section of skills, and the resources to sustain them, you can likely reinvigorate your own small society complete with law and order for at least as long as you can maintain peace within the group and fend off aggression from outside the group. That's why as painful as it may be to contemplate and even more painful if you ever had to do so, deciding who stays and who goes is as much a matter of the entire group's survival as anything else. Complexity of the machinery of survival requires a mechanically minded survivalist but once that machinery is no longer relevant to continued survival that once invaluable person needs to add other essential skills to the community or they become an undue burden.

One of the common plot devices in disaster and survival stories is the injured team member - maybe not life-threatening but injured enough that they can no longer contribute and perhaps also require another member's attention/assistance, reducing your team by 2 or more. The reason for this is to put that entire team in jeopardy so they are forced to decide if they embrace their humanity and tend the injured team member even if it means the possibility they all perish or if they make the gut-wrenching but necessary sacrifice of casting out or leaving behind the injured one in order the rest have a better chance of survival.

 

[jake blue]

30 million deer to 330 million people is not a long term ratio for survival.

For perspective, in the immediate aftermath of SHTF that is not even enough replace beef.

In 2017, the meat and poultry industry processed:9 billion chickens32.2 million cattle and calves241.7 million turkeys2.2 million sheep and lambs121 million hogs

That's assuming 330 million people even survive the event or initial aftermath. I doubt even half could survive a week. Look at how helpless most people are if the power is out for more than a day or they get caught in bad weather overnight. If a majority of people don't survive long enough to require sustenance, that deer population number becomes much more sustainable.

 

[Pepi]

I'm so sad Not one Jehovah Witness brought up

 

[rem788]

"Walking Dead": My wife, who abhors violence, especially on TV, liked Walking Dead. When I asked her why, she said almost the same as Ingomike. She found it interesting seeing how people interacted in crises.
I agree with JB, much will become burdens in time of survival. Machines without fuel are worthless, buildings without heat and ventilation hardly useful. He mentions domesticated animals for transportation, but even these require large amounts of resources. I suspect these animals may become food sources long before being used for transportation. Long term survival is a different animal altogether. But history has given us a lot of useful technology if we mine it. There are many examples of machines that do not require fossil fuels. Wind and flowing water as power sources are just two examples. The living history museums are full of innovative technology we ignore in our energy abundant/electronic bliss. The native americans and our pioneer forefathers did exactly what we are talking about, survived. How hard can it be? (The last sentence should be purple.)