BTW before anybody screams "confimation bias" (I know it's coming), I would challenge you to find a credible report on world population that states "the world population is increasing at a profound rate, and that's a great thing! Plenty of food, water, and oil to go around!" I would also challenge you to find someone who truly understands fractional reserve banking, maybe an economist, and who thinks it's a good idea; I have found one, but he also claims to be illuminati, so I question his credibility in more than one area.

 

There seems little doubt that continued unfettered population growth would be undesirable. We all know that is impossible for it to continue indefinitely: the area of uncertainty lies in what factors will dominate in limiting it. My own feeling is that any extrapolations of the present curve into the future are at best guesswork, so that it is not clear whether a full-blown Malthusian crisis is already inevitable.

It may be that the situation is so far beyond hope that the most constructive thing to do is to go hide in a corner while the rest of the world goes to perdition. Whether this would lead to a realistic chance of survival for the next generation is another matter, but it might be better than just giving up now.

Personally, I'm not convinced. At my stage of life it probably does not matter, but had I longer to go I would probably still put my efforts into the main stream of society, rather than build a bunker.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of raising confirmation bias: perhaps you could do likewise with the boiled frog analogy.

 

It is always possible that something completely unexpected may come along. As an example, what might happen if there were an epidemic of a disease that caused a widespread reduction in fertility?

Not to worry. This is already happening:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-bottles-linked-low-sperm-count-men-time.html

 

It may be that the situation is so far beyond hope that the most constructive thing to do is to go hide in a corner while the rest of the world goes to perdition...I would probably still put my efforts into the main stream of society, rather than build a bunker.

Can we not do both? Considering the amount of people who actually listen, with an open invitation, there should be plenty of room in the bunker for all who accept.

I don't envision myself literally living in a bunker, but we can continue using that term so that everybody gets the point. I am headed for the bunker, but I am still putting my efforts into main stream society, and will continue to do so in my everyday life, and if permitted, on this forum. That's the whole point of this thread. I'm putting my effort in by raising awareness. I'm not asking anybody to jump on my bandwagon, just to apply a little thought to their lives and the futures of their children. You, even though you do not agree with me, are helping me do my service to society by discussing the topic openly. I am grateful for that. Thank you for discussing.

 

Can we not do both? Considering the amount of people who actually listen, with an open invitation, there should be plenty of room in the bunker for all who accept.

the problem of course is that the bunker has to import fuel and food, dispose of it's waste, and deal with internal politics. As a micro society, it would generally disregard those outside. Isn't that much of our problem today?

 

Strantor, I've tried to do what your doing since the mid-1990's. Keep on telling those that will listen, but continue to keep your own preparations close to your vest. Those that laugh at and kid you now, will be the first to come to your door if the s%&t does hit the fan.

 

the problem of course is that the bunker has to import fuel and food, dispose of it's waste, and deal with internal politics. As a micro society, it would generally disregard those outside. Isn't that much of our problem today?

To be quite frank, I suspect that idea of going off into a of retreat to wait out the calamity belongs to the realms of fantasy. It seems hard to imagine that there would be much chance of getting there in the first place, unless the refugees set out well before the event. (How would they know when to go?)

I fear that anyone who did make it would be in for a really hard time. Apart from the obvious physical privations, and lack of access to services such as medicine (childbirth!) and education, they would be pitched into a situation like that of primitive tribes, but without the traditions that have regulated such societies in the past. Apart from its internal problems, such a refuge also has to deal with challenges that might come at it from the outside, including other would-be survivors who may be running low on tinned food, but still have plenty of guns and ammunition.

The situation of the survivalists would be like a return to the Wild West, with no guarantee that there would be any marshalls around to lock up the bad guys. OK, says our plucky pioneer, I will make sure that I'm armed to the teeth, and I'll teach junior how to shoot just as soon as he can hold a gun... but so will his neighbours, and before long the bullets will be flying. My guess is that these newly founded tribes would very soon either blast each other into non-existence, or be overrun by marauding gangs of those who had lacked the foresight to lay in a lifetimes' supply of canned beans and corned beef.

The real problem with this is the sheer weight of numbers. Unless we expect some catastrophic event like a nuclear explosion or a virulent disease will quickly eliminate most of the competition, those woods are going to get pretty darned crowded.

 

Has anyone seen Mad Max, Waterworld or played an Fallout game?

Artists always see the post-apocalyptic future as an unfriendly dystopia, working with wild west, jungle laws. No one depicts it as a sorting out of weeds of the society, leaving the good people behind. Is it because that scenario sells more? Could be, I don't know.

But I, too, believe that any post-apocalyptic world will be home of the fittest, smartest and most cunning. If basic faculties like water and energy are still around, civility might have a chance, otherwise, I don't see it happening.

 

Strantor, I've tried to do what your doing since the mid-1990's. Keep on telling those that will listen, but continue to keep your own preparations close to your vest. Those that laugh at and kid you now, will be the first to come to your door if the s%&t does hit the fan.

I nearly bought a decommissioned nuclear command station about a decade ago just to make into a house and, well, everything, they are sprawling complexes underground. It was $1. Problem was it had asbestos and some other stuff that had to be removed at my expense before I could move in.

Now people are buying a lot of the actual missile silos alone to build a vertical house in. I don't think I could deal with that many stairs.

 

I've tried to learn how to do everything I can in the "old" way. And practice living "without". By that I mean with out a new car every few years, and with out the latest in every thing unnecessary.

 

The lucky people,the few that were turned down for loans during

the time before the bubble. No high interest,still in there homes

and living like ShortBus. They will elect the next....................

Ohio a swing state. Fla a .....................registered

 

Adjuster, That's basically what I said in my closing of my paper:

"-...by the time I reach retirement age(if I live that long), America will be a very different place, and probably not a very pleasant place. I think my decendants will grow up in much the same way as the first settlers on this continent; living in small villages, farming and hunting to survive."

It could go down in an instant like you describe, or it could just get worse and worse (your boiled frog analogy). No doubt there would be issues with wild west bandits. There are ways of dealing with that though.
My plan is to set up a small self-sustaining farm, or better yet coop of farms. Rely on nothing outside. Not to say don't use anything from the outside, or cut yourself off from the outside, but just don't rely on anything outside for survival. Basically the Amish model, minus the religion and minus the absolute insistence on not using technology. I'll keep my "bunker" hatch open, but I'm not going to have a bunch of lifelines running through it; that way I can close it anytime I want. If the Amish can do it, so can anybody else.
BTW it sounds like you've gone full circle from "I would probably still put my efforts into the main stream of society" back to total despair... which is it? you can't condemn everything. No option is perfect, as it is by nature a lose-lose situation, but any option is better than taking no action.

 

Ther no place safe from the the invisiable reaction of fallout.

Not in my back yard,the world investors want to keep the

value of there investment.We talk about old money,the U.S.

has been the condo of the world for many years,so now we

are the melting pot, about to boil over. Forum like this help us to

understand one another,keeping the calm.

 

Adjuster, That's basically what I said in my closing of my paper:

It could go down in an instant like you describe, or it could just get worse and worse (your boiled frog analogy). No doubt there would be issues with wild west bandits. There are ways of dealing with that though.
My plan is to set up a small self-sustaining farm, or better yet coop of farms. Rely on nothing outside. Not to say don't use anything from the outside, or cut yourself off from the outside, but just don't rely on anything outside for survival. Basically the Amish model, minus the religion and minus the absolute insistence on not using technology. I'll keep my "bunker" hatch open, but I'm not going to have a bunch of lifelines running through it; that way I can close it anytime I want. If the Amish can do it, so can anybody else.
BTW it sounds like you've gone full circle from "I would probably still put my efforts into the main stream of society" back to total despair... which is it? you can't condemn everything. No option is perfect, as it is by nature a lose-lose situation, but any option is better than taking no action.

No, I'm afraid you have misunderstood me: perhaps I was not explicit enough, in an effort to be polite. It seems rational enough to try to reduce your dependency on support services that may fail, and to be prepared to abandon city life should it become necessary. If I were not ill, that's something I might think about, but it would more along the lines of of moving into a modest home outside the big cities than trying to set up in a hermits' cave.

What doesn't seem rational is to think that come the apocalypse you can escape into a sort of laager to live a self-contained life. You would inevitably face competition and conflict from many others, especially if you are expecting a serious breakdown of law and order, or even true anarchy. The problem is the numbers involved. It is all very well for the Amish or some hippie commune to live apart while most of the population lives elsewhere, but if there is a mass exodus from the collapsing cities these refuges are likely to be over-run.

Can you really hope to mount an effective defence against those that are likely to come against you? Perhaps you think that you can build up such an arsenal that you will be able to out-gun all comers, but remember that whatever supplies of ammunition you built up, once besieged you could not replace them.

I also wonder whether you might attract the attention of the security services if you started trying to lay in a really big weapons supply. While I know that in your country gun ownership is a right, I suspect that post 9/11 there may be some monitoring going on, at least of larger automatic weapons, grenades etc. Remember also that there is history of tragic outcomes for groups that have isolated and armed themselves*. If the government got wind of what you were doing and did not like it, you might not have to wait long before you were facing an army you couldn't hope to beat.

*I think there was a really bad one in the USA twenty years or so ago, - can't remember the details.

 

Waco, it was local to where I live. The compound and religious cult needed dealt with, but the government overreacted badly. If they had backed off it would have sorted itself out with the right people in jail, but by pushing hard a lot of innocent people were killed, along with law enforcement personal.

Why is it the leaders of these type of organizations think it is OK to have sex with really young minors? It really was a case of mutual arrogance.

 

*I think there was a really bad one in the USA twenty years or so ago, - can't remember the details.

I think you're referring to the branch dividian compound/david koresh. Yes the ATF got wind they were amassing an arsenal and started a war with them. I don't remember all the details, but IIRC the ATF didn't have any justification in going in there, but at the same time the people had no justification in resisting the ATF.

Everything you are saying I have thought of, and I agree, but I don't understand what you are getting at. Are you saying that the odds of failure are so bad that it's not worth the effort? Like I said, it's lose-lose, and all you can do is give yourself the best chance possible. I believe in keeping a modest arsenal to defend against those who would try to take, but I also believe in giving. In the wake of a doomsday scenario, sure there would be those who would kill and take, but I think the majority would still be more apt to choose an honest path and work for their food if they had an option. There's no reason they couldn't farm along side me and eat at my table. There's no benefit to shutting out those in need.

 

If there were to be a complete loss of control, with people exiting the cities en masse, that's exactly what I am saying. You could not then hope to be left in peace just by moving to a nearby area of thr countryside. I have in mind the appearance of militias or gangs of the kind presently seen in some parts of Africa and elsewhere.

That is why I think the first priority should be to try to avoid things ever getting that bad in the first place. It seems very probable that very hard times are ahead, and even that eventually some of the institutions we presently live with will pass away, but still I'm not convinced that history has to play out like the plot of a disaster movie.

 

That is why I think the first priority should be to try to avoid things ever getting that bad in the first place. It seems very probable that very hard times are ahead, and even that eventually some of the institutions we presently live with will pass away, but still I'm not convinced that history has to play out like the plot of a disaster movie.

Ah, that's the point you've been making. Sorry it escaped me. Regarding that, let me go back to the point of the essay. The point wasn't institutions; banks, governments, etc., whatever you may be referring to, realizing their demise. These things I believe will come to pass, but they in & of themselves are not the issue as I see it. The issue is that the population, like the housing crisis, is a bubble. The population has become (or is about to become) artificially high; higher than what can be supported. This cannot be sustained. The issue may be staved off with bandaids here and there, but not indefinitely. At some point a natural corrective measure will occur to bring the population down. No way around it in my eyes. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Things are going to "get that bad", despite our best efforts.

 

energy sustains the population, and oil isn't the only source. In the end, there is no balance, only consumption, and man will go to all lengths to sustain and prosper. Sure, we'll go through great pains that will include war, famine, epidemics, etc, but I wouldn't be surprised if the last remaining organism on the planet be a humanoid.

 

Ah, that's the point you've been making. Sorry it escaped me. Regarding that, let me go back to the point of the essay. The point wasn't institutions; banks, governments, etc., whatever you may be referring to, realizing their demise. These things I believe will come to pass, but they in & of themselves are not the issue as I see it. The issue is that the population, like the housing crisis, is a bubble. The population has become (or is about to become) artificially high; higher than what can be supported. This cannot be sustained. The issue may be staved off with bandaids here and there, but not indefinitely. At some point a natural corrective measure will occur to bring the population down. No way around it in my eyes. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Things are going to "get that bad", despite our best efforts.

This is another point on which I disagree. Population growth may continue in the way you suggest, but it is by no means inevitable that it will, and certainly not clear that it will happen equally in all regions of the world. Opinion is actually quite divided on the matter: I could easily cite sources giving contrary views, but there seems little point given that you could likewise produce references to support your case. My own guess is that the situation around the globe will be very far from uniform: for instance, in North America things may work out a lot better than (say) in sub-Saharan Africa. NB "My own guess..." I don't say that this is what will happen.

There is a point I'd like to make about discussion in general - I hope you will see it as helpful. In the passage which I have emphasised, you are stating as a facts things that in truth are matters of opinion, not shared by everyone who has analysed the subject. In pursuing a discussion of this kind, I believe that it is better not to state things as facts when they are not proven. This weakens the argument, at least if it is made in front of people able to realise what is going on.

I see that there is a concession to fairness buried in your argument "...I could be wrong..." but this is surrounded by categorical statements about what is going to happen. You may have noted that although I have said many times that I disagree with your analysis of this, I make no claim to know with any certainty how things will finally turn out.

Perhaps it does come down to different life experiences and cultures colouring our views of the world. If I had been brought up in a country of universal gun ownership, being taught the stories of the Wild West and of the pioneer spirit, and then had to live in a depressed area surrounded by gangsters and drug dealers, perhaps I would see things differently.