Dogmatix, if you would not put the needs and safety of your family ahead of all others in a SHTF scenario I am glad I am not one of yours. In a true SHTF scenario such mentality will have youand yours very thirsty, hungry, dead or all 3 in a very short time. I recently posted an article on another forum from someone who lived in just such a situation for 12 months in a city under siege and what they had to do. It is so wonderfully easy to sit in front of your computer in your warm safe home and be so idealistic, knowing if anyone even dare knock on your door to loud you can ring the police to return your peace. Having said this, if I did not see a threat to myself or my family in helping someone I would readily do so. I would not put myself at risk as it would leave my family alone and obviously I would not place any of my family at risk as that would be the opposite of what you are naturally meant to do. Hopefully such a time will never come and the worse we will ever do is prepare ourselves for it.
I never said that? I don't know anyone that would put their family second. I guess it depends on your SHTF scenario then... because if it is a siege, ie war, then that's just a tad different to economic collapse right? Anyhow, I'm probably not actually as idealistic as you appear to think I am, but I do want to offer an alternative view, and that will come across as extreme in contrast to some of the opposing views in this thread.
I think the most plausible SHTF scenario is the contagious disease one. Something like a virulent virus spread through the air - like avian/swine flu/ebola etc. Epidemics have struck in the past and will most likely again. Don't know how much good PMs will be in such a situation. Any thoughts on what you would do?
This one concerns me too. Whilst it'd be good for reducing population, it's also really horrible and hard to plan for. I think this is a scenario in which gold would be next to useless. But I'd be open to alternative takes on it. I also think a nuclear war would render gold useless. Edit: But a good gieger counter would be worth heaps.
Don't worry be happy now... doo do do do de do de do de doo..... There is nothing you can do to prevent these situations so just relax. Minimise your risk with the contagious diseases by not screwing the working girls (or boys), buy food in bulk to save money, rotate your food stocks, know your routes out of the city to avoid gridlock if needed, discuss with the wife where to meet in the event of flood or other disaster that occurs when you are separated and cannot contact each other... wash your hands well and don't stress the small stuff
I concur Naphthalene Man Stressing about SHTF scenarios that you can't really prepare for is a recipe for an early grave.
Did i come across as stressing out? That's the "net" for you. I casually think about SHTF scenarios once in a blue moon and don't think any are imminent. Just saying that out of all the SHTF scenarios espoused here and elsewhere, imo disease is more likely than economic meltdown. Some people are too focused on the economic meltdown and how their PMs are going to save them. An extremely contagious and lethal disease will lead to failure in food production, power generation, services and lead to anarchy. PMs will be of no good to anyone. Even "preppers" will have a hard time with disease. It's a difficult one to prepare for and isolationism may not help.
I was thinking of high sigma events in general when I talk about stress. I'm of the 'no point worrying about something you have no control over' variety. I'll confess that I was still thinking about nuclear war when I responded to Napthalene. I agree, i've thought about that too. It's very hard to avoid all human contact, and so what if you don't die from ebola if instead you die instead from a perfectly curable case of tetanus because you refuse to go to a hospital? Or you merely break your leg and get infection, etc. Still, i personally think economic meltdown is more likely.
