It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Our Single and Couple Members

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Are you saying the the men who have a wife and children are basically cowards when it comes to surviving?

My husband is definitely not a coward as far as im concerned...He is very well prepared for whatever happens...and is teaching me what we will need to do.

Im sure that there are a few men that haven't a clue as to what to do as far as survival etc.

I know that we will make it and I think both my husband and myself are extremely grateful that we are in this together no matter what happens.




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 




Anyone that has studied Malthusian theory knows that groups in confined spaces with limited resources eventually end up eating the young.
Think It's gonna change?



If these large groups ever got to the point where they had to turn to cannabilism they would eat the old way before they eat the young.

The desire for the survival of the species is inherent in all species, and survival of a species is dependant on it's young, which is why the young have always been so vehemently protected. The elders have already outlived their productiveness and given their wisdom to the younger generation, it will be the young that keeps the species alive.

Also in a group situation it would also be the person that was not community oriented and had no concern for the survival of the species that would be eaten first



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsosweet
reply to post by whaaa
 


Are you saying the the men who have a wife and children are basically cowards when it comes to surviving?


Actually, no I'm not. I was just using a literary device to try and illustrate another side of the SHTF coin. Playing Devils advocate if you will. Even though I actually don't hold that view; many of my biker friends do. They have a very different mind set and are actually looking forward to the "days of rage" when they can spring their brothers from the prisons and jails and seek retribution on the society they despise.

www.cjr.org...
You think these guys are going to just say "Oh, nevermind"???


Perhaps you can just take my scenario as a warning.

Anykind of catastrophe; external or domestic, that causes the breakdown of goods and services and infrastructure will not be somekind of back to the land hippy commune, hunker down until it passes kind of deal. In fact the survivors will probably envy the dead.

In a SHTF situation; disease and sickness will be much more of a problem than other people or even hunger IMO.





[edit on 22-7-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I think a large percentage of men in a VERY bad situation would return to a more innate dominant role,moreso than they do in this cotton ball filled bubble that we do today where we have more flexibility.I think having children would be on the table also along with a a partner,having as many people in a family to help out in the future will always help in a tough situation,planning ahead if you will for when old age kicks in.Course this doesn't apply to all men and woman but i think it would be the majority.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Solomons]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I think many are missing the key ingredient...

a parent is much more likley to kill rather than to scare or harm..


Put a father in the woods, with wife and child, someone snooping,
what do you thinks going to happen...

put a single male in the woods, and someone snooping...


the single male is more likley to sit quietly and see whats going to happen next and the intruder is up to, and if they are just passing by or causing problems, The Father is more likley to shoot on sight to protect the wife and child...

I have both, wife and child, and in a SHTF situation, i have no worries, we will be fine, mobile and do what ever is needed... family with you or without you is not realy a big deal, it just takes a little adjusting of how you think and plan things, but you can accomplish the same goals.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Interesting discussion. Thanks.

As a father and a husband, I have to admit that it changes the dynamic considerably. There is a lot more worry involved when you have the lives of people you love in your hands.

The direction I perceived the OP to be heading in is advocating some flexibility in your plans to accommodate a change in your priorities or level of compassion in the sit-x scenario.

I know some would think that a 'gaggle of fraggles' would be a terrible burden when the SHTF. I believe, that whether you want to admit it or not, no one wants to really be alone.

Also as a father and husband, I completely agree that I WILL shoot first and ask questions later.

My children will be expected to snap to it pretty quick like, as will the wife. We are in the process of all becoming a little more prepared, but you could certainly understand the difficulties involved in walking the fine line between preparedness and paranoia. Although I don't have much faith in the world right now, it would be a terrible crime for me to impose my cynicism on my children. Our preparations, for the time being, are under the guise of 'just being prepared in case of a flood, or tornado or something.'

When TSHTF, I will probably be very reluctant to turn away a needy survivor, but also very reluctant to sacrifice the needs of my family for a stranger. Of course, this is primarily bravado at this point, as not having ever been in the situation, I can't tell you HOW I would react.

I remember being young. I was never going to get married and certainly never have any children. Ideals change. Values change. Now, the life I have involves a lot more people than myself and I have a level of responsibility towards them.

Would it be easier to be the 'lone wolf?' Maybe.

Am I currently willing to forgo my humanity and the continuation of the species for the satisfaction of knowing I don't have to ever help anyone else? No...not really. Would that change? Maybe.

Clear as mud, huh? 'P



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Great post (s&f) and really interesting discussion. What I read as 'you may end up taking care of more than just you so stock up with that in mind' has turned into something entirely different, at least for some posters.

I suspect the answers say more about the individual responding than they realize. Both in how they respond and the conclusion they drew from the original OP. Because, as I said, what I got was just "stock up for more than one person because you may be surprised." That could be because I have a child, family in the area and have put up for all of us already though. =)
Fascinating! I love this place! =)
gba,
~pre
(well.. I'm working on putting up stuff anyhow, never truly done..)



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by severdsoul


a parent is much more likley to kill rather than to scare or harm..


Excellent point, in a situation that is just me, I would be more inclined to finesse a situation, or at least have more tactical options. However, if I were placed into a situation where I knew that I could not let a bad guy or guys get around me and at the family, my options would be much more limited, and to the detriment of the threat in front of me.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by Geladinhu
 


Exactly, there is no adequate preparation for anarchy, chaos, barbaric savagery, rape, pillaging, dog eat dog, scenario.

Only the mobile, strong and ruthless will survive. Holding on to old ideas and living in the past will be obsolete. The new barbarians will show no mercy to the weak or the stupid clinging to their antiquated morals and prayers.

Let the blood flow!!

So it will... But dont forget that we are humans and even worst rascal tend to follow certain code, even if its only his own. Especially him... I mean it seem that even raubritters, pirates, hitmen etc try to keep their self image, to follow certain rules, even if they are "a bit" twisted. Its human need to feel "honorable".
Remember Conan the Barbarian? As far as I know Robert E Howard, maybe not the best writer in the world, but good at characters creating
created him observing real humans, and that "Barbarian" always had his own "etics" even moments of generosity etc.
Im not talking about total psychopats, they will be put down like mad dogs. Anyway as long as we are not turned to some kind of genetically modified cyber monsters there is still hope.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by ZenOnKwalsky]

[edit on 25-7-2009 by ZenOnKwalsky]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZenOnKwalsky

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by Geladinhu
 


Exactly, there is no adequate preparation for anarchy, chaos, barbaric savagery, rape, pillaging, dog eat dog, scenario.

Only the mobile, strong and ruthless will survive. Holding on to old ideas and living in the past will be obsolete. The new barbarians will show no mercy to the weak or the stupid clinging to their antiquated morals and prayers.

Let the blood flow!!

So it will... But dont forget that we are humans and even worst rascal tend to follow certain code, even if its only his own. Especially him... I mean it seem that even raubritters, pirates, hitmen etc try to keep their self image, to follow certain rules, even if they are "a bit" twisted. Its human need to feel "honorable".



When the SHTF there will be no honor. Hungry people don't have any honor. Your comic book fantasy is amusing.


Rascals............yeah right



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Well it will take a moment and some basic order will be established... maybe a few years or decades even, but we are not some sick, mad dogs (normal healthy dogs they have well organised packs, with hierarchy, they raise they pups togheter etc) we are Humans and our normal form of being is Society!!
By the way... it comes in the comic books too?! )


[edit on 25-7-2009 by ZenOnKwalsky]

[edit on 25-7-2009 by ZenOnKwalsky]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
People tend to form societies given a chance. This is true.

But most of those societies are not great. Not places or people I would want to have my children marry into.

Because if you and your neighbour aren't willing to stand together to defend the good, the most violent controlling jackass floats to the top.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


So we should start with a small group of old friends just like ancient indoeuropeans- we choose leader from amongst us and he is only as strong as we let him to be. I know it works the best only in a scale of village or small town but maybe that optimal size of human society...Anyway we cant be friends with the milions...
Look in Switzerland, which is federation of small cantons, and they speak 4 diffrent languages (in reality there is many dialects in most important there "Swiss-German")Since centuries they have mostly direct democracy (referendums even on federal scale when it concerns most important issues)and it seems to work better than elsewhere.
United Europe should take them as model because its been tested and look much more human-sized.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaCurious
reply to post by Aeons
 


I don't know man.. maybe you've been in a box all this time.

As for "pairing up", I can't even get the hunnies to say hi, much less "pair up". We're not talking Brad Pitt here...


If SHTF, the pretentious attitude that people have today wont last very long. Getting back to the basics wouldn't be entirely a bad thing, and that's probably why so many people fantasize about SHTF.

But don't wait around for that, as there is only a slim chance of it happening. Believe in yourself and don't go around selling yourself short like that.


CX

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by severdsoul
I think many are missing the key ingredient...

a parent is much more likley to kill rather than to scare or harm..


Put a father in the woods, with wife and child, someone snooping,
what do you thinks going to happen...

put a single male in the woods, and someone snooping...


the single male is more likley to sit quietly and see whats going to happen next and the intruder is up to, and if they are just passing by or causing problems, The Father is more likley to shoot on sight to protect the wife and child...

I have both, wife and child, and in a SHTF situation, i have no worries, we will be fine, mobile and do what ever is needed... family with you or without you is not realy a big deal, it just takes a little adjusting of how you think and plan things, but you can accomplish the same goals.


I'd definately agree with this one.


Doesn't even have to be a Sit X to see this one working. I am divorced, but have my kids half the time. So basiclly for 4 days a week, i'm mum and dad to them. When the kids are not here, i would say my response to noises outside are more "investigative" shall we say.

I'll check it out, might have something with me that will give whoever it is a bit of a headache lol, but thats it.

If my kids are here, i naturaly become more defensive. I will stay in the house with the kids, and the "something that will give them a nasty headache", is replaced with something that has more "substance" to it.

If i feel my kids are at risk whatsoever, i'll explain my actions in court, not in Heaven.

CX.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join