How do you decide who survives?

Originally posted by wdkirk
reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn

 

"I have heard rumors of China buying up large portions of our country and rumors of China taking portions of our country as payment on our delinquent and exorbitant debt. I never gave much credibility to these rumors, only because I felt in my heart of hearts, that the majority of Americans would never stand for a mass eviction of American citizens to relinquish American land to China. After seeing that map, I fear that it would not be that difficult for China to take possession of a large portion of America without having to fire a single shot."


No country is coming to "gobble up" land in America in exchange for non payment of debt.

I concur. Sort of. Yes there are many U.S. assets that have been sold to foreign companies. And yes, that includes the land. But, shtf scenario, land is going to belong to whoever can hold it. If China shows up with troops. Well, maybe they actually would hold some. But I don't think that will happen. There are two major scenarios. One is a disaster that includes land changes. That means FEMA and tribal like bands. I don't see the Chinese in that scenario.
The other is fiscal meltdown. Debt default and resulting chaos. If the U.S. defautled it is expected that foreign countries will sieze assets of American Corporations in those countries. Then I would expect to see the U.S. do the same to them here. In a money melt down so much of it is, for lack of a better term "made up", that we would still have our manpower and our military. Good luck coming to collect the debt!

In either event I know that you need supplies and a minimum of six grown adults (thanks to anothe poster awhile back who explained watch/work/sleep shifts. It would be preferable to have more than that. Enough food for all for one year, multiple acres of land, and plenty of seed.
Plan now and you will have less rationing to do later.
Make sure everyone in your apocalypse party knows where to meet up. Double up on supplies. Some cached at the destination and some in your current primary dwelling.

Not saying I have successfully done all this yet. But I have done some of it. And the lists have been made and the tasks assigned. A couple of people seemed to think it odd, but they still agreed to their parts.

Deciding who survives begins moments after any disaster or major accident. It is in these early moments that those wishing to assist the injured must make some choices and decisions that have the capability to determine who lives and who dies.

Decisions made during times of peace and tranquility are not the same decisions one would make if it was all out chaos or humans struggling to survive some major disaster or planetary event.

If we were to discuss injuries after some cataclysmic event, you would use a term called "triage" to treat those that were injured depending on the level of injuries sustained. It is a simple triangle to learn and to make this example worthwhile, I will use medical emergencies as an example to speak about.

While many know of medical triage and understand how it should work, classifying the injured parties into injured, more injured, and severely life threatening injuries is the norm most would use to determine who gets medical treatment first. While many will agree this standard is usually used, there are times when such a triage does not get used and would in fact hinder survival.

In a true societal survival situation, with limited medical supplies, it becomes necessary to expand the definition of who should live vs who should be left to die. With limited medical supplies, this will of course add to the personal dilemma of who lives and who survives because with only limited medical supplies, only those that can contribute to long term survivability will be provided the limited medical resources that everyone will need to treat injuries and combat infections.

Let's say you come across three injured people, one of which has suffered only scratches, one who is moderately injured and someone who is very seriously injured. In certain circles, triage of the sorts usually practiced is not sufficient to provide benefit to the survivors, because if triage is applied in its simple form, then the moderately injured party might not get any treatment over the very serious injury.

While this sounds totally perfect to some, I contend that in a real life and death survival situation, the age, life skills, experience, wisdom, education and ability to contribute to the larger group is who should get the medical treatment.

Add the pressure of having to deal with family members and this more serious triage gets condensed down to who can most help the living survive the future if the injured person is helped with medical treatment that is limited.

In the Mad Max movies, Beyond Thunder-dome, its the little man that runs barter town because he knows how to make fuel, methane from pig poop. His worth to the community was worth organizing a posse to kill anyone to get him back when he was kidnapped and this to me is why certain people in a life and death situation are worth more than those that offer nothing to the long term survivability to the group.

It is I feel important to be moral in a moral society, but in real life and death situation, it doesn't work out that way. If anything, most can count on making a lot of mistakes before they realize that nice has nothing to do with survival.

Triage for medical injuries works well in a peace time environment, but in life and death survival, being nice can ensure you die right along with everyone else. This is why those among the group that understand the potential for future benefit of those helped with medical assistance will assist those that normal triage would force to wait or deny any treatment to.

It is the little man running barter town that I feel best explains that premise of why certain people in a life and death survival mode requires one to understand just what every person brings to the survival table. This is of course the cold reason why some might be allowed to live while others perish.

When times are not as serious is when trying to save everyone can once again become the norm, but in survival, you better help to survive those that can help long term to the groups survival first. This is key and most need to understand it to accept it.

Skills, education, or some special training is what should be helped to survive. All others can be comforted and helped to die in peace if necessary, but in a survival situation, who you save could be beneficial as well as a detriment to the group.

These matters that are best left to decide when the emergency arises. Until then, just understand that helping the very serious to live when there is limited medical supplies, food and water is noble, but will no doubt contribute to lower survival rates among the overall group if that person serves no future benefit.

Who lives and who survives is always determined by a multitude of factors,but in the early stages of a real emergency or major national disaster, you better save those that serve a purpose first and all others last. Saving a doctor or a dentist over a welfare recipient may sound like racial class war fare, but it is a real thought to consider. Doctor or dead beat drug addict? Decisions, decisions.

Do you want to save someone who can help with dental emergencies and has medical training over someone who cant spell his name and only knows how to play an x box? Decisions, decisions but in my book the answer is predicated on future benefit and this is what many will find insensitive about such a practice.

I hate to sound so callous about such a subject matter, but I feel that too many do not understand that unless you save who can truly benefit the group, you will be contributing to helping those survive that offer no benefit to the overall group or those expending medical supplies and time and energy trying to save someones life after being injured in some disaster.

Add in the limited food, water and or medical supplies and anyone should be able to see that life and death situations are the last thing you need to make, but if they have to be made, opt for saving those lives that will return long term survivability back into the group.

All others not worth saving will in time contribute to their own deaths as well as others and so when viewed in this manner, it is best to think about the little man in barter town who runs barter town because he gives everyone electricity and fuel to run engines and pumps and other things.

In closing I would add that those that are not worthy of being helped to survive will not like being shunned or denied what they feel they must have.

This is why self defense, weapons and knowing how to use them will stop someone from stealing the medical supplies, food and water just because they feel that they should live even though they would serve no long term purpose to do do. This is why being armed and trained to use force must be a part of any effort to survive, because in a time of chaos, the strong and the violent will want to take what they want and only force will stop them from doing so.

This to me are the cold hard facts of who lives and who survives and I for one hope I never see such a time come to pas but if I do, I will help anyone to survive so long as doing so doesn't shorten someones life in the process. Upon matters returning to normal if such thing does happen is when trying to help everyone would once again be the norm.

Until then, you better take survival seriously or else it will rise up and kill you while you sleep. Thanks for the memories, but something tells me many have no clue what a major life and death situation really means and I for one hope the many do not have to experience what I just discussed because that is when you will realize that I didn't spare the truth just to be nice.

Survival is a personal matter, but I have no doubt that many will make survival tougher because of the inability to say no or to make the tough calls that no one is going to like during time of struggle and survival. OH well, time will tell.

I'm killin everyone that opposes me....PERIOD

I live in a rural gated community of 41 family units....a core group of 13 families have started preparing,mainly due to what they saw of my "put-backs" when I moved in...the rest will have to do the best they can...we have all agreed that we will care for the several elderly singles that live there but we have pretty much decided what we will do....none of us are willing to see our kids hungry because some dummy was too silly(or stupid) to put up a months supply of food

reply to post by watcher3339


After reading your reply I began having memory flashes of scenes in the Stephen King novel, "Under the Dome".

It did not take long for the loving, neighborly, folks in that humble little town to go rogue and though I had not thought it at the time that I read it, I guess it could be seen as "previews to coming attractions."

Between "The Stand" and "Under the Dome"; one would think that Mr. King's next novel will be, "The Post Apocalyptic Primer".

About the diabetes posts earlier, not all diabetes is the fault of the patient. The type 1, or insulin dependent diabetic needs insulin shots because their pancreas does not make any for whatever reason. The type 2, or non-insulin dependent diabetic has a problem with the cells not taking in the sugar to use because their cells are not responding to the insulin for whatever reason -- this type tends to occur later in life. While not everyone with type 2 diabetes is overweight, obesity and lack of physical activity are two of the most common causes of this form of diabetes. Type 2s take medication to get their cells to take in the sugars needed for energy. Sometimes, even a person taking care of themselves can develop type 2 diabetes just because of their genetic make-up. It's not always the patient's fault for overeating and getting fat.

Now, as for survival, if insulin supplies run low, epinephrine (or adrenalin) also helps the body's cells to take in sugar. So, by encouraging diabetics who are able to get out and do stuff (like foraging) that involve exertion, that can reduce (and sometimes, eliminate) the need for insulin or other diabetes medications.

Now, in a worse-case scenario, deciding who receives scarce resources will depend on how quickly those resources are likely to be replenished. In a local disaster, aid packages will lekely begin to arrive within the week. If we are being invaded by hostile forces, then we'll probably have to evacuate and take what supplies we can carry with us to sustain us until we can reach friendly territories where we can hopefully be resupplied. If the entire planet is affected, then we really would be limited to what can be found locally, and we might have to start rationing supplies until we can resupply ourselves through foraging/hunting or growing our own. That's when the harder decisions will need to be made.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Fine for you...so I guess its me that will help save your family in times of crisis. Will you save mine please?