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.

 

The Myths of the American Redneck.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder

OP has hunted and fished successfully his entire life. I've personally taken over 50 deer in 22 years of hunting and more, ducks, geese, rabbits, and pheasant than I can count.

Good for you!

That will not apply to everyone, though.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword

Do you realize that country people have to drive more, thus pollute more, just to reach civilization for something not easily found otherwise?

That is carbon dioxide, water vapor, a precious few sulfides, and a few nitrides. What is coming out of those stacks in the city?

I can smell the air in a typical city.

Can you smell the air in the country?

You are equating air pollution with vehicle exhaust only. Vehicle exhaust is one portion of the pollution problem, and a portion that tends to dissipate rapidly if not being replenished. Also, compare the number of gas-guzzling trucks (necessary out here because we don't have home delivery services) in the country to the number of delivery trucks and automobiles on a city freeway. There's your difference.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by milominderbinder

Being able to find the deer and hit them with whatever you are shooting? No, those are rules of common sense, not of law.

Find the deer? Walk outside...they're frickin' everywhere. There are more deer in the state of Wisconsin now than there were when Columbus landed...largely due to the densely packed food plots we plant for them called "farms". Their numbers have exploded...they quite literally run right into town these days. At least they do up here in the upper Midwest.

but you do have to know how to make a net... or to make/use those "good" fireworks. Sure, you just light a fuse and toss it, right? Is that why every 5th of July we experience a decrease in the number of digits people have?

I'm going to say that an autistic kid with down syndrome could manage to make a net of some type. Again...you have the modern world around you upon which to scavenge. You don't have to first find the fibrous plant material like Tom Hanks did in "Castaway". As for the losing of fingers on July 5th...I'm going to say that the reason is mostly due to booze.

If TSHTF, there will be a lot more people out there shooting up the place... and most of them will be reading the owners manual while they're shooting! Will that somehow not spook the deer?
Possibly...depending on the nature of the event we might find that there are dramatically less people around period. Good point though...the most dangerous place to be in Wisconsin will be the Northwoods when Chicago and Milwaukee empty out.

Did you just say, "Those dumb-as-a-rock deer just outsmarted me!"???

Not at all. I KNOW when the best time to shoot a deer is...it just so happens that I am prohibited by law from doing so. Likewise, the deer are moving more at night largely out of habit and instinct instead of strategic thinking.

See, there's the problem: you assume organization. I do not. I assume every man for himself and cooperation only for compassionate reasons or for personal gain. That seems to fit the model of human behavior more closely.

Oh...hell no. I am assuming it will be small band vs. small band. Humans are not solitary creatures and precious few of them will avoid all human contact and live as lone wolves. One person will become 2 or 3 people...and then a few of these small groups will meet and decide to work together. Human nature will be to band together...up to a point. Probably more than 10 people but less than 100. These small groups will then likely compete for resources.


In any group of that size, there will be those who achieve ruling status. We see it globally in countries, and even saw it during the 1960s when larger communes broke up under their own weight. We also see that those who cannot do are the ones who lead. Now, in a situation where there is no overall authority, what exactly do you think would be different in a 50-person group?

Easy. Historically speaking the "leader" in a small group or tribe is most often the one who is BEST able to "do". It's only in much larger and more complicated societies in which incompetence is a virtue.


You also place an inordinate amount of faith in that one guy who can run a circular saw. What happens if he gets sick or hurt? What happens if he has an accident (anyone can) and cuts a hand off? Without quick medical attention he will bleed to death! Even if you have a doctor standing by, he lost his hand and can no longer run the saw.

Well...that one person dies...and I bet the next guy who uses the circular saw will probably be pretty careful. Again...you might have an idiot here or there that manages to kill themselves...but I don't see it as really being something that even a small band of people will not be able to figure out.


I agree that the "preppers" are going to be in for a shock. They are stockpiling the wrong things The thing to stockpile is knowledge and experience, not items you can produce yourself or don't even need.

I agree with you there. Knowledge and experience is 100-fold more important than how many bottles of water you have in the basement. I think the big difference is just in what we are looking at as being the MOST valuable knowledge. When TSHTF I want an ENGINEER and a SURGEON...not a handyman and a nurse. Give me a mathematician over a "hunter" any day. It's counter-intuitive because the big "emergency" doesn't seem to be working calculus problems...but finding food is something our species has become perfectly adapted to for millions of years and it's much easier to learn how to hunt than to learn mathematics. Give me a psychologist to help understand and/or manipulate my rival band of humans over a net-maker. Etc.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder

Perhaps the biggest difference between us is in how we value certain abilities then. I want a handyman... he can make things. But I also want an engineer who can figure out what to make. I want a nurse who can handle minor situations, but I also want a surgeon to take care of the real problems.

I value all trades and abilities equally.

The problem with having a surgeon is that he will typically make a lousy nurse. That engineer probably can't drive a nail like a handyman. So I look toward something we have lost: cross-training. I can, myself,
  • fix a car
  • drive anything with wheels
  • design
  • build using wood, plastic, fiberglass, epoxy, and light metal.
  • repair electronics
  • grow food
  • hunt, both with bow and gun
  • fish
  • repair mechanical things
  • trap
  • read maps
  • make a fire
  • operate most tools
  • probably a lot more I haven't thought of.

So in the long run, someone with those multiple skills is infinitely more useful than a mathematician in a SHTF situation. Good to know, yes, absolutely! But critical to survival? Nah, sorry... rather have someone who can put a lean-to together that won't leak.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I am from a small rural community with a population of a few hundred. My wife and I were having a similar discussion a few weeks ago, about the loss of traditional skills. She believes that it is a shame that people no longer know how to sew, can, and do some of the tasks that were a necessity not too long ago. I on the other hand believe that one has to adapt and change. Our modern life no longer requires canning, making your own clothes, basket weaving. There are new challenges that we have to learn and teach our children, new challenges of modern living.

I believe these skill would be necessary AFTER a SHTF type of scenario. But I am a firm believer that people generally tend to work together in times of crisis, and that there would be no need to shoot each other. There are A-holes in rural communities and in cities. You people talk about the two as if people were of different breeds, city and country. But I firmly believe that history has shown us that communities tend to work together in times of need, regardless of where they live.

I personally believe that if a major catastrophe happens, causing a complete fallout of our modern civilization, owning 200 guns will in no way help. How many weapons can one person fire at a time? Stockpiling fire arms in the name of preparation is an excuse so that your wife allows you to blow money on your hobby.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by milominderbinder

Perhaps the biggest difference between us is in how we value certain abilities then. I want a handyman... he can make things. But I also want an engineer who can figure out what to make. I want a nurse who can handle minor situations, but I also want a surgeon to take care of the real problems.

I value all trades and abilities equally.

The problem with having a surgeon is that he will typically make a lousy nurse. That engineer probably can't drive a nail like a handyman. So I look toward something we have lost: cross-training. I can, myself,
  • fix a car
  • drive anything with wheels
  • design
  • build using wood, plastic, fiberglass, epoxy, and light metal.
  • repair electronics
  • grow food
  • hunt, both with bow and gun
  • fish
  • repair mechanical things
  • trap
  • read maps
  • make a fire
  • operate most tools
  • probably a lot more I haven't thought of.

So in the long run, someone with those multiple skills is infinitely more useful than a mathematician in a SHTF situation. Good to know, yes, absolutely! But critical to survival? Nah, sorry... rather have someone who can put a lean-to together that won't leak.

TheRedneck


Ok...but why would an engineer or a mathematician not be able to learn how to hunt, fish, or use hand tools in record time if necessity dictated? Twelve year old children can go hunting...and frequently do just that. Successfully, I might add. How many nails does a guy REALLY have to drive before he gets the hang of it? Twenty? A hundred? Pretty much anybody will get the hang of it in a very, very, short period of time...assuming they are physically able to of course. You gotta have two hands, full use of your arms, and probably weigh less than 300 lbs...but most people DO fit into that category.

Why would a mathematician be incapable of stretching a tarp without holes in it to make a lean-to shelter? When was the last time you have met a human being of ANY age or background that can't read a frickin' map? Nautical navigation aside...there really is no mystery to it all. Besides...wouldn't a mathematician be able to read a map far more intelligently than a layman? I would hand that map to my mathematician and ask him to calculate the best of three possible routes taking into account not only distance, but also speed and caloric output which would vary due to the slope of the land and altitude. If food is scarce...wouldn't it be wise to try to monitor and gauge every calorie expended and consumed as closely as possible to ensure that what you already have lasts?

Building a fire is a KEY survival strategy in the wilderness...and you might only have one or two shots at doing so successfully before you die depending on the situation. However, in a more generalized collapse of society you would most likely have time to practice up a little bit. Again...it's not like your plane just crashed in Alaska and you have to walk 500 miles before you see another person again. I'm pretty sure that if push came to shove it wouldn't take real long to find a lighter, matches, or an accelerant of some sort to get a fire going anywhere in the lower 48.

Right? What am I missing? Why would the hypothetical examples of the engineer or mathematician not be able to do everything on your list in ADDITION TO (not instead of) having the technical skills of their primary occupation?



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by VekTorVik
I am from a small rural community with a population of a few hundred. My wife and I were having a similar discussion a few weeks ago, about the loss of traditional skills. She believes that it is a shame that people no longer know how to sew, can, and do some of the tasks that were a necessity not too long ago. I on the other hand believe that one has to adapt and change. Our modern life no longer requires canning, making your own clothes, basket weaving. There are new challenges that we have to learn and teach our children, new challenges of modern living.

I believe these skill would be necessary AFTER a SHTF type of scenario. But I am a firm believer that people generally tend to work together in times of crisis, and that there would be no need to shoot each other. There are A-holes in rural communities and in cities. You people talk about the two as if people were of different breeds, city and country. But I firmly believe that history has shown us that communities tend to work together in times of need, regardless of where they live.

I personally believe that if a major catastrophe happens, causing a complete fallout of our modern civilization, owning 200 guns will in no way help. How many weapons can one person fire at a time? Stockpiling fire arms in the name of preparation is an excuse so that your wife allows you to blow money on your hobby.


I partially agree. People seem to instinctively come together in a crisis so long as there appears to be a strong likelihood of a quick return to "normal'. During 9-11 the country immediately came together...but what would have happened if the police and fire department never showed up to ground zero? That's more or less what happened during Hurricane Katrina...and it quickly turned rather chaotic.

However...in BOTH cases people DID come together. The primary difference is in how big the groups are. During 9-11 the "group" was basically 95%+ of the country. During Hurricane Katrina we saw people forming tiny little cooperative bands...often at the expense of other bands.

I don't think there will be ANY problem in getting a small group together between 10-100...but I think you'll have a HELL of a hard time pulling a couple of thousand people together.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

How much pollution comes from the country? Very little, because country folk care about our air and water. Some in the city do as well, but many do not.


I'm not sure if we can really count pollution here. Pollution is more of a human problem. The John Deere factory might be located in a town or city...but the tractor produced still goes out to the country. What's weird is your take on how city-dwellers are more materialistic. I find the EXACT opposite. There is only so much crap you can purchase and consume if you live in the city if for no other reason that there isn't anywhere to STORE it.

My in-laws are all retired dairy farmers and they usually stick to this myth pretty hard. They love bragging up how thrifty they think they are. The reality is that this "thriftiness" extends to little else other clothing. They ALL have multiple ATV's, snowmobile's, and boats in addition to more street-legal vehicles (mostly pick up trucks and SUV's) than they have licensed people to drive them in their family. You could maybe build a case for the utility of an ATV...until you realize they also have a couple Gator's, riding lawn mowers, a bobcat, and a small tractor for doing "work". In addition, they have ALL have a minimum of $5,000 worth of taxidermy hanging on the wall. If that isn't "materialistic" and "frivolous"...what is?

Meanwhile, in the late '90's when I lived in Chicago I used to catch hell from some of these same people for having "fancy, expensive suits" despite the fact that all of the possessions I had at the time could fit into a medium-sized uhaul trailer. There is only just so much crap you can fit in an 800 sq.ft highrise...you just find that you have a tendency to buy high-quality products...but less of them.


How much food is grown in the city? Obviously very little... as a matter of fact, if trucks were to stop running tomorrow, most larger cities would have no food left in a week's time. Out here we just walk to the garden or the freezer.

Sure...but no food is grown in the country either unless all of those city-produced tractors and diesel fuel gets sent out there. How many farmers do you know that have a bunch of good draft horses and a fully functional plow to hook them up to? Not very damn many.


It is simple human nature to become lazy when resources are plentiful and selfish when they are not. That tendency is used to great advantage when resources are boiled down to one single resource: money. Money replaces family, friends, it removes the challenges (and therefore the successes) of life, and it makes man into a beast. Money is all there is in the city; there is no land as we see land out here. as land ownership is subject to the whims of those who have over time managed to obtain jurisdiction over others. Charity is in short supply, because money is in short supply and everything has a dollar tag attached. Out here, commodities are valued as well as money. There is no time in the city for helping others, for establishing community ties, for enjoying the company of friends, because one always needs more money.

Most major cities have a charitable organization on just about every block of the downtown areas. They are FILLED with them. If city people only care about their money...why is it that every election the most densely populated areas routinely vote to increase their taxes in order to benefit those less fortunate through government social programs?

Granted...I also don't agree that this is the best way to achieve this...but you can hardly call people who are largely in favor of more taxes in exchange for things like better schools and universal health care as being "greedy"...right? If city people aren't concerned about the environment...why do they vote for candidates that want to curb greenhouse gases and implement more rigorous environmental regulations? Again...we are talking about the average joe here. I'm excluding the pricks on Wall Street just like I excluded the pricks who are sucking up all the water or oil in Texas or the massive ranching operations.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by milominderbinder

OP has hunted and fished successfully his entire life. I've personally taken over 50 deer in 22 years of hunting and more, ducks, geese, rabbits, and pheasant than I can count.

Good for you!

That will not apply to everyone, though.

TheRedneck



No...of course not. I started the post out talking about the paradox of my upbringing vs. my current life. However...that being said...why would grown adults fail at the tasks that small children routinely succeed at? That's the part that doesn't make any sense. Kids routinely bring down deer before they even have a chance to grow pubes. Even smaller children have been able to successfully catch fish for at least 200,000 years...perhaps even longer.

Why would an average adult when faced with a "do or die" situation simply not be able to perform the basic tasks that evolution has designed them for over millions and millions of years? That's the part that doesn't make any sense.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JDmOKI
 


I'm right there with you,

I'm from Baltimore MD, the good old folks who made a mass exodus in the 80's had some similarities to country people, very friendly and down to earth. My city has been infiltrated by yuppies from Ny, Conn, NJ, and Mass. They have a tendancy to look down upon the original inhabitants.

My family came from rural Appalachia, they were miners and farmers (3 out of 4 grandparents) they are some of the nicest people, it makes me miss my family



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder

Ok...but why would an engineer or a mathematician not be able to learn how to hunt, fish, or use hand tools in record time if necessity dictated?

Because the typical mathematician would spend more time calculating the trajectory of the bullet or arrow than he would watching the deer.


We live in a very specialized world. People who 'buy in' to this specialization typically learn to do one thing and one thing only. They also typically do it very well, and that is a good thing as long as there are people to do other things for them.

Why do people call plumbers when the toilet doesn't work? Why do they call electricians when a light doesn't work? Why do they call on doctors for sickness? Why is there a poison control center in every town? Why do people call mechanics to change their brake pads or oil?

Because most of them have no idea how to do it themselves!

Most engineers I have known (and I have known many, having worked in design for 20 years) couldn't replace a power outlet. They can tell you what the dialectric strength of the ceramic body is, calculate the amount of heat produced based on current draw at standard voltage, determine the expected lifetime of the connection and the amount of force required to insert a plug into it, but hand them a pair of linesman's pliers and a screwdriver and you're taking your life in your hands!

Want to hear a good argument? Lock an engineer and a mathematician in the same room and mention tolerance. The engineer understands tolerance just fine; the mathematician has no such concept. They are specialized to one particular mode of thought.


How many nails does a guy REALLY have to drive before he gets the hang of it? Twenty? A hundred?

Try a few thousand to do so without bending nails sideways, smashing fingers, or turning the nail into a spiral.

And some don't get good at it even then.


Why would a mathematician be incapable of stretching a tarp without holes in it to make a lean-to shelter?

Because he would likely pull it too tight, causing it to rip, or leave it too loose letting the weight of trapped water rip it apart.


When was the last time you have met a human being of ANY age or background that can't read a frickin' map?

Last Wednesday.


However, in a more generalized collapse of society you would most likely have time to practice up a little bit.

Making a fire using sticks and vines from the surrounding area would take more than a little time to practice. Try a few years to be proficient.


What am I missing?

Reality.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder

If that isn't "materialistic" and "frivolous"...what is?

They don't need any of that. They want it. That's the difference.

The city folk I know need their things to survive. They need a computer with Internet; they need TV; they need the grocery store, the plumbers, the electricians, the mechanics, the electricity, the artificial lights. I need none of that, but I see nothing wrong with having it either.


Meanwhile, in the late '90's when I lived in Chicago I used to catch hell from some of these same people for having "fancy, expensive suits" despite the fact that all of the possessions I had at the time could fit into a medium-sized uhaul trailer. There is only just so much crap you can fit in an 800 sq.ft highrise...you just find that you have a tendency to buy high-quality products...but less of them.

There is a general suspicion of city folk in the country. It stems from too many of them moving to the country, thinking they could live out here, only to realize that there's no 30-minute pizza delivery, the electricity tends to go out from time to time, it takes 30 minutes to get to town to a store, people don't like it when you tell them to quit target shooting, people don't like it when you tell them it's too late for them to have a party, the cops are few and far between, critters run loose, and it's dark at night. It normally takes about six months before they just can't stand it any more and run back to their manicured townhouses with their tails between their legs. A couple months later, here comes another slicker moving in.

I've seen it over and over and over. Occasionally, one will manage to adapt, but that is few and far between... well under 5%.

The two things they have in common is that they typically dress fancy and they look down their noses at us 'bumpkins'. So is it any surprise that people who dress fancy tend to be looked upon with suspicion?


Sure...but no food is grown in the country either unless all of those city-produced tractors and diesel fuel gets sent out there. How many farmers do you know that have a bunch of good draft horses and a fully functional plow to hook them up to?

Er, actually I know several. A couple even work them regularly, just to make sure they can still work. Of course, tractors are the mainstay, since we grow enough food out here to feed the city. To feed ourselves, all we need is a garden, worked with a hoe. I even use a hand plow to lay out my rows.

We even had one farmer out here (dead now) who had a couple of zebras imported from Africa. He trained and broke them to work a plow or pull a wagon. Those zebras were in every holiday parade I can remember from my youth. He housed them in a barn a mile and a half from me.

Here's anti-materialism for you: the guy had enough money to do that, more money than he could ever hope to use. Yet, he wore coveralls (usually dirty), drove his old pickup truck ("Why do I want a new one? This one works."), lived in a modest yet nice home, and would be one of the first people to help if he saw someone in need.

His life was not defined by his possessions. He was just a good man who never belittled nor looked down upon anyone.


Granted...I also don't agree that this is the best way to achieve this...but you can hardly call people who are largely in favor of more taxes in exchange for things like better schools and universal health care as being "greedy"...right?

It has been my observation that those who tend to vote for these programs are the ones who will benefit from them... not the ones who end up paying more.

And despite having a "charity on every corner", they also have homeless, drunks, addicts, and moochers on every corner as well. That's why cities typically have larger police departments and higher crime.

The last crime here happened 30-some-odd years ago... we caught some punks stealing gas. Their spree didn't last long.

And to skip ahead a post...

No...of course not. I started the post out talking about the paradox of my upbringing vs. my current life.

You are definitely an enigma based on what you have described. It is odd, however, that certain aspects of country living have completely alluded you... like the reason country folks are suspicious of well-dressed individuals and how hard it is for a slicker to adapt (without turning the country into a suburb).

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I remember as a kid in school I always dreamed of moving away from my small hometown to the "Big City". Now, as an adult, I travel to these same cities for work and am grateful to be able to return to my peaceful, little, quiet home.

I can see the stars at night. I can stand in my back yard and take a leak. I know all of my neighbors. When I hear a gun shot I know it just one of my neighbors either sighting in his rifle, or just enjoying a nice Saturday. It is great at night to hear the coyotes howling and the bullfrogs humming. When I drive down the road I raise my hand to passing cars because I probably know them.

I have found that most people live away from cities because they typically want to avoid crime and they want to be left alone. Don't get me wrong, there is crime in my small town. There has been at least two murders that I know of in my lifetime. There are drugs. But you typically know the people involved, and can give a face to the dangers. You know who to avoid.

Still, I don't think it is fair to say one lifestyle is better than another. Each person chooses what is best for them, and that is OK.

I have been to many places, where as some in my hometown have never been beyond fifty miles from their home. They will never fly on a plane or ride the subway in their lifetime.

I have also met and worked with city kids who have never been outside the city. They may never in their lifetime ride a horse, hunt for morels, or go hand fishing.

It really doesn't matter. Think of how many MILLIONS of people there are. In a real catastrophe, where food was scarce, everyone would be in trouble. You could not get far enough away to isolate yourself. Our infrastructure is necessary to feed all of these people. Everyone could not survive on wild game alone. I don't particularly subscribe to the whole SHTF mania, but I think it is short sighted to think that a city of half a million people could be fed by these means. And who ever thinks they could shoot starving people to save themselves is crazy. I would share my last can of beans.

Just think of the human waste alone, with no sort of public sanitation... It is unimaginable. Don't even say "Well I have used an outhouse before.", because it is not just one person, or even hundreds. It's MILLIONS. Completely...unimaginable.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by milominderbinder

Ok...but why would an engineer or a mathematician not be able to learn how to hunt, fish, or use hand tools in record time if necessity dictated?
Because the typical mathematician would spend more time calculating the trajectory of the bullet or arrow than he would watching the deer.



We live in a very specialized world. People who 'buy in' to this specialization typically learn to do one thing and one thing only. They also typically do it very well, and that is a good thing as long as there are people to do other things for them.

True enough...I can't argue that our civilization doesn't favor specialization over generalization.


Why do people call plumbers when the toilet doesn't work? Why do they call electricians when a light doesn't work? Why do they call on doctors for sickness? Why is there a poison control center in every town? Why do people call mechanics to change their brake pads or oil?

So...could a plumber conceivably be able to catch fish? Can an electrician hunt? My father would certainly say so...he's been a heavy industrial electrician since 1973 and not one single year has gone by since he returned from Vietnam that he has not gotten at least two deer (gun season and bow season). Likewise, although my father is an electrician by trade...he is certainly more than able to plumb a house from scratch or make plumbing repairs. I'm a writer by trade and educated as a historian...but I also build cedar strip kayaks and canoes.

This is precisely the reason why I think it's weird that people pretend that things like hunting, fishing, building a fire, and constructing primitive shelters are so "difficult". It's easy for a specialist to go back become a generalist...but it's damn near impossible for a generalist to quickly become a specialist. There was a documentary/experiment not too long ago where a group of modern city-folk tried to live as neolithic hunter and gathers for a week (or two...I can't remember exactly how long). Long story short...the first couple of days were kind of rough but ultimately a 120lb female interior decorator wound up taking down an elk with stone tipped spear and atlatl after only a single afternoon of "target practice". This woman had ZERO outdoor knowledge or experience beforehand. It was on Discovery...check it out if you have the chance to. Link: press.discovery.com...

/quote]
Want to hear a good argument? Lock an engineer and a mathematician in the same room and mention tolerance. The engineer understands tolerance just fine; the mathematician has no such concept. They are specialized to one particular mode of thought.

Nonsense. The terms each profession uses are slightly different...(a mathematician calls it "variance") but both are equally familiar with the concept. The biggest "hang-up" would be that the mathematician would simply be looking for specifics of what to calculate the variance on, whereas the engineer would consider it "obvious" because it is the product they design all day long. For example, "tolerance" or "variance" is probably most commonly used in terms of physical dimensions (such as machining a widget to 1/64" of specs). However, the same concept could be applied to thermal properties, electrical resistance, tensile strength, hardness, specific gravity, molecular distribution, crystallography or any of the other myriad of physical properties said widget might possess. See? I'm a historian and I can still intelligently discuss "tolerance".


Because he would likely pull it too tight, causing it to rip, or leave it too loose letting the weight of trapped water rip it apart.

Yes...because a guy who is intelligent enough to do stochastic analysis is too stupid to make sure the tarp isn't too tight or too loose.


Last Wednesday.

Allright...you win this one.


Making a fire using sticks and vines from the surrounding area would take more than a little time to practice. Try a few years to be proficient.

Of course...but again...your plane DIDN'T crash in Siberia in these scenarios. The modern world is still around you...albeit in a bit of chaos and disorder. Why would you choose to start a fire with sticks and vines when the world is filled with matches, lighters, and flammable liquids? Even if your disaster scenario featured lots and lots of water like Hurricane Katrina did...the ruins of every gas station in town have hundreds of bic lighters that will work like a charm once dried out.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


We are talking about a real SHTF scenrio right such as a total collapse right?

1. Yes, capturing/killing an animal is not really difficult. Does the city dweller know how to prepare/preserve the capture for later using only local found additives since I'm sure the store will be cleared out or will the city dweller discard all that food after one meal or poison themselves by not really knowing how to clean fresh meat?

If you are thinking of modern vegetables in your garden by just tossing seed and water what about insects and disease on your crops. Are you capable of controlling Powdery Mildew without a modern store? Which plants are resistant to disease in your local area, which plants grows well? I have been growing things for 30 years (since I was 9) and still have plenty to learn since each plant requires different requirements such as amount of light, ph, ratio of fertilizer, disease resistance. Example: Some plants require ridiculous amounts of nitrogen such as corn but, tomatoes when given a high yield of nitrogen produce only vines and no fruit. How will you store /preserve your vegetables so you have food over the winter? Does the city dweller know how to cook?

If you should have a bad harvest do you know which wild crops are nutritious or poisonous? There are lots of medicinal and wild food crops here in South Carolina. My grandmother taught me what they were for 10 years because it was interesting to me. Some wild crops can be harvested a certain time but, not another or they become poisonous or become edible if prepared a certain way. Do you know how to treat a snake bite or a brown recluse bite at home or making a homemade cough syrup? I know local herbs that would help these does the city dweller?

2. Why depend on guns at all in SHTF scenario since you have a finite amount of bullets to use killing all those unpreserved animals one meal at a time. Can you make your own weapons capable of acquiring food and/or defense if this goes for a long haul long after the bullets are gone and the hooks are rusted away? If the city dweller runs out of bullets and hooks and cannot capture an animal which plants supply enough protein to at least survive on?

3. Who is to say that during a SHTF scenario there will be power for those tools. I can crudely build things with power tools and a few hand tools but, not very well. Some people are very good with that type of thing. My grandfather could build nice furniture with hand tools but, I am lucky to line up a crude structure with power tools. Does the city dweller know how to sharpen a hand tool correctly? If there is no proper electricity those power tools become about as useful as empty tin cans after the food has been eaten from them.

4. I've found nasty and small minded people in both places since I have always lived both worlds in that I always live in a small town but, always move close enough to experience city life whenever the mood sets in. But, in a small town the people are generally friendly and helpful at least on the surface and whatever gets shown is usually passive aggressive such as a church member that won't talk to the gay or the racist that mutters an insult under his/her breath. If you stand your ground to a certain extent people generally leave you alone.

The city holds many exciting wonders and a more free and open atmosphere being gay and all. But, I also found more classism in the larger cities with people sitting on the corners hungry with few if any people noticing them as if suffering is tuned out. The cities also have newer and cutting edge trends if you are at the right place and at the right time.

On the downside of that a great deal of the trend followers are usually shallow people so keeping up with that becomes cumbersome after some time. Most people I know from the local cities really don't know their neighbors and always seem terribly busy. It can be a frightening experience if one gets into a "wrong" area.

It is nice to experience the culture and diversity of the city and have a multitude of things to do but, it is also nice to go home and relax. I use much more gas in the city navigating here or there through slow bumper to bumper traffic. While at home I use the high tech approach and just order everything that will fit in a box online except clothes/food that way I have greater variety than even the larger cities carry on most items.

It would be a disaster in a larger city in a SHTF scenario with every man for himself situation. I can see the smaller communities coming together to pool resources much more easily even if the neighbor is gay, black, Wiccan or whatever to survive. If one's idea of surviving though is stocking up on guns and packaged food during a terrible event I'm sure they will be surprised.







edit on 26/6/12 by toochaos4u because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by milominderbinder

If that isn't "materialistic" and "frivolous"...what is?

They don't need any of that. They want it. That's the difference.

The city folk I know need their things to survive. They need a computer with Internet; they need TV; they need the grocery store, the plumbers, the electricians, the mechanics, the electricity, the artificial lights. .


Well...yes and no. It's true a lot of city-people "need" a computer and internet access...but then again...for a lot of city people a computer and internet access is the #1 tool they use in their profession. A lot of the country-folk I know view buying a $3,000 laptop as a frivolous expense...but think NOTHING of dropping $60K on a F-350 or a $100K on a John Deere. A $1,000 suit is just a tool for a salesman the same as a pickup truck or John Deere. You just can't do your job very well without it.


There is a general suspicion of city folk in the country. It stems from too many of them moving to the country, thinking they could live out here

Perhaps...but I lived amongst them for the first 18 yrs of my life. Don't get me wrong...I can certainly see how mass migration in retirement would tick off the locals...especially in a small town. The last thing I would want even in my city of 250,000 would be for New York or LA to "discover" it as a retirement destination. Nothing against the people...but it's certainly going to wreak some inflationary havoc in the short-term....and it's 10X worse when it's a small town. It's a lot easier to blend 50,000 newbies into 250,000 than it is to blend 2,000 newbies into a population of 10,000 even though it's the same 20%.



I've seen it over and over and over. Occasionally, one will manage to adapt, but that is few and far between... well under 5%.

Holy Sh^t. "Adapt?" You make it sound like you live in Nepal or deep in the Amazon Basin. You're still in Alabama, right? I mean...I know there are differences. Coming from Wisconsin w/ 80% Norwegian ancestry I'm sure I'd sweat my balls off in the summertime...but I'm pretty sure I'd survive. Likewise, I would imagine that you would find sixty below zero w/ the windchill to be pretty uncomfortable for that first winter or two...but you'd get used to it...right?


Sure...but no food is grown in the country either unless all of those city-produced tractors and diesel fuel gets sent out there. How many farmers do you know that have a bunch of good draft horses and a fully functional plow to hook them up to?




We even had one farmer out here (dead now) who had a couple of zebras imported from Africa. He trained and broke them to work a plow or pull a wagon. Those zebras were in every holiday parade I can remember from my youth. He housed them in a barn a mile and a half from me.


No sh^t? I would have paid to see that. I suppose...why not? A zebra really isn't much else other than an oddly colored horse anyways. Kind of surprised though...I'm no expert on African fauna...but I always had the impression they were built even a bit smaller and lighter than most horses are on count of needing to be able to sprint away from the big cats. Usually you would use a nice big draft horse for serious work like that.




It has been my observation that those who tend to vote for these programs are the ones who will benefit from them... not the ones who end up paying more.
Really? Most of my friends that make between $100K-$200K per year usually vote in favor of candidates who want to spend on things like education and health care. Ironically, this one area where I sort of differ. I believe in hand-ups not hand-outs and historically there isn't much problem with offering this sort of thing through the government so long as we enforce the RICO laws.


And despite having a "charity on every corner", they also have homeless, drunks, addicts, and moochers on every corner as well.


What...so there's no drug addicts, drunks, or welfare queens in the country? We spend 13.675 times MORE per capita on farm subsidies than food stamps. Farmers are the biggest welfare queens in the whole nation...they are CONSTANTLY looking for handouts. Isn't crystal meth a pretty big problem in rural America these days? Don't even get me started on booze...that one is self-evident.

This is a bit off track from the suvival skills..but it still sort of fits into these Myths of American Redneck (no offense or specific reference to you intended). Why do we have this idea in our head that the farmers and country-folk somehow don't use welfare? Why is a labor union in a factory so often viewed with disdain..by members of the National Corn Growers Association? They practice "collective bargaining" and bribe politicians too...right?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder

So...could a plumber conceivably be able to catch fish? Can an electrician hunt?

Absolutely! Especially if it is something they enjoy doing and thus have done a few times before.

All I am saying is that the majority of people, especially those in the cities, would be lucky to know which end of a gun to point at a game animal... much less be able to hit it. Hunting as a pastime is much more common in the country than in the city.

We have a lot of private hunting clubs around here... groups of people who bought up the land to make sure it remained wooded and they could use it to hunt. Even more has long-term leases for the same purpose. All that land is posted for anyone not a member of the hunting club. The vast majority of private property is posted as well.

Why? Simple. About 20 years ago, some slickers came in and started setting up hunting clubs for themselves. After finding several deer shot and left lying, a couple where the head had been removed and the rest left, and several reports of hunting accidents in those areas, we here started buying and leasing it ourselves to keep the slickers out. Precious few of them are left now. They were too dangerous, too wasteful, and too disrespectful to be here.

There are 4 people permitted to hunt our land... and two of them don't hunt much. Only one doesn't live on it. That way we don't have livestock falling over with mysterious holes appearing in them or bullets bouncing off rocks a few feet from us in our yards (yes, I had that happen with poachers once).

Those people are not hunters. Can they kill a deer? Maybe, and then again, maybe they'll shoot themselves in the foot first. Of course, they have $30,000 4x4 trucks, $1000 rifles, $200 outfits, and probably spent a pretty penny on the deer urine they bought to smell nice.


Me? I grab the old 30-30 and walk up in the woods. I walk out with a deer. None of that fancy stuff required. That is survival.


There was a documentary/experiment not too long ago where a group of modern city-folk tried to live as neolithic hunter and gathers for a week

You sure the camera crew didn't help them out?

Come on, this is TV!


Yes...because a guy who is intelligent enough to do stochastic analysis is too stupid to make sure the tarp isn't too tight or too loose.

Actually, he's simply too inexperienced to to the task without running calcs. Heaven forbid the battery in his calculator goes out!



Why would you choose to start a fire with sticks and vines when the world is filled with matches, lighters, and flammable liquids?

Because there may some day come a time when I do not have ready access to a lighter. And because I want to know how to do it.

I'm not preparing for Hurricane Katrina. I am not preparing for a neutron bomb, or a dirty bomb, or a collapse in the electrical grid, or earthquakes, or tornadoes, or anything like that. I am preparing myself to do whatever needs to be done with whatever I have. That will come in very handy if the SHTF, but it will also come in handy if I need the knowledge for whatever reason.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder

Well...yes and no. It's true a lot of city-people "need" a computer and internet access...but then again...for a lot of city people a computer and internet access is the #1 tool they use in their profession. A lot of the country-folk I know view buying a $3,000 laptop as a frivolous expense...but think NOTHING of dropping $60K on a F-350 or a $100K on a John Deere. A $1,000 suit is just a tool for a salesman the same as a pickup truck or John Deere. You just can't do your job very well without it.

For a lot of people out here, that F-350 (sheesh, can we make it a Dodge Ram?
) and that John Deere is a necessary tool of the trade as well. A computer is just something that's nice to have, although they are becoming quite common. A suit is good for one thing out here: funerals. Most people own one for that reason, and would rather lick an electric fence than wear it.


Perhaps...but I lived amongst them for the first 18 yrs of my life. Don't get me wrong...I can certainly see how mass migration in retirement would tick off the locals...especially in a small town. The last thing I would want even in my city of 250,000 would be for New York or LA to "discover" it as a retirement destination.



You call a city of 250,000 people a small town?

Wow, that explains a lot... the closest town to me is under 1000 (lowest number they post) and I consider it too fancy for me. I believe we have drastically different concepts of what constitutes city and country.


You make it sound like you live in Nepal or deep in the Amazon Basin. You're still in Alabama, right?

Yes, adapt. Adapt to not having all those fancy services around whenever you want them and to not having public servants tripping over themselves to make sure your life goes along like you want. Adapt to having to do for yourself.

No, it's not Nepal, but it might as well be from the actions of those who try to come live out here.


I would have paid to see that. I suppose...why not? A zebra really isn't much else other than an oddly colored horse anyways.

Yeah, those zebras were a huge hit. They're smaller than a horse, but stockier, just not as stocky as a mule.

Wow, I even found an old pic...


Gotta run, so I'll continue this later

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by milominderbinder

All I am saying is that the majority of people, especially those in the cities, would be lucky to know which end of a gun to point at a game animal... much less be able to hit it. Hunting as a pastime is much more common in the country than in the city.

Ahhh. Perhaps here we have our differences in perception. My experience has been that the vast majority of city people I know would have little to no problem making their first kills and then getting subsequently better at it as time progressed. Perhaps we have a bit of regional differences in play. My experience with "city" and "country" folk alike has been predominantly in the upper Midwest (WI, MN, MI, IA, IL, ND), the Front Range (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming) and California. Of course there are those city people that would fail (the 300-pounder club comes to mind)...but then again there are also lots of real fat country people too.

We have a lot of private hunting clubs around here... groups of people who bought up the land to make sure it remained wooded and they could use it to hunt. Even more has long-term leases for the same purpose. All that land is posted for anyone not a member of the hunting club. The vast majority of private property is posted as well.


Why? Simple. About 20 years ago, some slickers came in and started setting up hunting clubs for themselves. After finding several deer shot and left lying, a couple where the head had been removed and the rest left, and several reports of hunting accidents in those areas, we here started buying and leasing it ourselves to keep the slickers out. Precious few of them are left now.

I don't blame you. If I would see something like that I might be tempted to increase those "hunting accident" statistics a little bit myself. I gotta say...we get lots and lots of Chicagoans up here...I've never seen or heard of anything quite like this happening. It's beyond disgusting.


Those people are not hunters. Can they kill a deer? Maybe, and then again, maybe they'll shoot themselves in the foot first. Of course, they have $30,000 4x4 trucks, $1000 rifles, $200 outfits, and probably spent a pretty penny on the deer urine they bought to smell nice.

Agreed. The term "douchebags" come to mind more so than the term "hunter".


Me? I grab the old 30-30 and walk up in the woods. I walk out with a deer. None of that fancy stuff required. That is survival.

Exactly!! Because there's NOTHING TO IT!! You can kill a deer from TWO FOOTBALL FIELDS AWAY with a 30-30. You don't have to tackle or bludgeon it. You don't have to simply run it to death like our first predatory ancestors did before they figured out that putting the hand axe on a long stick increased their range. You just point and shoot. Have crappy eyesight? No problem...most rifles these days come equipped with a scope to really take the guesswork out of shooting. It's so easy, a child could do it...and they frequently do.


You sure the camera crew didn't help them out?

Come on, this is TV!


Of course. They DID receive help from the camera crew...but they were honest about it. It was done by Morgan Spurlock...he's a pretty straight shooter all in all. When the group was struggling badly they introduced the atlatl and told them what it was. The group didn't have to make their own atlatl.

But it's STILL a very tiny interior decorator killing an elk with a hand-thrown, stone-tipped spear. How is this possible? Because it's an elk...it's dumb. It's nothing more than a really big deer and the primitive atlatl allows a reasonably fit human being to deliver more force to a target than a .357 magnum does. Humans hunted Mammoths to extinction with them. The convenience and range of a gun would have allowed the group to take multiple elk on DAY ONE.


Actually, he's simply too inexperienced to to the task without running calcs. Heaven forbid the battery in his calculator goes out!
You do know that the idea of mathematicians being socially inept freaks wearing pocket protectors is pretty much fictional, right?


Because there may some day come a time when I do not have ready access to a lighter. And because I want to know how to do it.
Right. Good skill to know, no doubt. But when there the ruins/shambles of society have left hundreds of millions of lighters and even more matches laying around...starting a fire with a bow and drill isn't particularly useful or efficient. If the plane crashes in Siberia though...this is a MUST have skill.


That will come in very handy if the SHTF, but it will also come in handy if I need the knowledge for whatever reason.

Nothing wrong with that.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   


I can skin a buck, or any other animal, I can run a trot line, I can kill clean and cook whatever is out there, but I'm smart enough to know I can't survive alone. You need community, friends, and family to make it, with the ops attitude I seriously doubt he will make it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join