It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How Long Would You Last in an Apocalypse? (w/quiz)

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by crazyewok

Yup think thats were alot of you tough die hards are going wrong.

One man with a AR-15 wont last long against a whole band armed with the same.

You can be as manly and as strong as you like but get into a wrong fight and your dead. Even a simple injury could be fatal.

Me I said run, run and avoid. I got 5 years survival in the test.

That doesn’t make your strategy right…it means the guy who made the survey is a coward. LOL

Looters get shot in my reality.

Besides, you can't live too well on the run with a few children. If you allow your supplies to be taken you're a putz! It's better to protect what you've got and take a stand because the alternative is grim for many.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by ChuckNasty

Yikes. I read the book first, then saw the movie. No, thanks.

If I did the 20 (oh yeah, I can also read maps and know moss grows on the north side of trees here) I'd live to be 75. By that age it wouldn't be 'fun' at all...

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 10:30 AM
reply to post by wildtimes

The quiz gave me 10 years but, in all honesty if a real apocalypse did occur I would probably be among the first to suggest a peaceful, quiet suicide with pills. Simply because it would get harder and harder and looking at the survival in places like Iraq, now Syria and other troubled places, its only the thugs that survive and who wants them for company - last Earl Grey anyone?

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:43 PM

It's better to protect what you've got and take a stand because the alternative is grim for many.

If it's a fight you can win, sure. If not, time to go. Of course, it doesn't mean I won't poison a few things on the way out, then come back later, clean up the bodies, and reclaim it.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 05:36 PM

reply to post by nenothtu

Where are these towns that you guys live in to of not seen this type of behaviour in people ?

If I told you where it was, then everyone would want to be there, and there would go the neighborhood!

Do you have any crime at all in your town, despite having laws and enforcement ?

There's more crime here than you can shake a stick at, with a stick in each hand. This place will go up like a kerosene-soaked Christmas tree when it goes tits-up. The "town" I live in isn't the one I was speaking of. That "town" wasn't a town at all - the nearest town was miles away. If you got in a mess out in my community, then law enforcement was a minimum of 40 minutes away, if they were en-route when you called. For that reason, we handled most of our own messes... because a LOT can happen in 40 minutes. Not worth wasting the time to call the cops in. All they would have been able to do by the time they got there was clean up the blood and do the paperwork.

There's "crime", and then there's crime. I presume you are speaking of violent crime. Very little violent crime, other than the occasional blood feud. If you got a wild hair up your ass and did wrong to someone, you had better hope the cops got to you before your "victim" did... or their relatives, if you did them in. That's why they didn't like outsiders - outsiders had to be taught manners from scratch, whereas locals already knew how to behave, and what to expect if they didn't. Other "crime", like crafting a little shine, growing a little herb, poaching a deer now and then, etc... well, hell! What you did on your own place wasn't anyone else's business.

Well unless you have NO crime at all, then that behaviour is present where you live.

It's "presence" isn't in question - whether and how it gets dealt with IS.

As a matter of fact, I specified that it WAS present, when I said:

Sure, there were rogues and "bad men" present, but not in any great numbers, or to the extent they are present where I live now, for example, in spite of the apparent lack of "law and order".

And what happens to your town if it survives an Apocalypse and gets over run by groups or gangs of lawless people with their own agenda ?

Not recommended, but some folks only learn by experience. have a go at it if you think you can make it. My best guess as the "what happens" is that those gangs of lawless people better be VERY determined, because they're going to have miles to trek on foot over some pretty rough and dangerous terrain. My best guess is that the most they can hope for is to die tired. That terrain is all the more dangerous because they can't even begin to hope to know it as well as the locals. There are places there that cops won't even go - not because the people are "badasses", but because they value their privacy, and don't much care for strangers - even strangers with badges. There is a saying there - "We ain't bad, but the bad best not screw around here."

The same low technology that blows a tree stump out of the ground will bring a bridge down, or crater a road.

You may not of seen these people where you live now, but we are talking about AFTER an Apocalypse and what or who is to say that your town won't then come across these people AFTER an apocalypse ?

I see them every single day where I live now. Like I said, this place will go up like a kerosene-soaked Christmas tree. I'm no stranger to "bad men". Oddly, perhaps, I've only had two spots of trouble out of them since I've been here. One was just a drunk who followed me for a couple blocks trying to pick a fight... but hell, he was just drunk. When I got tired of it and stopped and offered to accommodate him, one of his friends hustled him away. The other was a very nice young man who donated a knife to me involuntarily. He shouldn't have aimed it at me if he wanted to keep it. The rest of the folks don't bother me. They're generally pretty well behaved around me, other than the occasional one who gets mouthy - but always from a distance. Mouthy folks are amusing, and not worth mussing up my threads over.

You might not see this behaviour where you live now, but after an Apocalypse those people WILL find you, and they WILL take from you whatever they can to help them survive.

If I'm back in the little community I spoke of, I'll give them a 7 foot by 3 foot patch of land. They won't "take" a damned thing. Here, well, I reckon the jury is still out on that. It'd be a hell of a tussle, but sometimes you lose, you know?

Have a look at all the footage of every natural disaster in your own country, and watch how the looters are always the first on the scene until the authorities arrive.

I don't have to watch the footage - I've been there, seen it first hand. How do you think I know how people react in a panic, and how to deal with that? My wife laughed at me - a nervous sort of laugh - when I first came here. The very first thing I did was to evaluate this building for defensive potential. Anything short of a tank, I promise you, I will own it. If the looters bring tanks, well, that'll get a little sticky for a bit. If I'm back in my little community, tanks won't help them. Choppers might, if they can find a POL point near enough for them.

Looters don't usually bring tanks or choppers to the party, though. They're mostly smash, grab, and run like hell.

But that's the catch, after an Apocalypse there is no police or military or authority until one maybe becomes re-established, but in the meantime it is complete lawlessness and chaos. And those creating the chaos will continue doing so due to there not being any authority.

If you expect help from the "law and order" folks, you're riding for a fall. They're already going to be up to their asses in alligators, and not much help. No one can help you like YOU can help you, because you are already right there, on the scene. As the saying goes, "when seconds count, help is only minutes away". Better put those seconds to use yourself, and make 'em count on your own.

This will then lead to "vigilante groups" forming to enforce their own version or law and order, but who gives those people the authority ?

The same people who give your constabulary THEIR authority - "We, the People".

Seriously but guys, we have people killing another person for $5 change, or for their shoes, or because they looked at them the wrong way. But somehow you don't think that those people will survive an Apocalypse and then take full advantage of the new lawless world they live in. And those people will have no issue in going through your town and taking whatever they want. Look at how many people still break the law despite the law and the punishment being public knowledge. If so many people don't care about laws or consequences before an Apocalypse, then what do you honestly think will happen after an Apocalypse with no law or order ?

They'll die, in droves. I know the people in this neighborhood, and I know the people in some of those "little communities". Sun Tzu said: "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

I would guesstimate that 1 in 250 will make it out of this neighborhood alive. 1 in 1000 might make it to the city limits alive. Those will have to deal with the same inconveniences as the refugees in getting anywhere else. a vehicle does you no good when there aren't any drivable roads any more - and it won't do them any better. You give them too much credit. Being "bad" doesn't necessarily equate to being "smart", and smart almost always trumps "bad", all else being equal.

Now, of those who survive, it's certain that some will find others and form packs, as you say. In such a scenario, easy targets go down first. No one WANTS to get shot taking out a hard target when there are easy ones available, even "bad guys", and especially not opportunistic, predatory "bad guys". They key is to make yourself a harder target than the next guy... or make yourself not a target at all. They can't hit what they can't see, and they won't even try to assault what they can't get to.

I don't know how much you've travelled, and I wouldn't call myself a world traveller, but I have seen enough in human behaviour to know that in the event of an Apocalypse, with no law and order, you WILL see the worst in human kind long before you see it's best.

I've been to enough ugly places to know you're right about that, especially when people are panicky and uprooted. Usually they don't even think, they just react, and react animalisitcally. I also know that "the best" in humans shows up at the damndest times, but you can never count on it. It's seemingly random. When people are panicky and reactive, just keeping your head gives you the edge over them.

And remember, you may not have this behaviour where you live, but in the event of an Apocalypse, you will be travelling over vast areas in search of food and water and very likely to come across the people that do show the behaviour you don't see in you current town.

I will be, but Bottleslingguy won't - he's already there, and has no need to travel. I don't expect I'll make it, really, but that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility to try. One thing is sure - if I don't try, I KNOW I won't make it. I have a strategy for that effort (which involves avoidance), but we'll never know if it works. I don't expect to be found in any history books.

But that's the thing with an Apocalypse, it then brings out the normal law abiding citizens who would break a law if they knew there would be no punishment. After an Apocalypse there is no immediate ruling law, and those that only feared punishment will then also become what society, pre-Apocalypse called, criminals, rebels, outlaws, savages etc. You might not of seen these people in your towns now, but they will be more than revealing themselves to you in the event of an Apocalypse.

That's the way it goes when you expect a constabulary to look after your own peace and quiet. When you remove the constabulary, and don't look after yourself, there is no one to look after you... and predators DO usually go after the weak, don't they? My solution is not to give your strengths to someone else to look after, and instead look after yourself and your own. Your mileage may vary.

edit on 2014/1/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by bottleslingguy

I've actually been referring to an Apocalypse that affects the whole world all along. I only used the word Global because people just kept looking at it from their own towns perspective instead of looking at it from a Global view point, so I don't see what point you're trying to make there ?

You were implying that the behaviour I referred to would not happen as you don't see that behaviour where you live. I was just trying to point out that you should look beyond where you live, because the people with the behaviour I referred to, can easily travel into your town, or you may come across them in your travels if your town is destroyed but you survived and you have to leave to search for food and water.

And I've never heard of a localised Apocalypse. Most Apocalypses usually refer to a worldwide problem. And that is why the behaviour of ALL survivors has to be taken into account, including the bad people !

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by nenothtu

When people kept replying to me saying "I haven't seen this behaviour where I LIVE", and other people saying, "I agree with so-and-so, I haven't seen IT either", but then acknowledge that they have seen so much of it that they can shake a stick at it, with each hand. But hang on, oh no that's not actually in MY town, but a neighbouring town that I know of, or something to that affect.

I cannot understand why you have chosen to take issue with nearly everything I wrote, where by acknowledging the human behaviour that you have now acknowledged, which was all I was trying to point out in the beginning, then you are actually agreeing with me, yet taking issue ?

And yes, when I refer to crime I am talking about violent crime mainly, but not entirely. I think we could both agree that the majority of "law breakers" in todays world will show even worse human behaviour after an Apocalypse knowing that there is now no rules or enforcement. But lets look at less serious offenders who might never even entertain the thought of stealing food from you before an Apocalypse, but can you say that same person won't then consider, and possibly act on, stealing that food from you if it means their survival over yours, after an Apocalypse. The petty thief stealing your only food can be just as much of a risk to your health as it would be if you had to defend yourself against someone trying to kill you just because they can.

If you have seen the footage of human behaviour after a disaster, then you shouldn't have any issue with what I said

As for "what happens" when your town gets over run by groups or gangs...............that point was only made because people kept telling me that "I haven't seen it in my town". Those people kept looking at it from a pre-Apocalypse view instead of a post-Apocalypse view, which is what the thread is referring to. Your town might be this fortress that only the foolish would consider entering, but that's fine from a pre-Apocalypse view, but what happens if your fortress of a town is all but decimated with only yourself and a hand full of survivor's. Then a few days, weeks, months later, your town is over run by a larger group or gang, that have you and your remaining few severely outnumbered. But as soon as you look at it from a post-Apocalypse view, your stronghold town now not only exists, but neither doesn't most of its occupants, and your plentiful food supply has been cut off due to the devastation your town and surrounding towns suffered. And now the lawless, guiltless gangs are closing in on you and everything you have on you, before moving on to the next town, or settlement.

People can deny the role human behaviour will play all they want, and they can delude themselves into thinking that they won't be affected after an Apocalypse, but those people will be the first to go IF they survive because the gullible always get used first, but there's some of that human behaviour again. The results don't lie, but people do to themselves, every day

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 01:36 AM

reply to post by ChuckNasty

I always wondered if just covering yourself with styro-foam would fool FLIR.

Space Blanket pointed in on the outside, rayon or silk at the skin-- and a good thick sweater with that trademark horizontal hold design. M..M..M....toasty.
If you want to sleep tight think of a metallized truck tarp; they weigh more than an
Otter but they'll hold back an Okie F2. Stealth nap, I am a pathological puppy.

Oh yeah, back to the Blunder Games-- guess I got 20 years and hard labor.

EDIT:: That dear fellow and the last of the men to rotate from Gilligan's Island on the
16th, one Russell Johnson RIP:

"I was at a speaking engagement for MIT ... and I said ... the Professor has all sorts of degrees, including one from this very institution (MIT)! And that's why I can make a radio out of a coconut, and not fix a hole in a boat."

I knew there was a reason I loved that guy... other than he was a bombardier in
a Liberator a lot of times in the Phillipines.

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 02:38 AM

reply to post by DarksideOz

but wait, you've said that there have been other (small "a") apocalypses in the past- so it's NOT the end of the world? see what I mean? and if you are talking about the biblical type then I'm still not sure what you mean. you keep talking about the after effects yet you aren't specific with what actually HAPPENED to make people start going crazy. CME with resulting grid collapse? partial grid collapse for a long time? totally global, total grid collapse for a short time like a year or two? massive Earth impact but not extinction level hits the Pacific? Atlantic? Antarctica? Be specific in what actually STARTS this global or even semi-global apocalypse, please. And we can go from there otherwise you just sound silly and you are putting words in my mouth.

I have on several occasions explained to you what HAPPENED to make people to start going crazy. The human behaviour that already exists now, added to what it would be like after an Apocalypse with no laws, no rules, no police, no military. I also said on several occasions that I would expect some form of society to form EVENTUALLY, and those societies may vary from place to place. But in the first initial stages after an Apocalypse, you will see more of the worst in humankind then you will see in the best AT FIRST. This is all I have been saying all along, and I have said it to you several times. You might want to brush up on your comprehension skills before accusing others of putting words in your mouth.

Why don't you ask the OP what caused the Apocalypse ? I was merely suggesting that people like yourself, with the views you have, should take a look at it from a Global Apocalypse point of view, rather than looking at it from what happens in your town. Forgive me for trying to look at it from an overall point of view, rather than just yours !

You are implying that I'm referring to a specific Apocalypse that I can name and tell you how it all happened. This is the mistake you keep making. I am referring to AN Apocalypse that MAY occur, and what the POSSIBLE outcomes and after effects COULD be. If I'm referring to a POSSIBLE event that hasn't yet occurred, then how can I answer the question that YOU demand from me ? You do realise that we are talking about a POSSIBLE scenario don't you ? These are all just possibilities, but human behaviour has proven that the behaviour I refer to will at first be at its worst and most destructive.
Stop focusing on how the Apocalypse started or how wide the damage was, and start focusing on the real human behaviour you WILL see IF an Apocalypse occurs. All we have to gauge it on at the moment is "what if".

Take this on board before accusing others of putting words into your mouth, and asking for definite answers to a what if scenario. You just sound silly !

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 02:42 AM
ten years...i guess that's ok

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:09 AM


And I've never heard of a localised Apocalypse. Most Apocalypses usually refer to a worldwide problem.

you said "most apocalypses"- how many have there been before? the problem with that is any apocalypse prior to, I don't know let's say 1947, would not have had to deal with the possibility of nuclear contamination or the entering of toxic chemicals into the environment at high enough levels to break down the food chain. it wouldn't be long after the infrastructure fails and no matter what skills you have you would die from toxic poisoning. I'm not saying the planet would explode and disappear but the veneer of life covering the planet very well could. Now THAT is what I call an apocalypse. Whatever made those people back then feel like there was an apocalypse going on just came and went and after it the survivors (still don't have any examples of exactly what is happening in your imaginary apocalypse) picked up the pieces and went on surviving in a nice clean environment.

My main point about you is that you haven't said what kind of apocalypse is going on. what is happening to cause the entire world to experience the same amount of apocalyptic suffering? Because that will determine what kind of "surviving" we're going to be doing. If a meteor hits China and is big enough to destroy our infrastructure way over here on the other side of the globe then that's the end of us anyway and I'm not surviving the twenty years the quiz says I will no matter how many pocketknives I carry. But if the impact is only big enough to really disrupt things in China/Asia then how does that qualify as an actual (capital A) apocalypse and cause me to go commando?

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:14 AM
well apparently i can only survive a it was nice knowing you all!

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 04:23 AM

I have on several occasions explained to you what HAPPENED to make people to start going crazy. The human behaviour that already exists now, added to what it would be like after an Apocalypse with no laws, no rules, no police, no military.

listen to yourself. what made those people go crazy? tell me what triggered this response from those people? what physically happened to the planet to make them become so desperate? and what happens to the survivors once the infrastructure breaks down because there was no one to maintain it? Would those groups eventually band together and learn how to maintain the nuclear plants, chemical industries and all the other real things that exist in reality that we've created that can destroy the environment to the point where NOBODY on the globe could survive? Now THAT's a capital "A" apocalyptic scenario for ya and that is why you sound silly. You keep mentioning the history of apocalypses which all turn out for the best because civilization went on to pick up the pieces and create the world we have today. Unfortunately under an apocalypse scenario today there would be no avoiding the fact the rotting infrastructure (which has never existed before so all the previous apocalypses could just come and go with no long lasting effects) would be a major factor in how long life (even the cockroaches) could survive after that.

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 09:40 AM
reply to post by ChuckNasty

Thanks for the post! S&F

I always find these types of quizes skeptical tbh but this one had more questions that I felt was helpfull. I doubt my result is accurate for me to survive this long... I got 40 years!

'The results are in! You'd survive for
forty years after the apocalypse.

And you know what? You'd probably end up as some sort of tribal god. We're sticking with you.

You're basically Kevin Costner in Waterworld.'

But then again living on an Island already most of the questions were already asnwered towards a long life IMO such as keeping freinds close etc. Depends on the apocalypse really.

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by DarksideOz

Well, it appears that where we differ is mainly in the nature of the Apocalypse - you assume it to be "global", affecting every place in precisely the same way, whereas I Think it's a big world, and an apocalypse sever enough to affect the entire thing in the manner you suggest would be severe enough to end us all right out of the gate, rendering the entire discussion moot - there would be no survivors to either loot OR defend. Anything short of that is going to leave pockets of relative tranquility, as disasters always do.

Human nature is what it is. Sometimes the worst can come out in the best when survival is on the line, and conversely sometimes the best can come out in the worst at the same times. There are a few other glitches in your scenario. In order for the bad behavior to manifest, there must be some catalyst. In the places where that catalyst is present, it will naturally manifest. In the places where it isn't present, the ugly side won't show until and unless it is. What we are saying is that there is no reason for that catalyst to occur in the small, out of the way places. Power goes down? Pfft. No TV. Bummer. Grocery stores go dry? Pfft. Have to slog out to the garden instead of all the way into town for groceries. What we are telling you is that there are ways of life not tied so tightly to your grid as you might imagine, and they will not change all that much from what they are now.

Another problem is your insistence that "cities" and "towns" are the only thing there is where people are found. they aren't. There are vast areas of hinterland thinly populated by people, The more inaccessible, the less likely they are to see life-changing invasions of zombie hordes. Looters are tied to the same grids that you are. They won't venture far off the beaten path, either, and they certainly won't select hard or hard to get to targets over easy pickings. Meanwhile, do you think they will have a code that says one looter outfit will be gentlemanly and not attack the OTHER looter outfits? It stands to reason that they are going to be as tied to the cities and towns as you are - if they go for the hinterlands, it only thins them out, because the hinterlands are pretty big, and it takes time to find targets in them. Not a profitable venture for a looter gang, sci-fi apocalypse scenarios notwithstanding.

Where are they going to get the tanks and choppers to make an assault on an isolated stronghold viable? Some of these places we speak of have been being defended, even in the US, from enemy assaults for 250 years. They've successfully defended against bands of marauders and even entire organized armies - what makes this new breed of looters so special that they can't be stopped when others have been, for centuries? How are they going to invade en masse across gaping chasms where bridges are no more? How are they to scale sheer cliffs en masse when the people at the top don't want that to happen? If they don't invade en masse, how do you expect them to outnumber and overpower the defenders? Is the attacker's will to live somehow superior to the defender's will to live... in some way that makes them super-men? No, there are places, low-tech places, that have been defended for centuries, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. I may not live to see it, and you may not, but they WILL be defended - and that's assuming that the hordes can find them to begin with.

Miyamoto Mushashi said "from one thing, learn ten thousand things". Applying that, assume you have a doorway and an assault team ready to go in. How many men can go through that doorway all at once? What happens when blowing the doorway only makes it MORE impassable? Now think of a bridge. Same concept - bottlenecking the attackers - but extended further out. More opportunity to defend when they are thinned out in single file. Blowing up the bridge doesn't help the attackers at all.

That's just the countryside - the same applies to cities, if you work them right. Beirut in the 1980's is a prime example of attack and defense. There was a street in Beirut that no faction could safely cross. That street was a violent, bloody place. You couldn't even safely run across it carrying only a bag of groceries. Bloody as that street was, it kept pockets of relative safety on both sides of it, because the opposition couldn't get across either way to attack. War raged all around, SERIOUS war with a plethora of factions each vying to come out on top, and yet people still survived. Beirut ought to be taught from the ground up as a prime example of urban warfare in every military college.

But, back to the countryside... as I said before, the people who make it all the way out there with looting on their minds are only going to die tired from the walk.

THAT is why I take issue with the majority of your scenario. It is pre-constructed and engineered to allow for NO survival. It applies the same processes in both urban and rural environments to get that done. Those two places will be entirely different worlds. Urbanites will not survive very well in the hinterlands, and ruralites will not survive very well in the cities and towns. People who are overly dependent on the power grid, ipods and whatnot, will be the first to go, because they will no longer know how to cope without those amenities. The New World will not be very kind to them, but thankfully, perhaps, their sufferings will likely be brief.

A lot depends, I suppose, on the specific scenario. Yellowstone blows? All-out nuke exchange? Asteroid impact? Economic collapse? Each of these will create different worlds, but in each if them (barring the entire dissociation of the planet into orbiting chunks of rock), survival WILL happen.

Roving looter bands don't worry me in the least in any of those cases. If I am where I am now, I will die without a doubt. No point in worrying over it, it'll just happen as sure as the sun rises. if I'm "out there", things have a high potential to turn out differently... for me, anyhow.

I agree, human nature is what it is, but one must realize that the same restraints removed from "the bad" will also be removed from "the good", the same new restrains imposed on "the good" will also be imposed on "the bad", and that may make all the difference in the world when the rubber meets the road.

edit on 2014/1/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:13 PM
reply to post by bottleslingguy

Out of curiosity - and don't get too specific.... I don't need to know where you live - how is it you think this toxic soup is going to get into the ground and groundwater where you live? Are you really THAT close to the sources?

P.S. - I think the term "going commando" has an entirely different meaning where I am...

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:08 AM

reply to post by ChuckNasty

I scored twenty years.... No military training, lol.

Only got 5 myself. My military training had zero to do with the 5 - only my military community.

Grats on the 20! I'm sure there are those of us who are jealous with that 20 response..

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:13 AM


And the only big group of preppers I know belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Actually I think the Amish would do quite well (is that the same?) but cool link thanks!
Me I got 5 years but in practice wouldn't expect anything like that. Plus no one knows how they would be affected mentally. I think a lot of people would self destruct in one way or another.
edit on 26-1-2014 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)

I think most of us would agree that an Amish community is our ideal survivor figurine. The Amish would be our saviors if any apocalypse ever happened. The "I told you so"s would never end...

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:24 AM

Got 20 Years, but I think I know why.

For one, I live for my 2 little girls, That is the single most important reason to stay alive.
For two, (Laugh it up) I was a Girl Scout, and my grandmother was the one teaching the nature trail, so I know plenty about plants and animals. If you don't know the answer to the moss question, you should probably get outside more.
For three, my family talks without all the social media junk. We are close (I assumed all families were?) and Do not need phones or other communications to know where to find each other.

On a side note, I choose my fights wisely and only fight when I don't have a choice. If someone wants to do something stupid, let them, unless they force their stupidity on my family, in which case I feel bad for them.

That is a great to hear. Sad that your story isn't the norm now.

Almost similar* My grandmother told me of times when she'd wash clothes with a washboard...before she told me that, I thought that stuff only existed in Hee-Haw reruns and not a few decades back. It seemed it wasn't long ago that we were able to do without (our current) technology to survive day by day. It also seems that current tech only made us weaker if we had to live without.

She even knew how to make soap..

If our current ways continues (for a couple more gens) - us people in the modern society will surely fall on our faces if we had to go without.

Thank you for your honest response and to your 20!

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:36 AM

reply to post by ChuckNasty

Yikes. I read the book first, then saw the movie. No, thanks.

If I did the 20 (oh yeah, I can also read maps and know moss grows on the north side of trees here) I'd live to be 75. By that age it wouldn't be 'fun' at all...

Never read the book - and the movie seemed to flop (I'm guessing from the book? Dunno) I only focused on how a person may behave during a rebirth/apocalypse/armageddon/etc.

But to be 75 over your kinship - that would be worth living for. To be that elder that your great grand kids relied upon would be enjoyable. Keep the tales of flying ships to a minimum, you wouldn't want to create a religion based on fiction...

Grats on the 20!

new topics

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in