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.

 

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

page: 17
37
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Maltese5Rhino
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.


Thank you for the kind response. I am always skeptical of 'survival' quiz's myself. It just really depends on what you are about than how you answer a question IMO.

My 5 years seems too long for me. I think, dependent on the cataclysm, 5 years is highly generous for me. I'm the type to sacrifice myself for the group - I would have no problem running a diversion so the rest could run away. I am a big tool IMO.

Thank you for your response and answer. Most of us seem to have forgotten how our fathers survived - let us hope we never have to relearn their struggles.




posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Unbelievable.................
Why do you keep focusing on what size the Apocalypse is ?

Let me ask you a question.................have you ever heard of a small Apocalypse ?

I was always of the understanding, that if the word Apocalypse is being used to describe a situation, then you can be pretty certain that it doesn't just mean one small area of one country. But let's play your game, and say that the Apocalypse wipe out almost all of the US, do you not think that the effects of the US being wiped out would not be felt ALL around the GLOBE ?
Every other country backed by the US dollar then has its economy collapse, and what happens when an economy collaspes................it creates CHAOS amongst the people, and people become desperate and start showing the same HUMAN BEHAVIOUR as those in the "red zone" show. Surely in your travels you would of heard of the term "the snowball effect" ?

It is like you have put no thought at all into the possibilities, the fallout, the after effects, outside of your location. Yet you then want to pick apart everything I say. But as I already said to you, you need to stop worrying about the difference between local and global and start looking at the human behaviour. Or, we can just keep going over the same things ?

Your call !



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Firstly, you are correct when you say "human nature is what it is", and you see the best and the worst of human nature when in a life an death scenario.

Secondly, as for this whole "Global Apocalypse" drama...................that comment was made mainly at first to show another member, that what might happen in their town might not be what happens in other towns. It was from a point of view of 'well that's great that you live in an isolated area and want to ignore the role human behaviour plays, but what if its a Global Apocalypse which then means survivors from all over the planet could possibly find their way to your safe haven and take everything you have in the process'. It was more along the lines of a saying that you may, or may not of heard of, and that saying is "think Globally, not locally", which to the best of my knowledge means to look at things from the bigger picture rather than from a small minded view.

It's all well and good for others have a laugh on the internet and beat ones chest with the "it won't happen in my town" mentality, but they can't even say that their town would survive the Apocalypse, then I guess chest beating and ego is all it is ?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DarksideOz
 


Really, I am just reiterating here, but that depends upon what form the "apocalypse" takes. A global economic meltdown, yeah, people can very much predict who will survive that and who wont.

That is what I see as actually happening, simply because we are on the verge of it and in that scenario, yes, it is easy to see who will and will not survive it. Even if you couple that with a few massive earthquakes, you will still be able to easily see who will survive.

And if, for reason of apocalypse scenario, you couple all that (global economic meltdown and earthquakes) with quite a few nuclear attacks, it is still easy to see who will survive. Because you know who the nukes will be pointed at.. urban areas...

As a matter a fact, in all those scenarios urban areas are the ones who will face the most deaths, and the most damage. Urban areas...Rural, not so much...

The only scenario that will effect the rural areas would be Yellowstone blowing like a banshee.

Rural people farm and hunt now and are far less dependent upon the grid for anything. When I lived in the country I didn't even heat my house with gas or electric, I heated my entire house in the winter with wood. When I lived in the country I raised all my own beef (had one milk cow too) and chickens, gathered my own eggs, had a garden for my veggies and a fruit tree.

I was so far from civilization anyone would have been hard-pressed to find me, I was at least 4 miles from the closest paved road, and that paved road was not one you ever saw cars going down, except for the cars that lived off it. You could safely drive the middle of the road on a blind corner and know you were not going to get into an accident, it was that far off the beaten path.

Had an economic collapse happened when I was there I would not have been affected much, and, I may not have known for more than a week or two that it had even happened, since I didn't have television or cell phone signal there and only went into town about once a week.

There is a difference between how people in rural areas live verses how city people live. A large enough difference to make a HUGE difference in apocalyptic scenarios.

My husband commented last night about molasses for graining the cattle and how that was a problem for his father during the depression, but where I was I didn't have to grain my cattle, there was plenty of pasture and hay, I only grained them once a day so they would be easy to work with, since I was a small farmer. I could have easily done away with that, but that was due to my land verses his fathers land, so while rural people's will have some adjustments to make... they are not insurmountable. Our forefathers did survive the great depression, and so can we.


And before you say groundwater because of the nukes, that all depends upon how close you are to where the nuke (s) explode. Chernobyl is a prime example. And notice one thing... the animals are back.
edit on 29-1-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

lol, you got me!

first think about all the toxic chemicals stored in containers ready for shipment in warehouses, then think about the ones being shipped, think about all the refineries and storage containers full of oil and liquid gases, all the spent nuclear fuel rods, all the highly toxic things we use every day around the world. then when the apocalypse hits who's going to take care of that stuff? That's why we have to maintain it and come up with ways to control it because it tends to kill life when it's able to get out in the environment. Then imagine one day the plug is pulled and we are no longer able to contain or control the toxic onslaught. Of course not immediately. That will give us humans a chance to "go video game" and begin our survival mode (I got twenty years by the way haha I think that's ironic). And maybe it will take twenty years but eventually all that dirty crap we play with on a daily basis as busy humans will get out of its bottle and begin to overwhelm the biosphere of the planet. I don't believe it will make the planet explode or go away like you mentioned a while back but as far as making it so dirty that the veneer of life is scrapped off it? sure, you don't think so? just think of all the nuclear plants around the world, eventually, with no one able to control or maintain them what do you think will happen? This stuff is not just going to go away overnight and will still be there after our society is disrupted. all we have to do is tip the scales and the food chain would break down from the toxic water and air not to mention the free roaming radiation. I don't even see it being clean enough for the apes to take over.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:42 AM
link   

DarksideOz
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Why do you keep focusing on what size the Apocalypse is ?

Let me ask you a question.................have you ever heard of a small Apocalypse ?



you can't even define what an apocalypse is. describe a scenario that would cause everyone all around the world to go around without underwear eating worms. what happened to make them think "wow THIS must be The Apocalyse so I guess I'll grab my bug out bag and start exploring the sewers for rat meat!"? What type of event do you see that will trigger this? Maybe if you cleared up that little detail we could move along but you seem to be starting after the initial cause of the apocalypse and I'm asking you how you see that working on a global scale where people in Russia are complaining of the same thing. That's why you sound like you see this as a video game. I think you're jealous that I got twenty years



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DarksideOz
 


Okay, maybe I'm starting to understand now. You seem to be terribly worried about the ramifications of cataclysm on a global scale, and global results thereof. Is that about right?

I'm not quite sure why that is your concern, but it seems to me that it may be.

Put yourself in the moment. Global cataclysm has occurred. Purple and red clouds are racing across the sky. Maybe there is a horde of bikers riding around your house, intent on ravaging it. Maybe you notice birds flying south, realize it's late spring, and have to wonder what they know that you don't. Could be anything, any scenario.

Why does what's going on in China, Madagascar, Pakistan, or Northern Ireland concern you at that instant? The name of the game in the moment is survival. In order to survive, you have to affect what you can, and that is limited by your reach. There is nothing you can do about burst pipes in Nanking, the sudden end of lemurs in Madagascar, the mad race of Eastern Pakistanis to reclaim ancestral lands in India, or Seamus O'Malley falling down a well in Ulster. What concerns you at that point is keeping your own precious self upright and breathing, so that you can also keep the people you love around you upright and breathing. Seems to me that would be enough for one person's plate at that time, without crying the blues over the rest of the world.

How are you going to rebuild civilization and the global economy if you don't survive that instant to do so?

The rest of the world may be in a hell of a mess, but your immediate concern is keeping YOURSELF out of one, or getting out of one. The rest of the world will have to look after themselves for a bit, and rest assured that some of them will.

In a crisis, even a global crisis, your concern is for your immediate environment, what you can reach. If you're in a relatively safe pocket, you're golden. Improve on it. If you're NOT, your task is finding one or making one.

Everything in the world originated from an original germ of hunter-gatherers. We can do it again, all the way from scratch... but not if we are wailing and lamenting the end of The World That Was. The only real difference from the individual perspective in a global apocalypse and a local apocalypse is how long it's going to take for help to arrive, or if it's ever coming at all. It's probably best to assume that you are going to be on your on for the entire foreseeable future, and act accordingly.

The rest of the world will be doing the same, if they plan on surviving.

It's comparable to a war. In a war, every soldier fights his own war, because he is fighting it from the perspective of his own eyes. No two soldiers ever fight the same war, even on the same battlefield. In the instant, you get a type of tunnel vision, and you affect what you CAN affect - what is within your reach. Now, 20 years later, historians may write entire volumes about the grand scheme of things in that war, but the only soldiers reading those volumes will be the ones who fought their own wars, and survived it to do the reading. getting sidetracked over concerns for what is going on in Managua will only get you killed if you're not concentrating on the guerrillas trying to kill you in that instant in Esteli.

All wars are private, and all apocalypses are local - even in the grander scheme of a bazillion little wars adding up to one big one, or a bazillion little apocalypses adding up to The End of the World As We Know It.

And this:


DarksideOz
reply to post by nenothtu
 


It's all well and good for others have a laugh on the internet and beat ones chest with the "it won't happen in my town" mentality, but they can't even say that their town would survive the Apocalypse, then I guess chest beating and ego is all it is ?



Depending on what the apocalypse IS, no one anywhere can guarantee they will survive the initial catalyst. maybe you're at ground zero of the asteroid strike - who knows? It's the luck of the draw. A survival plan, or mindset, assumes that the individual in question survived the first few seconds after the lights went out. If he doesn't, the point is moot, and if he does, he'd better get busy, looking to his immediate surroundings, because for all practical purposes the rest of the world just ceased to exist - for him. So no, no one can say their town would definitely survive the apocalypse, but if it survives the first 10 minutes, the prognosis is pretty good for it if it's one of those small, rural, outback places we are talking about. Cities, not so much. Too many people, too few resources. Endgame for them.




edit on 2014/1/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

bottleslingguy
reply to post by nenothtu
 


first think about all the toxic chemicals stored in containers ready for shipment in warehouses, then think about the ones being shipped, think about all the refineries and storage containers full of oil and liquid gases, all the spent nuclear fuel rods, all the highly toxic things we use every day around the world. then when the apocalypse hits who's going to take care of that stuff? That's why we have to maintain it and come up with ways to control it because it tends to kill life when it's able to get out in the environment. Then imagine one day the plug is pulled and we are no longer able to contain or control the toxic onslaught. Of course not immediately. That will give us humans a chance to "go video game" and begin our survival mode (I got twenty years by the way haha I think that's ironic). And maybe it will take twenty years but eventually all that dirty crap we play with on a daily basis as busy humans will get out of its bottle and begin to overwhelm the biosphere of the planet. I don't believe it will make the planet explode or go away like you mentioned a while back but as far as making it so dirty that the veneer of life is scrapped off it? sure, you don't think so? just think of all the nuclear plants around the world, eventually, with no one able to control or maintain them what do you think will happen? This stuff is not just going to go away overnight and will still be there after our society is disrupted. all we have to do is tip the scales and the food chain would break down from the toxic water and air not to mention the free roaming radiation. I don't even see it being clean enough for the apes to take over.


I used to pull security at a chemical plant like you mention. We had a 40,000 gallon tanker car full of some gunk that, if it had blown, would have leveled 16 square miles, and left a 60 foot deep and 600 foot diameter crater centered right on my office. I mention this only to let you know I am no stranger to such things. You wouldn't believe the amount of education in HAZMAT, environmental concerns and such like things we had to endure - but I did. Learned everything there was to learn about it, because it was MY behind on the line.

Same for nuke concerns. I learned everything I could about them, because it might be MY behind on the line.

The subject is really far too complex to go into here in this thread, but there is nothing about either of those subjects that overly concerns me, and absolutely no way they could, even in combination, "end all life on Earth". It could truly suck to be within a few miles of such places when the balloon went up, but there again we run into the "local vs global" debate. There just aren't enough of them, all together, to end life globally. It's a really big world.

As far as nuclear materials "still being there after our society is disrupted", no argument there. It absolutely will be. It's even there NOW, and hasn't ended us. What's more, it has ALWAYS been there - we didn't import so much as a gram of it from Mars or elsewhere. In all that time that it's "been there", contained or not, it has not ended us.

And it's not going to.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


then why do we need secure, long term storage plans for this stuff? And the problem with it all being native to this planet so it should be harmless to be back into the environment, the point is moot because in their natural state these things are so diluted they are negligible but once you concentrate them watch out and especially if you mix some of them they get worse. And sure there is background radiation but when you concentrate it up the food chain or increase the number of hot particles, that's when it becomes a real problem. There doesn't even have to be a social armageddon if the power goes out permanently. We could all be getting along just fine rebuilding civilization but when those containment systems start breaking down and leaking and some of those really awesome diseases they've been playing with get out then we're screwed. That other guy keeps mentioning historical apocalypses and how people regrouped and rebuilt everything but that ignores the fact we've never been at such a dangerous technological level before. We've never had these concentrated toxic soups contained in fallible containment systems before so this next apocalypse will be unprecedented and there is no way to know how much is too much to push things past the tipping point of no return.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

bottleslingguy
reply to post by nenothtu
 


then why do we need secure, long term storage plans for this stuff?



You may be misapprehending me - it's not something you'd want to sprinkle on your cereal in the morning. I'm not saying it won't kill you dead in close contact, I'm saying it can't kill an ENTIRE PLANET dead. Secure storage is necessary so that there aren't bare patches of earth around the reactors for 20 or 30 years in the event of a release (in the case of nuclear material), and so that I don't get launched into orbit while a really big hole is suddenly appearing in the center of a city (in the case of the chemicals). It's not that it can kill an entire planet, it's so that it doesn't seriously damage tiny bits of an entire planet - the tiny bits where you or I might be living at the time. I say "seriously damage", because as Chernobyl shows, recovery occurs naturally after a period of time, when the radioactive decay reaches a certain level. There are other factors that combine to make it less and less dangerous as time and distance go on, but this probably isn't the thread for it. Maybe one day I'll do a thread on the subject with facts and figures that anyone can check for themselves, but it won't be today, and I gotta warn you, it's math-intensive. When I studied up on it, I had to go math intensive, because the appeals to emotion that were being thrown around to scare folks were just not cutting it - they weren't verifiable.

let's use nukes as an example of that appeal to emotion. I was actually told one time, by someone who should have known better, and with a straight face, that "a 100 megaton bomb dropped on Bristol, Va, would level an area with a 45 mile radius." Sounds scary, huh? Makes you want to run right out, make a poster, and join a protest - which was the intent. Digging into the facts led in a different direction. The most glaring problem was - THERE ARE NO 100 MT NUKES! It was BS, right out of the gate. The largest one ever built was the tsar Bomba by Russia, at an estimated 55 MT. There was only one. At the time, the largest nuke in service was a "paltry" 9 MT (100 MT, being 11 times that, ought to destroy 11 time the territory, right? RIGHT? Wrong.) Damage from nukes - or any explosion - increases as the cube root of the yield, not linearly. Let's look at a 3 MT bomb vs a 27 MT bomb. 3 goes into 27 9 times, so it ought to have 9 times the damage, right? Nope. The cube root of 27 is 3... so it only has 3 times the damage potential. Then you have to factor in the burst height. There is an "optimal" burst height for a maximum damage radius. the problem there is that if you have a max damage radius, the fireball is too far off the ground to create any appreciable fallout - the fireball MUST have ground contact to create fallout. You can have one, or the other, but not both.

Incidentally, that "cube root of the yield" equation is why there aren't any really big nukes. You reach a point of diminishing returns, and get less "bang for the buck". I think ALL of the nukes currently in service are 100 to 300 KT - 0.1 to 0.3 the yield of a 1 MT nuke. I may be mistaken in that... but I'm pretty sure all the big boys 1 MT and over have been decommissioned.

The blast front propagates as a spherical wavefront. This means that as it goes out further, it gets thinner and weaker (inverse square law). Now, getting back to that mythical 100 MT bomb, what I found was that at optimal burst height, it would damage 45 square miles, NOT an area with a 45 mile radius. To put that into perspective, an area with a 45 mile radius has 19985.9 square miles. 45 square miles has a radius of 2.1 miles. Big difference there. Even at that, as bad as 45 square miles of leveled wasteland is, I would have gotten NONE of the promised fallout. I would have been completely safe.

As I said, it's intricate. There are a lot of factors to consider from the terrain to the weather to the underlying structure of the landscape, and it gets math intensive. There are online damage calculators which do the math for you, but most of them automatically set the "damage radius" as 1 to 1/2 PSI - enough to break common house windows, and not much more. To really assess it, you have to do the math yourself, and set the criteria for "damage" yourself.

Fallout, which is what I imagine you are most concerned about (i.e. "the free roaming radiation") is just as intricate and complex to figure out. Perhaps more so, as you have to figure out particulate size (affects how fast it falls), weather (affects how fast it falls in a different way - whether it comes down in rain, or has to wait for gravity to do it's thing) - if it washes out in the rain, it creates "hot spots" closer to the blast, and the material that falls in them never gets to YOU, time to target (that's you) which affects how lively it still is by the time it gets there, as well as spreads it out and makes it weaker per unit area, Prevailing winds at the time, (affects whether it blows over you, or in a different direction, and also affect time to target, depending on wind speed)... Just a whole bunch of things go into the estimates.

THEN you have to factor in the radioactive decay rates.



And the problem with it all being native to this planet so it should be harmless to be back into the environment, the point is moot because in their natural state these things are so diluted they are negligible but once you concentrate them watch out and especially if you mix some of them they get worse.


EXACTLY! How are they to spread over a wide area, yet magically retain the same concentration as they had at the source? The answer is: they don't. They get diluted again if they cover wider areas. Distance and gravity are your friends.




And sure there is background radiation but when you concentrate it up the food chain or increase the number of hot particles, that's when it becomes a real problem.



You can't increase the number of hot particles everywhere. They would have to breed of their own volition like rabbits. Fallout from detonations is the closest it comes to that, since the fallout is created from dirt, buildings, pets and people vaporized by the fireball, mixed with the fission products from the bomb itself, and condensed back out into radioactive particulates in the first split second after the detonation, assuming the fireball has ground contact. I personally am not worried about the food chain, since I wouldn't be eating anything from a containment pool, but depending on where you are, you might have that concern. In the nuke war scenario, strontium-90 is a concern if you drink milk for a couple of weeks after the explosions, and radioactive iodine is a concern since it collects in the thyroid and can cause throat cancer a few years down the road. They used to issue iodine pills to saturate the thyroid with harmless iodine and not give the radioactive sort a place to rest, for that reason.

Sorry about the book length reply. I TOLD you it was involved and intricate! I'll try and restrain myself in the future.




edit on 2014/1/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


Agreed. At first it will probably be the areas with the biggest population of survivors that will see the worst side of human behaviour. Once the food supply in the more populated areas runs out, those larger groups then start turning on each other and when that no longer helps them, they then start filtering out into more rural areas in search of ANYTHING to help THEM survive.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'm not worried about the scale, I'm just looking at it from a worst case scenario, which I was always lead to believe was the logical way of looking at most things. People who usually use the worst case scenario thinking are never usually surprised if the worst case happens.
If you use the worst case scenario, it never seems as bad if it actually happens, but the people that don't even consider the worst case scenario are usually always the very same people that when confronted with the worst case scenario, then run around in a panic asking 'how could this happen" ?

And we all know a few of THOSE people !



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   

bottleslingguy

DarksideOz
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Why do you keep focusing on what size the Apocalypse is ?

Let me ask you a question.................have you ever heard of a small Apocalypse ?



you can't even define what an apocalypse is. describe a scenario that would cause everyone all around the world to go around without underwear eating worms. what happened to make them think "wow THIS must be The Apocalyse so I guess I'll grab my bug out bag and start exploring the sewers for rat meat!"? What type of event do you see that will trigger this? Maybe if you cleared up that little detail we could move along but you seem to be starting after the initial cause of the apocalypse and I'm asking you how you see that working on a global scale where people in Russia are complaining of the same thing. That's why you sound like you see this as a video game. I think you're jealous that I got twenty years


And you can't even answer a simple question of "have you ever heard of a small Apocalypse" !

If you are so obsessed with getting a definition of an Apocalypse, despite everything I have already said, then go and look up it's meaning in the dictionary and stop going over the same points !
I originally commented to you because of your "not in my town" mentality. I used the example of a Global Apocalypse to show you that despite your blasé approach to an Apocalypse, I through out a WHAT IF scenario. WHAT IF the Apocalypse was BIGGER than you imagine ?

So do you finally get it now, or do I have to break it down even more for you ? I have been clearing this up for you over an over, but you just keep coming back with the same thing. I cannot make this any simpler for you, and if you still don't get it now, then you never will no matter how many times I say it !

STOP FOCUSING ON THE SIZE OF THE APOCALYPSE, AND START FOCUSING ON THE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR THAT WILL OCCUR IN THE EVENT OF ANY SIZED APOCALYPSE. Sorry for the bold letters, but a man can only bash his head against a wall for so long before he gets a headache.

I am NOT going over this again, and any further comments from you in regard to the size of the Apocalypse will be ignored, as the size doesn't matter as much as the human behaviour that will come from ANY sized Apocalypse. Which part about that are you having trouble understanding ?



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 


I think the whole moss grows on the north side of trees bit was highly interesting.. I'll definitely remember to use that one in the future..



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


guess it's because I'm a purist and hate to see people sh!tting all over the planet causing armageddons and such.

and let me ask you this- since I'm not talking about killing the "planet" but the "veneer of life" that coats it, why do you feel confident there is no way we could pollute that veneer to the point where it is so altered it can't sustain itself? Has there ever been a precedent like this on Earth with such a toxic soup lying around?



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   

DarksideOz
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


Once the food supply in the more populated areas runs out, those larger groups then start turning on each other and when that no longer helps them, they then start filtering out into more rural areas in search of ANYTHING to help THEM survive.



Here is what no one gives any consideration to. I mean, sure, these people from cities can try, but first it would only be the fittest unless the have gas for their cars. I am just going to assume there wont be any handy gas stations at this point, since we have hit an economic collapse and people don't have money.

We are going to use my old farm for this scenario, since I used to have one. I was an hour and 20 minute drive from the city and 25 minutes from the closest small town. This is drive time... not walking distance. So someone would have to set out and walk for days staying off all main roads after a point in order to reach my farm.

Let's couple that with the fact that I have always been ready for S to HTF. I have always expected it to happen in my lifetime, and planned accordingly. (Just so you know, God didn't really like my plan... lol so it got changed) My land was such that it could not be seen from the road, so someone would have to literally stumble upon it.

Not only that and without getting into detail, it could be quickly wrought with much peril to get to it. Wouldn't take much at all.

Your saying that the city people will stay to the cities first, and only when all that the city has runs dry will the people who survived all that leave. Great, so some do leave. It is natural for the people to stay to main roads, this is human nature, and what you are talking about.

If they follow their own human nature they would never run into my farm, I was at least 4 miles off anything paved, and 10 off anything traveled.

Let's say for sake of argument, some few do not follow their own human nature, and start walking into the middle of no where looking for food. Literally, they would have to stumble onto me by accident. What are the odds of this even happening? If we did the math we have very low odds.

Then, what are the odds they would even see my place or notice it was there? No fence, only trees surrounding the property, a wooded area blocking sight. So ok, they see something and decide to check it out with even lower odds.

Then they find all this wrought with peril stuff, and what are the odds they survive to reach my front door?

Then, what do you think they would find when they did reach my front door? Precisely nothing is what they would have found, they would be seeing an abandoned house because I would not have lived in that house for a long time. I already had a plan for where I would physically reside on my property should SHTF, and it wasn't above ground or in the house.

So, given all this against them, what are the odds of anyone ever reaching my front door, and living? Not saying its not possible, that is what survival of the fittest is of course, but its not probable.

I have always planned on being the fittest. And I was planning many many years before most people even thought about it. You will find that to be a common trait among people who DON'T live in the cities and towns.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 


I think the whole moss grows on the north side of trees bit was highly interesting.. I'll definitely remember to use that one in the future..


Too funny. Having treked through the hills of TN and GA, moss grows where it wants to.

It mostly grows on the north side....

I had 100% better luck with an analog watch in finding north during the day in almost all situations.

I learned to use a topo map with compass assisted triangulation in finding my location. But those questions weren't part of the quiz.

Thank you for the kind words.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   

edit on 30-1-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   

DarksideOz
I am NOT going over this again, and any further comments from you in regard to the size of the Apocalypse will be ignored, as the size doesn't matter as much as the human behaviour that will come from ANY sized Apocalypse. Which part about that are you having trouble understanding ?


suit yourself you just sound sillier and sillier.

a·poc·a·lypse
əˈpäkəˌlips/
noun
noun: Apocalypse; noun: the Apocalypse; noun: apocalypse; plural noun: apocalypses

1.
the complete final destruction of the world, esp. as described in the biblical book of Revelation.
(esp. in the Vulgate Bible) the book of Revelation.
2.
an event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale.

the size of the apocalypse DOES matter because if it is a localized event it is not going to drive the whole world crazy and if it is a #1 type that means it is the "FINAL DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD" from which no one recovers. So in your silly little video game fantasy what has happened to cause you to grab your bug out bag and not wear underwear? You might be overreacting.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I agree that a place you describe would be very rare to come across unless by accident. But again, I only gave that specific example because another member basically said that it couldn't happen where he lived. In the event of an Apocalypse, no one can say that they are safe, and this has been my main point all along.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join