4 ms·

Statistically, you're more likely to die in a post-apocalyptic scenario then you are in a car accident, so if you worry about things like wearing your seatbelt

Statistically, you're more likely to die in a post-apocalyptic scenario then you are in a car accident, so if you worry about things like wearing your seatbelt or driving sober then it's hardly irrational to be a prepper.[1] That being said, given that according to JAMA only 1.2% of Americans meet all seven guidelines for cardiovascular health[2], spending your weekends preparing for the apocalypse isn't necessarily the best use of time for most people in terms of increasing their life expectancy. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/a-human-extinction-isnt-that-unlikely/480444/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/a-huma... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22427615 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22427615

ufmace 10y ago
It's not irrational IMHO to be prepared to live a couple of days or so without power or grocery stores, as that's happened dozens of times all over the US for a variety of reasons. A total collapse of civilization on the other hand, not so much. I will also say that I've wondered how many of the people prepping are capable of spending a day hiking in the woods with a decent pack on their back. Having a ton of stuff may not be very helpful if you don't have the physical capabilities to adapt to unexpected circumstances.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  > Having a ton of stuff may not be very helpful if you don't have the physical capabilities to adapt to unexpected circumstances. The actual amount of physical stuff you'd need to survive some sort of post-apocalyptic scenario really isn't more than a few hundred bucks, e.g. a year worth of crystalized iodine for purifying water and a flint & steel fire starter costs all of $25. What's more expensive is learning the edible plants and mushrooms in your area and their medicinal properties, plus whatever other miscellaneous survival skills you'd need.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Iodine is probably a good idea, but unless you're the only one left you probably ought to save up some ammo as well.
    - Alex3917 10y ago
      I'm not a gun owner, but at the same time I realize that it's not possible to live as a vegetarian in a survival situation. This is because plants have almost no calories, you can't digest them without fat, most don't have enough protein, they take too much energy to gather and cook, etc. So without being able to cover everything with tofu, blue cheese, nutritional yeast, etc., there is basically no way to survive for any period of time without a gun. I have an interest in edible plants and mushrooms, so that's where I overlap with the preppers, but I feel like not owning a gun is one reason it wouldn't really make sense to label myself as such.
      - ufmace 10y ago
        IMHO, in a realistic survival situation, unless you already live in an extremely remote area, like hundreds of miles from even a small city, the other survivors are going to be a much more immediate concern. Unless of course whatever the disaster is results in immediate casualties in the 95%+ range in all major cities, and you somehow survive this. There would be a huge number of people in the area and no prospect of feeding all of them. They would all be very determined indeed, and many would have their own guns. Everyone would either starve, die at the hands of raiders/thieves, or become raiders and thieves themselves, and thus have plenty of supplies from whoever did prepare. Having a gun would help, but more important would be to have a large group with military-like organization strong enough to stand up to the stresses involved in surviving such an apocalypse. If you already have that or can make it/become part of it, you'll survive. If you don't, then your guns probably won't help you much, no matter how fancy they are and how much ammo you have. So IMHO, to realistically prep, you'd have to either live way, way out in the boonies already, already be part of some kind of warlord militia in our current mostly peaceful world (a street gang might do it), or just accept that this is basically never going to happen anyways.
tedunangst 10y ago
Wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of dying in the accident. Doesn't mean the accident doesn't occur.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  Sure, being a prepper doesn't mean you're going to survive the apocalypse either, it just makes it (perhaps only slightly) more likely. With drunk driving specifically, if you're driving at just over the legal limit then you're 5x more likely to die than if you're driving sober. So if you buy into the idea that you're 5x more likely to die in a post-apocalyptic scenario than in a car accident, then it follows that even if you only drive while drunk then you're still more likely to die in a post-apocalyptic scenario. (Since approximately a third of all car crash deaths involve an intoxicated driver, and the 5x automobile death figure includes both sober and intoxicated drivers.)
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
I find their math extremely questionable. They estimate an 0.1% chance of outright human extinction every year--not just a global disaster, like a plague or a nuclear war, but the death of every human. The only things that could really plausibly cause that are events that humans have no control over--a supervolcano, a rogue comet, a gargantuan solar flare, a nearby supernova, etc.--which means that the human race should have been wiped out about once a millennium. But here we are.

ufmace 10y ago

It's not irrational IMHO to be prepared to live a couple of days or so without power or grocery stores, as that's happened dozens of times all over the US for a variety of reasons. A total collapse of civilization on the other hand, not so much. I will also say that I've wondered how many of the people prepping are capable of spending a day hiking in the woods with a decent pack on their back. Having a ton of stuff may not be very helpful if you don't have the physical capabilities to adapt to unexpected circumstances.

Alex3917 10y ago
> Having a ton of stuff may not be very helpful if you don't have the physical capabilities to adapt to unexpected circumstances. The actual amount of physical stuff you'd need to survive some sort of post-apocalyptic scenario really isn't more than a few hundred bucks, e.g. a year worth of crystalized iodine for purifying water and a flint & steel fire starter costs all of $25. What's more expensive is learning the edible plants and mushrooms in your area and their medicinal properties, plus whatever other miscellaneous survival skills you'd need.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Iodine is probably a good idea, but unless you're the only one left you probably ought to save up some ammo as well.
  - Alex3917 10y ago
    I'm not a gun owner, but at the same time I realize that it's not possible to live as a vegetarian in a survival situation. This is because plants have almost no calories, you can't digest them without fat, most don't have enough protein, they take too much energy to gather and cook, etc. So without being able to cover everything with tofu, blue cheese, nutritional yeast, etc., there is basically no way to survive for any period of time without a gun. I have an interest in edible plants and mushrooms, so that's where I overlap with the preppers, but I feel like not owning a gun is one reason it wouldn't really make sense to label myself as such.
    - ufmace 10y ago
      IMHO, in a realistic survival situation, unless you already live in an extremely remote area, like hundreds of miles from even a small city, the other survivors are going to be a much more immediate concern. Unless of course whatever the disaster is results in immediate casualties in the 95%+ range in all major cities, and you somehow survive this. There would be a huge number of people in the area and no prospect of feeding all of them. They would all be very determined indeed, and many would have their own guns. Everyone would either starve, die at the hands of raiders/thieves, or become raiders and thieves themselves, and thus have plenty of supplies from whoever did prepare. Having a gun would help, but more important would be to have a large group with military-like organization strong enough to stand up to the stresses involved in surviving such an apocalypse. If you already have that or can make it/become part of it, you'll survive. If you don't, then your guns probably won't help you much, no matter how fancy they are and how much ammo you have. So IMHO, to realistically prep, you'd have to either live way, way out in the boonies already, already be part of some kind of warlord militia in our current mostly peaceful world (a street gang might do it), or just accept that this is basically never going to happen anyways.

tedunangst 10y ago

Wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of dying in the accident. Doesn't mean the accident doesn't occur.

Alex3917 10y ago
Sure, being a prepper doesn't mean you're going to survive the apocalypse either, it just makes it (perhaps only slightly) more likely. With drunk driving specifically, if you're driving at just over the legal limit then you're 5x more likely to die than if you're driving sober. So if you buy into the idea that you're 5x more likely to die in a post-apocalyptic scenario than in a car accident, then it follows that even if you only drive while drunk then you're still more likely to die in a post-apocalyptic scenario. (Since approximately a third of all car crash deaths involve an intoxicated driver, and the 5x automobile death figure includes both sober and intoxicated drivers.)

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

I find their math extremely questionable. They estimate an 0.1% chance of outright human extinction every year--not just a global disaster, like a plague or a nuclear war, but the death of every human. The only things that could really plausibly cause that are events that humans have no control over--a supervolcano, a rogue comet, a gargantuan solar flare, a nearby supernova, etc.--which means that the human race should have been wiped out about once a millennium. But here we are.