4 ms·

Surely being economically prepared as well would be useful. Having the gear both for bug out scenarios and bug in scenarios. I know it's fun to rag on preppers

Surely being economically prepared as well would be useful. Having the gear both for bug out scenarios and bug in scenarios. I know it's fun to rag on preppers, but in what way is keeping a year of food stocked and rotated through a bad idea? How is having solar panels a bad idea?

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
It's not a bad idea per se, it's just probably overkill. I mean I keep a bug out bag and a tub of supplies, so I don't disagree wholly, but it gets out of hand quickly if you aren't thinking critically about it.
- voltagex_ 9y ago
  What's in your bug out bag?
nebabyte 9y ago
Probably because the most prudent thing for someone with means to do in circumstances which would drive them to live under their house for a year would not be to live under their house for a year. It's "not a bad idea, just a pointless one" when times are good, and a distraction from better options if something does happen. But w/e
rodgerd 9y ago
Food for a week? Good sense, although plenty of people in supposedly rich first-world nations struggle to have enough food for now, never mind a week spare. Food for a month? Maybe if you live in a region that could easily be cut off in the event of disasters. Food for a year? Listen, if things turn so badly to shit you need a year of food, food is going to be the least of your worries.
- rev_bird 9y ago
  >if things turn so badly to shit you need a year of food, food is going to be the least of your worries. I don't see why this is the case -- saying "doing X is going to be the least of your worries" seems to imply that there are going to be other priorities and "X" will be ignored -- i.e. "charging your phone is going to be the least of your worries." But food... you _need_ food, even if there are other crazy things happening all around you. If that's the case, I can't help thinking it would be better to do the things you CAN do to prepare. One less thing, etc.
  - rodgerd 9y ago
    It's a reflection of the idea that if civilisation collapses to the point you can't obtain food except by pulling it out of your emergency store a year later, you're probably going to have died of disease, injury, thirst, violence or a number of more pressing concerns. Seriously, if the ability to get food to people has been down for a full year, you won't have medicine. You almost certainly won't have fuel, electricity, public order, sanitation, or clean water.
    - aethertap 9y ago
      One thing that I think is frequently overlooked is that a person with a year's worth of food stored up also has enough to feed the whole neighborhood for a week if necessary, which might make a really big difference for a lot of people. Having the goods gives you a lot of flexibility and might take some of the pressure off of emergency relief services. I try to keep far more of the basic things on hand (first aid, food, and water purification stuff) than I think I'll need just because I know most people don't, and I live in a place with a moderate risk of catastrophic earthquakes and tornadoes.
  - gyello 9y ago
    If food supplies haven't been restored for a year, it means there's probably been some extreme collapse of society and loss of life. Never seeing your friends/family/loved ones again, just surviving day by day for no purpose. I'd rather die quickly in the early stages than survive in such a bleak world.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Practically everybody has food for a year. Few have food for a week and less for a month. When you need food for a year you can safely assume that nobody will ever care if you break into all your neighbor's houses. Their canned soup is part of your food for a year. When you need food for a week all your neighbors are looking at the pantry at the same time and trying to figure out if they can last two weeks. Food for a month doesn't really exist as a need. Either emergency supplies from around the world arrive in less than two weeks, and you are safe, or they don't and you need food for a year.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

It's not a bad idea per se, it's just probably overkill. I mean I keep a bug out bag and a tub of supplies, so I don't disagree wholly, but it gets out of hand quickly if you aren't thinking critically about it.

voltagex_ 9y ago
What's in your bug out bag?

nebabyte 9y ago

Probably because the most prudent thing for someone with means to do in circumstances which would drive them to live under their house for a year would not be to live under their house for a year. It's "not a bad idea, just a pointless one" when times are good, and a distraction from better options if something does happen. But w/e

rodgerd 9y ago

Food for a week? Good sense, although plenty of people in supposedly rich first-world nations struggle to have enough food for now, never mind a week spare. Food for a month? Maybe if you live in a region that could easily be cut off in the event of disasters. Food for a year? Listen, if things turn so badly to shit you need a year of food, food is going to be the least of your worries.

rev_bird 9y ago
>if things turn so badly to shit you need a year of food, food is going to be the least of your worries. I don't see why this is the case -- saying "doing X is going to be the least of your worries" seems to imply that there are going to be other priorities and "X" will be ignored -- i.e. "charging your phone is going to be the least of your worries." But food... you _need_ food, even if there are other crazy things happening all around you. If that's the case, I can't help thinking it would be better to do the things you CAN do to prepare. One less thing, etc.
- rodgerd 9y ago
  It's a reflection of the idea that if civilisation collapses to the point you can't obtain food except by pulling it out of your emergency store a year later, you're probably going to have died of disease, injury, thirst, violence or a number of more pressing concerns. Seriously, if the ability to get food to people has been down for a full year, you won't have medicine. You almost certainly won't have fuel, electricity, public order, sanitation, or clean water.
  - aethertap 9y ago
    One thing that I think is frequently overlooked is that a person with a year's worth of food stored up also has enough to feed the whole neighborhood for a week if necessary, which might make a really big difference for a lot of people. Having the goods gives you a lot of flexibility and might take some of the pressure off of emergency relief services. I try to keep far more of the basic things on hand (first aid, food, and water purification stuff) than I think I'll need just because I know most people don't, and I live in a place with a moderate risk of catastrophic earthquakes and tornadoes.
- gyello 9y ago
  If food supplies haven't been restored for a year, it means there's probably been some extreme collapse of society and loss of life. Never seeing your friends/family/loved ones again, just surviving day by day for no purpose. I'd rather die quickly in the early stages than survive in such a bleak world.
bluGill 9y ago
Practically everybody has food for a year. Few have food for a week and less for a month. When you need food for a year you can safely assume that nobody will ever care if you break into all your neighbor's houses. Their canned soup is part of your food for a year. When you need food for a week all your neighbors are looking at the pantry at the same time and trying to figure out if they can last two weeks. Food for a month doesn't really exist as a need. Either emergency supplies from around the world arrive in less than two weeks, and you are safe, or they don't and you need food for a year.