4 ms·

One is adapt to a world where information (and lack thereof) is weaponized. Get out your skepticism and find trusted sources of information. There is an enormo

One is adapt to a world where information (and lack thereof) is weaponized. Get out your skepticism and find trusted sources of information. There is an enormous amount of partisan-oriented misrepresentations and under-reported stuff, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. As Chomsky pointed out in Manufacturing Consent, modern-day propaganda isn't about lying or faking data, that's pre-War stuff. Post WWII we discovered that a much better way to manipulate public opinion is to focus on some data and not focusing on other data. Omitting that which doesn't match narrative, and headlining the stuff that matches narrative. Believe it or not, it helps to stabilize you. As Taibbi points out, the news media has turned itself into market segments, where a news story is decided upon, "Will my market want to hear this" and NOT "People should know this." Therefore it's intended as outrage and anger by design. Once you know this, you can take a step back. That's the psychological preparation. Several people below wrote "community" and "social group." For those of us in cities and not small towns / farming communities, that translates to "make some friends" which isn't really that useful advice, I'm afraid.

Jtsummers 6y ago
I'd argue a community is even more important in cities and suburbs than in smaller towns and rural areas (where you can have more space to both prepare and sustain yourself as an individual). Within a city, especially for apartment dwellers, you have little space for storage of essentials and could find yourself "stuck" on the 10th or higher floor of an apartment building, with limited access to any essentials without knowing your neighbors and relying on each other to make it through a short-term disaster.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  That might be true, but that's also an extreme scenario. If I'm stuck on the 10th floor because the stuff outside is dangerous, I'm reaching for a weapon before I'm texting friends to ask about grocery stores.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    If we're at the point where people are actually reaching for a weapon and shooting their neighbors, most of us are fucked regardless of where we are. Actually knowing and being known and trusted by your neighbors is one way to prevent this hypothetical Mad Max dystopia. The idea of being stuck on the 10th floor without power and not having a Mad Max dystopia is actually quite feasible with the state of the US electric grid and preparations for extreme storms. Knowing your neighbors means you, if you're unable to go up/down the stairs for whatever reason, are not totally alone for days or weeks while infrastructure is restored. Based on going through hurricanes in the US South, it's usually been better to know other people than to believe you're truly self-reliant.
brundolf 6y ago
This is a good source for combating that effect: https://www.allsides.com/ https://www.allsides.com/
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I don’t know what your city life is like, but I have made it a priority to get to know my neighbors. In case of emergency I think we can all depend on each other.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  New York. It's a mixed bag in terms of what "neighbors" means. It's not a culture where people knock on the doors across the hall and chat about the weather or borrow sugar.
lhorie 6y ago
> "make some friends" [...] isn't really that useful advice I'd go one step further and say that this is potentially even harmful advice, especially when coupled with the suggestions of treating instability/civil unrest like some romantic survivalist wet dream. Having strong local social ties can cloud one's judgment of when to leave a truly dangerous situation. After bunkering for a few months, one might find themselves stranded with worthless currency, depleted stores, or even worse, actively hostile blockades, and physical inability to seek international refuge. One does not need to theorize what a total collapse / humanitarian crisis would look like, there's plenty of precedent in the Middle East, east Africa, etc.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  "Be elsewhere" is a great way of handling collapse. But it's hard to apply. You can wind up running from every social hiccup. (Did you flee the US for the BLM protests? But maybe there were days when it was wiser to not go downtown.) You have to correctly judge the level of the problem, and not run away from too many of the small ones, and not miss any of the big ones. It's a tough balance. If you can pull it off, though, it works far better than a bunker.
  - lhorie 6y ago
    > You have to correctly judge the level of the problem, and not run away from too many of the small ones, and not miss any of the big ones. That's not really how the emigration math works out in practice. Generally speaking, if the net benefits of leaving are greater than staying, that's enough justification to leave, even if society is still largely functioning and even if you could realistically make a difference(tm). The idea that one is morally obligated to be responsible for change in their communities is just one aspect of the larger discussion of ethics vs distance: e.g. is it sensible to expect a sub-saharan african to deal w/ the ramifications of civil war while "doing one's part" consists of merely advocating for the homeless in California? What, then, of africans who go to CA for a better life, and what of those who aren't willing to leave CA to get their hands dirty on the more pressing humanitarian issues in Africa? There are many wildly different opinions on this dilemma, but IMHO when push comes to shove, individuals will first and foremost look after themselves - Philanthropy comes second to that. Sometimes this means abandoning one local cause for a better "deal" (in terms of what a foreign society can provide in return for the value brought in by their immigration and their labor); the bigness of the local problem often doesn't even factor into the equation, as by definition, social problems can't be easily solved by one individual's actions alone.

Jtsummers 6y ago

I'd argue a community is even more important in cities and suburbs than in smaller towns and rural areas (where you can have more space to both prepare and sustain yourself as an individual). Within a city, especially for apartment dwellers, you have little space for storage of essentials and could find yourself "stuck" on the 10th or higher floor of an apartment building, with limited access to any essentials without knowing your neighbors and relying on each other to make it through a short-term disaster.

mancerayder 6y ago
That might be true, but that's also an extreme scenario. If I'm stuck on the 10th floor because the stuff outside is dangerous, I'm reaching for a weapon before I'm texting friends to ask about grocery stores.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  If we're at the point where people are actually reaching for a weapon and shooting their neighbors, most of us are fucked regardless of where we are. Actually knowing and being known and trusted by your neighbors is one way to prevent this hypothetical Mad Max dystopia. The idea of being stuck on the 10th floor without power and not having a Mad Max dystopia is actually quite feasible with the state of the US electric grid and preparations for extreme storms. Knowing your neighbors means you, if you're unable to go up/down the stairs for whatever reason, are not totally alone for days or weeks while infrastructure is restored. Based on going through hurricanes in the US South, it's usually been better to know other people than to believe you're truly self-reliant.

brundolf 6y ago

This is a good source for combating that effect: https://www.allsides.com/ https://www.allsides.com/

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

I don’t know what your city life is like, but I have made it a priority to get to know my neighbors. In case of emergency I think we can all depend on each other.

mancerayder 6y ago
New York. It's a mixed bag in terms of what "neighbors" means. It's not a culture where people knock on the doors across the hall and chat about the weather or borrow sugar.

lhorie 6y ago

> "make some friends" [...] isn't really that useful advice I'd go one step further and say that this is potentially even harmful advice, especially when coupled with the suggestions of treating instability/civil unrest like some romantic survivalist wet dream. Having strong local social ties can cloud one's judgment of when to leave a truly dangerous situation. After bunkering for a few months, one might find themselves stranded with worthless currency, depleted stores, or even worse, actively hostile blockades, and physical inability to seek international refuge. One does not need to theorize what a total collapse / humanitarian crisis would look like, there's plenty of precedent in the Middle East, east Africa, etc.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
"Be elsewhere" is a great way of handling collapse. But it's hard to apply. You can wind up running from every social hiccup. (Did you flee the US for the BLM protests? But maybe there were days when it was wiser to not go downtown.) You have to correctly judge the level of the problem, and not run away from too many of the small ones, and not miss any of the big ones. It's a tough balance. If you can pull it off, though, it works far better than a bunker.
- lhorie 6y ago
  > You have to correctly judge the level of the problem, and not run away from too many of the small ones, and not miss any of the big ones. That's not really how the emigration math works out in practice. Generally speaking, if the net benefits of leaving are greater than staying, that's enough justification to leave, even if society is still largely functioning and even if you could realistically make a difference(tm). The idea that one is morally obligated to be responsible for change in their communities is just one aspect of the larger discussion of ethics vs distance: e.g. is it sensible to expect a sub-saharan african to deal w/ the ramifications of civil war while "doing one's part" consists of merely advocating for the homeless in California? What, then, of africans who go to CA for a better life, and what of those who aren't willing to leave CA to get their hands dirty on the more pressing humanitarian issues in Africa? There are many wildly different opinions on this dilemma, but IMHO when push comes to shove, individuals will first and foremost look after themselves - Philanthropy comes second to that. Sometimes this means abandoning one local cause for a better "deal" (in terms of what a foreign society can provide in return for the value brought in by their immigration and their labor); the bigness of the local problem often doesn't even factor into the equation, as by definition, social problems can't be easily solved by one individual's actions alone.