3 ms·

The people who are going to die in the aftermath are going to be those who don't have any plan to play nice with others. The only practical survival strategy si

by XorNot 4y ago

The people who are going to die in the aftermath are going to be those who don't have any plan to play nice with others. The only practical survival strategy since the dawn of the human species has been the rapid establishment of as large a tribe as possible. Which is to say: the guy who decides to sit in place on a pile of resources is already dead, it's just a matter of when: if you're not establishing relations and trade, then you're just delaying the inevitable.

ggm 4y ago
I think this is an underappreciated viewpoint. Survivalists simply look like well guarded stores for everyone else, and sooner or later there's something missing which demands barter or cooperation with those outside the fence. It's like settling for the lowest achievable short term peak for a small team rather than boosting the entire surface to a lower maximum of wider reach, or some gradient to a higher peak closer to normality. I won't be storming the bunkers, I'll be asking scientists at the university campus what support role lets them get on with highly productive labour, or helping at a hospital or sewage farm. Looking at postwar recovery in Germany, food for labour cleared the bombed streets (mainly women too) and we'll see a lot of that, followed by more complex labour. Hunkering behind a wall with ammo and batteries won't get there. They're going to have to come to an accommodation with society at large and assuming guns equals boss is silly. Boss of what? A slave culture? The city state next door looks better and better.
- toss1 4y ago
  Yup, I read an account of a man who survived for a couple of years in the hellscape of Sarajevo during the war. He had a lot of detail, but the big points were that you needed a group. "A lone wolf is a dead wolf", he said. The key to survival was your group, being able to pool resources, watch each other's back, go out in groups, negotiate, etc. (Sorry I've not got a link right now.)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ggm 4y ago
    The key point in context being negotiate. Drama on TV goes to confrontation for an asymmetric outcome ("winning") when real live goes to BATNA and "win-win" more often. (I am hopelessly naieve!)

by XorNot 4y ago

ggm 4y ago

I think this is an underappreciated viewpoint. Survivalists simply look like well guarded stores for everyone else, and sooner or later there's something missing which demands barter or cooperation with those outside the fence. It's like settling for the lowest achievable short term peak for a small team rather than boosting the entire surface to a lower maximum of wider reach, or some gradient to a higher peak closer to normality. I won't be storming the bunkers, I'll be asking scientists at the university campus what support role lets them get on with highly productive labour, or helping at a hospital or sewage farm. Looking at postwar recovery in Germany, food for labour cleared the bombed streets (mainly women too) and we'll see a lot of that, followed by more complex labour. Hunkering behind a wall with ammo and batteries won't get there. They're going to have to come to an accommodation with society at large and assuming guns equals boss is silly. Boss of what? A slave culture? The city state next door looks better and better.

toss1 4y ago
Yup, I read an account of a man who survived for a couple of years in the hellscape of Sarajevo during the war. He had a lot of detail, but the big points were that you needed a group. "A lone wolf is a dead wolf", he said. The key to survival was your group, being able to pool resources, watch each other's back, go out in groups, negotiate, etc. (Sorry I've not got a link right now.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ggm 4y ago
  The key point in context being negotiate. Drama on TV goes to confrontation for an asymmetric outcome ("winning") when real live goes to BATNA and "win-win" more often. (I am hopelessly naieve!)