Who will you SAVE?

I'm curious to know where others with resources stand on this. We've made our decision (option four), and have had to take some relatives and friends off the list as a result. When they were repeatedly offered sanctuary during the past two years and turned it down without regard for either the burden they were almost certainly making of themselves, nor the impact on their own survival, they made it clear that they don't intend to work for anything. As per the old adage .... when people tell you who they are, BELIEVE THEM. Thus our reserves and resources will go to immediate family, and to anyone we know who's demonstrated their commitment to fighting for self-reliance and survival.

How about you? Who will you save and why? Who will you exclude and why?

 

Bump

 

Bump

 

Immediate family. Nothing else matters. Why? Because they are family. I need no other reason and care for nothing else. Even if it's a detriment to myself.

 

Immediate family, but my kids are all under 5, so I can't really expect too much determination from them (yet). I might feel differently once they're older. Tonight, I'd burn down the whole world to save my kids.

 

So, real estate prices in Australia finally got you to the brink of survival, heh?

 

~ My cats, of course .

 

I'm an altruistic person so would probably be willing to help any complete strangers a little bit, although I would very probably not take them in or give any one individual too much since I would have to focus on my own survival.

Maybe if certain people looked like they had good genetics and could perpetuate a future generation, I might give them some more.

Of course there are special increased obligations to your family members.

From a perspective of pure utilitarianism, it might not make sense to waste limited scarce resources on individuals who you believe have no sense and are unlikely to be able to survive.

There is a part of me that wishes I could do more or be more willing to help, but it is a difficult line to balance altruism with necessary focus on youself.

 

What are we saving them from? How do we know if we possess the capacity to save others? What type of sanctuary are you offering? Is it money to combat inflation? Is it a job to earn a living? Is it a bomb shelter space in case of nuclear war? Is it to fend off a zombie apocalypse?

 

Who will I save from what? I see no sample scenario here, so what the heck are you talking about? Is the zombie apocalypse upon us?

Sanctuary from what?

 

Yeah immediate family has to be the priority.

 

~ Maybe from this ... ? '

" Remember - you are never fully vaccinated ." ​

 

I don't have a god complex.

 

Interesting take!

But no. We own our properties outright, and are adding more (cash purchases). This is an intellectual excercise for those who have the kind of resources that could be shared if the SHTF - land, water, shelter, food, knowledge, labor, etc. This isn't about money resources at all.

 

The sort of resources which matter in zombie apocalypse. See my post above.This is purely about land/water/shelter/food/knowledge/tools etc - not a dime of money. The money is for these resources.

As for 'how do you know you can help?' .. when you have all the above clear and free, plus the ability to feed quite a lot of people ... and the people you'd like to help own nothing and have no ability to feed themselves, the answer is pretty derned obvious.

 

If by 'god' you mean an entity which wants to help others, then thanks

 

LOL .. bless your heart. Oblivion must be quite comfortable.

 

I voted for option 4 because so long as a good friend gives their all I will give my all for them. And family…. If they’re immediate family, I can tolerate a bit more

 

I think the 'altruism' has to be there, but I would be careful about who it's applied to. Strangers shouldn't really be excluded on that basis alone, but there has to be something about them which reveals they're not simply opportunists.

The balance is probably achieved by helping as many as possible who meet the criteria for help, and who will add productivity and benefit to the whole. Strength in number ... as long as the resources exist for that number.

 

Exactly my thoughts!

Those who aren't immediate family can expect full commitment if they're willing to give the same. That's the clincher for us, and it's been far easier to figure out who will and won't, than expected. The unwilling make it very plain, via their refusal to adjust even an inch to save themselves. No one should be offereing such people quarter, when there are so many who'll do whatever it takes.

 

Also, is this code for:

"I don't have enough resources to help others, and even if I did I'd keep it all for myself"?

 

Always. But if there's enough for more beyond that ... who would you choose?

 

Immediate family are a no-brainer for most of us. It's the extras beyond that I'm most interested in.

 

Extras can stuff it.

 

No one person can have all the skills necessary, or the time, in a survival situation.

It would be especially important for the first 6 months or so, where you would need to fend off opportunists and groups who want to take what you have.