Who will you SAVE?

Sure, but let's say your immediate family would benefit from the extra muscle?

 

Exactly. It's important as a defensive barrier, and in terms of the labor necessary for longer term survival.

 

That's tougher, but I guess I would go with friends after that. And beyond that people who would benefit me and mine (folks with skills and work ethic) that are also not likely to become a threat.

 

Then the OP's situation does not apply. The OP is about helping people that won't commit to being helpful. I'd take in anyone that was helpful. But when it comes to immediate family, I don't care if they're helpful or not. They're coming with me and I'm helping them no matter what. Anyone else that is not helpful can bugger off.

 

My line of work isn't stable. We make mounds of money one year and might make starving wages the next....so we hoard our savings. I can give unconditionally to my immediate family but would rather not.

 

Me and mine, and those who, if the positions were reversed, I am pretty damn sure would come through for me and mine because those are your foxhole allies, you and your immediate family might yet end up in a foxhole!

 

Kids.

Any adult that doesnt have any insurance stashed away has chosen their fate. But their kids... Ill help those I can.

 

What are we hypothetically saving <somebody/somebodies> from?

I won't help anybody going after chocolate. Beyond that I'm negotiable.

 

Then we align. I'm for helping immediate family first and unconditionally, then anyone in the next strata (relatives, friends etc) who is 'helpful'.

Those on that next strata who've made it clear they're not interested in help or helping, will be respected. Or rather their preference will be respected

 

This isn't about money, just to be clear. Giving money to people never solved anything .. least of all in a scenario where money might not secure survival.

The discussion is premised on resources for survival, not coin.

 

Nothing at all. Everything is perfectly perfect, and nothing bad can ever happen!

 

That's a respectable approach, MP.

I'm in agreement with you as far adults go. Hence the need to select very carefully, beyond immediate family.

 

To be more precise .. I use the word "SAVE" to highlight that the question is about those who might need actual saving. It's not about people who could be just useful (but otherwise okay).

It's about people who, in that moment, have nowhere else to go.

 

Exactly. If the people you want to help aren't going to build the same strength you're now offering to share with them ... don't help them.

 

The collapse of civilization- power grid shuts off, grocery stores run out of food, etc.

 

Or even best case scenario milder versions of the above, when in tandem create impossible conditions for urbanites on lower incomes. They don't have the money to leave the cities before things get worse, and won't survive the cost of living if they stay. We all know someone (or several) in that situation .. so it's a solid question to be asking ourselves now.

Meantime, it's fascinating to see people still so wilfully oblivious.

 

Incidentally, part of the fascination is seeing the marked ideological bias when it comes to opinion on planning ahead (planning to help others, or just to keep your own family alive).

It's almost ALWAYS Prog Lefties doing the sneering and denial. They apparently despise the concept of being a good and responsible community member, and champion the "I don't give a ****" approach. Very telling. Very revealing of their real motivations.

 

In my anecdotal experience, it seems to come from a perception of self-fulfilling prophecies. Given that many of whom you speak seem convinced that preparing for something equates to hoping for it and perhaps making it more likely, then in the opposite fashion, ignoring/rejecting something 'must' therefore equate to some sort of prevention. At least on a subconscious level. Thats not how it actually works of course, but most everyone believes in some sort of magic or another when it comes right down to it.

Though I also have encountered people who admit they would rather just die than struggle to survive the 'zombie apocalypse.' I don't understand this mentality ...but I guess I don't need to.

 

Undoubtedly there's a good proportion of denialists motivated by fate thinking (that they can manifest bad things). I can see why feeling you have no control, but absolute control at the same time, must be incredibly disturbing - and thus why you'd want to shut down anything you think might attract the bad joo-joo. It's a primitive approach to managing one's emotional and practical response to external events, but common. There's comfort to be found in 'the fates', but generally only in situations where there's nothing we can personally do to alter the outcome. It's completely inappropriate in this case, since we can very much alter the outcome.

And yes, there are also plenty of folk around who're openly nihilistic, in preference to fighting for survival. I figure that's just a nasty side effect of our over-full bellies and profound ease. These people sh!t me the most .. because they've allowed those full bellies to rob them of their essential decency (the will to survive, in order to help others survive). They'll go down without a fight, and in so doing drag others down with them. You can't sink THAT way, alone. The undertow is too strong.

 

How does sarcasm help your case? And, how does worrying about **everything** help anybody?

 

I don't think you understand those on the Progressive Left very well.

You just take your Conservative traditional values for granted, so don't understand that there are others who don't believe in the concept of "family obligations" and believe that falls under the realm of government obligations.

 

I was asking the OP, since that is who was unclear. Sorry, but I don't get the appeal of sophomoric humor, nor do I view Dr. Fauci as a villain.

 

How am I oblivious? There is zero context in your OP.

Instead of snarky sarcasm, can you answer the question, please? Saving family from what, exactly? It's a very simple question.

 

I'm not making a case, I'm asking a question. That you have no idea why I asked this particular question, is why I responded the way I did. I'm rather past the point of explaining. It wasn't sarcasm either .. it was a genuine "don't worry, be happy".

In the meantime, the fact that you think worry is a part of this, tells me you're not a candidate for the discussion. You've missed the point (of being well prepared) entirely. The fact that we're well prepared means we don't worry. These new events and 'threats' are curiosities for us - interesting and inspiring, but never 'worrying'. I can quite see how they would be 'worrying' for those who've done nothing to plan for them, though.

 

Pretending you don't know is snarkier.

You and I inhabit the same universe, and have access to all the same information. Unless you live in a cave without internet, it's not possible that you don't know. You may be choosing to engage in denial, but that's not at all the same thing.