Who will you SAVE?

Discussion in 'Survival and Sustainability' started by crank, Apr 18, 2022.

?

Who will you SAVE?

  1. Those you know and love regardless of their determination or lack of it

    4 vote(s)
    25.0%
  2. Only those who've proven their determination to survive

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Your immediate family

    8 vote(s)
    50.0%
  4. Those who've shown determination AND your immediate family

    4 vote(s)
    25.0%
  5. Just yourself

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    18,113
    Likes Received:
    10,301
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, that makes sense. I will say my best friend has come a long ways during the pandemic. It’s always been the plan that if he needs a place this would be it. But he’s become much more aware of vulnerabilities that exist by watching people and politician’s reactions to Covid. Off the top of my head though he’s the only person I know taking things more seriously in a concrete way.

    In the spirit of the thread, my friend is the perfect addition to any community that would exist here. His skill set complements mine. For instance, has construction and human resource management skills I don’t possess. But the most important reason (and one everyone considering helping others should take into account) he would be an asset is we can trust each other implicitly. We have literally saved each other’s lives on more than one occasion and since we grew up together we instinctively know what the other will do in any given situation.

    In a scenario where people who are not accustomed to living in close proximity to one another do so for survival, it’s going to turn into a **** show if at least a couple of the leaders/providers can’t work together seamlessly.


    Thanks for sharing your experience. Laziness is probably the core reason. Not much different than the laziness that leads most to claim they are environmentalists but don’t take any actions personally to benefit the environment. It’s easier to depend on someone else (government usually) to deal with the “hard stuff”.

    LOL, dirty peasant indeed! After moving cattle all day in 45 mph winds that’s a pretty apt description. :)
     
  2. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your friend is exactly the kind of person we should be 'saving' (in reality we all save each other, but for the purposes of this thread it means the sharing of resources we have, which others may not). The trust has to be earned over a long period of time.

    Further, if they're not honest with themselves about their own circumstances, there's little chance they'll honour the restrictions 'shared' self-reliant living demands. That's a deal breaker for us .. though it's taken us a while to really understand what a danger that kind of individual is. Part of their problem being that inability to deal with the 'close proximity' of others. Loss of privacy and autonomy go with the territory, and relentless productivity is the background to it. If people can't deal with one or the other of those realities, they've made themselves unfit for the kind of survival which will be necessary for those who aren't wealthy.

    And I can easily see how these 'unfit' folk could descend into chaos. Insisting on retaining a solo-flying, 2019-esque urban lifestyle in a reality of drastically diminished buying power and housing crises, is an exercise in insanity at this point. That means the people left in such places will be very dangerous. The psychic jolt of waking from a comfortable fantasy, into a dystopian nightmare, will be enough to unhinge many ... and the remainder will be dangerous because of the burden they will become on those around them.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2022
  3. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think it is laziness. It sounds trite to call it that .. but after a lifetime of studying the mechanics of wilful dependence, it's the only trait common to the majority. The interesting questions follow on from that. Where did the laziness come from? Usually it's a sense of entitlement .. but then we have to ask where did THAT come from? Someone or something in the environment, set a precedent of entitlement-thinking.

    In societies without institutional or state structures which foster dependence (welfare), these kinds of people are very much the anomally. That they're NOT an anomally in the First World, is why the chaos could be much worse here.
     
  4. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, now I understand the 'framing' of the question better, based on your expanded description (above). Now I can and will vote "my immediate family".

    The majority of my first 20 years, I lived in the "lower half of the socio-economic spectrum", and for about three years of it, my immediate family and myself lived at the rock-bottom of it... and nobody gave us a damned thing. Fair enough! No tears.

    Today, if there's some big 'problem', I'll focus my resources and efforts at taking care of those who are dear to me. And, as I sift through 'the tea leaves', I see a growing possibility that a variety of calamities may be approaching us in 'the West', in a perfect-storm.... We have been too stupid for too long, while putting off the consequences for our political, economic, and social malfeasance for over two decades.
     
    crank likes this.
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, the perfect storm. That's probably what's brewing.

    As for your Near and Dear, will you still offer salvation if they've demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the work of keeping everyone alive? The bigger the group, the more work there is. If people are just going to take your largess but not repay it via labour and/or resources, they really shouldn't be included. They will be a direct threat to your immediate family.

    This is the hardest part of being in a position to actually help people. Making certain that the right people are helped .. or rather, making sure emotions or loyalties don't compel us to help the wrong people. We went with the 'several chances' approach to be sure about the folk we were excluding. We didn't want any regrets, and didn't want to risk excluding them for the wrong reasons. But if someone declines lifelong safe harbour in favour of poverty and insecurity .. more than once .. they've made it abundently clear that they should never be offered anything again. They don't get to change their mind - that's what the extra chances were for. Their spot goes to someone else after the second or third decline.

    We've had to do that with three different families in the past two years - pass their spot to people who immediately understood the utility of what was offered, and did not turn it down for nebulous reasons. As discussed in other posts .. it's not about money either. We have two wealthier families invested (due to their own lack of resources beyond money), while two poor families declined. Given that .. it would almost seem as though there's a relationship between making bad choices and poverty. Go figure.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2022

Share This Page