Here is something that needs to be touched on and that is group formation. I think that it goers without saying that if you are by yourself, you will have a much harder time in a situation that is one of extended duration. While you can certainly survive for short periods of time by yourself, the long-term prospects are much more difficult to prepare for.
For this reason then, I would suggest a group approach as the best one for long-term preparedness.
Groups provide several advantages over going it alone. First, of course, is company. Man is by nature, a social creature and having a group of friends and relatives around in times of crisis can be a great comfort.
Second is the sharing of skills. Not everyone can do all things well, and having people around who are better at doing necessary things than you are, allows you to concentrate on those things that you are good at. For example, cooking, medical, organization, farming, mechanics, communications, security are all skills that can be very useful in a TEOTWAWKI scenario, but very, very few people are good at all of them.
The third advantage is that of expense in getting prepared. Groups have more bargaining power than individuals and they can quite often get things cheaper. If everyone agrees on some common calibers for example, ammunition can be purchased in large quantities, and thus everyone's expenses can be pared. Food would be another example. Purchased in bulk, it is much less expensive because there is less packaging, hence less expense in producing. Also off-brands have much less advertising expense, and their quality is usually comparable to well-known name brands. Also you can afford a much greater variety, hence a better-balanced diet.
These are some of the advantages of groups in SHTF-type situations.
Now, here are some things to watch out for.
First, you don't need nut-cases. Some of these people can cause greater apprehension than the folks outside of the group. Rambo types, for example need not apply to any group I want to be part of.
Second are those with serious mental problems. I worked at Boeing in Renton a long time ago and when I was there, I had the unfortunate experience of working next to a gal who was actually psychotic. (And no, I did not drive her batty. She was that way long before I knew her. This gal saw people watching her that weren't there. That type of psychotic.) Weed these people out.
Third are those people who are very insecure and think that they have to prove something all the time. This can cause a lot of friction within a group, and is to be avoided whenever possible.
Those who won't pull their own weight should be avoided as well.
How would such a group be organized? They can be organized on a family basis, or a group of friends or maybe even through an internet forum. (hint! hint!) I would suggest that any group be confined to a specific geographic area, because in the event of trouble, you want a central rallying point that everyone in the group easily can get to, someplace to count heads as it were. For example, if someone in the group has a farm outside the beaten path, the members of the group could agree to meet at the farm. In this case, the farm could serve as both the retreat and the rallying point. Try not to make it too far away though, as you want everyone in the group to have a chance to get there. I would say that a retreat should not be any more than 100 miles from any one member.
Are there things that I haven't thought of? Of course there are; I'm a realist. But that is the reason why I am starting this dsicussion.
For this reason then, I would suggest a group approach as the best one for long-term preparedness.
Groups provide several advantages over going it alone. First, of course, is company. Man is by nature, a social creature and having a group of friends and relatives around in times of crisis can be a great comfort.
Second is the sharing of skills. Not everyone can do all things well, and having people around who are better at doing necessary things than you are, allows you to concentrate on those things that you are good at. For example, cooking, medical, organization, farming, mechanics, communications, security are all skills that can be very useful in a TEOTWAWKI scenario, but very, very few people are good at all of them.
The third advantage is that of expense in getting prepared. Groups have more bargaining power than individuals and they can quite often get things cheaper. If everyone agrees on some common calibers for example, ammunition can be purchased in large quantities, and thus everyone's expenses can be pared. Food would be another example. Purchased in bulk, it is much less expensive because there is less packaging, hence less expense in producing. Also off-brands have much less advertising expense, and their quality is usually comparable to well-known name brands. Also you can afford a much greater variety, hence a better-balanced diet.
These are some of the advantages of groups in SHTF-type situations.
Now, here are some things to watch out for.
First, you don't need nut-cases. Some of these people can cause greater apprehension than the folks outside of the group. Rambo types, for example need not apply to any group I want to be part of.
Second are those with serious mental problems. I worked at Boeing in Renton a long time ago and when I was there, I had the unfortunate experience of working next to a gal who was actually psychotic. (And no, I did not drive her batty. She was that way long before I knew her. This gal saw people watching her that weren't there. That type of psychotic.) Weed these people out.
Third are those people who are very insecure and think that they have to prove something all the time. This can cause a lot of friction within a group, and is to be avoided whenever possible.
Those who won't pull their own weight should be avoided as well.
How would such a group be organized? They can be organized on a family basis, or a group of friends or maybe even through an internet forum. (hint! hint!) I would suggest that any group be confined to a specific geographic area, because in the event of trouble, you want a central rallying point that everyone in the group easily can get to, someplace to count heads as it were. For example, if someone in the group has a farm outside the beaten path, the members of the group could agree to meet at the farm. In this case, the farm could serve as both the retreat and the rallying point. Try not to make it too far away though, as you want everyone in the group to have a chance to get there. I would say that a retreat should not be any more than 100 miles from any one member.
Are there things that I haven't thought of? Of course there are; I'm a realist. But that is the reason why I am starting this dsicussion.
