http://www.millenngroup.com/repository/features/survival1.html

-- mchenry (cymchebry@siedata.com), October 18, 1999

Answers

YES

Asked my 14 year old daughter not too long ago what she would do to survive.

Her answer? "Whatever it takes, Dad. Whatever it takes. Period."

Words of wisdom from the young......

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.

Wow! What an EXCELLENT site! Perfect to send to the family to get them to speed up their preps! THANKS

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 19, 1999.

"Whatever it takes,Dad.What ever ittakes.Period"....Hmmmm I wonder...

Snip from an earlier post...

>> Cannibalism

The most striking example of this desocialization and demoralization of a fraction of the starving population is furnished by the fairly frequent emergence of acts of cannibalism on the part of persons who would otherwise view such acts with extreme abhorrence, and who resort to cannibalism only when demoralized by long and maddening starvation, sometimes under the stress of mental derangement. ... In the Bible we read, "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and daughters ... in the siege and in the straitness." During major famines cannibalism occurred in ancient Egypt, ancient Greece and Rome, Persia, India, China, Japan, and elsewhere. ... The same tragic story of parents' killing and eating their children and vice versa, of wives' slaying and devouring their husbands and vice versa, of the snatching of corpses from cemeteries or the gallows, or the professional ambushing, killing, eating of passers-by  this is monotonously repeated in connection with numerous major famines." (66-67)

Such actions as cannibalism apply to only an infinitesimal proportion of the population  a maximum, perhaps, of 1 per cent. (79)

Famine ecame dead among us; only sadness, gloom, and hopelessness reigned within and without our dwellings. Crying children were seen begging in vain for bread and falling dead like flies." (69-70)

Before the famine years in Russia many members of the upper and middle classes would have preferred death to the scandal of standing for hours in an illegal market, trying to exchange a pair of old trousers or a dress for food. But during the years of 1918-1922 they took this as a matter of course. Multitudes of persons, under normal circumstances, would "rather die than beg." But let them face starvation, and they extend their hands for alms -- at first reluctantly and with a sense of shame, then habitually, as a matter of routine; and finally artfully, employing all the tricks of the profession. (74)

Let us cite several concrete illustrations. Suppose that we are confronted by a dry loaf of bread of poor quality, or by a piece of somewhat putrid meat. If we are not hungry, we respond to these stimuli by speech reactions such as: "Nobody, not even a dog, would eat it. It is nauseating!" But after prolonged and acute starvation our reaction is as follows: "Excellent! Delicious! Wonderful!" and we avidly seize the bread or the meat. The half-rotten flesh of horses that had died of starvation was eagerly, even greedily sought by most of the Russian population during the famine, and it was eaten with as much relish as well-nourished people eat the best steak. The same was true of the flesh of dogs, cats, and even mice and rats. Mikkelsen and Iversen, under the stress of starvation, decided to try the liver of a dead dog which even their own dogs would not eat and which they knew was to some extent poisonous. After cooking it, "We taste it critically . . . ; but the first little mouthful is speedily followed by one considerably larger, and two broad grins of delight with inarticulate murmurs of satisfaction, announce that we find it delicious." What is "tasteless" or even nauseating under normal circumstances becomes "delectable" to a famished person. (76-77)

In a more complicated form a somewhat similar change occurs with more complex convictions and ideologies and their respective speech reactions. A well-nourished person says, "Private property is sacred." But a victim of famine is likely to exclaim, vis a vis the possessions of others, "To hell with your property!" or, "Property is a theft. Long live the expropriation of the exploiters." or the like. On the one hand, the speech reaction is "Theft is inexcusable"; on the other, "Theft is excusable." (77)

In Soviet Russia one could observe these changes ad libitum in the behavior of millions toward the Soviet authorities upon whom they depended for food. Journalists, authors, scholars, artists, musicians, doctors, engineers, and persons in all walks of life, though they despised and hated the Soviet bosses, nevertheless tried the way of captatio benevolentiae of the Soviet food-givers now by silence, masking their real ideas and opinions, and now in the form of flattery and eulogies (written and oral), contrary to their true convictions. Others, having obtained satisfactory rations through their hypocrisy, speedily convinced themselves of the sincerity of their alleged convictions and remained faithful "converts" to the Soviet faith as long as the food privileges continued. This self-deceit, with its high-sounding phrases, is but a screen behind which the food factor pulls the strings. A few pounds of bread, a cup of sugar, or a steak is enough to turn the trick. This does not mean that everyone undergoes this transformation of ideas, beliefs, opinions, convictions, and speech reactions. A part of the starving population remains unchanged or changes in the opposite direction. But another  and possibly larger  part undergoes this "adjustment" (as it is called) of convictions and speech reactions. When such an "adaptation" is sincere, its moral value is even less than that of the clever and cynical hypocrisy of flatters; for they at least do not fool themselves. (78)

Pestilence

In brief, pestilence tends to modify the behavior of the healthy portion of society in the same manner in which starvation modifies it, the main difference being that the comparative power of the fear of pestilence and the desire to remain healthy may be different from the comparative power of the fear of starvation and the desire to escape it, and that the concrete activities attacked or reinforced by pestilence may differ in part from those attacked or reinforced by starvation. (85-86)

What has been said of famines applies with a slight variation to pestilences. Great epidemics depopulate a region not only directly, by killing a part of its population, but also by forcing another part to flee from the infected centers to other places held to be safer. (109)

-- (maybe not@survival.after), October 19, 1999.

"Whatever it takes,Dad.What ever it takes.Period"....Hmmmm I wonder...

Snip from an earlier post...

>> Cannibalism

The most striking example of this desocialization and demoralization of a fraction of the starving population is furnished by the fairly frequent emergence of acts of cannibalism on the part of persons who would otherwise view such acts with extreme abhorrence, and who resort to cannibalism only when demoralized by long and maddening starvation, sometimes under the stress of mental derangement. ... In the Bible we read, "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and daughters ... in the siege and in the straitness." During major famines cannibalism occurred in ancient Egypt, ancient Greece and Rome, Persia, India, China, Japan, and elsewhere. ... The same tragic story of parents' killing and eating their children and vice versa, of wives' slaying and devouring their husbands and vice versa, of the snatching of corpses from cemeteries or the gallows, or the professional ambushing, killing, eating of passers-by  this is monotonously repeated in connection with numerous major famines." (66-67)

Such actions as cannibalism apply to only an infinitesimal proportion of the population  a maximum, perhaps, of 1 per cent. (79)

Famine ecame dead among us; only sadness, gloom, and hopelessness reigned within and without our dwellings. Crying children were seen begging in vain for bread and falling dead like flies." (69-70)

Before the famine years in Russia many members of the upper and middle classes would have preferred death to the scandal of standing for hours in an illegal market, trying to exchange a pair of old trousers or a dress for food. But during the years of 1918-1922 they took this as a matter of course. Multitudes of persons, under normal circumstances, would "rather die than beg." But let them face starvation, and they extend their hands for alms -- at first reluctantly and with a sense of shame, then habitually, as a matter of routine; and finally artfully, employing all the tricks of the profession. (74)

Let us cite several concrete illustrations. Suppose that we are confronted by a dry loaf of bread of poor quality, or by a piece of somewhat putrid meat. If we are not hungry, we respond to these stimuli by speech reactions such as: "Nobody, not even a dog, would eat it. It is nauseating!" But after prolonged and acute starvation our reaction is as follows: "Excellent! Delicious! Wonderful!" and we avidly seize the bread or the meat. The half-rotten flesh of horses that had died of starvation was eagerly, even greedily sought by most of the Russian population during the famine, and it was eaten with as much relish as well-nourished people eat the best steak. The same was true of the flesh of dogs, cats, and even mice and rats. Mikkelsen and Iversen, under the stress of starvation, decided to try the liver of a dead dog which even their own dogs would not eat and which they knew was to some extent poisonous. After cooking it, "We taste it critically . . . ; but the first little mouthful is speedily followed by one considerably larger, and two broad grins of delight with inarticulate murmurs of satisfaction, announce that we find it delicious." What is "tasteless" or even nauseating under normal circumstances becomes "delectable" to a famished person. (76-77)

In a more complicated form a somewhat similar change occurs with more complex convictions and ideologies and their respective speech reactions. A well-nourished person says, "Private property is sacred." But a victim of famine is likely to exclaim, vis a vis the possessions of others, "To hell with your property!" or, "Property is a theft. Long live the expropriation of the exploiters." or the like. On the one hand, the speech reaction is "Theft is inexcusable"; on the other, "Theft is excusable." (77)

In Soviet Russia one could observe these changes ad libitum in the behavior of millions toward the Soviet authorities upon whom they depended for food. Journalists, authors, scholars, artists, musicians, doctors, engineers, and persons in all walks of life, though they despised and hated the Soviet bosses, nevertheless tried the way of captatio benevolentiae of the Soviet food-givers now by silence, masking their real ideas and opinions, and now in the form of flattery and eulogies (written and oral), contrary to their true convictions. Others, having obtained satisfactory rations through their hypocrisy, speedily convinced themselves of the sincerity of their alleged convictions and remained faithful "converts" to the Soviet faith as long as the food privileges continued. This self-deceit, with its high-sounding phrases, is but a screen behind which the food factor pulls the strings. A few pounds of bread, a cup of sugar, or a steak is enough to turn the trick. This does not mean that everyone undergoes this transformation of ideas, beliefs, opinions, convictions, and speech reactions. A part of the starving population remains unchanged or changes in the opposite direction. But another  and possibly larger  part undergoes this "adjustment" (as it is called) of convictions and speech reactions. When such an "adaptation" is sincere, its moral value is even less than that of the clever and cynical hypocrisy of flatters; for they at least do not fool themselves. (78)

Pestilence

In brief, pestilence tends to modify the behavior of the healthy portion of society in the same manner in which starvation modifies it, the main difference being that the comparative power of the fear of pestilence and the desire to remain healthy may be different from the comparative power of the fear of starvation and the desire to escape it, and that the concrete activities attacked or reinforced by pestilence may differ in part from those attacked or reinforced by starvation. (85-86)

What has been said of famines applies with a slight variation to pestilences. Great epidemics depopulate a region not only directly, by killing a part of its population, but also by forcing another part to flee from the infected centers to other places held to be safer. (109)

-- >>> (maybe not@survival.after), October 19, 1999.

Maybe that is kind of a heavy question to ask a 14 year old?

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), October 19, 1999.

Jim deBoer needs an editor, or a spellchecker, probably both.

I think he's piled up one too many mountains here, though. If EVERYTHING goes down, terrorists and rogue nations are as much at risk as everyone else, and just as likely to be trying to stay alive, just as incapacitated as the rest of the world..

And the complete catastrophe, the TEOTWAWKI scenario, while fascinating to consider, is a no-brainer. No degree of sensible preparation can equip you to survive it. No matter how much food you have, you will use it up. No matter how much water you have, you will use it up.

Some would survive, of course. (Never say never.) And when the people in the underground bunkers emerge, those survivors will be there to greet them. That might not be a pleasant meeting.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 19, 1999.

Yes

-- Andy (AUVENGER@cs.com), October 19, 1999.

Paula:

Every kid is different. Actually, she was thirteen at the time. I trust her opinion over many adults, and would trust her at my back in a combat situation over most other non-vets (of which I am one).

Anyway, the whole conversation was initiated by her and was pretty deep/intense. She wants to KNOW, as best as I can tell her. She doesn't like BS. And yes, she has a lot of friends and is quite a happy kid.

A shame more adults don't have her attitude.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

I gotta go out and get a few more boxes of food!! But seriously- we had been inventoring of sorts, our supplies last night- and figuring how long it could feed us for- and then I looked at the millenngroups latest posting- and I thought- yes- but if my partners ravenous son joined us- with girlfriend, and who knows who else- that would put a serious dent in the supplies- hmmmm. Good point- need to consider how many others we might possibly need to feed.

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), October 19, 1999.

Check out the posting: MAN & SOCIETY DURING Y2K, by An Old School Teacher, dated 10/18/99 the entire article will scary the pants off you.

-- Judy (dodgeball@qol.com), October 19, 1999.

Paula: You have made the classic mistake of underestimating a teenager. As an 8th grade teacher I can tell you they are VERY perceptive (though sometimes they don't want adults to know they are), VERY insightful, can be extremely serious and very deep without all the pomp and self-awareness with which most adults carry on "deep" conversations. My 8th graders have asked me many times about Y2K, some want to talk about it on an almost daily basis. Some seem quite concerned, some blow it off (just like adults, eh?). I find they usually reflect their parent's opinion, if they have heard their parents voice an opinion on this issue. But teenagers can be some of the most open-minded people in the world. We did a writing assignment in which they responded to the generic dilemma of "What would you do if you woke up and the power, phones, heat, water, etc wasn't working?" I got some silly responses, of course ("I would DIE without the TV and phone!!!!") but man some of the responses BLEW ME AWAY. So insightful not even an adult could write them. Adults think too much in the box. These kids don't -----YET.

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), October 19, 1999.