|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Apr 26, 2018 16:17:17 GMT 10
Here is an interesting read........... How would you go? As preppers we usually focus on practical steps that will give us a better chance of surviving whatever crisis comes down the road. We talk about what kind of food to store and how much of it, where our water is going to come from, and the best weapons to have available. These are all important points, and if we don’t get them right life will be a lot harder post-SHTF. But is there something else, maybe just as important, that we’re all overlooking?....... www.askaprepper.com/whats-the-limit-of-your-morality-in-a-crisis/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=AAP |
|
bce1
Ausprep Staff 
Posts: 819 
Likes: 1,581
|
Post by bce1 on Apr 27, 2018 14:22:39 GMT 10
Figure you the dwarf frostbite?
|
|
bce1
Ausprep Staff
Posts: 819
Likes: 1,581
|
Post by bce1 on Apr 27, 2018 14:44:29 GMT 10
I am always somewhat bemused by conversations where people unequivocally state they have this set of morals and it is set in stone and under no circumstance would they ever do x?
Im sorry, but a basic set of morals form the platform you live you life on and your dealings with other people, however I would suggest that they are to a degree situational
The will to survive will drive people to do immoral things they never thought they were capable of. I don't pretend to have lived a particularly deprived life - but I have been in enough situations in the third world where I can confidently say morals are fluid. I can only imagine that would translate to a first world SHTF.
If you add in a "the road" type situation and survival will trump all - there are spectrums of collapse - but at the far end it is pretty bleak.
I think there is a small group of people who will starve and watch there family starve to maintain a perceived moral standard. Maybe apathy combined with morals. But why give up?
In a full on grid down situation it will be survival of the fittest and being nice won't help. Medium size group with limited morals will survive over most others.
What would you do to survive? I don't think many answer it with full intellectual honesty.
|
|
Blended
Junior Member
Posts: 26
Likes: 43
|
Post by Blended on Apr 27, 2018 15:50:32 GMT 10
I am always somewhat bemused by conversations where people unequivocally state they have this set of morals and it is set in stone and under no circumstance would they ever do x? Im sorry, but a basic set of morals form the platform you live you life on and your dealings with other people, however I would suggest that they are to a degree situational The will to survive will drive people to do immoral things they never thought they were capable of. I don't pretend to have lived a particularly deprived life - but I have been in enjoy situations in the third world where I can confidently say morals are fluid. I can only imagine that would translate to a first world SHTF. If you add in a "the road" type situation and survival will trump all - there are spectrums of collapse - but at the far end it is pretty bleak. I think there is a small group of people who will starve and watch there family starve to maintain a perceived moral standard. Maybe apathy combined with morals. But why give up? In a full on grid down situation it will be survival of the fittest and being nice won't help. Medium size group with limited morals will survive over most others. What would you do to survive? I don't think many answer it with full intellectual honesty. Well put reply. People will see the answer to this in many different ways. The old couple across the road will make different decisions to the young couple next door with no kids. The single guy in the one bedroom unit will also make decisions differently to the family next door. As the later, protecting my family, protecting my children, i would suggest that my stance on my morality limit is "what ever it takes" Suggesting this is one thing, actually carrying it out would be easier said than done i would imagine. -B |
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Apr 27, 2018 20:29:17 GMT 10
I am always somewhat bemused by conversations where people unequivocally state they have this set of morals and it is set in stone and under no circumstance would they ever do x? Im sorry, but a basic set of morals form the platform you live you life on and your dealings with other people, however I would suggest that they are to a degree situational The will to survive will drive people to do immoral things they never thought they were capable of. I don't pretend to have lived a particularly deprived life - but I have been in enough situations in the third world where I can confidently say morals are fluid. I can only imagine that would translate to a first world SHTF. +1. Personal values (as opposed to society induced morals) are not very fluid but people will operate outside their normal values range and then feel remorseful afterwards. For some people, possibly many people, that remorse can have dire consequences on morale. I'm personally comfortable with eliminating threats ... but I refuse to get trigger happy. If we caught someone trying to nick food off our group in a survival situation I'd get them talking first. Only after they've properly made the wrong impression would they be subject to execution. Other offenders might be given a choice to repent and repay. Some might be taken in for the long haul ... others 'moved along'. Of course ... if you are in any kind of group, even just a family, it pays to involve others in these kinds of decisions if time allows. |
|
Morgo
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Likes: 662
|
Post by Morgo on Apr 28, 2018 15:38:23 GMT 10
"What’s the Limit of Your Morality in a Crisis? "
The only question I would need to answer for myself is,
Cannibalism - yes or no?
I doubt I'll ever really know unless the question becomes a reality. Hopefully I'm never in a position where I need to find out.
|
|
grumble
Senior Member
Posts: 457
Likes: 778
|
Post by grumble on Apr 28, 2018 16:27:52 GMT 10
Hi I'm your worst nightmare because ultimately its mine or yours and id prefer mine to prosper and I will not let moralistic scruples be their undoing
Formally known as your mild mannered neighbour
|
|
tan
Junior Member
Posts: 33
Likes: 46
|
Post by tan on Apr 28, 2018 16:54:53 GMT 10
I think we are all capable of atrocities that would haunt us to protect our loved ones and/or prolong our survival. We won’t know to what extent until we’re tested but I suspect we’d all go a lot further than we entertain that we would.
It’s the people who will turn into true monsters simply because it’s been in them all along and there is no ‘rule of law’ anymore to stop them that worry me
|
|
remnantprep
Senior Member
People do not exist for the sake of governments!
Posts: 4,399 
Likes: 3,968
Email: remnant@ausprep.org
|
Post by remnantprep on Apr 29, 2018 11:16:32 GMT 10
What would be more evil, killing someone who is trying to take your things, or allowing them to steal from the innocents in your family, your children who may slowly starve because you did nothing? This is only one scenario many more to ponder though! Can we define evil and good in a SHTF? How would you define innocence in a SHTF? I feel that one reason why we prepare is so that we don't have to go out and take form others, BUT if they try to take from you then for sure you have every right to protect yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Apr 29, 2018 12:04:40 GMT 10
The only question I would need to answer for myself is, Cannibalism - yes or no? According to MLA there are 70 million sheep and 27 million Cattle in Oz at the current time. Then theres about 25 million Camels, and probably another 40 million goats. There will be more livestock (about 160 million combined) to eat than people (25 million) in any foreseeable collapse scenario. I've excluded pork and fowl as they are intensive industries which will crash very quickly. Cannibalism? Not required. |
|
Morgo
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Likes: 662
|
Post by Morgo on Apr 29, 2018 12:14:43 GMT 10
Sure, if your able to find and cook the various animals around then obviously cannibalism should never come in to the discussion.
But there are plenty of SHTF scenarios, some real life examples as well, where other forms of food such as livestock would not be available.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Apr 29, 2018 12:41:10 GMT 10
Perhaps if one were stranded on a polar ice cap and you've eaten your last sled dog. Here in Oz, anyone who can't find grain, livestock or game to get by on ... is in the running for a Darwin award. (And there may well be plenty of them.)
|
|
Morgo
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Likes: 662
|
Post by Morgo on Apr 29, 2018 15:41:42 GMT 10
Perhaps if one were stranded on a polar ice cap and you've eaten your last sled dog. Here in Oz, anyone who can't find grain, livestock or game to get by on ... is in the running for a Darwin award. (And there may well be plenty of them.) Ahh but your assuming there would still be livestock and grain around to get by on after/during the SHTF event. You wouldn't need to be stranded on a polar ice cap to be in a postilion where there is nothing to eat or grow because of a SHTF event. Several of the top most likely events, if they were large scale, could kill off most if not all livestock/grain. Such as; 1. Natural disaster, like a wide spread long lasting weather event bringing on prolonged heat waves, severe drought and fires. 2. Disease 3. Nuclear event |
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Apr 30, 2018 18:09:48 GMT 10
Never the less ... by the time the grain and livestock and game runs low ... finding living people to eat will be a challenge. They'll all have perished already from sheer stupidity.
How much cannibalism was going on during the Irish potato famine? It was a rare occurrence even during WW2 in besieged cities like Stalingrad, Leningrad and possibly Breslau - and none of the people in those places were shy about killing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonasparker on May 22, 2018 23:55:28 GMT 10
A pro football player for the Chicago Bears wrote a book titled "I Am Third".
God is first.
Family is second.
I'm third.
Don't do anything against God.
Keep my family safe.
Don't worry about myself.
Works for me.
|
|
spatial
Senior Member
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by spatial on May 23, 2018 10:16:34 GMT 10
A pro football player for the Chicago Bears wrote a book titled "I Am Third". God is first. Family is second. I'm third. Don't do anything against God. Keep my family safe. Don't worry about myself. Works for me. I agree with this, I don't see my morals changing. Self defence and right to protect property is inherent - SHTF or not, a person should still take decisive action. Yes during a full blown SHTF event the threat levels are higher and security a bigger problem so reaction to events needs to be more assertive, and vigilance needs to be increased. If there is no rule of law then one needs to determine what you think is just and deal out punishment accordingly. In the old wild west in the US they would hang a person caught stealing a horse, as a horse could mean a persons livelihood and ability to survive. The application of law differ according to situation. The impact of a crime can be much higher in a SHTF scenario. Being religious I take an eternal perspective on things. We are gong to die some day anyway and life is short but there is the eternities to consider, and actions taken in this life can have long -term eternal consequences, so it is not survival at all cost like cannibalism or abandoning family members as resources run out. Many people would fight to the death over the last tin of beans, or steal it and abandon their 'group', to me that is just pathetic and shallow. Would I do things like loot a shop after complete breakdown of law. Yeah probably as most of the goods will go to wast anyway if just left in the shop - that is very situational dependent. If an area is flooding and the water rising or a military threat coming through. Would I scavenge for equipment and resources from abandoned buildings - why not. Would I change my morals and hunt birds lizards and eat insects yeah. There are plenty of bird life in OZ, I have an air rifle with lots of pellets so there no shortage of food. Australia does exports millions of animals Goats, sheep, cattle, after SHTF these exports stop, vehicle traffic is one of the biggest killers of Australian wildlife - so there is likely an explosion of wildlife (rabbits, roos etc..) that is if there is not widespread bush fires that ravage the country side. |
|
bce1
Ausprep Staff
Posts: 819
Likes: 1,581
|
Post by bce1 on May 23, 2018 10:49:04 GMT 10
Corb Lund is an American Country and Western singer - he has a song "gettin down on the mountain" - essentially a song encouraging you to prep - there is a line in it which sums up the morals nicely - "You ever seen a man who's kids ain't ate for seventeen days and counting'?"
Think that describes how the vast majority will behave.
|
|
feralemma
Senior Member
Posts: 398
Likes: 540
|
Post by feralemma on May 23, 2018 10:56:15 GMT 10
The only question I would need to answer for myself is, Cannibalism - yes or no? According to MLA there are 70 million sheep and 27 million Cattle in Oz at the current time. Then theres about 25 million Camels, and probably another 40 million goats. There will be more livestock (about 160 million combined) to eat than people (25 million) in any foreseeable collapse scenario. I've excluded pork and fowl as they are intensive industries which will crash very quickly. Cannibalism? Not required. For the average person tho most of those livestock would be out of reach! Only 10% of land used for ag purposes in Australia is classed as improved pasture. 75% of ag land is rangeland grazing....ie uncleared station type country. A) it's pretty hard to run down a cow in an area that size and b) they've got to get where the livestock are. Camels are found in the same rangeland country or even further into the desert. Lol and are also even harder to catch without a bang stick. Also most farmers/graziers rely on water pumped out of the ground to water stock. Come shtf there will be alot of atock going without water, which means they won't last long 😣 there wouldn't be as much livestock running around as there is now that's for sure! |
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on May 23, 2018 18:44:54 GMT 10
A major proportion of livestock are on non-rangeland country - its a smaller space but has much higher carrying capacity. Anyone who can't find and kill livestock on foot, without a gun in an emergency is worthy of a Darwin Award. And there will be plenty of candidates in the capital cities I'm sure. Then there's the millions of tons of grain stacked up close to ports, cities and rail centres. All these distances are walkable. What may happen in an acute food shortage is that country folks (like me) will get swamped by a relentless tide of locust-people leaving the big cities. If it's a long, gradually intensifying shortage they may well perish in place because they don't see the full magnitude of the danger until they're too weak to move very far.
What I'm saying is eating other people is so far down the list of possibilities it's hardly worth considering. As I've said elsewhere, my mother, her family and their fellow city dwellers nearly died of starvation in Europe in 1944 and they didn't resort to eating each other.
|
|
spatial
Senior Member
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by spatial on May 23, 2018 21:44:24 GMT 10
What about all the fishes? I have a kayak and am currently looking at getting a pedal drive fishing kayak. Without fuel it is a 20min walk to the lake for me, will have to get a bicycle trailer for the yak.... When I was working in Cobar the hunters used to come through, they all have quad bikes, 4WD with dogs.... It is a lot different hunting on foot then carrying the kill back. But it is true that there is plenty of animals available. Sydney has an exploding rabbit population and there are plenty of birds. There are plenty of roos in the bush-land surrounding the cites. Wild camels, goats, pigs are our of reach for most unless you are living in such and area or bugout to country that has those resources. Once transportation goes down there is no bringing in meat. Previously every town had their own meat processing facilities and production - one does not see that anymore. |
|
