Also, it’s reasonable to predict that the post apocalyptic people will reform some kind of society. I don’t know what sort of infrastructural damage we are talking about. But if 10,000 people are left roaming the plains of Kansas, I’m pretty sure they will organize into social groups, communes, tribes, or whatever. Because that’s what humans are evolved to do (plus, we will be influenced by our memories of pre-apocalypse civilization). Yes, some weird hermit will go live in the woods, but not everyone will do that. The people who do form groups will have some kind of social or economic structure. Maybe it will be based on gold. Maybe it will be based on something else. We just don’t know. It just seems presumptuous too say “no, you are definitely wrong” based on what limited knowledge we actually have about sociology.
No, the historical cases I made are fact. Before society became established in the cases I listed currency was not used. I’m not going to argue that. It’s historical fact. If you want to point to other established societies (which makes no point whatsoever) fine, but your wasting my time with sh*tty logic and bad history.
My arguement is that hard goods would hold infinitely more value. If I have a stockpile of fuel, batteries, food, and guns, and you show up with gold and the world is collapsing, I will sell you all of nothing. As would anyone else with half an ounce of common sense.
So waht is your point? Do you have an alternative post apocalyptic plan or are you just mumbling?
How did the bubonic “black death” spread smarty pants? No Wikipedia either. I’m timing you.
Yes, but in the absense of knowing how that currency and or society would reform, hard goods will be king. Particularly since any currency that would develop would naturally flow into the hands of those with hard goods, which also have utility value. Anybody that’s studied Normal Backwardation understands that.
Rats. So? Where are rats? Cities?
*Edit, I’m infinitely smarter than you, this game can only go poorly for you.
This discussion is obviously going nowhere, so I will trigger the great apocalype to see who is right. It really sucks though because I was really hoping to save it for a special occasion.
Stockpiling on hard goods will make you a natural target for attacks. No amount of bullet supplies and bunker reinforcements will save you from a mob, and especially so if a leader with organizational skills emerges in that mob, as it usually happens.
Best strategy for survival is to stockpile on intangible skills that will make you valuable, like knowing how to build a wood gasifier from scratch or having some medical experience. These skills will serve as your life insurance policy once you join a group of survivors, and give you political capital within your unruly horde. Once you and your fellow leaders establish control, it will be easy to take over BS’ bunker and his hard goods.
Fleas as well.
+1,000. You sir, nailed it
When did this discussion turn into a pissing contest of who’s smarter?
You spend a lot of times in the backwoods of west virginia? No one would ever know you even existed.
The lack of understanding of rural areas from you guys is laughable.
When you tried to quiz me as “smarty pants” with a weak ass question.
*sigh. I’m done.
Sounds an awful lot like Milton in The Walking Dead. Things didn’t turn out very well for him as I recall.
I think the point of the whole survivalist thing is to be self-sufficient in the wilderness. Therefore, gold is worthless since there is no need to trade. Presumably self-sufficiency means you have some rudimentary medical training as well as an aptitude for hunting and agriculture. If you want to plan for trading, then it is prudent to keep some gold around, but overall it is safer to be self-reliant.
Whetherl you want to live with your family in the wilderness is up to you, but thread started by talking about owning a suvival compound in the woods. Sure, you could join roving hordes in Kansas but that is not really the premise the discussion started out with.
What’s your point - that me and my savage horde will be unable to take over your bunker and supplies of hard goods? False.
@higg: I haven’t seen the Walking Dead so I can’t comment with certainty, but your boy Milton was probably killed off because a research by Nielsen showed his character ratings are trending down, rather than a fatal practical flaw in his survival skills.
Your savage horde of beta male urbanites and BOM never even knows my people exist deep in WV. However, should your gang of hipsters ironically stumble onto my intricate maze of defenses, they will meet my own well equiped and well prepared militia prepared to rain fire and brimstone. Truth.
He is basically saying that he can hide in the wilderness where the horde will not be able to find his hoard. Of course, this (like any other) scenario requires some assumptions. For instance, that transportation infrastructure is intact such that you can reach said wilderness or that people don’t follow you as you try to leave the city because you obviously are heading towards a secret stache. Remember that we have not even defined this hypothetical disaster, never mind the specific scenarios that might result.
Personally, I think most people would try to rebuild society if possible. We are already used to living in groups and have existing social connections. Depending on resources, yes, probably not everyone will survive for long. However, I don’t know if this is less risky than living alone in the forest where no one will help you if you fall down and knock your head on a rock.