I'd like to know how others on this forum feel about beating a retraet to the backwoods to wait out Y2K. The reason I ask is that, to me, the idea of bugging out to the hinterlands in the face of adversity has a strong scent of cowardice about it. This has been what's always 'bugged' me about the survivalist movement. From what I've gathered, the modus operandi of the average survivalist is to beat it out of town until things regain some measure of normalcy, then once again rejoin society after its rebuilding. Problem is, holed up in his hole, he'll have taken no part in that rebuilding and will in essense be getting a free ride at the expense of others who chose to meet the problem head-on. Solving the problems that Y2K will/might hand us will require a concerted effort and a lot of grit, not an isolated bunker mentality.

-- klm (klm@nowhre.not), June 01, 1999

Answers

We have decided to stay until things get bad (still undefined). Do you have children?

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), June 01, 1999.

* * * 19990601 Tuesday

I'll bite, klm:

As a Vietnam ( In-country; Qui N'Hon, 1969-1970! ) Veteran I have a different take on retreat under so-called "third world" conditions Y2K will present. It's survival of the fittest. Without our current "carrying capacity" ( infrastructure ) intact, sustainable conditions will become impossible. Collapse of water, food health and sanitation, will bring on the anguish and decimation of millions and millions of "collateral" casualties. It won't be pretty.

Survival is a strong instinct. Without it, no specie survives. That's why all the species present on our planet today, represent less than 1% of all the species that have ever existed.

The smart will survive, that dumb will perish--or become accidental survivors and begrudge the smart. It's unavoidable. Look at how well and easily politicians play this trump card of envy so well today.

I don't see an act of cowardice in preparing to do the best job possible at preservation self and family FIRST! We're on our own!

Get over it!!

Got to get more beans...

Regards, Bob Mangus

* * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@hotmail.com), June 01, 1999.

Also see this thread...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000thv

"Man moves family from mansion to Trailer"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 01, 1999.

Bob:

Based on the confidence in the future you display, I guess you feel that the only things certain in life are death and y2k-induced collapse. Taxes have dropped to second place.

I think your choice of words reflects poorly on your thought processes. In your mind, a non-zero probability has morphed into a certainty. As a result, you view everything you read about y2k through this sense of certainty, which serves only to reinforce it.

Try substiting "might, but probably won't" for each "will" in your post, and you'll see that your conclusions cannot follow.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 01, 1999.

Problem is, holed up in his hole, he'll have taken no part in that rebuilding and will in essense be getting a free ride at the expense of others who chose to meet the problem head-on.

I don't see it that way. Whatever problems are created by Y2K have to be solved by those in a position to take corrective action. I don't think it would do much good for me to volunteer to try to get the air traffic control system up and running if it craters, for example.

The backwoods solution isn't laziness, it's insurance for viability. If things go bad, a penthouse in New York City is a deathtrap. Is it brave and moral to stay there, or just plain stupid?

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), June 01, 1999.

So let me get this straight. Standing in food lines is productive? Rebuilding in the midst of chaos? Survivalists certainly won't be adding to the problem by being leeches off the system. The "do-nothings" will be dragging restoration down.

I can hear the yuppie whiners now! The cities are BARELY tolerable now -- why SHOULD we stay?

disgusted with bleeding hearts as long as someone else is doing the legwork

-- gail (no@way.com), June 01, 1999.

I went through a Cat 5 hurricane some years ago. I absolutely enjoyed every minute of it, even the aftermath (I was a renter). I had never been camping before, and I thought "roughing it" for a few weeks was great. But y2k, and its associated maladies, scares the living shit out of me. I have bought a secluded house in the mountains on a stream with a few acres of farmland and prepped to the max.

I have a feeling I won't feel like a coward when y2k hits.

-- Not a coward, but not stupid either (hurricanes@in't.nothing), June 01, 1999.

Not:

The trick is not to feel like a coward if y2k hits, yet not feel like a fool if it doesn't. This trick is hard to perform if you confuse "if" with "when."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 01, 1999.

klm - Example, if I stay in my suburb I have enough dry chlorine, funnels, filter paper, etc. to provide adequate drinking water for the 200+ houses around our subdivision lake. Didn't cost much, less than $50.

If Y2K is JUST water system failure, I should be here doing what I can do for all my neighbors that didn't read, study, and fork out $19 to secure their water supply, and I will be. It will take me about 9 hours to get back here from my retreat location. Nobody died of thirst in 9 hours. I would MUCH prefer to be sleeping on a nice warm water bed watching TV munching on Dominoes pizza than being in the middle of absolute nowhere just west of Lower Intestine, Nebr. eating beans and sleeping on a cot after stoking a wood burning heater. If the banks and phone system fails, ditto. As long as the natural gas and electricity stays up, things will be relatively ok in my subdivision.

However, if the electricity goes out, my little genset can only power a few furnaces at a time and I do have the wiring ready to power at least four of my neighbors. However, only for a day or so as storing large quantities of fuel is strictly prohibited here. I'ld have to tote my genset to the local gas station IF the owner wouldn't freak from legal liability etc.

Now if the electricity AND the natural gas goes out, I can't keep people warm, I do not have the resources.

So if things get bad, I'm not much use staying here due to my limited (by law) resources.

My first duty is to my family which includes elderly parents. I do have the resources to provide water, warm shelter, food, and bedding for about 15 people at my retreat. If somebody plunks $250,000 in my lap (any offers?) and says spend it on helping people, I'll be delighted to do so. Absense of that, I will do what I can well, and I will not attempt to do that which is sure to fail.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), June 01, 1999.

Thanks all for the responses so far. From them, I take it that almost all of you assume that Y2K is going to all-encompassing, and the virtual end of civilization for an indeterminate time - maybe years. I agree that it would be prudent, not cowardly, to move to the boonies given such conditions, but the kind of event you're talking about makes a nuclear war seem almost mild by comparison. Do you really think it's going to be that bad? I just don't see it as being that bad, unless the One-Worlders have arranged it that way purposefully.

-- klm (klm@nwhre.not), June 01, 1999.

Londoners who went to bomb shelters during the Blitz. Oklahomans who go into storm shelters when funnel clouds are sighted. Floridians who evacuate from forecast hurricane landfalls. Californians who evacuate from approaching wildfires. Midwesterners who evacuate from rising Mississippi river waters. All examples of people who act reasonably in the face of life-threatening events.

People who make Y2K preparations, to include moving to safer locations when they evaluate their current situation are "dangerous survivalist scum". You forgot to ad "po' white trash, gun-owning, redneck, right-wing, religious fanatic" ahead of the word "survivalist". And I'm surprised you didn't ad the usual "neo- Nazi" or any of the other cliche adjectives.

If you keep track of the issue, the people going to "bunkers" for Y2K are our "government leaders", not the by and large Y2K preparation community.

Those who can may be moving to smaller communities from large cities and suburbs, and they will be active in recovery at their new locations. But few if any are moving to total isolation and planning not to come back out until after everything is rebuilt.

Excepting of course, those people going to those taxpayer-funded bunkers which are equipped to exist in total isolation for eighteen months.

So who's planning on not coming out until all the pain, suffering and rebuilding are over? And guess who'll claim all the credit if the rebuilding is successful?

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), June 01, 1999.

Bunker mentality?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000271261842766&rtmo=ws0Aw5Qb&atmo% 20=99999999&pg=/et/99/4/18/wbunk18.html

"US sets up bunkers to beat Millennium chaos"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 01, 1999.

WW - out of line. At no time did I even IMPLY that people who are preparing are, in words or intimations you seem to ascribe to me, "po' white trash, gun-owning, redneck, right-wing, religious fanatic", "survivalist" or "neo- Nazi"... I fit the gun-owning, right-wing parts, not the rest, though. I'm all too aware of the FEMA bunkers, Mt. Weather, all that stuff. It's real, and our wonderful reps will be well provided for no matter what happens, unlike us taxpayers. But explain, please, how in heaven's name what I wrote imply what you thought it did?

-- klm (klm@nwhre.not), June 01, 1999.

I think its the ones who prepare that will be bringing Civilization back. Weather they head for the hills or not. I myself live in the woods and have allways been selfsuficent, never thought that Y2K would be the reason for our collapse, but you can add some other things into this like solar flares, war and ofcourse the panic that will be sure to come first. Hopeing for the best preparing for the worst. God bless all of us!

Snowman

-- Snowman (IntheSnow@cold.com), June 01, 1999.

Look, you pays you money and you takes you chances. Deciding to stay "in the system", so to speak, has its rewards if everything turns out fine, and its punishments if it does not. Likewise for those of us who have elected to get "out of the system".

Time will tell who made the right choices, and who did not.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), June 01, 1999.

klm,

Yes I do believe Y2k has the potentail of "getting that bad". I hope and pray it will not, but I do believe it could. I have seen how people react when life is not as kind to them as what they have been used to. We live in a very spoiled country. I am sorry to have to add myself into this group, as I sit here drinking my Mt Dew and enjoying my air-cond office.

If Y2k is nothing then you can laugh at me then, I will take it.

If Y2k is "bump-in-the-road" we will be working as hard as you trying to rebuild what little was lost.

If Y2k is not so pretty then you wont have to worry about it. We will live and you probable wont.

Ill take my chances. Bulldog

How does that kids saying go "Sticks and Stone can......"

-- Bulldog (sniffin@around.com), June 01, 1999.

uh klm, I don't think that WW was aiming at you. Ever read some of Flint's other posting?

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@EARTHLINK.NET), June 01, 1999.

Kim, you can stay at my place while I'm away. It's a nice community, except for the lack of preparation; somebody else will take care of that.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), June 01, 1999.

There is a fine line between cowardice and blatant stupidity. Let's just take a look at the hundreds of cowards (?) who took shelter in OKC's tornado. Me thinks your tie is too tight! You can't rebuild anything once you learn about "gravity". I detect a teeny bit of Mr. Macho here...grow up. And Flint, would you please, please conduct a reality check? I'm beggin' ya buddy, you're wearing me out! Just when I think there MIGHT be some hope for you...you post! You make "Sibyl" look decisive.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 01, 1999.

Flint, Will, thanks.LOL

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), June 01, 1999.

Some of us have chosen to move out of urban combat zones some time back. That was a choice for a permanent lifestyle change. Others have chosen to stay and put up with the problems. That was also a deliberate choice. Y2K adds additional incentives to make and follow our choices. Choose wisely, for you may be there for some years!

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), June 01, 1999.

Will continue:

Wish I could help. I've taken out all the y2k insurance I can afford. I don't know how much of it I'll need, and I don't believe you do either. So call me an agnostic. It's my opinion that, taken all together, the information we have simply doesn't permit or justify any single, fixed prediction. Every time I check reality, it's moved! All we can do is keep watching, and *be prepared*. I don't believe being prepared gives you the ability to see the future, but for many of us it lets us entertain doubts without so much fear of doubt.

People at the extremes remind me of the drunk searching for what he dropped under the lamp because that's where the light is, even though that's not where he dropped it. How easy it is to be able to see clearly, even if you're looking in the wrong place.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 01, 1999.

Flint, there are many Y2K pollyannas, there are many Y2K doomers, but when it comes to Y2K wishy-washees, that prize is yours and yours alone!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 01, 1999.

KoS, LOL! Too true. Sometimes I wonder if Mr. Flint does it purposely, or is totally oblivious to it.

Mr. Flint, you were doing so great with Unc Deedah on that Libertarian thread, but you failed to hammer the point home. What was up with that?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 01, 1999.

Flint,

You'd make a terrible airline captain, or leader in any field that required you take some decisive action when things were going bad. You remind me of those economists Harry Truman was talking about when he said, Give me a one-handed economist, because all the one's around here now keep saying well, on the one hand it could be like this, and on the other hand it could be like that. You sure do love to brain storm these issues, huh?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 01, 1999.

As far as I can tell, all ANY of us are doing here is talking. Talking in different ways. Talking after doing all preps. Talking without doing any preps. Talking with no thinking beforehand. Talking after much thinking.

I like the ones that show some thinking.

(What I think I may like even more are the lurkers who pop in after a year of reading us, showing me through their cogent words that they've been thinking -- actually thinking -- along with us for a whole year without saying a damn thing!)

But of the ones I hear regularly, I like the ones that show they've done some thinking. y2k, especially, is a thinking person's crisis, at least for this far into this year. Flint hasn't yet told us what caliber persuaders he's packing when the scene changes to some "real action," has he?

In fact, I hope I'll discover a lot of Flints up and down my street -- problem solvers -- if things get real bad, and even if they don't. Sure, I think I can get along with crazies, too, if they appear, but I wouldn't want to push my luck past too many of 'em. Flints gyrate a lot closer to reality, as it develops, and I'll feel a lot safer going into town leaving the family alone at home with a few Flints watching the road, than some other types I've heard speak here.

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.com), June 02, 1999.

Flint likes to play the role of devil's advocate. He disagrees with optimists on optimistic forums and disagrees with pessimists on pessimistic forums.

-- An (ex@devils.advocate), June 02, 1999.

jor-el,

Amen.

Would definately take a Flint in my neighborhood. Wish I could find one.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 02, 1999.

Sorry jor-el, After MUCH research and a years worth of lurking on this forum (listening to alot of "big-brains" and thoughtful and insightful people..I concluded that my original thought patterns were correct...YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A ROCKET SCIENTIST. The odds I might find myself in a foxhole over this problem are HIGH. I then created a foxhole on 10 acres and I don't want to share it with a "talking head". I'm looking for people who can think fast on thier feet! Yam, yam, yam isn't going to protect us from a pack of wild (domestic, starving) dogs! Analysis is fine as long as you are sitting around the campfire sipping on Margaritas. Give me a "take action fast" sort of person anytime! Too many are stuck (as in paralyzed) in the "coming from the head" mode, RATHER than, "coming from the heart". A healthy combination of the two is needed. Then DECIDE and MOVE ON. This is *JUNE 1999*. Wake up!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 02, 1999.

If it looks like I can help others without putting myself or my family in danger, then I'll do it, but if I feel tha the situation is hopeless or too dangerous to try to fight on, then I will "retreat to fight another day" and leave. It depends on the situation I guess...

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), June 02, 1999.

jor-el:

I'm not sure I would criticize the talking (it kind of vents stress), but you're right about the thinking. I'm simultaneously very nervous as well as fascinated by the problem. Have any of us ever faced such an intellectually challenging, broadly-based problem as this? I'm hooked on the thinking part.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), June 02, 1999.

--jor-el and Carlos,

Flint is not a problem solver, he is a problem *definer.* He can see a problem in any and every direction. After awhile you will realize that he doesn't appear to have a sense of direction or commitment to any particular viewpoint. If you listen long enough you will become thoroughly confused about what you should do. That is *not* a valuable asset in a pending emergency situation. You can read a post of his that gives you very valuable information about running a wood stove to heat your home, but later he will lead you to beleive that there really is no good reason to have a wood stove unless you just enjoy that sort of thing, or are trying save money on heating costs. No sense of commitment or direction, see?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 02, 1999.

KLM,

I read your comments to responses which were in-que as I was writing mine. I must admit, you are not the troll I thought I had spotted and was in the process of dive-bombing. I apologize for lumping you in with posters who have used the cliched adjectives I associated with the usual reference to Y2K-ers being called survivalists.

Please allow me to re-iterate what I feel is the key point of my response. In the face of a dangerous situation, when members of the population leave a threatened area they are usually regarded as making a smart choice to avoid the danger.

But in many posts and personal conversations, people who have or are planning to leave areas which put them and their families in peril if Y2K causes failure of services or social unrest, are accused of acting irresponsibly by taking action intended to minimize possible danger to themselves and their families. I guess my reaction was in response to what I percived as another one of those wholesale attacks on people who honestly feel that what they are doing is the proper course of action.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), June 02, 1999.

KLM

As I have lived in an ISOLATED part of the world for over 2 years in a past life, it is my opinion that folks should consider the statement "home is where the heart is" That is where you should make your stand.

Bugging out is easy to say and harder to do. At home anywhere you already have a roof over your head, supplies, beds, clothes, a neighbourhood, friends, and on and on. If you have none of the above then you are not at home.

Of course I live in a more rural area and the bush is a short walk away so this is easy for me to say

Good luck

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 02, 1999.

I believe you should prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and do your damndest to figure out what's really happining and what's coming. If people like Gordon and Will continue believe that the properly "committed", "from the heart" approach is to expect the worst, prepare for the worst, assume the worst, see the worst in everything, and attack anyone who believes anything else, all I can do is feel sorry for them.

I solve problems for a living, and I do it well. You *must* start by defining the problem. Then you collect and analyze data. You'll never solve any problems by assuming you have the answer and refusing to examine any conflicting information. Instead, you will create problems. As you've done.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 1999.

Flint,

No, you got it wrong again. What I was talking about is that you have a *passion* for debate. You can comfortably take either side and mount a hard argument. But you never settle down to one course. I have the feeling that you are still going to be debating the data as the wave rolls over you. You know that old story about if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck? Not to you I bet! I think you could find a loophole in there that would allow you to speculate that it might be a Coot, which is not a duck, and ......... well you get the idea.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 02, 1999.

Those folks who figure to wait until things get "bad" to leave their city/town for somewhere safer have to think about the possibility that at a certain level of "bad" that trip might be impossible, for various reasons, or unreasonably risky. Of course, things may not actually get that bad. Next year doesn't come with instructions.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), June 02, 1999.

Gordon:

Not quite true. You have enough evidence (in your example) for duckishness, for all practical purposes. The y2k evidence is nowhere so clear, regardless of how dogmatically you try to *force* it to be that clear. As a result, you think the elephant is like a rope, and you won't listen to any other observations.

This isn't a passion for debate, it's a passion for keeping my eyes open, taking proper precations, and refusing to trade curiosity for fanaticism.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 03, 1999.