Watching the Colony series , I started thinking about GROUPS of people getting together to survive. In that series some groups shletered in place ( mainly the Colonists ) while other groups were mobile.

Question got me that single survivors maybe more quiet and stealthy but more likely than not you would need a group. As they say : there is safety in numbers. So, what are the elements in deciding what group of people to join .. how big a group, what kind of a group, and how do you get to join a group.

The mere thinking of it makes me nervous. I know that ideally you should join a group BEFORE SHTF. But let's say the world went upside down , you lost your home and whole neighborhood. Your neghbors were scattered, and no one knows who is where. And you found yourself alone or with your immediate family (spouse and kids)... and needed security in numbers.

I'll again put in my $.02 for the "list, cluster, and label" decision making structure

1. free think a list of expected areas of concern

2. group "like" concepts in a cluster

3. name a label for the cluster

this will identify major areas of concern, and label the broad heading for an specialist to manage that need

I wouldn't even bother considering concealment as an issue.

I doubt that joining a group would have to be a permanent situation. Find out what you can from observation, if anyone else knows about them, and then quietly approach. Interact, and if it isn't workable, walk away. If you have food or goods, leave them stashed in a safe place. Don't trust too soon, don't run off at the mouth, don't drink, don't go after the girls or women. IOW, don't be stupid, as your life may depend on it.

It makes me nervous, too.

The only hopeful thing is that people who think alike might flock together. The ones who won't contribute may be asked to leave. The blustering self-proclaimed leaders, likewise. But that would only happen if you had a group of reasonably sturdy personalities who would stand together

They used to be called 'communes' (not just the 60s, but even eons ago), and were probably the only examples of a true classless, stateless society that have ever existed. But how long it would last is anyone's guess. There are always the people who want to control.

It's tricky at the very best.

Sue

We are always part of a group or another. At home we are part of a family. At work we are part of an establishment. And so on. Problem is that even with a long term fairly stable type of a group , like a family, you do have tense moments and stressful times. Ditto for work environment where we have jerks and stupid know-it-all's.

It is already hard to manage such difficult characters in "normal" times. Try to deal with the same when you don't have enough food, or haven't slept for two days or not bathed for 5 days, and you get a real problem. And if you seem to have something ( say a folding saw or survival knife ) that someone else needs badly, you got a bigger problem. And if he doesn't seem to differentiate between your Mora and a prybar, you will be in deep you-know-what.

Oh, and there are such people, trust me. One of our bosses at work fits the description. I just hope and pray that if SHTF while we are at work, that he will not be around.

On the other hand, SHTF sometimes seems to bring out the unexpected BEST of some people. Here in my country we have seen a few disasters where the first ( very first ) responders were teenagers whom we , older folks , didn't really like at first impression. You know what I mean ... Noisy , car skidding, law challenging , social renegades. They jumped IN to save girls from a burning school, they rushed with their jeeps to save kids stuck in school busses in tunnels gradually filling with rain. They seem to always beat the beaurocracy to disaster scenes and exhibit heroic efforts.

It is really not a black and white thing. You just can't judge who is a good guy and who is bad. So, as a guy in the fifties of age, and with a family, I will be more inclined to look around for a family or group of families with kids. Although such a group will have highest level of needs (maybe infants and/or elderly folks there) compared to available resources, and they can't all be workers/providers (since some have to stay put to take care of kids) but seems such a group is the safest to approach and join. Just my perosnal thinking.

the best "group" to join is a small quiet town, well away from large population centers, far from any major highways, off the beaten path.

one that is well established with people having a balanced diversity of useful basic skills. ie: doctors, dentists, blacksmiths, mechanics, machinists, farmers, ranchers, animal vets, plumbers, carpenters, welders, gardeners, hunters, et al.

a place not dependent on a limited number of employers, or having undesirable features (like a nuclear plant, or oil refinery, or large hazard waste recycling operation, or in a flood plain, or tornado path...)

then move there so if/when problems arise you have lived "within" for a while (unlike just owning a vacation home there), so you know the people, fit in, are a valued member of the community, are accepted and can contribute, where your skills are important and can be traded with others.

this sort of place is easy to imagine, just think of a smaller community 100-plus years ago. the hard part is finding such a place these days, but they do exist.

moving to a small rural town may be one of the best options, the bigger problem is the commitment it takes to totally change one's lifestyle to move to such a place. few are capable of doing it.

Most of the small rural towns away from the highway that I've been too just have a bunch of people who are still there because thats where they retired. There isn't much in the way of any skill set left in those small towns anymore. Sadly my own home town and the closest towns to my farm don't have much left. There is a small grocery store and a bank and a couple churches but any other businesses have all moved out.

agreed. very true that its the current situation most places.

out here in the inland Pac NW there are places where old pioneer families settled and still ranch today, with small towns hours apart, that each have some semblance of self-reliance and a strong sense of community. they do exist, but are becoming rarer each decade.

30 years ago writer mel tappan picked Rogue River Oregon for these same reasons i listed. today the choices are fewer and further between, but not impossible to find.

Another possibility is to form your own group. If you join one that has people who think like you, ask them if they would be interested in diverging into a separate group.

Sue

+1 on what Wiley Coyote about small towns. FYI, a town of 500 might have a mechanic but a town of about 2,000 will have a doctor and grocery store. 2,000 seems to be the critical mass to support both a doctor and a grocery store which are vital (even though the grocery store may go under it could always serve as a logical location for a market). Once you get over 5,000 people in one town you start seeing a lot of deadbeats. Beyond that, you've got the county level which hopefully will have less than 20,000 but ideally be closer to 15,000 or less in population.

A small town is the best setup because it works in good times and bad. Communes and ad hoc retreat communities struggle in good times (why are we doing all this?) and they struggle in bad times (Why am I doing all the work compared to others?) and there is always a power struggle over money and resources. It's not impossible but it's difficult. At least in a small town, everyone has separate lives and separate property rights until they decide to come together to defend the town.

Blood ties are the strongest there are. Our culture has burned into us respect for our elders and trust among immediate family. Now if you're in a dysfunctional family now, then all bets off, but if you family has a firm footing in the 10 commandments then that's the group you want to start with.

Kurt Saxon wrote quite a bit about this topic if you're looking for further reading.

So to get back to the original question - my answer is that your group should be your immediate family quickly followed by 2,000 folks... a small rural town.

I see two issues with this theory:

1. Small towns no longer exist in the quantity or quality that they used to. The necessary survival skills are not really there. Go to any small town grocery store on the first of the month and see how many whip out a gov't EBT card to pay for their food.

2. Even if the idyllic 'Mayberry' existed, there are simply too many people now for this to work....millions more than in the Great Depression. An outpouring from population centers will overwhelm all small towns, especially in the more temperate zones.

I think what might work is a resurgence of churches as real social centers. They are already spread throughout population centers, and some still have the roots of social programs in place like they did in hard times in the past. A place to meet, trade, get food, socialize, get educated, get married, get buried, have meetings, coordinate charity and relief...that's what used to happen in local churches.