I agree with you, but I hope enough people act on it.

Because of the loss of family farms, the huge increase in population, and the almost total loss of basic self-sufficiency skills, the next "Great Depression" will not be nearly as nice as the last one.

Why worry about what other people think. I agree with Arney that an article like this might actually cause some people to stop and think, what if something does happen? What would I do. Sure they might think she is going overboard but if it causes even a few people to get even a little prepared then I say keep it coming.

TACTICAL BACON ?????

Now that's living high on the hog.
Hahahaha ! Sorry - had to blurt that out.


"We're only two generations away from most Americans farming, preserving and canning foods and keeping a few kerosene lanterns full and a few extra blankets in the closet, you know? "

Exactly. How on Earth did we lose this knowledge in 2 generations? I just started making some jam preserves from picked fruit this past year. It was fun, and not nearly as hard as I somehow imagined. But offhand I can't think of anyone in my neighborhood who does this.
Nobody.

Pete2

We grow a huge garden, have an orchard, a giant raspberry bramble, etc. We love fresh food and canned goodies. They are better tasting than anything you can buy. And we have food in an emergency too. It's a great twofer.

To the folks that say "2 generations" ago we were a farming community. Maybe. But let's not forget that cities have been around for thousands of years. Some of us DON'T have farming in our roots. One of my maternal great-grandfathers was a tailor in downtown LA (well, I guess, regular old LA at the time); I don't know farther back than him on that side. My paternal great-grandfather was a lawyer in Chicago.

Not exactly ripe with knowledge of "living off the land." Supposedly there's a farmhouse in Indiana somewhere that was linked to the family somehow, but lord knows how.

Can I grow a plant? Probably, but growing a few tomatoes or an apple tree is hardly enough to sustain me. Could I kill an animal? Again, probably. At least here I have some knowledge of anatomy and could probably butcher it - messy but edible. But I'm not gonna be the guy that's growing food - I'm the guy that barters my skills for it.

Most people who grew up in an urban environment, without having any other experiences, probably feel the same way as the writer here. Given their living conditions (small apartment/condo, no room for extra stuff), a strictly urban dweller cannot entertain the thought of making room for a generator or stockpiles of extra food. Many probably don't worry about prepping with the little stuff either.

So, they must depend on the powers that be. It must frighten them, when they have a moment of silence, to think that they are entirely dependent on others if things go awry. Their best argument for not being prepared is "it won't happen and you're stupid." Well, not trying to be mean, I think that's stupid.

It's a shame this particular writer, who clearly lacks life experience beyond an urban/suburban environment, is allowed to write this type of article. Reuters must have given him unfettered discretion to write whatever he wants.

I'd be curious to know what this writer thinks about self-defense preparation in general. Does he also laugh at a person who packs a knife or a gun, or who takes self-defense classes? Does he laugh at skiers who prepare for an avalanche? Does he think homeowners insurance is a silly idea?... I just don't get his drift.



I'll bet the writer considers you to be one of "them".

Unless you can provide evidence for this by quoting a damning passage from the article, I'll have to regard this as one of those psychological tricks I used to play on my classmates ("I'll bet you are not brave enough to eat that disgusting worm!").

I stand by my earlier statement. I don't even think anyone can tell the real attitude of the writer. Like a good journalist, he/she has put his/her own opinion aside to report on this phenomenon. It's a pretty good, even-handed article, I think. It does a good job of honestly representing the opinions of the people the reporter interviews, including survivalists and people who examine this phenomenon. Look at the extensive quotes. If there is a news article on some larger movement that you're a part of, you'd hope for your words to have that much air time. I'll bet you can't find a single sentence that makes fun of survivalists or "one of them."

The only thing I have to complain about is that the article fails to distinguish the various types of emergency preparation. But even so, I'd say it's far better than the National Geographic video, which just jumps to the sensationalist stuff (people shooting pets when SHTF, etc). By contrast, the preppers in the article seem rational. They just have a pessimistic view of the future.

Sure, simply look at the first example the writer gave. It's a woman who has "a large generator, portable heaters, water tanks, and a two-year supply of freeze-dried food that her sister recently gave her as a birthday present."

That's the writer's opening example for his overall point. Apparently, there is nothing else "unusual" to say about the woman. That's it. Meanwhile, the writer puts this woman in the third person category of "they" or "them", meaning a broad category of people who prepare for a large-scale disaster. The writer is literally putting himself on the other side of the fence.

My initial reaction to that example was the woman sounds like me, just with more stuff. I only have about 6 months of toilet paper (LOL). You may be uncomfortable being considered one of "them". I, on the other hand, am not.

I am afraid you are not making sense, kind sir. The request is for you to furnish evidence that the writer regards me as "one of them." Instead, you point me to some woman's list of supplies. That's a logical problem. Unless you are able to find a sentence that says something like "anyone who prepares for any sort of emergencies are idiots of elephantine proportion," I am afraid you are not going to convince me.

There is a second logical problem. Somehow you construe the list as ridiculing the woman. Again, I don't see any evidence for this. On the contrary, I see a reporter attempting to convey respectfully to his/her audience the sort of emergency preparation that is the subject of the article. Let me emphasize "respectfully." The list is meant to be a sample, to give the readers a taste. It is not meant to be exhaustive.

The nature of journalism is such that even good reporting will never fully represent you as you want the world to see yourself. You will always have to put up with a bit of disjointedness. The news story will never look at things through your perspective. Maybe that's what some people who don't like the article are reacting to. But I do think, given the limitations of reporting, the article has done a decent job in providing a neutral, respectful view of its subject. Let's be fair.

OK, I'll try to clarify for you...

My initial comment to you was that I'll bet the writer would consider you one of "them". The group of "them" is clearly defined in the article. It's a broad group of people who have "a fear of imminent societal collapse", are "worried about terrorism", or "have a vague concern that an escalating series of natural disasters is leading to some type of environmental cataclysm."

If you do fall into any of those categories, then the author is literally considering a person like you as as being one of the "them". If you don't, then it's my mistake, no worries.

By the way, I'm definitely one of "them". I am worried about terrorism. For example, I do worry about a terrorist attack when I'm in a tall office building. I also have a fear of imminent societal collapse. For example, I think the masses are blissfully unprepared for a larger Katrina situation. That makes me wonder if we are one large-scale disaster away from societal collapse. After all, we didn't handle Katrina well at all. I don't let these worries consume me, but these issues are constantly in the back of my mind.