I've heard ranges from four meals to three days. I suspect the more urban the environment, the shorter the time.

Of course, those of us here are well prepared...?

Britain 'four meals away from anarchy' if cyber attack takes out power grid
https://www.yahoo.com/news/britain-apos-four-meals-away-060000661.html

"a study by the UK’s security services had estimated the country is “four meals away from anarchy” because looting would erupt and civil order would start to break down as soon as people had eaten what they had in their cupboards and fridges."

There are organizations I've never heard of before, i.e. the "Centre for the Study of Existential Risk."

Keep on Preppin'

I agree with the generally doomerish report.
I might even consider that four meals is a bit optimistic.

I would be fine for a lot longer than that, but find the potentially dangerous effects on wider society to be very worrying.

This is not the place to speculate as to whom might launch a cyber attack on the UK, but I can think of several possibilities.
Broadly similar arguments apply to other developed nations.

Have you never heard of the 'Blitz Spirit"?

Perhaps less strong these days but it is still here and any opposition will see it increase in very short order.

"Four meals from anarchy" sounds like the sort of greatly exaggerated rhetoric that gets attention from the press, internet forums, and people handing out grants. It hits the primal panic about food shortage. If food is the only concern, how is looting supermarkets "anarchy"? It's just a particular type of merchandise. It's not like people are getting killed. After the power is restored, the corporations will get their insurance pay off. The disruption of fuel, money, sewage, and other basic services may have a much bigger impact than running out of food. Some hospital patients may die quickly if there is no electricity. So I'm not disputing the conclusions of the study, just the tag line.

Cities in the US have endured blackouts, sometimes lasting for days. If there was any sort of violence, it was because of an underlying, pre-existing problem. I was in a extended blackout, and I seem to recall the crime rate went down and the backyard grill party rate went up. But then these were local blackouts, and other areas could ship stuff over. If the whole country's grid went down, that'd be a different story.

There seems to be standard story that runs on a lot of survivalist material. Something catastrophic will occur. The unwashed, clueless masses will immediately turn to rioting and looting, while the valiant, prepared will be safe in their fortified bug out locations.

Let's just say this is a bit simplified and is not borne out by the history of past disasters as they have unfolded. This is not to say that looting,etc. go away in bad times, but society doesn't usually collapse into total chaos.

Ian's mention of the blitz in WWII is a good example of toughness in the face of adversity.

Whilst it is true that multi day power failures have occurred previously without leading to widespread disaster, I feel that an organised attack affecting a whole nation would be much more serious.

In previous breakdowns, food has still been available, perhaps from smaller owner operated shops that remain open without power, or from larger stores with standby generators.
In a national event, such supplies would soon be exhausted and replenishment not possible without electricity at the wholesalers premises.

In the UK I expect considerable disorder from those who have not received social security payments.
How are these payments to be made without power at the government offices ?
And even if the payments are still made, how are the claimants to access the money, with all ATMs and banks shut.

The 'Centre for the Study of Existential Risk' is a legitimate part of one of the UKs best University. The fellow quoted though is a researcher referring to a study that referred to another 'study' from MI5.

The 'four meals rule' is an oft used, supposed quote from an MI5 study (the UK counter intelligence and security agency). But no one has ever produced this study.
Please provide evidence for it's existence.

Common sense says it's not true.
I live in the UK, have family on social security and know of no one with just a days food in their house. We are europes fattest people. Most have a months spare rations on their tummies alone.

All previous experience shows this doesn't happen. Like the supposed crime holocaust after Katrina, it's a myth.

Adam2 can you provide some evidence for this smear against the poor?

qjs

I would not call my remarks a "smear against the poor" but more of an observation that those reliant on state support are less likely to hold stocks and more likely to resort to desperate measures.

Whilst I am glad to hear that your family have more than a days food to hand, I suspect that they may be in a minority.

A lot of people are indeed overweight and could do with losing a bit, but that might not help much.

Several areas were without power when 'The Beast from the East' snowstorms hit a few weeks ago. Please provide the evidence of those on social security rioting.

Yes being overweight will help. That is what fat is for.
Though since you are talking about peoples behaviour, not health, maybe it's irrelevant.

qjs

It´s interesting to know where that rule comes from. It helps judging it.
To my observation the poor may be affected less by a temporary interuption of food supplies. I know a few people who actually have only food for a day or two in their house (not counting the spare supplies on their bodies). None of them can be considered poor by any standards. They can afford to buy when the items are not on sale or go and eat in a restaurant (which may run out of food fairly quickly too).

> It´s interesting to know where that rule comes from. It helps judging it.

It appears to come from nowhere. Which is comforting. I'd rather the UKs security services don't preach the obviously false.
Famines are suprisingly non violent. Where was the anarchy in recent famines?

But it says a lot about a researcher who quotes non existent studies.

qjs

I'm not persuaded by the rational calculation -- poorer people, because they have less money and thus stock less food, are more likely to resort to desperate measures. Human beings are not robots, and they don't behave like Vulcans. I doubt people's personality will just suddenly change in a disaster situation; e.g., a law-abiding citizen would just start raping and pillaging all of a sudden. Besides, if you accept the rational calculation above, you then must accept also the following:

1. "More likely" [to resort to desperate measures] just means "sooner." So that means there is no difference between the poor and the non-poor. They are all automata that run the following program: HUNGRY? SMASH THINGS!

2. What's to stop one of the non-poor from making the following, totally logical calculation? "The poor people, because they stock less food, will resort to desperate measures sooner. So I need to loot the stores before they do."

I do not agree with the rule, and I have seen much more socially cooperative behavior in disaster situations in various cultures. However, if it goes on long enough people will change their behavior, and if they feel that scarcity is bad enough, and other people may be cheating, they will turn violent. Think "Maslow's hierarchy", when you are at the bottom and trying to survive you will do things you would not do otherwise. When people cooperate in emergency situations they have a social influence to do so, when they loot and riot they have a social influence for that also. Also think "relative deprivation". Their perception of their situation, and their perception of the social environment will influence how they act.

Human behavior can be fairly predictable, but it can also surprise you just when you think you have it figured out.

The term "four meals away from anarchy" is nothing new and is a spin on the "three meals away from anarchy", "three meals away from revolution", "Any government is only 3 meals away from a revolution" and so on.

Many of these quotes have been around since the late 1990's and early 2000's and the link that OP posted is another spin on this one from 2004 - which is probably another recycled spin from another earlier quote.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-four-meals-away-from-anarchy-fc9kfgc0w92

Google search by date.

Society existed before electricity and could again. I was missing the point when I said people have 4 meals in the cupboards. It's 4 meals from when you run out, not when the electricity stops. We'd still have food and can live on that while we replaced the electric parts.
The rest of the world could always feed the affected parts.
Unless of course there is another millennium bug no one has thought of, that hits all chips in the world. Or something else unforseen.
Cheerful note: Nuclear launch systems have chips.

Researching past famines, the violence only starts when you reach the cannabalism stage. And often not even then.

At which point grammar becomes very important:

There's a lot of difference between:
"Let's eat; Grandma".
and
"Let's eat Grandma".
qjs

As an historian and an archaeologist, I am struck by the failure to cite historical examples by the "X number of meals away from anarchy" advocates. Societies and groups have been severely stressed in the past and bad behavior has resulted in some cases (think Donner party, for example), but I don't believe those are the norm.

Show me the data....

Was that bad to eat your friends? I am going to have to rethink my survival food strategy. I have always invited large people to hike with me, just in case.

I found nothing in the Torah to indicate humans are kosher. I'll pass.

Jeanette Isabelle

However, if I'm starving and someone hands me a ham sandwich, I'll just have to be unclean until sundown.

Jeanette Isabelle

Thanks to Teslinhiker for the search. I found the following -- "four meals" apparently is a modification of "three meals," the origin of which is not clear. But it does seem to be a popular saying rather than the conclusion of any modern research effort. Also, "three meals" seems to mean food rather than a measure of time; i.e., if you don't get your three square meals a day, everyday, then you will eventually revolt against a system that cannot guarantee your food security.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Reference_desk/Archive/2#A_society_is_only_three_meals_away_from_anarchy

I don't know how MI5 got the four meals from. The Times seems to think this sort of rhetoric has something to do with justifying MI5's budget. I'm unable to read to the end of the article without subscription. But now I see that it makes no sense to imagine 1.5 days without food and society will break down completely, with utter panic and chaos as a result. As some posters point out above, societies have survived famines, war, sieges, etc. without falling into chaos. I'd think that at one point in history, going without food for a day or two happened regularly. All of us probably have gone without food for that long or longer.

....a good reason to carry snacks and store a few days worth of food. (Including pet food.)

It is only a government "rule of thumb" for planning purposes. We know how well bureaucracies do planning and execution. Don't read too much into it.

Just measure your neighbors and calculate how much food value they may be and you are good.

In the short term a big disaster can bring the community together. But I suppose once people realized the lights weren't coming back on and the tap wasn't going to start flowing again the darker side of human nature may come out. I've said it before and I'll repeat it here once more- I don't think it's possible to really be fully prepared for an EOTWAWKI situation, and maybe not even desirable. Life is complicated and messy somethings and not always easy but it's still a great gift. I love life, but I love it as part of the civilization I'm a part of. While I enjoy getting out of civilized world and into the wilderness I do it with the expectation that civilization will be waiting for me when I return. Absent that I'm just an animal. Animal life still has value but it's probably not enough for someone used to being human.

My perspective differs from yours here -- while I don't prep for TEOTWAWKI or any variants, I do think that if civilization ended many people would choose to remain human and do what they could to have some civilization. How many, I don't pretend to know how to estimate. Based on your writings here, I'd be willing to bet that you'd be one of them.

Another variable is the type of community where the disaster occurs. If it is one where people know each other and have had long term relationships with their neighbors, they are much more likely to cooperate and take care of those who can't take care of themselves.

In a large city where most people remain strangers to each other, anonymity is a key factor. When a person believes that they are not known, and will remain anonymous, they are much more willing to commit antisocial acts and to not take responsibility for the community's welfare.

There are other triggers that can make the prevailing mood swing either way: leadership can go either way, acts of violence may reduce people to perceiving they are in survival mode and make them less cooperative, prevailing cultural norms and values can push in either direction, perception of other people cheating in access to resources.

Every situation can be very different from every other. One more reason why preparedness is so important. If everyone prepared a little, they would not be so likely to be reduced to antisocial actions. If you are viewed as a good neighbor and you are prepared, your neighbors will look to you for guidance and leadership. Demonstrated skills will carry you a long way in keeping your community working together and taking care of each other. You are reducing their stress and fear.

Another reason, as I have posted in the past on other threads, why communication skills are important. In a community suffering from a disaster your ability to communicate, and understand other people, can make all of the difference.

Great points, everyone! Part of being prepared is to carry fire for civilization: it's just a matter of how far and how long we're willing and able to carry it.

Beautifully said, sir.

If that were my quotable, I would immediately add it to my signature line.

Colour me envious!

That's exactly what it is...

You must carefully consider the consequences of eating humans. No matter how great you believe the moral justification, from that day forward every time you walk into a room, people will stop talking and look at you, and someone will whisper, "Is that Montanero?"

And another will answer, "Yes. The cannibal."

where can you get freeze dried fava beans to go with a fine chianti?

Hear hear! That's how we carry the fire for civilization, Clarice!

Pinot Noir is better

I am going hiking next weekend, anyone want to come?

Trying to figure out which wine to pair with your hiking partner?

yes, just send me info on your height and weight.

If it came to that, I would go vegan.

Jeanette Isabelle

this is why I like to have 1-2 meals with me