Wednesday Mom and I had a conversation of a religious nature that pertains to the subject of survival.

If I have to consume a ham sandwich, because it is the only there is to eat, I will. I'll be ritually unclean until sundown. A similar situation happened in December. There is something specific I will not do to survive. Out of respect to the rules, I will not mention what that is.

How far will you go to survive? Is there something that you will not do?

Be mindful of the rules. Depending on what your answer might be, it might be best to ponder the question and not post it on the forum.

Jeanette Isabelle

Far enough....How far will that be? Won't know until I get there..

in combat, people routinely kill others in order to survive. That's rather drastic. There are notorious cases of cannibalism rationalized by the need to survive. That seemingly makes ham sandwiches rather trivial. Along those lines I would probably wolf down cat or dog food(just finished feeding our kitties their breakfast), maybe even okra....Who knows>>

Ham is not my choice meat, either. Much prefer chicken or turkey.

Most of my brushes with survival situations have been contending with natural elements, either numbing cold or thirst, while nosing around in the desert Southwest.

Off the top of your head, is there anything specific that you will not do?

Again, depending on what your answer might be, it might be best to ponder the question and not post it on the forum.

Jeanette Isabelle

I think it's pretty hard to know for sure til you're in a survival situation. Sometimes the folks that seem weak (eg very small children, frail elderly people with serious medical conditions, etc) will survive things that are really horrible while young and fit people perish. Likewise there are cases where very small and weak individuals have performed stunning feats of strength while under stress. Some of the guys that talk big on gun forums about how they "dial 1911, not 911" freeze up when confronted and ten year olds savagely drive off kidnappers.

There are lines I have no intention of every crossing but who knows what I might be capable of if my back is against the wall.

In a push comes to shove situation, I will be praying for strength to do the right thing.

Jeanette Isabelle

I would not kill another person to take their supplies. However, I would kill a person trying to take my supplies (if the survival situation was dire and life threatening). I'm not saying that if someone asked for some supplies I would be unwilling to share. What I'm saying is if someone tried to take those supplies against my stated wishes and to my severe detriment, then they would be putting themselves at significant risk.

Dave Grossman authored a book on a related topic. He states that in wars before Vietnam a substantial portion of the soldiers intentionally did not shoot at the enemy. So chances are that even if they do not freeze up they would not shoot at a person.
It´s not a particularly pleasant experience to find out that you would be capable of enough violence to severly injure an other human being.

Consider that your goal isn’t to kill or maim a bad guy. The goal is simply to stop a bad actor from doing harm to you, your loved ones or others for whom you are responsible. Good people can do bad things when they are desperate. As a good guy, you should also have a trauma kit readily available.

Gosh - this is in the frame of "I just don't know!"

With that, I will defend myself and mine with all the entails - but for me, it will have to be situational and I just can't predict the variables that will come into play.

You can read all the fiction on "what if" and some of it is really good as well as thought provoking - You can (and should) read the non-fiction on how the civilians responded to D-day in France, how others survived and responded to actual events such as Kosovo. This can be a guide but "you will be you" and will have to deal with what comes up. The best advice is to mentally game it out and try to establish a flexible 'response plan' and then modify on the fly.

Hopefully I will never have to decide on something that critical and can co-exist/respond with my neighbors and colleagues in a proper and beneficial fashion. However, me and mine do come first.

Paul -

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society: Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Excellent book, thanks for the reminder.

The subject of killing in self-defense does belong because I believe "do not murder [unjustified killing]" was written on the conscience of every human.

Though I try to be respectful of the rule banning religious discussions, I should have elaborated when I said, "There is something specific I will not do to survive." In my belief, there is something specific that you do not do. To avoid religious discussions, I will not mention what that is unless approved by the administration.

If it were to come to that, go against what I believe and survive or stand firm and die, I would be doing a lot of praying to have the strength to do what is right. For those who do believe strongly in something, what would you do in that situation?

Jeanette Isabelle

For me, there is nothing that would be off the table. Everything would be a possibility open for consideration. I would not set anything aside from consideration in advance. There are many things I would certainly not want to consider, and many things I don't think I would do (as I mentioned above, I wouldn't kill someone to take their stuff, but I would kill them to defend myself).

If the time comes, would I actually kill someone if they were intentionally threatening my survival? That, I can't answer. I can only answer that, yes, I have trained and equipped myself to do so. But would I? I can't answer that in advance. FWIW, I don't consider self defense to be murder. Some people do. I don't.

It is interesting and kind of sad that this discussion of survival has focused on the standard, rather weary survivalist scenarioin which society collapses, we all turn to violence in protecting our stash from those who would take it and we go down the rabbit hole of how much ammo, what caliber, etc.

I find these discussion rather tedious because I think if you look at historical instances of tough times, while violence and crime may increase, total anarchy is rather rare. In fact, there is often cooperation, assistance, and aid, sometimes at significant risk.

There are other survival scenarios which are rather common that don't involve social strife. Think of situations like lost and confused hikers caught up in an unanticipated storm, auto accidents or breakdowns on isolated roads. Here the positive side of humanity often appears and folks aid and assist one another, sometimes at real risk to themselves.

Doing volunteer SAR, I and my team mates have sometimes inserted ourselves into seemingly risky situations, but we were trained and equipped for conditions. I vividly remember one operation, deep in a mine shaft, where the situation got a bit out of hand, and I, my companion, and our victims were at considerable risk, but our team mates on the surface pulled through (literally!) and got us out.

The point being that you don't always make a conscious decision to take an unreasonable risk - the situation comes to you and you have to deal with it, since you have this odd desire to keep on living.

Most of my survival situation have involve dealing with natural forces and conditions - hot Arizona deserts, numbing cold, steep and troublesome terrain, dark caves, etc., not social unrest. Often folks cooperate in those conditions in order to survive. To what lengths will you go? You won't know until tested.

I realize that social unrest and crime exists, and one might have to turn to violence to legitimately protect ones self and others, but, rankly, that is rather rare,much less common than cooperation and aid in the ace of adversity.

Some feel conflicted and understandably so; I do agree with you. Though both are ugly and unpleasant, murder and self-defense are not the same.

Jeanette Isabelle

Committing a violent act to survive is not what I considered when I write the opening post; nevertheless, all answers members have posted are valid.

Jeanette Isabelle

This idea originated from the work of S.L.A. Marshall, the Army's Chief Historian in WW2 and Korea. Critics have since seriously questioned his work in coming up with the 'Ratio of Fire' -

Wiki -

Some veterans and historians have cast doubt on Marshall's research methods.[12] Professor Roger J. Spiller (Deputy Director of the Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College) argues in his 1988 article, "S. L. A. Marshall and the Ratio of Fire" (RUSI Journal, Winter 1988, pages 63–71), that Marshall had not actually conducted the research upon which he based his ratio-of-fire theory. "The 'systematic collection of data' appears to have been an invention."[13] This revelation has called into question the authenticity of some of Marshall's other books and has lent academic weight to doubts about his integrity that had been raised in military circles even decades earlier.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall

I thought the original question that started this thread was "How far would you go?" Further clarified in that first post with "Is there something that you will not do?"

That's asking for the extreme. Not for whether we'd choose matches or a lighter. What different direction were you expecting this thread to take given that initial question?

To answer that question, I have to take it in private.

Jeanette Isabelle

Apparently, there is some great question which can only be discussed in private, not in the open on this forum, so I assume there must be political or religious overtones which render this subject toxic. Big deal.

Something I hope I would not do in a survival situation is knowingly perform an act which would result in my survival, at the expense of the failure to survive of another. I have never been tested in a situation of this nature, so I don't know precisely how I would perform. Until tested, how does one know if they pass?

Makes me wonder why start a discussion if it contains subjects that can not be discussed.

I've already addressed that.


Jeanette Isabelle

Good question!!

This thread exemplifies why I don't much hang out on ETS anymore. Very poor S/N ratio.

Was that signal, or noise?

In my opinion, this whole thread is noise.

But then then I suppose we could go back to discussing who can put the most bandaids into a "trauma kit".

I'll bet you can suggest topics that are far more pertinent for this forum. have at it!

I dunno. Of all the forums I know of ETS has about the best ratio of worthwhile content to "noise" of anywhere. The occasional fun/sensational thread is the exception that proves the rule and doesn't bother me much.

I tend to agree. In most of the forums I frequent the number of posts are way down. It seems to be a widespread issue. The highest number of posts usually seem to be in the "other stuff" subforums - often named "Off Topic", or here on ETS, "Around the Campfire".

Most other forums I use are experiencing a lower signal-to-noise ratio. Less signal, more noise. But here on ETS, when there is no signal, it tends to be replaced by silence, not noise. So right now ETS is experiencing a low signal-to-silence ratio. Less signal and more silence.

I'm not sure what is causing this large scale phenomenon. Is it because we're all getting to be older now, and starting to take more naps and going to bed earlier, thus less time for posting? I know in my case, I'm not doing as many survival related things these days. Update and enhance my Bug Out Bag? Nah, ... I'd just rather stay here and die in comfort in familiar surroundings. TEOTWAWKI? I'm afraid that's pretty much already happened. We can't discuss politics here, but I hope it's still OK to say that TEOTWAWKI has happened because of politics.