Interesting Reuters article, but ...

...Why do they always relate preparedness to "survivalism" and TEOTWAWKI? Subculture of Americans prepares for civilization's collapse

Izzy,

Excellent post... My thoughts exactly! It is a shame that the principles we were brought up on... being prepared, now make us out to be weirdos.

John

I find myself in agreement with much of the article. Please note that the article does not say the only form of preparedness is survivalism. It specifically addresses TEOTWAWKI folks. This is the more newsworthy variety of preparedness. There indeed is a subculture, with a particular psychology, a particular view about how the collapse of society may come, etc.

Let's be honest: why would a reporter write an article on why you stock some flashlights and batteries for power outages? We don't have to feel bad just because a Reuters article misses out on people (like us) who practice common sense. Like everyone else, we just want to get through earthquakes, power outages, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, riots, etc. The only difference is that we think ahead, we are picky about our tools, and we like posting about our hobby. Oops, did I just use that word?

What I find interesting is not so much the rise of preparedness industry -- that makes sense -- but the rise of accessories for preparedness. You need a special bag to keep all your EDC tools organized, and you want it to be tactical, too? Maxpedition Pocket Organizer will help you out. You need a special shelf to keep your #10 cans and help you rotate the foods? Shelf Reliance to the rescue! Special cleaning tools for your tools? Go to CountyComm! Hey, how about some tactical bacon?



Note I do not mean to endorse any of the products mentioned above. The accessories seem to be an extension of the preparedness mindset. Everything has to be nicely organized, with purpose-built accessories.

This reminds me of the gun industry. Some companies sell "tactical" gadgets that no civilian will really need. Here's something for fun. Check out especially all the junk on his AR. The tactical beer bottle opener mounted on the rifle is probably the best thing ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES9QxE3sUaw

That article is hardly authoritative. And, besides, there has always been a fairly radical, pessimistic fringe that emphasizes the gloomy side of life. There are also lots of folks who are simply prudent.

When I got out on my own, I found myself working and living in some fairly isolated places where planning and stockpiling were very adaptive traits. I soon got in the habit of buying four to six weeks of groceries at a crack, as well as having a reserve, just in case the creek rose. Nothing I have experienced has convinced me otherwise and I tell a lot of stories where emergency stockpiles really paid off. If some journalist thanks that is kooky, he/she is welcome to their opinion

Short answer: The folks who write this stuff have most probably never stood in line for food, water, or the basic necessities following a disaster. Had they, their opinion would likely be different.
My parents and grandparents lived through the Great Depression and from that experience have taught me the lessons they learned. My info. came at no personal cost as theirs did, but I have learned the lessons well. Additionally, as a responder to several major disasters, I have witnessed first hand what a lack of individual preparedness creates, and it isn't pretty.
I think I will remain among the "subculture" for the foreseeable future and eagerly await the time when our classification changes to "sub-human" or some other demeaning title.

Some people are getting pretty defensive. Let me point out that the article is not about you. It's not about stocking food for a few weeks. It's about, as the title says, people who prepare for the collapse of civilization. The good thing about ETS is that it's not a survivalist forum.

Furthermore, I didn't see anything in the article that could be construed as an attack on survivalists. It just seems to try to report on the phenomenon, and attempts to make sense of it historically and socially.

As usual with such an article, the truly interesting part are the comments below it. In this case, there seem to be a lot of preppers responding to it. Cool.

-Blast

I agree that the article is not talking about anyone and everyone who prepares for unexpected circumstances.

This article is very similar to the kinds of articles you saw leading up to Y2K and the people getting ready for everything coming to a grinding halt when midnight, 2000 came around.

However, considering the kinds and frequency of events that happened after Y2K--9/11, the War on Terror, two devastating tsunamis, Katrina, massive wildfires in the West/Australia/Russia, the Dot Com/real estate/financial crashes, $147/barrel oil, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the H1N1 pandemic, and on and on--I don't think the readership reacts quite the same way to stories about the TEOTWAWKI crowd as they did before Y2K.

Instead of reading about these folks with amusement, a whole more people now are probably thinking, "I really should do something to be more prepared for the unexpected..."

The thing is - there is the macro unexpected - 9/11, etc. - and the micro unexpected - the very real emergencies that don't make the headlines. Either one can be a real problem and both require prep work if you don't want to be a headline.

Very true. I certainly think the popular conception regarding preparing for "macro" events is a lot different now than pre-Y2K.

The "micro" stuff? Not sure. However, we did not have the plethora of TV shows on survival back then like we do now, so maybe people are more interested? Then again, with the availability of cell phones, seems like more unprepared folks are relying on their phones to bail them out of tough situations out in the bush, so it's hard to say how the public's perception may have changed about "micro" preparations. It probably depends on the situation.

For example, I think more people are flying with just a carry-on because of baggage fees. Although not really a survival tactic per se, just the fact that you have everything with you will tend to make you more prepared for a common "micro" situation--getting your luggage lost by the airline. I don't know...just a random example that popped into my morning brain.

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.

The article as presented seemed like a disjointed, poorly considered hodgepodge. But I strongly suspect it started as a longer and hopefully more coherent article, which was then brutally dismembered by an editorial death squad. The writer often doesn't have control of the final piece, and so may deserve a little slack. YMMV.

As a lightning rod, though, it sparked a lot of thoughtful and interesting comments.

I respect your mindset. Maybe we're a little different. For me preparation is like gambling; it's a game of probabilities. You only have so much budget and so much time, so you take care of the most likely emergencies. For me these are the annual tornadoes and floods that pass through my area, in addition to blackouts (sometimes extended), car breakdowns, robberies, etc. (I *almost* got robbed last year, but I did experience the other stuff.) Do I think a societal collapse is absolutely impossible? No. But my budget doesn't stretch that far.

It doesn't seem important to me whether I am "one of them." Some people seem to feel that the doomsday preppers are the butt of a joke, and so perhaps if I identify with them I'd see what the problem is. I've appeared in news stories before, and I've learned that the picture always gets distorted in the process, sometimes by a lot. Given that, I'd say the article's treatment of preppers ain't half bad. If the objection is that the article does not start out assuming catastrophic preparation is worthwhile, well, then that's a problem of changing public opinion, isn't it?

Ireckon,

It would be my thought that the article was written from the perspective of someone who was on the outside of our group. That it was written by someone that was obviously looking in at our group from the outside. Often when reporters do articles on groups they come at them from the perspective of someone on the outside. Even when articles were done on me and other groups I am a part of the writer referred to my groups as "they" and "them." This was simply because the writer wasn't at all part of the group that I was a member of.

With that said not matter what is written about groups or society sub-sets there is always a part of every report that makes members of the group wince and cringe as they read it or watch it.

To me the article will have served it's purpose if it got at least one or two families to think about how to become more prepared and it helps them at lest once.


Tyber.

The article seems pretty fair to me, insofar as it focuses on a certain portion of the prepper phenomenon. The tone does not strike me as patronizing or judgmental. It is informative. I thought the article ended on a nice common-sense note.

There is something of a preparedness continuum and we all fall somewhere on it - from the peops who may satisfy the Ready.gov 72-hour to those of us with a month or two of supplies, with BOBs, and those who are equipped for years on their own or can be self-sustaining indefinitely.

That continuum largely conforms, in my mind, to what the prepper anticipates as the likeliest threats - with natural disasters on the lower end of prepared to armageddon subscribers on the higher end.

The latter certainly are more fascinating from a media perspective.