Are you ready?

[The Curt Jester]

Just makes sure that the disaster only happens during produce season.

[Kaesekopf]

My situation sees me being mostly unable to prep.

Maybe in a few years I'll be better off.  Maybe we'll make it that far.  [emoji38]

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

[Heinrich]

My situation sees me being mostly unable to prep.

Maybe in a few years I'll be better off.  Maybe we'll make it that far.  [emoji38]

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

I dunno, Chef. According to an article on Zerohedge.com, it looks as if it is all about to tumble down. I think it be for realz dis tahm.

[Gardener]

What if a disaster in geographical area 1 is concurrent with one in area 2? What if there is a disaster concurrent with a military strike against CONUS? What if, for whatever reason, they just cannot get to X neighborhood?

The main point is within hours the grocery store(s?) in that town in Oregon were stripped and in the process of being stripped of useful items (water, basic foodstuffs -- no one is going after the top shelf curry paste in the beginning) when there was no emergency. They had the perception of an emergency, and then they perceived their lack of preparedness.

It is true that all preparing can be for nothing if your location for storing it is wiped out. Just like life insurance so the wife and kids are taken care of in the event of the husband's death is pointless if everyone is killed in a car wreck.

We can "what-if" anything to the point of absurdity such that we end up echoing the words of the Sadducees and Pharisees as foreshadowed in Wisdom 2. Why bother at all? Just spend every last cent every paycheck on wisps of smoke and that will be your life. Such is a much more fatalistic outlook than the hope of survival -- itself an absurd notion in the climax of any event.

But as to government response: those who count on the government deserve the disappointment they shall have.

But preparedness isn't an "all or nothing" deal.  It's probability and guesswork.  In an area that has a history of earthquakes, it's sensible to invest in designing buildings that are more apt to resist an earthquake.  Of course, if the "big one" hits and a whole slice of the continent slides into the ocean, then there is no amount of genius in architecture or structural engineering that can save your buildings.  If your main point was that the store shelves in Oregon were emptied in a panic, I have no argument there.  Preparedness for that sort of contingency is important.  My only quibble was that 3-4 mos. of food for regional-scale emergency preparedness is like building an earthquake-resistant structure in an area with a low rate of earthquake occurrence.  There's nothing wrong with it, and it will prove extremely beneficial if an earthquake does occur.  As you've already said, there's no money wasted if you can keep to a consume-and-replenish schedule of your stock.  It's nearly a zero-risk investment, but some people may lack the time, the storage space, or the gustatory discipline to live on rice & beans.  I wouldn't fault someone for playing the probability game more shrewdly.

Whatever your opinion of the U.S. government, the probability odds are actually pretty good for government assistance in a regional disaster.  I can't think of a major disaster in the last twenty-five years where great numbers of people died of thirst, starvation, or lack of basic needs on the basis that the government failed to respond adequately.  And in the events where a good number of people did die, it was because they lost their homes entirely, and even their prepper neighbors couldn't have saved them, because the whole neighborhood was flooded or destroyed, and any resident preppers would've been sitting on their roof with their kids and their dog waiting for the rescue boats along with everyone else.  The federal and national governments in this country have a vested interest in responding to natural disasters; a natural disaster can turn into a public relations disaster if they fail.

FEMA themselves say to have at least 2 weeks' worth:

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/f&web.pdf

Even though it is unlikely that an emergency would cut off your
food supply for two weeks, consider maintaining a supply that will
last that long.

I follow a mantra of 2 is 1 and 1 is none. Why stop at 2 weeks if able? And if not able, go slower as ability allows.

I'm not keen on basing things on likely vs unlikely when it comes to basic needs. I like to have those covered as much as possible.

And if the organization responsible for making it there in mere days, as you intimate, is saying have 2 weeks', then perhaps one should ask themselves why. And moreover, they should think about indefinitely (20-25 years) storing food and adding over time and as financially able.

[Miriam_M]

Let's put it this way:
You know how the living will envy the dead during the height of the Chastisement?  That's the way I feel regarding prep vs. no prep.  The utter drudgery, combined with survival conditions, during some kind of prolonged natural/supernatural disaster, is less appealing to me than dying painfully but quickly. 

Just not a Third World kind of girl.  Sorry.


Now, farming I can get behind.  That's very appealing to me.  But working the rural life is way different from the unbearably boring gathering-of-supplies and living out in the urban open somewhere.  It would be an adventure for one day -- much fewer days than it took to plan and do the gathering of inedible food and inconvenient supplies.  Day two, death wish kicks in.

[Gardener]

What exactly makes you think that starving to death when a return to some semblance of normality is weeks away is a quick and preferred death?

who said anything about urban vs rural?

I'm amazed by your lack of hope amidst the potential of conditions which, aside from lack of food (which is remediable), would be par for the course 100 years ago.

I don't plan based on failed prophets (or even successful ones -- TBD). I plan based on the historical reality of events as a definite, though not able to be predicted.

Some people waste thousands every year on lotto tickets. People (on this forum!) waste up to $200 a month on cable/internet packages. People buy useless crap all the time and think nothing of it. Is it really too much to ask that those responsible for their families, or just themselves, think about the potential for mere bodily needs in a temporary event?

If that's too much, I want to know who they are so if they ever seek my help, I can boot them in the chest off my front porch between bites of inedible food. With a send off of "Eat your lotto tickets, loser."

[Mono no aware]

I'm not keen on basing things on likely vs unlikely when it comes to basic needs. I like to have those covered as much as possible.

But certainly you do consider likely vs unlikely when it comes to basic needs.  Otherwise you wouldn't go anywhere without a canteen full of fresh water and a few days' worth of trail mix and jerky—whether you were out walking the dog or even going to the supermarket, you would have to say, "when it comes to my basic needs, I don't leave anything to chance."  Or you would have a stockpile in your car trunk in case a sudden disaster struck when you were at your workplace.  Virtually everyone makes a likelihood assessment about these things.  And all I am saying is that it is unlikely that you will need three months' worth of food in a regional emergency.  I am not saying it is impossible.  Just highly unlikely.

And if the organization responsible for making it there in mere days, as you intimate, is saying have 2 weeks', then perhaps one should ask themselves why.

The organization already answered why: because there are "unlikely" (FEMA's word) but theoretically possible situations where relief efforts could conceivably take longer than usual.  The likelihood is slim, though, because we have seen with our own eyes in this country that in natural disasters, great numbers of people do not die due to the government being unable to get off its ass and provide them with basic needs.  We don't live in Haiti.  The likelihood of the government responding poorly in the future can only be based on its performance in the past.  Ours has performed reasonably well.

[Gardener]

Both our vehicles have 3 days worth of food and water at all times.

When we go on long trips, I bring along more as well as 3 go-to firearms and ammo.

As for likelihood, it's unlikely that many things will occur and yet we have bought into the idea of needing them or at least having them "on hand" (various types of insurance[some of which are legally mandated], various items that people EDC [every day carry], etc.). Why, pray tell, do Americans not think and prepare for the potentially eventual need of such life sustaining basics as food and water. "Get a brain morans", is what I believe the sign read.

My main point is, one can hedge against such an awful, though unlikely, event with a little cash and some forethought. And those who don't, God forbid, will suffer the consequences.

I recall a story from an SSPX turned FSSP priest. His mother was/is very into the whole 3 days of darkness prophecies. So she had a bunch of food and water stored away to be used in such an event. Instead, a tornado ripped through and she was able to feed and give drink to her family.

Look, here's the deal: whether in our lifetime or the lifetime of our generation's children, there will be an immediate and unrevocable need for said food and said water. Whether an emergency, or it's just time to rotate it. It's not like I'm saying invest in volcano insurance since there *could* be an eruption in a Des Moines. Or demanding everyone have 10k rounds of ammo (good idea, btw).

It's food. It's water. Just buy it. You'll use it anyway. The time of need is not the time to need, but to have.

Even my great grandparents and grandparents understood this concept, partially because they lived through the Depression. I don't know why it's so hard and faces so many kicks from people who would rather starve to death. Fine. Go starve.

[Mono no aware]

Starvation is said to be a long and painful way to go, so I'm with you on that one: I don't see any wisdom in "I guess I'll starve" resignation.  And suicide is forbidden to the Catholic, so the quick option is off the table.  And I agree with you that food & potable water will likely become long-term scarcities in our lifetime.  I guess I don't disagree with anything you wrote there, only that I can appreciate arguments that a long-term scarcity of food & water is less likely than how I assess it.  There are a lot of variables, and sometimes I do concede that I'm "going with my gut." 

So I can see some of the arguments against long-term prepping.  A person might not even want to replenish a long-term food supply: they might want to dine out more often than would be required by the rotation schedule.  Or they might not want to spend a Saturday afternoon arranging a storage space.  They might like their favorite Thai restaurant, or spending their spare time watching baseball and drinking beer, too much to justify long-term prepping if they don't think a collapse is likely.  And they might conclude that in a "the preppers were right" situation, survival would be so close-to-the-bone and cutthroat that even most of the preppers might only be delaying their own inevitable starvation.  You only live once.

[Greg]

I have nothing at all.  Deliberately.

I decided, that if it were to happen, then it would be more fun to live on my wits alone.

I will either be dead by the end of the first month or the warlord of the district shortly thereafter.

I am happy with either.

[Miriam_M]

Who said anything about suicide?  I was exaggerating only slightly about the death wish, guys.  Some people take themselves way too seriously.


It's quite the opposite of a lack of trust on my part.  I don't plan unnecessarily for what does not yet seem to be indicated in my life -- whether on a global level or individual level.  That's because I trust the Providence of God for me, individually.  He will either show me -- as He as often done in my life -- how to prepare for whatever eventuality He knows is coming, or He will arrange to connect me with others, for our mutual benefit, or He will call me to Himself, and I trust that I will obtain the grace to suffer whatever I have to, as well.

Au contraire, I think perpetually "stocking up" shows a lack of trust, but that's just my view -- one that no one else may share.

Indeed there is only so much one can plan for.  My money would be better spent in many other charitable and/or prudent ways than continually throwing out supplies and replenishing them, "just in case."

[Miriam_M]

Be very clear that there is nothing in Catholic dogma that demands preparation for any and all eventualities.  What is commanded is prudence for what is likely and foreseeable, especially near-term, but even somewhat longer-term -- such as providing for one's family via savings, life insurance, and other means after one's own death; such as funeral arrangements; such as considering Plan B's and Plan C's if one should lose one's job/income/housing precipitously, etc. 

The idea that not planning for an unknown catastrophic event, or series of them, at unknown dates in the future --events and dates too vague to demand immediate planning --is the equivalent of "suicide" in Catholic moral theology has no basis in doctrine.  There is an enormous spectrum of possibilities with regard to the timing, extent, and comprehensiveness of physical realities in the future.  Some people, depending on where they live, should worry more about the near-likelihood of violent crime and/or car crashes.

So to whoever considers my position to be "suicide":
Please learn the faith and stop accusing others of violating the cardinal virtues, let alone the Fifth Commandment.

Thank you.

[Mono no aware]

Au contraire, I think perpetually "stocking up" shows a lack of trust, but that's just my view -- one that no one else may share.

Indeed there is only so much one can plan for.  My money would be better spent in many other charitable and/or prudent ways than continually throwing out supplies and replenishing them, "just in case."

But, to be fair, everyone who regularly goes grocery shopping is "perpetually stocking up"—it's just that their timeline is shorter.  An emergency preparedness stock means you're not only shopping for the meals you'll be having in the next week, but also for a week or two of meals if a disaster hits and the grocery store shelves are emptied.

As per the OP, there wouldn't be a "continual throwing out of supplies and replenishing them," because you'd be eating this food and drinking this water, and then replenishing as you go.  There's no waste of money.  It does, admittedly, take a little more time in terms of calculating your menu, and a little more discipline, since you would have to eat non-perishable meals more often than you might care to.  That's really the only good argument I've heard for the avoidance of short-term prepping: people who say, "I'd rather spend my time doing other stuff, and I prefer a greater diversity & freshness of food, or dining out."

Anyway, I'm only talking about short-term prepping or "emergency preparedness" (1-2 weeks of supplies in case of a natural disaster).  Anyone in an urban or suburban environment should probably not prep any further in expectation of a total collapse, unless they relish the prospect of trying to survive amidst panicked rampages, looting and rioting, gun battles, and warlords.  I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking, "just let a stray bullet take me out early because I'm not interested" in that kind of situation.  Whereas an extrovert like Greg welcomes such a test of his mettle.  I, on the other hand, am rural long-term prepping because I am more of an introvert, and I want to survive so I can witness the aftermath of haunting quiet and desolation, and so I can watch the world burn, while it does, from afar.

[Gardener]

I've addressed the "trust" issue here by appealing to prudence, both natural and supernatural:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=6123.msg128401#msg128401

I specifically asked my then-pastor (FSSP, and a brilliant man who has no problem disappointing a person with truth) about the concept:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5987.msg129430#msg129430

Greg once said he had a moderate amount for 8 people, so I dunno what changed:

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5987.msg129451#msg129451

drummerboy knows the history, too:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5987.msg129483#msg129483

The Prudence of stocking up:

Genesis 41: http://drbo.org/chapter/01041.htm

Storing, not gathering during rest, and having excess for the purpose of harvest:
http://drbo.org/chapter/03025.htm

Interestingly enough, God commands them not to harvest during the 7th year, nor reap what the ground grows. For in the time before it He gives them enough for 3 years in the 6th, which they shall store in preparation of doing no work. This is interesting, since while we do not sow or reap in an agrarian sense (well, I'm sure a few of us here do), it shows the prudence of stocking up when one has the ability: for the times when one cannot or (in the case of the Hebrews), may not due to the command of rest and letting the land rest.

I find this an important consideration, that during a time of chastisement, or scarcity, one can be unfocused on mere survival and focused on prayer, good works, etc. If there is an expected hardship to last for a few weeks, and you have a year's worth of food, you can assist others.

Moving through the rest of the chapter, we see that certain stipulations are indicative of having savings, not squandering one's goods, the ability to redeem possessions, the reality that those who cannot may not bring a case against the buyer, etc. Fascinating stuff. Very applicable to our lives, though we are not bound under the law by pain of sin if we forsake the advice.

Is there anything in the Bible which is seemingly superfluous, I think we should look at the prudential element. We should look at the moral message. The structure of those admonitions, prescriptions, and proscriptions indeed may not apply today. But they contain wisdom from which we can glean a prudential take on directions to go.

Does anyone here have savings? why? Isn't that tempting God to not provide when necessary? Does God reward imprudence? Does anyone have winter clothes in summer or summer clothes in winter? Why?

Take a step back from the thing being discussed and look at it from other perspectives. I think one will find that the arguments against preparedness don't hold in that case. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is sloth, terror, and greed.

Preparation requires one to think about the reality of survival, and that's hard just from a work perspective. It requires one to think about the horror of watching society kill itself due to hunger, dying of hunger, and killing to remedy hunger (including the potential of cannibalism). It requires one to forsake the pretty 1's and 0's we've convinced ourselves is really money, and invest in tangible goods which hedge against prices rising (even savings accounts don't account for inflation over time these days...).

I'm sure I'll get the usual responses. "That can't happen here" (oh yes it can). "It would only be bad for a week or two" (sure about that?). "This is America; we give help to other countries and will be fine" (yeah, until multiple issues occur at once, or Chinese or Russian hypersonic MIRVS take out critical infrastructure, or we are thrown into global ww3 and a flood or wildfire or hurricane or earthquake in BFE, America is at # 179 on the list of important things to do.)

YMMV. Have fun.

----
PDR - have you read "A Canticle For Leibowitz"? You remind me of The Poet character.

[Stu Cool]

My first PM to you ever was on FE and I asked you a prepping question.  Keep it up.