[ShadowFox]

This topic has popped up on more than one thread here so thought id start a thread just for it. Here is my opinion
Family: yes id help most of my family I say most as like us all i have a couple of members that would cost me more than they would bring to the table (if their attitude changed post SHTF they are more than welcome to join me if not id give them enough for a few days and tell them they have to look after themselves
Outsiders: Again if they can bring a skill or help with growing crops tending animals they are more than welcome to stay if not a day or 2 at the most and id have to ask them to leave as my number one plan is to look after my imitate family
Exceptions: Women with very young children I wouldnt have it in my heart (at the moment things change ) to turn them away
My main concern is to get my family through the dark days if i can help others after we are safe and have the basics I would

[cranberryjuice]

While I wouldn't be overjoyed to see certain family members on the doorstep, I'd help them if I could. They may have certain skills we would be lacking in, as in back to basics farming techniques, equipment we would need, etc. I think setting up a network of support in your local area would be vital to survival too, for pooling together resources, skills, manpower...

[kildare.17hmr]

I would be of the same opinion as the op, people who would be a burdon would not be welcome unless they would contribute and pay their own way so to speak. Who could say no to kids tho, they can bring alot to the table tho. I was watching freddie flintof goes wild where he was in namibia i think and kids as young as 5 went off to tend goats in the hills for the day and lion after them giving the men more time to hunt or what not.

I already have my list of people who would make a good group and in that list most things we would need would be covered

[Agent_47]

No, absolutley not

When you plan for SHTF senarios, you plan for you and your dependents, not for neighbours and other slackers who probably think you are wacky to be hoarding and being generally prepared.

With these people, it is all take and no give.

If it comes to helping with my hands or my brain, then no problem with that (again within reason)

[eth0]

Depends on the kind of SHTF. Wouldnt want my last tin of baked beans going to waste though

[cranberryjuice]

Originally Posted by Agent_47

No, absolutley not

When you plan for SHTF senarios, you plan for you and your dependents, not for neighbours and other slackers who probably think you are wacky to be hoarding and being generally prepared.

With these people, it is all take and no give.

If it comes to helping with my hands or my brain, then no problem with that (again within reason)

I see your point, tho I said I would help people. On a long term basis, once things had settled down (if things settled down) helping people in the local community would make sense, but I can understand that in a short-term chaotic scenario, you would have to draw the line somewhere if people were just lining up to eat the food you have hoarded and thus potentially shortening the lifespan of your immediate family (if things were really really bad).

I suppose it would be very very difficult - for example, if you formed a kind of network with the immediate neighbours to help each other, what do you do if family members, in-laws, grandparents, etc. land on the doorstep and put further strain on an already strained situation? It wouldn't really be "the more the merrier" at that stage, more like the more the hungrier.

[Tzar Chasm]

As a rule NO

If someone came along and could add value to my situation then it might be considered on a case by case basis, for example if one of the posters here showed up with weapons/skills/supplies then they might be considered, however if they had strays in tow they would have to justify their admitance on their own merits

[sheesh]

Getting some sort of community together after a shtf senario is a good thing. Many things that need to be done might require general man power no one is saying you give all your stuff away or even admit that you have anything. just ask if people need help in building a shelter or something might be appreciated

If SHTF it would be advantagous to have people around that owe you a favour.

Also you are going to have to do something about the bodies if they die

[bonniebede]

Originally Posted by sheesh

Getting some sort of community together after a shtf senario is a good thing. Many things that need to be done might require general man power no one is saying you give all your stuff away or even admit that you have anything. just ask if people need help in building a shelter or something might be appreciated

If SHTF it would be advantagous to have people around that owe you a favour.

Also you are going to have to do something about the bodies if they die

barbeque?

[bonniebede]

Isn't it all about an assessment of the available resources?

In eotwawki situations which produce a sudden reduction in population, (plague) the most important thing is community building. no point surviving in a group which is below the critical number for a healthy breeding population.

In situations with a sudden reduction in resources, but not population, the situation is different. Then you will need to survive the bottleneck while population adjusts downwards to a new level, and presumably bring as many people with you as you can, starting first with those you love, and any other assessment criteria you feel right. This would still only be a temporary situation, because eventually the popultion will reduce through starvation, and you are back to community building to maximise your survival strength.

however it is worth noting that Ireland could sustain twice the current population with no more complicated an adjustment than learning how to plant taties, so again community building skills would be vital, as dealing with the pyschological reduction of millions of people being plunged from the relative luxury of modern life to the harsh realities of being a peasant farmer would probably spill over into a certain degree of lawlessness and anomie.

Most likely scenario? I think a reduction in resources, leading to more lawlessness and the need to be more self sufficient, while at the same time building community to preserve the best things in human culture - especially the security to be able to have some education in literacy, science, music, and so on is actually the most likely scenario to prepare for.

But as so many of the skills overlap between scenarios, and the first rule of survival is to take time to assess the situation and not act preciptously, I'm not sure that it makes all that much difference where you start in preparing, we all end up moving towards the same things.

I am not talking here about the survival skill pertaining to some particular situations, of course, like those who go off walking or hunting in the back country, or alpine skiing or whatever, or even for things like extreme weather or floods and so on. Off course survival skills for these situations are important and usefully transferable, but they also presume to some extent that there is help out there if you can get to it, or attract it to you. I'm thinking only of those situations where the event is so global that there won't be anybody coming, ever.

[Doc Ruby]

Well said BB, and one of the reasons that I think Ireland should have a year's worth of food stored nationally at all times, like the US used to have. Even using primitive 19th century farming techniques the country supported double its present population while still being known as the breadbasket of the empire, this country is astonishingly fertile. With modern techniques we could probably support north of 20 million handily enough.

Anyway back on topic I find it hard to envision something that would completely disrupt food and energy supplies without simultaneously killing a lot of people, one of the more important things to keep in mind is that people are by and large producers rather than consumers.

A lot of research has been done into the behaviour of people after catastrophes, and unlike the media-dramatised shibboleth that it would be every man for himself held by survivalist groups, the reality is that people almost immediately form communities and share resources. This is simple fact and so should inform preparations accordingly. Noted exceptions are bad areas with social inequality - they tend to get worse after emergencies.

[Druss Rua]

It really depends on the people involved.

Ultimately, I suppose I would. My reasoning is that even after a SHTF scenario, small communities are more beneficial than individuals, and this is the goal I would be working towards after SHTF.

Obviously, you'd have to trust the people you're dealing with and preferably they'd bring some skill set of their own to the mix. Small communities would be best in my opinion (ideally somewhere around the Dunbar number), though obviously due to the inevitable growth in population of said community it would eventually give rise to a larger civilisation (and all the difficulties and problems that lie therein!).

Druss.

http://paddy-halligan.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/#!/druss_rua