Follow the sheeple or head for the hills?

[Glen]

Not sure it will work so smoothly in reality.

I suspect only when the conventional order has failed to deliver will people reconsider who they should follow.

Better to keep quite, look after yourself and avoid the arguments and factions.

I'm pretty convinced it wouldn't work so smoothly in the scenario suggested.

It may initially seem strange but I think it would have a lot more chance of working if it was surviving a plane crash or shipwreck far from home and contact. The difference between a disaster that induces hardships and one that causes a true survival situation.

In a hardship disaster people have the time and energy to indulge in showing their anger, dissatisfaction and possibly despair, in a survival disaster that may still happen but it wouldn't take too long to realise it'd be a waste of time, energy and their own resources, all of which need to be managed in the best ways possible.

I suspect most peole who follow this forum have spent at least day or 2 outdoors cold, wet and hungry, so it's not exactly unfamiliar teritory, even then though they could get back to comfort in a day, most of the people affected by the current flooding have probably only spent an hour or 2 in that situation and are not going to be comfortble today or tomorrow if they stay outdoors.

Hence my original answer of take them back to the school and offer to take them out and teach them a few things when it's over, if they're still interested then.

Rather than keep absolutley quite I'd probably couch my knowledge/experiance in terms of " I had a freind who told me about a time he was in a similar situation and doing things this way, what you think about us trying it" That way they have to give it some thought rather than just follow and then blame if it's not up to what they hoped/expected.

 

[British Red]

I believe that we as a society should look at how and where we live. Where means not just not building on flood plains but also things like brownfield sites. I refute the argument that there are no brownfield sites. I have recently flown over areas of Scotland and the North of England that are littered with them. There are few in the South East I agree. So the choices are build where there is high unemployment and abundant brownfield land or keep packing it into the South East. THAT is sheeple mentality.
Aaah they cry but that's where the skilled workers are!.

No S*** Sherlock? The skilled workers are where the skilled jobs are already?

What this means is that you have to build communities - not just a factory or a housing estate but jobs, homes, infrastructure etc. Its not a new idea - look at Port Sunlight or Bournville. Many people in the past build schools, factories and homes in suitable locations and then brought in workers to man them. This led to increased local employment, service industries springing up and younger school leavers having jobs to go to.

In this we all have a role to play.

I also believe we are becoming too specialised, too industrialised and above all else too complicated. This makes the whole country and to some extent the world one terribly delicate machine. Even farmers can't feed themselves because they grow only wheat on an industrial scale and are dependant on others for seed, diesel and machinery. This is done in the name of "efficiency" but also leads to complexity and interdependency.

Many factories have gone back to a team of guys making a whole car - not just one man who only ever puts on the left hand front indicator. Doing a whole job and seeing an output means you take a pride in what you do and know how to do it all. Less efficient in mechanistic terms but more appealing to the human spirit which is what ultimately drives job satisfaction and ultimately quality and productivity.

We as a society are becoming more and more specialised and in specialisation comes a lack of understanding of the importance of our individual role and the fact that the failure of one task can grind the whole societal production line to a halt. I prefer a world of lots of small simple machines than one large complex one. In scientific terms a Redundant Array rather than a Single Point of Failure

In discussing and perhaps addressing these issues, we all have a role to play. We can all help our fellow human beings examine these issues and, if society as a whole chooses to, address them. However some take individual responsibility beyond their societal role and prepare a range of skills and perhaps even a lifestyle to ensure their individual well being.

If you like, we all pay into the police force to prevent crime (we all try to build a functioning society), but these people (and I count Bushcrafters amongst them) buy private home insurance to protect their families (they build a range of skills and perhaps equipment that can help them in bad situations). In effect they build these skills and materials by not spending money on holidays, cars etc. They may even promote the benefits of doing so to their friends and neighbours (much as you would advise your neighbour to buy home insurance).

So, despite both you and your neighbour being good citizens and paying your taxes to fund the police, both your homes are burgled (or burn down or whatever). You are insured and your neighbour is not.

Would you share your insurance pay out with your neighbour equally? Or would you take care of your own family primarily and then, as you saw fit, perhaps give your neighbour a little cash to help? Would you also feel that your neighbour had any claim on your insurance payout?

If you wouldn't share money with someone less fortunate (or less well prepared if you like) in a situation where this did not put your families life at risk. Is it likely that you would share in a situation where that sharing really did risk your families survival?

Clearly that is a question between each person and their conscience and I wouldn't expect an answer on a forum but I think the comparison is valid. I also suspect that those that would work for the greater good in a crisis would already be doing so - people are dieing homeless or of cold or through poverty every day - there are enough real crises every day without waiting for a dam to break.

So, my conclusions are

We all have a role to play in building, maintaining, changing and improving our society.

Some also devote their time and money to ensuring that their family is provided for through such interests as Bushcraft, green living, etc. This additional set of skills and possessions belong to the individual. People are not obliged to share them with others who chose not to make similar preparations (although some may choose to share) when things get tough

For those who wish to contribute of their time. money or experience for the betterment of others, the time to do so is now, not when the real or metaphorical dam breaks

Red

 

[mrsfiremaker]

I like your post Red. Well put. In my scenario, I would be sharing knowledge because I have spent my entire life volunteering to help people. I have also grown in unusual circumstances that has made me appreciate everyone’s individual opinion, while at the same time making me strongly opinionated. On your bit about specialization, where I work, each employees is grouped based on their talent into a department to have them specialize in that area, and the ones that do move ahead are completely on the Peter Principle course. I keep seeing so many get promoted above their intellectual ability to later be fired for incompetence while the smart ones who are too bold eventually quick from continual rejection. It depends on the level that the other leaders in the work situation are at and your ability to fit into that group. What I have done for myself is make myself strong in every department. It gives me more challenge as five years of doing the same thing makes me very bored. This gives me the edge, though I do not strive to further my position due to other stated priorities.

As far as society goes…It will almost always be the same. In a group of 100 people, 80 will be average intelligence and middle class, 10 will be below average and lower class, 6 will be above average and upper class while 4 will be sociopaths, very much above average, good at working the lower 90 and making the upper 6 look stupid while doing as little as possible to help any of them. In your group of 25 on the hill, the one to quickly identify would be the sociopath and get him out. I do mean ‘him‘ because most sociopaths are men. He will be the one who messes up the group dynamics. Being able to class them by their abilities will in effect class them by IQ. Will these rules always follow? No of course not, If you work hard you can overcome your weaknesses as well as the lazyness will affect your ability to strive, but my strength that I would quietly add to the group would be my ability to figure all of that out. That means that I would be able to say to the person with the lowest amount of contributing ability, hey, I see you are do this VERY well. Hey, group, what do you all think about making this person in charge of this? This will relieve some of their responsibility as well as help this person realize they are a valued member of the group. If everyone feels united this way, the sociopath would be the only one trying to mess things up but will have more difficulty doing so. Getting the used to hearing, “Hey group,” they will be more likely to listen up in terms of freeing themselves of the lazy but very sly manipulating snake of the group.

Rather than keep absolutley quite I'd probably couch my knowledge/experiance in terms of " I had a freind who told me about a time he was in a similar situation and doing things this way, what you think about us trying it" That way they have to give it some thought rather than just follow and then blame if it's not up to what they hoped/expected.

That why you set down a belt and ask the group if they can come up with any ideas on how to use it, rather than look all smart and say all the ideas you can think of. Then when they get that far, ask them again if they have other items they might be able to use. Take me for example, I could whip out a fire piston, make fire and voila, then finish it up, “Yea AND if you remove the piston you can use it as a survival whistle, use the lanyard for a bow drill if you can no longer acquire tinder, use the lanyard bead as a fishing floater, use the spare string to attach a lure to your fishing rod,” ect, ect. Now by this time everyone will turn their back on me. Instead, “I’ve got this thing here that makes fire. Lets use it tonight but we don’t have an endless supply of tinder so tomorrow hopefully we can find other ways to make fire. But I don’t want to see this wasted so if any of you can think of other ways to use it or its accessories, we’ll give it a try.” My number thought would be, “I could do all these things with the fire piston but maybe these other 22 people could come up with better ideas.” If I spout off, they will not want anything to do with it or my self righteousness, although I may not be intending to come across that way

Yes my family would be number one. But forsaking those who are willing to take a step outside their usual self to help their families too would not be the example I would want to set for my children. If something happened to myself or Darrel, how would either of us hunt or explore while watching the children? Or if we were alone, could we go on without the others company or assistance? We are a very independent from society family but I don’t think we’d go that far if there was a problem and half our neighbors showed up in our yard. We have the lady who knows mushrooms and who gardens all the time, the school teacher, the woman who taps maple trees to make syrup, the farmer with the blacksmith tools (and a some skill) and meat cattle, the dairy farmer, and the taxidermist, and us. Dang we’d be doing well if we were together and it would be a very diverse group age and interest wise, most very mainstream with societies rules too. Everyone being a leader could work for or against us but that fact that everyone would be willing to give it try suggests that it would work.

Becky

 

[Eric_Methven]

Hi Becky. Very interesting posts, and thanks for your input. How's things over at The Cave? It's been a while since I visited as EzBoard won't let me in. Not on Paleo Planet either. Hope you and Darrel are both well.

Eric

 

[TheGreenMan]

At this point, I can’t help thinking that some of the bushcrafters here, would be better off running the show at the local civil crisis centre, than being in the hills with me. I’m of the opinion that ‘bushcraft’ could do with a lot fewer leaders. It’s my view that the ‘bushcraft ethos’ is about being self-reliant, not being managed.

I haven’t had the urge to puke, quite so stongly, as I have right now.

Best regards,
Paul.

 

[Mirius]

Some very interesting posts, and thanks especially to Red and Mrsfiremaker.

I suspect Paul is feeling ill because like most members of this forum he likely tends to introversion (I'm running off the personality typing poll here), which means that few of us will leap at the leadership position and few will welcome groups of people intruding. Red put it very well that discussions like this are all very well, but those who would be willing to put themselves forward already are. I suspect that most of us aren't - because it isn't in our nature to do so, no matter how we might like to believe that we would react appropriately in a crisis.

Introversion doesn't mean that we don't care about others, nor that we have sociopathic tendencies, but the poll also indicated that a good number of us are thinkers not feelers, so the chances of us suddenly opening our arms to others in a crisis becomes even more remote.

Personally, Red has managed to deflate my ego quite nicely, thanks Red . I'm not a sociopath, but while I'm very willing to help those I know, I also know that it simply won't occur to me to help others. It's not that I don't care, though I don't care over much for other people really, but it just doesn't occur to me that I need to. That likely makes me sound pretty callous, but the truth is that I'm not out there helping those who need it - so why would I be any different when push came to shove?

 

[Spikey DaPikey]

As one of the resident nutters, i feel i have now been asked to leave the group, i'll take me axe with me


BTW, i'm in the British Red camp of thinking

 

[TheGreenMan]

...In a group of 100 people, 80 will be average intelligence and middle class, 10 will be below average and lower class, 6 will be above average and upper class while 4 will be sociopaths, very much above average, good at working the lower 90 and making the upper 6 look stupid while doing as little as possible to help any of them. In your group of 25 on the hill, the one to quickly identify would be the sociopath and get him out. I do mean ‘him‘ because most sociopaths are men. He will be the one who messes up the group dynamics. Being able to class them by their abilities will in effect class them by IQ. Will these rules always follow? No of course not, If you work hard you can overcome your weaknesses as well as the lazyness will affect your ability to strive, but my strength that I would quietly add to the group would be my ability to figure all of that out. That means that I would be able to say to the person with the lowest amount of contributing ability, hey, I see you are do this VERY well. Hey, group, what do you all think about making this person in charge of this? This will relieve some of their responsibility as well as help this person realize they are a valued member of the group. If everyone feels united this way, the sociopath would be the only one trying to mess things up but will have more difficulty doing so. Getting the used to hearing, “Hey group,” they will be more likely to listen up in terms of freeing themselves of the lazy but very sly manipulating snake of the group...

Well, while we’re on this self-help, pop-psychology, with a little corporate management speak tossed in for good measure, hog swill trip, when we’ve bludgeoned the sociopaths with our war clubs (oops..I meant, shown them the error of their ways), what do we do with the narcissists?

Just a thought. My Leader

Best regards,
Paul.

 

[scoops_uk]

"When the dam breaks" the last thing I'll be doing is hanging around classifying people.

To be frank, innovative uses for your boots and shoelaces only get you so far and if things are that bad then 25 people need quite a lump of resources and I would question the sustainability of such a group once "survival" really kicks in.

How do you make the big aggressive guy with the hungry family feel valued when he decides he's gonna take what you have and he needs? I'm not sure there would be enough social "glue" to hold such a community together. Lord of the flies is a great book for a reason.

I'm all for a self-reliant community forming, but in my opinion that community can only form from the self-reliant individuals who have demonstrated the skills to survive individually joining up with eachother. There needs to be mutual respect, perhaps that is why in pioneer communities greenhorns often have to earn their place.

Scoops

 

[Eric_Methven]

What do we do with the narcissists?

Lightly grilled with a nice bottle of Chianti?

Eric

 

[spamel]

I think all the information is valid and worth remembering. If there happened to be a guy in the group who was that bad, and I was there trying to ensure the safety of my wife and kids, I'd start laying down a plan to get out of there in the dead of night. It's not worth the hassle, so up sticks and move somewhere else and they won't know where you've gone.

It sounds to me that I don't trust the general public, and to be honest I don't! Let's be fair, the general public contains drug users, thiefs and muggers to name a few of the undesirables! Unless I know the person, I don't think I'd like to be hanging out with them. I realise that it will seriously limit what I can achieve, but then I'd rather struggle a bit knowing my family was safe from outside interference than stay in a position that will possibly affect me in just as seriously a way.

If there is a member dragging the group down and questioning every single thing, then it does start to get quite annoying, but it spreads like wildfire. I remember it happening twice when I was in the forces, both times in my last few months in Iraq. Both times, a task had been given, and it was being carried out as it should have been. Any other way would have created more work as we would have had to put it right. One person couldn't deal with this and wanted to cut corners regardless, as he was a shirker and didn't want to do any actual work for his wages. His negativity was infectiouss and before I knew what was going on I had about five blokes questioning everything I said.

They became compliant when I got the pick handle from the stores!

 

[TheGreenMan]

"When the dam breaks" the last thing I'll be doing is hanging around classifying people.

To be frank, innovative uses for your boots and shoelaces only get you so far and if things are that bad then 25 people need quite a lump of resources and I would question the sustainability of such a group once "survival" really kicks in.

How do you make the big aggressive guy with the hungry family feel valued when he decides he's gonna take what you have and he needs? I'm not sure there would be enough social "glue" to hold such a community together. Lord of the flies is a great book for a reason.

I'm all for a self-reliant community forming, but in my opinion that community can only form from the self-reliant individuals who have demonstrated the skills to survive individually joining up with eachother. There needs to be mutual respect, perhaps that is why in pioneer communities greenhorns often have to earn their place.

Scoops

Another very well reasoned post, Scoops. I think you have the measure of it.

A level of preparedness for a short term emergency is no more than exercising responsible foresight particularly if one has dependants. But the amateur psychological profiling of people you may not have met yet, and may never meet, seems like pointless fantasy and that perhaps has its basis in a possible need to reassure oneself that one would be a ‘top dog’ in such scenarios.

What people might regard as ‘bushcraft’ is only going to be utilised for a pretty short period, at least in the scenario posed by Eric. You quite rightly state, that 'bushcraft' as it seems to be practiced by those in the developed economies (largely recreational), is unlikely to be viable as a long term solution to long term disruption of the social networks that we all recognise. Such a very serious disruption would be a highly dynamic one, and there is little one could do to prepare for this. Thinking that one could, is little more than folly and perhaps wishful thinking.

If one is prepared to entertain a cataclysmic scenario (which I doubt that Eric intended), then one has shifted into the survivalist’s mindset, where one survives at all costs, and suspends most the usual social niceties. And hey, guess what, that’s real close to the sociopath mindset, not to mention that of the psychopath.

Lightly grilled with a nice bottle of Chianti?

Eric

Jeez, I suddenly feel famished!

Best regards,
Paul.

 

[British Red]

You're welcome (back) in my camp any time Spike. Nutter or not you are a capable, thinking individual

The point I was trying to make in my insomniac ramble was that there is a place for a social conscience, but that place is now, not when it all goes Pete Tong. The true altruist will always find a worthy cause. The majority of us are programmed with a survival instinct and will put ourselves and our families first when the dam breaks. Theres nothing wrong with that.

It may be worth considering WHY we think the old simple skills are worth preserving ...perhaps not because we hope or believe that the dam will break - but "just in case it does". Well, that and an excuse to play in the woods too!

A short term crisis (a dam breaking) would I think engender one reaction in that the situation would be known to be fairly short term so all one would be doing is preserving the lives of others untilthe emergency services took over. It would be possible to put up with some whining and slacking for a day or two. In a longer term or perhaps indefinite situation, I'd be with Scoops and Spamel - a supportive group of people would be great, but there would be no room for people to be be lazy or destructive in such a group. I think a group would in fact be more viable than a single family - but a group of selected people with useful and complimentary skills rather than a random selection of people thrown together.

Good disussion though it hasn't boiled over much yet. There will always be a lot of emotion on a topic like this and a lot of differing views. I am enjoying it and hope we can keep it civil and on track

Red

 

[TheGreenMan]

...They became compliant when I got the pick handle from the stores!

Premium hickory?...

Cheers,
Paul.

 

[TheGreenMan]

...The point I was trying to make... was that there is a place for a social conscience, but that place is now, not when it all goes Pete Tong. The true altruist will always find a worthy cause. The majority of us are programmed with a survival instinct and will put ourselves and our families first when the dam breaks. Theres nothing wrong with that...

I agree...

...It may be worth considering WHY we think the old simple skills are worth preserving ...

For me, acquiring skills and knowledge is recreation, combined with gaining an understanding of those who lived, discovered and used those skills and knowledge, before me - an appreciation of our ancestors, in a sense - oh, and the kit is quite nice too

...It would be possible to put up with some whining and slacking for a day or two...

I couldn't cope with it for that long, half an hour, tops! - unless I was the one doing the whinning and slacking

...In a longer term or perhaps indefinite situation...- a supportive group of people would be great, but there would be no room for people to be be lazy or destructive in such a group...

Well that's nice theory, Red, but how would you police it? I think that it's more likely we would have to tolerate an amount of cr*p, as we do now, in our 'everyday' lives.

...a random selection of people thrown together...

This to me, is a much more likely outcome, for most of us.

...Good disussion though it hasn't boiled over much yet...

<ahem>

I think that a disaster scenario would definitely bring out the 'Lesley Nielsen' in me, which couldn't be anything but good

Best regards,
Paul.

 

[scoops_uk]

Well that's nice theory, Red, but how would you police it? I think that it's more likely we would have to tolerate an amount of cr*p, as we do now, in our 'everyday' lives.

Maybe that's where the difference is. I wouldn't want to be in a 'group' that needed 'policing'.

Using the pioneer community example again, families tended to operate individually, grow their own crops, build their own shelter, collect their own firewood. Cooperation was on a "you raise my barn, I'll raise yours" basis.

That's self policing. If you didn't work you didn't have crops, if you tried taking someone else's then it's in the communal interest to drive you off. If you have surplus you might trade or help those who contribute to the community or put by for another year.

You might not agree with your neighbours, you might not like them, you don't have to. It's about respect and courtesy, social virtues that were highly valued in the past.

I'm enjoying this debate too. I value the people who might not agree with what I say because without them I would learn nothing. Even though we might not agree, the fact that we can debate with respect and courtesy so that we can all benefit is the same character trait that would help a community to work where flaming and name calling would not.

Scoops

 

[Glen]

At this point, I can’t help thinking that some of the bushcrafters here, would be better off running the show at the local civil crisis centre, than being in the hills with me. I’m of the opinion that ‘bushcraft’ could do with a lot fewer leaders. It’s my view that the ‘bushcraft ethos’ is about being self-reliant, not being managed.

I haven’t had the urge to puke, quite so stongly, as I have right now.

Maybe the comments have been somewhat skewed to the leadership side of things by Eric adding an extra few bits in post 10 like "They see you as some sort of 'expert' in survival and expect you to show leadership. "

 

[British Red]

Green Man - In an indefinite survival situation, if you don't like the group you were with - if you were doing more than your share - you would "police it" by leaving - pretty simple really. I'm with Scoops though, bad manners, lack of tolerance etc. are a product of the modern cosseted society. Imagine a world where there is only one farmer and only one doctor.

I rather suspect that the farmer would be careful not to offend the doctor - he might need him one day. The doctor, if he wanted to eat, would also be polite to the farmer. Neither would be "sucking up" but would be showing one another courtesy and respecting the skills and ability of the other and, in their politeness, tacitly acknowledging their mutual dependence.

In such a world, the lazy and those lacking useful skills would not be tolerated for long by those who worked hard - as Scoops says, that measure of "self policing" would come into play. If by tolerating cr*p you mean you might have to be polite to those who you need to survive then yes, you would - in the same way they would have to tolerate yours. If their worth to you is sufficient, you will tolerate them, if not, you won't.

Equally of you course, you may be tolerated or others who have some item or skill you need may not wish to deal with you. That will depend on your own worth and how they feel about you.

For my part, we like to live as self supporting a lifestyle as we can. Partly because we prefer a simple life and feel little need of all the modern frippery, partly because it would be nice to walk more lightly on the earth and in a small part because I believe our current society is too dependent on technology, fossil fuels and endless, pointless consumption. We have long ago acknowledged, having practiced skills as diverse as vinegar making and wiring our own solar panels, that it simply isn't possible for one family to have all the skills to live even a nineteenth century lifestyle. So, whilst reducing our dependency on the outside world, we acknowledge that our comfort and health will always be, to some extent dependent on it. We also choose to engage with our chosen charities and causes.

Am we survivalists? Perhaps but if we are we are also bushcrafters, gardeners, ecologists, scientists, charity givers and workers, musician, artist, photographer, soap maker, woodworker, flower arrangers and 1,000 other things.

I see no reason to believe that a spiralling population that has moved from one billion to six billion in 100 years and is comsuming the planets resources faster and faster can end in any way other than a bad one. It might be a slow decline, or a quicker one. Bt it cannot continue as it is in an exponential growth of consumption from a decling amount of resource. Is that really sociopathic? Or is it something we all know to be true and its only the outcome that remains uncertain?

I am interested Paul in your views that others induce a vomit response in you or are badged as sociopath or psychopath. For something you acknowledge is a leisure activity - a harmless speculation about a non existent event is surely not worthy of such animosity? I don't agree with everyones approaches to this debating topic - but theirs are as relevant as mine - as they are in real life.

Red

 

[TheGreenMan]

Maybe that's where the difference is. I wouldn't want to be in a 'group' that needed 'policing'.

Using the pioneer community example again, families tended to operate individually, grow their own crops, build their own shelter, collect their own firewood. Cooperation was on a "you raise my barn, I'll raise yours" basis.

That's self policing. If you didn't work you didn't have crops, if you tried taking someone else's then it's in the communal interest to drive you off. If you have surplus you might trade or help those who contribute to the community or put by for another year.

You might not agree with your neighbours, you might not like them, you don't have to. It's about respect and courtesy, social virtues that were highly valued in the past.

I'm enjoying this debate too. I value the people who might not agree with what I say because without them I would learn nothing. Even though we might not agree, the fact that we can debate with respect and courtesy so that we can all benefit is the same character trait that would help a community to work where flaming and name calling would not.

Scoops

Those are interesting points, Scoops, and I’m in accord with much of what you write. And I understand where you’re coming from, in respect to not wanting to belong to a group that had no cohesive principles (even if they were on an ad-hoc basis - when it suited individual parties to cooperate because it was mutually beneficial to do so – quid pro quo – this is at the basis of most interaction, even now) But in reality would we have the luxury of that choice in an exteme scenario? What would be the group policy on ‘hostiles' and how to repel them? We may be getting close to fortification of the homestead, and possibly the adoption of paramilitary discipline in any given nexus.

I’ve long admired aspects of Amish life for the kind of cooperation you hope for...Love that raising the barn thing, always have!

And if the global community goes t*ts-up vis-à-vis climate change, then a more Amish-type life may be forced upon us, which may be no bad thing. I mean by this, that global warming (whatever its cause) and its effects may force us, eventually, into a more localised type of life (in order to reduce the levels of contributing pollution to warming), where most interaction takes place on a very local level. One trades with people in the locale where one lives, and rarely leaves that location – one is born, lives, and dies pretty much in the same place, as not so long ago, our ancestors did.

This may not be a lifestyle that we willingly opt into (although I suspect that many of us here, would), but one that may be imposed upon us, as the only way that the human race has any hope of sustaining itself without extinguishing, itself, and most other forms of organic life on the planet…

…Watch this space (planet)

Best regards,
Paul.

 

[Eric_Methven]

I thought this thread was dying a slow death, but it's picked up again nicely.

I got to thinking about how ancient communities would cope with idle, lazy or non conformist group members. In nearly all societies who are relatively independent of state and free from government interference, lazy, non cooperative members would be either ejected or more likely shunned by the group and denied food, social inclusion and social interaction. This usually works, and before long that member will either leave for good or more likely come grovelling back, hungry and apologetic ready to do their bit.

In a nanny state like ours, the lazy, non cooperative member of the group doesn't need to worry about social inclusion because he or she can just go and apply for Income Support from the government and will be given it regardless of whether they want to work or not. Now I'm not saying everyone on income support is lazy or non cooperative, no, not at all. I've been there myself a few times between jobs, and it's a lifeline when redundancy strikes unexpectedly or other mishaps occur. But it should not, and was never designed to be, anything other than a stopgap. However I know of plenty who just don't want to work. They have no skills to speak of, a dozen kids and the money they get from the government is way more than they could ever expect to earn in a paid job.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise then if some of these people turned up at the top of the hill dragging their ASBO kids behind them and expect to have everything done for them. After all, it's what they're used to.

It should also come as no surprise when they start making demands on the group, and I mean threatening demands, with violence. They will take from the group what they want, because they are accustomed to being given for no return. They don't know what pulling their weight means. So, it's either give in to them, or exclude them - simple.

There are many near me who are like this, and for those of you who don't know of such families from hell, it may be hard to understand just how disruptive such a group could become. Their motto is 'You scratch my back and I'll scratch my own' and the chorus just goes 'Me, me, me'.

Perhaps it's living on a council estate, I don't know, but it has coloured my opinion of how I would behave in an emergency round these parts.

If there was no nanny state, and no social security, people would realise that they have to give to a community in order to receive something back from that community. It's bad enough in normal times, it would be a hundred times worse in a real emergency.

Yet still, there are some really nice people about who haven't two pennies to rub together and they'd give you the shirt off their back.

Human nature, eh? I dunno! It's still best to be prepared and see to your own first and foremost.

Eric