Hypothetical question - Living off the land

[Paganwolf]

Very true Gary, in days gone by (gone never to come back gone) the uk was mostly covered in woodland now its mostly covered in brick and tarmac and concrete and you cant burn that to keep your self warm, In Australia they herded the Abo's up into little townships with little houses and said heres your new home get on with it, the Abo's then proceeded to rip every bit of the wood from the houses and burnt it to keep warm during the cold winter nights,when they were sleeping under the stars as nature intended,the houses now stand derelict and empty,the white man was their apocolipce bringing rules, law and germs and alcohol to their society, theres a lesson to be learnt there, pity we don't learn from it eh. We need to educate our children that there is a life past the TV and Xbox and there is a big world out there, and wood and metal is a workable medium and every thing needn't be plastic and silver. At the end of the day if we want to survive if this scenario does happen, Bushcraft will be the saving grace, its why we are here, and why we will have the initiative and the drive to see us through, knowledge is power, many of people have perished feet from food and water, your car or Gucci loafers and rolex wont save you but free simple knowledge will. look at the masai, dyaks, bushmen any indigenous peoples they still have the ability to laugh and smile and to remain safe in their day to day lives, i know people who cant continue through life if they lose their mobile phone!! Oh i reacon 10% is a good figure of the population who would survive if that!

 

[Metala Cabinet]

the white man was their apocolipce bringing rules, law and germs and alcohol to their society, theres a lesson to be learnt there, pity we don't learn from it eh.

Surely the message to be learnt is that technologically advanced societies will stuff the technologically primitive societies. Me, I'd rather be in the more advanced society.
No, I don't think it was right what the white man did to the aborigines but then that's a far from 'natural' moral position.
Oh and I'd have quite probably invented the atomic bomb knowing what I do now as it would have meant that up to 1,000,000 people (US govt estimate of death toll at the time) would not have had to die in an invasion of Japan. Sure there's always the risk that we'll blow ourselves back to the Stone Age one day but we haven't yet and we might never do so.

 

[Not Bob]

Wasn't this collapse of civilisation stuff supposed to have happened back in the 80's?
La plus change, la meme chose

 

[Kim]

Surely the message to be learnt is that technologically advanced societies will stuff the technologically primitive societies. Me, I'd rather be in the more advanced society.
No, I don't think it was right what the white man did to the aborigines but then that's a far from 'natural' moral position.

I don't understand what you mean by 'not the natural moral position'. Please explain.

 

[Metala Cabinet]

I was just trying to make the point that the moral stance that one shouldn't do what one wants to other people regardless of their wishes is not necessarily a natural one in the sense of 'survival of the fittest', Darwinian, selfish gene, maximisation of resources that it would probably be in my best interests to pursue as a natural being. Sure sometimes it might be in my interests to treat others with 'kindness' if I can foresee some payoff in the future but if I can't why bother. By eradicating the aborigines I would have secured such resources as they might possess and would have prevented them challenging me in any way in the future.
The reason I don't think we should ignore the wishes of others is a moral reason not rooted in my pursuing my purely selfish biological interests.

 

[Paganwolf]

Surely the message to be learnt is that technologically advanced societies will stuff the technologically primitive societies. Me, I'd rather be in the more advanced society.
No, I don't think it was right what the white man did to the aborigines but then that's a far from 'natural' moral position.
Oh and I'd have quite probably invented the atomic bomb knowing what I do now as it would have meant that up to 1,000,000 people (US govt estimate of death toll at the time) would not have had to die in an invasion of Japan. Sure there's always the risk that we'll blow ourselves back to the Stone Age one day but we haven't yet and we might never do so.

Oook :shock: :?: once the technologically advanced societys have stripped the earth of all its rescourses then what will our decendants live on? kids wont eat Fission and Microchips! i sort of get where you are coming from its swings and roundabouts is the sacrifice of few worth the saving of many is a hard one, atomic bombs are indiscriminate and the aftermath causes misery for generations, you believe the US government Hmmmm :rolmao:
Its very interesting to see all views and sides and arguments :biggthump

 

[Kim]

I respect your interpretation MC and even though I completely disagree with those particular sentiments, I am well aware that your statement has basis in fact and that it's still going on, and that our fine ole country is involved in some of the doing.

Which is why I don't support government in general...but that's another argument.

I do live life from a moral standpoint, and even if it meant my demise in a mixed up world that the United Kingdom might one day become, then so be it. The world will never change if you don't change it.

 

[Metala Cabinet]

Kim, I think treating people like things is an appalling way to behave (and if you ever meet anyone who is truly like that it's a scary experience - they're often very good at pretending they're not though which is scary too). (But then I would say that, wouldn't I)

PW, sure if we carry on overexploiting the available resources we're stuffed. My point was that the technologically advanced societies tend to drive out/eradicate the less advanced ones. I don't think that's inherently a good thing, (quite possibly the end result is that we'll f**k up the planet for ourselves and it will all end in tears) but that's the way life works IMHO.
And no I don't generally agree with what the US or any other govt tells me without giving it a bit of thought myself but the figure of 1 million seems to be fairly well accepted by historians. The point I was trying to make was that it's very easy to make decisions as to what 'people' should do especially when it's not going to affect us directly. I think the risk of a future nuclear war is worth what I see as the benefit of ending the Second World War sooner and with a lower deathtoll; other people might think the scales balance the other way.
It's the same with overpopulation - there's too many people but it's always other people. Presumably the other people would reverse the distinction. Surely if there's too many of any people it's us in the West since we're the ones who use the highest proportion of the world's resources per person.

 

[Not Bob]

I think the risk of a future nuclear war is worth what I see as the benefit of ending the Second World War sooner and with a lower deathtoll; other people might think the scales balance the other way.

Of course if there's a nuclear war you'll be proved wrong.

 

[Kim]

. I think the risk of a future nuclear war is worth what I see as the benefit of ending the Second World War sooner and with a lower deathtoll; other people might think the scales balance the other way.
It's the same with overpopulation - there's too many people but it's always other people. Presumably the other people would reverse the distinction. Surely if there's too many of any people it's us in the West since we're the ones who use the highest proportion of the world's resources per person.

Interesting points, and it's an interesting question as to the benefits of the atomic bomb being dropped, versus what would've happened if it hadn't, but perhaps that takes us onto another thread. Nice response though.

 

[Metala Cabinet]

Of course if there's a nuclear war you'll be proved wrong.

I should think that will be the least of my worries!

 

[Adi007]

Excellent posts so far ... so I'm going to chip in and ask a couple of question ...

Can you forsee a situation where bushcraft skills could become a way of life?
Do you think that these are likely to occur in your lifetime?

 

[george]

Kim said "Yes, the answers that people give are very much down to their lives experience," and I reckon thats true. I live in a house that has no heating other than wood stoves. I have a private water supply that comes off the hill behind the house, I have no television. I have herds of red deer on the hill behind me, I have roe deer in the garden and I have the means to gather them. I have a croft where I have arable land for crops and grazing for animals. I have several hectares of woodland.

I tend to answer these questions from that perspective. Day to day at home, except for the computer, I use very little that couldn't be produced using 17th century technology - ok my water pipes are now plastic instead of lead etc, but you know what I mean. Yes I do have electricity to power lights, washing machine, freezers etc but if it failed permanently I have an old Ice house at the bottom of the garden and an old copper boiler in the shed. We had a power cut last week - I didn't notice at first cos we had candles on anyway (makes things seem cosier.) and the heat comes from the wood stoves along with hot water.
My wife is an ethnobotanist with a great knowledge of plant uses and her friend here is a herbalist. We don't use processed foods and have the means to produce much of our own. So In this TEOCAWKI scenario my problems would not, in the short term, be about how to sustain myself and my family but about how others would do it.

Would I find myself as one of the "haves" in this scenario trying to fight off hordes of rampaging "townies" trying to take away what I have? (sometimes feels like that during the holiday season anyway!)

How would I feel knowing that others were dying for want of something that I had? Would I welcome refugees in to my part of the world? or would I help to close the pass and work with my neighbours to keep others out? How would I feel if the shoe was on the other foot - if I was one of the "have nots"? Would I kill to feed my family? Would I take from a "have"?

I hope I never have to find out, but like some of the rest of you on this forum I've been places and seen things that make me absolutely certain that if the sh** hit the fan here in the UK we would act exactly the same as some of the "OTT" scenarios already described.

George

 

[Paganwolf]

Er can i have your address!

 

[Metala Cabinet]

Last post from me - just got the long awaited telephone call; I've got a flat at last. No more access to a PC but no more living in a hostel either. Best of luck to you all! :wave:

 

[george]

Er can i have your address!

Sure - Third star on the right, straight on til morning

George

 

[Adi007]

Excellent, thought provoking post George!

There are many times when I know that when I carry survival kit into the outdoors (first aid kit, space blankets, etc) that I do it partly for me and mine but also for others who might not have it when they need it. In a situation like we are discussing here, how would these rules of compassion and sharing change? How would we view supplies and what would be do as we saw supplies dwindle?

 

[Paganwolf]

Sure - Third star on the right, straight on til morning

George

:rolmao: ill be there by sun up :biggthump

 

[jakunen]

Adi,

I'm not sure that bushcraft ways will again become a way of life for most people, but I think that with such natural resources as gas and oil running low, and not much so far in the way of practical green power (whether through real reasons or just for political reasons I don't know (Hey minister, if you say green power can't cope, I'll give you 4000 shares in my oil company!)), I think that more people may look to 'the old ways' and so rely less on modern, ultra-high tec doodads and more on 'the way grandad used to do it'. Plus with more people doing high pressure jobs, people are looking at things like bushcraft as a release and adopt some of the practices into their 'real' life.

I know that I personally look to getting out with people like Womble, Gary, etc., to get away from the stresses of my jobs, and find myself using bushcraft ideology more and more in my life to cut out the "It's really nice, but I don't NEED it but I'll buy it anyway", and trying to reduce the quantity and severity of stress by looking at situations from a bushcrafters point of view.
I doubt that we'll return to these ways within my lifetime, but I think we will slowly drift towards them, however unintentionally.

 

[Great Pebble]

If you can find it, you'll get a really interesting take on the issue from a book called "No Blade Of Grass" (or "Death Of Grass" outside the UK) by John Christopher.

As the title suggests it tells the story of the world, through the eyes of various unlikely survivors after a plant virus has destroyed all grasses...

It covers the usefulness of "bushcraft" skills, the issue of whether to share what you have or not and many of the other points touched on here.

One of the things that concerns me most about the attitude of people in the UK, including the Government, is the morale obligation to "pull together" which in times of crisis can become a legal obligation also. Think about it a bit....