Group vs Individual survival

My friends and I have an ongoing debate, and I thought it would be interesting to get other's opinions on the issue. In a hypothetical situation where a society collapses from a catastrophe and there are no enemies (foreign armies, zombies, marauders etc.) to pursue and kill survivors, what is the ultimate goal of survival? Is it better to save yourself or save as many people as possible? What do you think? Any feedback would be helpful, thanks.

The collapse of society wouldn't need a specific group of external enemies - when survival is on the line, anybody that wants what you have could become an enemy.
That said, the tendency for most would be to try to form & maintain groups. Between division of labor and goods, capitalizing on the various strengths and skills, and the desire for socialization, it would just work better for most people.

I'd agree with Harald, the only viable answer is groups or teams.

Not only by natural tendency, but in very practical terms. It would be nearly impossible to maintain, not just camp out for a weekend, but actually *maintain* as a lone entity. Even simple security is compromised, since one cannot maintain effective watch 24 hours a day in all directions. Then add tasks such as food gathering, prep, hygiene, shelter. Then if actually attacked, one person is easily pinned down and dispatched by multiple attackers.

There are reasons armies use squads, platoons and battalions.

Being in charge of such a group will be a very harsh job for the person who is tasked with it. The world has become just chock full of parasites, slackers, and takers. This sort of person will not be welcome in a group trying to survive with dwindling resources. Just casting them out of the group won't be a realistic option, as they will have inside info that they could provide to perhaps another group running low on resources looking for an easy resupply. AND they will now hold a grudge.

Good points Rich, and yes, once accepted it will be extremely hard to safely remove someone from the group. Maybe impossible for 99.9% of those who would otherwise lead.

I have seen people come around somewhat, people who slacked when they could get away with it, but then sort of 'rise to the occasion' when under duress. I would never count on that, though. The time for benefit of the doubt is over and to me, such folks have already demonstrated their true colors and cannot be depended upon or trusted.

As 'they' say, "desperate times call for desperate measures.", and if the threat is that acute, then it must be treated as such. Things that develop from this concept include "need to know" and "compartmentalizing", but in a small group, that may prove impossible to do.

Ideally, alliances can be formed with family and well-known friends and neighbors. People whom we know and that have shown an interest in the well being of the community.

Perhaps we could look at how other "unofficial" organizations handle grave threats like this... I guess we know what will have to be done, but you're right, it will be a bad deal on every level. Perhaps every group should strive to include a psychopath...

Utta and I would carve out a little spot in the chaos to try to survive as long as possible. Beware interlopers!


In the long run, humans can die off and the world would probably be better for it. I'm a glass half full kind of gal.

Originally Posted by Wiedemania

what is the ultimate goal of survival? Is it better to save yourself or save as many people as possible?

Between me and my children, I would save them.

Between me and a solid group of people I knew and who were hard working and were in turn ready to sacrifice for me: I would take risks to keep them safe and perhaps in some circumstances be willing to choose them over me.

Between me and a group of no account bureaucrats, politicians, fake leaders and lazy grasshoppers?
Blind justice and all of that, so to not care for them on any level would make me the same as them.
I'd definitely make my choices, I'd get the macadamia nuts and they could have the mixed peanuts, but I wouldn't take everything and let them starve.
After some days or however long went by and everyone got steadied a bit from whatever catastrophe and they had the ability for hunt/raise food for themselves, that's a different story.

That's not to say I don't value myself and my life, I do. But my goal in surviving would not be to save only myself and the heck with everyone else.

Hubby and I often joke about our "value" in events like infrastructure collapse, apocalypse, etc.

We enjoy laughing about the skills we each possess and the ones that we rely on the other to provide. Our professions, and hobbies are great things to have in challenging primitive circumstances

I'm pretty sure, though, that our closest neighbors (idiots, but far away idiots so they're tolerable) would just be cannon fodder. We would not give them shelter if they needed it. And they're vegan, so unless I throw an apple out the front door to them, they're not going to be interested in anything we've got, lol. However, if any of our further away neighbors needed to seek refuge on our ranch, we would gladly accept them (and their skills!)

There's no question that we'd be lonely without company.

Originally Posted by Magic

I'm pretty sure, though, that our closest neighbors (idiots, but far away idiots so they're tolerable) would just be cannon fodder.

This. I often size up people I know as to whether they'd be worth collecting in an apocalypse situation. Safety in numbers, but also worth having a couple of idiots around to be first through the door.

Slightly off topic, but I'm fairly certain my undoing would be constantly having to rescue my very stupid dogs.

Ive thought about this a lot, and to be honest, I think it depends on your demographics, who you know well enough, and what your personal situation is.

For example.. I live in NJ... I can tell you that on my street, I know NO ONE... for the most part, the kids know each other, and you might meet a parent or two, but people here just don't care enough to go out of their way to know others. They are too busy in their life to want to bother. Because of this, I would be more hesitant to let anyone here even know I prep, let alone try to form a group of any sort.

As much as I think groups are a GREAT idea... I also think they could be the downfall for everyone if someone was let in that violated any group rules or couldn't tow their weight. If the leader of said group ever had to remove anyone while in a crises, unless you are willing to put a bullet in that persons head for the sake of the rest of the group, he/she then becomes a risk to your group but a benefit to another. You would have to up and relocate incase that person told others where to find food, etc. He would also know your strengths and weaknesses.

I have kids.. they are my first and for most priority. I have to make sure the have what they need to survive.. THEN, and only then, I can worry about others.. I have bags for us, and I have an "extra" bag that is always in the truck.. medical as well as some food items. I care, and that's a big problem of mine. I don't want to see anyone suffer, especially children... so I try to make sure there is extra if needed, but keeping my eyes on what my priorities are, will give me a better chance of keeping my kids alive and surviving.