Group vs Individual survival

[Wiedemania]

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.

 

[hhmoore]

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.

 

[E.Shell]

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.

 

[WebSlave]

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.

 

[E.Shell]

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...

 

[AbsoluteApril]

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.

 

[Lucille]

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.

 

[Magic]

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.

 

[Firefly713]

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.

 

[CraftingDreams]

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.

 

[Lucille]

I have kids.. they are my first and for most priority. I have to make sure the have what they need to survive..

Medical care. Ongoing food after the canned saved food runs out. Protection from those that would do them harm- real protection.
It is difficult to see how that could happen without a group situation.

 

[CraftingDreams]

Q

Medical care. Ongoing food after the canned saved food runs out. Protection from those that would do them harm- real protection.
It is difficult to see how that could happen without a group situation.

Like I said.. hard to do here... very hard to trust people anymore as it is let alone those who don't care to even get to know you.. In order for it to work with groups, the people in the group would have to be at least local or within a certain range. Its all great to say you should have someone in the medical field in your group, but not everyone knows someone in that field.. so the best option is to take courses and learn any and all basic wound care, the trauma, etc. Anyone who doesn't have the option of group survival well makes up for it in learning the skills and preparing themselves. Its like if someone loses a limb.. they learn to make up for it.. What happens in your group if you lose someone.. say the one person you have for medical? Or you lose someone vital to another area in the group.

Everyone should work on knowing all skillsets before they even think of a group.. yes a group takes the stress of doing it ALL off your shoulders, and would really help.. just not everyone has that option sadly.

Hate to say it, but if I had a group, I wouldn't let 90% of my family in it. Sad to say, but we surly wouldn't survive then.. lol..

I stock for barter and trade... so if I need something, I would be happy to use extra supplies we don't use, liquor, smokes, etc to get it... I know how to shoot.. and Im teaching my girls.. If I had the option, I would LOVE to share time with like minded individuals who are trustworthy... but the harder I try to think of anyone local here, the worse the reality looks.. People around here just don't care. Not like the old days, where we all knew each other and got together for BBQ's and everyone brought a dish..

too many things have changed..

 

[Lucille]

Anyone who doesn't have the option of group survival well makes up for it in learning the skills and preparing themselves. Its like if someone loses a limb.. they learn to make up for it.. What happens in your group if you lose someone.. say the one person you have for medical? Or you lose someone vital to another area in the group.

Everyone should work on knowing all skillsets before they even think of a group.

That is how commerce between groups is initiated. One trades what one does not have, for what one has and the other group lacks.
Telling yourself you can learn all skillsets is comforting, but in my opinion, unrealistic.
One cannot make up for the years of knowledge and experience of an actual medical professional when an appendectomy is needed. Likewise, certain vehicle repairs will get done faster and better by one who is experienced in vehicle diagnostics.
While it is possible to acquire some skillsets with hard work and concentration, the hours expended getting them necessarily mean that other demands on one's time must go wanting. Without others to take up the slack, one's attempt to specialize may well mean that vital tasks get left undone.

 

[odduc748]

This is an interesting thread I've stumbled upon...

First of all, YES, I am a prepper. I have everything needed to survive and plenty of extras for trading.

Second, my "Circle of Trust" is already quite small and would be considerably smaller in a societal collapse.

If this sort of thing really happened, my plan of action would be quite simple:
Gather up that "Circle of Trust" and assign everyone their respective duties and tasks. I am fully prepared to turn away those who called me the crazy one.
Establish authority immediately. (Yes. I'm the General here) If I recognize you'll be a problem, you will no longer be a part of the group.

My compound will be run much like a military installation. I believe this is the only way to survive and thrive in the new reality.

I know this sounds simple. But, this is how my "tribe" will survive.

 

[CwnAnnwn]

I need a better explanation of the problem?

Are we talking complete collapse, no return? Are we talking worst parts of the bible? Are we talking like 1984? Where on the spectrum of hand full of dust to oh god oh god I dropped my iphone are we at?

The reason I ask is simple.
Your goals for short term and long term survival is completely different.

If it is short term, less then 3 months with out law and order. It really will not matter. As long as you are not part of a very large group or follow the group collectively jump off a cliff, you will be fine.

After three months, being alone will kill you. Being in a smaller group will get you more time, but humans are conditioned to have small societies of 300-800. We simply don't function well as a group with smaller numbers. We have a tendency to get little dictators that start to exploit the system for personal benefit. The lack of a counter voice and protection for that voice is more dangerous then disease in small societies.

As for how many and who you trust that is up to what who you are.

If you are very religious, then you can more or less trust the members of your church to stick to church rules, or expect them to punish each other if they are not. But rules are fluid and this can come around to marrying young girls and burning witches very quickly. If you are willing to follow the rules set by the leaders, you are good. This is how society has gotten along for thousands of years with out a major society to rule them. Religion was used mostly to replace societal laws when enforcement could not be expected. This works up to about 50-80 people. Then the counter voice will get frustrated enough to give the starry eye mosiah a violent farewell.

For larger groups, you can set up a communism/direct/indirect democracy system.

Everyone gets a vote and no one is placed in the solo/compete ruler role. yes there is chiefs, but they where more of public figures and negotiators then rulers. For example, the Cheyenne elected 4 chiefs from each band that held congress. The ten bands would get together to elect the arrow keeper, which is elected by all the chiefs in the congress. Any change for the system would be a vote by all the people relayed to the 44 congress chief, that would vote on their behalf. Any rule that needs to be enforced would be done by the arrow keeper. All decision that required direct military response or dealing with outside bands was done by the arrow keeper. When the counter voice gets tired of the current problems, they elect them out.

Sounds familiar? Yea. Our system of government was invent by the natives (more based on the Iroquois) . For the most part, hunters and gatherers have done this for tens of thousands of years. It works. It does require everyone to know their place and believe in the system. But it does work.

In really bad environments, you can do the Aboriginal Australian version. Small groups of less then 10 people that come together and separate when needed. It is very hard to keep large groups of people live in most of central Australian, they they develop a cultural response to it.

But to go back to the answer.

Yes, no, maybe.

If you where the only person left on the planet, you would live to 30ish? If you are lucky, 40ish?

A small group between 300-800, life expediency could go up to 50-70ish?

Given the ultimate goal (of all life) would be to reproduce, and genetically, you need 500 to 1500 people to do that.

With out others, a 50 year life with out reproduction will feel like a 300 year life and genetically a failure.

If reproduction is the main goal, you need at least 500 people.

If survival with out dying by unnatural means is the main goal, then you can do it with maybe 10 people. But you are considering dying by infection at 40ish years old a win.

Remember most of your deaths in this case will be from infection and other natural causes. You will fall down break your leg. You will get an infection. You will get sick. With out others you will not survive.