
How to Prepare Now for the Complete End of the World - laurex
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/style/rewilding-stone-age-bushcraft.html
======
jdkee
It is from the NYT “Style” section which should tell you all you need to know
about its contents.

------
mikestew
_There was an old ax they used instead. Its head periodically flung off, each
time narrowly missing someone._

Perhaps before someone gets killed or maimed, we can learn how to hammer a
wedge into an axe handle.

It’s a mentality that I have difficulty grasping. That doesn’t make it bad, I
just fail to “get it” (and I spend _plenty_ of time in the woods). For
example, the angst of not having a cell connection: that tells me this isn’t
aimed at me. But it also says some folks have a need for such programs.

~~~
dpcan
People only have a need for these things because they don't know any other way
to live. You can't fault someone for not being raised or inspired to try
living in the woods (or wherever). Plus, it's completely okay to rely on
modern technology and luxuries. That's why we invented them.

The axe was probably a modern technology and convenience at one time too. Some
elder or survivalist of the time was definitely irritated that a young person
was using an axe when their sharp stone and biceps did the trick for years.

~~~
mikestew
_You can 't fault someone for not being raised or inspired to try living in
the woods (or wherever)._

Stating that I have difficulty grasping a mental model would, to me, imply
that if I can't grasp it I can't fault it, either. Pretty sure I hammered that
point home in my comment. Regardless, if you can't go a weekend without a cell
connection without undue stress, head to Methow, WA with my blessing. But do
me a favor: first thing you do when you get unpacked, drive a little wedge or
two in that axe handle before you use it. The wedges are probably still
Scotch-taped to the axe handle, and could literally save someone's life.

------
plessthanpt05
If it were (literally) "the complete end of the world", I don't think you'd
need to prepare -- I mean, I know this is just semantics, but the end would be
just that.

And I get that's not what the article is actually saying, but the title is
very clickbaity.

~~~
stallmanite
The same thought crossed my mind. I want to know how to survive the big rip.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip)

~~~
chillacy
The third book of the Three Body Problem is pretty amazing to read if you like
sci-fi which goes to the heat death of the universe.

~~~
stallmanite
As a huge fan of Isaac Asimov’s “The Last Question” I’ll have to check it out.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question)

------
lambdasquirrel
Something tells me that if the end of the world comes, this sort of article
will be a moot point. The Earth just can’t handle that many subsistence
farmers and hunter/gatherer types. So most of us won’t make it.

Besides that, this is a strangely American fixation. You never seem to hear
about doomsday sort of things in the same vein from Europe’s news outlets.
China’s culture has endured the collapse of centralized authority many times
over (most recently in the 19th and 20th centuries). Western Europe eventually
came back from the collapse of the Roman Empire. If things really fell apart
in North America, you can bet that the EU and China would figure out a deal to
maintain some semblance of stability near the coasts, for the sake of
protecting economic interests.

~~~
jariel
North Americans have often lived on 'the frontier' between civilization and
the harsh conditions of the natural world. And FYI said conditions are
generally harsher in North America than they are in Europe where distances are
shorter, the weather is more temperate etc..

Also, many North Americans descend from farmers who actually owned their land,
developing very much a communitarian/entrepreneurial attitude.

Also, during the cold war there was a real threat of collapse.

This attitude exists to this day.

While we make fun of these people like this, I don't see it as a bad thing.

Reasonable precautions are good, but also, having a small number of people
take 'extreme' precaution is possibly a good healthy as well.

~~~
kristianc
> North Americans have often lived on 'the frontier' between civilization and
> the harsh conditions of the natural world. And FYI said conditions are
> generally harsher in North America than they are in Europe where distances
> are shorter, the weather is more temperate etc..

Eh? The USA is right in the middle of the world’s most temperate climate zone,
some distances are vast but there are vast tracts of very habitable and
fertile land. It has non predatory neighbours at both north and south, and
fish on its east and west. In the aftermath of WWII, Iowa was producing 90% of
the world’s corn.

Throughout its history, the United States has had a level of geographic
security unparalleled by any other country in the world. It has never once
faced a serious threat to its existence. The US has a geographic endowment
like no other. How can you possibly call it living on the frontier?

~~~
jariel
We are talking about different things.

The climate in the US is generally far more harsh than that of Europe.

The Med has a beautiful, easy-going climate the whole year. There is no
winter, there are no severe storms (or at least they are small ie no
Hurricanes), and it's generally not brutally hot.

The continent, UK has fairly mild winters and no super aggressive weather.

Even the Scandinavian regions - most of their settlements are near the ocean,
which makes them much milder than say, Canada. Montreal is further south than
Copenhagen (actually, Montreal is the same latitude as Northern Italy!) but
Montreal weathers are crushing compared to anything in Denmark.

All of these European areas will have been close enough to 'civilization' for
1K years, and usually easy access to some ocean port for transport.

The 'New World' was brutal. Winters are rugged, summers can be hot and balmy.
Before they could plant crops they had to clear the trees. Aboriginals
provided a whole set of other complications (I'm not saying this is fair, just
from a certain perspective). Most of South America has it's own harsh charms
as well.

And the distances are _vast_ \- when you're in what is now 'Montana' a little
over 100 years ago - you might as well be on the moon. There's no rivers,
roads, very sparse rail - no reasonable way in. Crossing the continent was
life-threatening.

But from an industrial perspective, yes, you are absolutely right: much of
North America is ultimately arable, there's no Habsbourg / Napoleonic Empire
to throw you off, it's perfect for building an industrial agrarian society.

But there's absolutely a 'rugged/independent' nature to North Americans that
doesn't quite exist in Europe.

The American Revolution was very different from the French Revolution.

North Americans have always viewed power as a kind of expression of
'independence' whereas Europeans have always viewed it as some kind of entente
between the nobility and the plebes.

It's mostly historic, but there are absolutely differences that remain ...
Hint: the #1 selling vehicle in the US and Canada is ... a pick-up truck! They
don't even have such things in Europe, rather, these little Lorrie/van type
things which individuals, for the most part, don't even drive.

~~~
craftinator
Dude, what are you talking about? Are you speaking of the early American
Pioneers, who have all died out at least a hundred years ago? A
"Rugged/independent nature"??? I just listened to a girl complain to her
friend about how the soy milk in her latte leaves a funny aftertaste that she
can't figure out how to get rid of. The vast majority of people in the US
would be unable to feed, clothe, or sustain themselves if there wasn't a Fred
Meyer's or Costco within a 30 minutes drive of their domicile. The USA has the
highest percentage of obesity in the world [1].

You mention how us North Americans love trucks, and that somehow supports this
rugged view. The majority of people who own big trucks here do so as a status
symbol to compete with their neighbors. Don't get me wrong there are still
some populations of total badasses here; farming types, country gals/boys,
wilderness lovers, hunters, preppers, gun nuts etc... But they make up a very
small percentage of our population. Most of us are at the top of the list of
helpless metropolitan sheeples.

[1] [https://ourworldindata.org/obesity](https://ourworldindata.org/obesity)

~~~
jariel
Your points don't help your argument.

\- That most Americans 'couldn't survive in the bush' is obvious, but
_considerably_ more North Americans already live in very remote and rugged
areas, definitely more than in Europe. There is almost no 'open country' in
Europe, whereas maybe 1/2 of North America is wide and vast. Living in rural
Montana has essentially no parallel in Europe.

\- That trucks are 'status symbols' is beside the point - 'everything' is a
status symbol (even back in the day), certainly cars are in Europe. The point
is they are _trucks_ not _cars_ and they are by and large used quite a lot for
'moving stuff', and travelling on somewhat more rugged terrain.

\- Obesity rates are irrelevant.

Obviously New England has been as urban as Europe since basically the
Englightenment, but most of the rest of America is barely tamed.

My grandfather was born at the start of the 20th century, most of his
relatives and family elders would have lived in the late 19th century when
much of North America was still very wild. So much of 'frontier' and 'far
rural' North America is just beyond living memory, it wasn't that long ago.

My great-grandfather was still clearing trees on the family farm, before
plumbing, electricity, radio. They were several days ride from the nearest
village of more than 1K people and there were no waterways or rail. He passed
away not that long before I was born.

The ethos of 'way away from civilization, on the family-owned farm, you'd
better be self-sufficient' still colours much of the North American attitude
today.

~~~
craftinator
Ah I see, you were more focused on the utility of our infrastructure than our
individual skill sets and knowledge. My points do help my argument, but from a
different point of view than you were arguing from. And obesity rates are not
irrelevant; they demonstrate how able people are to keep surviving, both
mentally and physically. I think if a governmental collapse occurred in the
US, 60-70% of the US population would be dead within 5 years. The major
population centers entirely dependent on government infrastructure, regardless
of how close to the "frontier" they live. Yes, there is much farmland here,
but it is very reliant on water and equipment that only come from a functional
economy.

I was a bit hasty in my first comment; I read your argument as "the US is made
of frontiersmen, they tamed the continent, and they are hardier and more
skilled at survival for it." At this point it is apparent that was not your
intent, and I do agree that we'd be better off than many places. One county in
the Americas that would do a lot better is Mexico though; full of off-the-grid
peoples who are fully self sufficient and happy to be so. Much of the US is
just functional because of money.

~~~
jariel
"you were more focused on the utility of our infrastructure than our
individual skill sets and knowledge."

No, I'm focused on the individualist/self-sufficient mentality of Americans,
due to their history of being on the frontier, and very remote rural areas.

Sometimes this mentality exhibits itself in material behavior, i.e. building
isolated plumbing/water/sewage systems. Owning tractors and such machinery for
working around the large plot.

Sometimes the mentality is expressed in behaviour that is really irrelevant,
like buying SUVs or Trucks that are not needed and uses for 'status'.

Sometimes it's purely ideological, like voting for a Republican when such
individuals might be better served by a specific social policy.

Sometimes it's both - like 'gun laws'. Prevalence of guns makes them easily
available to idiots leading to more gun violence. But it also theoretically
might save you in a specific circumstance, and, there's that whole thing about
'tyrannical governments'.

The 'attitude' definitely exists.

