Hm hmm hm hm hmmm... Title has that covered... Check. ✅
Okay, alright, ready? I'm ready.
As soon as we hear "survival" fly by, we either think about "Lord of the flies" or someone LARP'ing around in the woods, but what about Urban survival?!
See, with the general amount, size and diversity of forests on the decline (at least here in Western Europe), survival in said settings isn't as feasible as it would be in the ever-growing and expanding cities, right?
You can tell me if I'm wrong, but I think I'd do better dumpster diving around the city, than I'd do trying to hunt or gather something in- or from a forest, and you?
Especially amongst preppers there's a large part that at least to some degree have a forest involved in their plans, and yes, this dives into another topic, or scenario or whatever the hell its called, but the question remains the same; why do so many people rely on forests, be it to a large or a small degree, when many barely even make it into one at all, let alone for extended periods of time?
Maybe - I'm pretty darn sure, actually - it has to do with our past, we still carry the genes of our hunter-gatherer ancestors in us, and they lived in said forests, only back then it was actually feasible to do so.
When will there be a shift towards survival into our day-to-day habitat of steel and concrete, and away from our past habitat of fields and forests?
I'm especially interested in @Turnspit_Dog his take on this, ohh you bet I am, fellow Stackie.
It depends on what is broken.
Cities: If a large part of society is brainwashed ready to put you on cattle cars (unvaccinated? not registered to use internet?) population centers can be good places to hide, especially in a poor country with weak government.
Rural: If there is a “cyber pandemic” or some grid down, supply chain problem, cities become very dangerous, because it takes a larger, organized group to defend a small area, that will have few resources. In a rural situation, you can be nearly self sufficient on critical things like water, power, and food, and a few families can physically protect it. And there are far less desperate people to defend against, depending on how remote it is and what terrain features/choke points can be exploited. Booby traps set can give advanced warning and more time to rally, where in a city any explosions could simply be other fighting around you.
Enhanced vision like thermal and nods work much better (longer range) away from cities as well. Also it’s easier to defend from a distance, especially with choke points and terrain funnels.
reply
"Self sufficiency" is a pipedream for many, let alone in a SHTF-scenario: People from the cities will absolutely swarm the rural areas, for what else are they gonna do? They are armed, hungry and have more than enough time on their hands to wander around looking for possible targets to hit, and a farmer with his fields is a prime one.
reply
In the US there are Amish communities that are mostly self sufficient, and I’m certain could be 100% self sufficient if need be.
Self sufficiency depends on how you define it. Some kind of community is necessary for just surviving. Several communities even better. One family alone would have a tough time, but it’s not impossible.
reply
Few of those people in that situation would make it very far. Walking the easy routes, roads, and they are targeted by other bad people before they get anywhere. Walking through the country is extremely slow, and resource intensive. A few days and they are sick, dehydrated, and die of exposure.
Maybe a few road pillagers survive, but what are their skills? Can they butcher a cow? Can they hit a man size target at 400m? 1000m? Do they have armor, nods, radios? Do they know how to be stealthy from a lifetime of hunting? I’m willing to bet 99.9% of city dwellers lack most of these things.
I’m sure they think they would have a chance, but life isn’t like the movies.
When things get really bad, I don’t want to be in the city.
reply