Morality, Adapting, and Survival

On the topic of morality.

There are two types of people in this world now.  The kind that believe that god will punish them for being immoral, and the type that don't believe in that kind of god or any god.

I used to be an atheist, but now I'm the type that believes nature is god.  Not the kind of god that makes a list of the naughty and nice things a person does, but more the kind that provides a world for all the living things she made to thrive in.  She has to keep her house in order sometimes, thus the random volcano, earthquake, hurricane, or maybe even a zombie apocalypse disaster that takes some innocent lives (of any animal, not just the human type).

She's a good example of "morality when possible, or realistic".  

The example I see from nature is that animals kill one another all the time for survival.  Most of the time, animals are actually pretty moral from what I've seen.  When it comes to territory, food, or mates, it's a different story.  
Fighting, stealing, and killing are fairly regular occurrences when it comes to those things.

Ross Raven, the guy talking about "adapting" to things in the other similar thread, is correct about being able to "adapt".
I'd suggest one be able to adapt "morally" to situations.  If they want to survive in the long run.

A quick example could be a family of preppers who did everything right.  They stock piled six month's worth of food, they had a lush bountiful garden, and they had everything they needed to survive, and keep living.  
Maybe a volcano erupts nearby, and a flow of lava comes creeping right through their plot of land before they have any time to get to their supplies.
Four weeks later, they're starving to death, homeless, one of their four children has already died of starvation, the other three can barely travel, the husband is ill, and injured incapable of traveling.........
Then there's the prepper down the road who won't share anything, but also has six months of stored food.
I do not believe for one second, that morality has a damn thing to do with anyone in that situation.  and, I use a woman for the example because I know enough to know that a man might walk away.  Mama bears look after their kin.

So, again, there are some that would die of starvation and go to heaven........
and there are some that would live...........

Morality becomes more fluid, I'm guessing, the closer one gets to dying.

I moved this to it's own topic, as it was a bit too cider pressy for Survival/homestead, but I think it can stand alone as it's own thread. I stuck at title on it, but you should be able to edit the title to whatever you best suits your thread.

Okay.

S Tenorman wrote:On the topic of morality.

There are two types of people in this world now.  The kind that believe that god will punish them for being immoral, and the type that don't believe in that kind of god or any god.

For many it has nothing to do with a punishment from god.  Atheists can be very ethical individuals, often many have a higher standard of ethics because there is NOT a religious "legal code" with plenty of loop holes to be exploited.

There is also good evidence that the roots of fairness are biological and possessed by many social mammals on some level or another. Even little rats apparently have a sense of fairness in their social interactions and will avoid those that "don't play fair", and chimps will literally tear an "unfair" leader into pieces when they get the chance. It is not just an artificial construct made up to control people with an all-knowing deity thrown in.

Anyone that states "I won't bother storing food, I will just take it from others" is obviously a sociopath and a really dumb one at that. Of course if necessities were in short supply and people were starving there would be widespread mayhem and a whole lot of "good people" would do crazy things especially in a loosely woven society where folks don't know most of the individuals around them. Many good people would become a threat, and the not-good people that pose a threat during times of peace and prosperity would be far far worse with some bent on acts of extreme sadism.

The pacifists wouldn't last long unless they are isolated on an island somewhere.

I have to second the idea that morality and religion have little to do with each other.

History has repeatedly shown how little morality and religion can have to do with each other. It is also possible to strive for good for its own sake and the betterment of life around us.

I think it's an immoral world that breeds immoral people, and so we're all to blame for it, and thus all responsible for turning it around.

I think the ultimate adaptation for proper, prosperous survival as a species requires looking at what we have in society that makes us strong, progressive, and prosperous, and build on those things. I personally believe that the original bones of the want to group into larger than family-sized groups is something that is lacking from modern society, and must be found again, and that social rebar will fortify our structure against disaster.

We need to reform the villages within our communities for them to thrive as such, and be a bulwark for us against adversity.

I think allowing our social bonds to dissolve to the point where hard times would make us fracture apart rather than coming together is immoral, because we can see the damage being done right now, and there's a whole movement dedicated to preparing for when, not if, the bonds of common siblinghood break apart, and yet no movement exists devoted to averting this foreseeable doom.

Because once you're in the shit, should we let it come to that, it's kill or be killed. I'm not going let my family starve or be eaten. But I hope to be able to do that from a position of planned plenty and prosperity.

So should people keep multi-year pantries focused on naturally long-term shelf-stable goods? Absolutely, as long as they can incorporate it into daily use and cycle old stock to prevent waste, because that could be seen as immoral.

Should people make their own lives and those of their families unlivable, wasting tonnes of food, on the chance that their perceived iteration of societal collapse occurs? I would say that's immoral, and as it leaves you incapable of moving on after any disaster scenario, not very useful, except as a hidden supply cache for a more successful surviving group.

Should offices up and down the governmental ladder have mandates to store years' worth of durable food goods against times of extreme need, and cycle expiring stock through food banks? I think that's a smart way to approach the issue.

-CK

The pacifists wouldn't last long unless they are isolated on an island somewhere.

Oh, but then there is reincarnation  we'll be back!
And one hopes, one day we'll get it right...

Chris Kott wrote:
We need to reform the villages within our communities for them to thrive as such, and be a bulwark for us against adversity.

I think allowing our social bonds to dissolve to the point where hard times would make us fracture apart rather than coming together is immoral, because we can see the damage being done right now, and there's a whole movement dedicated to preparing for when, not if, the bonds of common siblinghood break apart, and yet no movement exists devoted to averting this foreseeable doom.

The idea of working together as communities is a great one but how do you propose we make that happen in the next few years? Forget the idea of the government storing food for the populace, they are NOT going to spend money on that because they have short term goals designed to benefit themselves and their cronies, and feeding the populace isn't even on their radar. They did away with those programs in '64.

I once suggested to my neighbor (couple with 3 small kids) that he should think about storing some bulk foods pointing out that is easy and cheap to do. He won't do it, even if he wanted to his wife probably would say the idea is "stupid". People DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT! Many people have plenty of disposable income for a late model car or truck, cable tv, the latest electronics, but they DON'T want to "waste" $50 or even $20 a month on supplies. And honestly it is probably stupid of me to even suggest that they think about it because they won't do it yet if things ever got bad they very well might remember that I suggested it which could make me a target.

Right now probably only 5 percent of the population has a 30 day food supply and that number isn't going up, unless you can figure out a way to get 60%+ on board the community idea isn't going to work.  (Though some other countries like Russia and Switzerland DO have civil defense plans and food storage as their governments see preserving the lives of their people as a high priority, but our government doesn't give a shit).

Lucrecia Anderson wrote:
The idea of working together as communities is a great one but how do you propose we make that happen?

I've been able to make it happen on a neighborhood scale by finding what I have in common with my neighbors.  My best friends in the neighborhoods I live in (my own neighborhood on a country road and my dad's culdesac in the city) are directly opposed to my own politics, but we find in common things like gardening and nature.  We share food and tools and give each other useful things.  We don't talk about politics or religion, but we do talk about the weather and natural disasters (both neighborhoods are in flood areas). Am I trying to get my neighbors to prep for an unusual disaster?  No, because I don't think there will be an unusual disaster.  Natural disasters here last maybe three days to a week max.  If a group of neighbors pool our resources, we'll certainly have enough to get through a week together.  Probably longer if necessary.

Throughout History.

One human "tribe" has been immorally, showing up uninvited to other tribe and stealing/killing/raping them.
The Americas/Australia is filled with people who have done that, was that immoral?
The invading tribe said that Providence/GOD/Religion said that they are suppose to do it and not only was invading not a bad thing instead they were religiously obligated to invade/rape/kill/steal/oppress and teach these "EVIL/SATANIC" natives.

In the Torah/Koran. GOD said to go to x tribe and take there land and convert them, etc.

In Europe and the rest of the world one tribe/duke/king/sultan/emperor after another would round up troops and invade another in a non-defensive way.

Currently we don't do that because we are told that, person/serf/slave/city XYZ does not belong to themself but instead belong to the king/government and if we touch them, then the king/government will come and ask you demand an "explanation"  due to the king/government being the stronger we limit ourselves. But once the powerful king/government is out of commission/weaken we will do what all humans and animals have been doing throughout history has been doing.

We will try our best to become the new lord/king, and demand that people work hard and grow/store food and give you 30% as a tax, and if you are too difficult to deal with they will kill you and have someone else grow it and then give the new king his tax.

And I will agree that those people who are looking to rule with force, those king/ruler/ people who like to "tax" people are sociopath. I have heard that CEO-type people also have that same personality too.

Dang it, I didn't want this to be it's own stand alone thread.  It was merely a comment on morality from the Zombie Apocalypse thread.
I'd also like to say I'm pretty much a pacifist myself.  Never been in a physical fight of any sort ever, and try to work things out through logic/reason.  People constantly tell my I'm too nice.  I'm a true believer in self sufficiency, and live it more than most (most permies/homesteaders/preppers have me beat my a mile, I'm talking about the general public).  My least favourite people are those that prey upon and use weaker people for their own survival.  They make me sick.  
They exist, though, even in this fantastically moral society.
 

As for an atheist not being able to be moral that's been inferred from my initial comment, it's not what I meant.  It's that a lot of religious people (I think) feel compelled by their god to always be moral.  There will be punishment if they behave in an immoral way.  (what was written in the original post of this thread was in reference to someone who was preaching morality above all else)

An atheist self imposes their morality (which most certainly I believe is what nature has programmed into her children (with the exceptions I noted above)).  
Atheists are moral, I know, because I know I'm moral.  My views have changed regarding religion (and they are radical compared to what the masses think), but I was as an atheist, and still am now, very moral.  I'm moral, because I live in a very nice society that isn't in a mode of panic.  It's fantastic that almost everyone in such a society is moral.  It all goes to hell when it stops being moral......kind of like in a zombie apocalypse situation where survival supersedes morality.  

When someone has a god that demands morality, teaches them to turn their cheek, and prey to him/her to step in to take control of a bad situation, it SEEMS to me like that would be a hindrance compared to someone who isn't bound by such "rules".  Someone who's morality fits within their current circumstance, rather than their mandated belief system, seems to be better equipped psychologically to deal with DOING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO SURVIVE.  My guess is that an atheist would have an easier time loosening up on their morality.  That's just a guess.

Again, my comment was in reference to someone who basically said if you didn't take the time to "prepare", you should perish for the sake of remaining moral.......  The point of my comment was to make that person THINK that there are other possible reasons why a person(s) might become desperate, and do desperate things for the sake of their, and their family's survival.  

Poopoo happens, even to the most prepared, most moral people.

Okay, hopefully that clears up my being a jerk.  (probably not though)

:)

Well first, I would do as Tyler describes.

But if you don't engage with society, you won't be able to group together people with the ability to act on your collective concerns in a positive way. You have a way to do that in a democracy.

First, you don't let the perfect be the enemy of the bad. You play the game to select the least bad option, and work from there. Baby steps.

You find candidates for local office right up the ladder that care about some of the same things you do, and perhaps tackling the issue of emergency food stores and feeding the poor in the same stroke. You do what you can to get elected, and you become a vocal opposition to politicians and officials doing things you don't think they should.

On another tack, if one can have a militia, whose goal is training its members for the specific task of self- and community-protection, why can't one have a Permacultural militia of sorts, or an Adapters militia, if you will, with goals and methods more consistent with their goals, those being the building of resilient physical and social systems to outlast and withstand adversity?

-CK

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Lucrecia Anderson wrote:
The idea of working together as communities is a great one but how do you propose we make that happen?

I've been able to make it happen on a neighborhood scale by finding what I have in common with my neighbors.  My best friends in the neighborhoods I live in (my own neighborhood on a country road and my dad's culdesac in the city) are directly opposed to my own politics, but we find in common things like gardening and nature.  We share food and tools and give each other useful things.  We don't talk about politics or religion, but we do talk about the weather and natural disasters (both neighborhoods are in flood areas). Am I trying to get my neighbors to prep for an unusual disaster?  No, because I don't think there will be an unusual disaster.  Natural disasters here last maybe three days to a week max.  If a group of neighbors pool our resources, we'll certainly have enough to get through a week together.  Probably longer if necessary.

I applaud your efforts. Having said that I don't think 3-7 days really counts. The neighbors aren't actually "preparing" or storing extra supplies, they are just being neighborly and happily sharing what they already have in their households. Plus if you don't see a disaster lasting more than a handful of days then you don't see the need to prep at all.

How about rapid climate change instead of zombies?  .What if all that melting ice triggers the tectonic plates to start moving more rapidly than we could ever imagine?  The mass of that ice moving from one specific spot and being dispersed everywhere else has got to have some kind of effect on them.  Probably not as quick as the below scenario, but nobody really knows for sure.


I've read a lot of times about the "community" aspect of survival.  Having a micro society of local neighbors and friends.  All of them doing their part to help one another in a worst case scenario situation.

Let's use the volcano scenario again.  Let's say there's twenty five like minded, well prepared households.  Let's say twenty of those households are completely displaced due to the path of the volcano.

We're not just talking about one volcano erupting, though, we're talking about a series of them going off globally.  We're talking about earthquakes in other areas destroying cities, extreme weather destroying even more areas, and even tsunamis displacing vast populations of people.  
We're talking about the sun being blocked from the sky from all of the volcanic activity, and lightening strikes lighting huge forest fires.

Let's say you're one of the five homesteads left in your community that has not been destroyed.  Your six months of supplies is literally all you've got.  Crops aren't going to grow due to the lack of sun.  Ash covers everything.  Animals are dying, and being over hunted by those who can take them.

Should you and the five other homesteads feed and shelter the other twenty displaced families (not to mention the drifters that are inevitably going to pass by needing help)?
or should the five remaining homesteads form a militia?
Would it even matter over the long haul?

I don't think it's likely that would happen, but......?  Just a thought.

Lucrecia Anderson wrote: Plus if you don't see a disaster lasting more than a handful of days then you don't see the need to prep at all.

I was a serious doomer/prepper for a number of rotten wasted years.  I don't miss it, actually.  I'm much more interested in permaculture/adapting than in "prepping" for a disaster which is unlikely.  I'm currently dealing with enough disaster in my life - three family members with very serious illnesses.  But in my experience of being a prepper, preppers don't prep for the most likely disasters - losing a job, or serious illness.  They tend to prep for the least likely disaster, societal collapse.  

No amount of stockpiled beans and rice would have helped me with the challenges of dealing with these family illnesses.

Plus, it's shortsighted to think that any amount of rice, beans, and ammo will allow a group to survive for any length of time in a form that will be able to recover at all from their "survival."

There are people in the world who can't both prep and live in society, and the disaster hasn't hit yet. What does that say of their adaptability potential? What if collapse happens in a form outside their narrow definitions?

These are just failures of vision, and of planning. These movements are just constructs people are using to make up for perceived lacks in society. If these ideas can be tweaked and implemented to better the current lot of society, they are worth pursuing. The teaching of intensive gardening, preserving, stocking a pantry, and making food out of raw goods are good examples of this.

-CK

I am also very confused on what exactly prepping means.
I am hearing that prepping is:
A) storing enough food for 7days until the centralized gov/corp fix electricity.
B) storing enough food for 1month in case they get alot of snow for the winter
C) storing enough food for 1month because they go food shopping once a month.
D) storing enough food for 3month because they are now a prepper/disaster aware person.
D) storing enough food for 12months because they think the society will collapse long term
E) storing enough food for 12 year because they think the world will end.

I am okay with storing food for 7days everyone should have that. The same goes for bulk food for 1 month, to me that isn't prepping

Storing enough food for more than 1 month now sounds like some type of prepping. Once it get to the point where I have to store for more than 3 months. I think that I should now leave the city and live on 2+ acres of land.

If I have 2+ acres of land,
a) I will have less hordes of people that I have to waste bullets on.
b) Less government in my life while I prep
c) More places to hide food in the soil (food forest)
d) More places to harvest wild deer/animals from
e) Less polluted surface water sources
f) More likely to have a decentralized water source/well
g) More easier to get
h) Neighbors that are more likely to be homesteaders, with their own water/food/tools/skills
i) More likely for a healthy community (make up of "self-sufficient" homesteader) to naturally form vs a community of starving desperate folks looking to rob/steal/kill.

To me prepping is not about having access to food (in bag), it is about have long term access to water, food, energy, calm non-desperate people, and that is not something that can be found in the city on the 7th floor.

So to ask people to prep is to ask them to leave the city, to all become homesteader. Or at least have a homestead/cabin in the woods  with lots of food/water/etc in addition to a everyday apartment in the city. And while we are at it a winter home in Florida too, am I asking or too much? Whats that, okay get a cruising sail boat (water maker, fish, seaweed, wind for electricity generation, communication, and transportation)

S Bengi wrote:I am also very confused on what exactly prepping means.
I am hearing that prepping is:
A) storing enough food for 7days until the centralized gov/corp fix electricity.
B) storing enough food for 1month in case they get alot of snow for the winter
C) storing enough food for 1month because they go food shopping once a month.
D) storing enough food for 3month because they are now a prepper/disaster aware person.
D) storing enough food for 12months because they think the society will collapse long term
E) storing enough food for 12 year because they think the world will end.

Prepping can be any or all of those things you mentioned.

S Bengi wrote:
So to ask people to prep is to ask them to leave the city, to all become homesteader. Or at least have a homestead/cabin in the woods  with lots of food/water/etc in addition to a everyday apartment in the city. And while we are at it a winter home in Florida too, am I asking or too much? Whats that, okay get a cruising sail boat (water maker, fish, seaweed, wind for electricity generation, communication, and transportation)

You are bringing a lot of preconceived notions to the idea of "prepping".  Before it morphed into a movement, it simply meant preparing.  To most people, I believe it still does.  No one is asking anyone to do anything.  You choose your own level of preparedness, to whatever extent you deem necessary.  

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Lucrecia Anderson wrote: Plus if you don't see a disaster lasting more than a handful of days then you don't see the need to prep at all.

I was a serious doomer/prepper for a number of rotten wasted years.  I don't miss it, actually.  I'm much more interested in permaculture/adapting than in "prepping" for a disaster which is unlikely.  I'm currently dealing with enough disaster in my life - three family members with very serious illnesses.  But in my experience of being a prepper, preppers don't prep for the most likely disasters - losing a job, or serious illness.  They tend to prep for the least likely disaster, societal collapse.  

No amount of stockpiled beans and rice would have helped me with the challenges of dealing with these family illnesses.

I don't think it is fair to group all preppers into the "doomsday" prepper category. Heck a huge percentage of the depression era generation remained "preppers" for the rest of their lives and always wanted to have a pantry stocked with food because they never forgot what it was like to go without. I have also gone through hard times and had very little to eat in the house -- I didn't enjoy that at all and do not wish to repeat the experience.

I also don't quite get why you are so angry about having gone through prepping phase. People with a tendency towards obsession can take most any activity or endeavor too far whether it is their diet, religion, recreational substances, prepping, heck even cleanliness and germs. Things that have a purpose and provide benefits in moderation can become negative/harmful if taken to extremes and prepping, like many other things falls into that category.

S Bengi wrote:I am also very confused on what exactly prepping means.

I am okay with storing food for 7days everyone should have that. The same goes for bulk food for 1 month, to me that isn't prepping

Most would consider all of the things you listed as preparing. Fact is most people do not prepare at ALL unless they live in a region frequently affected by hurricanes/outages.

When people make a CONSCIOUS effort to put back supplies/gear for an emergency then IMO they are practicing preparedness regardless of the duration.

Lucrecia Anderson wrote:
I don't think it is fair to group all preppers into the "doomsday" prepper category.

Those were the kind of preppers I knew.  They were prepping for post-Peak Oil societal collapse.  Nobody ever discussed how to prep for lost job or illness.  It was all "zombie hordes."

In my experience, the term "prepper" has specific connotations in the present day US. Choosing to use a different term without those connotations seems the simplest thing to do, regardless of whether or not one wants those connotations to exist. I've seen similar issues with the word patriot.

It also seems absurd to be debating how moral Americans can be in a crisis when they can't be moral right now.

"Adapting morally" to a survival situation is code for letting your morality lapse when necessary to do distasteful things in order to survive.

In that sort of situation, we have already failed for decades, and failed to set up any kind of actual survival infrastructure; all we would have left is a fight over what would prove ultimately to be too few emergency supplies.

So how much does morality mean to each of us? Does it mean enough to stop playing around with survivalist and prepping mentalities so that we can get on with the task of making society resilient?

-CK

Chris Kott wrote:Does it mean enough to stop playing around with survivalist and prepping mentalities so that we can get on with the task of making society resilient?

-CK

Chris, your thoughts seem to be that it is an either/or proposition and I don't see it that way at all.  I don't see a disconnect between preparing for the worst case scenario, while hoping for and working towards the best.  It seems to me that many people on here have at least a partial prepper mentality, while still doing their part to make the world better.

I wrote the post I did today in the Survival forum because it seems a lot of people have the same thought process.  I would just reiterate that in my own experience, most preppers are not lone wolf, me-against-the-world types at all.  I would consider the Amish communities here as very much prepper oriented, as well as having an extremely strong sense of community.  

Stacy mentioned the connotation that the term prepper has in present day US.  I would agree, but that doesn't mean the perception is correct, or even in the ball park of correct.  As soon as you phrase the question above the way you did, it immediately opens a divide between two groups of people that often have much more in common than not.

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Lucrecia Anderson wrote:
I don't think it is fair to group all preppers into the "doomsday" prepper category.

Those were the kind of preppers I knew.  They were prepping for post-Peak Oil societal collapse.  Nobody ever discussed how to prep for lost job or illness.  It was all "zombie hordes."

Anytime a group is "prophesizing" a specific disaster they are already off to a bad start and weirdness will likely ensue. Honestly it sounds a bit cultish.

Lucrecia Anderson wrote:
Anytime a group is "prophesizing" a specific disaster they are already off to a bad start and weirdness will likely ensue. Honestly it sounds a bit cultish.

I agree!

Chris Kott wrote:I have to second the idea that morality and religion have little to do with each other.

We need to reform the villages within our communities for them to thrive as such, and be a bulwark for us against adversity.

I think allowing our social bonds to dissolve to the point where hard times would make us fracture apart rather than coming together is immoral, because we can see the damage being done right now, and there's a whole movement dedicated to preparing for when, not if, the bonds of common siblinghood break apart, and yet no movement exists devoted to averting this foreseeable doom.

IMO and this is where religion historically played a valuable part.  I can say in my area probably the ONLY organizations that could get people to prep would be the churches.

In our modern society the government has replaced religious authorities when it comes to guiding the majority of the populace and they are too selfish and/or stupid to care about the issue.

I think you're right, Lucrecia, but I have a different idea about the last bit.

It's not, I think, that the government has replaced the Church, but that, in the same way Protestantism was a reaction against indoctrinated thought, the ability for people to think critically on their own has led them away from traditional centralised authority.

This causes problems when they turn to a radical or fringe outlet for their news, even one that appears mainstream. But where it stems from intellectual pursuit, it can be a vehicle for good, for transformation.

So we are heading in a more secular direction; we don't want to be guided. But we are at fault if we don't take the reins, not those placed in charge of us. We have to guide ourselves, or else be lost to the whims of louder, more forceful people who put themselves in charge.

I think at issue here is people. We have to be less lazy. We have to be less eager to trigger people's emotional instability for personal enjoyment. We need to be a little more self-aware, especially about our wants, our drives, and those things we do to sometimes sabotage ourselves. And I think we need to be more aware of how others' survival can enhance our own.

-CK

Telling people to prep is bad for business, because people will then buy in bulk vs single serve.
Single serve package of rice (3oz) cost $3, whereas a 20lbs bag of rice only cost $9

S Bengi wrote:Telling people to prep is bad for business,...

I think kind of the opposite.  Telling people to prep is good for business because far more people are willing to buy things than they are to do anything.  Most people will buy "prepper" gear, but not things like bulk food.  If you buy bulk food, you have to do something with it, whether it is storing it in smaller containers, or canning, freezing in individual packs, or whatever.  That's also the reason it will be a battle to have people adopt things like rocket mass heaters.  Until someone comes along and sells a complete turn-key rocket mass heater with installation included in the price, they won't catch on.  Even then it's not a given, because people would have to go out and get wood.  Someone on here might look at that and realize they can get all the wood they need for a month in a couple hours, but it still has to be done.  DIYers are not the norm.  About all the common person is willing to do after working all day, all week, is to mow the lawn on weekends, and maybe fire up the grill for burgers and beers.  I would be willing to wager that most people that buy "prepper" gear never touch it again after they take it out of the box it was shipped in.

Trace Oswald wrote: I would be willing to wager that most people that buy "prepper" gear never touch it again after they take it out of the box it was shipped in.

They bought it for a "SHTF situation" and the S doesn't ever hit the fan for them. I think that's one of the main problems with "prepping" - one is preparing for a disaster, and if (when) the disaster doesn't happen, the stuff is never used, never needed.  Appropriate "preparedness" might be more like just living a little differently, not necessarily preparing for an disaster.  Resilient living, not living for a disaster.

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote: I would be willing to wager that most people that buy "prepper" gear never touch it again after they take it out of the box it was shipped in.

They bought it for a "SHTF situation" and the S doesn't ever hit the fan for them. I think that's one of the main problems with "prepping" - one is preparing for a disaster, and if (when) the disaster doesn't happen, the stuff is never used, never needed.  Appropriate "preparedness" might be more like just living a little differently, not necessarily preparing for an disaster.  Resilient living, not living for a disaster.

I agree, and I know that you understand this, but people need to realize that all gear needs some training or familiarization to be useful.  People buy firestarters and then never try to build a fire with them.  The most motivated may try to start a fire in their fire pit with one.  To be confident in your abilities with something like this means to take it outside when it's 35 degrees and raining, or -25 degrees, and build a fire.  The best camp axe in the world isn't going to teach you to build the simplest shelter.  All of these things take effort that, in my opinion, most people won't put forth.  That's the point I was making about prepping not hurting businesses.  There is always another cool toy to buy, especially once you realize the ones you have don't do everything for you.

I also think it's a poor choice to buy something that is only good in event of a complete societal breakdown.  I have tools that could be considered prepper tools.  I have guns and ammo, I have fire starting equipment, camping equipment, axes and knives, and on and on, but the things I have I also use.

People could get alot of practice  by:
1) Buying food in bulk once a month and then rotating it out.
2) Going camping with as little gear as possible
3) And going hunting or at least fishing
4) not too sure how to do 1st aid /herbalism / foraging  

Allow me to muse for a minute on the original premise in the OP of the thread:

"There are two types of people in this world now.  The kind that believe that god will punish them for being immoral, and the type that don't believe in that kind of god or any god."

I agree with you: "I don't believe in that kind of god", as you put it.  But those are not the only two options: belief in a negative vindictive god, or no belief at all.  And morality cannot be found in either of those --- not true morality.

My concern with your statement is that it seems to be written from a negative perspective.  God's character and the basis for the kind of morality that He desires is not rooted in punishment.  Rather, motivation to do good and do right is based in His good and right character.  Its based in love.  Morality is rooted in a relationship with that loving and good God.  The Bible speaks of judgement as "His strange work" --- in other words, it's not characteristic of God to be going around twacking people on the head and smiting them for bad deeds.  His character is compassionate, long-suffering (patient) and tolerant.  But there is right and wrong.  There is a moral standard, and while He shows tremendous patience, ultimately, like any loving parent or teacher or friend, there is a time where moral standards must be held and even enforced.  That's loving.

So what is God like?  Compassionate, creative, forgiving, merciful.  He invites us into deeper relationship and intimacy, which is our deepest longing as people.  Morality comes from that place, not a place of fear of punishment.  We don't do good deeds because somehow we dig deep inside ourselves and find some good place from which to do them.  We are selfish and fallen people.  Any good that I happen to do in this world flows from the loving relationship I share with my Creator, not from some goodness inherent in me.

Why did my children obey me when they were young?  Because they knew how deeply I loved them.  I told them that daily, and demonstrated that to them a million times.  Did they ever disobey?  Certainly -- every kid pushes the boundaries.  The loving thing was to correct them and make my expectations known to them.  Call that morality, if you will.  At the end of the day, my expectations for them were to see them be blessed.  To thrive.  To grow and mature and become all that they have the potential to be.  In the same way, God's desire is to see people be blessed and to enjoy a relationship with Him.  He takes no delight in punishment, any more than I did in disciplining my children.  

And now that my children are grown and emancipated, living on their own and moving forward in this world . . . why do they still obey me and the precepts that my dear wife and I taught them?  Certainly because they love us, but more so because they know intimately that God loves them and that His ways are best.  Fear of punishment has absolutely nothing to do with it.  They have experienced the love of God and nothing short of obedience to Him would make any sense for them.  It's exciting to see them grow in that love.

Let me end with this (my long-winded missive): the perception that God is somehow holding out on us and that morality is a way of keeping the best from us is so screwed up.  God's ways are right, and His standards lead to blessing.  If you see morality as some sort of negative stick by which some divine figure "up there" is waiting to hit you with, that couldn't be further from the truth.  We follow God's ways because that is the best way of life.  Why would I settle for less?  Why would I want anyone who I love to settle for less than what is best for them?  Its a broken and fallen world, not because God is somehow withholding His blessing but because humanity has chosen to go their own way, assuming that their ways are right.  

Grace to you as you continue to seek truth in all these things.  You are deeply and dearly loved.  In this broken world, there is hope in that.

Marco Banks wrote:

So what is God like?  Compassionate, creative, forgiving, merciful.

This is another discussion that I try to stay very, very far from, but I would ask you one question.  If you were to take a propane torch and burn your child's hand for 5 seconds, I would call you a monster and expect that your children should be taken from you.  What error, what mistake, what crime could one of your children commit that was so grievous that you think a fitting punishment would be to destine them to burn for all eternity?  

I think it's fallacious to say that morality must stem from belief in and a positive relationship with god.

A lot of assumptions are made about the nature of divine beings without any evidence to support that they even exist.

I am in a tough place, personally, because though I believe in god (and you can guess which one), I don't think there's any benefit to devoting time and energy into worship unless its directly beneficial to my life.

Having a mystical superman who can swoop in and fix everything, but for some reason, doesn't can be an excuse for people to not better their own situation, but rather pray for something to come along to solve their problems. I have seen it happen.

I think it's better by far to put one's hopes in humanity. Humanism, I think, is healthier than putting one's hopes and energies into some ephemeral other.

-CK

Trace Oswald wrote:
I also think it's a poor choice to buy something that is only good in event of a complete societal breakdown.  I have tools that could be considered prepper tools.  I have guns and ammo, I have fire starting equipment, camping equipment, axes and knives, and on and on, but the things I have I also use.

I agree. If people live in the city and don't go camping the fact is a lot of their gear probably won't ever be used. And when men have disposable income they are often easily tempted by super cool looking new tech and toys. But no one is making them buy it, they WANT to buy it.

I use 98% of the stuff I have, there are a few exceptions that I may never use like a 3m gas mask and potassium iodide but they don't amount to very much.  Though if I had lots of money I would buy a whole lot more weapons, not because I "need" them but because I like them.

On the subject of God and religion. Many people in the modern western world love to mock the concept of God or those that practice a religion as ridiculous and antiquated superstition.  IMO that attitude is largely fueled by the fact that death is not currently a constant part of our world. Many people try to avoid thinking about entirely and can go most of their lives without having to experience the loss of someone very close to them.

Fact is throughout most of human history death was a constant companion. Parents often lost half or even all of their children to illness, young women frequently died in childbirth, many young men died in wars, plagues/diseases would roll around every few years and could claim a huge chunk of the population etc... When that is your world and those you loved most were suddenly taken from you, and when YOU may be taken at any time the belief in god and the afterlife becomes very important. People often suffered a great deal due to illness or injury as well. Without a belief in the afterlife and a reward for the suffering many would simply give up or off themselves because they could not handle the grief and pain.

One thing that some predict is that if society ever did suffer some sort of collapse and life became hard and unpredictable again religion, and communities based on religion, would make a big comeback. It wouldn't be a Mad Max or Threads type scenario -- quite the opposite.

Marco Banks wrote:Allow me to muse for a minute on the original premise in the OP of the thread:

"There are two types of people in this world now.  The kind that believe that god will punish them for being immoral, and the type that don't believe in that kind of god or any god."

I agree with you: "I don't believe in that kind of god", as you put it.  But those are not the only two options: belief in a negative vindictive god, or no belief at all.  And morality cannot be found in either of those --- not true morality.

My concern with your statement is that it seems to be written from a negative perspective.  God's character and the basis for the kind of morality that He desires is not rooted in punishment.  Rather, motivation to do good and do right is based in His good and right character.  Its based in love.  Morality is rooted in a relationship with that loving and good God.  The Bible speaks of judgement as "His strange work" --- in other words, it's not characteristic of God to be going around twacking people on the head and smiting them for bad deeds.  His character is compassionate, long-suffering (patient) and tolerant.  But there is right and wrong.  There is a moral standard, and while He shows tremendous patience, ultimately, like any loving parent or teacher or friend, there is a time where moral standards must be held and even enforced.  That's loving.

So what is God like?  Compassionate, creative, forgiving, merciful.  He invites us into deeper relationship and intimacy, which is our deepest longing as people.  Morality comes from that place, not a place of fear of punishment.  We don't do good deeds because somehow we dig deep inside ourselves and find some good place from which to do them.  We are selfish and fallen people.  Any good that I happen to do in this world flows from the loving relationship I share with my Creator, not from some goodness inherent in me.

Why did my children obey me when they were young?  Because they knew how deeply I loved them.  I told them that daily, and demonstrated that to them a million times.  Did they ever disobey?  Certainly -- every kid pushes the boundaries.  The loving thing was to correct them and make my expectations known to them.  Call that morality, if you will.  At the end of the day, my expectations for them were to see them be blessed.  To thrive.  To grow and mature and become all that they have the potential to be.  In the same way, God's desire is to see people be blessed and to enjoy a relationship with Him.  He takes no delight in punishment, any more than I did in disciplining my children.  

And now that my children are grown and emancipated, living on their own and moving forward in this world . . . why do they still obey me and the precepts that my dear wife and I taught them?  Certainly because they love us, but more so because they know intimately that God loves them and that His ways are best.  Fear of punishment has absolutely nothing to do with it.  They have experienced the love of God and nothing short of obedience to Him would make any sense for them.  It's exciting to see them grow in that love.

Let me end with this (my long-winded missive): the perception that God is somehow holding out on us and that morality is a way of keeping the best from us is so screwed up.  God's ways are right, and His standards lead to blessing.  If you see morality as some sort of negative stick by which some divine figure "up there" is waiting to hit you with, that couldn't be further from the truth.  We follow God's ways because that is the best way of life.  Why would I settle for less?  Why would I want anyone who I love to settle for less than what is best for them?  Its a broken and fallen world, not because God is somehow withholding His blessing but because humanity has chosen to go their own way, assuming that their ways are right.  

Grace to you as you continue to seek truth in all these things.  You are deeply and dearly loved.  In this broken world, there is hope in that.

Yeah, but which god?  There are so many to choose from.  While I've never personally read one page of any "bible" from any of them, I get the gist of it.
It's control.
Men like to control other men.  That's a fact of nature......so a person like me can only come to one conclusion on the topic.  God is a man made idea.

Proof in that it needs to be taught by men (nature shows her children, she doesn't write books for them to follow).  Oddly it's the region a person was born in that dictates their religion.  That region teaches what they know, and pounds it in every Sunday.   It's literally brain washing.  

The thing is, all of those things you mention above are good things to keep society under control.  If a person believes, let them believe whatever they want.  Even better if it improves their helping their fellow man out.  In no way am I saying that believing in God is bad.  It's just that a lot of things are "justified" in his name that are absolutely horrendous.  God is the ultimate man made scapegoat for his own NATURAL immorality.  Morality, is just a man made word/idea.  Really, in terms of nature based survival, it's irrelevant.  

I'm logic based, and I'll never be able to wrap my head around any man made religion being "real".   I was raised with zero religion.  My parents never spoke of it, they weren't against it, nor we they for it.  I think I have a unique perspective on the topic.
and yes, I know you know I'm wrong, and you'll prey for me.  :)  Thanks!  That's the cool part about it!

I'll briefly describe my "new found" religion since it's been brought up and it makes me smile to think of it.

Single cell, brought here by a.i.  (single cell happens to have the instruction manual encoded in it to reproduce a.i. that dropped it off)
evolves over millions/billions of years (time is irrelevant to it) and finally creates a.i. that can travel through space (the only way life can survive because the lifespan of any planet is finite)
and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...........
I believe this, because I see it with my eyes.  It's happening right now.  It's unstoppable, and it's totally natural for us to be doing it.  We are programmed to make new technology, we can't help ourselves from building it.  

(had to come back and edit this in.  God/religion are part of the "program" in the cell that evolves.  You've got to have a well organized workforce to accomplish the task at hand.  Thus the reason religion is a constant among men of any region.  He's programmed to accept it, and become a slave to build the functional society that will eventually have the means to make the a.i.)

Feel free to join my religion.  It's totally free, there aren't any books to read, there are no membership fees or tithing, no places where you're forced to worship it, and best of all, there are no salespeople needed to SELL it.  
You walk outside, open your eyes, and do what you were programmed to do.  Enjoy it, do it, and smile.
Yeah, I actually believe that to be pretty dang close to why we're here now.  Oddly, it's this website that converted me from believing in nothing.

Anyhow, it's nothing personal.  Sorry to go so far off topic.


Back to the topic at hand (kind of),
How about a really cool song that's kind of about prepping and survival for a musical interlude to the nonsense I wrote above!

https://youtu.be/5uASQgLwaIs

Corb Lund.  Real country music.  :)

Labelling suffering as a virtue that will pay off in the next life has long been a way to keep the unwashed masses from rising up and fighting for fairness and equality.

I think you're right about the fear of death being a driving factor in the popularity of religion, that and poverty, suffering, and depression. It's so effective, it's still in use.

I think, though, that the less death is in our daily lives, the more shocking when it occurs, and the greater effect it has on our psyche. So no real net change, I think.

I don't think it's religion and god that are being mocked by Western society. I think it's literal interpretations of Christian Fables, which were originally only retold stories of earlier mythologies, that are touted as literal fact, though none of it is even remotely verifiable.

I think faith in something is important, but I honestly believe that God wouldn't want us to place that faith in something so far outside of our reality. I think the time has long passed for humanity to place its faith in humanity.

If we are, after all, children of God's creation, made in His image, we then have some measure of His attributes. Why is it logical that we should have to restrain our reason, to hide our light under bushels, to bury the money our master gives us as opposed to investing it to make our lives better, and to return Him more? These are God-given gifts that we were given to use for the betterment of humanity.

So if our God-given reason suggests that it is counterproductive to spend time in worship of a being who apparently deliberately left no evidence of his existence, shouldn't we take it as a sign that His existence shouldn't be taken as a factor in our decision making?

For the record, I have been a choirboy since grade six. No foolin', at rehearsal an hour before every mass to sing each Sunday; I would consider myself better versed than many bible-thumpers.

Religion is ultimately a human construct, and the intent of its creators was to control human behaviour. I think it's always better to try and hold God and religion separate. It's hard to credibly claim that organised religion is anything other than an organisation or bureaucracy designed by humans. Its goals, depending on the religion, leaders, and timeframe, can be fluid. Ultimately, they seek to concentrate the product of human time and effort in a single entity, to better exercise power.

This says nothing of God. God, for my money, is innocent of all the ills of religion, save that God did nothing to stop wrongs committed in His name. That aside, and if He has no power to act in this world, then I hold him blameless. He set the top spinning and walked away.

I think to be better humans, we have to set the idea of deity aside so as to unencumber our development. Not that I don't believe there's anything greater in scope or nature than ourselves, but that I don't think we need to be subservient to the idea of a supreme being any longer. We are the active, working forces in our world. We can effect the change we seek to see.

I think it's important to acknowledge that we are alone in this, even if it turns out that is not the case. We don't have a safety net, or a genie that will pop everything back into place when we mess things up. The actions of humanity will determine the course of events, so we bear the responsibility to ensure the best outcome from this point forward.

I don't think He would want us to spend our lives pining away for his presence, any more than He would want us to fight wars over how we worship. Is that our purpose, or are we, as a species, on this plane of existence, capable of so much more?

Besides, if humanity becomes the thing held as sacred, how, then, could we condone some of the worst sins currently perpetrated by man?

How could we let our social bonds decay to breaking?

How could we kill our neighbours for fear they might steal our food?

How could those neighbours intend you harm, and how could you not readily feed them?

How could they, then, not readily repay your generosity by working to intensify your systems and accelerate the progress of your food systems, feeding more people and perhaps providing the opportunity for your neighbours to start projects of their own?

It's not that God, any god, is worth mocking; that's foolish. It's simply that God is less relevant than the good Humanity can do for Humanity. We just have to wake up and realise it's we that have the power.

I think, just as the child must grow to adulthood, God must have intended that his children mature and leave the nest. At least figuratively, but I think a literal leaving of the nest and colonising of other nests would be a great idea.

In any case, this would leave more time for the practical concerns of permaculture and adaptation.

I would feel more comfortable with a humanism-aligned "church" (note the little "c") that taught permaculture and built principles of resilient design into society, and had church outings for, say, a picnic that featured an overseeding of municipal monocultural lawn with an innocuous pollinator food-and-habitat mix (municipally sanctioned, of course), or maybe a trip to an individual member's property for a barn-raising activity, possibly quite literally raising a barn.

I agree that religion has the ability to gather like-minded people and motivate them to goals they otherwise wouldn't realise, but the distraction and potential for conflict leads me to think something new might be the better option.

-CK

I have always believed in God but from a monistic pantheist point of view. I was never a fan of Christians however in recent years after having moved to a rural area of the deep south where most are Southern Baptist I have taken on a different attitude.

It is part of the culture here and I LIKE the culture. I may not be Christian but if anyone wanted to remove the stone cross down from in front of the courthouse I would get angry and object. It reflects the values and beliefs of the people in this community and if some don't like it they don't need to live in this community (because they sure as heck aren't from here anyway).

I feel the exact same way about Islam in Muslim countries. After having visited Iran I liked their culture, it has a lot of positive aspects to it and it works for their society which is why it has been practiced for over 1500 years (though the countries that routinely practice first cousin marriages aren't doing themselves any favors but most countries don't engage in that much).