[jdavionic]

Someone brought up Africa as an example. Having a friend from one of the troubled nations there, I can tell you that humans are quite capable of some terrible acts when times get desperate. However predators can also become prey. A "good" man can quickly justify horrible acts against a "bad" man as well.

Point being and borrowing from an example cited earlier, don't be surprised if that seemingly easy target turns out to be trap and you end up with a bullet in the back, followed by your head on stake.

[Dexters]

Originally Posted by lawman800

. What if it does run out?

Fire
Flood
Earthquake
Tornado
Insects
Rats
Extra People
Spoilage
Etc.

[John Rambo]

Originally Posted by Bolster

I just don't think it's a realistic scenario. Seems more realistic that, if Rambo manages to wipe out Homer and his clan, and tries to trade Homer's supplies at the next outpost, chances are Rambo will be swingin' in the breeze before long. That's a common historical refrain.

I think Rambo is extremely optimistic about his chances of pulling off all this killing and looting undetected and unpunished.

I think bolster makes a very valid point here. There is certianly a risk. If I end up sniping Homer and then end up at Homer's camp with Homer's belongings looking to trade, I'd be a dead man. I've got nothing to say to that, really - if my luck turns out that bad, I'd get what I had coming to me.

Originally Posted by Bolster

How does that part work? Rambo shows up with Homer's supplies, Homer and his clan are found dead, but nobody can figure out where Rambo's supplies came from? All that shooting attracts attention...so all the witnesses to the event gunned down too?

"All that shooting?" You're assumming a gunfight would ensue, and that people would care. I can guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody is going to investigate every gunshot in a scenario like we're discussing. Now, a gunfight...scavengers might show up later to look, but I think Bolster is overestimating how curious people are going to be in a world where you're struggling to keep your heart beating, let alone enforcing law and order.

This is all kept on the Q.T. how? Nobody in Rambo's clan gets drunk and brags about the event? Even in empty stretches of the Wild West, people were able to figure out who stole what from whom. Imagine trying to pull that off in today's world, either pre or post apocalypse.

Bolster's description gives me a feeling that hes thinking about a "Book of Eli" sort of post apocalyptica. Rambo has more of a "The Road" setting in mind. To sum it up, I don't think mankind will be as organized and civilized as you do when resources become scarce and law and order falls apart.

Shoot 2 or 3 people in a group, take their goods, hide the bodies or dump in a river, and 50 miles down the road who's going to know? There won't be phones or emails or security cameras or town criers. There won't be anything but people trying to survive.

[Triple7]

Originally Posted by dudel

You'd better have more than the two G17s in your sig before you try that!

That's just the Glocks......




And people read way to much into my one sentence. If my kids are starving I'm gonna do whatever it takes to feed them. If I have to lie, cheat and steal to get that done I will.
Now this is assuming ALL other food sources are gone. (including fishing and hunting.)
But since I have a ranch with 500 plus head of cattle to use....I think I could be ok for a while.

[Bolster]

This whole thread is an argument between teleologists and deontologists (if anyone cares to get philosophical).

Teleologists: the end justifies the means.
Deontologists: duty to the moral code.

This argument has been going on since Aristotle, or earlier.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by runcible68

Amen brother!

Personally, I think some of the "Rambo" posters here can't wait for civilization to end so they can indulge the darker sides of their personalities. Of course, there are evil realities about human nature, but some posters spend way too much time mulling over it. As Nietzsche once said, "Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you."

Some people here are a few beers short of a six pack. I'm not worried about hordes of starving people if the SHTF. I'm worried about some of the guys on Glock Talk. Please steer clear of my house!

The people "a few beers short of a six pack," best I can tell, are the ones who take these things seriously and get into a hand-wringing tizzy over what's said on Glock Talk.

[kalifornia]

Originally Posted by Triple7

But since I have a ranch with 500 plus head of cattle to use....I think I could be ok for a while.

Aren't Hamburgers Americas favorite treat? What size army would one of Americas last hamburger joints require? Are you hiring? I'll work for food

[John Rambo]

Originally Posted by kalifornia

Aren't Hamburgers are Americas favorite treat? What size army would one of Americas last hamburger joints require? Are you hiring?

Farms would be seized by FEMA or other government troops prior to their fall. There is no 'might be' or 'could be' about it. The government will absolutely seize control of our food supply as it crumbles in a last ditch effort to "save" us(themselves).

Cletus and his grandpappy's shotgun and Earl and Wyatt from down the road with their Mini 14 and 30/30 won't be a match for a few squads of heavily armed soldiers.

[Bolster]

Originally Posted by John Rambo

Farms would be seized by FEMA or other government troops prior to their fall. There is no 'might be' or 'could be' about it. The government will absolutely seize control of our food supply as it crumbles in a last ditch effort to "save" us(themselves).

Well John Rambo has that beer in the fridge, for sure. The population would simply demand the redistribution of food; politicians would do a quick calculation of where votes come from, and farms across the nation would suddenly be "nationalized" by the Food Security Force (another bureaucracy with automatic weapons).

[kalifornia]

I ain't scared Triple 7, I'll work for 3 hamburgers per day/ with condiments or 4 without. Let me know!

[mdsn969]

Originally Posted by Bolster

This whole thread is an argument between teleologists and deontologists (if anyone cares to get philosophical).

Teleologists: the end justifies the means.
Deontologists: duty to the moral code.

This argument has been going on since Aristotle, or earlier.

+1

[Triple7]

Y'all get to growing potatoes.....we will live fat until we die. lol

[ZombieKing]

Try to work with others. Groups have better survival rates. Grow food. Hunt food. Eat anything not human but edible. May reach the point of cannibalism.

If it gets worse then that? I'd like to say no but I'm a realist so yes....

As some others have said, true starvation will change you biologically and mentally. No one here is immune to how their body will make them act. All the willpower in the world will not override your body screaming for food. This has been shown and studied in people who've been in starvation mode. You can't escape human biology.

If you had asked the Donner Party people if they would ever resort to cannibalism they would have looked at you in horror and chased you out of whatever room you were in. In reality? They ate a whole lot of the other white meat.

We've seen cannibalism all over the world all the time. Right now it's in a low but it's still there.

And the same applies to attacking others for their supplies. Wars have always been fought over resources not fortune (to the guy up thread who said that). You might not attack and steal from your group but you sure as hell will attack that group over the hill.

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Spectacular, but words are wind.

Its fine to say something like that. Its a whole different ball game to look into your 6 yr olds eyes and realize he's going to die if you don't find some food.

Deep down, humans are animals. Pushed hard enough, long enough, or with the right trigger and they will revert.

You can claim otherwise, but history's shown repeatedly that its true.

Yep.

All these people saying they wouldn't? They certainly would given the right pressure.

And for all those who talk about sacking liberals and Democrats.... what about all the conservatives who don't prep? Are they off the list? And how do you expect those people to have stuff for you to take in the first place?

[Commander_Zero]

Really, if you start shooting innocent strangers to replenish your food supply I would suspect that food won't be your biggest problem for you for very long.

[quake]

Originally Posted by John Rambo

...Rambo has more of a "The Road" setting in mind...

Is there another poster called "Rambo" in the thread? Serious question; because if there is, I missed it.

Otherwise, we have Rambo calling Rambo "Rambo".

Quake thinks quake is intrigued.

[Bolster]

Originally Posted by ZombieKing

true starvation will change you biologically and mentally.

Yes, agree to that, but don't necessarily agree to what some of you think starvation will cause. Starvation tends to cause apathy, despair, listlessness -- not wild aggression and cannibalism.

For every survival case in which you see wild ever-man-for-himselfism, or cannibalism, you see many more cases of groups desperately pulling together, and a rigid code of "loyalty to the group" forming. Infractions, such as stealing extra rations, are generally punished severely by a strong coalition within the group.

I forget who said it in the thread, but it's true; the overwhelming number of examples of privation and survival are NOT stories of aggression and lone wolf-ism -- that's the Hollywood version. Aggression becomes an extremely expensive and risky proposition when all the hospitals and meds are are offline, and people will become increasingly risk AVERSE in a crisis ... not risk SEEKING...except for a few nut-cases, who've been yearning for anarchy, and will go wild--but they will be the first to die.

When aggression does occur (and it of course will), it will be when the aggressor thinks it's safe to do so, and has the advantage of numbers. Attacks will be against "out-groupers" and rival tribes. Even in the rare cases of cannibalism, such as the Andes survivors, there was something of a group consensus established before the living would eat the dead.

I blame the influence of too many television shows and movies warping people's ability to realistically envision a chaotic, post-catastrophe future. Study actual cases of survival, don't rely on Mad Max fantasies, and you'll learn that group norms become hugely influential in a crisis. You'll also learn that disciplined groups generally fare much better than lone wolves.

[quake]

Originally Posted by ZombieKing

..If you had asked the Donner Party people if they would ever resort to cannibalism they would have looked at you in horror and chased you out of whatever room you were in.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. But you ignore the fact that they didn't attack and kill folks. They were trapped and starving, and ate the only protein source available to them.

Another point of your own post is very relevant as well. While they took advantage of the (horrible) option they had, they didn't murder people, did they? They made a horrible personal decision that made them historically noteworthy (and ultimately kept them alive), but did it WITHOUT harming a living person in the process, didn't they...

The Donner party folks didn't kill people, even in their most dire situation; and as you say, would probably run you out of the room if you'd suggested it. Yet what we have here in this thread is people sitting in comfortable, climate-controlled rooms, with full bellies and full refrigerators at hand, saying that they would kill people.

By your own statement (which I agree with, btw) they'd probably have been appalled at the thought of killing folks for their food; because they DIDN'T kill folks over food. That in itself makes the Donner party people sound MORE moral than a lot of what we're encountering here.

Only scumbags harm the innocent, and even in their dire, life-threatening situation, even the Donner party didn't do so.

[ZombieKing]

Originally Posted by Bolster

For every survival case in which you see wild ever-man-for-himselfism, or cannibalism, you see many more cases of groups desperately pulling together, and a rigid code of "loyalty to the group" forming. Infractions, such as stealing extra rations, are generally punished severely by a strong coalition.

And that group will resort to attacking others. As other groups will also do the same.

I'm not saying people don't form groups. Clearly they do. But when everything is do it or die those groups will do it in order to not die.

[Bolster]

Originally Posted by quake

The Donner party folks didn't kill people, even in their most dire situation; and as you say, would probably run you out of the room if you'd suggested it. Yet what we have here in this thread is people sitting in comfortable, climate-controlled rooms, with full bellies and full refrigerators at hand, saying that they would kill people.

Thank you!! Clarity at last.

All this talk of wild aggression and eating each others' flesh is just so much internet chest beating.

[John Rambo]

Originally Posted by quake

Is there another poster called "Rambo" in the thread? Serious question; because if there is, I missed it.

Otherwise, we have Rambo calling Rambo "Rambo".

Quake thinks quake is intrigued.

Quake obviously doesn't yet realize that Rambo and Bolster's conversation was taking place in third person.

[quake]

Originally Posted by John Rambo

Quake obviously doesn't yet realize that Rambo and Bolster's conversation was taking place in third person.

Quake can read.

Rambo and Bolster's conversation here was not in the third person. Bolster never referred to himself as Bolster, never referred to anyone called Bolster, and never even used the word 'Bolster'.

Rambo did, so while Rambo was clearly referring to himself in the third person; he was not having a 'conversation' in the third person.

If Rambo intends to turn predator, I hope he spends the time and effort to develop tactical proficiency surpassing the level of here-demonstrated English proficiency.

(Then again, I actually kind of hope not...)

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Bolster

Thank you!! Clarity at last.

All this talk of wild aggression and eating each others' flesh is just so much internet chest beating.

You live in a world where people kill others to take an iPod or a pair of shoes, pretty regularly. I've seen people killed for an insult or a bottle of beer (1 bottle, but it was the last 1). Yet you doubt that people would be willing to kill for food in a post-apocalyptic world with no law.

The people out of touch with reality may be the ones who don't realize that the point of all those stories about the sheep and sheepdogs and wolves is that a lot of sheep don't realize the world is full of people who really don't think like them and who think their weakness makes them food.

I've spent my entire life around people who would kill you just because they don't like people who look like you or talk like you, if the risk of retribution by an organized government was removed. Those may not be the people on this forum, but don't fool yourself into thinking the overwhelmingly suburban nerd crowd that posts on internet forums represents the whole world.

[ShotRePeter]

"i'd kill you for a klondike bar"

[John Rambo]

Originally Posted by quake

Quake can read.

Rambo and Bolster's conversation here was not in the third person. Bolster never referred to himself as Bolster, never referred to anyone called Bolster, and never even used the word 'Bolster'.

Rambo did, so while Rambo was clearly referring to himself in the third person; he was not having a 'conversation' in the third person.

If Rambo intends to turn predator, I hope he spends the time and effort to develop tactical proficiency surpassing the level of here-demonstrated English proficiency.

(Then again, I actually kind of hope not...)

Quake can't read quite as well as he thinks he can.

If quake refers back to post 148, Quake will see Bolster was addressing Rambo while referring to Rambo in the 3rd person.

If quake's aim is anything like his reading comprehension, he will be a prime target for people like Rambo in post apocalyptica.

[TN.Frank]

So basically what some of ya'll are saying in a nut shell is:
"When the going gets tough the tough eat people." LOL.

"Humans, the OTHER white meat."

Sounds like the move "The Road".