We won't do it...

I got to thinking (one of the more dangerous things I do). There are countless people, mostly men, who would love to break off from society and live a self-sustaining life. That's great and all, but it's kind of selfish. I'm not bashing survivalists, I'm just saying it's a bit self-indulged to want to abandon society and live alone hunting for your own food. I bring this all up because I have a better idea (I think).

I was thinking about tribal life. Tribes have survived thousands of years because the members depend on one another. If I were to break off from society, I would personally rather be in a tribal group with my "brothers" and "sisters" to back me up. What do guys think? Pros? Cons?

I agree with you 100%
More people mean more security, more hunters, more gatherers, more help with all matters big and small, but...

More mouths to feed,
more conflicts
more of everything is required to satisfy more needs. But more people to assist in satisfying those needs.

There are pros and cons to both, but on personal preference, I would rather be a part of something than a-part from everything.

Let's go forward/backwards...

Read the thread linked in my sig, and then read my book (also linked in my sig and offered freely).

Those that want to "go native" will have that choice. Those that want to go to the Star Trek universe...they can too.

Check it out.

You will have snitches and government scum, getting in there to destroy it. Does not matter if your peaceful, governments and police will be after you to destroy it.

Tribes are great. The men hunt animals and fight wars, while the women raise children and care for the village. Everything works out fine until you get to the question of leadership. One person must have power, whether elected or by proclaiming themself dictator. The risks of a tribe include secession, discontent, revolt, etc... All it takes is one person to be unhappy and kill the leader to cause chaos. Plus, the loss of a leader hits much harder with only ten or twenty people.

You get to assign jobs to the tribespeople, which would leave room for free time, which you would not have if surviving alone. This free time must be filled with something: Religion is one, which is another problem. What if your tribespeople have different religious values? Conflict would be sure to occur at some point in the future.

In the case of a modern day tribe, the odds of success would be greater than typical tribes of the past. If you could avoid religion, ensure that the leader is liked by all members, and find a way to keep the structure of the tribe from collapsing.

reply to post by fleetlord


You could have a tribe with the same religious values and beliefs.

People that think the will live a mad max kind of life aren't being too realistic. There would be tribes. Who will watch the kids when you go out to hunt? Who will bring you food when you are injured or unhealthy?

We are social things us humans. We need each other eventually. Without interaction we will go nuts (scientific fact for most people). So yeah, localized community groups will spring up overnight. People to watch your food stash while you sleep will be a good thing.

Thanks for all of the good answers. A nomadic tribe would be best in my opinion. That would be a huge chunk of "free time". Travelling across a countryside. Of course, you would have to be in a large enough wilderness to be able to move around a lot. The Canadian wilderness maybe.

strength in numbers, having other people with y you can trust works alot better than going it your own.

reply to post by OrphenFire

I'm not bashing survivalists, I'm just saying it's a bit self-indulged to want to abandon society and live alone hunting for your own food.

Since when did survivalism = being alone?
Your idea is not at all original. I'd say that the vast majority see things this way. The lone wolves are just one broken leg or twisted ankle away from dying in a short period of time.

This is one of the things that bother me about Bear Grylls show. He hops onto rocks and climbs up and down some rather risky areas, and in a survival situation that can get you killed, and for no good reason.

I think that if it were to come to us having to consider going off and living on our own, hunting for food it would be a good chance to actually change our species and not evolve into the same mold that got us to that point in the first place.

If we were to start tribes, leaders would be chosen and eventually we would evolve into the same political system that we have grown tired of.

Perfect!

..because...

...one alone in the wild WILL go crazy sooner or later.

Peace

reply to post by OrphenFire

I got to thinking (one of the more dangerous things I do). There are countless people, mostly men, who would love to break off from society and live a self-sustaining life. That's great and all, but it's kind of selfish. I'm not bashing survivalists, I'm just saying it's a bit self-indulged to want to abandon society and live alone hunting for your own food. I bring this all up because I have a better idea (I think).

Good rant and good ideas... but it can get you into tight spaces because we are no longer a greater, broad-minded society. We are a collection of small, very narrow minded clans with far less education than any generation in a century and no vision for a future that doesn't place 'me' ahead of 'you'.

I think survival will depend on a number of factors, not the least of which being where you are when it all goes down. But beyond that, the sustaining of life will be far easier for those who can think outside of the immediate 'me'.

If it does finally come down to a world of survivors, the ability to accept and blend with your fellow humans will be critical. For those who hold a tightly squeezed view, it may be a very lonely end.

Best

EDIT: S&F for a good topic and good opener.





[edit on 14-11-2009 by redoubt]

I also agree 100%. Small groups have the best chance of survival. Anyone thinking they should go it alone is foolish. MHO

If I were a single guy in my 20's maybe I'd consider just bugging out with a backpack and a mountain bike when SHTF. I would imagine most of you considering that option probably fit in that category.

But I'm a family man and I'm not dragging my wife and three kids through the bush. We're bunkering down here, or moving quickly to somewhere we can bunker down, if environmental conditions don't allow us to stay. Personally I'd prefer the whole famdamily all came over to my house. Mom, dad, brother-in-law & his kids, my other in-laws . . . heck we'd have quite a village right there! Mine & wife's family are all born & bred Kansas farmers, hunters, I can't think of a single one of them that couldn't contribute something useful. Even my mother-in-law as much as I hate to say it.

For the sake of this discussion, I'll throw these out:

"Lone wolf" approach
Pro's:
Easy to move. Can change location easily by 30+ miles a day if you hoof it. Not so easy with a medium or large-sized group.
Remaining undetected is obviously easier.
Less resource gathering, you only need enough for yourself.
No one to argue with on what you should do, set your own priorities on food fathering, shelter, foraging, etc.

Con's:
Stealth must be a priority. You do not have a significant defense force.
Injury, illness usually = death.
You are a one-man show. Water, food, shelter -- all your responsibility. Spreading yourself thin.
Must be willing & able to drop everything, move at a moment's notice.


Group or "Tribe" approach
Pro's:
More comfortable living. Semi-permanent structures and village-like economy.
More people to work makes less work for everyone. You may only have one responsibility, such as gathering water, rather than handling all aspects of survival (food, water, shelter, protection) yourself.
Far safer than being alone. Others can protect you while you sleep. A fortified group of 5-10 can provide a significant defense force against dangers.
Help is available if you become injured or ill.

Con's:
Groups of people in a stressful situation can lead to conflict. If resources become scarce there WILL be fighting amongst yourselves. Requires solid leadership and all members must be willing to participate.
Mobility is limited. If you become a target, fleeing isn't as easy. Your only choice may be to stand and fight.
You need to be willing to share. For the group to be successful you can't hoard supplies for yourself.
"Sitting duck" if your tribe is successful, comfortable with many resources (food, water, etc.) you may become a target of groups who are less fortunate.

I was thinking about tribal life. Tribes have survived thousands of years because the members depend on one another. If I were to break off from society, I would personally rather be in a tribal group with my "brothers" and "sisters" to back me up. What do guys think? Pros? Cons?

I believe you may want to "be in a" commune for to be in a tribe, the most relished definition of late:

Tribe \Tribe\, n. [L. tribus, originally, a third part of the
Roman people, afterwards, a division of the people, a tribe;
of uncertain origin: cf. F. tribu.]
[1913 Webster]
1. A family, race, or series of generations, descending from
the same progenitor, and kept distinct, as in the case of
the twelve tribes of Israel, descended from the twelve
sons of Jacob. "The Lion of the tribe of Juda." --Rev. v.
5.
[1913 Webster]

A wealthy Hebrew of my tribe. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

Source

So you see, If you were to"break off from society, unless you were living with your relatives, exclusively for the most part), you know...Kind of like the Blue Bloods..like tribes they inter-marry and keep the blood line pure, and pure in this case, one must assume that incest is part of the heritage, otherwise, the pure would contraversly dispatch itself. Regardless, pure would be purely pure, or purely poor, if a candidate for purity.

The song "Dueling banjos" should come to mind...