Thoughts about prolonged emergencies

 

I've developed certain ideas about staying alive when the world is going to hell in a handbasket all around you.  They're based on extensive experience (which, frankly, I wish I'd never had) in the Third World, and being involved in at least three civil war/conflict situations in different countries.  I've never had to deal with medical dystopias such as an outbreak of disease that kills most of the population, but I have seen what happens when West African hemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola, Marburg or Lassa get loose in parts of that continent.  I've seen what happens when entire regional or even national populations, convinced (on the basis of bitter experience) that nobody is going to help them, decide to help themselves at everyone else's expense . . . only for all concerned to find out that what you do unto others is, indeed, what they're going to do to you - and if that happens simultaneously, the rate of survival is likely to be pretty grim.

There have been almost innumerable dystopian novels and series of books written about such scenarios.  Some are very good indeed, both from literary and "lessons learned the hard way" perspectives.  Others are so far away from reality that they're no more than nightmare fodder.  I'd like to talk about a few such books and series that I've found to be more or less true to life, and which are therefore appropriate learning material for the rest of us as we prepare for whatever life may throw at us.  I think I'll make a series of it, over the course of several weeks.

There are a few things that none of the novels get right - possibly because if they did, the novel would come to a grinding halt after only a few pages!  Nevertheless, cold hard reality has taught its lessons time and time again, and we ignore them at our mortal peril.  Here are a few considerations.

1. In extreme, prolonged dystopia (e.g. post-nuclear war, massive outbreak of disease, the "zombie apocalypse", etc.) it's very, very unlikely that more than a few people would survive and thrive.  Bare survival - if they're very lucky and well equipped, yes.  More than that - no.  With all the other survivors trying to keep body and soul together, there's unlikely to be much cooperation and mutual assistance going on.  In communities that lived that way before the apocalypse - religious and cultural groups like the Amish or the Mormons, military units that lived on-base with most of their families, that sort of thing - it's certainly possible, but for most of us . . . no.  We live too independently, even in city suburbs, to put much trust in those around us.
2. Competition for resources would rapidly descend into "devil take the hindmost".  Unless a family was numerous enough and well-equipped enough and well-trained enough and living in a defensible home, there's no way it would be able to defend its "home base" against multiple onslaughts by desperate people.  I'd expect massive looting, fires, etc. to erupt in most urban areas as gang-bangers and welfare kings and queens express their frustration by destroying anything and anyone that looks better off than they are.  (Witness New York in 1977, Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992, and many other examples - and those were of relatively short duration.  What if they'd continued for months?)  What's more, local cops, firefighters and emergency medical personnel are very likely to walk away from their jobs to try to safeguard their own families.  I can't blame them.  In their shoes, I'd probably do the same - but that means nobody will be coming to help you.  You'll be on your own.
3. Most local and state governments already have ordinances in place allowing them to declare local states of emergency, during which they can commandeer (i.e. confiscate or steal) anything and everything they want to meet the emergency.  Your reserve supplies are almost certain to be among them, particularly if it's known that you're a "prepper" or "survivalist".  You can expect anyone with that mindset to be re-labeled a "hoarder" or "black market profiteer", even though those labels would be completely untrue.  Don't forget, the bureaucrats and officers pounding on your door, demanding to search your home for such supplies and confiscating them, know full well that their own and their families' survival depends on taking what they need from others - so they won't be very sympathetic to your claims about civil rights, and may get violent at the drop of a hat.  (See my comments post-Hurricane Katrina in 2005 for examples.)
4. Mobility after a major disaster is likely to be almost impossible.  Gasoline and diesel supplies will no longer be distributed;  the authorities will hold onto whatever they can get for their own use.  Roads will be blocked by vehicles that have run out of fuel, or accidents caused by panicked motorists, or gang-bangers deliberately trying to disrupt traffic so they can steal from stopped cars and trucks.  If you can get out into open country, it'll be better there, but there still won't be much in the way of fuel supplies, and locals will probably regard those passing through as a source of supplies they need, rather than people they should help.
5. Even if you're wealthy enough, as an individual or family or community, to hire your own security personnel, that may not help when things come to a head.  Risking one's life for one's own family is one thing;  risking it to defend another family, when your own people are simultaneously at risk, is entirely another.  Besides, if you have equipment, supplies, shelter and transport when nobody else does, won't your security people want to have some of that for themselves, too?  They wouldn't be human if they didn't.  Only the best and most trustworthy security (and therefore the most expensive) will put their bosses ahead of their own needs;  and when the money runs out, they'll likely follow it.  (You'll have to pay them in something of tangible value, too.  Checks, electronic transfers and even cash won't do when they can't use them to buy what they and their families need.)
6. Cities and towns are likely to turn into death traps in a prolonged dystopian emergency.  There are simply too many people living on top of each other, with few if any local supplies to sustain them except what's brought in from outside every day.  When power goes out, so do lights, electric appliances, water and sewer pumps and treatment plants, etc.  Most of us live in cities or larger towns.  If we do, that's an automatic black mark against us in such an emergency.  We're starting the survival process at a significant disadvantage just because of where we live.  The first time I flew into greater Los Angeles, I remember looking down from the airplane at the miles upon miles of urban sprawl (2,281 square miles of contiguous urban area), and thinking "If I were in the middle of that when the Big One hit, I'd never get out.  I'd be trapped in the middle of millions of panicking people, all putting themselves ahead of everyone else."  That's one of the reasons why I don't live in a big city any more.

Those are just a few basic realities about staying alive in a prolonged disaster situation.  Over the next few weeks, I'll mention a few books and series that describe such things, and what their authors got right - and wrong.  We can and should learn from such books, but let's learn the right lessons!

Peter