Is Having a "post Disaster" Survival Group a Viable Idea

GETTING TOGETHER AFTER A DISASTER

Is having a “survival group” a good idea?

[For on-going classes by Christopher Nyerges and the School of Self-Reliance, see Schedule at www.SchoolofSelf-Reliance.com]

We were finishing a day-long field trip of practicing outdoor survival and self-reliance skills, and the remainder of our small group was now sitting around the table talking.  The subject moved to emergency action plans, and what contingencies any of us had in the aftermath of a major disaster. 

“How would any of us ever get together after a major disaster?” one woman asked me.  She was well-aware that our small group comprised a broad spectrum of skills, people who worked to be  ethical, socially-conscious, and doers, not just talkers.  I could tell she was wondering about how our group might actually come together in such a scenario.

“We probably would have no way to get together,” I offered.  “Of course, there is no predicting the future, but if we couldn’t use a car, and couldn’t get gas, and there was chaos on the streets, in the first few weeks, we’d almost certainly have to stay put wherever we’re living.”  My response pre-supposed a serious disaster where all social services would be disrupted.

I’ve long recommended that people get to know their neighbors, because they are your “family” in the aftermath of a major disaster, like it or not. Think global, as the saying goes, but act local.  Enroll in local CERT training, and be active in Neighborhood Watch.

The woman then asked me, sort of a question and comment combined, “Well, don’t you have a tight survival group of people who would all come together in an emergency?”  She really wanted to know.  I knew she was thinking of how she might organize such a group where she lived, and I knew that she believed I have organized, or been a part of, such a “group.”

I live in the northern section of Los Angeles County, near the mountains.  In our class that day, the woman had driven about a hundred miles, from San Bernardino County from the east.  Three had come over a hundred miles, from the high desert. One other person was local, and the rest lived between 30 and 45 minutes by car from me.  We were all spread out.  There was no way that this diverse group would ever come together in the sort of disaster (and end of the functioning of normal society) that she was envisioning.

“Don’t you have a survival group?” she again implored.

I began by sharing stories in novels I’d read, about a group of highly-trained people who came together after an end-of-the-world scenario, and how they worked together to form a new society. For example, such a group is depicted in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

“But here’s the reality,” I told her.  I explained that I have worked with many “groups” over the years, often with the focus of working together to survive a disaster.

“Your best bet is to work with your own family to make each person strong, healthy, and self-reliant,” I told her, “and to work with your local community to improve things.”’

How, for example, would a far-flung diverse group of people communicate with each other?  If they were ham operators, it might be possible, but there would still be the problem of traveling a long distance under unsettled conditions.

I could see that this was not what the woman wanted to hear, so I shared more with her and the rest of our small group.

In the planning sessions of which I’ve been a part, there are always “great ideas” from everyone, and countless scenarios are discussed about what might occur.  However, in the real life, things never go that way.  Any “group” might have one natural leader, even though there is an appointed or elected leader.  That’s a problem. There are also lots of lazy people, people who want to be a part of something but who are more talk than walk.  Lazy and idealistic people have spelled the doom of many an alternative community.

I shared the experiences of a friend of mine who was part of an intentional eco-living community of under 20 people. It was all run very democratically and members would vote for “great ideas” but my friend found that the work required to do certain things was not being done.  The group voted for having a dog, and chicken, and rabbits, all of which require daily regular care, and then some.  My friend learned that  “the group” never does anything – only individuals do work.  My friend found that he was the one cleaning up after the dog, emptying the compost, taking care of the chickens, and eventually he left because he got tired of doing everyone else’s work in the supposedly idealistic ecological community.

Then there is the reverse situation, such as occurred in the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia, where everyone was forced to be “equal.”  There was no incentive to do better and do more, because you’d be knocked down, and be “re-educated” to alter your capitalistic and imperialistic thinking.  And then there was Mao, who – perhaps with “good intentions” – wanted to take the wealth of the country out of the hands of a few and give it back to the people by “nationalizing” companies.  Isn’t that that goal of the various idealistic communes and communities – making everyone equal?  Well, it doesn’t usually work, and the result of Mao’s “good intentions” cost the lives of 100 million people, more or less.

Getting back to the woman’s question about the practical aspects of a small tight group getting together after a disaster, what else can go wrong with the “group” that plans to get together?  For one thing, the ability to spring into action after an emergency requires the maintenance of physical fitness, and requires at least some level of economic autonomy, and knowing how to live one’s life so that you are, in fact, able to rise to the occasion of a severe emergency.  The concept of such a survival group is not a passive concept.  In order to be viable, it must be alive, dynamic, and involve regular training of some sort.

So, as a practical matter that I have observed in smaller groups, there is the fact that people like to pick-off the leader, and endlessly criticize.  I have watched countless “leaders” whose job ended up being fending off and defending the countless criticisms  Then the members of the presumed “survival group” form groups and clash among themselves, akin to “The Lord of the Flies.”  Then some get girlfriends or boyfriends, and they go off into their own world, fending for themselves in the society at large, just trying to seek whatever goal it is that anyone seeks in life.

These are just a few of the reasons why “groups” don’t stay together, and it’s especially pertinent with a group that is expecting an end-of-the-world event in a way that may never actually happen. 

The constant challenges that everyone faces in life requires a never-ending series of choices and changes.  Our lives never remain static, and the things that happen in society can always leave us guessing.  The idea that we should spend a major, or a large, portion of our time and resources on how we’re going to “start over” in the event of a world-changing cataclysm is some thing that should be put into perspective. 

We can’t predict the future, but learning new self-reliance skills will always serve you well, and those of your friends and associates who are of like-mind.  But assuming you survive an event like a comet hitting the earth, or a major tidal wave, there’s no way that you can depend on any “group” that you might have developed.  Don’t get me wrong—organizing and working with such a group, whether a private family group, or a more public group such as CERT training – is a great idea.  But just remember that life is a very dynamic thing, and as long as you’re willing to continually learn, and adapt to changing situations, you’re likely to do well regardless who you happen to be stuck with.