Conquer Club

If a Serious Situation occurred on this planet within the next month, would you survive?

Suppose the situation rendered the forces of law and order impotent, cut-off electricity and severely disrupted food production and supply to the point that - within the space of a few months - 90% of the Earth had been depopulated. Would you survive or not? That is, do you feel you are better or less prepared for a civilization-interrupting exigency than 90% of the population? If, yes, why?

Yes, because I'm very close to agriculture fields, have a big bay in front of me to fish and a lot of game to hunt very close to.

Yes, I have 90% of the population to BBQ

I voted no. I suspect most of the survivors would be due to blind luck.

I got dibs on saxi's pool house.

I don't think I'm prepared, but I think my morals are loose enough that I could eat people if it comes down to that.

This poll makes me happy.

Probably not... Even if I did I'd probably get depressed and let myself die off.
Though, Frigidus's dad totally bought a farm up in Wisconsin... so assuming shit did go down and I was able to make it up there with them I might have a fighting chance.

Edit: People's survival chances also GREATLY depend on what season it is when shit hits the fan.

I have 6 months supply of food. Firearms for protection and hunting and enough ammunition to last about 6 months also. I should be able to take over the world in that timeframe

i was a mothafuckin boy scout... i got this

Army of GOD wrote:I don't think I'm prepared, but I think my morals are loose enough that I could eat people if it comes down to that.

I don't think little people would survive.

Army of GOD wrote:I don't think I'm prepared, but I think my morals are loose enough that I could eat out people in exchange for food and protection if it comes down to that.

plausible

Probably not. I live in a state that is bordered almost entirely by water (rivers, a bay, and an ocean). I have a pregnant wife and a toddler. I own no guns and little canned food. The closest person I know that has a gun doesn't speak English.

I work next to the CDC, so if shit goes down there, I'm totally fucked. I live in pretty much the hub of the southern US. I own a firearm, but it lives two hours away at my dad's place. I have basic survival skills, and a better than average knowledge of local flora and fauna, as well as antimicrobial techniques. But I can't really say my preparedness is the best. I reckon I'd be in the first half of the last quarter of people to die, unless it's smallpox or something. I've got a pretty solid immune system, but my location is tough. Surrounded by people, which include some of the best disease specialists in the country and a distinct paucity of milkmaids to... inoculate... I'm willing to bet my odds are mixed.

There might be a sociology paper in the fact that half of those polled think they will be in the 10% group.

I would say probably not.

I own no weapons, don't have many canned goods, live in a city surrounded by others, have only one source of water (a river) unless I suddenly learn how to tap an aquifer, and honestly have few survival skills.

I imagine I would be one of the first to go, unless I could locate a firearm and coerce others into giving me their food/water/women/shelter. But this is Texas, so most people have firearms. I'll need a really big one. Like a rocket launcher. Or maybe a .50 cal. Or even better, a tank. But that's like 2 hours away in Ft. Hood, and more than likely the army wouldn't just leave that shit lying around for anybody to take, plus I don't know how to drive one.

Shit, I'm screwed.

thegreekdog wrote:The closest person I know that has a gun doesn't speak English.

Nietzsche is not that close to you.

Neoteny wrote:I work next to the CDC, so if shit goes down there, I'm totally fucked.

According to the Walking Dead, they have armored doors and let-in refugees, but the building is rigged to explode. So you may do okay for awhile.

tkr4lf wrote:But this is Texas, so most people have firearms. I'll need a really big one.

Didn't you once say you live in Austin? You're going to be facing a bunch of indie musicians, film students and baristas. If you even just have a slingshot you could quickly become the Ayatollah of Austin.

yes.


I'm in the military.

saxitoxin wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I work next to the CDC, so if shit goes down there, I'm totally fucked.

According to the Walking Dead, they have armored doors and let-in refugees, but the building is rigged to explode. So you may do okay for awhile.

And a killer wine cellar, so I can be thrashed when it happens. It would be nice to know which of the thirty or fifty some odd buildings on whichever CDC campus got the honor of representing the one building on that set. I guess the shutters and huge, open driveway might be a giveaway.

Neoteny wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I work next to the CDC, so if shit goes down there, I'm totally fucked.

According to the Walking Dead, they have armored doors and let-in refugees, but the building is rigged to explode. So you may do okay for awhile.

And a killer wine cellar, so I can be thrashed when it happens. It would be nice to know which of the thirty or fifty some odd buildings on whichever CDC campus got the honor of representing the one building on that set. I guess the shutters and huge, open driveway might be a giveaway.

Wait... Neoteny is in Atlanta, Georgia. The CDC center in Walking Dead is in Georgia...

Seriously, Neoteny, if it's the same one... it could explode.

Question, why many of you focus on whether or not you have guns? I think they are important, but not THAT important.

If 90% of the population is going to die, you will be able to get into homes and get whatever (not perishable) you need. I'd like to think that being only 10% of the people, we would want to cooperate to protect zones and all that shit. If we ended up relying on hunting to survive, I bet we will end up using traps.

(1) Having a gun can be very persuasive.

(2) Having a group with guns can be even more persuasive.

(3) All others must spend time finding guns while those with guns can spend that time on gaining a first-mover advantage.

BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) Having a gun can be very persuasive.

(2) Having a group with guns can be even more persuasive.

(3) All others must spend time finding guns while those with guns can spend that time on gaining a first-mover advantage.

I know all that, and yet I don't find it indispensable to survive.

Americans are gun-crazy.

Cooperation would be more decisive than gun-threats.

honestly the first thing they teach you in survival school is how to evade and survive when your opponents are armed and you're not... guns can actually give you a false sense of security

nietzsche wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) Having a gun can be very persuasive.

(2) Having a group with guns can be even more persuasive.

(3) All others must spend time finding guns while those with guns can spend that time on gaining a first-mover advantage.

I know all that, and yet I don't find it indispensable to survive.

Americans are gun-crazy.

Cooperation would be more decisive than gun-threats.

By cooperation, do you mean cooperation with people with guns?

fadedpsychosis wrote:honestly the first thing they teach you in survival school is how to evade and survive when your opponents are armed and you're not... guns can actually give you a false sense of security

But doesn't this presuppose there is friendly territory that would mark an objective for escape? In this scenario there is no friendly territory, no recovery point, no edge of battle area.