In the event of apocalypse..

[goathead]

well, true........but, how does pork, jerk?

opens the pun-O-matic

well first you have to "pound it"

[ygmir]

I knew I could count on you.

[burningquestions]

in the event of apocalypse, you think a community of hipsters and yupsters are going to gel together in any meaningful way? yikes! i'd rather hide in my basement with a ton of campbell's...

There will be huge numbers of people who demand that "somebody do something". People are becoming so conditioned to be "taken care of" by government, for example, that I am not sure the notion of being responsible for themselves will even occur to many of them beyond simply trying take something from someone else or demanding that government take from someone else and give to them.

They might see someone who has taken some initiative and is getting by, but then demand that it isn't "fair" that some have more than others and demand that some be taken away from that person and given to the others.

So what I believe will happen then is that the people who do have that initiative will flee. At that point the people who don't have the skills to get by on their own will have nobody to learn those skills from. They will have chased away all their potential mentors.

And increasingly large number of people depend on an decreasing number of people to feed them. All we need is one killing frost across the Midwest or say in the Central Valley of California and a lot of people will be in a world of hurt.

There are some skills people even in a city can learn that can increase their chances of survival. Learning how to preserve food isn't hard to do. Learning how to pickle things or learning how to can things can make a huge difference and can be done at home even in the city. This is important because food supplies could be fleeting. You might have access to something one day and it could be gone the next. Networking will be important too. Forming your own ad hoc "coop" among friends can greatly increase your access to things but you will find in hard times, people who do not contribute things will be shunned from such coops. People aren't going to be "taken care of" and are going to have to develop some skill that makes them an asset to those around them.

Learning how to repair clothing, how to make clothing, especially being able to take clothing that is "worn out" and making something else out of it, say by quilting or patching, gives you a useful still in a situation where the infrastructure can not deliver goods of sufficient quantity. Remaining calm is also important. Doing what you can to prevent further destruction of available resources and organizing efficient use of things can be important, too. That might be the "black rock ranger" type of person in such a situation. Pulling together as a community, sharing skills and resources, and helping calm the situation and keeping a clear head will be extremely important. There will be those who will simply agitate to inflame the situation and those people will make things worse. Those people may find themselves being physically eliminated by the community in a very severe situation. The community is not going to have resources to waste on jails and lawyers and trials and judges. They are likely to face a quick hearing and swift justice.

The bottom line is not to expect someone else to "take care of" you and don't expect any "Robin Hood" to take from someone else to give to you. You must justify your existence by having something to offer the community at large. In a severe crisis there aren't going to be a lot of outside resources to draw from.

This, exactly. I defy anyone to provide a more realistic likelyhood than this.

The whiners will whine while demanding Greyhound buses when school buses will do very nicely in a jam.

[geekster]

You mean like this?



When the mayor of New Orleans was informed that this bus fleet was available but turned it down only to decide later that he wanted to use it but it was too late because it was already flooded in? Those school buses?

[MisaBlue]

I bet, if apocalypse come, I will be right in the center of it, so if some miracle spaceship dont come to save me, there will be no need for me to seek safe place

[theCryptofishist]

I have no idea what "apocalypse" means. Unless it's bleeding seals and locusts.

[ygmir]

I have no idea what "apocalypse" means. Unless it's bleeding seals and locusts.

It's all POV:

depending on if you're the ant colony, or, the guy with the can of Raid.........

[theCryptofishist]

Ragnarok of Ages

[ygmir]

when the 3 roosters crow.......

and Skoll catches the sun........

[burningquestions]

You mean like this?



When the mayor of New Orleans was informed that this bus fleet was available but turned it down only to decide later that he wanted to use it but it was too late because it was already flooded in? Those school buses?

Hey liberals! LOOK AWAY! The common sense is in your face. The geekster continues to bring the truth.

You should really appoint him as your safety leader because none of you seem to have the remotest clue.

[This Woman]

Burningquestions wrote:
The burners would be the first to die because of their limited resources and lack of proximity to civilization. Plus, they kinda lack common sense and they don't have guns. Just sayin'.

lol - you're just mad because AntiM stole your troll thread.

[Fire_Moose]

[Lassen Forge]

Now THAT is hawt...

[geekster]

Hey liberals! LOOK AWAY!

I don't see that as a liberal/conservative political issue. I am an engineer. I approach it more like a common sense "use what resources you have at hand to get the job done" sort of issue. The guy was just a dumbass and he lost his job the next time he was up for election, as did the governor lose hers, as it should have been.

Idiots come in all political flavors.

[burningquestions]

Hey liberals! LOOK AWAY!

I don't see that as a liberal/conservative political issue. I am an engineer. I approach it more like a common sense "use what resources you have at hand to get the job done" sort of issue. The guy was just a dumbass and he lost his job the next time he was up for election, as did the governor lose hers, as it should have been.

Idiots come in all political flavors.

I basically agree. But can you show me a fiscally resonsible liberal?

[geekster]

There are a few, but damned few. The basic reason is because what we call "liberals" these days are not really liberals in the normal sense of the word. I call them "neo-liberals" or "new liberals". They generally use the power of taxation to make people promises in order to vote for them while at the same time actually taking measures to enslave them.

So they might say something like, vote for me and I will give you "free" health care. Except when it comes time that you actually need that health care they find some excuse not to provide it for you. Can you imagine the government having access to ALL of your health records and those of your family? Now imagine you become outspoken against the political establishment. Suddenly it is leaked to the media that your wife was treated for an STD (which you weren't aware of) along with the fact that you are on anti-depressants. Or lets say the screener discreetly looks up your political donations before assigning you to a clinic or doctor. Oh, Mr. Smith, you have been given an appointment in about 8 weeks to have those headaches looked at. Sorry, it's the best we can do.

The problem isn't the "good intention" portion of it. The problem is the potential for misuse and abuse and manipulation. In exchange for being "taken care of" you make yourself dependent on them. Once you make yourself dependent on them, there is no turning back.

I can flee my current health care provider and choose another. When the government is my provider, I can't flee without fleeing the country. I don't trust government competence. Considering the choices made by our Congress in social engineering using home mortgages and what a mess they have made of that, I have no faith in the ability of politicians to manage the health care of my children. I feel I can do a better job of that.

If they want to "help me", fine, just pay the premiums for the plan of my choice. It's that simple.

The bottom line is that for everything they "give" there are strings attached that suck your dignity out of you.

I don't trust politicians who I rate lower than whale shit to manage the life of my kids. They are now planning to screw up the student loan system. Oh, joy. First they screw up our housing, then they screw up our medical care, then they screw up our education. We have been invaded from within by nincompoops.

[geekster]

See, here's the thing ...

I don't consider myself "conservative" because I believe that gay people should get married if they want and I believe that a woman should be able to choose when and if she reproduces. I don't consider myself a "liberal" because I don't believe government is the answer to everything, in fact I am more in line with Reagan when he said "Government isn't the answer, government is the problem". But I am not really libertarian either because I am generally in favor of a bit more government control over some things than they are. I am not an isolationist, for example.

There just isn't a political orientation that suits me completely and it sucks because people to the left think I am a winger and people on the right think I am a moonbat. I am more aligned with Jefferson and Madison, I think. At this particular moment in time, I see the Democrats as a lot more dangerous than the Republicans but that view changes from one decade to the next, it seems.

[Lassen Forge]

My question is... and I don't want to devolve this into politics...

If your base of funding is tax revenue...

Your cost basis is X dollars...

Cannot be reduced under that without reduction of services (say, broken fire trucks or, and we all see this, fucked up roads, at least here in California)

Do you really think you can drive on potholes and gravel to the burn just to cut state highway workers to try NOT to raise taxes?

I was RP for decades, but left when they went from "smart Managers" (GHW Bush, not Simple Sonny Bush) to Unmanagers. Shit costs more, but instead of raising enough money to pay for it, we'll CUT THE WORKERS... Stupid shit.

I'm NOT for big govt... but when milk goes from 25 cents a quart to 50 cents a quart, do you fix it by killing off half your children? No, you bust your ass, make more money, and pay the price. Raise your milk tax to feed the kids. AND STOP HAVING MORE KIDS until you can afford them!!!

And the gay VS straight thing - is a HOAX meant to play emotions. Politics sold out to a voting base, and lies told to get them on their side. Reps WERE the party of EVERYONE IS EQUAL, not this discrimination crap - until it sold out. Dig?

Sorry... I'll shut this off. But if your infrastructure costs more than what you bring in, you don't kill infrastructure (in a huge state), you increase the revenue to pay for your shit - not more than you need, but BE A FRACKING MANAGER and pay for your shit...

Gottarun,
bb

[geekster]

The problem is the pensions that have been promised to these people. Private industry learned decades ago that defined benefit plans don't work and everyone went to defined contribution plans instead.

The problem is when the pensions for people not working cost more than the roads and paying the people who ARE working. When 80% of a city's budget is going to pensions, there is a problem.

But there is another problem as well. When you have public employee unions that are allowed to raise funds for candidates of a specific party, that party has a direct financial interest in increasing the number of government workers. I saw a graph recently that showed teacher salaries on constant dollars along with ration of teachers per child along with average test scores. The only thing that went up was pay and number of teachers. Scores were flat.

Government workers don't seem to realize that they live on the same economic planet as everyone else. If the people who pay the taxes are losing their jobs, government employees can not get raises every damned year.

When the Washington DC metro area is nearly the ONLY metro area in the country where incomes are rising, there is a problem.

http://247wallst.com/2010/08/10/persona ... ington-dc/

But yeah, many of the issues are simply very narrow issues politicians use to "hook" people emotionally to vote for them while then robbing them blind.

[Ugly Dougly]

Why does something as wholesome and fun as The End of teh World As We Know It always get ruined by political squabbling?

[Lassen Forge]

Because politics are the surest way to advance cause of Doomâ„¢...

To answer Geeksters post - as a State worker, with no raises and the 15% cuts from furloughs (they didn't cut my house payment or food bill or PG&E 15%!) and my contribution private retirement accounts that are now flatlined to keep a roof over our heads, lights on and food in our bellys, so people wouldn't have to pay 1% more on their taxes (which we also pay) - but it would get political. BTW - I pay into my pension plan just like I did years ago in Private Industry - as does every other state employee here. I have a DC plan also, but it's flatlined, and I need to rob it to make my bills - not because I'm a spendthrift, but because otherwise I choose - No roof, no water, no electricity, no drive to work, etc.

It's easy to talk about "those fatcat civil servants" - it's a hell of a lot harder to live as one.

Doom? We LIVE doom. And will prolly get laid off to save the voters a 1/8% tax hike.

[theCryptofishist]

As a fed, my pension is mostly social security and there's some minuscule matching program, 1.5%? of my salary matched if I put it into the pension plan. Because I lost so many of my earning years due to illness when I was younger it's pretty much wealth transfer that's going to make sure I don't end up on the street wishing I could afford dog food.
Now, this guy who just was forced to quit HP for what seems to be very unprofessional behavior (although it's hard to tell with the scant details), was that a 30 million dollar golden parachute that he got? If I did the equivalent, my landing wouldn't be cushy.

[Trishntek]

And who pays the bulk of your health insurance? Do you have disability coverage? Compared to ten years ago, are you making more now than then?

Just for context, in the private sector, I pay my own insurance, I do not have disability because it costs more than health insurance! I have not had a raise in NINE years. I can work more to make more,,,, that is all. How many sick days to you get per year? How many vacation days do you get per year? If I don't work, I don't earn,,,, that is all,,,, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

[moonrise]

Revive FDR..ep, can't do that...too bad, 'cause he knew middle class and "poor" countries could both co-exist happily.

Make darned good friends with the appropriate Native American Tribe(s) (not the casino ownin' ones...unless ya just wanna party til' ya die) for they will SUE the USA for it's NATIVE LANDS when the USA it too weak/broke to defend "thier"(?) land.

They'll be renamin' states when they beat 'em in the courts...pick the best new area..yup..new SENSIBLE boundries (& sorry, it's not gonna be a city/urban part of the good old USA) and you'll be taken in.....while 90% of the popualtion simply dies, including the urbanized/citified Native Americans too stupid to figure this out.

[ygmir]

*wondering what happened to "politics, all day, every day II" or similar thread.

[geekster]

I don't mean to be disparaging to government workers, they didn't decide to pay themselves these salaries and benefits. When you have a report that comes out today showing the average federal worker gets TWICE the salary and benefits of the average private sector worker, it is enough to make people upset. When you see people collecting 85% or more of their salary for 30 years after they retire with full medical for life and cost of living increases, it is enough to make people's blood boil.

It isn't the fault of the workers themselves in most cases, it is the fault of their unions. I have no problem with an individual government worker engaging in any political activity they want. I *do* have a major problem with public employee unions engaging in political activities. It creates a built-in conflict of interest with any politician they support.

My best friend is a government worker. She is a civil engineer with a city in California. SHE didn't create her pay and benefit scale. The problem I have is politicians and bureaucrats who assume things will always go up and make decisions based on that. When the income of the people is going down, it isn't the time for the pay of govt workers to go up. Government needs to be able to adjust pay scales according to the economic reality in that jurisdiction. They have boxed themselves in and can't make any adjustments.

Even a generous defined contribution plan where govt simply kicks in an annual amount of cash into an individual's retirement account (one which the individual could contribute to as well) would be fine. Once the employee retires, the contributions would end and the city or county or state doesn't find itself in the situation it is in now where they are paying more people who aren't working than they are paying who are working.

If you work for a government for, say, 25 years, retire at 55, and live another 30 years, you are going to make a lot more in monthly checks than you made working. Hell, it's a great gig, I would take it in a moment but in the public sector, such pensions were phased out in the 1980's because they weren't sustainable and were bankrupting companies.

Such plans were fine in the 1940's and 1950's until the average life expectancy started going through the roof. Someone might retire and live maybe 10 years IF they even made it to retirement.

[burningquestions]

I don't mean to be disparaging to government workers, they didn't decide to pay themselves these salaries and benefits. When you have a report that comes out today showing the average federal worker gets TWICE the salary and benefits of the average private sector worker, it is enough to make people upset. When you see people collecting 85% or more of their salary for 30 years after they retire with full medical for life and cost of living increases, it is enough to make people's blood boil.

It isn't the fault of the workers themselves in most cases, it is the fault of their unions. I have no problem with an individual government worker engaging in any political activity they want. I *do* have a major problem with public employee unions engaging in political activities. It creates a built-in conflict of interest with any politician they support.

My best friend is a government worker. She is a civil engineer with a city in California. SHE didn't create her pay and benefit scale. The problem I have is politicians and bureaucrats who assume things will always go up and make decisions based on that. When the income of the people is going down, it isn't the time for the pay of govt workers to go up. Government needs to be able to adjust pay scales according to the economic reality in that jurisdiction. They have boxed themselves in and can't make any adjustments.

Even a generous defined contribution plan where govt simply kicks in an annual amount of cash into an individual's retirement account (one which the individual could contribute to as well) would be fine. Once the employee retires, the contributions would end and the city or county or state doesn't find itself in the situation it is in now where they are paying more people who aren't working than they are paying who are working.

If you work for a government for, say, 25 years, retire at 55, and live another 30 years, you are going to make a lot more in monthly checks than you made working. Hell, it's a great gig, I would take it in a moment but in the public sector, such pensions were phased out in the 1980's because they weren't sustainable and were bankrupting companies.

Such plans were fine in the 1940's and 1950's until the average life expectancy started going through the roof. Someone might retire and live maybe 10 years IF they even made it to retirement.

We should have a "Burning Man" for the responsible, realistic, and truly contributing members of society. Not for the takers.

It seems like BM is all about the takers. All about the polluters. Have you ever heard a BM'r ever say "I'll cut you a big fat check for the massive pollution we are about to unleash upon our Mother?" No. you haven't.

And you never will. BM is all about the pollution, hypocrisy, and lazyness.

BM does not deliver the numbers. Prove me wrong, polluters.

[bluesbob]

Put the fucking lotion in the basket!

[geekster]

We should have a "Burning Man" for the responsible, realistic, and truly contributing members of society. Not for the takers.

Ticket price, distance, timing, and conditions keep most of the riffraff out. Probably even you.

[moonrise]

I'm having a HUGE Volcanalia Aug 23rd....do it EVERY year...then BM...an even bigger fun fire(s)!....let it keep the lotion, fill basement with water hose and close lid TIGHT and FOREVER....it can't be heard under water...and then have fun until asteroid hits our mother...then who cares? (maybe shouldn't waste the water, just close lid firever) FYI, it can't reason with me, I am Roman...and that Atseroid will be the best fire show on Earth!