We all have heard about risk managment and some of us have had jobs where risk management was a significant concern. In my case, it was the chemical industry. However, there are common elements in all forms of risk management. First, risk management is active, that is, you do not manage risk by sitting back and waiting for things to happen and then trying to do something. Second, analysis is always an ongoing activity since conditions change over time. It is not something you do once. Third, educated guesses often have to substitute for hard information. Lastly, the risk has to be mitigated or, at least, recognized. This is a pretty simplified version of the risk managment process but it sufficiently robus for my purpose.
One mistake that even experts make is to discount worst-case scenarios because "No one is stupid enough to do the" or "Mitigation would cost too much" to "Too many things would have to happen at the same time. It couldn't happen in a thousand years". Having been through one plant disaster where 15 men were killed and being part of a corporate team that investigated individual fatalities at our planats, I assure you that trying to sidestep or ignore a worst-case scenario is foolhardy.
If we look at the world around us, we can see many real risks. Among them are:
Peak oil/gas
Resource depletion
Pandemics
Insufficient water
A dollar bust
A stock market collapse
Hyper inflation/stagflation/deflation or depression
A real estate bust
Warfarae
Food shortages
Terrorism
Many of these are clearly interrelated but the end result will be the same - life as it is known today has a very high probability of changing for the worse.
But now we have to enter the active phase of risk management. It is at this point that decisions have to be made. If we consider posts/replies on TB2K as indicative of the public at large, we see views of the future falling into three categories:
1. Society will never collapse. No preparation is necessary.
2. Society will experience very serious, but teporary, crises but will survive. Some prepartion is necessary to tide you over.
3. The sky is falling. Run for the hills and start a homestead.
Each category cites its own articles and experts to support its position. Yet, someone is clearly wrong. They can't all be right. And, here we get into the conundrum of risk management. If you run for the hills, you'll probably survive regardless of the future. You might feel stupid that you listened to all the collapse crap if nothing happens but you'll be alive in any case. If you do nothing and society does collapse, you may die. You might waatch your kids starve to death. Or, maybe, you'll die as a family from nuclear fallout because you refused to move to a safer area. For a good example of how that might play out, watch the movie Testament - the most depressing film ever made in my view.
My point is that there really isn't any middle ground: either life is going to remain pretty much the same or it isn't. Those who believe the sky is soon to fall often argue that those who believe otherwise are in denial. I personally believe this is disingenuous since it insinuates that the people who disagree are stupid and can't interpret the facts or would change their minds immediately if only the "right" facts were presented. It is equally likely that those who believe the sky won't fall feel the same way about those who think the sky will fall.
Clearly, knowledge of a risk in and of itself does not motivate people. People still drive too fast for road conditions, overeat and get fat, smoke, drink in excess and do a thousand other things where the risk is known to cause harm. But they do them anyway. If knowing that thousands die in car crashes each year hasn't led to universal safe driving habaits, why would some nebulous projections about peak oil, for example, lead anyone to be concerned, much less result in a change in lifestyle? The answer is that it won't. However, it is amazing how many people become reformed drucks after they are arrested for drunk driving and how many smokers quit after their first heart attack.
The trouble in the case of the future is that there can be no retroactive risk mitigation. Either risk is managed prior to an avent or it isn't. It is this black and whitness that many people don't understand. In addition, people become paralyzed because they insist upon knowing exactly how and when somwthing might occur. When this isn't possible, and that is usually the case, they ignore the risk. Lastly, even those who think about risk management and survival don't base their plans on a worst-case scenario. Instead, they diddle around the edges.
I believe that 99+% of the US population will do nothing to migigate potential fufutre risks regardless of available information. There is a naive belief that there will be ample forewarning of a crisis but experience has shown that this is almost never the case. They also tend to believe that "someone" will take care of the problem for them. When a worst-case actually occurs, I believe that it will be impossible to take action to migigate it because resources will be overwhelmed and, further, there will not be enough time.
It is one thing to talk about a worst-case in an abstract way but another to deal with it in reality. My rural area could be considered a microcosm for what may happen because it is small enough to react quickly and manifest the good, the bad and the ugly within a short period. Compared to urban areas, one might believe that it would be more immune, that is, resilient, from coming events but I believe this will not be the case. Instead, I believe events will be quickly amplified.
End Part One
(Our power is not too reliable today and I don't want to lose everything if it blinks again.)
Edit some of the obvious spelling mistakes
One mistake that even experts make is to discount worst-case scenarios because "No one is stupid enough to do the" or "Mitigation would cost too much" to "Too many things would have to happen at the same time. It couldn't happen in a thousand years". Having been through one plant disaster where 15 men were killed and being part of a corporate team that investigated individual fatalities at our planats, I assure you that trying to sidestep or ignore a worst-case scenario is foolhardy.
If we look at the world around us, we can see many real risks. Among them are:
Peak oil/gas
Resource depletion
Pandemics
Insufficient water
A dollar bust
A stock market collapse
Hyper inflation/stagflation/deflation or depression
A real estate bust
Warfarae
Food shortages
Terrorism
Many of these are clearly interrelated but the end result will be the same - life as it is known today has a very high probability of changing for the worse.
But now we have to enter the active phase of risk management. It is at this point that decisions have to be made. If we consider posts/replies on TB2K as indicative of the public at large, we see views of the future falling into three categories:
1. Society will never collapse. No preparation is necessary.
2. Society will experience very serious, but teporary, crises but will survive. Some prepartion is necessary to tide you over.
3. The sky is falling. Run for the hills and start a homestead.
Each category cites its own articles and experts to support its position. Yet, someone is clearly wrong. They can't all be right. And, here we get into the conundrum of risk management. If you run for the hills, you'll probably survive regardless of the future. You might feel stupid that you listened to all the collapse crap if nothing happens but you'll be alive in any case. If you do nothing and society does collapse, you may die. You might waatch your kids starve to death. Or, maybe, you'll die as a family from nuclear fallout because you refused to move to a safer area. For a good example of how that might play out, watch the movie Testament - the most depressing film ever made in my view.
My point is that there really isn't any middle ground: either life is going to remain pretty much the same or it isn't. Those who believe the sky is soon to fall often argue that those who believe otherwise are in denial. I personally believe this is disingenuous since it insinuates that the people who disagree are stupid and can't interpret the facts or would change their minds immediately if only the "right" facts were presented. It is equally likely that those who believe the sky won't fall feel the same way about those who think the sky will fall.
Clearly, knowledge of a risk in and of itself does not motivate people. People still drive too fast for road conditions, overeat and get fat, smoke, drink in excess and do a thousand other things where the risk is known to cause harm. But they do them anyway. If knowing that thousands die in car crashes each year hasn't led to universal safe driving habaits, why would some nebulous projections about peak oil, for example, lead anyone to be concerned, much less result in a change in lifestyle? The answer is that it won't. However, it is amazing how many people become reformed drucks after they are arrested for drunk driving and how many smokers quit after their first heart attack.
The trouble in the case of the future is that there can be no retroactive risk mitigation. Either risk is managed prior to an avent or it isn't. It is this black and whitness that many people don't understand. In addition, people become paralyzed because they insist upon knowing exactly how and when somwthing might occur. When this isn't possible, and that is usually the case, they ignore the risk. Lastly, even those who think about risk management and survival don't base their plans on a worst-case scenario. Instead, they diddle around the edges.
I believe that 99+% of the US population will do nothing to migigate potential fufutre risks regardless of available information. There is a naive belief that there will be ample forewarning of a crisis but experience has shown that this is almost never the case. They also tend to believe that "someone" will take care of the problem for them. When a worst-case actually occurs, I believe that it will be impossible to take action to migigate it because resources will be overwhelmed and, further, there will not be enough time.
It is one thing to talk about a worst-case in an abstract way but another to deal with it in reality. My rural area could be considered a microcosm for what may happen because it is small enough to react quickly and manifest the good, the bad and the ugly within a short period. Compared to urban areas, one might believe that it would be more immune, that is, resilient, from coming events but I believe this will not be the case. Instead, I believe events will be quickly amplified.
End Part One
(Our power is not too reliable today and I don't want to lose everything if it blinks again.)
Edit some of the obvious spelling mistakes
Last edited:

Anyway as far as I can remember we have decent sized garden that used to grow rubarb,some berries, and few various vegetables. I'm not sure how much the current tenants have been using it lately, but ill find out soon enough. Were near a lake where theres plenty of fish so that helps also. FYI this property is about 2hours out of the city and is my fallback in a shtf scenario, given that I am able to vacate the city and before everyone else does. Two big IF's, but it's better than nothing. Any recommendations on some easy to grow foods for a beginner? Also I don't know how often I will be able to go out there to tend to things but I will try to go as often as possible.