I'm looking more into survivalism. I'm sure there will be a collapse sometime in the near future. Part of me thinks that the most free anyone can be is living like a hunter gatherer. I want to live by myself in New Hampshire with no neighbors where I'll hunt and gather my food supply. I'll also bring my gold and silver with me in case I have to go into civilization to buy what I need.
We don't know what the state is putting in our food supply and medicine (there's a reason why the number of children being diagnosed with mental disorders has gone way up in the past 20 years), and the state has done so much to dumb us down through government schools. We need to start living off the land again free from the state and others.
What does everyone think about living like a hunter gatherer?
If everyone started living as a hunter-gatherer, nearly everyone on Earth would die of starvation in short order.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
1) How would you know?
2) Why should I care? Are you insisting that we put the collective before the individual?
I'd like to know why you feel that we will go from what we are today, to a way of living that requires knowing how to hunt and gather to survive.
Because the whole reason we can support such a large population is because of the division of labor, dedicated farms and animal husbandry, and capital invested in mechanized agriculture.
The point he was making becomes far more salient when you realize that you are not a unique and special snowflake, and that in the grand scheme of things, you are just as likely to starve out or be murdered in the transition as anyone else, even if you're out in the boondocks. You should care because the wholesale starvation of a population in the hundreds of millions is, aside from the plainly obvious and incalculable tragedy, also bound to be an extraordinarily violent and destructive stituation.
Freedom4Me, this article just popped into my head, I think this might give you a different perspective on how "free" you'll be if you go back to subsistence farming or hunter-gathering:
http://mises.org/daily/4983/To-Hell-with-Farming
Might as well start hunting now so you at least know what you're doing instead of wandering in the woods unknowingly. Plus, I'm sure hunters (such as some people in my family) don't refer to themselves as "hunter gatherers". They hunt, it's what they do, simple as that.
If you want to test yourself to see if you could survive in the wilderness go hike the Appalachian Trail. There are people who'll do the whole trail from Georgia to Maine. When I camp in the Shenandoah Mountains I'll see the people who are just doing Skyline Drive which is a 100 mile road (but I'm sure they are sticking to the trails majority of the time as I only see a few on the road, or at the camp store). You have to cover 20-25 miles a day if you want to finish it in a week.
Who cares? I want 100% full sovereignty. That means not being tied down to any society. I want to be self-sufficient in food. I want to live w/o taxes, regulations or obligations to others (slavery). I can live on my own in NH hunting and gathering and using my gold and silver to buy my tools. What's the problem with that?
i read somewhere that "true security is being to see your food supply growing outside your window."
and that made sense about as long as it took to reach the period ending that gag inducing statement.
have survivalists ever heard of droughts? blights?! pests?!?!
there is a very real probability that your entire food supply will be wiped out (or at least severley restricted) by one or another natural disaster.
HELL, trying to deal with the changing of the seasons is hard enough!!! just ask Christopher McCandless.
thank god, the global distribution of the modern food chain avoids all these problems. i can still stuff my face with fresh fruit and vegitables (or more likely chicken wings, french fries, and lager) even though my area is in a severe drought!
that being said, if people bug you enough that you want to live in the woods by yourself, GO FOR IT! i also sometimes think starvation and tics would be better companions than 90% of the people i interact with.
but please don't say "we need to start living off the land again". unless by "we" you mean "misanthropes with a hard on for Jack London". because im personally not living off anything other than orange drank and fruit roll ups.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
"That means not being tied down to any society." - Society is made up of individuals, when you plan on buying tools with your gold you are essentially making up a piece of society. Those tools are brought to the shop from a driver who works for a company that makes tools, and those tools are all made of various parts, etc etc. There's nothing wrong with being self sufficient, but use your brain. When this so called collapse happens you might end up starving in the wilderness. I have speculation you probably would if you are on an economics forum asking such questions and never really "survived" on your own in those conditions. Plus, why is it assumed the shop keeper will take your gold or silver?
Just learn from all those hunter and gatherers in the Weimar Republic, or the Argentine hunter and gatherers of the early 1990s!
Student: there is a very real probability that your entire food supply will be wiped out (or at least severley restricted) by one or another natural disaster.
That is where food storage comes in.
Student: HELL, trying to deal with the changing of the seasons is hard enough!!! just ask Christopher McCandless.
Alaska is tougher to survive in than people like Chris imagine. Chris tried to go it alone in a land he had never stepped foot in with just a bag of rice and didn't even bring a map. He got hurt and if he had someone with him they would have done the hunting/gathering while he recuperated.
Student: thank god, the global distribution of the modern food chain avoids all these problems.
thank god, the global distribution of the modern food chain avoids all these problems.
And if it breaks down, then what? The next depression will be far worse when you compare the America of today to the America of that time. Riots and looting will absolutely explode. See here and here.
I like the story that the wife of James Rawles, the editor of Survivalblog.com, wrote:
You may have concluded by now that while my husband is a "guns and groceries" style survivalist, I can more accurately be called a homesteader. A modern homesteader is a person who tries to live self-reliantly on their own land. Our satisfaction and peace of mind come from growing our own food, heating with our own fuel, and even knowing how to make our own clothes if necessary! Happily survivalism and homesteading dovetail nicely... My homesteading mindset was developed early in my childhood as I listened to parents and grandparents talk about living through the Great Depression. My father’s parents were town people. His Dad soon lost his job at the newspaper. They had meager savings. My father said after that they ate potatoes--just potatoes. At harvest time each year they found a bit of work picking fruit. Then they ate whatever fruit they were picking, and only that fruit. Then it was back to potatoes again. And forget about money for new clothes, or gas for the car, or doctor's bills, or anything else. Meanwhile, my maternal Grandpa worked in town as a machinist, but they always lived out in the country on a small farm. Grandpa cultivated a large garden and orchard, had a few milk cows, raised a couple of hogs, and Grandma raised 100 chicks every year to sell as fryers. My mother’s father lost his job during the Depression too. But they had fresh milk and butter from their cows, eggs, chicken, and beef and pork, fruits and vegetables in season, and lots of canned produce. (Plus my mother’s family still had a small income and a ready source of barter from the farm produce.) It so happened that their house was next to a church on a rural highway. And many times Grandma fed “poor folk” who had come to their house thinking it was the church parsonage. And she could--because of the bounty of their farm! My Dad had a miserable youth through the Depression. He suffered a profound change in quality of life as they experienced extreme poverty. My Mother on the other hand, did not experience much of a change because her parents were self-sufficient on their farm. I intend to emulate my self-sufficient grandparents. And with God’s grace, my family will have a good quality of life--no matter what the economy does.
Freedom4Me73986: I want to live by myself in New Hampshire with no neighbors where I'll hunt and gather my food supply. What does everyone think about living like a hunter gatherer?
I want to live by myself in New Hampshire with no neighbors where I'll hunt and gather my food supply.
I hope your not planning on playing "Batman in the Boondocks:"
You should discard any fantasies that you might have had about strapping on a backpack and disappearing into nearby National Forest to “live off the land.” IMHO, that is an invitation to disaster. Too many things can go wrong: You will lack sufficient shelter. You will not be able to carry enough food reserves. Your one rifle and your one pistol, and your one axe, once lost or broken will leave you vulnerable and unable to provide for your sustenance or self defense. Any illness or injury could be life threatening. Even just a dunking in a stream in mid-winter could cost your life. Also, consider how many thousands of urbanites will probably try to do the same thing. Even if you manage to avoid encounters with them, those legions of people foraging at once will quickly deplete the available wild game in many regions. Furthermore, on your own you won’t be able to maintain sufficient security. (You must sleep, after all!) For countless reasons, playing “Batman in the Boondocks” just won’t work. So forget about the "one pack" solution, other than as a last resort--for example, in the event that your retreat is overrun. Also note that any of you that do not live at your intended retreat location year round should have a “Get out of Dodge” (G.O.O.D.) pack ready at all times. Keep it in the trunk of your car in case circumstances force you to hike all or part of the way to your retreat. (A sub-optimal situation, as described in my novel Patriots.) Be sure to inspect your G.O.O.D. pack regularly and rotate any first aid supplies, chemical light sticks, jerky, dried fruit, or other perishables.
You're worried about the small prob the global food system will suddenlly collapse, but shrug off the routine occurence of flooding/drought/blight/etc with "i'll just do some cannin'"?? I guess u have more faith than I do in the possibility of a single person living alone in the woods to stock up that much food strictly from hunting/gathering.
if he had someone with him they would have done the hunting/gathering while he recuperated.
Seems like a relevant lesson for someone thinking about going off into the woods on his own. glad i brought it up. :)
And if it breaks down, then what?
It would take larger forces than a recession or even a 30s style depression to make the system collapse. So if it does break down, im sure there are bigger problems to worry about:
Just learn from all those hunter and gatherers in the Weimar Republic, or the Argentine hunter and gatherers of the early 1990s
And you need to learn about survivalism.
Complete Survivalist
Society may collapse. When that happens I want to be self-sufficient. MY food. MY guns. MY gold.
I'm sorry, but society will not "collapse" in the way you envision it. This blog post by Robert Higgs is relevant.
EDIT: Btw, if you're "self-sufficient", why do you need "your gold"? For jewelry?
For buying things from others if I discover I need them.
http://dailyanarchist.com/2010/12/08/baby-steps-to-survivalism/
Just a small, but important point: Usually there is another word that comes after "hunter gather" and that word is "societies". My point is that hunter gathers (plural) lived within the context of tribes and even had villages. This is because some division of labor is essential and at least diversifies and therefore mitigates the risk of personal health or production failure, if not larger geographic risks.
No. If we can all be self-sufficient in providing for ourselves indiviually then we can live just fine by ourselves. And if we do need help we can use gold and silver to buy what we need (always works).
Are you proposing a society where it's just a bunch of individuals scavanging and hunting in the woods with no division of labor? Who's going to be producing this stuff you'll buy with gold that "always works". Gold does not, in fact, always work, by the way. People have to accept it as a money.
But, you just said yourself that you might need something only someone else can provide. That's the purpose of the division of labor! The division of labor exists for a reason, and that's to increase productivity.
If you want to go wander in the wilderness without a clue about what you're doing go ahead. If you want a sack of gold and silver to carry around go ahead with that also. On a whole I don't see the point of all this as if we'll all be living like it's Mad Max after this "collapse". Also, you might also want to try to find some parts of the wilderness that aren't already owned privately by someone. Chances are, if the conditions are as bad as you envision, trespassers will be shot on sight. Value is subjective, so just because you have gold doesn't mean it will be accepted. What good is a gold coin to someone who has everything they need? Those shop keepers will be far more prepared than you. I'm also sure the productive individuals of society will take full advantage of the division of labor and help each other out. Shop keepers will remain shop keepers just like the mechanics will remain mechanics, and the carpenters will remain carpenters. All in all, your reason for living in the wilderness is a bit...stupid. There are a lot of people who will live more secluded in the wilderness, because that's how they live, and want to live, not as some scapegoat from problems. I respect and admire those people, not someone thinking this will solve their problems from some apocalyptic collapse.
Have you even been camping or hunting before?
On a whole I don't see the point of all this as if we'll all be living like it's Mad Max after this "collapse". Also, you might also want to try to find some parts of the wilderness that aren't already owned privately by someone. Chances are, if the conditions are as bad as you envision, trespassers will be shot on sight
The state owns 99% of the wilderness. When the state collapses we'll just go to the parts of the woods that were once state-owned.
Chances are, if the conditions are as bad as you envision, trespassers will be shot on sight. Value is subjective, so just because you have gold doesn't mean it will be accepted. What good is a gold coin to someone who has everything they need? Those shop keepers will be far more prepared than you.
Gold ALWAYS has value. ALWAYS. That's why we support gold as money. In a civ collapse gold will be worth even more because there will be a huge demand for it as a universal means of exchange.
ll in all, your reason for living in the wilderness is a bit...stupid. There are a lot of people who will live more secluded in the wilderness, because that's how they live, and want to live, not as some scapegoat from problems. I respect and admire those people, not someone thinking this will solve their problems from some apocalyptic collapse. Have you even been camping or hunting before?
ll in all, your reason for living in the wilderness is a bit...stupid. There are a lot of people who will live more secluded in the wilderness, because that's how they live, and want to live, not as some scapegoat from problems. I respect and admire those people, not someone thinking this will solve their problems from some apocalyptic collapse.
You are 100% out of line with the market mindest and market mentality, we can discuss nothing usefull with you. The market process is a cosmopolitan bourgoise appraisment of society. You have ignored fundamental concepts like the STV and the division of labor.
Check into anarcho-primitivism or something if you wish to match your aesthetics with some political group as there is no way a political group that endorses the market process is compatible with your line of thinking.
Also this is not a good place to ask about farming or anything - as none of us here are experts in it, and if we are we have no way of showing credentials. If you want to be productive in that field I reccomend going to an A&M school or something. That could actually be a good decision, as it sounds like a field of work you are interested in...it is also probably much less dangerous and much more profitable
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Is this fact? Also, when the state collapses, how do you know that now unowned land wouldn't be homesteaded, and becoming someone's property?
This can easily be disproved by someone simply not accepting your gold as money.
Yes I've been camping plenty of times. I know how to survive in the wilderness. It's not hard once you know primitive survival techniques like how to hunt and gather your food supply.
Then why are you here talking about it? You're on an economics forum asking questions about how to survive in the wild with some far fetched reason as to why. Better question, have you ever hunted, killed, and collected and cleaned your food source? Can you differentiate between the dozens upon dozens of plants in the forests and to know what's edible? When surviving in the wilderness do you actually survive in the wilderness, or simply enjoy nature with the luxory of modern day equipment? There are those who regularly do back country camping and make it look like a field trip. I have a feeling you're far from one of them.
@ Freedom4Me73986
If you're interested in survivalist stuff you should look through the archives of of LewRockwell Column. There are a number of interesting articles backing your predictions of collapse. IMO the U.S. will experience some social breakdown, increases in crime, a breakdown of the division of labour and soaring prices of basic necessities. Learing how to grow some of your own food, stockpiling non-perishables, buying a few guns, and some ammunition are probably good ideas. Also, owning a second property away from major cities is better than living in one. And, its not hard to grow your own vegetables in your backyard. I've known people who have done this. Also, deer hunting is not difficult. I have never done it myself. But I know a few people who have, and it can cut back on your grocery bills. I don't know anybody who lives completely off the land. Its simply not worth it. But you can live partially off the land to cut down on your bills. It really only makes sense to do in a rural area however.
I also think owning a lttle gold, and maybe some silver too is a good idea.
Student: You're worried about the small prob the global food system will suddenlly collapse, but shrug off the routine occurence of flooding/drought/blight/etc with "i'll just do some cannin'"?? I guess u have more faith than I do in the possibility of a single person living alone in the woods to stock up that much food strictly from hunting/gathering.
Like you, I don't agree with the OP that playing Batman in the Boondocks is feasable. I wasn't clear about it but in my view a year or two of food storage will get anyone through most of the chaos of a collapse. After that, I think that society will be back on its feet for the most part. I think it took Zimbabwe a year for their stores to go from completely empty to full again. As James Rawles states, "Given the historic short life expectancy of hunter-gatherers, I've opted for a well-defended Deep Larder approach. Your mileage may vary."
Student: It would take larger forces than a recession or even a 30s style depression to make the system collapse. So if it does break down, im sure there are bigger problems to worry about: [ufo picture] It wouldn't take UFO's. Anything that could knock out the power-grid would do it. Setting off a nuke high in the stratosphere would create a massive EMP that would fry just about all of the country's electric systems, including disabling modern vehicles. Or, merely a repeat of the solar storm of 1859 would do it: In September 1859, the sun unleashed one of the most powerful storms in recorded history. The solar eruption induced electrical currents that set telegraph offices on fire and sparked dramatic displays of northern lights over Cuba and Hawaii. Scientists and officials from a range of organizations gathered in Washington, D.C., yesterday (June 21) to ask a simple but frightening question: What if it happens again? "A similar storm today might knock us for a loop," Lika Guhathakurta, a solar physicist at NASA headquarters, said. "Modern society depends on high-tech systems such as smart power grids, GPS and satellite communications — all of which are vulnerable to solar storms. While the 1859 storm halted telegraph messages and puzzled a lot of skywatchers in the tropics, an eruption of that magnitude today would be much more serious, researchers said. Worldwide blackouts could last for months as engineers struggled to repair damaged transformers, for example. Planes and ships couldn’t trust GPS units for navigation, and banking networks might go offline, seriously disrupting global commerce. According to a 2008 report from the National Academy of Sciences, a massive solar storm could have the economic impact of 20 Hurricane Katrinas. That hurricane caused an estimated $80 billion of damage." Check out my video, Ron Paul vs Lincoln! And share my PowerPoint with your favorite neo-con | Post Points: 20
It would take larger forces than a recession or even a 30s style depression to make the system collapse. So if it does break down, im sure there are bigger problems to worry about: [ufo picture]
In September 1859, the sun unleashed one of the most powerful storms in recorded history. The solar eruption induced electrical currents that set telegraph offices on fire and sparked dramatic displays of northern lights over Cuba and Hawaii.
Scientists and officials from a range of organizations gathered in Washington, D.C., yesterday (June 21) to ask a simple but frightening question: What if it happens again?
"A similar storm today might knock us for a loop," Lika Guhathakurta, a solar physicist at NASA headquarters, said. "Modern society depends on high-tech systems such as smart power grids, GPS and satellite communications — all of which are vulnerable to solar storms.
While the 1859 storm halted telegraph messages and puzzled a lot of skywatchers in the tropics, an eruption of that magnitude today would be much more serious, researchers said.
Worldwide blackouts could last for months as engineers struggled to repair damaged transformers, for example. Planes and ships couldn’t trust GPS units for navigation, and banking networks might go offline, seriously disrupting global commerce.
According to a 2008 report from the National Academy of Sciences, a massive solar storm could have the economic impact of 20 Hurricane Katrinas. That hurricane caused an estimated $80 billion of damage."
Let me add what James Rawles writes about the chilling consequences of the grid going down. The lynchpin is the grid. Without functioning power grids, modern industrial societies will collapse within weeks. In the past, the US had a largely agrarian and self-sufficient society. Now, just 1% of the population operating farms and ranches feeds the other 99%. And remember that the average idiot American who believes the government will always protect them in emergencies doesn't have more than a week or two worth of food in their house:
The Golden Horde
In my lectures on survival topics I often mention that there is just a thin veneer of civilization on our society. What is underneath is not pretty, and it does take much to peel away that veneer. You take your average urbanite or suburbanite and get him excessively cold, wet, tired, hungry and/or thirsty and take away his television, beer, drugs, and other pacifiers, and you will soon see the savage within. It is like peeling the skin of an onion—remove a couple of layers and it gets very smelly. As a Christian, I attribute this to man’s inherently sinful nature. Here is a mental exercise: Put yourself in the mind set of Mr. Joe Sixpack, Suburbanite. (Visualize him in or near a big city near where you live.) He is unprepared. He has less than one week’s food on hand, he has a 12 gauge pump action shotgun that he hasn’t fired in years, and just half a tank of gas in his minivan and maybe a gallon or two in a can that he keeps on hand for his lawn mower. Then the end of the world as we know it hits. The power grid is down, his job is history, the toilet doesn't flush, and water no longer magically comes cascading from the tap. There are riots beginning in his city. The local service stations have run out of gas. The banks have closed. Now he is suddenly desperate. Where will he go? What will he do? Odds are, Joe will think: “I’ve gotta go find a vacation cabin somewhere, up in the mountains, where some rich dude only goes a few weeks out of each year.” So vacation destinations like Lake Tahoe, Lake Arrowhead, and Squaw Valley, California; Prescott and Sedona, Arizona; Hot Springs, Arkansas; Vail and Steamboat Springs, Colorado; and the other various rural ski, spa, Great Lakes, and coastal resort areas will get swarmed. Or, he will think: “I’ve got to go to where they grow food.” So places like the Imperial Valley, the Willamette Valley, and the Red River Valley will similarly get overrun. There will be so many desperate Joe Sixpacks arriving all at once that these areas will degenerate into free-fire zones. It will be an intensely ugly situation and will not be safe for anyone. In some places the locals may be so vastly outnumbered that they won’t survive. But some of the Joe Sixpacks will survive, and then the more ruthless among them will begin to fight amongst themselves for the few remaining resources. They will form ad hoc gangs of perhaps 6 to 30 people. Once the Golden Horde has been thinned (and honed to ferocity) and they’ve cleaned out an area, the thugs at the pinnacle of ruthlessness will comprise the most formidable rover packs imaginable. They will move on to an adjoining region, and then another. But the inverse sqaure law will work in your favor: Imagine that you take a jar of marbles turn it upside down on a wooden floor and then lift the jar suddenly upward. The marbles will spread out semi-randomly. But the farther from the mouth of the jar, the lighter the density of marbles. Hence, the rover packs will attenuate themselves into a huge rural expanse that is peopled with well-armed country folks. By the time the looters work their way out 150 miles from the big cities, they will be thinned out considerably.
The rover pack is your primary threat in a total collapse, no matter how remote your retreat. Here are your potential adversaries: A squad to company size force (12 to 60 individuals), highly mobile, moderately well armed with a motley assortment of weapons and vehicles, and imbued with absolute ruthlessness. Be prepared.
"... no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction."
-- Ludwig von Mises
Clayton: "... no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction." -- Ludwig von Mises
True that Mises. No survival plans will be totally safe. But some will make it through, and as one of my favorite survival quotes goes: I will do today what others will not do, so that I can do tomorrow what others cannot do.
Clayton: "... no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction." -- Ludwig von Mises True that Mises. No survival plans will be totally safe. But some will make it through, and as one of my favorite survival quotes goes: I will do today what others will not do, so that I can do tomorrow what others cannot do.
Here is a quick-start guide for newbies. Right now you should be stocking up on nickels before they are debased in the near future. As far as carrying around valubles, it would be better to find a secluded place and bury them, along with some emergency supplies. As far as saving gold and silver, Rawles writes:
To begin, I DO NOT consider gold and silver particularly good barter items for the depths of an economic collapse [here are good items for that]. Rather, I consider them a sort of "time machine" vehicle to preserve wealth from one side of an economic collapse to the other. (Something that almost certainly no paper currency will do.) As I pointed out in the Barter Faire chapter of my novel Patriots, even small gold coins are much too compact a form of wealth for day-to-day barter transactions. However, easily recognizable silver coins (such as pre-1965 mint date U.S. 90% silver dimes and quarters) might have some utility for barter. But in the very depth of the chasm, only truly practical items like common caliber ammunition and canning lids will be in great demand as barterables. The greatest utility for gold and silver will be in the later recovery phase, and post-recovery--again, as a time machine. Perhaps someday you'll have the chance to trade a dozen one ounce Krugerrands or American Eagles for a ranch house on 40 acres.
To begin, I DO NOT consider gold and silver particularly good barter items for the depths of an economic collapse [here are good items for that]
I beg to differ.
http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/tl18.htm
http://faber-blog.blogspot.com/2011/05/primitive-civilizations-remaining-after.html
http://www.truthistreason.net/collapse-of-civilization-now-guaranteed
A MUST WATCH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgHQvXfQR4I
Autolykos: If everyone started living as a hunter-gatherer, nearly everyone on Earth would die of starvation in short order.
It would cut the fat. Plus, I think people would survive on the whole. Humanity has survived millenia as far as we know, and there's no reason to think the majority of people would drop off.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
Freedom4Me73986: Who cares? I want 100% full sovereignty. That means not being tied down to any society. I want to be self-sufficient in food. I want to live w/o taxes, regulations or obligations to others (slavery). I can live on my own in NH hunting and gathering and using my gold and silver to buy my tools. What's the problem with that?
Society, in a big way, is similar to economics. Sure, you can make a product or produce a crop, something to that affect, and live off of it, but your lifestyle would be severely limited unless you're a true agricultural Renaissance man.
Society is similar in that we are offered a bunch of protection through housing, having weapons, being able to have our currency recognized by businesses competing for our money, etc.
Living "off the grid" is possible, but you would be severely limted. Not saying you can't do it, but until I need to, you can have fun on your own. I enjoy my A/C, shower and shelter while being able to go out to eat if I want, go get drunk if I want, and I can mow my lawn without fearing a lion attack, etc. Lots of diversity in society. It's not all bad.
Spottswoode: From what I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.N.C.E has gathered, it would be 9/11 times 100. Gary Johnston: 9/11 times a hundred? Jesus, that's... Spottswoode: Yes, 91,100. Chris: Basically, all the worst parts of the bible.
The harsh reality is that if something really, really bad does happen you're best to just put lipstick on so can look nice when you get fucked.
(PS, I find it a little concerting that this discussion is going on in an Austrian economics discussion forum)