(OT) Monte Cook's most recent rant.....
- Thread starter Virginia Wilde
- Start date
Uller
Adventurer
Re: Re: Re: (OT) Monte Cook's most recent rant.....
And how much time do YOU spend per week doing survival tasks? (working to cover your costs for enough food to live and very basic shelter). Probably not 14 hours.
Probably the vast majority of your time is spent on non-necessities (even though you might not recognize them as such).
For instance, you probably live in an abode that is well beyond your needs. You really only need to be warm enough and dry enough to keep you from getting sick and you don't need more than about 10-15 sq ft to sleep comfortably. Probably another 5 sq ft for your tools...oh wait...tools are actually a technology and a luxury...no technology means no tools (not even rocks for throwing at stuff). You don't need tools to gather berries and nuts. Now...go out in the woods and start looking for enough nuts and berries to keep you alive. I hope your feet are covered with a good leather-like calous because shoes are a technology. What? You've been searching all day and can't find enough food?
That's because you very likely live in a region that doesn't produce enough food per unit of land to support a single human being all year long without growing it and without hunting with tools. Without technology, most of the land mass of the earth could not support human life.
Sorry. I just gotta take the "anti-technologist" arguements to their logical conclusions...
Even 100 years ago, life was much harder than today in every aspect. Just a few examples:
Transportation: 100 years ago, cars were just being invented. Trains were available, but were expensive, slow and wrecked havoc on the environment (far worse than modern cars). Most people relied on their own feet or horses if they could afford them (most couldn't). As a result, most people never went more than a mile or two from home most days of their lives. Would your life be better or worse if travelling more than a mile or so in a day was extremely difficult?
Food storage and processing: 100 years ago, you cooled food via an ice box. This of course had limitted room so you didn't keep unnecessary things cool. In southern climes where bodies of water never froze, you simply did without. Storing fresh food was a real problem. Would your life generally be better or worse if you couldn't store food in a refridgerator?
Information: 100 year ago, information got around society via telegraph or it was carried by people (mail, messenger services, trains, horses, etc.) Most people got most of their information via newspapers and if it wasn't local, then it was either a few days (or weeks) old or was of tremendous importance. Would your life be better or worse with access to information severly restricted?
Entertainment: 100 years ago, entertainment options were much more limited than they are now. Radio hadn't been invented yet. The movie industry was in it's infancy. Would your life be better or worse if you had fewer entertainment options.
etc. etc. etc.
alsih2o said:
And how much time do YOU spend per week doing survival tasks? (working to cover your costs for enough food to live and very basic shelter). Probably not 14 hours.
Probably the vast majority of your time is spent on non-necessities (even though you might not recognize them as such).
For instance, you probably live in an abode that is well beyond your needs. You really only need to be warm enough and dry enough to keep you from getting sick and you don't need more than about 10-15 sq ft to sleep comfortably. Probably another 5 sq ft for your tools...oh wait...tools are actually a technology and a luxury...no technology means no tools (not even rocks for throwing at stuff). You don't need tools to gather berries and nuts. Now...go out in the woods and start looking for enough nuts and berries to keep you alive. I hope your feet are covered with a good leather-like calous because shoes are a technology. What? You've been searching all day and can't find enough food?
That's because you very likely live in a region that doesn't produce enough food per unit of land to support a single human being all year long without growing it and without hunting with tools. Without technology, most of the land mass of the earth could not support human life.
Sorry. I just gotta take the "anti-technologist" arguements to their logical conclusions...
Even 100 years ago, life was much harder than today in every aspect. Just a few examples:
Transportation: 100 years ago, cars were just being invented. Trains were available, but were expensive, slow and wrecked havoc on the environment (far worse than modern cars). Most people relied on their own feet or horses if they could afford them (most couldn't). As a result, most people never went more than a mile or two from home most days of their lives. Would your life be better or worse if travelling more than a mile or so in a day was extremely difficult?
Food storage and processing: 100 years ago, you cooled food via an ice box. This of course had limitted room so you didn't keep unnecessary things cool. In southern climes where bodies of water never froze, you simply did without. Storing fresh food was a real problem. Would your life generally be better or worse if you couldn't store food in a refridgerator?
Information: 100 year ago, information got around society via telegraph or it was carried by people (mail, messenger services, trains, horses, etc.) Most people got most of their information via newspapers and if it wasn't local, then it was either a few days (or weeks) old or was of tremendous importance. Would your life be better or worse with access to information severly restricted?
Entertainment: 100 years ago, entertainment options were much more limited than they are now. Radio hadn't been invented yet. The movie industry was in it's infancy. Would your life be better or worse if you had fewer entertainment options.
etc. etc. etc.
I have a difficult time seeing the 'cityfolk' side of this topic. I've always lived within 5 minutes of excellent camping/hunting ground. Now, I live in (technically) a city but I'm a halfhour walk from hunting ground. I was in BoyScouts for years and I hunt and fish since I've been legally allowed to.
Making a fire without matches or anything of the sort is hard to do. Even if you know what you're doing. Finally a movie, Cast Away, got it right. If you can remember what Tom Cruise did, it will still take you a few hours until you get a decent spark.
If you owned a can opener you could live on Speghetti-Os, over an open fire, for a long time. The can would serve as its own pot. Unless you know how to purify water with a firepit, expect to have dysentary regularly; unless you're already very sick it won't kill you, but you'll become very use to the 'runs'. If you know how to spot a spring you can avoid this situation all together.
Killing an animal is extremely easy to do. It wouldn't take an unlearned human long to fashion a spear or bow and arrow and be capable of killing an animal, even something the size of a deer.
Field dressing an animal is a completely different story. An unlearned human would wast (I"m guessing) 70% of the animal's resources not counting the skins, since in this scenario we wouldn't need animal skins for a long time. As someone said earlier, unless you have enough people to eat the meat in a day, depending the the temperature, it will spoil. Do you know how and where to bury meat to keep it for a few more days?
We all know how to tie our shoes but how many of us know more than 10 kinds of knots? Worse yet, how many of us know what kind of plant material can serve in place of rope? This knowledge is extremely important. Making tents, strung bows, shoes, you name it requires decent knot knowledge.
Do you know what a 'bearbag' is? It would take you a only few days in the wilderness with food, to learn what a bearbag is. While I'm on the subject, (it is extremely rare that this encounter would happen, once every 3 years probably but) a bear can out run, out climb, and out swim you. Should you encounter a pissed off bear, what do you do? Spears and arrows, unless he has like a dozen stuck in him, will just piss him off even more.
I really could go on, but I think it is important for all humans to have basic outdoor knowledge. Not because of a threat of nuclear holocaust. How many movies have you seen where the backpacking family (or whatever) gets stranded out somewhere and has to learn all of this stuff the hard way, usually one dieing or another missing his toes, or both. It wouldn't make much of a movie if someone in the family was totally prepared. Talk to any park ranger, too many 'normal' people go camping and get themselves in some kind of trouble, albeit most of the time it is minor.
Another reason I think it is important: I love hearing this one, "How can you kill an animal? That is so cruel?" coming from a person who eats hamburg. Usually I just laugh in their face and tell them to go get their food from the new Walmart Supercenter and pick up the hamburg that doesn't come from a killed animal. I'd guess millions of americans don't understand where their sandwiches come from nor do they understand the sacrifice said animal made for them to have a delicious meal. Obviously vegetarians have every right to ask me that question and I respect their opinions because they can back them up.
I turned this into a freakin book, I apologize. But this is one of my favorite topics.
-Telor
Making a fire without matches or anything of the sort is hard to do. Even if you know what you're doing. Finally a movie, Cast Away, got it right. If you can remember what Tom Cruise did, it will still take you a few hours until you get a decent spark.
If you owned a can opener you could live on Speghetti-Os, over an open fire, for a long time. The can would serve as its own pot. Unless you know how to purify water with a firepit, expect to have dysentary regularly; unless you're already very sick it won't kill you, but you'll become very use to the 'runs'. If you know how to spot a spring you can avoid this situation all together.
Killing an animal is extremely easy to do. It wouldn't take an unlearned human long to fashion a spear or bow and arrow and be capable of killing an animal, even something the size of a deer.
Field dressing an animal is a completely different story. An unlearned human would wast (I"m guessing) 70% of the animal's resources not counting the skins, since in this scenario we wouldn't need animal skins for a long time. As someone said earlier, unless you have enough people to eat the meat in a day, depending the the temperature, it will spoil. Do you know how and where to bury meat to keep it for a few more days?
We all know how to tie our shoes but how many of us know more than 10 kinds of knots? Worse yet, how many of us know what kind of plant material can serve in place of rope? This knowledge is extremely important. Making tents, strung bows, shoes, you name it requires decent knot knowledge.
Do you know what a 'bearbag' is? It would take you a only few days in the wilderness with food, to learn what a bearbag is. While I'm on the subject, (it is extremely rare that this encounter would happen, once every 3 years probably but) a bear can out run, out climb, and out swim you. Should you encounter a pissed off bear, what do you do? Spears and arrows, unless he has like a dozen stuck in him, will just piss him off even more.
I really could go on, but I think it is important for all humans to have basic outdoor knowledge. Not because of a threat of nuclear holocaust. How many movies have you seen where the backpacking family (or whatever) gets stranded out somewhere and has to learn all of this stuff the hard way, usually one dieing or another missing his toes, or both. It wouldn't make much of a movie if someone in the family was totally prepared. Talk to any park ranger, too many 'normal' people go camping and get themselves in some kind of trouble, albeit most of the time it is minor.
Another reason I think it is important: I love hearing this one, "How can you kill an animal? That is so cruel?" coming from a person who eats hamburg. Usually I just laugh in their face and tell them to go get their food from the new Walmart Supercenter and pick up the hamburg that doesn't come from a killed animal. I'd guess millions of americans don't understand where their sandwiches come from nor do they understand the sacrifice said animal made for them to have a delicious meal. Obviously vegetarians have every right to ask me that question and I respect their opinions because they can back them up.
I turned this into a freakin book, I apologize. But this is one of my favorite topics.
-Telor
alsih2o
First Post
Telor said:
i knew several hunters who went out with homemade spears with metal tips to try this in wv., after 2 days in the woods the total was-3 broken bones, 65 stitches and no deer.
i personally have seen a whitetail with a pierced lung and heart go 3 miles over rough land before dropping.
(edit, not arguing with you, just pointing out that hunting can thin the wrong herd soemtimes
)
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
Re: Re: Re: (OT) Monte Cook's most recent rant.....
But that's not why it's REALLY cowardly. There's a lot of truth to the saying, "The hardest thing in this world... is to live in it." Anyone can think that dying for a cause is brave and noble - causes are a dime a dozen. LIVING for your cause, and EXEMPLIFYING you cause, is totally different.
These men knew that their end would be quick and relatively painless. Don't let anyone fool you on this. You don't live through anything like that for any length of time. It took longer for the poor souls to die who were trapped above the damage.
Those 19 hijackers did not NEED to die - they didn't even die defending anyone. They died believing they were striking a blow to the enemies of their way of life. Any modern scholar of Islam will tell you, these men were NOT exemplifying Islam. In fact, many moderate mullahs have publically stated as much. It's the fundamentalist shi'a mullahs in the Middle East who have called these men martyrs.
I will finish and not say anything else about this, except to close with this: I find their actions narrow-minded, cowardly, cold and ultimately senseless. Not "ballsy," nor "bold."
I would love to hear Chairman Kaga's take on this.
apsuman said:
But that's not why it's REALLY cowardly. There's a lot of truth to the saying, "The hardest thing in this world... is to live in it." Anyone can think that dying for a cause is brave and noble - causes are a dime a dozen. LIVING for your cause, and EXEMPLIFYING you cause, is totally different.
These men knew that their end would be quick and relatively painless. Don't let anyone fool you on this. You don't live through anything like that for any length of time. It took longer for the poor souls to die who were trapped above the damage.
Those 19 hijackers did not NEED to die - they didn't even die defending anyone. They died believing they were striking a blow to the enemies of their way of life. Any modern scholar of Islam will tell you, these men were NOT exemplifying Islam. In fact, many moderate mullahs have publically stated as much. It's the fundamentalist shi'a mullahs in the Middle East who have called these men martyrs.
I will finish and not say anything else about this, except to close with this: I find their actions narrow-minded, cowardly, cold and ultimately senseless. Not "ballsy," nor "bold."
I would love to hear Chairman Kaga's take on this.
Henry
Autoexreginated
As for Techno-fear and Techno-joy, It DOES unnerve me a bit to knwo that only maybe 1% of the population would live through a massive holocaust. Unlike some fo the other posters, I have no illusions about the number of people that would die due to starvation, rape, theft, and natural hazards.
The fact is, you probably COULD learn to survive an apocalypse, but the learning curve would be DARNED steep. Adapt or die. Quickly.
Could I? Probably not. But I'm not so afraid of the possibility that I am going to start stockpiling canned food and ammo, building an underground fortress, and learning to build radio transmitters from Bailing Wire and used Tampons.
I wouldn't bother go to Las Vegas on the odds that we will have some sort of apocalypse that destroys all the infrastructure. Chances are, I'll work on as a wage slave, get a bigger house, maybe have kids one day, and live 'till I die. It ain't a bad life.
And if the Asteroid hits in 2019, then I'll be at the farewell party with the rest of you schlubs, playing D&D, wishing everyone well, eating a 40 ounce steak, and trying to drown out the mass orgy down the street.
Have fun all!
The fact is, you probably COULD learn to survive an apocalypse, but the learning curve would be DARNED steep. Adapt or die. Quickly.
Could I? Probably not. But I'm not so afraid of the possibility that I am going to start stockpiling canned food and ammo, building an underground fortress, and learning to build radio transmitters from Bailing Wire and used Tampons.
I wouldn't bother go to Las Vegas on the odds that we will have some sort of apocalypse that destroys all the infrastructure. Chances are, I'll work on as a wage slave, get a bigger house, maybe have kids one day, and live 'till I die. It ain't a bad life.
And if the Asteroid hits in 2019, then I'll be at the farewell party with the rest of you schlubs, playing D&D, wishing everyone well, eating a 40 ounce steak, and trying to drown out the mass orgy down the street.
Have fun all!
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
To veer this away from an onrushing religious/political discussion, I'll point out that I have no interest in waiting for an asteroid or a bomb or even a hurricane; the sky clouds over, and I'm sizing up my neighbors for the BBQ pit. Mmmmm, long pig with a side of Soylent Green; who needs to head to Walmart?
From a particular movie: "I'm alive! Alive! ALIVE!!! Now, hand me another chunk of co-pilot."
From a particular movie: "I'm alive! Alive! ALIVE!!! Now, hand me another chunk of co-pilot."
Eosin the Red
First Post
You have spent too much time on the internet. When the Trade Centers went up - my part of America was in total chaos. Gas shot up to $5.00+ per gallon, grocery stores were out of potable water in hours, and non-perishable goods were shortly behind the water. Fights erupted over all of this. There wasn't even alarm that "the world will end" - just that we are under attack.
Here in the good ole USA (I agree with Alish) you would be a total retard to approach a wal-mart and in short order you would be a dead-retard.
My guess is that most of us would be dead inside of 1 year from infection. The bugs of today are not your hum-drum 16th century kind. Our bugs have been juiced up. We have the equivalent of bionic bugs. You would need several hundred points to build these nasty critters in champions.
If the bio/med/pharmico industry goes down they are taking a large chunk of the world with them.
A great book if you like these kind of things is:
Wilderness Medicine
Management of Wilderness and Environmental Emergencies
Published by: Mosby
By Paul S Auerbach
Not a nut - part of my job
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
alsih2o said:
And you better believe I will be happy to chase that deer for 3 miles if I am hungry.
That is actually a very realistic scenario even for a skilled hunter. You hope for a good, bleeding wound. Then let the deer run away, startling it more only means it will run further. Follow it quietly, expecting it to weaken enough to approach in an hour or two. Maybe.
That would be my plan.
Those deer are not likely to drop easily unless you are using a high-powered rifle.
Similar Threads
- Locked
