Aussies Living Simply

Survival weapon for hunting.

Home Forums FOOD PRODUCTION, HARVEST AND STORAGE Backyard livestock Survival weapon for hunting.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 82 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #428617
    grumpy3grumpy3
    Member

    Is that what the UN and club of rome decided on for AUS, I know its down to about 20 million for the USA. This is the depopulating of the world they talked about back in the 1970’s and not PO.

    Dennis

    #428618
    roadwarriorroadwarrior
    Member

    I think the 1 million figure came from ASPO-Aus, but don’t quote me on that. They probably got it from somewhere else, but the figure seems reasonable when you take into account how much fertile land and rainfall this country gets.

    #428619
    chookenchooken
    Member

    Aw gee, let’s all get guns and take the excess population out.

    I mean really. That is the end point of the us-vs-them survival outlook. The fact is, most people in times of serious hardship do what they’ve always done, which is try to live fairly decent lives according to whatever norms are prevalent in that society.

    The link between famine (or depression) and mass scale violence tends to be a product of centralised power trying to shore itself up at the expense of little people: in times of hardship we turn on those at the helm, so they cleverly encourage us to direct this enmity at an ‘other’, usually given a derogatory name like ‘Nips’, ‘Ragheads’ etc. By encouraging us to fight an other, central interests are protected, populations are lowered by attrition, people bond better at the national level, and in the aftermath, the survivors celebrate a new prosperity while those in power dole out medals.

    Anyhow, look, I know this is a thread for those who are interested in ‘tools of survival’ rather than radical sociology, but honestly, more people are more altruistic than you seem to believe. People have starved in depressions and lost children through want of hygiene or fresh water without automatically turning on one another. The sense of being part of a community (by which I don’t mean city) stops people acting totally selfishly and helps even out hardship for as long as possible.

    By the way, I’ve got nothing against judicious use of guns — they’re like any tool, dangerous if used wrongly, safe otherwise. (I have one myself.) But I get the feeling a few on this thread intend to keep them as self-protection against other people.

    Ultimately the one thing that will cause mass social breakdown and anarchic violence (as opposed to power-shoring organised violence) is a breakdown in belief in community. And those here obsessing about self protection are already past that milestone.

    Whoops! Lecture! Sorry guys. Carry on, I’ll butt out for a bit… :wave:

    #428620
    grumpy3grumpy3
    Member

    Not everyone might be a perfect shot with there sharpened stick. So we need to have an idea how to catch that big red in full hop or the pidgeon doing 40 mph. If a gun makes it easier to put a bit of meat on the plate so be it because that is part of what this thread is about. The rest is a learning process which covers many areas of survival. Survival is not only rambo in the bush but making do with what we have at hand. Growing stuff or gathering native food.

    Depopulation is not new and is common talk among the world powers and is something we all need to be aware of. :uhoh:

    Dennis

    #428621
    chookenchooken
    Member

    I don’t really listen to world powers all that much. :shy:

    #428622
    BugeyeBugeye
    Member

    There are many theories of how world depopulation would occur, the population is expected to reach over 9 billion by 2050. So it stands to reason that the population cannot keep increasing forever.

    I’ll offer the Olduvai theory as one theory of how depopulation could occur that does not involve any conspiricy or dark intervention by anybody or anything.

    Full Paper http://dieoff.org/page224.htm

    The Olduvai theory has been called unthinkable, preposterous, absurd, dangerous, self-fulfilling, and self-defeating. I offer it, however, as an inductive theory based on world energy and population data and on what I’ve seen during the past 30 years in some 50 nations on all continents except Antarctica. It is also based on my experience in electrical engineering and energy management systems, my hobbies of anthropology and archaeology, and a lifetime of reading in various fields.

    The theory is defined by the ratio of world energy production (use) and world population. The details are worked out. The theory is easy. It states that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030.

    World energy production per capita from 1945 to 1973 grew at a breakneck speed of 3.45 %/year. Next from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, it slowed to a sluggish 0.64 %/year. Then suddenly —and for the first time in history — energy production per capita took a long-term decline of 0.33 %/year from 1979 to 1999. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. More to the point, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years.

    Should this occur, any number of factors could be cited as the ’causes’ of collapse. I believe, however, that the collapse will be strongly correlated with an ‘epidemic’ of permanent blackouts of high-voltage electric power networks — worldwide. Briefly explained: “When the electricity goes out, you are back in the Dark Age. And the Stone Age is just around the corner.”

    The Olduvai theory, of course, may be proved wrong. But, as of now, it cannot be rejected by the historic world energy production and population data.

    #428623
    chookenchooken
    Member

    It’s fascinating, I agree. The only thing I quibble with is the every-man-for-himself outlook, which can happen in any branch of logic (not just survivalism), but which sometimes seems a bit more dominant in survival threads. Ultimately I think that mentality causes the situations it tries to defend against.

    Thanks for posting the Olduvai theory summary — I can see the point of it, and whether it’s ‘true’ or not, it seems to accord with government actions over the past ten years.

    (I still think it’s the links between people in a group that will prove the best survival tool.)

    #428624
    JanineJanine
    Member

    The Olduvai does give some food for thought, but I disagree that without electricity we are back inthe stone age we have too many variables – homemade wind mills charging car batteries for example home made technology, deliberatly forgetting factory made products such a solar panels that are far from being made at home.

    #428625
    roadwarriorroadwarrior
    Member

    Janine, how are you supposed to make windmills, batteries and solar panels without a reliable supply of electricity? If you have a reliable supply there is no demand for them. If the supply is interupted, you can’t make them.

    When electricity is cut off in a modern city people loot. If it’s cut off for an extended period they riot. You underestimate the beast waiting below the surface of modern society. The majority of people (99.9%) can’t survive without deep fried chicken and a Wii. Yourself (and most of the people on here) are an exception to the norm, but you only make up a fraction of the population.

    If we lost access to electricity or oil, or god forbid both, chaos would reign.

    But as long as you could find a safe place in the universe, the nights would be darker and the air would be cleaner.

    rw

    #428626
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    roadwarrior wrote:

    If we lost access to electricity or oil, or god forbid both, chaos would reign.

    rw

    Did anyone see a movie called Mad Max? :tongue:

    #428627

    roadwarrior wrote:

    Janine, how are you supposed to make windmills, batteries and solar panels without a reliable supply of electricity? If you have a reliable supply there is no demand for them. If the supply is interupted, you can’t make them.

    I know I could make a generator with a car alternator and some pvc pipe, and I think there will be millions of batteries laying around in cars that ain’t being used. Granted it won’t be terribly efficient, but it is a start and it will supply power.

    #428628
    roadwarriorroadwarrior
    Member

    chooken wrote:

    But I get the feeling a few on this thread intend to keep them as self-protection against other people.

    Chooken: This is a difficult topic, both to talk about legally and also to discus on a peaceful and harmless forum such as ALS. I sympathize with what you have said, but I don’t agree with you.

    Let me put it this way…The majority of people (lets call them “sheep”) in modernized countries such as Australia have grown soft due to many reasons. The most important of them being the ability to trade work for a plentiful supply of food, shelter, and the protection offered to them by armies and police forces (Rule of Law, or ROL).

    If any or all of those things are suddenly removed from a population, for whatever reason or for an extended period you will see a breakdown in the ROL.

    Humans evolved and learnt very quickly to protect themselves and their loved ones from others who coveted what they had. We have now de-evolved and learnt to rely on external sources to protect us. This leaves us vulnerable to harm if ever ROL is not there.

    We will become like sheep, herded and abused by those with more power and the will to do harm against us.

    I do not own guns to hurt people. But when the time comes, owning guns will stop people from hurting me and the people I love.

    This is a welcome side-effect of owning them, not the reason to own them.

    There are many examples of situations of extreme violence without ROL, both throughout history and current times. If anyone can show me one example where people have lived peacefully without rule of law then I’d be highly surprised.

    rw

    #428629
    grumpy3grumpy3
    Member

    chooken wrote:

    But I get the feeling a few on this thread intend to keep them as self-protection against other people.

    In the event of having to live a wildernes life style people are not the only problem to be faced with. What about a pack of mad dogs that think you might taste ok. Wild pigs, panthers (large black cats) etc etc. Any number of critters can be added to the list that one may find themselves threatened by.

    Have you tried defending yourself with a pointed stick from an attacking wild boar. Survival has many terms and can mean a lot of things to different people. I would feel a lot happier to be in possession of a weapon that would be able to save the life of myself and family than nothing at all.

    I think all of us would like a peaceful lifestyle. I would anyway but I have lived long enough to understand many things and history has been a good teacher. Lets hope everything works out for the best. :tup:

    Dennis

    #428630
    roadwarriorroadwarrior
    Member

    From my viewpoint, I’m recreating Hugh’s River Cottage minus a river and all his farm land. I’m on a 850m squared block and I eat meat. Hunting is my only alternative to sustainably put meat on my table.

    #428631
    SpriteSprite
    Member

    Mark Twain once said “we are all three meals away from being savages” and I believe he was absolutely right.

    Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” gives an excellent overview of how human beings historically have dealt with resource shortages. For those with a more rosy view on the future, its a good, balanced read.

    We might like to think we are sophisticated creatures but we are not. We are not much different from our ancestors 10,000 years ago and scientists now say that physically we will not evolve very much more. Simple atavistic emotions like fear, greed and anger really have not changed very much in us. Look at school holiday traffic. Today I watched numerous people doing incredibly rude things and for what? To get 3 car spaces in front in a 35km long traffic jam? Gee that really gained them a huge amount of benefit. All it did for the remainder “ordinary folk” was p*ss us all off.

    Altruism only works with strangers and friends if your stomach is full.

    When your stomach is empty, altruism only works with loved ones.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 82 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.