A Return Of Polygamy?

Discussion in 'Ladies Section' started by CivilDefense, Jun 5, 2017.

A Return Of Polygamy? 4 5 1votes
4/5, 1 vote

  1. CivilDefense

    CivilDefense Expert Member
      235/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Polygamy, more accurately polygyny (one man, several women), as a social and marital structure has existed among humans since the dawn of history. According to Ethnographic Atlas, of the 1,231 recorded contemporary societies, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, only 186 were monogamous, and 4 had polyandry (one woman, several men). Due to the primitive nature of ancient civilizations, the practice was, possibly, much more widespread. It is referenced in the religious texts of the era (e.g., The Bible, the Qur'an, et al.).

    Some survival writers have theorized that in a complete collapse, there may be a return of this form of structure in western societies, in which, with very few exception, the practice is taboo and, indeed, illegal. The fictional film Dr. Strangelove, even had the titular character opining that it was necessary for the survival of the human race, following the complete nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviets.

    I realize this is, perhaps, a curious topic, but survival discussions often involve such "what ifs". What would the male members think? More importantly, and why it is in this section, how would the members of the fair sex view this marital structure making a sudden return to western civilization?

    (P.S. For me, this is academic. I am, after all, a happily married man, with a loving family. )
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
  2. MountainCutie

    MountainCutie New Member
      3/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Okay because one of my degrees is in Sociology I am going to go all academic here and say that it would depend upon the SHTF scenario. For example, in the case of an epidemic the populations that are historically hit the hardest are the elderly, women, and children. Both children and the elderly have compromised immune systems, whereas women are biologically more complex than men and rely upon a delicate physiological balence. That means in the case of a contagion the female population would drop dramatically for generations (as women and young girls would be especially hard hit). Which of course would suck because if a female population drops below 40% extinction is inevitable. At that point it doesn't matter how many men exist, one man can contribute his DNA to many women so they are biologically less important- DNA degradation requires new female DNA. Extinction will occur. Did I mention I also studied genetics?

    This kind of scenario (contagion) would lend itself to Polyandry. In order to protect the remaining female population it would be important to have more male protection from any lawlessness so the species does not go extinct. This is incidentally one reason why we see Fraternal polyandry in Nepal, China, and Northern India. Another reason being females were historically discarded after birth. In short scarcity. This is also why we see Polyandry in different countries in Africa. When females become less common, historically their value goes up. In the old west for example, rape was punished by immediate execution. We would see this again. I would also like to point out that Polyandry was a lot more common that your numbers, but no one tracked it and many universities still don't- especially in Middle Eastern countries and conservative Mediterranean areas. For example, recently there have been historians who revealed that Spartans had state sponsored reproduction, which meant that some women did have two husbands, while others could protest the quality of child their spouse had given them and request a different male father their offspring. Likewise the husband could request his wife seek another male specifically to father his next child (although not biologically his, it was considered his and he took credit for the child). In the ancient world this was very taboo among Athenians (most of our data about the ancient world comes from Athens or Rome- FYI Rome purged documents discussing Polyandry) so it went unmentioned in a lot of Athenian documents, but recent discoveries have led archaeologists to believe that Polyandry was a lot more common than previously discussed. That said research into the matter still remains minimal, as it is a taboo subject in the modern world and hard to get a grant for.

    That said I don't think widespread Polyandry would occur here. Overseas perhaps but not in America unless it is taken out of the hands of the public and legally enforced like in Sparta. But as Polyandry is very taboo in America I think it more likely that you would see an Ethiopian model of matrimony where a woman has many husbands but not at the same time, all divorced men are then required by social norms to provide for the children, whether he fathered them or not, because the entire tribe considers any of her past husbands, fathers to all her children. I think you can see why I think this would be more likely, especially given a high child mortality rate and how easily people divorce today.

    That said, given our current technology I find an EMP more likely. An EMP would probably produce a different scenario. In that case I think Polygamy would be more common than it is today. Why? Because although you would see a dramatic drop in female population as a result of lawlessness and lack of medical facilities, one of the largest populations that would be prepared for such an event would be the Mormon church and one of the tenets in the Book of Mormon is polygamy. Some women would naturally seek the protection adequate resources provide both to them and their children. There's also a genetic propensity there to choose the fittest male, and among apes that does not always mean physically dominant.

    Naturally since they would be reproducing Mormons would become a larger portion of the population than they are currently which would make their beliefs more normalized. As for non-Mormons I think it would be unlikely especially among Christians since Polygamy was seen as arising out of Sara and Abrahams lack of faith and Hagar whose son is viewed as the father of Islam is seen as a generational punishment to all of Abrahams offspring and the Christians. Additionally Jesus talked of one wife, and Adam was given one wife. So that's pretty much viewed as the way things should be in a lot of Christian denominations.

    Now the question then becomes this: Does this deviation in world views result in a secondary conflict that could make human beings even more scarce?
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  3. MountainCutie

    MountainCutie New Member
      3/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    PS What is your ideal society?

    My ideal society would still be one male and one female, married, with kids, and extended family close or in the same house. It would also be Christian.
     
  4. Arkane

    Arkane Master Survivalist
      275/297

    Blog Posts:
    0
    So lets look at a scenario say a pandemic! a severe pandemic is most likely to kill approx. equal portions of males and females!
    But after when it has gone to hell in a handbasket it will be the males between 12yo and sixty odd that will go out scavenging
    Scavenging will be a high risk activity any females involved will suffer greatly so any smart group will not let females out scavenging
    So lots of males will go scavenging, lots ofthose males will encounter other males and a contest for any scavenged goods will ensue!
    It will only take one percent of encounters to be fatal every day that the number of males will be greatly reduced.
    That will lead to greater competition and greater loss's until an equilibrium is reached probably after 60-70% of males failing!
    Some females will be forced to scavenge but these will not last long as they will be killed and or captured/used!

    Further down the track accomadtions will be made with the surviving successful men for them to protect several females and any children!
    This will apply to a lesser extent to married men still with a surviving original wife!
    Successful single men will have women whos partners failed seeking protection and desperate to be under the protection of a male, not so much for there sakes but for any children!

    Depending on the individual circumstances there maybe just a single male protecting a homestead of up to ten or so women/mothers with kids! god help that man he will need it!

    I know I would not turn out a mates family because he up and got himself killed! His family would become part of mine, mistress maybe maybe not!
    and If I happened upon a woman and kids I would if I thought it safe to do so take them in again maybe mistress maybe not!
    A lone male then with several women would need to get very diplomatic and careful!
    Each should get a night alone with the man sex or no sex in rotation! and in confidence!

    Monday mandy, Tuesday tessi, Wednesday wendy, Thursday terry, Friday franciene, Saturday sally, Sunday sophie!:D

    Not sure if this is a dream or a nightmare? closer to nightmare I think!:eek::oops:
     
  5. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      380/460

    Blog Posts:
    0
    whatever works for people.
     
  6. MountainCutie

    MountainCutie New Member
      3/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Wow. That's a high number. Too high frankly. In India where the 1918 Influenza Epidemic killed the most people, only 50 out of a 1000 people died. That's 5% of the population dying. The 1918 Influenza had a higher mortality rate than previous influenza epidemics. And more people died during the 1918 epidemic than during WWI. So that's a bit far fetched for me.

    Also men and women aren't that similar. In order for that situation to occur it would have to be a Y chromosome specific epidemic. Immune system function is generally an X chromosome thing, thus more for a virus to mess with, with women. Having two different chromosomes offers men some protection.

    While I can buy an almost male specific pandemic, after all has to happen sometime it can't all be x specific and it isn't. I can't see those numbers dropping. It's outside of all historical events minus the plague which was at highest estimations 25% and used rats as carriers and went from house to house. Not a lot of carriers like that now a days.

    But, yeah, pretty sure that would be a nightmare for everyone, Arkane. Not to mention the fact that most women would be so traumatized by loosing all their male relatives that, they might accept protection but probably not sex, ever. Then there is that Harvard study on female sexuality being fluid... don't know that I bought that study, but if true you'd be looking at a lot of your wives being lesbians just like a lot of males in Ancient Greece were gay. Needless to say the whole world would change so much that the odds of meeting anyone alive would be unlikely. At that point marriage would probably not exist. Christianity would probably totally break down. I don't think that world would be heaven, that's for sure.

    https://virus.stanford.edu/uda/
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  7. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      380/460

    Blog Posts:
    0
    the probability is that more males will survive than females, if so its only a matter of time before the human race ceases to exist.
     
  8. MountainCutie

    MountainCutie New Member
      3/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I would agree with lonewolf there. Males would be more likely to survive and if the numbers were that high we would go extinct. But pandemics are not that high, at least they have not ever been. If they ever were to, then yes we'd all die.

    But humans have hundreds of thousands of years of immunity and immune system adaptations earned throughout the years by all the deaths that have occurred since our species began. All the fittest genetics go into everyone alive today, even our sickest frailest people are infinitely better genetically adapted than the cave men were. Not stronger physically mind you but stronger immune system wise.

    For example Sickle-cell anaemia is viewed as a bad thing because it limits the life expectancy to between 40-60 years- but it occurs uniquely where the life expectancy is around 40-60 years anyway and it is common where Malaria is prevalent. Sickle-cell Anaemia, a genetic adaptation caused by a chromosomal anomaly, cannot prevent infection- mosquitoes infect people by biting them- but it can ward off Malaria by not allowing it to affect the body. Thus it is a highly advantageous adaptation in that part of the world- certain parts of Africa and India- where Malaria kills off or renders sterile parts of the population.

    This is why so many (many is still not whole tribes, 5% of the population in India as mentioned above, is many, in my mind) of the Native Americans died before the white man ever reached their territory. They were isolated from all the outbreaks and thus never adapted immunity. The entire world was adapting for centuries and they weren't. Now a days that level of isolation doesn't exist and hasn't since Columbus. It's made for stronger genetics, although it has been paid for in a lot of blood. We've adapted and we'll continue doing so like most species, unless we go extinct- like the crocodile, it reached perfection and stopped changing.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
  9. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      380/460

    Blog Posts:
    0
    the trouble is, on the subject of pandemics, that we now have worldwide transport systems, someone with say Ebola or swine flu can travel from the other side of the world and be in one of the major cities within 24 hours spreading disease among the population. this will have an effect on how many survive the outbreak. the only foolproof way of avoiding a fatal dose is to be into personal total isolation as soon as you hear even a whisper about contagion, and don't come out until no more new cases have been confirmed.
     
  10. Clara1993

    Clara1993 Active Member
      38/58

    Blog Posts:
    0
    hi there, I'm not a fan of polygamy but if I am always on what makes people happy, if these people who live in polygamy still manage to make each other happy and satisfy each other emotionally as well as physically then I don't mind it but some poor men want to marry two or three wives just because it is accepted by their religion and they end up getting family problems due to the facts that they won't be able to satisfy all of their needs, so my point is important to consider the ability to take responsibilities and charges before engaging in polygamy .
     
    Bishop likes this.
  11. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      380/460

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I've always found one woman at a time enough for me-more than enough!!:p
     
    GS AutoTech likes this.
  12. CivilDefense

    CivilDefense Expert Member
      235/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    America before it went to hell in a handbasket. ;)

    Perhaps. However, one theory about why polygamy was practiced in the ancient Near East was warfare reduced the number of males, while the number of females were not reduced accordingly so. On the flipside, in the American Old West, men outnumbered women considerably. I suppose the type of SHTF event and the social implications of said would be the determining factor.
     
  13. JMS

    JMS Member
      23/29

    Blog Posts:
    0
    It could end up being necessary for the survival of the human race. Men and women both are good at different roles, despite our equality. If there were more women left than men, then it would be needed for reproduction and repopulation of the planet. Even though it is illegal at the moment in a lot of countries, in times of catastrophe it may be tolerated. There would be no law as such anyway, so we should take it upon ourselves to accept it. Even if it does go against our principles. Any group of people left will have to think of the importance and the means towards repopulation.
     
  14. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      380/460

    Blog Posts:
    0
    in a society where its WROL you would make up your own rules, what suits the survivors is what goes.
     
    koolhandlinc likes this.
  15. Maria_C

    Maria_C New Member
      8/29

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I don't agree with the notion that more males would survive outnumbering the females. It is a known fact that females are designed by nature to survive long distance trekking albeit migration and the ability to withstand stress much more than males. In that case, males are the ones mostly killed, talk about war, disaster, whatever. And then you end up with more women, they being the center of it all, a whole generation can then rise with only one male to every 10 females if you like. That mean polygamy.
     
    Old Geezer likes this.
  16. CivilDefense

    CivilDefense Expert Member
      235/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Interesting perspective, @Maria_C . I recently read about a few studies that confirm women's immune system is more robust than men. One of the papers was from researchers at Ghent University (Belgium) that found a genetic component to the phenomenon.

    Another study found that women are 14% more likely to survive a traumatic injury than men. There is an interesting quote from one of the researchers:

    "I know some people may think women are the fairer sex, but as far as trauma goes, and their ability and tenacity to survive, women may even have a better evolution than men," said study researcher Dr. Adil H. Haider, an assistant professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.​
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2017
  17. Old Geezer

    Old Geezer Expert Member
      170/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Females are more competitive with each other than males ever thought about being. Men fight, women annihilate. Wars are fought to keep the females in territory in which to raise their young. Men kill each other like roosters trying to provide nests for their hens.
     
  18. joegirl

    joegirl Member
      18/29

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I just shake my head and marvel when TV programs like "Sister Wives" try to protray the view that polygamy is fine. There is nothing fine about two or more women sharing one man. No matter how much they try to put on a face and show that its OK. Women are not built that way. We are nurturers. We birth life. We love with everything. Its just messes a woman brain up when she thinks or feels she is not Numero Uno in her mans life. And this is exactly what happens within a polygamous setting. There will always emerge a most loved and least loved one. In Sister Wives, it is very clear Kody really loves one wife above the others. And also very clear that one wife is so unhappy about this. So it can never be right.
     
  19. Maria_C

    Maria_C New Member
      8/29

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Well, caring to two women at the same time has its own downsides. Good luck to anyone who thinks he can handle the emotional stress.
     
  20. koolhandlinc

    koolhandlinc Well-Known Member
      88/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    WOW! I actually have been enjoying reading this thread. I like the perspectives and all have valid points!

    I could see SHTF situations that can result in males or females having a larger percentage left alive. Adapting to the situation. Tolerance will prevale if humans are to survive. The roles will change as needed.

    @Maria_C If the 3 people involved all were aware and realized the situation. Say 2 of one sex and 4 of the other. If they are intellectual at all. The realization that either some of them will never have children. That they may all be needed for the survival of the group. Givin a little time. They will likely all mellow.

    But I place a big IF in there. All here seem to be intellectual. Being so we would likely reason the situation out. Then mellow for the survival of all. I do know many people who could never do that. NEVER! They would die holding to their belief structure.
     
  21. Tina Thompson

    Tina Thompson New Member
      8/29

    Blog Posts:
    0
     
  22. Tina Thompson

    Tina Thompson New Member
      8/29

    Blog Posts:
    0
    In normal everyday life I am against polygamy and everything it stands for. I'm not into sharing my man, my kids, my kitchen, my bed or anything like that with a bunch of other women. In a situation where our world has been turned upside down and all I'm worried about is survival, then yes, I would consider it. There would be no love involved, just survival. I imagine we will all be doing things we never considered before, we'll do whatever it takes to survive.
     
    GS AutoTech likes this.
  23. koolhandlinc

    koolhandlinc Well-Known Member
      88/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I have a 4yo (alomst 5) daughter. She is the sweetiest girl. If someone saved her from a rape or a dog attack or a kidnapping or any number of terrible things. I think I would love that person. Not as a husband or wife but clearly I would have a strong bond of some type. I mean like a family member.

    This hypothetical situation is interesting. I don't think I could share my wife even if the shtf. Seriously, I mean in the physical terms. But if shtf I will not be reproducing anyways. I been fixed. So if it comes to that.

    This is just one part of survival of the human race. If/when it happens. The subjects will have already been approached. The survivalists and preppers will lead as needed if only by speaking about subjects that we recognize now as potential issues and possible out comes. Here on this forum. The future of the human race is being worked out post shtf!
     
  24. texsun54

    texsun54 Member
      23/29

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Polygamy can pretty much only exist within an ideology or culture that places the male in a dominant role and all females are subordinate. In my life I have neither followed such an ideology, or been part of those cultures. The culture in which I grew up may have prescribed gender roles for men and women, but never would have disrespected the woman by entertaining the idea that men could have multiple wives. The women I have known would not have stood for it.
     
    GS AutoTech likes this.
  25. koolhandlinc

    koolhandlinc Well-Known Member
      88/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Your assuming that its the male who has several partners. What if the role is 1 female to 20 males? This would be assuming that either male of female had a large die off that resulted in an imbalance between the sexes. 10 men for every 1 woman or 10 women for every one man. Could be either way.
     
  26. Maria_C

    Maria_C New Member
      8/29

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I wonder why when a man is put at a dominant role people say the women are disrespected.
     
  27. koolhandlinc

    koolhandlinc Well-Known Member
      88/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Kind of a crazy idea isn't it.
     
    SillySam likes this.
  28. texsun54

    texsun54 Member
      23/29

    Blog Posts:
    0
     
  29. GS AutoTech

    GS AutoTech Well-Known Member
      97/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I have no idea if polygamy would become normal, in the sense of relationships that have multiple partners all happily married. Humans are all competitive, men AND women. Albeit often in different ways. I have no doubt that whatever the imbalance in available mates, male to female, there will be strong competition for the best partner.
    I am happy to report I couldn't handle more than one woman.
    My wife is a firecracker. Love her till death, but couldn't handle 2 of her. LMAO
     
    koolhandlinc likes this.
  30. koolhandlinc

    koolhandlinc Well-Known Member
      88/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I got fixed so unless the ratio was hundreds or thousands to 1 and society asked me to reverse the surgery for the good of all mankind. It won't happen with me. If something happened and both kids and myself were gone. I don't think my wife would care to conceive again for any reason.

    Its just a hypothetical as are many of the possibilities. This really would not be a issue if the male population were decreased. The seriousness of the question comes into play when the female population is decreased. One male can be placed into a role of spreading his seed generally. But if only one female to 100 males then in a generation a large die off will occur. Other very important issues rear their head.

    My wife had 2 c sections. She would not give birth easily without help. With good medical care she was all right. If the ration was 1 to 100. No matter what. A large die off would occur. Take the average number of offspring to the original population. for the fun of round numbers. 4 to 100? so the population would drop to 1/25th of the original size? Did I do the math correctly.

    Mankind would still survive but the world would need to begin populating to reach the magical 500 million number on the Georgia guide stones.
     
  31. TexDanm

    TexDanm Expert Member
      245/345

    Blog Posts:
    1
    Polyandry and polygamy may in various situations be a required survival way of life. In the past or in the future in a world that isn't overpopulated either or both or any number of other combinations can be the best answer to high death rates. When wars killed a lot of the men the women needed providers and mates in order for them to survive and help replace the lost tribal members. On the other hand if something throws the balance off so there are a lot more men than women polyandry may be necessary to hold the tribe together. This is far more common than people realize. Another reason for multiple wives in polygamy is that kids need to be provided for and if there is a shortage of providers then those who can provide for more may easily find that more than one woman will accept polygamy rather then have her children suffer.

    Another form of marriage is a line marriage where you have several men and several women join together as one family where the children are held in common. In a place where the death rates were exceptionally high this sort of arraignment was the best to insure that the children were cared for and survived. The entire concept of marriage was intended as a way to insure the survival of the children. It bound the male to the female and theoretically insured that he would hang around and help in the raising of the kids.

    The entire religious side of it is mostly useless and just self-serving for those in power. If a man and woman want to be together that commitment is in no way strengthened by a ritual. Conversely in the past a lot of suffering came from people that were stuck together than didn't fit well at all.

    I personally am ok with any grouping that provides for the kids and is good and provides both physical and emotional support for all involved. LOL, I have been very happily married now for going on 43 years. I don't believe than my wife is as open minded.
     
    koolhandlinc likes this.
  32. Old Geezer

    Old Geezer Expert Member
      170/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Let's face it, if many more women than men survived some apocalyptic event, the women would form groups resembling families. A man or men would NOT be the core / lead of such a group of women. Men would either be loners or form buddy teams, usually only two guys who, for some specific reason, formed a lasting friendship -- for instance, they were in combat together, they went to school together, they are biologic brothers, they have some sort of symbiosis (one is great at fixing things, jerry-rigging, the other knows the outdoors and is great with a map & compass).

    A dominant / BIG male lion will stick to himself and a group of lionesses will seek-out one of these fellows. However, two young male lions will pair-up to knock King Leo off his throne so as to gain his territory and the females who have sought that territory to breed.

    Some polygamy would exist post-SHTF, I just don't see it as being the primary marriage form. Look around the world. In Viking culture and in Polynesia, women were the land owners. This was because they bore the children and needed a "nest" in which to raise them. Men do not nest, they seek shelter -- which is to say a semi-permanent area to regroup or as a good place to hunt (hunting grounds they'll fight for). In Africa, many tribes see men living apart from the core village. Universally, a man or a group of men will eventually get around to finding a "territory" that he/they call their "turf" / the hunting grounds I was talking about. One male who is alone better be one bad-boy, because defending such will get you killed. In looking for a place to nest, women will desire such territories -- the male is a throw-in, something with which to breed, something that will help protect the turf/nest.

    Here is a big caveat: The degree to which a male will tolerate cubs/children will determine the degree to which he is accepted by the females. Children are by far more important to their mothers than any male. A female who is more attached to a male than her children has psychological problems. Animals have both physical and psychological diseases. Humans have both physical and psychological problems. The Lord God-Almighty knows that I have seen outrageous, mind-numbing, sickening, psychological anomalies -- and I bet the reader has also. Just because some behavior is observed in beasts and humans DOES NOT make it normal.

    Am I a socio-biologist? Yes. Do I think that there is more to human nature? Yes, however this is usually only manifested after a human somehow transcends their biologic under-pinnings. The latter was best articulated by Abraham Maslow. Look him up, he had some great observations concerning human nature, to include really positive things to say. Unlike animals, some humans can rise above the biologic, especially in our better moments. What a shame it is that most people so easily fall back into their baser nature, or never even leave it. Welcome to Earth.
     
    koolhandlinc likes this.
  33. TexDanm

    TexDanm Expert Member
      245/345

    Blog Posts:
    1
    Polygamy has always existed to some extent in most every group of peoples that I have read about. It is only nonexistent when it is heavily constrained by religious groups that are in power and even then if you look close you can find it. Women need men in order for them to survive during their pregnancies and while they care for a flock of kids. This need is even more pronounced in times when people are at war a lot and the men are either away or not coming back.

    Also the wealthy and powerful even in cultures that normally discourage it find ways to make it ok for them to do as they please. The Bible is full of these stories. Some of this just has to do with the nature of the beast. Men are not really as suited to monogamy as women and will usually find a way to fulfill their piggy desires if left to their own devices.

    During times of war the winners often impregnate as many of the conquered women as possible and then these extra unattached women become number two wives in what is often a sort of slavery to the number one wife. Without laws people generally end up in a generally more or less monogamous set up. I can't IMAGINE what it would be like to have more than ONE woman telling me what to do all the time!!!!
     
    koolhandlinc likes this.
  34. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      380/460

    Blog Posts:
    0
    not to say anything about multiple mothers in law!!!:p
     
  35. billa

    billa Member
      18/29

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I went to Asia for my bride. She knows better than to tell me much of anything. She ASKS. If shtf, women will be in very short supply, and they'd be insane to pregnant, or even risk unprotected sex. You can bet that they've got some "morning after" pills stashed away.

    we have no backup when the power goes off. There's no horse drawn implements, no trained horses and all the horses will be EATEN, in short order. There's no non-hybrid seed. SHTF will be worse, by orders of magnitude, than any disaster ever seen. A pandemic will result in shtf. When the US collapses, the rest of the world will go with it, and the US is teetering on a knife edge. All it would take is for the foreign investors to not buy our short term bonds (ie, pandemic, martial law, etc) to make the $100 bill nothing more than toilet tissue. From there, complete collapse would ensue in just a few weeks, maybe in a few days. No dollar value means no oil, no natural gas, means no electric, means no WATER. The cities will be pure hell-holes within a week of the power's going off and the small towns and rural areas will only be a week or so behind the cities, cause the city folk will be forced to go seek out water, food, shelter.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2017
  36. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      380/460

    Blog Posts:
    0
    once the power goes off and with it the mains water supplies, then so will sanitation and hygiene, then diseases will start, the worst of which will be cholera, then the dying starts.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Three Struck By Lightning As Sydney Superstorm Returns Climate Change Feb 18, 2017

Share This Page