Lone wolf or join a pack?

In the event of a global catastrophe, an apocalypse that takes down electricity, drinkable water, and kills billions of people, would you rather be a lone wolf and start over from scratch after finding a decent area, or will you join a community and help them build (if not lead them yourself) and try to make the best out of your situation? What would you rather do, and why?

 

I would rather join them since there is strength in numbers. Historically, species that pull together have been shown to be successful in spite of their vulnerability. The wildebeest is one such example. I am a resourceful person ( I have pumping myself up) and would first become a community mobilizer and then concentrate on their spiritual nourishment.

 

It depends on the actual situation.
In the beginning I would be inclined to steer clear of established groups
as most have there little set agendas and tin pot dictators!
Some time in when most of the wholesale destruction is done and groups of survivors form ( survivors as in those who lost and have adapted there thinking as opposed to those who were prepared and have not lost or adapted to the new normal ) I may investigate joining a group!

 

I would rather be a lone wolf -- unless I found a group of people that I could trust in times of need. Of course, I'd still maintain a professional distance from these people. In times of disaster, people can change rapidly. I wouldn't want to become too dependent on a group and then get caught in the middle of mutiny or drama. Taking care of my own business on my own time, that's how I like to live. So, I don't think I'd be changing that viewpoint just because the world turns upside down. Rather, I think I'd be all the more willing to separate myself from the rest of crowd for peace of mind.

 

I doubt any pre event group will survive long after an event without many major changes!
Most WILL self destruct no matter how close knit it is now!
I would have little trust in any group until things settle!

 

I'd be wary of joining any groups. There is no guarantee that a group will survive for long. Where people are there'll always be strife and when there's strife and no laws bad things tend to happen. So it were possible to be alone, I'd prefer that. Of course initially everything will be tough but like Crusoe you can adapt to your new way of life.

 

Agreed.

Even before the apocalypse happens one should always surround yourself with positive people. If none are present then it's best to just be alone and not be in the cross hairs or negativity due to outside forces.

 

Even family can turn on family!
Seen it happen many times!

What is all good and cosy in the old world may not be in the new world!
What happens when you turn away that lazy no good brother in law?
What about the single mother sister in law with her three fat kids?
The Alpha male makes his decrees and the rest are expected to go along!

Somewhere down the line and not very far at all everything falls apart!

Anyone who thinks they have it sorted is simply deluding themselves
and needs to seriously get some people education in to them.

What your partner says and go's along with now just to keep the peace is
in most cases far from what they actually think!
and you will only find out what they actually think when the SHTF!
Turning family away in theory is easy, turning them away in reality is a whole nuther ball game!

It is like killing, very easy in theory and on a screen but a whole nuther thing for real!

I would put more faith in survivors who have been through it than family that were sheltered from it!
A person who has spent a month or so surviving will be so relieved to be part of a group that a broken finger nail
wont be worth mentioning, whereas the protected princess will bitch about all and sundry!

 

I think that, statistically, larger groups have a higher chance of surviving rather than the lonely wolfs. It would really depend of a lot of factors, but I really think that the bigger the group, the larger the chances of surviving. You see, we all have certain skills: one is a doctor, one is a mechanic, one is a builder. Nobody can have all these skills at once; therefore it would be easier to survive in a pack.

 

Then again, not all people in the group are on the same page or are team players. In the end it will come down to your ingenuity and self reliance in order to survive. Now if you were to be introduced into a group that are all positive and motivated with skills, then that's a different story. I think this question requires more then a yes or no answer. To many variables.

 

I have a wife, and children. I have in-laws that I care immensely about, and I have family that I love.
I've never thought of it as a pack, I've always thought (and this may not play out in the real situation, this is simply my wish in the scenario should it ever come about) that we would be our tribe. We'd come together, and survive. We have a very skilled crew too.

People interested in mechanics, experienced gardeners/farmers/cooks, people good with their hands, three different fields of medicine. I mean, everyone would bring their own skills into it so it'd be a good tribe to be a part of too.

Lonewolf isn't the lifestyle for us.

 

Plato wrote in "The Republic" that man was not made to be alone. Otherwise we would have been Gods or beasts. I can accept that not everybody is a team player, but one of the reasons I vote for packs is the fact that if the lone wolf gets injured, he will die, while in a pack, the chances of looking after an injured team member are pretty high.

 

I would join a team definitely.I think it's important to work as a group to survive, and as you can see, we've only achieved this level of technology and advance by working together. Although, we need to be careful with whom we join, as they may not be the best group we are looking for. But it's always better to be in a group, than to be alone, starving and fighting by yourself against groups.

 

That above post are my thoughts echoed exactly.
I've just always wondered though, if you have no pre-existing relationship with said team, how do you trust their ways sans being their leader?

I just couldn't make that leap, guys. That's why I'm sticking with the family, and if I get my way we'll be a lot more reclusive.

 

This is a tricky question. On the one hand, I think that being a lone wolf might be safer because you can just focus on yourself, your intuition and your needs.
Once you get in a wolf pack things can easily get out of hand. Someone in the group might become jealous and want to harm you or set you up.
Then there are those who might try to manipulate others. If I would join a wolf pack then it would have to consist of people I completely trust and who would not betray me behind my back.
But there are not many people that have those qualities.
In a crisis situation it is hard to tell who is your friend and who is your foe but easier to judge wrongly.
I would say the main thing is to b prepared to handle things on your own and not depend too much on others because it would only bring you in danger.
You have to be very cautious and in case you do want to join a wolf pack due to its advantages then you should still be very careful!

 

In one of our after-dinner walks, I mentioned this forum to my husband. In a premise of disaster or major catastrophe that would render the area in ruins, he said the best idea is to organize a team. The first impulse is to get away from the crowd if you live in the city and to evacuate to a less crowded area and preferably to the rural or even to the woods. But wherever you may evacuate, it is still the team that would make survival easier.

Take the case of 4 people - hunter, carpenter, chef, politician. It may look an absurd team with the inclusion of the politician but his savvy is needed especially when there are squabbles in the team. He would be the leader, the peacemaker and anything outside the jurisdiction of the other 3. The hunter takes care of the food supply, the carpenter makes the shelter and the chef would cook edible food. And the chef has the idea to improvise when there is shortage of vegetable or meat.

Think of a scenario when you are alone and compare it with the team mentioned above. I'm sure it would not be hard to understand.

 

Definitely a group, but for increased safety it better be a one estabilished pre-disaster, or one based on family ties, at least initially. None of these is guaranteed 100% to work good for you, but then, neither is staying single - in fact, in long term we can expect it will have failure rate over 90%. How many skills can a single eprson learn, and who will help when you fall sick,w hich will evetually happen to everyone?

There's also the fact that once we get through the inital wave of social destruction, we won't be content with merely surviving, we'd want to start rebuilding a functioning society - and this always required humans to band together. And on a more grim side - you realise that "starnger danger" mentality will make a lone survivor an acceptable target for violence from organised survivors? In entire human history it has always been safer to band with others.

 

It really depends on what you're trying to gain from being a survivalist. If you are looking to learn how to survive on your own, then absolutely be a lone wolf. I have been a lone wolf several times and it's not as scary as people may think. If you are looking to be a survivalist, working with groups, then by all means join a group of people. Traveling in a pack definitely has it's benefits. Traveling in a group is much easier when it comes to protecting yourself. Dangerous people are less likely to hurt you when in a large group.

 

I'm quite sure you weren't a lone wolf after a catastrophe permanently wrecking the society It will be different that we knew so far, and personally, I don't think suriving alone would be a viable option in the long run.

 

I would do both in light of the fact that I am at first such a loner to the point that being around numerous individuals excessively would make me insane a majority of the time. Additionally, I love to go about having adventures all alone and be one with nature. As a sole proprietor of my enjoyment I would strive to be one of the primary individuals to discover something unusual. Indeed, even as a recluse I would return to bring back data that would be useful to the pack. To know that I could help without being helped would be a big help to me given the circumstances. I would improve living conditions as much as possible by way of innovation. Attempting to make things somewhat simpler yet then dependably come back to my own isolation, as it would be the wellspring of imagination to draw ideas from.

 

I would be a lone wolf at first as I assess the situation. Once sure that it is safe and progressive to join a community, then I would do so. A sense of community is important but it also has its drawbacks. You have to make decisions as a whole which is a slow process and the decisions will not always go your way. The weak will also live off the strong which drains them of energy to survive.

 

Initially I would be part of my immediate family group, bonded together by blood and love. Like most families there would be internal conflict, but hopefully nothing the patriarch or matriarch couldn't overcome, especially when expulsion from the group would almost certainly mean death (much like the aborigines practiced here for thousands of years). These smaller groups may over time expand into tribes or clans, but human nature never changes. Clans will clash with other clans, just like they do today in Afghanistan or the Middle East or India or Pakistan or any other place where there isn't a strong government to overrule and keep relative order.

 

Wolves and people are pack-type creatures. If no one has your six-o'clock, you are dead.

Besides, if it were just me, I would have no reason to live. I don't like me very much. I had girlfriends in Jr High and High School. "Got married" in grammar school -- gumball machine plastic ring -- a male buddy of mine married us on the playground. Met my wife while at university and we've been together now for over 4 decades. I don't believe in having mistresses, but I have had several women friends over the decades. I've had very few male friends; as an adult, maybe three or four buddies. I can function in a group and I don't mind having to do so.

When I think of survival, I'm not thinking about myself. Were I alone, I'd likely locate some useless aggressive people and wade into them, killing as many of them as I could before getting killed myself. I'd go out in a cleansing spree -- as such, I'd be of some purpose even in death.

 

Me, I'm just not a loner. However, I can't stand large groups. But a half dozen to a dozen, I think that would be about right -- a big family. Too, I can't walk my own perimeter when I'm asleep.

http://survivalcache.com/survival-debate-group-survival-solo-survival/

http://www.offthegridnews.com/extreme-survival/how-to-survive-a-broken-bone-in-the-wilderness/

http://www.brothersofbushcraft.com/articles-by-the-brothers/treating-diarrhea-in-the-field/

http://reference.medscape.com/features/slideshow/wilderness-medicine#page=1

 

In factory hours terms, I'm a 2nd-shift human. Some daylight for working, but then the beautiful night. I see super well in low light. At dusk light, my pupils are still pinpoint. Turn off the lights and my eyes adapt quicker than anybody I've talked to about it. Even though I'm old and have had a cataract removed, the eye doctor sez my retinas are still very healthy. My wife and youngest son are morning people. Go figure.

As far as perimeter goes, without a mate, I'd need to rig perimeter alerts and would have to have a dog or dogs. My hearing has been bad for years -- I've gone through tens of thousands of rounds of ammo plus quadruple that being around others touching off rounds. My right ear is still good-ish, but I have perpetual tinnitus in both ears. Sometimes an ear "rings out", then I can't hear anything on that side. The other day a young man told me that some air leak sounded way loud; me, I couldn't hear it until I put my head down within a foot of the air leak.

If you're young and still have hearing, wear the military ear plugs that have valves in them such that you can hear OK, but when a concussion goes off, the valves slam shut and protect your middle and inner ear.

 

Even a strong group needs "lone wolves". They are the supply getters, hunters and scouts. Calculated risk takers to gain advantage. If integrated into a group and their psychological needs are met, they are integral to a "group" dynamic. Afterall, a leader is a hybrid social "lonewolf". Prairie Dog

 

Very well thought out and presented Keith

 

I am a service based personality, to meet my psychological needs I would have to work for the survival of a group. My basic thought process is to ensure the safety and provision for others. This forces me to care for myself to ensure I can do this. I like my alone time, but that is personal psycological maintenance. A cohesive group will always have an advantage. If injured or ill, the group provides aid. If safety is threatened, a group response is larger than a lone gun. If food is scarces, a group can set snares and check them over a much larger area. Yes, difficulties will arise between members, but basic survival trumps most vanity issues. Petty bickering lessens when harsh reality is the task master, in my experience anyways.
Prairie Dog

 

Sorry, I didn't read all the reply's.
People need communities to survive and thrive.
Yes, one can survive on their own, but how can a one survive and grow without a community.

 

You have to sleep at some point. Sometimes you need someone else to help you string a bow. It's nice to have another person with you to help you farm too.

I don't see lone wolves lasting that long. There is a reason humans formed civilizations. Tasks are far easier to complete when you have extra hands available.

Survival for the sake of survival alone won't keep you going very long, either. There is a reason isolation is used as part of psychological softening-up prior to interrogation.

 

All military ops are executed by teams. Humans break legs, one human has one mind, humans do not have eyes in the back of their heads, one human is easily flanked, on and on. Even "lone" intel officers have friendly intel watching them.

If one has no human allies, then he can buy and train some dogs. Were I living up in some cold mountainous area, I'd have a big strong St. Bernard so that it could drag me back to camp. Thus, this critter being one of the rescue breeds the Swiss use (plus the Greater Swiss Mountain Dog). A huge mountain dog may not be as strong as a horse, but it's far more agile and infinitely smarter. I don't even begin to know what all these mountain rescue dogs can be trained to do (they even alert on coming bad weather; four-legged barometer). Then you have your Army K-9 four-legged fellows:


Dogs, if treated humanely, are your buddies. They couldn't care less if the meat is spoiled -- might even like it better. Kill anything, skin it, and the dog will eat it (tan the pelt). Dogs drink out of mud puddles (their stomach acid is far more concentrated than humans).

If out in the wilds, put a pack complete with water purifier (for you) over a working dog's back, pat it on the head, and it is beyond happy. Don't weigh a dog down -- 20% to 30% of the dog's weight is max. Best genetic working dogs are bred to work and work and work and work. A mixed breed dog coming from good genetics will also give great service and not be as psychologically hyper as some pure breds.