Third World Country vs. Priveleged Country in Post Apocalypse

Those living in third world countries will not notice a social collapse.
Those of us who have known luxuries all our lives will be hit the hardest.
Are those who were born in harsher living conditions naturally more prepared for a disaster than those of us living in more privileged countries?

 

I think that this depends deeply on the country and the disaster that takes place. On one hand it will be more difficult to give up luxuries. On the other hand, people in first-world countries are better capable of preparing and stocking supplies for emergencies. However people in third-world countries might know how to get by better on less things.

 

Location and stores mean little in the long run
What matters most is knowledge and intelligence!
and your ability to pass that down.

 

I am not sure if my country is a third world country, it shouldn't be, but I know that people here in Serbia are very much ready for all types of sh**, and we were even more ready but recently I see kids acting like pop stars from MTV and they just do not look like they belong here. My generation is one of the last tough out there and it is really sad. For example I am 29 years old and I have survived 2 wars. My country split several times and I felt one of the biggest inflation in the history of mankind. we literally didn't have money for food and still we work for less than 200 Euros per month and nothing is cheap by the way. I am not complaining because I know that it was worse when I was a kid back in the 90s. Yes, I believe third world countries would have a big advantage in post apocalypse period in terms of surviving.

 

The pygmies in Congo have been living in the wild for ages. There aren't too many of them left [for obvious reasons] and unless they lost their home [the Congo forest] they wouldn't even know if anything has changed if there was war in Europe, an economic collapse, viral infections, etc. I guess there are other groups of people like them [elsewhere in the world] who would not be that affected by an apocalypse.

As for third world countries being better off, I don't think they would be. Many rely on foreign aid when that is gone what would follow?

 

Honestly, I think experience and knowledge are more helpful than supplies. The fact of the matter is that we can prep all we want to, but all of our physical stocking prep could be all in vain in a disaster. What if you came home and found that your house had been lit on fire or a bomb was dropped on the very part of your house where you keep most of your SHTF stock? You'd likely be less screwed if you had the knowledge about building a new shelter, growing your own food, and all the other useful information that we talk about here daily.

 

The general relationships of Serbia and it's surrounding countries are very rough. Were you involved in the Bosnian War, by any chance?

 

I suppose what you call luxury is relative. There are some Third world countries with people who live in luxury in primitive environments like the Maasai of East Africa who live a quaint lifestyle just watching over cattle. In any case, the power of the human to adjust to adverse conditions is phenomenal. It all depends on the state of mind at that time. You quickly adjust to the environment providence has placed you in.

 

I have a problem with the terminology of developed versus undeveloped countries because it stems from the Western perspective on the world, particularly an ethnocentric stance.
So if you ask a so-called third world country, such as Somalia, e.g., if they see themselves as a third world country they would probably say no because they have a total different view of the world and where their position is.
Now to get back to your question.
I believe that countries with higher poverty levels have better chances of surviving since they are already used to not having a lot to eat or even having luxury items, such as a car.
They are unintentionally already prepared mentally as well. They know what to do when things get tough. They know how to handle a situation where they do not have any food. they have their own strategies that they developed over time.
On the other hand, the majority society of countries with more luxury lifestyle are not used to having no food or no access to luxury items.
They are so used to this lifestyle that when the time comes that they do not have these things anymore that they most likely will freak out because it will be a shock to them. They would not now how to handle it and therefore are less prepared.
Nevertheless, we are all humans and we can all learn to prepare ourselves no matter in which kind of country we live in if we are open-minded enough.

 

I don't think a third world country would even blink at an apocalypse. We depend so much on technology and luxury that this would be like hell on earth for us. These third world people would school us on survival. Still there are some of us that would do well being aware that having a mind state of surviving against all odds is what we need in these end times.

 

It depends of the third world country. South American countries have some degree of development and a large portion of the population successfully went out of extreme poverty thanks to higher education access and market opportunities environment. These countries are not rich, but they at least enjoy some quality services similar to modern developed
countries (supermarkets, internet access, public transportation, health care, finantial institution, etc.), still they are very prone to lose all of their advances due to supporting harmful populist policies, like it happened in Argentina, Brazil or currently happens in Venezuela. And guess what, state's failure led to a starving and desperate population. Most of them did not move from the unproductive colapsed cities and started an older but autonomous way of life out in the wilderness like their ancestors, some of them even turned into looters and members of dangerous criminal gangs. My point is that third world country folk are not necessarily prepared for apocalypse, people can grow accustom to an inefficient way of life (poor services, recurring food shortages, bad sanitary system etc.) but living like that they are not getting prepared for anything, is quite pathetic truly told. I prefer hunting,foraging, harvesting or fishing rather than waste six to eight hours of my life waiting my turn within a large queue for a measly access to "modern food" produced by a failed attempt of replacing capitalism.

Like I already said to many friends and people from these countries: Modern technology is indeed effective, saves a lot
of time with mass production and modern methods of distribution across the territory, but the respect for free trade is also required to thrive in the same way you don't go and tell a local farmer,crafter or Hunter which activities they should do and which they don't, or force them to trade the result of their effort for anything in such a quantity that
they are not agreed with in first place. But no, they let government to seize control of the modern means of production,
And now guess who now have the power to control your life? Geniuses.

 

I don't think what you've said is necessarily true. It hugely depends on what sort of disaster you're talking about. There are people of several different wealth levels in Third-World countries and many people in them probably have as good a standard of living or a better standard of living than you do. Also there are obviously several government systems in place in Third-World countries and it would severely affect most people if they were to collapse. Even some of the poorest people in the world are dependent on electricity and cars. So basically they would almost certainly have a problem if they were to be struck by some large scale calamity. They would probably be better at dealing with it though, because of the fact that they are used to managing with fewer resources.

 

There was this book I read once called Life as we Knew it and it talks about this a bit. In case of an actual huge disaster, not only would those in third world countries be more prepared to survive, but also those living far from civilization. If disease were to spread, being in a city would be disastrous. Likewise, third world country people are used to shortages more than those in huge cities. Coming from a big family in a small town, I am way more used to rationing things like money and food than those who never had to try and because of that I find things like travelling and overall dealing with stuff easier.

 

People in the first world country are far less-equipped to handle a massive disaster since their survival instincts and skills have been dulled with the advent of modern conveniences. A good example of this loss of survival instincts could be seen in post-Katrina New Orleans where people just had a dazed look and could not cope in such a situation. Far worse hurricanes hit the Philippines, Taiwan and other East Asia countries and they weather far harsher storms better since they still live (mostly) of the land and live in harsher circumstances that we do.

 

Different countries will have different soloutions to different problems!
They will all suffer! there is little difference between a 70% or a 90% death rate if you are one of the dead!

 

The third world country people will most likely fare better than the people used to living in a comfortable life who were not used to primitive hardwork living. The 3rd world country have a higher chance of survival, they are more prepared and more conditioned to living in difficult nature.

 

I accept your stands on this because it really true, if there should be an Apocalypse in the world today social order would not be affected in third world countries because there are not use to most system or structure of life enjoyed or lived by people in the first and second world countries.

 

It would as well depend on awareness of incoming apocalypse. If it would take few years to come, you could start learning how to survive in the wilderness, how to hunt, track animals, research about plants, wildlife, how to make basic primitive tools and such. If it was sudden apocalypse than yeah, third world countries might be dealing with it easier than privileged ones, especially if we would talk about Africa and people who live in and with the wilderness.

 

Exactly, Africans has a higher chance of recovering from an Apocalypse more easily because of their underdevelopment and the fact that the Apocalypse may not really change the society but it depends on the kind of Apocalypse.

 

I'm in a third world country and yes, I would feel it if we had an apocalypse. We still depend on a lot of modern stuff here including running water, electricity, the internet, etc.

 

IMHO, NO, people in the Third World will not survive an apocalypse better than in the developed world. There are thousands of organizations providing billions of dollars in aid to third world countries. The aid that is supplied is to numerous to even list. That aid would stop. Those organizations would cease to exist.

In the event of an apocalypse the developed world may revert back 100 years. The undeveloped world will go back to the Stone Age. How many will perish with no food or medicine or clean water? The developed world has the technology, and the knowledge to rebuild itself. The third world does not.

 

This is true to a point... In undeveloped countries, people have lived without many resources--and died in great numbers. Huge numbers.

I am willing to wager that over time, far more have died than survived. Infant mortality numbers are also shockingly higher in underdeveloped countries than in the rest of the world.


.

 

I am not sure it is easy like this. I thought the same, until I read one article which I remembered reading your post. It is called "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!" and it is still available on the web of Der Spiegel. Something to think about.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-god-s-sake-please-stop-the-aid-a-363663.html

 

I would love to read the article, but I keep getting what I think is an ad blocker. To complicate matters even more I think the ad blocker is in German. I am really scratching my head with this one. I will keep trying.

 

It all comes down to the question of how dependant the population of whatever 3rd world country were on outside contact or aid. The higher the dependency the higher the death toll because as was said earlier in the thread, after the SHTF that aid will be cut off.
If however the population were independent of foreign aid they may carry on blissfully unaware of the collapse of Western democracy and not give a damn.

 

What I would say is much like the Ystranc premise.

My own kin living in Southern Appalachia during the depression were not mightily affected by the Great Depression of the 1930s. However, they were affected to such a notable degree that they spoke of it to me a "baby-boomer" kid. These were definitely not good times according to my grandparents and parents. My kin were very self-sufficient and thus the issue of starvation wasn't on the table (pardon the pun). I hunted with them and as a kid, expected to work the gardens as part of my chores. Most mechanical repairs occurred on oil stained gravel driveways and in basements. Everybody could get by in a pinch.

The BIG difference between then and now is the massively increased population and the distribution of that behemoth population. The 1930's depression saw over 70% of America living rurally. That percentage today is 30%. Huge populations of people living in Western nations are packed like sardines into urban areas. How much arable land exists in cities? You've got your abandoned-lot gardens and window boxes and maybe a 10 ft. by 10 foot garden hither-thither -- so, I guess one could make the point that the situation is not an absolute and bleak joke. But, you get my point.

Suburban back yards can be turned into gardens. One could, during the SHTF years/decades, charge their neighbors for use of one's roto-tiller or small tractor, however that is going to be a weak effect. Think about it, the ongoing suburban gardener has brought-in pick-up truckloads of manure and sand and minerals and loamy whatever, and on and on. Most lawns are hard as a rock and poorly nourished. Brothers and sisters, with a 9-lb sledge I've busted a small hill's worth of limestone -- especially during my teenage years. By age 16, I went to bed with aching fingers that wouldn't straighten-out. What I'm getting at is that this is WORK and lots and lots of rot. You cannot just pull a garden out of nowhere!

Come the SHTF events, mass populations will be lost due to the unavailability of clean water, food, fuel, lack of ability to cook what food they might have, loss of human sanity thus violence, on and on and on and on. To say that urban dwellers are dependent is to stretch far beyond the point of maximum elasticity the meaning of the word "dependent".

There is a T-Shirt that sez it all:

 

Those emergency heirloom seeds sold as the salvation of mankind is at least partially false hope . Read what seeds are in those containers . In all probability most of those seeds will not produce you anything to eat taking in to consideration your location on the globe , type soil you have , available sunlight and garden space available . Then the question looms , will your starving neighbors respect your garden and leave your produce alone ? If I planted anything it would be some type of greens that I know will grow in my area . I have several pounds of mustard green seeds stashed back .

 

My thoughts often turn to Great Britain and Ireland. Currently, food must be imported. However, one's thoughts then turn to the many hundreds of square miles of acreage dedicated to the raising of sheep and cattle. Such land could be turned to the growing of vegetable mass.

Now imagine a swarm of SHTF events befalling these ancient isles.

The transformation begins to turn the ranching into far more veggie-growing. I think it will work and that local agriculture will come to support the population of these fair islands. "The new population" that is. The future population of England, Scotland, and Ireland will be greatly attenuated, one imagines.

I see city basements being filled with bodies, then walled-off. I see ships carrying carrion out to sea for burial. I see tall buildings with all their windows shattered rife with the life of seagulls and crows.

"Never more," but Edgar could have been wrong.

 

Ok, let's first get on the same page in our terminology and what it means. There are many different levels of a country and how it is judged. Let's just drop the first and third world stuff because most don't know what the parameters are that places a country in that classification. Basically, VERY BASICALLY, you have the low the medium and high functioning countries. Most of the West is on the high side because they produce more than they need and tend to operate at a profit that allows practically all of their citizens to eat very well.

Most of the world is fairly good at that. The Highest functioning also has a lot of technology that helps them produces its products both fabricated and grown. A middle-level country may not be as rich as the first level countries but they in general feed and take reasonable care of their people. a lower level country has a LONG term problem with starvation and usually does almost nothing to help themselves or improve their lot. They have as many kids as possible then watch them starve to death while begging others to feed them. Every generation is bigger than the one before and sinks further and further into a hole that they will never be able to escape from.

Without the free food from the high-level countries and the free medical help, these places will die in MASS. These same areas also tend towards a lot of cultural violence and without the UN refereeing them those that don't starve will probably die in the endless revolutions.

The Middle-level places like most of South America will probably do the best because their poor often live in small rural areas where they farm and will at least have food. Their cities will fare no better than any other big megalopolises but the huge rural population will not suffer much in the short run.

The big problem in the high-level countries is that their people tend to pile up in hug unsustainable urban centers and all of their farming is done by HUGE corporate farms rather than tens of thousands of small family farms as it used to be. The urban population will mostly be extremely ill-equipped for living a hand to mouth farming existence. Most don't even know how to kill and process their kills if they manage to shoot something.

The middle-level countries that are less dependent on technology and are not massively overpopulated will do the best in my opinion. The High-level countries will lose the vast majority of their population as will the lower-level countries. The middle-level will probably only lose about half their population.

There is another class of country that is going to experience a near total loss. They are the ones that have an artificial sort of high-level status. As an example, in a world where the cars and trucks have stopped running oil will once again just be a nasty fluid of limited value. Many of the middle-east nations without income from oil will be destitute and die in a hurry. Too many people in a place with very little arable land is going to be bad FAST. There are a lot of countries like that these days.

 

I suppose I was thinking less about actual countries and more about groups of indigenous peoples, some of whom have remained independent while others have either lost their ancestoral lands or skills and way of life.

 

There is the assumption that grazing land would be suitable for arable use, this isn't necessarily the case. Ploughing up my land would simply bring a lot of blue clay and stone to the surface, the soil is no more than a spit deep in places.