Third World Country vs. Priveleged Country in Post Apocalypse

Discussion in 'The Hangout' started by thePENofGODx0x0xz7, Jun 15, 2016.

0/5, 0 votes

  1. thePENofGODx0x0xz7

    thePENofGODx0x0xz7 New Member
      8/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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?
     
    Ystranc, Zyphir and Keith H. like this.
  2. glreese

    glreese Member
      18/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
    Ystranc likes this.
  3. Keith H.

    Keith H. Moderator Staff Member
      425/460

    Blog Posts:
    7
    Short answer, yes.

    Survival at a certain level of comfort depends on two things, your previous experience, & having the right equipment. Those who start off post shtf with mostly modern equipment are more than likely to end up either dead, or living a stone age lifestyle.

    Those that start with mostly pre 19th century equipment are most unlikely ever to drop below that level of comfort & they stand the best chance of survival long term.
    Keith.

    (Best check out the "All Things Primitive" section on this forum whilst you still have the chance :) )
     
    Ystranc, Zyphir, Mekada and 1 other person like this.
  4. Arkane

    Arkane Master Survivalist
      275/297

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Location and stores mean little in the long run
    What matters most is knowledge and intelligence!
    and your ability to pass that down.
     
    Ystranc likes this.
  5. djordjem87

    djordjem87 Member
      18/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
    Ystranc and Keith H. like this.
  6. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    no, they haven't got much to begin with, some of these places don't seem to even have running water yet, and some of the cases of malnutrition makes me think in an event they'll be worse off to start with.
     
    Keith H. and thePENofGODx0x0xz7 like this.
  7. John Snort

    John Snort Well-Known Member
      92/93

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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?
     
    Morgan101 likes this.
  8. Lisa Davis

    Lisa Davis Active Member
      36/47

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  9. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    and what are the chances of that? very remote. sure supplies aren't going to last forever, everything runs out eventually, but your supplies aren't meant for that, they are to sustain you in the "hunker down" period and to supplement you in the lean times.
    oh yes, and DONT keep all your supplies in one place, spread them around, then you wont lose them all in one go.
     
  10. ZipMedia

    ZipMedia New Member
      3/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    The general relationships of Serbia and it's surrounding countries are very rough. Were you involved in the Bosnian War, by any chance?
     
  11. remnant

    remnant Expert Member
      190/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  12. Moroccanbeauty2266

    Moroccanbeauty2266 Active Member
      33/47

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
    Zyphir and schiavonecalvin like this.
  13. tb65

    tb65 Active Member
      33/47

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  14. Endure

    Endure Expert Member
      130/140

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  15. rootle

    rootle New Member
      8/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Sealpikachu

    Sealpikachu Member
      13/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  17. My3Sons_NJ

    My3Sons_NJ New Member
      8/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  18. Arkane

    Arkane Master Survivalist
      275/297

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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!
     
  19. iseeyou

    iseeyou Member
      18/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  20. EarlAlexander

    EarlAlexander New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    1
    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.
     
  21. Nela Civobeg

    Nela Civobeg Member
      18/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  22. EarlAlexander

    EarlAlexander New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    1
    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.
     
  23. Eva.Ling

    Eva.Ling New Member
      8/25

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  24. Morgan101

    Morgan101 Expert Member
      140/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  25. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      190/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    @Morgan101

    You are 100 percent correct. The third world countries are going to be in even deeper doo-doo than they are in now. Their populations have grown but their development has not. It is hard enough to return from a disaster and get back to normal when you have all the skills, knowledge and resources. But starting from scratch, with nothing, not a chance.
     
  26. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    people in undeveloped countries may survive because they have lived like that for centuries, one can live in a very primitive manner if that is all one is used to, whereas people in developed countries will not know how to survive without the trappings and resources of modern 21st century life.
     
  27. GrizzlyetteAdams

    GrizzlyetteAdams Crap Creek Survivor
      135/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.


    .
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2019
    elkhound, TMT Tactical and Morgan101 like this.
  28. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    i'm thinking more like the Amazon Rainforest than say Afghanistan, tribes weren't much more than extended families and they survived on what they hunt and grow, i'm also thinking of a report of one tribe that now numbers ONE person(it was in the news not long ago) the rest of the tribe having been killed by illegal loggers and miners.
     
  29. Yenix

    Yenix Active Member
      40/58

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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
     
    Morgan101 and TMT Tactical like this.
  30. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      190/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Look at the population center in third world (or first world) and the majority of the people live in urban centers. They are too far removed from past life styles. Their current life style maybe primitive based on western world standards, but they are no where near as primitive as needed to survive once all the foreign aid stops coming. Mass die off for third world countries are as predictable as the sun rising. These countries can't feed their population now, much less when the world goes dark and the power stops flowing.
     
    elkhound and poltiregist like this.
  31. Morgan101

    Morgan101 Expert Member
      140/173

    Blog Posts:
    0

    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.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  32. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      190/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Yenix, very good article.

    Morgan101, the link worked for me and I have ad blockers too. The article is worth reading, maybe you should try Opera browser, with the VPN turned on.
     
  33. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I think we need to differentiate between third world and primitive countries, yes places like Zimbabwe for instance, what used to be the Bread Basket of the world is now a Basket Case, places like India have their own Space Programme but the ordinary people are poor, yes stop the aid to these places and the people would suffer, but take some of the Amazon tribes of which I referred earlier and others like them who have never received aid and they wouldn't notice any difference, they'd just go about their daily business the same as yesterday.
     
  34. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      190/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Yes the isolated tribes, will continue to survive and probably survive better without civilization interfering with their lives.

    India will explode without support and aid for outside. Their population will simple not be sustainable. The cultures are also too varied and will not come together fast enough to pull the country in the same direction. I don't know if any country will actually be able to return to a normal life but certainly none of the third or underdeveloped countries are going to survive. The population density is going to play a very critical role. In the agricultural age, large population was an asset and were needed. When the power fails, these large populations become a tremendous liability. Too many to be fed by hand labor farming. These people are not going to starve to death quietly.
     
    poltiregist likes this.
  35. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    yes in the distant past populations rose or fell on the backs of good or bad harvests, much of that was done away with the advent of oil and large machinery, post collapse agriculture will be off the subsistence variety without the massive imports of fertilisers and pesticides.
    mono cropping makes the soil infertile and it will take a long time and a lot of hard work to bring these fields back into use.
     
    elkhound and TMT Tactical like this.
  36. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      190/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    And TIME is the one item that most of the population will not have. The die off will start within seconds of the population learning that there will not be any more food deliveries. Even ignorant people will realize they don't have enough food, and they also know they can't grow the food in TIME, so what is left, steal the food from their neighbors. Preppr buy time with their stocked supplies, sheeple will not have the currency needed to buy time.
     
    elkhound and poltiregist like this.
  37. Ystranc

    Ystranc Master Survivalist
      297/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
  38. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      190/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Yes that is very true but can you name any country that does not rely on either have global trading / imports or foreign aid? A long time ago I posed the question which country is or can be completely independent and not need any imports and still feed their current population? Now the key word is NEED, not want. I wonder what the replies will be this time?
     
    Ystranc likes this.
  39. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    not even the UK can feed all its people without needing imports.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  40. Old Geezer

    Old Geezer Master Survivalist
      360/460

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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:

    8ca533a6e9ab85a86388ae8c92d292c4.jpeg
     
    elkhound and TMT Tactical like this.
  41. poltiregist

    poltiregist Expert Member
      170/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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 .
     
    elkhound and TMT Tactical like this.
  42. Old Geezer

    Old Geezer Master Survivalist
      360/460

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  43. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      190/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I don't see the pastures being converted to feed the populace, simply because it would take too much manual labor. One person can watch over many sheep. One person would be lucky to raise enough food to feed themselves. Manual type farming is very hard and difficult work. Not something for the weak or obese. The other point is that by the time the pastures could be manually converted into farms, the population would have already starved to death in the urban environments. As goes modern transportation, so goes the urban area's. When the food shipments die off, the urban area's will die off too. If it is not growing in your back yard (property) then you are not going to be eating it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2019
    Ystranc and elkhound like this.
  44. TexDanm

    TexDanm Shadow Dancer
      425/460

    Blog Posts:
    1
    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.
     
    poltiregist and TMT Tactical like this.
  45. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    that is the argument of the vegetarians, but not all land is suitable for growing vegetables and other crops, there are different grades of land- from the perfect to the downright useless, when the land wont grow crops what do you do? you grow grass for sheep and cattle that's what!!:rolleyes:
    and not all food is imported, currently less than half.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  46. Ystranc

    Ystranc Master Survivalist
      297/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  47. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      190/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Yes, people that currently live off the land and do not use any form of modern equipment to grow their food, will not notice any real change after a SHTF event. Those people are few and far between from the majority of the worlds populations.

    Now as for a nation being independent. It must be completely energy free from imports. It must grow enough food to feed it's entire populations. It must have all the needed minerals to maintain commercial and military foundries. It must be able to manufacture all it's commercial and military needs. Now which nations meet these few requirements?

    To me, the nations that meet these requirements, will be able to recover from a major SHTF event and are the only Top tier / First World Nations. After this group you have the second tier / Second level Nations, those that are technologically advanced but must have imports to survive or continue their life styles and be able to continue to feed their population. The third world / lower tier nations are the ones than require foreign aid to continue their minimum living standards and are unable to feed their population even with aid.
     
  48. Ystranc

    Ystranc Master Survivalist
      297/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    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.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
What Country Would Be The Safest If There Was A Third World War News, Current Events, and Politics May 25, 2017
There Is No Preparing For This End Of The World Event!!! Climate Change Dec 10, 2018
Climate Change Chart Shows End Of World. Climate Change Dec 1, 2018
What Is Going On Round The World. The Hangout Sep 14, 2018
Politically: Is The World Over? News, Current Events, and Politics Jul 20, 2017
What The World Would Look Like If All The Ice Melted Climate Change Jul 18, 2017
If You Could Only Say One Word/phrase To Your Loved One Before The World Ends... The Hangout Jul 5, 2017
Where Does The World Stand Currently? News, Current Events, and Politics Jul 3, 2017
Wake Up The World Needs You The Hangout Jul 1, 2017
What Is The Post Apocalyptic World? General Q&A May 19, 2017

Share This Page