JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.

Lone survivor (or very small group) realistic or a fantasy?

  • It is very realistic and here's why ...

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Eh, someone on their own could be rough, but smaller group is OK.

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • No, the author is correct. Individuals or small groups don't have a great chance.

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Well, humans formed into groups a long time ago for a reason, so ...

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • Not sure.

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • No and such preparations are pointless.

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Get down, get funky.

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • Total voters
    20
So, on a bit of a lark I picked up and have been reading The Next Apocalypse: The Art and Science of Survival, by Prof. Chris Begley (Basic Books, 2021):

próximo apocalipsis.jpg

The author is an archeologist and survival instructor. The premise is how and why civilizations collapse and how to prepare for them. It also covers popular imaginings of an apocalypse and the notions flowing from said. At about a two-third through the book, I have found it overall interesting. We'll see on the rest. (The author has a marked left-wing perspective. While I haven't found it particularly distracting, I know that can annoy others greatly, so fair warning.)

One of the recurring themes, to the point of bludgeoning the reader, is that the notion that a single lone survivor or small group doesn't stand a chance in a major disaster or complete societal collapse. Instead the author advocates for community and coordinated national response as the focus. Now there may be a temptation to dismiss such notion as a byproduct of the author's profession or social and political views, but there may be more to it. After all, such seminal survival writers as Pat Frank and Mel Tappan advocated communities built around surviving a TEOTWAWKI event. Selco, the fellow who survived some grizzly times in the former Yugoslavia, makes similar comments. I also seem to recall Fernando "Ferfal" Aguirre, the gentleman who wrote extensively about his experience in Argentina during a major economic disruption, also so opined. In fairness, other authors have written to the contrary.

So, what say you, author nailed it? Or got it all wrong? Why? How has this analysis directly impacted your preparations? Other thoughts?
 
Last Edited:
The models of indigenous people in harsh lands, such as Aborigines is one obvious wing of survival skills. By the time of constructing huge rock walls and the catapults to knock them down, another form of survival is on display.
 
How long? A single healthy human with skills in a the right environment can hold out for an extended time. But there are too many examples of humans of all levels of sanity, seeking like minded people to be around.

Look at the canal system in California housing hundreds of homeless clumped together or smaller pockets of people off I-5 in Oregon.

About 10 years ago I was at a dinner in Carlton, and they were celebrating a real live mountain man who I think was in his 90s. So loners can make it.
 
Is the point of preparedness to simply survive, or to survive & to thrive?

Solo folks & small groups can survive. However can they thrive without "community"? I go with NO.

Now, can solo & small groups survive "whatever" calamity for a time, THEN form a larger community to thrive? Sure.

More so, such would HAVE TO happen. Else it would be the last of whoever's family/tribe/ethnic lines. Setting aside the simple premise of thriving.
 
You can prepare yourself all day for any situation. If you don't prepare your mind, you will likely off yourself from isolation and loneliness long before your food and survival preps diminish.
 
Kinda like how the fur brigades worked during the fur trade....

A good division of labor ...some were camp keepers...others traders ...some hunted...etc...
All while more folks stood guard.
When you are in "Indian Country" , you gotta be alert...or soon you won't need to be...
'Cause either ya lost all yer gear...or were dead.

Ya gotta sleep , eat , bathe , rest and the like sometime...it's helpful for you to stay alive , to have someone stand watch.
Andy

Edit to add :
I voted that a small group would be okay...but...
Really it all depends on just what your goals are...some goals might be fine with a small group...other goals might need a large group with more support.
 
Kinda like how the fur brigades worked during the fur trade....

A good division of labor ...some were camp keepers...others traders ...some hunted...etc...
All while more folks stood guard.
When you are in "Indian Country" , you gotta be alert...or soon you won't need to be...
'Cause either ya lost all yer gear...or were dead.

Ya gotta sleep , eat , bathe , rest and the like sometime...it's helpful for you to stay alive , to have someone stand watch.
Andy

Edit to add :
I voted that a small group would be okay...but...
Really it all depends on just what your goals are...some goals might be fine with a small group...other goals might need a large group with more support.
All this ^^

In some dystopian future, you're going to have predatory people/gangs looking to take whatever they can from you. So if you can stay awake 24/7 you'll do just fine.

Also, no matter how expert you may be as a survivalist, accidents happen. Even before serious falls, snakes, bears, just minor stumbles and sprained ankles can have serious consequences when you have no support.
A larger group with doctors, ( proper ones, not just triage and tourniquet experts), farmers,(because your crops may be failing) tactical organizers,( people seek leadership and some form of agreement), because again, no matter how expert you are, there will be gaps in your knowledge.

Then just the social aspect. As an example, this forum: people like to socialize with like minded people, to have conversation and company. Many people will descend into a shcizophrenic type madness without company over a prolonged period

Other thoughts:
You might decide to go it alone- others will form groups- ie neighbors, assuming they're on good terms, LEO or Mil will almost certainly band into some sort of structure- So how will you, as a loner, be perceived: Threat? Prey? Maybe you'll be ignored, but you will at some point encounter other groups and there is always an advantage in numbers, whether seen or unseen....

Personally, I'm in my 50's. I'm in decent shape, can run a few miles at a reasonable clip and a few years of martial arts have left me relatively flexible with good balance....but I'm also painfully aware of how much and for how long things ache and take to recover, anot to mention how slow I am, compared to just 10 years ago. So that would play a large part in my decision....
 
Last Edited:
There's a reason orcas run in pods, wolves hunt in packs, lions run in prides, hyenas run in cackles, Navy SEALs operate in teams, well... you get the idea.
 
Years ago I read some lost tome on the nature of Man. After some refreshingly precise examples, I became convinced our species may benefit from periodic
moments of individual brilliance, the smallest unit of long term thriving is a suitable small group with a variety of skills.
 
It seems to me that we humans (on the whole) need and enjoy the company of like-minded people around us. Add to that the benefits of specialization and division of labor, and our tendency to congregate can be pretty easily understood.

A lone individual or small group would have a more difficult time getting things done - and would probably be a bit lonesome.

There are 'rugged individualists' who can enjoy that kind of life, but I don't think they're in the middle of the Bell Curve. I'm thinking about that fellow who lived by himself up in Alaska for a long time. He seemed to enjoy that kind of solitude.

Then there's Ishi, who was the last member of his Indian tribe. He eventually came into the whites' settlement, and lived out his days with them. I think that was down in California.

If we do have a major calamity here in the continental USA, I think we will definitely have to form "mutual aid" groups. In our case, my wife and I would probably stay on the farm, but have trade & defense agreements with neighboring farms.
 
There's a reason orcas run in pods, wolves hunt in packs, lions run in prides, hyenas run in cackles, Navy SEALs operate in teams, well... you get the idea.
Cougars are solitary. So are wild cats, lynx, tigers. Lions are actually the only social feline predators. Most canine species are social; foxes are solitary. Bears are solitary. So are wolverines. Arguments from other creatures are irrelevent. The question is what about people?

Homo sapiens sapiens is clearly strongly social. That doesn't mean some individuals can't survive for long periods alone. Especially where the land is artificially empty of other humans, and you are talking about mere survival, not reproduction. Mountain men for example during early settlement of America by Europeans. The land was artificially empty of humans because plagues introduced by Spanish conquistadors spread into north America and killed about 70% to 90% of the native Americans before the English and French started colonizing N America. There was lots of empty land between many tribes instead of everything being full. Even so, in the maritime NW every camas meadow or grove of acorn bearing oaks was associated with claims as to who had the right to harvest it. Harvesting someone else's camas or acorns could get you killed. The mountain men who wanted to reproduce usually formed liaisons with native American women and tribes. And most returned to forts or went to jamborees where they could trade their furs for gun powder, traps, etc. So they were actually only intermittently solitary. They were fully dependent on working social groups, Indian, European, or both.

In SHTF, an individual is likely to survive best and longest only if hidden I think. But you can't hide a crying baby very well. So we are really only talking about surviving physically, not reproducing. Its actually pretty hard for even a couple to survive and reproduce alone, even if the land is relatively empty of other humans. That's why successful colonies usually involved a ship full of settlers or a wagon train full, not an individual couple or family. Human babies are more helpless for longer than any other primates. Human females usually give birth with the help of other female relatives or friends to tend mother, care for her and help with new baby for a few weeks after birth. A family farm usually involved about four full time adults, with others added temporarily after each childbirth. And kids from about eight up were part of the labor force. Not a bad thing if parents were good managers. I think we are designed to want to play a serious role and contribute to our families and earn the respect that gives. And many of the problems of youth today involve having no honorable economic role until a decade or more after they start to need one. And no serious way to contribute economically means no way to earn respect from your parents.

After SHTF I think individual survival fits into a successful long term pattern of thriving only if it is a temporary stage. A real community would require equal numbers of males and females for starters. Men with no prospects of wives doesn't make for a stable society. And the community would need engineers, carpenters, mechanics, farmers, hunters, a militia, doctors, etc.
 
We are talking about a future event but look at our past. Small groups of people making it on the plains and prairies. Jeremiah Jr 10 miles out from town making a go growing rutabagas ( I had a roommate in the service from Texas. He grew up on a Rutabaga farm. Poor but proud).

If I were much younger, I would prefer a place far away from the crowds fighting for power and position. Anyone live in a HOA? I believe that is a lot of American mentality.
 
It seems to me that we humans (on the whole) need and enjoy the company of like-minded people around us. Add to that the benefits of specialization and division of labor, and our tendency to congregate can be pretty easily understood.

A lone individual or small group would have a more difficult time getting things done - and would probably be a bit lonesome.

There are 'rugged individualists' who can enjoy that kind of life, but I don't think they're in the middle of the Bell Curve. I'm thinking about that fellow who lived by himself up in Alaska for a long time. He seemed to enjoy that kind of solitude.

Then there's Ishi, who was the last member of his Indian tribe. He eventually came into the whites' settlement, and lived out his days with them. I think that was down in California.

If we do have a major calamity here in the continental USA, I think we will definitely have to form "mutual aid" groups. In our case, my wife and I would probably stay on the farm, but have trade & defense agreements with neighboring farms.
That's exactly the way my bordering neighbors roll. Years ago we developed what we call "The MAP". It stands for Mutual Assistance Pact. We've spent the ensuing years expanding and refining it to cover a wide range of topics from water source allocation to food production to security and defense as well as numerous other items. It clearly outlines who is responsible for what and when those responsibilities kick in. We have occasional meetings to add to or amend the agreement as well as assign (by mutual consent) additional responsibilities and review action items from previous meetings. We also periodically test our systems, where feasible, to ensure functionality. It's a practice I would highly recommend, and would also recommend it be undertaken sooner rather than later. As I mentioned above, we embarked on this year's ago, over a decade ago actually, and we're still adding to and refining it.
 
Thanks for the responses. It would seem the consensus tilts towards small groups and/or larger ones as the best means of survival. Which, naturally, raises the question: If one considers this important, how have you formed your group? If you have not, how do you plan to? Would be within current social structures (e.g., extended family, a religious community, an ethnic enclave, a hobbyist group, a sexual subculture, or simply geographic like a neighborhood, et al.) or would it be completely purpose built? What skillsets and tools do you wish to have or have already incorporated in your group?

Parenthetically, I finished the book over the weekend. Overall, it was interesting, particularly the archeological angle. The author didn't pull any punches with the contemporary preparedness movement and, candidly, it was kind of refreshing to have some notions contained therein challenged. The individual preparations recommended by the author, however, were so basic as to be laughable in some parts. (Who knew a tent, flashlight, and knife are good to have in the field? Eyeroll.) Overall I enjoyed the read, but it may not be for everyone. And if one is looking for practical, nuts'n'bolts, type content, look elsewhere.
 
An adaptable mindset , one that is flexible to needs of the moment as well as being able to plan long term...
Along with understanding that the "old rules of life" may not be ( ain't ) in play anymore ...
Will be of use in such a situation.

Having folks around you that you can depend on...and having a varied skill set will be helpful as well.
I hope that we never see that day when such things are needed.

However....
History has shown that nothing is really permanent.
So it may be wise to not take things for granted...prep now for realistic "What If" happenings....
And get to know some good folks who you can count on.
Andy
 
Last Edited:
I'm with @OldBroad44 in the sense that I'd rather keep it simple and small to start out with. My family and maybe keep in close contact with a couple good neighbors, but the more people you add to the formula, the more possible issues you'll have. With no infrastructure to start out with, there are going to be a lot of people that bring nothing to party and are just looking for a safe space. I don't want to start out the SHTF scenario with the responsibility of keeping anyone else safe when I might have enough trouble keeping my family safe.

I think after things cool down (if they ever did), I'd start to reach out to other locals for trade and possible agreements. I wouldn't want to get large enough to need anything resembling a governing body. Seems that when you start to put people in positions of power, that's when corruption and abuse of authority start to erode the team...
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top