Staff Member
Gold Lifetime
- Messages
- 21,834
- Reactions
- 63,227
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):
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?
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: