From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Oct 25 2001 - 20:52:44 MDT
"Alex F. Bokov" wrote:
> 1. Most of us are not full-time hardcore survivalists. We have jobs,
> families, school, etc. The evacuation plans must be simple and present
> minimal disruption to the participants' lifestyles and finances.
Doing this without major disruption is impossible on its face. Any
evacuation which entails giving up on the communities and jobs one
already has ties to, entails giving up on those things and at least
finding replacements (if not switching careers entirely), which is a
major disruption.
> Look forward to your opinions. I hope this turns into something we are
> capable of doing at any moment, and never have to actually do.
I'm of two minds about this, but they both boil down to the same
thing:
* We are already coming upon dark ages, but fleeing to the hills will
do us no good. It merely starves us of resources and takes us out
of the worldwide conversation, thus handing victory to our enemies.
* The "dark ages" trigger can not usefully be tested in advance. 99+%
probability it will either go off while the situation is salvageable,
or fail to go off even after the situation has collapsed. Either
way, evacuating upon this trigger is not useful.
Both paths indicate that the plan you presented is not a good idea.
But both paths point to a refinment that may be useful: come up with a
refuge we can evacuate to that will *not* disconnect us from the world,
and evacuate there once it is ready. Space colonies, for instance,
would seem to suit this role, if they can be made self-sufficient and
profitable enough to be a non-trivial part of the human economy. But
that is many years away; to begin any sort of preparations to evacuate
now is to divert resources away from, for instance, actually making
that refuge possible.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:39 MST