PowerSwitch

Hello Everyone.

I have been mulling over the responses from the polls conducted over the last few days and it seems to me that there is an important and serious debate to be had here.

I must confess to being rather surprised and a little (but only a little) disheartened. The polls suggest that:
a) More than a third of the 30 or so of the active members of this forum indicated that they were unwilling to participate in a PO group even if one existed in their area.
b) The same proportion were not convinced that it was in their interests to make more people aware of PO.
c) The majority of you thought that the most likely outcome of PO was our Society being overwhelmed by the effects of PO before it could respond resulting in collapse.
d) Finally we see that the majority of the people here describe their attitude towards PO as “survivalist”.

Now, to my understanding, a Survivalist is essentially someone who believes that they (and possibly their immediate family) can survive "Societal collapse" on their own, indefinitely, by hiding, stock-piling, preparing etc. On reflection I have concluded that I three objections to Survivalism as a viable course of action:

1) It won't work. If "Societal collapse" were to be allowed to happen there would be nowhere for a Survivalist to hide from an increasingly desperate and determined population; no way for them to prevent whatever they have stock-piled from being taken and having their preparations from being undone. In my opinion anyone who seriously thinks they can prepare for and "survive" "Societal collapse" is deluding themselves.

2) It is counter-productive for the Survivalist and the Community. The Survivalist response implies further isolating yourself from your community and delaying the mobilisation of any community action until your preparations are considered adequate. This wastes precious time and I feel actually makes the isolated Survivalist more vulnerable as they become conspicuously better off.

3) It is utterly immoral. It displays the kind of greedy, selfish and suspicious nature that got us into this mess in the first place.

I guess what I am saying is that because we are so few in number it is all the more important that all of us who do understand the significance of PO are working together as hard and as quickly as we can to create and promote a positive and realisable vision of a post-PO world. Of course I will be doing what I can to prevent unnecessary hardship for myself and my family. But I strongly believe that the only safe place for all of us is within in a robust and resilient transitional community.

And to those of you who described their attitude towards PO as “defeatist” or commented that they were unable to make adequate 'Survivalist' style preparations, I feel that you actually have the least to lose and the most to gain my being as pro-active as possible in mobilising a collective community response to the consequences of PO.

Anyway, there is it. Thank you again for participating in the polls and offering your many thought provoking comments. I look forward to reading many more...

Adam

Although it's true that we don't get fluffy about "transition", I think it would be more apt to describe us as having a "self-reliant" drive, rather than "survivalist". I don't think anyone here is contemplating running for the hills and living Ray Mears + George Peppard.

Hmm, George Peppard, now there's an idea.....

Hello Bandidoz.

Bandidoz wrote:...I don't think anyone here is contemplating running for the hills and living Ray Mears + George Peppard....

Of course. My observation though is that a significant proportion of 'PowerSwitchers' clearly prefer to focus on their own "self-reliance" and have no interest in participating in any kind of collective action.

I believe that on analysis focussing solely on individual "self-reliance" is ultimately futile and that we would be better off working together on a course of action that seeks to minimise the worse impact of PO for everyone.

I don't get all "fluffy about transition" either. But the alternative being adopted my many just doesn't make sense.

Adam

Thanks Adam for this, your conclusions seem fairly spot on.

The transition iniative isn't perfact, has some problems, but it appears to be the best thing we have at the moment and getting stuck in and making it better seems to be one of the most sensible thing we can do at the moment.

Of course. My observation though is that a significant proportion of 'PowerSwitchers' clearly prefer to focus on their own "self-reliance" and have no interest in participating in any kind of collective action.

Collective action which involves local friends & family is my preferred way forward.

I doubt that in reality talking shops such as Transition Towns will help much.

Vortex wrote:Collective action which involves local friends & family is my preferred way forward.

This is one thing the transition initiative does well -- it's something that I have spoken about with a lot of people in my street about and local friends.

In this regard it's quite different from most other political activism I have been involved in, which usually involved a more specialised group of people from a bigger area, the only other two example that came close were the community anti-poll tax groups and the local anti-war groups that existed in 2003.

I find it hard to believe that a local transition group could be as much of a talking shop as this place...

I don't think survivalism is an option in this country. As for whether it's immoral - that's irrelevant. When times are hard, evolution generally favours the strong, not the moral.

I don't think there is anything to be gained by "spreading the word", either. Firstly, in my experience no one wants to listen. Secondly, the reaction of most people when they're finally confronted with the truth will not be to find a way of building a future co-operatively, but to find someone to blame, which will be governments and maybe foreigners. That's just human nature.

Bullets are a finite, non-renewable resource, and no matter how much you try and stockpile, the Government will always have bigger guns than you..

Then again, I do support "the right to bare arms" -- it would be an offence to humanity to ban the T-shirt (I love tauning American survivalists with that, usually when responding to emails that seem to liberally use the term "commie").

The more practical issue is that, contrary to the 'self-sufficiency' concept of the 70s, it's not possible for one person to have sufficient specialisation in all the skills necessary to support our lives. That's why humans form communities; it allows the burdens of carrying out the different jobs, and passing those skills on between generations, far easier.

Also, having met a few survivalists on my way around the UK giving talks, some of them are rather strange example of humanity!

I think Adam has made some important points here, but I would like to expand the analysis which may not be entirely correct. I will contribute later when I have more time.

Hello Ludwig.

Ludwig wrote:I don't think survivalism is an option in this country. As for whether it's immoral - that's irrelevant. When times are hard, evolution generally favours the strong, not the moral.

I don't think survivalism is a realistic option anywhere. 98% of the human population that aren't psychopaths are social/moral beings with a sense of right and wrong imprinted upon us by our culture so I don't think it can be dismissed entirely out of hand. Who knows what subtle games evolution is playing with us. Many people acting together will always be stronger than one individual acting alone (no matter how strong and immoral he may be).

Ludwig wrote:I don't think there is anything to be gained by "spreading the word", either. Firstly, in my experience no one wants to listen. Secondly, the reaction of most people when they're finally confronted with the truth will not be to find a way of building a future co-operatively, but to find someone to blame, which will be governments and maybe foreigners. That's just human nature.

Yes, maybe you are right. But if "Survivalism" is just an escapist fantasy and doing nothing isn't an option maybe all you are left with is trying to give people an alternative that looks better. The suggestion was that all of us who are aware of PO start "working together as hard and as quickly as we can to create and promote a positive and realisable vision of a post-PO world".

Adam

Is that what we said?

I think your mistaking us not agreeing with you, with us thinking we can pack a ruck sack and live in remote wles for a year until everyone is dead.

You have clearly misunderstood the responses to your posts.

Hello DominicJ.

DominicJ wrote:Is that what we said?I think your mistaking us not agreeing with you, with us thinking we can pack a ruck sack and live in remote wles for a year until everyone is dead.

You have clearly misunderstood the responses to your posts.

Sorry DominicJ but I am not sure I understand this response.

If you review my previous posts (i.e. the polls) you will see that they do not express a viewpoint to agree or disagree with. They just ask questions.

In this post I have attempted to express the conclusions that I drew from how people voted in the polls (rather than the interesting comments that they made). So is that what you said? I don't know. Is that how you all voted? Yes I believe it is.

If I have missunderstood then please point out where and how. If I have got it wrong then I am keen to know how and will be happy to say so...

Adam

Survivalism is the only option left for those of us who have decided that societal collapse is inevitable.

You speak of survivalism as a fantasy; it's not. It's staying alive as long as possible with some dignity and eventually exiting with some dignity.

The far-right are drooling over the prospect of civil unrest, and will take full advantage of society's fault-lines (of which racism is only one) when the time comes. I will find it impossible to deal with these, never mind all the other, less predictable, elements

Adam Polczyk wrote:If I have missunderstood then please point out where and how. If I have got it wrong then I am keen to know how and will be happy to say so...

This shows the problem with single-option polls. If you look at the threads (especially for the last poll), many suggested they fit into more than one category, in either a concurrent or alternating fashion. I also think the "survivalist" option was an ambiguous one that could be construed to mean "hardcore" (equipped but away from others) whereas in reality it's more a question of self-reliance (equipped but with others).

Not wanting to speak for everyone, but I think we see Transition as a worthwhile effort, but understand its limitations. Much of it probably due to resistance we've encountered when undertaking the "Activist" role ourselves. Being close to family and friends, and having them onside, is what matters the most, as they are within our sphere of influence.

In any case, people are going to be motivated by action moreso than words; doing your own self-reliance will encourage others to follow. Merely talking about it merely instills a "wait for someone to make the first move" psychology.

The thing is, with any massive change, is that looking at the problem is much easier than doing something to address it. With PO, if you take the doubters away, you still have a largely unknown set of things to prepare for. I mean, who can definitively say what effects PO will have on our lives at any fixed date? The same happens with climate change.

In order for a community to make a change as a group, there first has to be consensus. Even on this forum, there is hardly ever a consensus.

The wife and I, on the other hand, have made some decisions, and it's more achievable for us to make the changes in our household than it is to get the whole of our local town to do anything. I'd prefer the town to gear up, but just can't see it happening until it's way too late.