On Jan 2, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
The lesson to be taken from this is to prepare as best as possible
for all contingencies. This is always good advice, but more so
than ever in a time of instability. Prepare to take care of
yourself and family, and beyond that your extended family and even
neighbors if possible, in the event of major disruptions.
I see no point preparing for such drastic disruptions.
This is a naive view shared by many Americans. There is clearly a
need for public education in this area. The first line of civil
defense, for natural and unnatural disruptions, is civil preparedness
- your preparedness. Everyone should have the basics: first aid kit,
some basic medications, vitamins, water and food (preferably long
term storable), a means to cook, blankets or other means to keep
warm, a hand powered radio and flashlight and a family plan.
I think a person should prepare for likely disruptions that an
ordinary person can hope to deal with, such as being fired from
work. In other words if I were living close to the edge
financially, I would put more money in the bank, renegotiate the
mortgage before I get into trouble, and cancel unnecessary luxuries.
Yes, it is common sense to make such preparations. However, this
does not excuse people from doing their civic duty and being prepared
with the basics for emergencies.
If you do lose your job, it would be a good idea to buy a large
sack of rice. But there is no way to protect against a situation in
which rice becomes unavailable in the US, and that is extremely
unlikely to happen.
If the situation becomes so drastic that there are food shortages,
an ordinary urban American would be helpless.
This is the worst kind of thinking possible in regards to civil
preparedness. It is those who fail to prepare for emergencies that
will be utterly helpless in emergencies. It is unpatriotic to not
prepare.
It is the unprepared that run to the stores the last minute and
create food panics. This is one of those cases where if you are not
part of the solution you are the problem. You might be surprised to
hear there was a run on rice here in Alaska last spring. It was
utterly irrational. Mexican and Chinese restaurants in Anchorage
were hurt the most. The shelves were full of other foods, yet people
stood in lines in the mornings waiting for the doors of stores like
Costco to open when a shipment of rice was due to be available. The
shelves were emptied of large bags of rice nearly instantly, and some
stores limited sales to one bag per customer. See:
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?s=8287732
Can you imagine what things would be like in the case of a slight or
brief but genuine food shortage? The real problem would be
perception. The more people are prepared the fewer people who will
panic and storm the stores when emergencies happen. Eventually
things return to normal but initially they get worse than they should
due to irrational behavior, and a lack of preparedness.
People living in the countryside could plant vegetable gardens.
That might not be a bad idea, even now.
Not even a bad idea in cities - whether for preparedness of just for
improving the quality of life. "Victory gardens" were a very good
thing in WWII, a good source of vitamins.
Along the same lines, a prudent person with family responsibilities
should be prepared to be killed at any time, in an auto accident,
for example. You should buy life insurance. But if there is an
outbreak of bird influenza that kills millions of people, obviously
the life insurance companies will all go bankrupt. In that case you
will probably die and if anyone in your family survives, they will
be destitute. But so will millions of other survivors. Society will
surely reorganize and take care of them. So there is no point to
trying to find an individual solution to this potential catastrophe.
You clearly haven't given much thought to this.
Frankly, I think it is better to plan for success and to work
toward success rather than toward failure, or to plan with the
assumption that we will fail. That's why I favor trying to make
cold fusion work, rather than trying to narrow our horizons and
make people live with 18th century levels of energy consumption. I
favor "direct, vigorous action" that fixes problems, rather than
living with problems, working around them, or merely surviving
them. I refer to FDR's words:
"We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people
of the United States have not failed. In their need they have
registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They
have asked for discipline and direction under leadership."
No one should distrust the future of essential democracy, or doubt
the will, skill and bravery of the U.S. population. People who have
done that in the past, such as the Confederate Army and the
Imperial Japanese Navy, lost decisively. That is something that
Obama and I agree on 100%. I am very pleased to hear it from an
American politician. "No you can't" is the wrong message,
"No you can't" is precisely what you are saying about civil
preparedness. I say "yes you can" prepare, and preparing makes
things better - for everyone.
to the wrong people, as history has shown time after time over the
last 400 years. McCain lost the election with his negativity, such
as when he famously said:
"Now, my friends, I'll offer anybody here fifty dollars an hour if
you'll go pick lettuce in Yuma this season and pick for the whole
season. So, ok, sign up! Ok, when you sign up, you sign up, and
you'll be there for the whole season, the whole season, ok, not
just one day. Because you can't do it, my friend."
Anyone who bets against us -- or against science, technology and
progress, as the Luddites and anti-evolutionists are wont to do --
is betting on the wrong horse.
- Jed
I would think you of all posters here would see the irony and fallacy
in draping such an argument in irrelevant and nationalistic drivel.
Depending on the government to do everything for you is the
antithesis of what being American has meant, at least until recently,
and not what made America successful in overcoming the Civil war,
the depression, or WWII. Americans of the past have been proud to
be as self reliant as possible, and beyond that to help other
individuals and nations, even former enemies.
It is short sighted to assume any government has control of or even
knowledge of what the current instabilities will bring, economically,
socially, or environmentally. The concept of "betting against us" or
betting against "science, technology or progress" is a red herring.
On the contrary, civil preparedness is betting on the possibility of
a future, betting on science, technology and progress, our actions,
to eventually deal with whatever emergencies the universe sends our
way. Failing to prepare even minimally is sticking ones head in the
sand like an ostrich, hoping unseen danger disappears when out of
sight. It is giving up hope a priori.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
