I agree with a lot that has been said here. Survivalist as a whole is very hard to generalize. I don't think you can exactly take an event and say all or even most survivalist will react this way. Just my belief though.
It seems to me that many of you are 'pigeonholing' survivalists as one entity. Imagine where we would be if we did that with religion or ethnicity...
There are different types of survivalists and many of these are only interested in making sure that they and their loved ones survive whatever disaster/catastrophe may occur.
It is the most natural (and oldest) human instinct to want to survive and the only reason this is not the case with a good 90% of the population of this planet is because these skills and instincts have been lost in time.
As Benjamin Franklin once said "Failing to prepare is preparing to fail..."
Roko,Not sure, to be honest, whether most Americans would rational optimizing by spending $50 on food/water reserves. My intuition suggests that if they had my aspirations, and already had a cryonics plan, that $50 would be better invested in something else like optimizing their insurance or investments with higher rates of return than food or water. But I think they earn enough that they shouldn't waste much too much time thinking about $50.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the other type of people preparing for a possible collapse. Things along the lines of the long now foundation and the rosetta disk seem like a potentially useful precaution for big disruptions as well.
In fact, taken in the first person, the second interpretation says "I wouldn't mind if I had never been born". While some might think that only the clinically depressed would have such a thought, I think it's entirely reasonable: had I not been born, I would not mind it a bit - indeed I could not mind, because (by definition) there would be no me to do the minding!
Any other position would seem to require a strange superposition of being and non-being that I simply can't wrap my head around...
I think there are (at least) two ways of parsing the GP's quote ("not-yet-existent individuals don’t really have any interests to protect, because they can’t suffer or feel pleasure"):
1) We don't need to worry about the kind of world (financial, environmental, political, etc) we leave to future generations, because they don't exist yet - even though they eventually will exist. This seems sufficiently extreme that I'm reluctant to parse the GP this way, especially in light of the alternative interpretation...
2) If a particular person who "would have been" conceived (per some expectation of future events) is not in fact conceived, then that person has not been harmed, and neither has any other person. This sounds a little extreme at first glance, but on closer analysis I think it's quite reasonable: the person who is never conceived clearly is not harmed (there literally is no one there to be harmed!), and any others who might be tempted to claim harm (e.g. the non-person's siblings, future spouse, etc) are ultimately making a staggering claim: that someone else has a duty to provide them with the sort of sibling, spouse,etc, they want. I don't think this is reasonable.
NOTE: none of the above should be misread to support, for example, slipping a pregnant woman an abortion drug without her knowledge or against her will. Even aside from the question of when life begins, the mother is clearly being harmed and thus the action is improper on those grounds alone.
I think you have to be fairly rich before survalist investment is a rational resource allocation. In that way I think survivalists are like undiversified entrepreneurs. Good for society's overall diversification, bad for many of the individuals engaging in the behavior.
I'm sure part of it depends on the kinds of disasters that are likely in your area. Food and water are good in most scenarios, so having some more on hand makes sense in many situations. Otherwise, if, for example, a flood is more likely than a bioterrorism attack, then it makes more sense to have gear to survive a flood before having gear to survive bioterrorism.
Depending on the scenario, it may make more sense to increase social connectivity instead of decreasing it. Floods are easier to survive if people can inform each other of how the waters will rise and evacuations can occur in advance of the water.
The key is to understand what the value of your neighbors in a disaster scenario are. In most of the more common situations, from as personal as a car accident to large-scale disasters like earthquakes and floods, an ability to coordinate efforts is very effective and leads to survival of a larger portion of the community.
About $50 will buy a month's worth of food and water. So pretty clearly at least that much. The greatest threat would be bioterrorism, so maybe get a gas mask or something? They sell them on Uk Survive. Seriously, has anyone done an analysis?
"The reality, though, is that even a little bit of disaster/survival preparation can make a huge difference in whether you, personally, are one of the guys the Red Cross or National Guard needs to save, vs one of the guys who’s quietly riding out the disaster."Well said! In fact, in earthquake-prone or hurricane-prone areas, it is common for the government to be the ones advocating that everyone keep a 3 day supply of water, food, medications, etc.
I agree with a lot that has been said here. Survivalist as a whole is very hard to generalize. I don't think you can exactly take an event and say all or even most survivalist will react this way. Just my belief though.
It seems to me that many of you are 'pigeonholing' survivalists as one entity. Imagine where we would be if we did that with religion or ethnicity...
There are different types of survivalists and many of these are only interested in making sure that they and their loved ones survive whatever disaster/catastrophe may occur.
It is the most natural (and oldest) human instinct to want to survive and the only reason this is not the case with a good 90% of the population of this planet is because these skills and instincts have been lost in time.
As Benjamin Franklin once said "Failing to prepare is preparing to fail..."
Roko,Like my last comment implies, not only do I not know, I think I'd be an idiot for spending much time trying to figure it out.
What probability-of-revival increase do you think an extra $50 on top of your cryonics insurance gives, if the insurance is already $50,000?
Roko,Not sure, to be honest, whether most Americans would rational optimizing by spending $50 on food/water reserves. My intuition suggests that if they had my aspirations, and already had a cryonics plan, that $50 would be better invested in something else like optimizing their insurance or investments with higher rates of return than food or water. But I think they earn enough that they shouldn't waste much too much time thinking about $50.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the other type of people preparing for a possible collapse. Things along the lines of the long now foundation and the rosetta disk seem like a potentially useful precaution for big disruptions as well.
In fact, taken in the first person, the second interpretation says "I wouldn't mind if I had never been born". While some might think that only the clinically depressed would have such a thought, I think it's entirely reasonable: had I not been born, I would not mind it a bit - indeed I could not mind, because (by definition) there would be no me to do the minding!
Any other position would seem to require a strange superposition of being and non-being that I simply can't wrap my head around...
I think there are (at least) two ways of parsing the GP's quote ("not-yet-existent individuals don’t really have any interests to protect, because they can’t suffer or feel pleasure"):
1) We don't need to worry about the kind of world (financial, environmental, political, etc) we leave to future generations, because they don't exist yet - even though they eventually will exist. This seems sufficiently extreme that I'm reluctant to parse the GP this way, especially in light of the alternative interpretation...
2) If a particular person who "would have been" conceived (per some expectation of future events) is not in fact conceived, then that person has not been harmed, and neither has any other person. This sounds a little extreme at first glance, but on closer analysis I think it's quite reasonable: the person who is never conceived clearly is not harmed (there literally is no one there to be harmed!), and any others who might be tempted to claim harm (e.g. the non-person's siblings, future spouse, etc) are ultimately making a staggering claim: that someone else has a duty to provide them with the sort of sibling, spouse,etc, they want. I don't think this is reasonable.
NOTE: none of the above should be misread to support, for example, slipping a pregnant woman an abortion drug without her knowledge or against her will. Even aside from the question of when life begins, the mother is clearly being harmed and thus the action is improper on those grounds alone.
You mean that $50 on spare food and water is only a rational investment if you're rich?
I think you have to be fairly rich before survalist investment is a rational resource allocation. In that way I think survivalists are like undiversified entrepreneurs. Good for society's overall diversification, bad for many of the individuals engaging in the behavior.
Roko:
I'm sure part of it depends on the kinds of disasters that are likely in your area. Food and water are good in most scenarios, so having some more on hand makes sense in many situations. Otherwise, if, for example, a flood is more likely than a bioterrorism attack, then it makes more sense to have gear to survive a flood before having gear to survive bioterrorism.
Depending on the scenario, it may make more sense to increase social connectivity instead of decreasing it. Floods are easier to survive if people can inform each other of how the waters will rise and evacuations can occur in advance of the water.
The key is to understand what the value of your neighbors in a disaster scenario are. In most of the more common situations, from as personal as a car accident to large-scale disasters like earthquakes and floods, an ability to coordinate efforts is very effective and leads to survival of a larger portion of the community.
About $50 will buy a month's worth of food and water. So pretty clearly at least that much. The greatest threat would be bioterrorism, so maybe get a gas mask or something? They sell them on Uk Survive. Seriously, has anyone done an analysis?
I wonder what the optimal level of food stores/survival gear it is for me to get, in case some kind of disaster did happen?
I agree, I misinterpreted your phrasing.
Pascal's wager involves an infinite utility and a tiny probability, cryonics involves a finite utility and a medium-sized probability.
Pascal's wager is a fallacy for several reasons, most importantly that humans don't have infinite utility functions.
"The reality, though, is that even a little bit of disaster/survival preparation can make a huge difference in whether you, personally, are one of the guys the Red Cross or National Guard needs to save, vs one of the guys who’s quietly riding out the disaster."Well said! In fact, in earthquake-prone or hurricane-prone areas, it is common for the government to be the ones advocating that everyone keep a 3 day supply of water, food, medications, etc.