Of all the many things preparedness minded individuals think to cover or write about one thing most often left undiscussed is the individual. While it's true that we want to do everything we can to keep ourselves and our families safe, we ignore the fact that maybe, just possibly, this is not in the best interest of surviving.
Our ancestors had something in common. They were the best. They gathered or obtained resources like no ones business. Something about them, whether you call it spirit, force of will or just plain brute strength lead them to be the most viable candidate to continue their genetic line.
There is no such impetus today.
Now, lest you think me a hard line right winger that wants to end the nanny state and take away people's welfare and food assistance benefits, let me disabuse you of that notion. My employment depends a great deal on people that need financial assistance in order to obtain the resources necessary to live. So it is not out of a desire to see people "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" that inspires this, but rather a simpler desire to produce the best that humanity can by employing the innate methods that got us here.
In order to produce the line that I am descended from, my ancestors had to fight tooth, nail and sharp pointy stick to ensure that they were the ones that had resources and were able to secure a mate of their choosing. We have none of that today, or rather we have so little of that as to be almost unnoticeable. This has produced a population that is soft, weak and frankly, rather stupid.
One of my many tasks as a social worker is to aid people in gaining access to resources available from the community. Now truthfully regular people would have trouble gaining access to the plethora of resources available to them (i.e. community assistance with food, money,etc.) simply because those with the resources do not advertise this to the general public.
And when I say advertise I mean lead people by the hand to the door, put a pen in their hands and move it about for them to mimic writing so that the at-risk type can be "helped".
I know a lot of folks think the thing to do is being prepared not just for themselves and their families, but to help out their neighbors in hard (read: SHTF) times I have to wonder if in fact we're "helping" them at all.
More to the point is that what is--at the core--what survival is all about? Propagating members of a species that do nothing to strengthen or improve the species?
If we continue to prop up those that are a drain on resources would we not just be heading back to where we are, but making it harder on ourselves as we rebuild? This is in truth a moot point. If we are ever faced with any of the dire situations we hear about (peak oil, economic collapse--choose your poison) nature will likely sort this out for us.
Those that do not work, will not eat.
"Propagating members of a species that do nothing to strengthen or improve the species?"
ReplyDeleteHello eugenics.
Everyone should eat, regardless of their job status. Kids eat, full-time students eat, retirees eat, rich people living off the interest of their wealth eat. None of those groups of people work, yet they're eating. So why the caveat of "those that do not work, will not eat" when it's obvious you really mean "those that are too poor to afford sustenance shall not be given any assistance by the government".
If you really wanted to stop the "drain on resources" you would need to lose the entire american way of life(which is the most wasteful and expensive) and adopt the amish traditions of plainness, simplicity, and non-progress.
The purpose of this post was not tp suggest that we end welfare or cease trying to help people now, but as things get progressively worse as I believe they will-- since we are a debt-based economy and that bubble has to eventually burst.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that in a world where everyone has to work (i.e. a post collapse society) to get by because the bits of increasingly meaningless paper we trade for the comforts of modern life cease to have any value at all, is it in the best interest of the species to work to support those that would not otherwise be able?
As noted, my work depends on the aforementioned at risk populations. It does not behoove me to end their dependence on the system. I'm suckling on the same teat, just a little further up the line. However, in a possible future where I have to grow a garden and raise livestock to be able to feed my family I am not at all inclined to provide for others the products of my labor. If a squirrel can't go out and gather nuts for itself, other squirrels don't give up their nuts for it (I just like saying nuts, hence this analogy). The same would hold true in a society where the main goal is subsistence, not the excess we enjoy now.
In my perfect world, I would be able to tell people to choose a simpler way of life. Grow your own food,use less electricity and petroleum (and petroleum derived products). Not only will you save money, you might actually enjoy the effort you put into making yourself and your tribe more self-sustaining.
we're not in a debt based economy, we're in a consumer based economy. The gov't has set us up to have a good economy if we spend a lot rather than saving. This is why interest rates are kept low, you can get a loan and buy shit at a lower rate but your savings doesn't accrue much. And look at retirements, they're all going 401k which is investing rather than saving. Hardly anyone does pensions anymore, which are a lot more stable and secure.
ReplyDeleteIt's in the best interest of the species to exist, but whether or not that entails supporting people who can't work will be entirely subjective. The only reason we have paper money is because it's easier to carry around than gold. We don't even need paper money anymore, most things can be done electronically.
And considering you are not an island unto yourself, it doesn't really matter if you like helping others or not, it's in your best interest to do so because humans are social animals and we are inter-dependant on one another. Your nut analogy is flawed because the squirrels do nothing to produce the nuts. If all humans had to do to get food is to pluck it from trees that more than provide for us, then there'd be no problem.
Your perfect world still requires a government, law enforcement, communications, utilities, infrastructure, health industry, scientific study, engineering, regulatory oversight, environmental protections, etc.
Our economy is consumer based in that we purchase things on credit assuming that we will be able to pay them off. This is a debt based economy. The "money" we pay for items does not exist. If our economy were simply consumer driven (that is you purchase something and it is yours outright) then you would only be buying things with the money you have on hand, not imaginary money extended to you by some credit organization.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think perhaps you misunderstand what I'm describing here. I am not talking about our system continuing to limp along as it is, but rather after a collapse of the debt based economy. The world I am seeing is one that exists after hyperinflation makes a loaf of bread $15.00 and a gallon of gas $45. Any system of governance at that point will be what we make it. I do not feel that the system we have is capable of continuing on under the current or future governments as long as we adhere to the debt based model.
No the only purpose of credit is to get us to consume more. It's consumer based, the debt is a by-product.
ReplyDeleteI think you're getting into semantics here. I leave you to consider this:
ReplyDeleteOur money is entirely create from debt. If all debt was retired in our country, there would be no money. Deflation is defined as a reduction in the credit/money supply. Everytime a loan is created it increases the money supply. Once that loan is retired, the money that was created is also retired.
This would all be different if the money was actually printed. But only a very small fraction of money created is actually ever printed. Only the money needed to carry our day to day transactions is printed. Near all of our money is nothing more than book entries, or today, a computer entry.
In 2002 Alan Greenspan was talking a lot about "the risk of deflation" to our economy. This was the purpose of cutting rates to near zero. This was to encourage borrowing. Borrowing increases the money supply.Fiat debt based money systems are all about ever increasing debt. Without it, they collapse into deflation through defaults.