# How far back?



## dixiemama (Nov 28, 2012)

With all the different scenarios, how far back cld a disaster set is? '70's where there wasn't electronic banking, Depression when here wasn't anything, Civil War era or Dark Ages? 

If you really sit and think about everything that everyone wld need to be entirely self sufficient, which do you think?


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

I think with accumulated knowledge, skills and talent we could go as far back as the early 1900's in some areas but much more recent in others. We may have to survive without electricity and modern conveniences like plumbing, but I think some medical knowledge would put us years ahead of life in say 1910. I really see this as being more of a "how far back could a disaster set us...." in this or that specific area type of question.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

It all depends on the scenario and how far we fall.
EMP- 1910 or so depending on how long it takes to get any power generation back up.
Economic collapse- not far at all. But as things degrade and aren't replaced, it'll be a slow descent.
Nuclear war- Stone age

The caveat to all this is what happens to our society. If the US balkinizes or civil unrest is commonplace, we'll fall much further as infrastructure is detroyed.


----------



## OldCootHillbilly (Jul 9, 2010)

A large scale pandemic with say 70 ta 85% loss rate would send us back ta the 1800"s real quick. As fer knowledge, there will be that, but not the resources ta use it in a modern way. Folk gonna get used ta manual labor real quick.

I know folk thin that a pandemic just be silly with modern medicine, but modern medicine be makin some disease resistant ta our current meds. If we wind up with a super bug could be a disaster one flu season away.


----------



## dixiemama (Nov 28, 2012)

I was thinking the same thing OldCoot- too many docs are prescribing meds for the slightest cold. My husband used to always get onto me about not taking our son to the doc every time he felt bad until this recent meningitis scare (he had a shot in his knees and feet at the same time as the people who got sick but wasn't part of the infected). That really shook him up. If its just a cold or an ear ache, our son is fine with staying home, a little rest and sweet oil. If I know he's bad, I'll take him just to find out what's wrong but most of the time, he dsnt need meds. 

Most of the time, the antibiotics don't work but when immune boosters are given or homeopathic remedies, patient is cured bc the bugs haven't been exposed to that before and don't stand a chance.


----------



## NaeKid (Oct 17, 2008)

Depending on how bad the situation is, I could see a lifestyle of the late 1800's to the early 1900's as long as some kind of rail-system could continue to function to move products from east-to-west and north-to-south .... if the rail-system also fails, then it could be to a life-style of the early 1800's.


----------



## lotsoflead (Jul 25, 2010)

Bring it on, I was raised without ele .TV, Supermarkets,Dairy Queens, Burger kings ect.. The older boys went to school an hr early to start the wood stove, local farmers and others provided the wood. they closed that school in 1951 and shipped us to a new regional school.
I haven't deviated much from those times except, I do have ele.flush toilets and a PU, but we basicaslly live old time and my kids know how to live the old way if they had to.
But their kids,(my GKs are in big trouble), because my kids didn't want their kids to go thru what they did. boy they had it rough, carrying in a little wood, feeding the animals and catching a school bus, we walked 3 miles and there were no such a thing as snow days.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

If the whole electric grid crashed in winter a vast majority of the population would simply freeze to death. Things would go backwards at an alarming rate, cities would become disease ridden death traps, many big house acreages at least in this area are grid dependant for heat ands don't have any backup systems. so in the very least the population would shrink dramaticly.


----------



## DJgang (Apr 10, 2011)

Tirediron said:


> If the whole electric grid crashed in winter a vast majority of the population would simply freeze to death. Things would go backwards at an alarming rate, cities would become disease ridden death traps, many big house acreages at least in this area are grid dependant for heat ands don't have any backup systems. so in the very least the population would shrink dramaticly.


Case in point: just last weekend, on FB local news posted a small grid down in a certain area. Several folks family that worked for the power company was posting updates. There was the one man, screaming and posting numerous times asking when will the power be back up, he had a 5 wk old infant and they were going to freeze to death, blah, blah, blah.....

It took every ounce of my prepping soul's being to not tell that ******* that maybe he should have purchased a dang kerosene heater and some kerosene rather than that stupid smart phone he was using!!!  idiot.


----------



## webeable (Aug 29, 2012)

I try to prep for anything short of a nuke attack, that's because walking dead is not an option.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> I think with accumulated knowledge, skills and talent we could go as far back as the early 1900's in some areas but much more recent in others. We may have to survive without electricity and modern conveniences like plumbing, but I think some medical knowledge would put us years ahead of life in say 1910. I really see this as being more of a "how far back could a disaster set us...." in this or that specific area type of question.


I sort of agree with Sentry, but only sort of.

No matter how bad the event I don't think we (I suppose that means those who are prepared, as for others things could revert to 5000BC pretty quick) could be set back much further than the 1900s INITIALLY. And with medical science, we would be back to the 1950, as the only major advances in medicine since the 50s have been in high technology (or a least techniques that require high technology: artificial breathing and circulation, plastics, cameras, lasers, etc). Perhaps the BIGGEST advance in medicine of all times was the discovery of anti-biotics, which assuming their misuse and over-prescription doesn't negate, will still be available to us immediately after any type of collapse (if you know where to get them!).

The sort of agree part is that: I think its important to realize that modern society works on a division of labor, the existence of stable trade vehicles, and stable mediums of exchange ($$$).

Mr. X is not going to spend his days digging A (name the natural resource) for Mr. Y unless Mr. X can get A to Mr. Y who in turn can pay for the item, and as Mr. Y does not necessarily have the ability or skill to offer Mr. X something he wants, that means $$Money$$ is necessary.

American's forget that when the greenback was instituted after the Revolutionary war people were VERY skeptical about the new currency and its only when its value was guaranteed in Silver and Gold that people began to trade with it. Well if the collapse has anything to do with the inherant weakness of the dollar I imagine it would be hard, once people realize they have been duped, to get them to trust it again without a backing. (which may or may not exist in Ft. Knox).

Also, depending on how bad a collapse is, that is, how many people die, and how much infrastructure is destroyed, the immediate effects of a disaster could continue to compound until a bottom, an equilibrium, is found. The longer a situation is allowed to continue the less likely we will be able to put the pieces together. Balkanization may occur not as a result of political strife (of course this too is possible) but as a result of economic instability and a lack of the trust (and security) necessary to engage in trade. As local groups secure local areas and develop local currencies what upside will there be to centralize things again when it was centralization that perhaps ended up causing a collapse (or at least contributing to it)?


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

I understand your point Padre, but there are enough valuable trading items around that I don't see us falling back to the late 1700s. The dollar, as you point out, will to a large extent become worthless except in the toilet. But I foresee the surviving folks working together to achieve common objectives be it food production, mutual defense, or whatever that are necessary for both individual and group survival. In the immediate short term after an event, I suspect beans and bullets will become common currencies. In the longer term, it will be whatever the survivors recognize as a good store of value. I suspect working animals (mules, oxen, some types of dogs, etc) will become much more valuable. Of course, this assumption is predicated on a significant fall out of a mechanized economy.

An economic collapse will likely not lead to a de-mechanized society in the short or intermediate time frames. Longer term, it is possible if enough infrastructure is destroyed. I do think that whatever currency arises will be backed by some sort of a valuable commodity be it PMs, oil, or whatever. It's the old fool me once scenario.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

The answers are dependent on the scope of the collapse. If the rest of the world, or even most of the industrialized world, escapes the fall out from an American collapse, then the fall in America will have a safety net underneath it. However, if the world falls with us, then we're all going to go down a long way.

The biggest obstacles are going to be the necessities, like water, food and heat, which are all dependent on a functioning economy. Are you going to keep going to your job at Kraft Foods or sell your cheese or grains to Kraft Foods if the dollar is worthless or if the banks have all failed? If the supply chain gets disrupted, then it becomes difficult for the manufacturers to keep their operations functioning and that means the employees are left to fend for themselves. So the concentration of talent that enabled Kraft Foods to pump out a lot of food and have it delivered to the ultimate dispensers of the food is now no more.

Same problems with water supply, sewage treatment, electricity generation. If the processes which keep society functioning stop functioning then the talent gets dispersed in a mad survival of the fittest content and it'll be very difficult to rebuild that talent pool after many people have died and dispersed.

The upshot here is that these processes enable society to leverage a high population of specialists onto the backs of a small segment of the economy which produces the food, water, sewage treatment, electricity, and so on and the result is that the leverage ratio of workers:food workers will decrease. Food production will likely take up more time for EVERY person that remains after a great die off and so there will be less time for specialization. Also, if there is a great die off there will also be a great talent shortage, so those antibiotics will run out and there will be a lot of difficulty in finding people who know how to cook them up. No internet, no Monster.com to search out talent, the biochemist might be to busy farming and surviving and not want to risk his families welfare by trekking to some distant pharma plant in order to try to relaunch it. Who is going to care for his family? A community might eventually start sharing the burden in this way to free up his time but that will only happen after the fall stabilizes.

If the systems all falter during a fall, then the game of survival which is unleashed won't distinguish between the crack dealer and the biochemist in terms of survival. Clearly the latter has more to offer a society intent on rebuilding, but that won't matter to the crack dealer when he is fighting the biochemist for some food or water or shelter. What will happen is a lot of key people are going to die because while they were good at their job there were other people who were better at the job of surviving after a civilization fell.

The best hope is that the fall leaves a modern economy or society functioning in some other part of the world or at least hope that their falls are not as severe as ours.


----------



## Wellrounded (Sep 25, 2011)

If there was a world shtf event I don't believe we're going back to any period in the past. Too many skills lost and too much new knowledge. It'll be a blend of all sorts, depending on who knows what and what resources will be available. After time knowledge and trade will spread. 
We won't suddenly lose the internal combustion engine, soil science or laminating timber for more strength.


----------



## GrinnanBarrett (Aug 31, 2012)

I asked this question to a doctor in our group. His reply was almost chilling. He said you gave to remember that most young doctors have never had to do without high tech gadgets to do everything from diagnosis to the actual operation. 

His concern is how the marginal doctors (those who were NOT in the top percentage of their class may just crater without the crutch of technology. He said he was not talking Civil War age but rather pre WW2. Again he said this all depends on the length and severity of the crisis and to what extent loss of grid comes into play. 

GB


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

Some of the things that the late 1800's and early 1900's had going for them simply will not apply to us:

There's not a lot of factories working on steam power anymore
There's not a lot of houses (on the whole) that can and do grow any of their own food
They knew that working meant life, not working meant starvation. Try explaining that to our current crop of who knows how many generations of wellfare and entitlement benefits... good luck! :nuts:


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

GrinnanBarrett said:


> I asked this question to a doctor in our group. His reply was almost chilling. He said you gave to remember that most young doctors have never had to do without high tech gadgets to do everything from diagnosis to the actual operation.
> 
> His concern is how the marginal doctors (those who were NOT in the top percentage of their class may just crater without the crutch of technology. He said he was not talking Civil War age but rather pre WW2. Again he said this all depends on the length and severity of the crisis and to what extent loss of grid comes into play.
> 
> GB


That's an interesting angle. I think his concern is pretty well founded. I'd expect all of the Affirmative Action doctors and those who aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer to fall back the most. The specialists too, but they'll fall back to being good GP doctors for the whole system of funneling patients in need of specialized care that only they can provide will have been seriously disrupted, so the sophistication and specialization of care that they provide will fall but the competency of their care will still likely be excellent.

As for the ones who are most dependent on technology, I think the smart ones will adjust fine - it's simply a matter of brain power and of rediscovering the wheel, so to speak, because they should still have basic principles at their command, so they know what they want to accomplish and they'll figure a way of doing it without the tech.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Marcus said:


> I understand your point Padre, but there are enough valuable trading items around that I don't see us falling back to the late 1700s.


Oh, I am sure there are, but that's sort of my point. Our society depends on a division of labor and materials being brought together from far away places. Sure, there are valuable trade items. Like what? Gold? Well, yes, but not as valuable at first. What else? Bullets. Medicines Food. Parts. Sure, but the question is how do you a) know, that the buyer wants and b) how do you get it to him, particularly if the safety of travelers is put in jeopardy by bandits? Then you multiply this problem by ten, as most modern conveniences are complex, using lots of components from lots of places. Its not a matter if getting one product. Think of the rum produced by Triangular trade in New England of the 1700s. Slaves to the Carribean, Cane to New England, Rum to England. You don't realize how much time and effort having paper that can be traded for anything the seller wants helps buyers get what they need. The logistics of it makes my head spin.



> An economic collapse will likely not lead to a de-mechanized society in the short or intermediate time frames. Longer term, it is possible if enough infrastructure is destroyed. I do think that whatever currency arises will be backed by some sort of a valuable commodity be it PMs, oil, or whatever. It's the old fool me once scenario.


Really? Most techs today are built with techs that have been built with techs that most likely don't exist today. In the short term if we go through our oil supply how are we going to get more? As it takes oil to find oil today? It's like nuke plants that need power in to produce (well actually to keep them safe so that they can) power. The recovery of the world largely depends on (like today) there being some place in the world that has escaped unscathed and can resupply us, and will do so even if we don't have much to offer in way of payment. And all that depends on the people who know how to get things up and working still being alive.


----------



## dixiemama (Nov 28, 2012)

But with the state of the world today, I don't see help coming our way soon after SHTF. We owe what? 16 Trillion to china? With that kind if debt, there isn't a country in any solar system going to loan us enough to get back to some resemblance of normal. 

My husband thought I was nuts buying cookbooks from pre WWII and learning how to make candles and soap until he saw WHY I was doing it. Now he doesn't get mad if I spend $60 on a book from the WWI days or older. My Kindle can only help me for so long before the battery dies and its just another piece of modern technology in a log cabin.


----------



## cnsper (Sep 20, 2012)

You have to remember that there are only really 2 things that will effect the world as a whole all at once.

1. is a pandemic. With the way people fly all around the world it can spread quickly, especially if there is an incubation period where it is contagious. 

2. Economic Collapse. In a very short period of time the entire world economy can collapse.

Other than that the effects are going to be localized. Say an EMP from the sun, that is likely to only effect the side that is facing it. With that the other half of the world can provide and become rich to the half effected. I think that the people that are going to benefit from any world wide disaster the most are 3rd world countries. Some of their economies are so bad they would not notice.


----------



## Dakine (Sep 4, 2012)

I dont know about that with solar flare/EMP. Let's say it's fact it only affects half the world, slow rotation of the earth and little duration of the event spares the other half of the globe. Okay fine right?

but what if we're the side that is affected? we provide a large portion of food exports. if all of that were suddenly to get sizzled in addition to the drought we're already faced with that would be really bad for everyone, especially Asian nations who buy a lot of our wheat and corn.

Also, if you're talking about our hemisphere being affected, that is going to impact more than just crops. There goes a lot of the companies and technology that build, maintain and develop things like communications. All of the satellites over us would go poof I guess? 

No more wall street, what effect would that have on foreign markets? All those funds and holdings are interwined and connected at various levels, they'll feel it for sure!

What about all the raw consumer purchasing power that North and South America represent? if all of that got turned off because now the grid and food supply system are in shambles, all that money that used to go to Japan, Viet Nam, China, Malaysia, India, Europe, etc... all that just went poof too. Sure, they can still make their stuff, but who are they are going to sell it to? and what money are those people going to buy it with?

I think the world could live comfortably without products from Hollywood, and most of them probably wish they already were lol, but if you turn off the really important stuff we pump out... I think that will have massive cascading effects.


----------

