Preparation for Long-Term to Permanent Disruptions: It Takes a Village, or Does It?

My most recent primary occupation is psychologist/academic/consultant. In addition to having a Ph.D. in applied psychology, I spent over a decade in academia, retiring early at the rank of full professor of Industrial/Organizational psychology. Though I am not versed in clinical diagnoses, I am very familiar with psychopathy in non-clinical settings. Additionally, I tend to think of myself as an optimistic pessimist. In other words, I generally do not think that highly of people’s innate goodness, but I like to hope that I am wrong.

I have spent a lot of time thinking about, writing about, and instructing on emergency preparedness. These experiences, including professional knowledge, a tendency towards pessimism, and studying what has happened elsewhere during longer-term disruptions of services, have led to me making a different decision regarding one aspect of emergency preparation compared to some others.

I have written about ways to categorize disruptions in services (power, water, food, emergency services) in the past and personally categorize these into short (less than a week) intermediate (a week to a month), long (1-6 months) and permanent (6+ months). The most common to occur, and what many of us primarily prepare for is, short to intermediate disruptions. In these situations, being prepared is about maintaining the safety and supplies of your family while waiting for things to ‘return to normal.’

If a disruption stretches into months, the hard question becomes ‘Is normal ever returning?’ We are fortunate enough to have not lived through such a disruption in the continental U.S., but can draw on history, more recent civil wars in other countries, and think tank reports to deduce it will not be pretty. In long to permanent disruptions safety and supplies are no longer the only concerns. Shifting to some form of sustained supplies (years of food and water) or self-sufficiency (growing and obtaining
food and water) needs to be part of the plan. Also, in such situations, any skill not present may not be available.

In planning to become self-sufficient for long or permanent disruptions there are two broad paths. Both require planning, coordination, and honest appraisal of skills, supplies, and needs. The first path is the one I have chosen, and that is to create my long-term plans around utilizing a small group of people for such preparations (immediate family and a very small list of reliable, close friends). The second path involves pre-identifying a large group of people (a community) to band together for mutual protection and sharing of skills. Neither is right or wrong in my opinion, and I hope to briefly discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both plans in this article as well as defend my choice (a small group or circle of trust).

Last of Us - Village
The question of maintaining a small group versus banding together into a larger community to address long-term disruption of services is a complex decision. Both paths are often illustrated in apocalyptic media, most recently in ‘The Last of Us.’ (Photo Credit: Sony Computer Entertainment)

A Word on Psychopathy

I will honestly admit I may be biased in my assessment of the dangers of psychopathy in small communities without a larger system of societal enforcement. Most recent studies put the rate of true psychopathy at 3% but higher in criminal populations (~15-25%) Additionally, highly skilled professions including CEOs, chefs, lawyers, police, and surgeons all have higher rates of psychopathy than the general public. People in these highly skilled professions are what are often considered functional
psychopaths. The traits of these individuals include Machiavellianism (a desire to get ahead by any means necessary, lack of morality, and a willingness to manipulate others for one’s own self-interests), sub-clinical narcissism (prideful, egocentric, and lacking empathy), and sub-clinical psychopathy (antisocial tendencies, selfish, unemotional, and remorseless). This ‘dark triad’ of traits all describe psychopaths and most people who would be diagnosed have also learned to conceal these traits in how they behave to others to avoid direct penalties. It has been proposed that the high rate of psychopathy in criminal populations reflects those that are not as skilled at concealing their traits, while the lower rate in the general population represents those more successful at concealing these traits. Hence it is unlikely that a functioning psychopath will be easily identified without a clinical diagnosis or long exposure to their behaviors in multiple situations. In the simplest of terms, they don’t want to be found.

dark triad graphic
The dark triad captures the traits of psychopaths highlighting the focus on self-interest, lack of emotional response, lack of empathy for others, and a desire to manipulate. (Photo Credit: Wikimedia)

Keeping It Small vs. Building a Community

For longer-term disruptions, a choice does need to be made. Are you preparing to become part of a community for mutual benefit and protection or are you preparing for a small group to weather the storm and avoid notice? Either choice has advantages and disadvantages that are often flip sides of the same coin (one’s advantage is the other’s disadvantage). To keep things positive, I will try and focus on the advantages of each choice.

Keeping it Small

My pessimism, knowledge of sub-clinical psychopathy, and knowledge of human history are what primarily drove my personal decision-making towards keeping it small. Though I do think there are genuinely good people in the world I also think there are many who only behave out of fear of consequences. Added to that is the knowledge that any group (or survival community) of 100 people will have 3 or more psychopaths (potentially more depending on skill sets) in their midst. In a collapse of societal controls and norms, I feel this could be a real issue. Finally, we have a fair amount of data on small groups in war times and tribal societies and few of these isolated groups do not devolve into some form of autocracy — strong ruling the weak: ever read “The Lord of the Flies”?  Thus, my first pro for keeping it to a small and trusted group is hopefully reducing the chance of including such people in my survival plans.

black and white photo of the indoor of a shelter with beds, tood, and basic furniture
The smaller the group you are hoping to prepare for the smaller the needed resources, the simpler the plans, and the smaller the overall footprint to conceal from others. In my case, my circle of trust is a total of five people. (Photo Credit: National Archives)

Other advantages include that it is easier to plan for a smaller group. What needs to be prepared, supplies stockpiled, and land needed are all smaller. Additionally, a smaller group has a smaller footprint and is easier to conceal from others (unwanted strangers or in an extreme situation, raiders). Another advantage is, depending on your plans and location, not having to move to a new location to establish a new community. You can stockpile and prepare in the location you are already at. The amount of food that needs to be grown and land required if transitioning to farming is proportionately smaller. Also, overstocking or rationing if needed will be easier.

The final advantage is that the plans do not need to be coordinated with, and therefore also reliant on, others. What happens if only half of the planned people arrive at the potential location of a new survival community? What if those that don’t make it were the ones charged with bringing food supplies, farming equipment, or medicines?

Building a Community

Though not my personal choice, there are some clear advantages to building a community. One of the big questions that I have wrestled with is how to have all the needed skills (medical, farming, dental, hygiene) for long-term survival in a longer disruption. Having a coordinated community planned out can include making sure those with needed skills (doctor, plumber, farmer, hunter, etc.) are all present. Though easier to notice (larger footprint) there is also valuable strength in numbers if an armed defense is needed. Though a large area will be needed to raise food, there will also be more people to help in the process. Likely one of the largest appeals to this model is that if a long-term disruption becomes a permanent one, such a plan provides greater access to social needs (not the same small group day after day) as well as more hope of rebuilding.

farms
If truly transitioning to a new way of life and farming your own food in a permanent disruption of services there would be advantages to working in a community, but what social structure would survive such a dramatic situation? (Photo Credit Open License)

Some Final Thoughts

My plans are built on two main principles: prepare for what is more likely first, less likely second, and so on, and as much as possible keep it simple. A truly long-term interruption in services becoming permanent, though possible, is unlikely and this is the situation a community plan is best designed for. I prefer to keep my plans simple, under my direct control, and not reliant on others. That is not to say I have not slowly created a network of people I might rely on during a longer disruption for trade and mutual support, but I am also not planning on creating a community with these contacts.

It is easy to see an Amish community and think, ‘We could do that.’ But those are communities that have existed for generations, have very strict rules to make sure social norms are followed, and are focused on self-sufficiency and maintaining the needed skills and equipment to do so. Personally, as someone who is not a psychopath (yes, I was tested in grad school) I do not think I have the skill to make a similar community work starting from scratch in the worst of situations. Thus, my current plans continue to be to keep it small, keep it safe, and keep it simple.

Amish Dairy Farm
It is easy to look at self-sufficient communities today and not see the generations of traditions, ethics, and social norms that allow such communities to exist. Trying to create a community of like-minded but differently skilled individuals from scratch would likely be a monumental undertaking. (Open License photo)
Joel Nadler is the Training Director at Indy Arms Company in Indianapolis and co-owner of Tactical Training Associates.  He writes for several gun-focused publications and is an avid supporter of the right to self-sufficiency, including self-defense. Formerly a full professor, he has a Ph.D. in Psychology and now works as a senior consultant living on a horse ranch in rural Indiana.  Feel free to follow him on Instagram @TacticalPhD.

Sign Up for Newsletter

Let us know what topics you would be interested:
© 2024 GunMag Warehouse. All Rights Reserved.
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap