Doomsday Preppers: Are They Mentally Ill?

  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
In summary, the families on this show believe in doomsday scenarios that could destroy the Earth. One family is preparing for a solar flare that will destroy the planet, while the other family is preparing for a terrorist attack that will result in a nuclear holocaust. Both families have children that are living in constant fear and anxiety. Is this child abuse? Should mentally ill people be allowed to do this to children?
  • #71
bill1064 said:
While all the intelligent rational people were sitting on their roof waiting for the government to save them.

While the rational

Quoting my original post:
Post disaster crisis handling is job of the government not of individuals.

All the government agencies advice on what kind of measures should be taken during crisis.

You don't need to go to self proclaimed experts to know how to prepare for disasters. Neither, you need to be self proclaimed expert to be prepared for disasters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
BavarianRaven said:
evidently you do. its called being prepared...not hoarding ;)
sure a small percent do have OCD and the such... most are just people who want to see their family and friends cared for should the worse happen.

Well, it is hoarding. And it's not a bad thing to do. We're discussing the nutters on national geographic, not the people that are "prepared".



thats the whole point. no one knows how bad it would be today? it might be nothing... or it could nock out everything from computers to cars to planes and the such... and imagine the hell that could create. the odds are low. but i like playing it safe =D

And you think that our technology didn't improve with respect to 1800?? And you think that power companies don't anticipate the trouble??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
The fact that you're not hurting me doesn't automatically make your opinions 100% correct. You're perfectly free to stockpile 5 years of food, just as I'm perfectly free to believe that Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean either is rational.

Doesnt mean i am 100% wrong either. (and i don't believe the world is flat).
But it doesn't make me a bad person either if I want to do this either. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
Well, it is hoarding. And it's not a bad thing to do. We're discussing the nutters on national geographic, not the people that are "prepared
yes, but we are getting lumped together. :/

And you think that our technology didn't improve with respect to 1800?? And you think that power companies don't anticipate the trouble??
__________________

the problem is... its not as easy as you make it sound. Military hardware is "hardened" for EMP shocks... civilian and transport technology not so much. sadly. :/ (the problem is of course cost)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #75
BavarianRaven said:
i wouldn't put the risk at 0% for an EMP. It has happened before: the sun can cause an EMF blast (happened in the eighteen hundreds and fried telegraph lines. Today, potentially, it could be much much worse). Rare it is... but not impossible. Better to need it and have it then need it and not have it.

Geez, guys, get your acronyms straight. EMPs are caused by nuclear explosions and didn't happen in the 1800's. CMEs are caused by the Sun, and you're right it fried telegraph lines in the 1800's. Long power lines are also vulnerable. The longer, the more vulnerable.

In the 1800's, that wasn't even a known risk. In the 2000's, not only is it a known risk, but we have satellites that warn us a CME is on the way hours before it arrives (or at least the mass part of Coronal Mass Ejections). Power companies have methods to reduce the risk of a CME causing a blackout.

Yes, there is still a chance of a CME causing a blackout. No, there's not a chance that every precaution every power company takes will fail. The worst case is a local blackout; not a world catastrophe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
I'm a prepper and I'm shocked by this thread.
I became a prepper AFTER a natural disaster that i was not prepared for. A hurricane.
I had no water, no electric, no sewer, no way to drive for help, no cell phone service, and no land line for over a week.
I ran out of food very quickly. If it had gone on for another week, i would have had to start eating pets.
And that was only a category 1 hurricane.
I now keep at least a month's worth of free dried food in the house at all times, and i stock up on water when i here a hurricane is expected.

If being labeled "mentally ill" means i'll survive the next time. then so be it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
BavarianRaven said:
yes, but we are getting lumped together. :/

Well, I don't think anybody here lumped you together. If I did, then I'm sorry for that. I don't agree with you, but you're not mentally ill either. :-p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
BavarianRaven said:
Doesnt mean i am 100% wrong either. (and i don't believe the world is flat).
But it doesn't make me a bad person either if I want to do this either. ;)
As said before, if all you are doing is hoarding, more power to you.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
DoD2706982608 said:
I'm a prepper and I'm shocked by this thread.
I became a prepper AFTER a natural disaster that i was not prepared for. A hurricane.
I had no water, no electric, no sewer, no way to drive for help, no cell phone service, and no land line for over a week.
I ran out of food very quickly. If it had gone on for another week, i would have had to start eating pets.
And that was only a category 1 hurricane.
I now keep at least a month's worth of free dried food in the house at all times, and i stock up on water when i here a hurricane is expected.

If being labeled "mentally ill" means i'll survive the next time. then so be it.

We're not talking about that kind of thing here. We're talking about doomsday preppers. Keeping a month's worth of food is a good thing to do (certainly in a hurricane unsafe zone). Drilling your children for a doomsday scenario is not ok.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
micromass said:
We're discussing the nutters on national geographic, not the people that are "prepared".
I think this is key, and puts the thread back on topic.

The issue, I think, is where do you draw the line between them?

One man's prepared is another's nutter. Who here claims the right to have a bigger share of opinion than another?

I guess it really comes down to probabilities. Each of us assigns a probability to the way civilization might fall, and when. The way we assign them can vary wildly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
think this is key, and puts the thread back on topic.

The issue, I think, is where do you draw the line between them?

One man's prepared is another's nutter. Who here claims the right to have a bigger share of opinion than another?

this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
Evo said:
Bob, you live in Colorado, how much food have you stockpiled? :-p

And no more hurricanes and tornadoes, this is about wacko armageddon. Any more off topic posts will be deleted and infractions given.

That's not fair. We only have blizzards and tornadoes in Colorado. We don't have any armageddons. Heck, we don't even have armadillos!

But I do make sure I have cold weather gear and my winch gear in my Jeep before I head off across the prairie in a blizzard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
DaveC426913 said:
I think this is key, and puts the thread back on topic.

The issue, I think, is where do you draw the line between them?

One man's prepared is another's nutter. Who here claims the right to have a bigger share of opinion than another?

I guess it really comes down to probabilities. Each of us assigns a probability to the way civilization might fall, and when. The way we assign them can vary wildly.
I draw the line at the ones that gather weapons and practice shooting at human targets because they believe that they will have to kill their neighbors.

A good place to draw the line?
 
Last edited:
  • #84
micromass said:
We're not talking about that kind of thing here. We're talking about doomsday preppers. Keeping a month's worth of food is a good thing to do (certainly in a hurricane unsafe zone). Drilling your children for a doomsday scenario is not ok.

Is is ok if i teach my dog how to dial 911 in case I'm incapacitated?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
DoD2706982608 said:
Is is ok if i teach my dog how to dial 911 in case I'm incapacitated?

You might go on "america's got talent" with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
DoD2706982608 said:
Is is ok if i teach my dog how to dial 911 in case I'm incapacitated?
My cat dialed 911 once, try explaining that to the county sheriff. He had no idea what to do when I told him what my daughter claimed happened. She said he jumped on the fax machine, knocked the handset off (with buttons on the handset) and she thinks when he walked over the phone, he must have managed to hit the right buttons. She said she heared a voice coming from the phone, got scared and hung it up. :p
 
Last edited:
  • #87
I draw the line at the ones that gather weapons and practice shooting at human targets because they believe that they will have to kill their neighbors.

A good place to draw the line?

i'd put the line closer to the giant unground bunker complex but that's just me. some of these people are over the line, some are not. I have lived in some really shady neighbourhoods and defending your life/friend's life/property is not over the line imo. (granted there are some loons out there that just want to hurt people...they are sick). The problem arises (as in Katrina), you have supplies you need to keep your family and yourself alive. Your neighbours dont. There is not enough to go around... so do you help your neighbours and feed 'em (or give them water, etc) for a day then starve together. Or do you defend your stuff and keep yourself and your family alive? Its a tough question and I know everyone will answer differently... but family should come first imo. (at least they do to me, imo).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
Always always keep in mind that, if there's a reality TV show about it, you can guarantee nothing about it is real. They blow this up for the shock value. Don't fall for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #89
DaveC426913 said:
Always always keep in mind that, if there's a reality TV show about it, you can guarantee nothing about it is real. They blow this up for the shock value. Don't fall for it.
Then you haven't seen the serious websites for these people.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
Evo said:
Then you haven't seen the serious websites for these people.
Mm. Fair 'nuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #91
There are some sane people there, people that understand that's it's wrong to subject children to end of the world scenarios. That's not right for a child. A group of adults that want to collect stuff, no problem. Adults that force children through daily drills to don hazmat suits because the end of the world is next year, no.
 
Last edited:
  • #92
How do these doomsdayers meet the definition of mental illness? They may be ignorant or superstitious, but that does not qualify as a medical condition. People who have lived with mental illness include Newton, Beethoven and Buzz Aldrin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
Loren Booda said:
How do these doomsdayers meet the definition of mental illness? They may be ignorant or superstitious, but that does not qualify as a medical condition. People who have lived with mental illness include Newton, Beethoven and Buzz Aldrin.
Mental illness covers a vast range Loren, you should know that. A huge number of mentally ill people hold jobs, have families, and live next door. It just depends on what the mental illness results in.
 
Last edited:
  • #94
Evo said:
There are some sane people there, people that understand that's it's wrong to subject people to end of the world scenarious. That's not right for a child. A group of adults that want to collect stuff, no problem. Adults that force children through daily drills to don hazmat suits because the end of the world is next year, no.

Agreed. Being prepared comes with it a responsibility to understand the likelihood of various types of disasters happening. I've already had a power outage here, in a major North American megalopolis, so that's a relatively high likelihood.

But why do these people believe so strongly in a 2012 disaster?

Actually, I guess I know why. The Bell curve of human behaviour.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #95
Evo said:
I draw the line at the ones that gather weapons and practice shooting at human targets because they believe that they will have to kill their neighbors.

A good place to draw the line?

Cool, I generally practice on targets that look a lot like the sign in front of Target.

And I don't intend to shoot my neighbors. I only plan to shoot people who try to steal from me.

I hope I never have to.

So far as the people teaching their kids about prepping. The consensus over on http://www.survivalistboards.com/ is that you are right. Let them be kids. But someone should talk to the parents instead of snatching their kids away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
bill1064 said:
Cool, I generally practice on targets that look a lot like the sign in front of Target.

And I don't intend to shoot my neighbors. I only plan to shoot people who try to steal from me.

I hope I never have to.

So far as the people teaching their kids about prepping. The consensus over on http://www.survivalistboards.com/ is that you are right. Let them be kids. But someone should talk to the parents instead of snatching their kids away.
That's been my question all along, should people be allowed to do this to small children? I never said take their children away, but someone needs to intervene on behalf of the kids. It's so sad. Especially when it's avoidable and there is no reason for it. Do we tell a child every time that they get into a car that they may die a horrible death?
 
Last edited:
  • #97
bill1064 said:
Let them be kids.

When I started stockpiling a few things to get through a few days or a week of disaster, I took great pains to keep my actions and the stash hidden from my children.

They have enough on their plate getting through normal life. My role as a parent is to quietly plan for the .1% disasters so they can get on with the 99.9% likelihood of their real lives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
DaveC426913 said:
Agreed. Being prepared comes with it a responsibility to understand the likelihood of various types of disasters happening. I've already had a power outage here, in a major North American megalopolis, so that's a relatively high likelihood.

But why do these people believe so strongly in a 2012 disaster?

Actually, I guess I know why. The Bell curve of human behaviour.

Actually most preppers don't buy the 2012 thing. The 2012ers are a small offshoot.

2012 theorists gravitate to the prepping and survival world because, where else would they learn about surviving a disaster?


And Dave, isn't laughing at people who have beliefs different from your a bit low on the bell curve too?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #99
Evo said:
Do we tell a child every time that they get into a car that they may die a horrible death?
No, but not the best analogy. Telling them about the likelihood of a car crash does not help them prepare for it and hone their skills to deal with it, which is the principle of what these preppers are trying to do, even if they do have a skewed idea of what's going to happen next Christmas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
Reading this thread makes me wonder, what happens when you run out of food and the world is still in chaos? Why not just learn to survive in a wilderness situation than horde food?

I'm glad I was raised on a farm and spent nearly every weekend minimalist camping in the woods, if I wanted to I could go out as I am now and find myself supper, does that mean I ever expect to use these skills in a situation these people are outlining? No.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #101
Bill, thank you, I was hoping we could get a dialogue going to understand your side and maybe we could answer questions on the scientific side.

My daughter is terrified of storms and tornadoes, we live in tornado alley. I no longer have a basement, so she's prepared my inner bathroom to do as much as possible to keep me alive. I have fully cooked non perishable foods in bags that can be easily torn open, water, candles, waterproof flashlight, kitchen matches, a lighter, a knife, an ax, kleenex, one of those annoying air horns so I can call for help if I am too weak to talk, a hammer, a crowbar, my meds, a first aid kit.
 
Last edited:
  • #102
Evo said:
That's been my question all along, should people be allowed to do this to small children? I never said take their children away, but someone needs to intervene on behalf of the kids. It's so sad. Especially when it's avoidable and there is no reason for it. Do we tell a child every time that they get into a car that they may die a horrible death?

You start this thread calling it child abuse. Sounds like the first step towards snatching them to me.

If every time someone sees a parent treating his child in a way they don't approve of the child was taken away we wouldn't be able to build enough orphanages to hold them.

I think it borders on child abuse to allow a child to grow up without fire arms training. I'm betting if that were the official definition, your kids would have been taken years ago.

So who gets to decide?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #103
DaveC426913 said:
No, but not the best analogy. Telling them about the likelihood of a car crash does not help them prepare for it and hone their skills to deal with it, which is the principle of what these preppers are trying to do, even if they do have a skewed idea of what's going to happen next Christmas.
So, we should be putting them into hazmat suits when they go in the car because of the potential danger.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
bill1064 said:
You start this thread calling it child abuse. Sounds like the first step towards snatching them to me.

If every time someone sees a parent treating his child in a way they don't approve of the child was taken away we wouldn't be able to build enough orphanages to hold them.

I think it borders on child abuse to allow a child to grow up without fire arms training. I'm betting if that were the official definition, your kids would have been taken years ago.

So who gets to decide?
The majority rules. And if the majority is insane, then I move.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
Dan0923 said:
Isn't it common place for parents to teach kids how to stop, drop and roll, and/or practice getting out of your house in the case of a fire? Don't we teach them how to deal with strangers they don't know? How to memorize their address and parents names? Why drugs are bad for them (often showing burned out or stoned people to really drive the point home)Practicing for nuclear fallout used to be VERY common in the US.
Because fires, strangers, getting lost, drug use and nuclear attack are/were realistic scenarios with a high likelihood of occurring.

Dan0923 said:
Why is it that NOW that practice makes a parrent unsuited to raise his/her children, in your view?!

Because Mayans successfully predicting the end of the world is an unrealistic scenario with a low likelihood of occurring.


That is pretty much the issue in a nutshell, and (should be) the last word on the subject.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

A discussion on a different approach to mental illness
Replies
9
Views
3K
Is Personal Experience a Valid Foundation for Understanding Mental Illness?
2
Replies
40
Views
13K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top