Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Wile E Coyote, Genius.
Joined
·
33,875 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A thought occurred to me. There are so many possible threats out there, that seem to require in depth research and special educational background, that no 1 human could possibly hope to gain enough background knowledge to wade through all of the conflicting reports and arrive at true knowledge of the subject matter. Whether we are talking about EMPs, aliens, Sandy Hook, Chem trails, GMOs, diseases, vaccines, weapons, bee colony collapse, spying, plots to control world finances, disarm citizens, take over the world, etc... the list is daunting to say the least. (Just the list is probable a page or more long.

And in the rare instance of someone actually getting it all figured out in a particular area, they can't hope to convince enough others of the pure truth that they have finally arrived at, to benefit society.

The vast majority of people do not have the educational background and the thousands of hours needed to fully research any of these kind of topics. (or perhaps even have access to the information which may be withheld from public access).

Government divides itself into specialties, and (when functioning for the overall good of those it represents), appoints people with the right education and experience to dedicate their lives to the understanding and policy making for each of the many areas that impact our lives.

Given the considerable size of the membership here, perhaps certain individuals with reasonable backgrounds for each area of investigation, could voluntarily be arranged in a similar manner and take the responsibility for informing the board of the truth in their area of expertise and concentration, as best they can determine. The basis involving a considerable amount of trust. I see that already seems to happen naturally anyway in certain topic areas. usually 2 to 4 people with obvious stand-out backgrounds on a topic tend to emerge and be recognized as such

I don't know if anyone has the kind of time to commit, but just throwing it out as an idea. I know that people with doctorate degrees in Physics, biology, medicine, engineering, economics etc are already probably working at 110% for their chosen vocation (and being well paid to do so). But trying to make sense of all of these areas of discussion as a single individual is just a recipe for burn-out. A noble but impossible quest.

And when attempts at sharing bits of knowledge happen spontaneously, often result in a heated debate between someone who has figured out some truth and someone else who wishes to prevent others from knowing that truth, or simply has a different and less informed opinion. leaving the masses almost as uninformed as when they started. (Assuming there is an actual right answer and correct understanding. Usually there is a truth. And knowing that truth is important. Everyone knowing that truth. Not just the 1 person that arrived at it.

If nothing else, typing this post has made me appreciate the importance of trust in our government. Somehow, government needs to re-earn that trust and the people need to give that trust and verify that that trust has been properly placed, much as Reagan said.
 

·
Avoidance & Deterrence
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

I think he was right.
 

·
crustulum latro
Joined
·
7,715 Posts
You are correct, no 1 human can get it all. The best possible solution is a group approach.
Even then, there is the distinct potential to miss something. As for educational requirements, I would disagree to some extent. The average intelligence is capable of sorting out most things, but the individual not classically educated in a given subject will take longer. Remember, those PHD's etc you speak of had to learn themselves, they were not born knowing.

Withstanding all that, no matter how smart, well organized, funded, etc, even government has recognized the need for small unit tactics. Small groups of people who can think outside the box applying critical thinking and people with varying specialty, can accomplish with 36 people what the megalithic organization cannot.
For such groups, trust in the team is critical. They are by nature putting their fate into their teammates hands. Such a group can accomplish a better understanding without being bogged down by the bug dust.
Evidence of that approach is everywhere.

A thought occurred to me. There are so many possible threats out there, that seem to require in depth research and special educational background, that no 1 human could possibly hope to gain enough background knowledge to wade through all of the conflicting reports and arrive at true knowledge of the subject matter. Whether we are talking about EMPs, aliens, Sandy Hook, Chem trails, GMOs, diseases, vaccines, weapons, bee colony collapse, spying, plots to control world finances, disarm citizens, take over the world, etc... the list is daunting to say the least. (Just the list is probable a page or more long.

And in the rare instance of someone actually getting it all figured out in a particular area, they can't hope to convince enough others of the pure truth that they have finally arrived at, to benefit society.

The vast majority of people do not have the educational background and the thousands of hours needed to fully research any of these kind of topics. (or perhaps even have access to the information which may be withheld from public access).

Government divides itself into specialties, and (when functioning for the overall good of those it represents), appoints people with the right education and experience to dedicate their lives to the understanding and policy making for each of the many areas that impact our lives.

Given the considerable size of the membership here, perhaps certain individuals with reasonable backgrounds for each area of investigation, could voluntarily be arranged in a similar manner and take the responsibility for informing the board of the truth in their area of expertise and concentration, as best they can determine. The basis involving a considerable amount of trust. I see that already seems to happen naturally anyway in certain topic areas. usually 2 to 4 people with obvious stand-out backgrounds on a topic tend to emerge and be recognized as such

I don't know if anyone has the kind of time to commit, but just throwing it out as an idea. I know that people with doctorate degrees in Physics, biology, medicine, engineering, economics etc are already probably working at 110% for their chosen vocation (and being well paid to do so). But trying to make sense of all of these areas of discussion as a single individual is just a recipe for burn-out. A noble but impossible quest.

And when attempts at sharing bits of knowledge happen spontaneously, often result in a heated debate between someone who has figured out some truth and someone else who wishes to prevent others from knowing that truth, or simply has a different and less informed opinion. leaving the masses almost as uninformed as when they started. (Assuming there is an actual right answer and correct understanding. Usually there is a truth. And knowing that truth is important. Everyone knowing that truth. Not just the 1 person that arrived at it.

If nothing else, typing this post has made me appreciate the importance of trust in our government. Somehow, government needs to re-earn that trust and the people need to give that trust and verify that that trust has been properly placed, much as Reagan said.
 

·
crustulum latro
Joined
·
7,715 Posts
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

I think he was right.
From the character Jubal Harshaw; Time enough for love
 
  • Like
Reactions: sheandi6

·
Optimist
Joined
·
771 Posts
I can see those with specialized knowledge would be a great asset to a group, but singularly the possibilities of personal bias could creep in.

In one instance a friend had to get some serious dental work done. One set specializing in just that procedure charged large sums however when the work was done by individuals a better outcome was the result at more than half the cost. Yes it took a little longer but I believe that was why the procedure worked out better.

IMHO
 

·
Wile E Coyote, Genius.
Joined
·
33,875 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
While this is all anecdotal evidence,

I had a horrible experience with a root canal from a general dentist. I had my mouth open for hours. And it was painful. And he missed a nerve, causing it to blow up and require another root canal a year later.

The endodontists have it down to a science. 25 minutes, and they do it right. No comparison what so ever in my experience. (And they were cheaper)

Yes, you should gain competence at a wide variety of life skills. But for the best performance, having a wide variety of specialists is the best. Armies are comprised of a variety of specialty weapons, operated by specially trained people.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
762 Posts
A thought occurred to me. There are so many possible threats out there, that seem to require in depth research and special educational background, that no 1 human could possibly hope to gain enough background knowledge to wade through all of the conflicting reports and arrive at true knowledge of the subject matter. Whether we are talking about EMPs, aliens, Sandy Hook, Chem trails, GMOs, diseases, vaccines, weapons, bee colony collapse, spying, plots to control world finances, disarm citizens, take over the world, etc... the list is daunting to say the least. (Just the list is probable a page or more long.

And in the rare instance of someone actually getting it all figured out in a particular area, they can't hope to convince enough others of the pure truth that they have finally arrived at, to benefit society.

The vast majority of people do not have the educational background and the thousands of hours needed to fully research any of these kind of topics. (or perhaps even have access to the information which may be withheld from public access).

Government divides itself into specialties, and (when functioning for the overall good of those it represents), appoints people with the right education and experience to dedicate their lives to the understanding and policy making for each of the many areas that impact our lives.

Given the considerable size of the membership here, perhaps certain individuals with reasonable backgrounds for each area of investigation, could voluntarily be arranged in a similar manner and take the responsibility for informing the board of the truth in their area of expertise and concentration, as best they can determine. The basis involving a considerable amount of trust. I see that already seems to happen naturally anyway in certain topic areas. usually 2 to 4 people with obvious stand-out backgrounds on a topic tend to emerge and be recognized as such

I don't know if anyone has the kind of time to commit, but just throwing it out as an idea. I know that people with doctorate degrees in Physics, biology, medicine, engineering, economics etc are already probably working at 110% for their chosen vocation (and being well paid to do so). But trying to make sense of all of these areas of discussion as a single individual is just a recipe for burn-out. A noble but impossible quest.

And when attempts at sharing bits of knowledge happen spontaneously, often result in a heated debate between someone who has figured out some truth and someone else who wishes to prevent others from knowing that truth, or simply has a different and less informed opinion. leaving the masses almost as uninformed as when they started. (Assuming there is an actual right answer and correct understanding. Usually there is a truth. And knowing that truth is important. Everyone knowing that truth. Not just the 1 person that arrived at it.

If nothing else, typing this post has made me appreciate the importance of trust in our government. Somehow, government needs to re-earn that trust and the people need to give that trust and verify that that trust has been properly placed, much as Reagan said.
I wish that what you were asking was within the realm of possibility.

Many years ago I stumbled into an area of the law after having been involved in the political aspects of an issue. You'd think that with eleven years of the political activism and then an additional six years would give me the experience necessary in that topic.

Oh, but that's not all. Study was needed on the statistical side of the issue, studying both the quantitative and qualitative issues relating to it. Years of study went into the historical aspects of the issue. Next, a few more years are thrown in, studying the political / psychological aspects of this issue.

In order to understand the issue fully, one had to work on all sides of the subject matter. HOW the issue could be interpreted and misinterpreted to be leveraged against an activist was taken into account. I was on the defense side of the issue; worked on the government's side of it; was an expert witness; was a strategist for those contemplating legislation on every side of it.

It was almost funny. Twenty five years plus AFTER having written news and magazine articles I would see my own research being touted by talking heads like Devvy Kidd and paraphrased on boards (even this one.) But, twenty five year old talking points and changing laws rendered the talking points moot.

But... the public does not want to hear the truth - even when it does not conform to their perceptions. Surely if you challenge the "common wisdom" you must be a traitor, liberal, or maybe draw a paycheck from the left (though I am the only person on the boards that ever actually beat the left in court.)

What I'm telling you is that even when a person with the facts emerges, they cannot over-come the mob mentality and inspire them to sort through all the facts to learn some truths you may not want to hear.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news and your idea is very thoughtful... IF the general public could remember that the mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open.
 

·
Prepare Adapt andOvercome
Joined
·
535 Posts
A thought occurred to me. There are so many possible threats out there, that seem to require in depth research and special educational background, that no 1 human could possibly hope to gain enough background knowledge to wade through all of the conflicting reports and arrive at true knowledge of the subject matter. Whether we are talking about EMPs, aliens, Sandy Hook, Chem trails, GMOs, diseases, vaccines, weapons, bee colony collapse, spying, plots to control world finances, disarm citizens, take over the world, etc... the list is daunting to say the least. (Just the list is probable a page or more long.

And in the rare instance of someone actually getting it all figured out in a particular area, they can't hope to convince enough others of the pure truth that they have finally arrived at, to benefit society.

The vast majority of people do not have the educational background and the thousands of hours needed to fully research any of these kind of topics. (or perhaps even have access to the information which may be withheld from public access).

Government divides itself into specialties, and (when functioning for the overall good of those it represents), appoints people with the right education and experience to dedicate their lives to the understanding and policy making for each of the many areas that impact our lives.

Given the considerable size of the membership here, perhaps certain individuals with reasonable backgrounds for each area of investigation, could voluntarily be arranged in a similar manner and take the responsibility for informing the board of the truth in their area of expertise and concentration, as best they can determine. The basis involving a considerable amount of trust. I see that already seems to happen naturally anyway in certain topic areas. usually 2 to 4 people with obvious stand-out backgrounds on a topic tend to emerge and be recognized as such

I don't know if anyone has the kind of time to commit, but just throwing it out as an idea. I know that people with doctorate degrees in Physics, biology, medicine, engineering, economics etc are already probably working at 110% for their chosen vocation (and being well paid to do so). But trying to make sense of all of these areas of discussion as a single individual is just a recipe for burn-out. A noble but impossible quest.

And when attempts at sharing bits of knowledge happen spontaneously, often result in a heated debate between someone who has figured out some truth and someone else who wishes to prevent others from knowing that truth, or simply has a different and less informed opinion. leaving the masses almost as uninformed as when they started. (Assuming there is an actual right answer and correct understanding. Usually there is a truth. And knowing that truth is important. Everyone knowing that truth. Not just the 1 person that arrived at it.

If nothing else, typing this post has made me appreciate the importance of trust in our government. Somehow, government needs to re-earn that trust and the people need to give that trust and verify that that trust has been properly placed, much as Reagan said.
Your not just a pretty face. Good idea. Well done. Count me in.
 

·
Prepare Adapt andOvercome
Joined
·
535 Posts
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

I think he was right.
I always said there is a lot to learn from nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

I think he was right.
As soon as I saw the title, I knew this would turn up.
 

·
crustulum latro
Joined
·
7,715 Posts
The board probably started out being that kind of team approach. Then it grew in membership. There comes a point where "too many cooks"... but I couldn't say what that number is.
Anything over 36 for something like this. Beyond that number, it should break up into the next group of 36. My opinion.
 

·
Noble Savage
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

I think he was right.
Damn, you beat me to it.
That's actually one of my favorite quotes.
 

·
Wile E Coyote, Genius.
Joined
·
33,875 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Yes, but if you need spine surgery or a heart transplant, you don't want the chief cook and bottle washer performing the operation.
You want the guy that his dedicated his life to the perfection of that one area of expertise. That is 100% confident in his or her abilities from having thousands of previous cases, who has every contingency figured out and fresh in their mind. Who has spent many years studying every bit of background and history on the subject.

I had an experience a couple years ago with a shredded cornea in my right eye. Caused by a combination of allergies, rubbing the itchy eye, taking a Benedryl which dries everything including the eye and REM sleep.

Insanely painful and lost vision in the eye. It was still itchy and the pain was the worst thing I have ever experienced.

Went to a highly regarded eye clinic. The doc recommended a 50,000 dollar operation with no guarantees. The guy was not even looking at my eye. He was very busy typing **** into his computer and reading me bull****.

A couple days later the pain is unbearable. I am screaming in agony. Drive to the ER with 1 eye and the ER doc takes my blood pressure and it is over 200!

They usher me to see the top cornea specialist in Houston and she takes a look with some serious instruments, says this is easy and has her nurse make me an eye bandage lens. In 3 weeks the eye totally heals and my sight returns to better than it was before.

Sometimes you need the best specialist and I am very grateful that they are out there!
 

·
Wile E Coyote, Genius.
Joined
·
33,875 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

I think he was right.
I disagree or at least want to add to it a bit.
I think you should be able to do most of those things, but be better than anyone else at 1 (or more) thing!

Some stuff sounds great in a movie, but I don't want a damned amateur designing a tall building, or running the calculations for a space shot. Or blinding me and charging $50,000 for the privilege. Or charging me double the going rate for a root canal that is agony to sit through, lasts a year and results in a painful abscess, requiring an emergency do-over.

(Insects are wildly successful by the way).
 

·
American fearmaker
Joined
·
14,245 Posts
Robert Heinlein and Eric Frank Russell, author of "Wasp," were my two most favorite authors of science fiction. Heinlein was also a U.S. Navy officer in WW2. The key thing to remember is that, like Russell, Heinlein was a science fiction author. He had a very sharp mind but he believed in the theories of things being perfect, not the realities of things as they are. When he says that specialization is for insects he fails to take into consideration that even some humans excel at becoming specialists. Surgeons, snipers, bomb experts, chemists and so on are all examples of people who are people who have a particular set of skills which allow them to excel in their particular fields or specialties. Regular people are not capable of doing what these specialists are capable of doing when it comes to surgery, shooting a rifle or deactivating a bomb. In my family, chemistry genes are lacking and we all know it. I had a cousin take a kid's chemistry set and blow out the upper corner bedroom to his home with that supposedly "non-dangerous set." To this day nobody knows how he did it. So specialization for some people is a good thing, a powerful thing in some circles. So, while I like Heinlein's writings, I tend to think that he might have missed the mark on his specialization-is-for-insects statement.
 

·
Bad Moon Rising
Joined
·
8,897 Posts
@Justme11

No insult intended, but perhaps what you need is a dose of reality. Reduce the broad spectrum down to a point where it is achievable. No one person can be a SPECIALIZED dentist/endodontist, heart surgeon, brain specialist, psychologist, tactical specialist, etc. etc.

As noted in Post #3, this is why small groups and teams trump individuals. Think Special Forces "A" teams, where each member of the team has at least one area of specialization, and many are cross-trained.

That said, with a nod to Heinlein, you can reduce things down to what may be manageable for a survivalist. Examples: nuclear threats. You can understand enough about fallout, radiological exposure in terms of millirem, etc. to know how long you need to shelter and when it would likely be safe to exit the shelter. You don't need to be a nuclear physicist with a lot of molecular-level research to understand how to build and use a fallout shelter.

You can understand gardening. Canning. How to purify water and set up a gravity flow system to ensure adequate water is purified to meet your daily needs. You can grasp the basics of plumbing, whether its using grey-water for flushing, or some type of humanure-management outhouse or chemical john.

You can understand basic first aid, antibiotics, and the health risks involved in exposure to viral or bacteriological organisms. You may not be able to build a rifle from scratch, but you should know how to maintain one, how to Battlesight Zero a weapon, and how to replace a broken part or spring.

IOW, no - you may not be an accomplished specialist - endocrinologist or an orthodontist, or a chemical engineer, or a pharmacist, etc., but in terms of survival engineering, water management, repair of pumps and small engines, how to weld steel or replace glass windows, how to use tools powered by compressed air, the basics of radio communications and radio maintenance, etc. you could aspire to baseline competence in many diverse fields.

The very basics of many different construction, maintenance, electrical, plumbing, radio, or agricultural (or other fields) - as these pertain to small unit survival, can be learned by a dedicated individual.

And at least as far as I'm concerned, the model that may be most useful is a military model. What other organization is capable of going to absolutely nowhere, and setting up airfields, generators, chow-halls, showers, troop quarters, motor pools, etc. and being able to operate entirely based on small integrated units that are combined in different task-organized structures?

Survival is going to require communal efforts. It has been this way for thousands of years. There may be 'specialists' in the unit, each in their own field, but they must also learn to work together as a unit for defense, offense, or unit survival.

IMO, this is the model that many of us might want to seek to emulate.

Just thoughts...
 

·
Wile E Coyote, Genius.
Joined
·
33,875 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
No insult taken. I think you were repeating my points in fact. :)

No one person can be expert in everything.
We are faced with many rather complicated threats that no single person can fully understand and investigate. (due to lake of time if nothing else).

So yes, I was advocating a team approach, where this person or couple of people are expert in threat #1 whatever it is. They are selected by the group due to their knowledge and interest in that topic. The group in making that selection tacitly agrees to accept their findings on that topic. 9-11 was done by X. because of Y, Z, K.
Maybe a bit of education and discussion happens, but then the group incorporates this knowledge as truth and proceeds to then understand the next topic.

and so on..

A disciplined, reasoned, logical approach.

Teams that are functional tend to beat out individual performance by a wide margin.

The military is a great example. it is not just 10,000 guys with rifles and grenades.
You have snipers, scouts, heavy weapons operators, radio operators, cooks, medics, artillerymen, GIs, paratroopers, etc. which proves much more effective. They all can pick up a rifle and do the basics, but they have specialized in an organized way to make a much more effective team.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top