Doomday Prepping

Thanks Pro! I can argue against your point, but I see more benefit in making my own positive remarks. That way we both share BoP for our sides. Opening: It is a bad idea to prep for disasters as a habitual lifestyle. I will examine several types of disasters that one might prep for and show why doomsday prepping is not the proper behavior: 1) natural disasters with terrible consequences, such as the destruction of power/electricity sources and homes. Doomsday prepping is non-specific, as it implies that you are preparing for a disaster about which you do not know. However, this is not the job of citizens in the case of natural disasters. We have divisions of government whose job it is to predict disasters, build resources to protect against them, and to operate smoothly and rebuild areas if they occur. Natural disasters are the most likely of all the "doomsday" scenarios to occur, and it follows that we have high-ranking teams of individuals working on this problem. Everyone from first responders to FEMA is ready to help people in the event of these cases, and those who prep for doomsday, unless they join in the ranks of these forces, are not going to be able to prep for every scenario that might occur as a result of natural disasters. Proper behavior would prep the community and infrastructure for disaster, not the individual or home. 2) war/invasion The US military is incredibly powerful, and yet it is spread out across the world in large part. This is because there has not been a land invasion of US soil for over a century. Both Germany and Japan, arguably two of the largest standing armies at the height of WW2, both decided against attacks on US land. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] For this reason, US citizens have not had to worry about land battles drastically afflicting their living spaces since the Civil War. So the chances of a hostile land invasion are so small as to be virtually impossible, especially with intelligence committees working against them. Threats on US soil have been largely domestic in nature, or terrorism, both of which have little bearing on the doomsday argument. 3) nuclear war The hot topic to panic over is the potential for nuclear strikes. Much literature exists on this issue, and this article argues that non-global or terroristic nuclear war is highly unlikely, while nuclear war on a large scale is more likely. [http://eds.b.ebscohost.com...] So, what would nuclear war look like? Most likely the deaths of most humans right off the bat, with the harmful effects of radiation and the environmental concerns finishing off the rest. I can see why a doomsday prepper might expect a slight advantage in this situation, however the threat of nuclear war carries with it damages that no amount of preserved food, guns, or survivalist training can match. 4) cosmic interference/mass impact There is always the possibility, however unlikely, that a meteor will hit you, killing you instantly. This possibility holds for the entire Earth as well, and, while we have teams to address this concern, it is not clear that we would be able to deal with an event like this in a way that would save the human population. My argument with this point is that if doomsday prepping is good for you even if the doom is not likely, how would you prep for situations like this? There is no way to, or at least not in the conventional, survivalist tactic. Since this threat is real and would require an enormous amount of teamwork and study to combat, I see it as detrimental to prepare for the end of the world by working on your survivalist skills, whereas you could devote that energy towards endeavors that could lead to the increased chance of survival for humans in general, including yourself. [http://eds.b.ebscohost.com...] From these four examples of disaster situations, I believe I have made some points about the negative aspects of doomsday prepping in general. To state them explicitly, however, is helpful: -Doomsday prepping requires that extensive time, effort, money, etc. be put into preparing for situations that are unlikely to occur, to the detriment of potential for these resources to be used more effectively -Doomsday preppers may be interested in saving only themselves, possibly to the detriment of others, and for these individuals the prepping would actually be more harmful to any humans that survive in a disaster -Doomsday prepping often requires its followers to stash away extensive supplies of food and water, resources that could be used to help those worldwide who are hungry and dying, a real problem that we don't have to assume a hypothetical to address -Doomsday prepping as a culture has the potential to contribute to mass hysteria and create a "demand" for evidence showing the likelihood of such disasters, which can very easily take away efforts and time from researchers who would otherwise be addressing more crucial concerns I have summoned my arguments against doomsday prepping. I thank Pro for bringing this topic to light, as I think it is relevant and there is a lot to learn! Pro, message me in the comments section about access to my sources. If you have any trouble seeing them, let me know and I'll find a way to make them accessible for this debate.