As many of us have pointed out, the danger with novel coronavirus (Beer Flu) is NOT the 0.1 and 1.0 percent death rate (or the even lower rates now stated by some epidemiology experts) , or the 5-10 percent severe illness rate, or the 25-75 percent infection rate. Rather the danger is the governmental, economic, and political reaction: the panic.
This is real, and is happening now, as you can see in this video from California, at a port. But it is supposed to get worse once the actual pandemic is over. Millions and millions face a dim future.
Forecasts are that millions of tons of manufactured goods, parts, and raw materials are NOT being exported from China, India, the United States, and Europe. And it isn’t just MacDonalds Kids Meals toys. Combined with the virtual end of tourism in virtually every part of the world, and growing shortages of essential items (sometimes real and sometimes caused by panic buying), economic activity around the world is taking a nose dive. Coupled with forced “social distancing” closing stores, restaurants, and more and more offices, urban areas and regions are suffering and will suffer more.
But we don’t have to panic, and we don’t have to go massively into debt buying stuff and doing things to survive or give the economy “a boost.” Even if we are not as well prepared as we want to be. Because we CAN deal with catastrophes. And we will deal with this one.
Especially those of us in small, more remote communities. Let us think about the advantages that small, often remote, communities have in dealing with catastrophes. (And later, let’s look at disadvantages.)
Mama Liberty wrote a short story a few years back which portrayed a small Wyoming city dealing with Final Collapse. I have not been able to locate her final version, but am planning on posting the most recent version I have, as a page on the webzine.
Mama’s story is both fun to read and intended to be a teaching tool. We CAN survive in small rural and frontier communities in case of a rapid or abrupt future collapse of the FedGov, our state governments, and urban life. In many ways, perhaps we can survive better.
And not just in the Western States: the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. This can be true in the farmlands of Ukraine and steppes of Russia, the deserts of Algeria or Outer Mongolia, or the mountains of Peru or Argentina.
Perhaps the biggest reason is a very simple one – there are fewer people around. So, assuming that only a few people are the “criminal” scumbags that are parasites on everyone around them, or just plain mean, there are a lot fewer of them too. And because that sort of people need “donors” to live off of, there are even fewer of them in rural and frontier areas because they head off to the big cities where the pickings are better. And easier.
But there are other reasons, not necessarily tied to lower population or population density. For one thing, many basic resources are more ready to hand. Not just more readily available but easier to get and keep. And less of those resources are necessary to just survive: especially time and money. Rent (or home ownership) is cheaper. Food and clothing and small luxuries are often less costly. And it easier to go into business, find work in small businesses, and even get a good – read, adequate – education.
Not only that, but it is more likely in a small community that we know (or have a good idea) just who are the bad actors. Even if the authorities haven’t been able to deal with them (or have refused to).
In small communities, there usually is less government of all kinds. And not surprising, there is less crime. There are, of course, many reasons for this, but it is a general rule. That means there are fewer “legal” parasites. And less reason for them.
Even in larger, more densely populated urban, suburban, and rural areas, it is possible to create and maintain small communities and enjoy some of these advantages. Still, it is far better and easier to move out of the big urban areas which will suffer far more.
Think on these things.