• Welcome to Life In The Wilderness

    You are currently viewing the site as a guest and some content may not be available to you.

    Registration is quick and easy and will give you full access to the site and allow you to ask questions or make comments and join in on the conversation. If you would like to join then please Register

Precious Metals as Diversification

Ystranc

Moderator
Messages
5,717
Points
1,350
To be absolutely clear, we didn't buy gold to trade with after the collapse of society. It started by accident as we got some at auction but it soon became an idea for improving our finances right now. I repeat, this gold was not intended as a post apocalyptic trade item...simply a mechanism to help us pay off the mortgage earlier than we would have otherwise been able to.
 
Messages
3,364
Points
1,180
To be absolutely clear, we didn't buy gold to trade with after the collapse of society. It started by accident as we got some at auction but it soon became an idea for improving our finances right now. I repeat, this gold was not intended as a post apocalyptic trade item...simply a mechanism to help us pay off the mortgage earlier than we would have otherwise been able to.
Glad it worked out for you Mike. I got into property quite a while back as part of the pension plan and all round financial security, when 2008 happened I just pulled my head in as I'm not much of a gambler by inclination, planned on having a lot more but just stopped. You do what works for YOU.
 

Ystranc

Moderator
Messages
5,717
Points
1,350
Exactly Andy, the thing is that I've been doing a bit of buying and selling as long as I can remember. Some property (decorating new kitchen central heating and bathroom etc.) cars, pocket knives etc. Sometimes it's almost like a game and the money is a way of keeping score.
 

Baytree

Slightly Addicted
Messages
309
Points
610
Age
56
I remember reading somewhere that gold is essentially a stable store of wealth. The example given was that an ounce of gold would buy a decent toga in ancient Rome and an ounce now will buy you a Saville Row suit . Of course there are periodically movements in it's price over the short term but long term the value remains roughly consistent. The other downside is that gold doesn't provide an income. Ok so there's not a huge amount of interest on money in the bank but there's definately none on precious metals unless one makes money by selling them.
We have a small amount of gold and silver which if i'm honest we keep because we don't need the wealth stored in them as yet. We don't keep them with a view to societal collapse . If anything i'm not even sure we could keep or rather afford to buy the amount of gold that would be needed in such a situation. To use an historical example i remember watching a programme about the jewish gettos during the second world war and in that programme a shopkeeper was saying he was swapping ten marks worth of bread for jewellery worth hundreds or even a thousand marks.
An often put forward argument is that "you can't eat gold" which is true of course but then there hasn't been a time when that gold wouldn't buy food. Perhaps it should be added that "you can't eat tools either" .Another thing people say is that barter is the way to go which relies on the other fellow having what you want and him having what you want. He may have a container full of tools but they aren't really much use if i'm after seeds or asprins. Gold and silver are just another commodity that can be bartered with perhaps more exchangability. That said i don't think we are going all Mad Max anytime soon. Actually going off topic , but why didn't anyone have an electric car in those films?
Personally we see PM's as part of the whole picture , a sort of not keeping all your eggs in one basket type of thing .
 

IAM ODIN

Very Talkative
Messages
50
Points
280
Hi all, first time im reading this thread, its interesting stuff and ceratinly makes me think and contemplate.
Im a complete novuce at this thinking malarky lol.
But my thoughts initially would be weapons of any sort, food, water or a method of keeping it purified, seeds (crop), easy things though i aint thinking wheat, a modicum of gold/silver would always i reckon have people wanting it as in history. Its useless but always has been valuble in some way, maps, transport that doesnt rely on a fuel source and a very good knowledge and high ability to find/get food/water/ build shelter if required without reliance on others, knowledge of doing your own medical care and a stock of medicines are a must.
I may be completely wrong and look forward to hearing if you agree or not.
I have probably missed stuff.
Regards
 

Ystranc

Moderator
Messages
5,717
Points
1,350
Hi all, first time im reading this thread, its interesting stuff and ceratinly makes me think and contemplate.
Im a complete novuce at this thinking malarky lol.
But my thoughts initially would be weapons of any sort, food, water or a method of keeping it purified, seeds (crop), easy things though i aint thinking wheat, a modicum of gold/silver would always i reckon have people wanting it as in history. Its useless but always has been valuble in some way, maps, transport that doesnt rely on a fuel source and a very good knowledge and high ability to find/get food/water/ build shelter if required without reliance on others, knowledge of doing your own medical care and a stock of medicines are a must.
I may be completely wrong and look forward to hearing if you agree or not.
I have probably missed stuff.
Regards
The most important asset that I can imagine after the collapse of society is someone that you can trust. Someone with a different skill set but similar values who can be trusted to have your back in any situation. It may be that a sense of obligation and friendship are the most reliable currencies. This goes diametrically against a lot of the lone wolf (lower case meaning the ideology, not the person) survivalist/prepper ideas.
 

Gulfalan67

Extremely Talkative
Messages
128
Points
420
The most important asset that I can imagine after the collapse of society is someone that you can trust. Someone with a different skill set but similar values who can be trusted to have your back in any situation. It may be that a sense of obligation and friendship are the most reliable currencies. This goes diametrically against a lot of the lone wolf (lower case meaning the ideology, not the person) survivalist/prepper ideas.
Im really interested in this thread ystranc. Thanks for starting it. I agree absolutely with your comment above. And Id like to delve deeper and draw on collective experience with a further related question. What would be the ideal number of team members in a pioneering or survival situation? Are there diminishing returns if the group gets too big? If so, why? Does decision making become too complicated?

In my own current situation we are three ( two peeps and a dog), but its not a survival situation. However gotta say even we three have problems holding it together at times. What happens when you want to go away a few days? If somebody falls sick? Most of the early pioneers out bush had larger groups and even small family stations today usually have five or six pairs of hands...

So whats a good functional size team for the wilderness?

Alan
 

Ark79

Site Manager
Staff member
Messages
14,364
Points
1,590
A would say, in a survival situation the more the better, a situation where repopulating was necessary, also the more the better.

ideally,if for a better way off life after a catastrophic situation where life has changed drastically, then “tribes” of 20 roughly! Dotted out over the land would benefit survival, anything else would result in a need for a higher form of governance imo, and a continuation in the way systems work at the moment, or progression back to the way life is now.

there are tribes today that function well with a simple hierarchy and no need for progress past there way of life. However a don’t fancy having bones or wood suck through my nose and ears or feathers in my hair so we would have to change a few things 🙄 wouldn’t wear an animal skin thong neither (well maybe 😊) but only at the weekends 😂
 

Gulfalan67

Extremely Talkative
Messages
128
Points
420
Good points all Ark79

But don't underrate yerself in that animal skin thong! 🤣

But Im not sure I agree with 'the more people the better'. Im guessing you mean people with particular and complementary skills. Thats the excellent point ystranc made above.

There is a certain amount of unskilled work that needs doing, but probably not enough to carry people without appropriate skills or aptitudes. Our frustration with just two peeps is that so many jobs need more than one pair of hands (even just to hold things while you work on them). Obviously the dog can't help. So I radio the wife and she drives out and thats an hour of her day's work gone too!

Skilled division of labour seems to be an element of all successful human endeavours, so having the right team both quantively and qualitively seems to be important.
 
Messages
3,364
Points
1,180
Im really interested in this thread ystranc. Thanks for starting it. I agree absolutely with your comment above. And Id like to delve deeper and draw on collective experience with a further related question. What would be the ideal number of team members in a pioneering or survival situation? Are there diminishing returns if the group gets too big? If so, why? Does decision making become too complicated?

In my own current situation we are three ( two peeps and a dog), but its not a survival situation. However gotta say even we three have problems holding it together at times. What happens when you want to go away a few days? If somebody falls sick? Most of the early pioneers out bush had larger groups and even small family stations today usually have five or six pairs of hands...

So whats a good functional size team for the wilderness?

Alan

Alan, I would guess the expected duration and anticipated threat would play a part in the optimal size of the group. Food sources and water could well dictate the numbers that can be supported too. People have evolved into being social animals, partly for survival & safety but also because most people work better with others and there is a better chance of finding a 'mate' which is another basic instinct. On the back of that, if this scenario is long term, you'll need replacements for those who die or incapacitated or just get old.
 

Ystranc

Moderator
Messages
5,717
Points
1,350
I think that the most relevant thing is the "similar values."
Holding similar values would imply that the group would broadly be in agreement over most things. I don't believe that there is an ideal maximum number for any group or extended network of small groups as long as all members of that group/network conform to similar social rules. Larger groups are better able to accommodate members who injured or old but still able to contribute to the group in ways that may be less physically demanding but still require hands on knowledge or experience.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,539
Points
960
The question of ideal group size when relating to basic survival is difficult to define. A large group exhausts resources in the immediate area quicker than a small group, but with more people the area can be expanded easier. More people heightens the chance that one or more will have different aims or standards than the rest. It's easier to find a few people with a common aim than many people and so on...

From a purely practical point of view when speaking of undertaking tasks and operating on a 'common agreement' kind of basis, 10 people, in my experience worked well, for many years I worked in a 10 man system.
3 teams of 3 and an Admin man ( I say man, it could of course be a woman in any role)
3 on work or operations, 3 on standby to back up or assist, 3 on rest or training ( personal admin etc: ) 1 on team admin and overseeing the job/task/problem in general.

The requirements are of course that all members need to be equally skilled/motivated and the various roles are carried out in rotation to avoid unnecessary stress or boredom with repetitive tasks. Individual members cannot 'be carried' they must maintain an equal level of personal commitment and team spirit.
People can 'pair off' if they need to, and a 10 man group is a reasonable size that allows members to feel included, much bigger and a 'them and us' syndrome can creep in.

But without a lot of luck, or a selection process, it would not be easy to find 10 such people from the general public, but perhaps in a widespread survival situation such small groups would form, comprised of...Bush Crafters, Preppers or people already operating in small self supporting groups..Allotment Holders for instance.

It's all pure guess work though, self discipline is crucial in any system and a quick look at the Lake District, Snowdon or City centre Night Clubs when people are being asked to cooperate with simple rules of separation does not bode well for many in more serious situations...
 

Baytree

Slightly Addicted
Messages
309
Points
610
Age
56
I seem to recall an antropolgic article that came to the conclsion that the "natural" size of a human community was around 80-150. They came to this figure by looking at indigenous tribes around the world ( not forgetting that figure includes everyone from babies to old people) and also at the number of people most have interaction with or are friends with but obviously not including the hundreds of friends some have on facebook and the like. A military company also falls into those figures. Having that number of people allows for enough bio diversity so we don't end up marrying our own sister and there are sufficient people to go out hunting , farming and the like while still allowing some to care for the very old and very young.
 

Ark79

Site Manager
Staff member
Messages
14,364
Points
1,590
I seem to recall an antropolgic article that came to the conclsion that the "natural" size of a human community was around 80-150. They came to this figure by looking at indigenous tribes around the world ( not forgetting that figure includes everyone from babies to old people) and also at the number of people most have interaction with or are friends with but obviously not including the hundreds of friends some have on facebook and the like. A military company also falls into those figures. Having that number of people allows for enough bio diversity so we don't end up marrying our own sister and there are sufficient people to go out hunting , farming and the like while still allowing some to care for the very old and very young.




Makes sense
 
Top