How to survive global warming and economic collapse?

Any tips? I feel like soykaf is hitting the fan and I want to be ready

im going to north africa. lots of coast line for fishing. and i doubt there will be a total economic collapse just a western one, everything will shift to china/africa and europe/merica will die off.

>>60816 - Get physical books so you can have access to knowledge and entertainment even without electricity or Internet access - Move to the countryside - Grow potatoes in buckets/start gardening - Get a Swiss army knife or a Leatherman multitool - http://collapseos.org

>>60818 >Books I've been doing this for a few years. I would highly recommend it, I've probably got about 900 or so books and its just growing indefinitely. >Move to countryside :) >Start gardening Absolutely true, but this is something that should have been started earlier so you can learn from your mistakes. >multitool of some type Sure, but you may want to get your hands on an axe, hatchet, saw, hammer, and maybe replacements for them. Having a way to collect, store, and clean water is important. Another good resource is being polite and friendly to your neighbors. If something goes down, they will want people they can rely on and you will want people you can rely on. Learn a few skills to be just that much more useful.

Wouldn't worry about it, if both the economy and the planet's ecology both collapse then you'll be dead in a matter of months anyway.

>>60828 Could easily live the vault dweller life in a proper prepper bunker. It the world turns soykaf just gotta isolate from world.

>>60829 Works great until you stop getting stuff from the outside that you need. Just ask NASA how hard it is to maintain a completely closed environment. >>60828 Reality check: true collapse takes multiple generations. Its not like a sudden cataclysm will end the world (no matter how much Christians and other doomsayers wish it were so), instead life just gets a little bit harder every year. This is of course assuming nobody drops the bomb.

>>60833 >not like a sudden cataclysm will end the world If anything ends the world, it will most likely have some elements of 'sudden cataclysm'. Of course, its pretty unlikely that the world is going to suddenly end any time soon. But hey, it could, and if it will it'll be by a sudden cataclysm. >This is of course assuming nobody drops the bomb. OH YES. The Bomb. The Bomb that may or may not work any more. The Bomb whose cousins have already been used by the thousand. The Bomb that annihilated the city of Hiroshima, whos population swiftly recovered after the war and now is over 1 million ? That Bomb ? That the one you're talking about ?

>>60839 You're completely fuarrrking retarded if you don't think the bomb is effective. If it's really just a MASSIVE psyop and thermonuclear weaponry doesn't work, then why the fuarrrk is everyone so afraid of radiation, so afraid of cancer? You sound like someone who's so fuarrrking contrarian that they've decided to even oppose the most obvious facts as presented by ALL SIDES OF HISTORY telling us that nuclear weapons are deadly, destructive, and leave places all fuarrrked up. Or do you want to provide a fuarrrking reason for why Iran hasn't deployed nukes onto israel, why israel hasn't nuked palestine, why russia hasn't nuked ukraine, etc. You fuarrrking incompetent spastic.

>>60842 hey calm down guy

>>60844 Shut yo gooofy aaaahhh up. You have nothing to say, so don't say anything.

Can't have a technocratic prison planet without electricity. The best investment is in diverse skills, increasing your value/income, supporting businesses and organizations that minimize or eliminate their dependency of the established systems, and knowledge of your changing environment.

>>60845 i do have something to say actually: you are a crybaby

>>60850 Haha people are such pussies nukes are NOTHING *dies in nuclear hellfire NOOOO HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!!!

>>60842 hey hey now I don't mean to say the Bomb isn't a nasty thing--it surely seems to be--but I don't think its sooo overwhelmingly more nasty than all the other nasty things we've got. I know some people who got to crawl around in the craters and watch the bombs from varying distances, and I'm pretty convinced they're real, but at the end of the day a bomb's a bomb and a very big bomb is, well, a very big bomb. You don't want to be around where one goes off but the danger falls off pretty fast the further out you are. Radiation, fallout, these are also dangers, but its not like everyone in Las Vegas got sterilized by the nukes out there. Full on Nuclear War would be devastating for a country, but people are tough and would live on anyway--I very much doubt it would extinct us. The point about how maybe they don't work isn't meant as a conspiracy theory that they never existed--far from. But there's very real concerns about degredation of nuclear warheads over long periods of time; what sort of maintainance they may need and that sort of thing, and a lot of open questions. There's a chance that the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia and all the rest are basically perfect, or anyway good enough, and there's a chance that very few of them work, or that many or most work in a degraded fashion. Its difficult to test because its illegal, and the Current World Order is sort of dependant on the threat they pose--if you test one and find its a dud, well then all hell could break loose. The US has developed an extremely cautious attitude in some areas and it wouldn't want to risk it, so we don't really know until they trying to use them. Why hasn't Iran done it to Israel, or Russia to Ukraine ? Well for one thing it doesn't make a great deal of sense in some types of wars, for the same reason that firebombing enemy cities to toast doesn't make sense in some types of wars. The wars against Germany and Japan were run under the assumption that violent bombing of cities would break the spirit of the enemy civilians and shorten the war; thats why they ruined downtown Dresden, ruined Tokyo, and kept running air raids on London during the Blitz. It didn't exactly work on the Germans, or the Brits, but I guess it did ultimately sort of reach the Japanese Emporer so maybe there's something to the theory. But not all wars are like that. I don't so carefully follow the Israel v. Iran conflict, but in the Ukrainian situation, the Russians aren't trying to beat the people of Ukraine into submission, nor exterminate them nor even utterly destroy their infrastructure; for the most part it seems they'd like to remove the government, leaving the infrastructure intact. Many in Ukraine strongly associate with Russia anyway, and some have been being bombed by the Ukrainian government for the better part of a decade. The Russians are in position to be seen as liberators, and that is what they'd like to be.

>>60855 Typical. You're yet another Putler apologist apologizing for all the heinous soykaf Putler's dark legion of orcs has been wrecking on the poor people of Ukraine.

>>60856 PUTLER DID NOTHING WRONG

>>60839 >If anything ends the world, it will most likely have some elements of 'sudden cataclysm Why would this be so? Even something like a large asteroid impact doesn't kill everything all at once. >The Bomb that may or may not work any more. They're pretty shelf-stable once they've been built, AFAIK. >The Bomb that annihilated the city of Hiroshima, whos population swiftly recovered after the war and now is over 1 million ? That Bomb ? That the one you're talking about ? Actually I'm talking about the H-bomb, which is up to 1000 times more powerful, and wouldn't be detonated in a single city that is carefully selected for favorable wind currents. If nuclear war happened right now, hundreds of millions of people would probably die within a few days, mostly from radiation sickness, which is a really awful way to go.