/k/ - Weapons

>>330505

>potatoes

>potatoes

thats pretty much it

>>330516

So what you're saying is that your life is potato, strelok.

Preserve with various subtances whatever it is that you want to eat or drink at a later point.

And/or become very good at identifying local things to eat on the go that don't require cooking.

Maybe you should look at how armies travelled and ate before the times of Napoléon.

>>330505

>What I'm saying is, if you had to grow your own food for innawoods cheeki breeki stuff, what would you go for, to cover as many angles as possible?

Not counting the obvious ones like Avacadoes or Oranges which are not feasible since they only grow on mature trees

Essentials

Potatoes

Tomatoes

Spinach

Various herbs like basil, mint, and coriander (cilantro), some herbs will actually drive away insect pests and improve the health of nearby plants

Optional extras

Kale

Onions

Garlic

Ginger

>>330505

Roots and herbs only. Fruit on perennial plants if you have a place, but they require that you are there at a specific time, so very hit or miss, especially if they bear irregularly. For me, potatoes are usually good or at least edible year round, carrots make it through the winter with good flavor, losing maybe half to rotting after freezing or rodents. Sweet potatoes are fine if you can get to them before frost. Turnips are easy as hell though I don't know what food value they have (not a fan.)

Meat and fat make are more important.

Jerky's a good way to preserve meat. Although you'd need more water as it's super high in sodium.

>>330581

You need more water because it's a dehydrated food, and mostly protein. Low-carb diets need more salt, so in that case it might equal out if you have that and a fat source.

Yeah, it take a shitload of water to digest meat, never mind jerky.

Multivitamins will help you make the most of what you eat, and fill in for a lot of what you don't, but fats, water, protein, and fiber are still required to prevent bad times.

I don't suppose an aquaponics setup and greenhouse would be out of the question?

>>330669

If you can make something like that work in the situation described in the OP, go nuts.

There are just too many people in North America for subsistence farming or, most laughably, foraging to support them.

If current industrialized system of farming is even slightly damaged, about 50 million people will starve. And contrary to popular belief they don't just drop dead, in reality these starving people turn into desperate brigands, thieves, murderers, doing anything it takes to survive.

Currently America has 400,000 active criminals in the country. Consider what the situation will look like with 50 million active criminals. Gangs will increase from ten to a hundred strong, to hundreds of thousands strong.

No man, we need modern farming or we're fucked.

>>330569

What manner of slav are you?

I've had a few friends from there, it seems they hate each other within the balkans, but the moment they move out from the area they start intermixing.

>>330835

That's not the point. I'm suggesting subsistence farming on a small scale in a SHTF scenario. That's what you're forgetting. In a SHTF scenario, not everybody is going to be a chimp or a cheeki breeki strelok. A lot of them are going to die.

I'm asking, what would you attempt to grow/forage to support yourself in /k/'s wet dream.

>>330898

And I'm saying this:

>A lot of them are going to die.

Doesn't happen easily.

Surviving that part is many, many times more important than knowing how to subsistence farm 100 years after the violence is over.

>>330911

Explain?

>>330913

Be more specific.

>>330911

>The US grows enough wheat alone to account for 1 lb per person, per day.

Not only that but they are forced to stop growing food so that the prices won't nosedive, fuel and fertilizer are much bigger problems than growing the food at all.

>>330966

>implying you cant make fuel and fertilizer from food

>>330969

Fuel only from a few different types of food. Fertilizer definitely, but nowhere near fast enough to sustain the agriculture-based economy.

>>330835

We give Russia alone enough wheat, for free, to bake 10 loaves of whole wheat bread per russian per day, because Russia supposedly cannot feed itself (they produce more wheat than we do by an order of magnitude).

In return they turn around and sell it to eastern European/middle eastern countries at a profit.

We give several million tons of soybeans a year to Cambodia, which has a total population of less than twice that of NYC.

We gave Zimbabwe 147 million tons of grain in 1989 alone.

>>330940

>He's talking (I'm guessing)

Yes, in addition to "you need to prepare/dry/store this stuff yourself."

My grandfather grew up in the woods in the 30's. He said that his family would always grow potatoes, onions and cabbages. Potatoes kept well for the winter in the cellar, Onions and cabbages would keep well on the inside, but you would need to peel back the wilted outer leaves when you wanted to eat them. They also made sauerkraut. so much fucking sauerkraut that he has grown a deep hatred for the stuff that he refuses to eat it today. what ever they didn't hunt/grow, they would borrow or trade from neighbors, or sell pulp wood and pelts to buy.

>>330973

>Fuel only from a few different types of food.

nigger you can make it from literaly everything, they are making it from shit or trash from brewery around here. generally if it can fermentate it can be made into biofuel or at least biogas. whole process iirc is just change from one chemical to the chemical of the bigger order, like etanol into esters and so on. shit, if i knew where i put that notebook i would make a fucking lecture.

>>330966

>forced to stop growing food

They're paid to not grow crops. They're paid if their crops fail. I don't think anyone forces them to stop.

>>330969

>implying we want to find more ways to waste money, effort, and soil.

>>330990

You can make it from almost anything, but then again, people or livestock could be eating that stuff, and the shit could be fertilizer.

We (US) have a shitload of oil and gas, and we have ethanol plants that have never ran. The real problem is if transportation is disrupted. Hell, in that case, just keeping the modern equipment and tractors running will probably be the hardest part.

Gonna offer up an example of what I mean, just so people get what I'm talking about.

>yard is filled with fruit trees

So lots of dried fruit in my rations

>plenty of room to grow patches of grains

So maybe something like oats, or home-made flour for quick baking while innawoods

>tons of deer in the woods, not to mention rabbits and fish nearby

Smoked fish and deer jerky anybody?

Guys is there any reasons youre ignoring gassifiers as a fuel solution?

>>331048

>implying that people can eat everything, like fucking straw

People OR Livestock

>>331050

>implying that livestock can eat straw

maybe goats

you are really grasping at straws here.

>>331052

If straw isn't part of something else, leave it in the field for the ground, I doubt it's worth the fuel to rake up, ship, and process, especially when organic matter in soil craps out.

Cattle eat straw. Ruminants are portable fermenters, and instead of alchol or gas, you get meat and fat and hides out of them. And if the shit hits the fan, would you rather be driving around hauling straw and fuel, or keeping your head down, and watching over your cattle doing the work for you?

>>330940

I know, that's what I responded to.

There's no such thing as "local food" that can feed the immense populations we have today. Local food is something very few people can survive on.

This is why I asked you… I responded directly to OP and you're going around saying I got confused.

>But even in a bad scenario, farmers can probably at least get fuel to farm, and still can raise animals. It won't get to complete subsistence levels.

You don't seem to understand.

USA and Canada started out as agricultural colonies with massive food exports. In 2012 our food exports and imports were balanced for the first time in our history. 2015 was the first year America started importing food, and Canada is on the brink of that.

If imports were blocked due to collapse of government, hundreds of millions would starve even if our domestic food production is at 100%. And food production is not going to be 100% in shtf. Neither is food distribution, which is a thousand times more important.

Ergo we're fucked.

Getting through this desperate period is going to be everything we're going to be concerned about, because regardless of if government is restored or post-apocalyptic civilizations form, the crucial post-shtf situation is probably going to kill off most of the people in North America.

>you younguns

I'm probably older than you, and dude, that was really cheap.

>>330966

Google what happened during the great depression.

>>330969

>grow corn

>make ethanol from corn

>use ethanol to plant and farm corn

>mulch up corn for fertilizer

>use fertilizer to grow more corn

>make ethanol from corn

>use ethanol to plant and farm corn

>mulch up corn for fertilizer

>use fertilizer to grow more corn

>make ethanol from corn

>use ethanol to plant and farm corn

>mulch up corn for fertilizer

>use fertilizer to grow more corn

>make ethanol from corn

>use ethanol to plant and farm corn

>mulch up corn for fertilizer

>use fertilizer to grow more corn

>make ethanol from corn

>use ethanol to plant and farm corn

>mulch up corn for fertilizer

>use fertilizer to grow more corn

>make ethanol from corn

>pour oceans of ethanol into giant rockets

>use ethanol-oxygen rockets to send all poles into the sun, because polish people are useless

>polish people contribute to nuclear fusion

>sun is stronger

>sun provides more light

>more corn grows

Perfect plan.

>>330973

>We give Russia alone enough wheat, for free, to bake 10 loaves of whole wheat bread per russian per day, because Russia supposedly cannot feed itself (they produce more wheat than we do by an order of magnitude).

>In return they turn around and sell it to eastern European/middle eastern countries at a profit.

But somehow we're incapable of giving them this wheat? Is this another infinite money machine like Polish Economics up there?

>>330973

>We give Russia alone enough wheat, for free, to bake 10 loaves of whole wheat bread per russian per day, because Russia supposedly cannot feed itself (they produce more wheat than we do by an order of magnitude).

Is this true?

>>330969

>growing crops to develop petrochemicals to grow crops

It's like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up with the handle.

>>331188

just mulch the Poles.

>>331203

Looks like China and the people who do not believe in toilet are ahead of us

>>330505

With it being like that, you might as well become a cannibal and start eating other people.

Do you think this would be summer camp or something?

>>330505

Before you start growing anything, make sure you have the right ground. Mix some charcoal and pottery shards into the ground, around 1 meter (3 feet) deep. It makes plants grow like crazy and keeps the good bacteria alive, a good alternative to conventional fertilizing.

Then check your water and sun. Make sure you plant everything so it gets the amount of water and light it needs. Also various plants work well together and keep pests away.

The rest is up to climate in your area. Some places you can grow all year round basically, others are more restrictive. If you can, try some indoor gardening/hydroponics/aquaponics. If you don't want to make such an effort, just hang grow bags everywhere and use towers for more space.

Then start growing based on season.

You need proteins, fats and carbohydrates as macro nutrients, vitamins and minerals as micro nutrients.

For proteins I recommend Amaranth (full amino acid profile), legumes (full profile with rice) and nuts (hazel mostly).

For fats you want nuts too, but you can also draw on wild plants like oak (wash the nuts before eating, it washes out the bitter acids that are bad for you) and beechnut. Also thistle makes a great oil, almonds are great too, but rapeseed and other "classic" oils will work fine too for most applications.

Carbohydrates are basically fiber, sugars and starch. Starch is in potatoes, but also other plants. Sugar in fruits, though there are different sugars ("good" and "bad" ones, though you won't get fat if you are already in SHTF starvation/work mode). Fiber is basically in most shit.

Vitamin C probably is the most important, it keeps you from getting real sick. Firenettles and acorn do contain a good amount of vitamin C, so collect that shit or eat it fresh. Teas, salads and other stuff can be made with it. Jelly comes to mind. Plants like Dandelion, Plantain and a series of other edible wild plants will keep your vitamin and mineral needs satisfied. The bonus is that these plants grow in nature, where the grounds mostly haven't been disturbed and drained with agriculture. Thus, a lot of trace elements (up to 80) are still there and you get them, as opposed with regular food.

But before you go full gardening mode, you should have an ample supply of things stored that you can't just grow or make yourself, mostly grains, as they require a lot of space.

Rice and oats can be bought cheap but with quality in bulk. Store in the sack or put them in mylar bags with desiccant and shit in buckets for long term storage. Have stashes at home, but also outside. People always focus on "muh prepping" or "muh innawoods", but they fail to realize that SF manuals explicitly state that if possible, stashes should be created beforehand. They allow you to access really cheap valuable and SAFE resources out in the wild, which isn't possible in the same way with wild food/gardening. Why?

Well, regularly your body requires 2000 kcal/day. Add sports to that and you come to 5000 kcal/day. Add freezing or other strains to it and you can add up to another 600 kcal/hour to it. So if you sleep outside and freeze, you can easily burn 10.000 kcal/day. That's five times the amount of kalories your body SHOULD have in "I'm sitting at the office playing with my dick" mode. Naturally, if you don't feed yourself well enough, you will lose weight because your body will burn your fats first and then your proteins (hormones), basically committing auto cannibalism by digesting itself. That's when you get real sick. So try to eat a lot of shit and don't rely on "muh hunting" or "muh innawoods food". Make cashes.

>>331238

>I live in on a farm in a rural area, while most of the country resorts to cannibalism, I'll be at home petting my cows and eating a nice fresh bell pepper.

You're going to have to defend your farm against a desperate gang armies numbering approximately 10,000 individuals every year.

I suggest you set up defensive fields of fire.

>>331295

I doubt it. I would pay to watch NYC burn down though

>>331242

>and nuts (hazel mostly)

Apparently their fats are similar to some hormones your body releases when you are sick, so your receptors take them instead of those hormones. Therefore you can get sick easily if you eat too much nuts. I can attest to that, I was eating hazelnut for 3-4 days every week (about 40g a day), and I was constantly sick.

Somewhere in this blog the process is explained I didn't save the link so good: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.hu/

>>331389

Mice are not humans, animal tests have been shown to be severely flawed for decades now. I can't reproduce these experiences, I've been living off hazel, almonds, peanuts and walnuts for a long time and was perfectly fine. It may have been something else you ate that made you sick or autosuggestion. Or something you didn't eat, as nutrients change on their way through your metabolism quite a bit, depending on what you eat, how you prepare it, etc. see turmeric and black pepper.

>>331396

>Mice are not humans, animal tests have been shown to be severely flawed for decades now.

That's a NAWALT-tier throwaway comment.

>>331389

While what you mentioned would be interesting to read, the blog your posted has hundreds of articles across ten fucking years. No one it going to find shit.

If you can recall some keywords, then google around for a bit.

>>331485

It was something about acids. Maybe we should just invite /fit/ into this conversation. At least some of them should have some useful ideas about nutrition.

>>331366

>>Google what happened during the great depression.

>Destroying crops? I know. That's what happens when the government is involved.

Nigga, are you saying that the government is responsible for a draught and widespread dust storms? That acts of god are the fault of the state?

>>331366

>shows a picture of just grain from 2007

Dude…

>These are in dollars, but it's pretty illuminating.

Nah dude, some things become more or less expensive, that doesn't mean more are shipped. Also those are just the top 25 by value.

>Look at the above files and tell me if you still think that.

Yeah I do.

>Destroying crops? I know. That's what happens when the government is involved.

No you idiot. Brigandage. Mass migration.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/48e.asp

>The Great Depression brought a rapid rise in the crime rate as many unemployed workers resorted to petty theft to put food on the table.

If people have farms, they will get their shit pushed in by the hungry and desperate.

>?

Calling people kid because you can't handle confronting their argument.

I might as well shill distributionism a bit. It's supposed to be an alternative for both capitalism and socialism. Of course after all this time it needs some alterations, but it basically advocates scaling down society by distributing goods and ownership. So small local businesses and farms instead of globalism.

A society based on these principles would be constantly prepared for smaller SHTF situations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

I have a bunch of carob trees on my land.

I hear these weird tasting things are supposed to be some sort of survival food.

>>331563

>economic ideology

>Catholic social teaching

>Pope Leo XIII in

>dis gon b gud.jpg

>scroll down to overview…

>should be

This is a good clue that they have no idea how to achieve that goal. I can say everyone should have a jetpack and 72 virgins, but that doesn't make me someone who invented a new economic ideology, it just makes me a radical muslim.

>and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy).

>the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of […] corporations (corporatocracy).

People can own shares in a corporation, as in each worker can own a maximally decentralized portion of the means of production. Another clue distributions was formed by bumbling idiots. It even goes on to say:

>Co-operative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.

Cooperative economies are CORPORATIST models invented by socialists who can't see the forest for the trees.

>though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism

Aaaand this brings home the nagging feeling I've been getting. Honestly this entire "economic ideology" sounds like it was written by catholic priests nostalgic for back when the catholic church wasn't the laughingstock of the world and wielded actual political power. They want to isolate humanity through economy because it's easier to keep people ignorant and dependent on the pope that way, but luckily the papist priests have no clue how economies function and no chance to bring this hellish worldview to fruition.

If this is your thing go join an amish community, they are a perfect example of distributionism.

>>331563

>scaling down society by distributing goods and ownership. So small local businesses and farms instead of globalism.

While I generally go to the smaller stores instead of big box bullshit, what is to prevent a store or a farm from getting bigger?

>>331516

That was not my point. But they exacerbated it. They encouraged farming on the plains, and drew more people by giving them more land then the old homestead act. And government aid to farmers and involvement in the market had been going on before then. For instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Marketing_Act_of_1929

>" as farmers realized that they could just sell the government their crops, they reimplemented the use of fertilizers and other techniques to increase production. Overall, the deflation could not be countered because of a massive fault in the bill: there was no production limit."

Also notice the links at the bottom for others of the era.

>>331520

The picture proves what we CAN do. There is no reason to assume that we can't feed ourselves on our own.

We export mostly food and food-precursors. We import mostly luxuries and fruit.

>Calling people kid because you can't handle confronting their argument.

I assumed you were a kid because teotwawki used to be used by survivalists but I thought it was still known. I thought you misunderstood the question.

>No you idiot. Brigandage. Mass migration.

Does not equal 100s of millions starving. There are around 500 million in US, Canada, and Mexico. I think '100s' is ridiculous high, and you ought to come up with some figures for why you think that.

>If people have farms, they will get their shit pushed in by the hungry and desperate.

Some, and then the rest of the farmers will learn to love the Kube, and their already cleared fields of fire.

>>330835

Lol those gang wont do shit when the RWDS kills them all.

>>331463

Back up your statement, the validity of animal trials has been factually falsified for decades now. It's one of the artifacts in science, which remains for monetary purposes.

>>331502

Do I have to remind you that /fit/ was home to a guy who died at age 22 of a heart failure due to steroid abuse and has iconic status to this day (Zyzz)? That board is the last place to ask for health advice. They basically commit physiological fraud, at the cost of bodily health.

>>331516

But muh HAARP. I'm gonna call Jesse Ventura now, he was a NAVY SEAL. Have you even served your COUNTRY?

>>331520

This syrup slinger is seriously right. If people starve they move from the city outwards, even if just temporarily. Criminal groups will form and existing will be organizing raids on places that have food and other resources. You either fight or hide and as long as you can't take on hundreds of people you better hide.

>>331578

#REKT

>>331695

>back up your statement

I responded to a offhand, dismissive, obvious statement since the guy with the blog talks a lot about areas where different animal studies apply to humans or not, and points out problems constantly.

You said flawed last time. Are you now saying they are completely invalid?

>for decades now.

back up your statement

>>331698

You do your homework. No serious scientist would draw on animal trial for the health effects on humans. You can get some indication by it, for obvious reasons, but no evidence. The difference should be known to you, same as the fact that they don't work as intended. But go ahead, swim with the masses, dead fish.

>>331188

Your flaw is to think that you only have the stuff available that you grow.

Contemporary Society produces more Bio waste, than it agriculturally produces Bio matter.

We have enough Bio waste to turn into Gas/Ethanol and still produce Fertilizer and Food for Animals.

The only reason we don't do it already today is that its not monetarily cost effective.

>>331578

>This is a good clue that they have no idea how to achieve that goal.

>Aaaand this brings home the nagging feeling I've been getting. Honestly this entire "economic ideology" sounds like it was written by catholic priests nostalgic for back when the catholic church wasn't the laughingstock of the world and wielded actual political power. They want to isolate humanity through economy because it's easier to keep people ignorant and dependent on the pope that way, but luckily the papist priests have no clue how economies function and no chance to bring this hellish worldview to fruition.

I never said that I agree with their reasoning, but their goals are good. You should drop your fucking fedora and see that the current world economy is an unstable gamble, and it can fuck up otherwise perfectly well functioning countries. A move towards distributism and autarky could solve this problem.

Expect if you think that being dependent on sandniggers for oil, on chinks for production and on kikes for money is a good thing.

And no, I know that there are limitations and I won't make microprocessors in my backyard. But it doesn't mean virtually every HDD factory of the world should be built next to the same river.

http://www.darkreading.com/database-security/hard-drive-prices-rise-due-to-thai-floods/d/d-id/1102133

>People can own shares in a corporation

The current structure of corporations rewards psychopaths who fuck everything up for more shekels. at the very least you'd have to let only the members of a corporation to own shares.

>as in each worker can own a maximally decentralized portion of the means of production

What do you mean by this?

>If this is your thing go join an amish community, they are a perfect example of distributionism.

And won't they survive all these SHTF situations without any problem?

>>331580

Nothing, but in the end you'd end up with one gigantic farm and a few megacorporations for country. At that point you should break them up to bring back competition.

>>331729

hes right with the thailand shit. silicon valley had to redo their whole calculations as 75% of all motherboards come from thailand and as they are more sought after than ladyboys the market fucked up big time when that flood/earthquake shit happened.

So yeah, you should decentralize, don't have all your eggs in one basket.

>>331746

>Emu

>would work

Do you have the firepower for that?

>>331746

Hunting is risky. You burn a lot of calories for the activity, plus you have to procure the game. Trapping doesn't take so much effort and has a better outcome.

>>331772

Empiricism bitch. You made the claim that animal trials work as evidence, you back that up now. I don't have to disprove an unfunded claim.

>>331799

>You made the claim that animal trials work as evidence, you back that up now

No I didn't, I made fun of you saying they are 'severely flawed' to dismiss the whole thing. Then you jumped to not valid. Then you said they weren't evidence for health effects on humans. You say different shit every time.

>>331808

I don't, I try to explain to you that if you did your homework you'd know that animal trials do not provide evidence for human health.

You implied they did, but you didn't prove that they do (which to be fair is hard if not impossible). Then I tried to explain to you why they don't work, because an animal metabolism is not a human one, so you can't draw conclusions. You are basically stating that people can get high off catnip. They can't, they're not cats. People don't die from chocolate, dogs tend to do. No evidence, at best indication.

>>331819

>provide evidence for human health

I never said it did directly. I also don't think it is completely invalid.

>because an animal metabolism is not a human one, so you can't draw conclusions.

Yes they are different, but that doesn't mean there aren't similarities. A drug that kills rats and rabbits and dogs and chimps doesn't PROVE it will kill humans But no one is going to let you test that.

You keep telling me to do my homework, but don't even offer a starting point.

>>331666

>The picture proves what we CAN do. There is no reason to assume that we can't feed ourselves on our own.

You do realize that SHTF situations are about a loss of national efficiency in some way?

What kind of a fucking SHTF scenario sees an improvement in national production.

>Does not equal 100s of millions starving.

SHTF assumes the food imports will be basically nil, and food production will be reduced as well. In this situation. Considering even your own links show food imports make up a third to half of domestic consumption, it's safe to assume the numbers of people starving will be 50-100 million in America alone.

This isn't counting Mexico which is on the brink of mass famine anyway, with ten thousand dead every year from starvation.

>Some, and then the rest of the farmers will learn to love the Kube, and their already cleared fields of fire.

Estimates are that there are, at the upper end of the estimate, about half a million active criminals in America at the moment. Fifty million people without food is going to raise the criminal pool one hundred times over…. I seriously doubt a farmer with a shotgun is going to be able to slay cannibal hordes, presumably also armed with weapons.

The best hope for survival of the average farmer is that his farm gets taken over by a powerful gang, and protected from other gangs or from roving bandits.

>>331833

I said that. INDICATION, not EVIDENCE. Science, motherfucker, do you speak it? Your implied thesis of validity is the point that you need to prove first. I don't have to disprove an unfounded statement. Learn2epistemology.

>>331840

You already said "even if our domestic food production is at 100%"

See >>331790. Do you accept that you were wrong in regards to that?

>I seriously doubt a farmer with a shotgun is going to be able to slay cannibal hordes, presumably also armed with weapons.

Is that the best you can think of? Rural people not getting together, not being armed with anything to take advantage of the terrain?

You're a city fag, aren't you

>>331844

I keep asking for some links to 'do my homework.' Let's say I'm a christian, and have never known anyone but christians, and you walk up out of nowhere and say "there is no god." Now, I realise that the burden of proof is actually on the christian, but if all the atheist says is "there is no god" and gives no other information, he isn't going to convince anyone.

>>331957

I don't care if I "convince" you. You either do your homework on scientific theory or you don't. A scientist by definition does work himself. If you can't use google, then I won't spoon feed you.

Also, in your example both Christians and Atheists are wrong, as the Atheist is referring to a thesis (Theism) that is incorrect. The Atheist is saying "there is no metaphysical divinity", yet no ancient text talked of such, so the question becomes irrelevant. Yet, Christians and all their derivatives (such as Atheists) are still sticking to Theism as their central thesis, whether they support or negate it.

I mean it's such a cheap excuse not to do anything, seriously, c'mon. Just use google, you already got all the terms you need.

"scientific theory", "epistemology", etc.

>>332222

What I don't understand is why that leads to throwing out animal trials. I understand that animals are different. But if we come up with a hypothesis and apply it to various animals and come up with a theory, why would that not also be valid for humans?

>>332220

>yet no ancient text talked of such, so the question becomes irrelevant.

what?

>>332226

Simple: Among humans themselves you have various groups with different gene expressions, cellular makeups, etc. Thus, some people have allergies, others don't. Generally, some tree sperm isn't going to kill you, nor is a bee sting, nor is a dog hair. For some people this shit is lethal though.

Many people are lactose intolerant, actually most people. Other ethnicities have other vitamin needs, etc. If you ignore those, you can severely hurt a person, no matter how much "muh racism" you yell.

So now you come along and say: "this rat reacts to something! This proves humans do too" - no it doesn't. It is at best indication for something, but not evidence. Because evidence would have to be a human trial. Always. You can of course skip that step and have another contergan scandal (thalidomide was not safe in the other configuration, people didn't know so they had one sleeping agent and one that is damaging the genes).

You can't even draw conclusions from one test subject to all of humanity (allergies, etc.), so you surely can't from an animal to humans. I named some examples (catnip, etc.). Indication is not evidence. And often trials have shown to not work at all or insufficiently, that's why there are a lot of people saying stop that and let the animals be.

>>332226

No ancient culture spoke of "metaphysical divinities" aka "gods". Name me a culture and I give you the source text if it's online.

>>332226

>>yet no ancient text talked of such, so the question becomes irrelevant.

>what?

You can refer to a number of cultures and texts in that matter. Actually all of them. Let us start in the middle east, okay?

Formerly known as Mesopotamia (middle of the rivers), you had a series of empires there. Going back in time, people first believed the Egyptian civilization to have been existed parallel to the Greek and not being much older. They were wrong, Napoleon basically founded Egyptology and they discovered it's old as fuck. But the Egyptians refer to coming from the east… there you have Babylon (in Greek), or Babilim (gate of the lofty ones) and that was thought to be a biblical myth.

Turns out it wasn't. But Babilim wasn't the first or only city there. You had the Akkadian empire, which was also thought to be a biblical myth. Again, it wasn't. Some names didn't add up, as they were not semitic in origin (arab, hebrew, akkadian, ugaritic, etc.), so the Sumerian civilization was discovered. To this very day we unearth cities, tombs and texts that were thought to be fiction but are factual in nature. Jörg Fassbinder apparently found the tomb of Gilgamesh, who was said to be only 1/3 human and built the wall of his city with his own hands. You can google for that but won't find much, probably because he was indeed found.

Same goes for the Indian realm, there you have ancient cities like Dawka, which was supposed to be a myth. Interestingly they found huge complexes of underwater ruins where the city was supposed to be. Same for a city south of Japan, which also is said to have existed there, but then was deemed a "myth".

The list of pseudo-myths is very long. The traditional texts speak of these things as facts and after some time you suddenly "discover" these places the way they are described. And not rarely they are huge ass buildings.

The texts further refer to a series of entities (living beings made of flesh and blood), not divinities (which you couldn't even describe in the first place, as they go beyond the physical realm we exist in). A few terms:

Elohim/Eloha/Elah/El - Lord

Adonai - Lord

HaShem - The Name/ Shem also refers to a "candle" like object, tower of Babilim

YHWH - the Name

Shamayim - the heavenly spheres (planets)

Din.Gir/An/Anu - of heavenly origin

Lugal - King, literally great man

Anunna(ke) - shining one, of princely origin, progenitor

Deva/Devi - heavenly, shining one

Asura - a-sura, enemy of the shining beings

Aesir - Lord, progenitor

Vanir - the shining ones

Jötun - the giants

Kami - heavenly (object, person, place), also highest office in a province

Xian - heavenly, immortal, non-human being

Naga - serpent (reference to the double helix of the human DNA)

Nahash - serpent (see above)

There are more terms of course, but this pattern goes on and on. I fail to see how there is anything "metaphysical" here, any "invisibility", "omnipresence", "omnipotence", etc. None of the texts I read have shown these attributes. It's always entities (beings), doing things in supreme, but yet limited fashion. And ALWAYS with the help of items. Various accounts exist on the drama surrounding the loss of these items, without which they can't work their "wonders" and powers anymore. See Brahma losing the Vedas for example, or Enki losing the ME to Inanna. What "god" would need tools to do anything?

The answer is fairly simple, the descriptions clearly talk about entities doing stuff with the help of tools. They fly with tools (Cherubim, Garuda, the "throne dais", etc.), the fight with tools (Mjöllnir, vajra, the "50 headed mace", etc.), they vanish with tools (invisibility cloak or ring like in nordic/sumerian accounts), they live in heavenly cities, always with a reference to who built it, they are immortal because of their food (amrita, nectar, ambrosia, soma, etc.) and they can be brought back to life when killed, provided you got the right tools and "rites" (procedures) again.

No gods here, sorry. The statement that "there is no god" is irrelevant, because ancient mankind didn't even talk about that. It was first the Greek (during Hellenism) starting this divinity stuff and later Christianity spread it globally. But a lot of cultures still take their traditions as fact and there is ample evidence to support these attitudes (see the Naga fires in Thailand, Chinese airports being closed, mexican pilots being paralyzed, etc.).

>>332293

Noice

http://www.housegate.net/woodvival/manualistica/The%20complete%20Book%20of%20Self%20Sufficiency.pdf

>>331957

That full passage reads:

"If imports were blocked due to collapse of government

hundreds of millions would starve even if our domestic food production is at 100%.

And food production is not going to be 100% in shtf."

Please do not quote mine.

>Do you accept that you were wrong in regards to that?

No. If imports were blocked domestic food production could only feed two thirds of the country. In a country of 300 million, that's 200 million. Leaving 100 million to starve, if my math is correct.

>Rural people not getting together

During subsistance farming period in Europe this was possible, because one farmer was not more than an hours travel from the next. This isn't the case in the modern world.

Also we aren't talking about one or two rapist drifters, we're talking about armies of hungry people. So no, I don't think a hundred farmers from a hundred farms could stop an army of ten thousand.

>>332323

To be fair, some of the rural people are quite well armed and have large families. Not trying to stress the redneck/hillbilly stereotype, but if you got two dozens in each family, all with +3 guns… you got a small army. Plus you know the terrain, others don't. You probably all are hunters/trappers… so you can make the terrain inaccessible for most people. It's possible.

As an addendum to the OP-

Let's talk about rationing. How does one do it?

>>332323

You showing the rest of the quote doesn't change anything.

I gave you numbers >>331790 that show how much we produce per person. You are ignoring it.

You have given no evidence that current production is only able to fee 200 million people.

I am perfectly aware that things will not be at 100% if the shtf, but your statement was incorrect.

>>332412

I left out something originally. That was the amount of those foods produced per person per day

>>330505

Feels god to live in Spain, I can plant a great variey of things. Also in case of SHTF only some people have guns, so if you have one you are better than 95% of the poulation (They are not ilegal, but you should have a license and you can only use them in shooting rangesor go hunting) and here people are not into guns, is not a cultural accepted thing.

>>332464

In shooting ranges or go hunting*

bump

>>331578

heretic or tipster?

you mock yourself by talking ignorantly. You confuse nostalgia for wanting a moral economic system. You don't understand this because your worldview is materialistic.

You aredelusional if you think the middle ages wereterrible, I don't blame you for thinking that since it's a common myth spouted constantly to justify the dreadful times we are living inand preventing people from looking to the past to find working and just systems.

>>334255

You /pol/ fruitcakes are so far off the edge of the map I can't even tell when you're being serious.