Empty half the Earth of its humans. It's the only way to save the planet

[HARRIS]

DARWINISM GOES INTO FULL FORCE....

AND LIVING IN AND NEAR CITIES WILL BE FULL PANDEMONIUM

COULD SOMEONE PLEASE PASS THE GREY POUPON ....

[jeffcoslacker]

I was listening to someone on the radio who had thought and written extensively about SHTF scenarios.

As far as cities go, he said there tends to be about a month's supply of prescription meds stockpiled in any given larger city. Ironically, he said law enforcement estimates show there is a similar supply of illegal drugs.

He seemed to think that if transportation shut down and fuel and food were scarce, bad as that would be the REAL fun starts 3-4 weeks in, when all the crazy people are off their meds, all the opioid addicts are out, all the sick and old start dying, and all the illicit drug addicts are in withdrawals and desperate.

Then, he says, the real crazy begins.

[RoadKing]

I was listening to someone on the radio who had thought and written extensively about SHTF scenarios.

As far as cities go, he said there tends to be about a month's supply of prescription meds stockpiled in any given larger city. Ironically, he said law enforcement estimates show there is a similar supply of illegal drugs.

He seemed to think that if transportation shut down and fuel and food were scarce, bad as that would be the REAL fun starts 3-4 weeks in, when all the crazy people are off their meds, all the opioid addicts are out, all the sick and old start dying, and all the illicit drug addicts are in withdrawals and desperate.

Then, he says, the real crazy begins.

And never forget the coffee addicts Jonesing for caffeine and the pot heads craving munchies... I relate to those people, big time!

[KAJUN]

Quit trucking food into the cities. Solved.

makes sense...........since nothing of any real value is produced in those big major cities anyway ....
without food and water....the two basic staples of livelihood..populations would eventually starve to death...

I seen on the news last evening some folks are developing Survival Cities.....virtual forts built in the middle of nowhere USA..with fortifications and those two basic tenants of survival......food and water....along with enough ammunition to hold off a small army if need be...

Could that be the future of America???

KAJUN, that could be a stupid idea. Can you imagine ten million Los Angeles denizens walled in? Or New Yawkers on Manhattan Island? Defending what? And rural people don’t need freaking forts! They control the land, they know the land, they use the land for sustenance, they hunt the land for plentiful wild game and are deadly accurate with rifles! Why should they enclave? Country people want no part of any kind of condensed population, they don’t need it! Wall themselves off from what? One another? City people? Allow the city people to take over the land? Ain’t gonna happen. Stupid idea.

It's not a stupid idea... [emoji106]

It's not that they want to be walled in......it's to keep unwanted miscreants OUT [emoji106] especially the big city individuals who have no earthly idea what life would be without food and water
........back in the early development days of the US what did new residents and soldiers do..... they built forts and fortresses to keep the local population from running them back from where they came from...
Where did this stupid idea come from??? You say??? Merry old England......and wasn't Jerusalem a walled in city?

The premise of the survival cities is to assemble the "right stuff" then teach them to survive in the wilderness...to be self sufficient, not depending on others for their survival.......it's an age old idea that at one time may come to past if there is ever a nuclear war......whoever is left and are not contaminated will have to have those same capabilities to survive. FOOD ...WATER...ARMS AND AMMUNITION

[Tbeck]

Just for comparison sake let's look at what history shows.
The world's population remained relatively stable at 2.2 billion since the first censuses were conducted under the Romans (not 10k years ago).
The Romans also were the first to discover that a 1 square mile city could hold the maximum number of people that was sustainable. Meaning the surrounding environment could produce enough food and natural resources to sustain the population of said city. The Romans had just as hard a time sticking to this model as we have.
Regardless we need to return to the 2.2 billion world population in order to see the problem. World population soared during the 20th century to our current 8 billion, or roughly 4 times the historical norm. So we don't have economic problems, we have a population problem.
Do we need to do anything about this? No! The next major pandemic is just around the corner and will address this over population problem for us.
Scare tactics? No! Avion flu, swine flu, etc have been reported in past years with most giving little attention to detail. The issue is simple, disease crossing species which is just a little shot fired to warn of something much bigger coming.
Cut the population in half? That's a start, but 3/4 is a far more viable target. Where will it occur? Cities and urbanised areas. The cities will fail, surviving populations will return to rural practices and eventually the cities will attract the population again.
It's been happening this way throughout history.

[RoadKing]

KAJUN, gonna shoot one large thirty thirty hole in your premise... back in the “early days” people did not have long range scoped hunting rifles. No need for today’s country boys to abandon the land and fight “miscreants” from behind walls. Today so called city marauders won’t even make it more than a couple hundred miles into the hinterlands. And the wide spread country folk won’t be fighting over food and land, plenty already to go around.

I can just see city boys trying to move into Western mountains like the Sierras and the eastern Appalachia.

[lonerider]

Rural folks aren't going to hunt and live in their country utopia while holding off the starving masses of city folk. The starving millions will simply overwhelm the countryside while searching for sustenance. It'll be every man for himself. If you have anything it will be taken away by the desperate hordes of lawless gangs most folks will be a part of just to survive a while longer. It will be a descent into hell, many will die, murderous slaughter and then disease will claim millions. Eventually a balance of nature will encompass the earth, calm will be restored, and the survivors will once again organize a sustainable society, and the cycle will be complete.

OK. One more time, for the umpteenth time over the last few years...

The rural population far exceeds urban population. It is merely spread out over a vast area and peopled by families in small communities who will defend their land with deadly efficiency.

Rural area is vastly greater in size than urban area. Thousands of miles of wilderness known only to the well armed rural hunters, rurals who know the lay of the land and how to survive, rurals who already call their small towns and farms home. The military advantage will weigh heavily in favor of the rurals.

Rurals far out gun cities and already are in control of growing and distributing farm products. By the time the panicked masses of the cities head for the hills they will already be starving and without cohesive organization. Pockets of rifle sharpshooters throughout rural America will still be well fed and the families and people who have known one another for generations will be organized to defend their land.

Yes, there will be slaughter, first within the cities where people will kill one another for remaining remnants of food
and medicine. Then the slaughter will worsen as the ill prepared city people who don’t know one another flee to the rural areas only to be gunned down by country folks who know one another and will kill to protect their children and their crops and their land.

Yes, there will be disease in the cities where growing filth along with starvation will lower immunity to germs and increase infectious diseases. Starving sick weak people will not have a chance as they flee from one death to another. And the whole sickening scenario will not last very long, rural America will still be eating bacon and eggs with their kids as the dust settles less than a month after it all began.

Rural America does not need the cities to survive. On the other hand, without rural America the cities perish.

I hate to burst your rural bubble, but according to the Census Bureau (March 2012) 80.7 percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas as of the 2010 Census, a boost from the 79 percent counted in 2000. That brings the country's total urban population to 249,253,271 a number attained via a growth rate of 12.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, outpacing the nation as a whole which grew at 9.7 percent.

Still think the rural folk can hold off the urban hordes?

.

[KAJUN]

Rural folks aren't going to hunt and live in their country utopia while holding off the starving masses of city folk. The starving millions will simply overwhelm the countryside while searching for sustenance. It'll be every man for himself. If you have anything it will be taken away by the desperate hordes of lawless gangs most folks will be a part of just to survive a while longer. It will be a descent into hell, many will die, murderous slaughter and then disease will claim millions. Eventually a balance of nature will encompass the earth, calm will be restored, and the survivors will once again organize a sustainable society, and the cycle will be complete.

OK. One more time, for the umpteenth time over the last few years...

The rural population far exceeds urban population. It is merely spread out over a vast area and peopled by families in small communities who will defend their land with deadly efficiency.

Rural area is vastly greater in size than urban area. Thousands of miles of wilderness known only to the well armed rural hunters, rurals who know the lay of the land and how to survive, rurals who already call their small towns and farms home. The military advantage will weigh heavily in favor of the rurals.

Rurals far out gun cities and already are in control of growing and distributing farm products. By the time the panicked masses of the cities head for the hills they will already be starving and without cohesive organization. Pockets of rifle sharpshooters throughout rural America will still be well fed and the families and people who have known one another for generations will be organized to defend their land.

Yes, there will be slaughter, first within the cities where people will kill one another for remaining remnants of food
and medicine. Then the slaughter will worsen as the ill prepared city people who don’t know one another flee to the rural areas only to be gunned down by country folks who know one another and will kill to protect their children and their crops and their land.

Yes, there will be disease in the cities where growing filth along with starvation will lower immunity to germs and increase infectious diseases. Starving sick weak people will not have a chance as they flee from one death to another. And the whole sickening scenario will not last very long, rural America will still be eating bacon and eggs with their kids as the dust settles less than a month after it all began.

Rural America does not need the cities to survive. On the other hand, without rural America the cities perish.

I hate to burst your rural bubble, but according to the Census Bureau (March 2012) 80.7 percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas as of the 2010 Census, a boost from the 79 percent counted in 2000. That brings the country's total urban population to 249,253,271 a number attained via a growth rate of 12.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, outpacing the nation as a whole which grew at 9.7 percent.

Still think the rural folk can hold off the urban hordes?

.

Hold off the urban hordes???......that's a chuckle ....by the time the urban hordes figure out they are running out food, water and ammo...it's going to be too late for at least 75 to 85% of them...killing themselves off at a very fast pace for the last morcel of food or water ...and it's not going to be the strongest that survive the city disaster it's gonna be the lucky ones...being in the right place at the right time.
Now I'm not saying there will "not" be individuals with the proper survival and connections to live through the carnage of the exurbanites...but they will be on their own and will not pose a threat to the survival communities...In their case it's gonna be the strongest and the smartest to survive.
Not so for the remaining city dwellers.....Even in the wilderness they will be killing each other off for any means of subsistence they can manage to find....and it's going to be far and few in between meals for these folks

Eventually the exurbanites will be forced to move out into the wilderness.......and who is going to be occupying those sections of the country.....those survival groups that have been preparing for this catastrophe for years... Living off the land...and they will know the lay of the land.....
What ever is left from the debacle in the urban areas and city dwellers are going to be a sorry ass bunch... rag tag individuals..not a formidable group to contend with...they will be disorganized with no leadership....they won't last long.

[lonerider]

RoadKing, that's a beautiful dream you have that just may turn into a nightmare!

[RoadKing]

RoadKing, that's a beautiful dream you have that just may turn into a nightmare!

It is not a dream. And it is not beautiful. I am just responding to this futuristic topic of dystopia from a realistic standpoint. I’m glad I don’t live in a city. Now, look at this from a possible combat perspective. I’ll use the megatropolis of the SF Bay Area as an example. Huge population. The main artery going east is I80. At Sac I80 wraps around the north of Sac before continuing east. To the south of Sac Highway 50 goes east. Those are the only two main arteries for The Bay Area to Head east across The Sierras. Imagine millions of vehicles headed east at the same time, traffic pileups would stop the flow and fuel would disappear quickly. In the event of your SHTF scenario, no other way for those millions to cross the Sierras unless they walk in which case they are dust. A couple of overturned big rigs shuts down 50 to rapid egress eastward. Beyond Grass Valley the same blockade on E bound I80 shuts down eastward movement. The Sierras are a huge wilderness area not hospitable to millions of frantic people fleeing hunger and violence. Those who do make it to the east slope of the Sierras will run into the most psychotic mountain people you can imagine. And if some make it to Reno, then what? Hundreds of miles of desert that is merciless towards bipeds. Once N California pillages it’s own vast agriculture, the “ nightmare” will end quickly in The Sierras for those poor people, many of whom I call friend and family. The LA Basin is even more dire. Nothing to their east but harsh desert and psycho desert rats with tons of ammo. I know very well that which I speak. Once tens of millions of SoCal people and Mexicans have depleted the produce in The Imperial Valley, they will slaughter one another with no place to run nor hide.

I don’t dream of any of this happening, but I do see it as a very real contingency in the event of the dystopia you guys foretell. What I have just envisioned is urban California quickly gone to dust, and the East Coast will be even worse. Metropolitan areas on the major rivers and Great Lakes will not have a chance. Hey, I’m talking survival, you figure it out.

[KAJUN]

Surviving in basement, backyard shelter, or rural farm with friends not viable against viral threats . . .
♦ 95%+ people not well prepared, will come to steal/kill for food, water, gas, ammo - small survivor groups their most likely targets

♦ 12 guards per shift to cover a multi-acre secure compound and surrounding area requires at least 36 people; ideally several hundred

♦ To avoid catching virus need large area to post signs, set up walls manned with armed guards, cleared fields of fire (for warning shots ideally) to stop marauders far enough away to avoid exposure

♦ By presenting a very well defended compound, attack will likely be deterred: marauders will go elsewhere

♦ Doctors, medical clinic, farm/ranch/mechanic and other skills needed

♦ Need equipment and expertise to monitor radioactive fallout, deal with other collapse scenarios that is far too expensive, infeasible for small groups

♦ Need a large, organized group of people to stand watch, tend crops and livestock, work on recovery operations, share expense

♦ Must have room/procedures/discipline/control for quarantine shelter or your friend coming to join you may bring the virus

. . . and requires you to take on a huge workload, expensive investments, and making life and death decisions for others
♦ A year of stockpiled food may not be enough - need ability to grow food, raise livestock - and defend it

♦ Local law enforcement likely not available - need an unquestioned person in charge

♦ Force may be needed - keeping non-members out, enforcing quarantine procedures, managing weapons, giving shoot orders if marauder attack

♦ Lots of expertise and advance preparation, special facilities and equipment needed to be prepared for wide variety of threats and collapse conditions

♦ To both survive and then reconstitute with a decent quality of life; a professionally managed, fully prepared, disciplined survival community of 100+ people needed

♦ Unless you are prepared to handle all the above and comfortable making these life and death decisions, you are better off being a member of professional survival community - at much less expense

[KAJUN]

There is strength in numbers when it comes to forming a survival community and the conventional wisdom is the more people you have on your side, the better. If you had an Army, you would want as many people as you could have in the ranks in order to be safer, to do more things, to expand your reach. This thought has led many people to search out online survival communities to join which brings a lot of mixed results and potential problems. You think to yourself, I really need to be around a group of like-minded people before the world goes to hell so I will be safe and there is no shortage of prepping forums that have people advertising their own group and offering to anyone who will listen, the chance to join a survival community that will provide for their safety if everything goes wrong.

The survival communities that are accepting people for membership that I have seen usually have a similar blueprint:

They are selling inclusion in a closed/tightly controlled community for safety and security if TEOTWAWKI happens.
They usually have a large piece of land that they don’t disclose the location of for security reasons.
The total number of people/slots is set at a fixed number.
They talk about the traits of the land, improvements to be made (eventually) and the abundant resources surrounding their retreat area.
As expected, they have rules for joining, minimum supply requirements each family must bring and in most cases disciplinary guidelines for those who “don’t pull their weight” or in some other way “get out of line”.
There is naturally a fee for joining and an interview process.
Many have pictures of the land complete with game cameras views of all the wild animals you will find there.
And lastly, in my opinion, most are doomed to fail.
Why would a survival community fail?
Yes, you read that right. I do believe that most if not all of these groups you see on the internet will fail. If not during some actual emergency that would cause you to need to bug out to the thousand acres of beautiful land, teaming with slow-moving wildlife, but most likely well before that. Why do I think this would happen? Well, I could go into great detail, but I do think that anytime you have a “survival community” like this, there really isn’t “a community” at all before long. Someone owns the land and you aren’t buying an equal share/stake. You are just purchasing a space. They get the final say and if they don’t like the way your wife hangs out laundry or the way you discipline your dog, you are gone.

Some have committees or boards or some other form of leadership in an effort to appear unbiased and democratic, but these are still most likely friends of the person who owns the land and they will toe the line with whatever the Community Organizer wishes. At best, I think these things are along the same lines as buying a time share or renting a camping space. You might argue that even in civilized society there are rules that must be obeyed and I will concede that point. However, you won’t be buying into civilized society.

How would you set up your own survival community?
You may be scratching your head right now and asking yourself what I am trying to say. If being alone in a crisis situation isn’t ideal and neither is joining one of the survival communities advertised online, what is the average prepper supposed to do?

We have all heard of the prepping ideal. A remote cabin situated on hundreds of acres of forested land, with three sources of water, dozens of miles away from the nearest paved road and I concede that would be very nice. The problem is that most of us don’t have the ability to move into the woods like that. If you do, congratulations but not everyone can move, not everyone can sell their house and pick up and leave. I know that someone will say, “You can if you want to” and yes that is correct. I could put my house on the market and sell everything if I had to, but I think there are other options. Options that aren’t as drastic and might not end in my divorce.

I tend to believe that communities will be made up of our friends, families and neighbors when the time comes. People will band together when the situation dictates that for their survival, it is wise to join forces, but some communities don’t have to live together now. You can plan for a survival community and still live in your suburban home until something happens. Is that the perfect way to go about preparing? No, but it could work for a lot of people I think.

There are some who plan to lock the doors and shoot anyone who comes near. I think this will be a short-lived plan if the situation is so bad that you feel you are warranted in shooting your son-in-law who failed to prep, even though you “have been warning him for years”. It is easy to say what we won’t allow now, when there is no crisis. I know I am guilty of my fair share of some of this, but I still don’t believe I am going to sit in my house, lock the doors and peek out of my curtains. I may allow some people in who don’t have any preps. It may be a risk I have to take to make my own ad-hoc survival group larger if the situation warrants it. Would I kick a doctor out just because he didn’t have a gun or any freeze-dried foods? Probably not.

Ideally, you would identify people who could become your group if something happened ahead of time and talk to them. Even more ideal would be for you all to be working on the different considerations a survival community would need to live before you needed to band together and batten down the hatches. If you wanted to consider what is needed to set up a survival community, I think there are some basic questions to ponder.

Water
Where will you find water when you need it? Do you have a well or rain barrels that are already in place and ready to go?
Do you have a way to filter water?
Do you know alternative locations for water?
Food
How much food do you have stored away?
Do you have the means to prepare this food?
Do you know how to preserve food without the benefit of electricity?

Do you have communication options with your group if the Grid goes down? You won’t be able to take care of this if the internet is down…
Disaster Communications
Do you have a way of communicating with other members of your group?
Do you have extra radio equipment and a means to power that equipment even if the electricity is out?
What is your range of communications? This will determine to some degree where you can travel to and still remain in contact with one another.
Emergency Fuel and Power
Do you have fuel stored up for emergencies? Are you rotating your fuel supplies? How long will that fuel last you?
What alternative power sources do you have? How much can you power with this source?
Food after the food is gone
Hunting – Do you have a place to hunt? Do you know how to hunt? Do you know how to process the meat? Do you have the supplies you need?
Foraging – Are there local sources for wild food? Do you know which plant sources are safe to eat? Do you know how to prepare these, store them and what seasons they are growing?
Gardening – Do you have gardens in place already? How many people do you expect to feed? What is your growing season and zone? How much will you be able to put away for winter? Do you have seeds to put into the ground?
Hygiene and Sanitation
How will you dispose of waste if the toilets no longer work?
How will you clean dishes, your hands, cooking utensils, etc?
First Aid/Medical
Do you have medical supplies in case you have to treat your own injuries?
What types of medication will the people in your survival community be dependent on that could affect their short-term health?
What general health conditions impact people in your community?
Fitness and Health
How mobile are the people in your community if you need to bug out to a different location?
Can you carry all your possessions on your back if needed?
Can they perform the manual tasks that could be required every day for survival?
Does poor heath require medication daily or equipment that needs electricity to run/cool?
Community Defense
Guns and Ammo – What are the types of weapons you have in the community? How much ammo do you have for each weapon? How long will this last you if you are dependent on the weapons for survival/food/defense?
Common Equipment – Do you have common ammunition or magazines? Does everyone have a different weapon platform?
Training – What is the experience level of the members of your survival community? Can anyone provide training to others?
Location, Location, Location
Since you don’t have the survival retreat in the woods, where will you all stay? If the community is in your neighborhood and the members are your neighbors that would work out just fine. What if the community is composed of different families in different parts of town/states? Do you have a common location that everyone will rendezvous at? Do you have accommodations for the extra people in that location? It will be important to select a location that has the best traits for growing food, providing water, game to hunt and defensibility. Is that your home or someone else’. Will you move in with your buddy? Are you prepared to walk there?

I realize that each of the topics above could be broken down into its own article. There are hundreds of if and butts for each situation but I wanted to jot down some things I think I personally should consider. I don’t see formal survival communities working for most of us. Sure if you are a millionaire and have your own island, that is one thing. I think the rest of us will band together in smaller tribes for survival. It won’t always work, but I can see that happening before everyone leaves their jobs in the cities and moves to the countryside.

What do you think?

[Tbeck]

I think some might be misreading the proposal. This proposal is not new just the name. In the early 2k era it was urban sprawl, and there are places like Colorado that limit urban expansion.
The Romans, French, English, etc refer to the planned development as green space. Each city has a predetermined area of land reserved around the city, a green space for farming, wildlife, etc...
Unfortunately as more people move to cities, as presented in the article, the city expands, it has to. Put this in context: all cities in the western world have 1 square mile boundaries. For example London England. The city is 1 square mile, but has and continues to develop more and more suburban areas linking the city to a much larger entity. Sprawl!
So we've already tried what's being proposed, but we aren't very good at sticking to the plan.

[RoadKing]

Ain’t a game. Two sides on the opposite ends of the same field of play. Nothing like that. Figure it out. God forbid this scenario ever happens. But if it does? Just ask yourself one question... if the SHTF moment arrives, at that moment would you rather live rural or urban?

[RoadKing]

What a horrible end this would be to the wonderful American Experiment. A Republic if we can keep it.

[hillsy]

Ain’t a game. Two sides on the opposite ends of the same field of play. Nothing like that. Figure it out. God forbid this scenario ever happens. But if it does? Just ask yourself one question... if the SHTF moment arrives, at that moment would you rather live rural or urban?

I doubt there would be a "moment" when this happens. It will be a gradual process of cities expanding and consuming more produce from rural suppliers.

Also, there's a massive amount of produce that gets dumped because it's "imperfect". Some stats estimate up to 50% of fruit and vegetables is dumped because it cant be sold due to it not meeting a certain standard.

I think the idea of the rural not being able to meet the consumption needs of the urban is a long way off - to the point where it would possibly never happen.

[Cuban]

[emoji2] In this Rural vs Urban scenario... how do factory farms fit into the equation? I don't have the numbers, but I'm gonna assume there's been a LOT of America's farmland gobbled up by the multi-nationals? Urban population is reportedly around 85%, with the rural areas comprising about 97% of the land. I wonder how the decision makers at those multi-national corporations would react?

[Prodigal_Sun]

They are selling inclusion in a closed/tightly controlled community for safety and security if TEOTWAWKI happens.
They usually have a large piece of land that they don’t disclose the location of for security reasons.
The total number of people/slots is set at a fixed number.
They talk about the traits of the land, improvements to be made (eventually) and the abundant resources surrounding their retreat area.
As expected, they have rules for joining, minimum supply requirements each family must bring and in most cases disciplinary guidelines for those who “don’t pull their weight” or in some other way “get out of line”.
There is naturally a fee for joining and an interview process.
Many have pictures of the land complete with game cameras views of all the wild animals you will find there.
And lastly, in my opinion, most are doomed to fail.
Why would a survival community fail?
Yes, you read that right. I do believe that most if not all of these groups you see on the internet will fail. If not during some actual emergency that would cause you to need to bug out to the thousand acres of beautiful land, teaming with slow-moving wildlife, but most likely well before that. Why do I think this would happen? Well, I could go into great detail, but I do think that anytime you have a “survival community” like this, there really isn’t “a community” at all before long. Someone owns the land and you aren’t buying an equal share/stake. You are just purchasing a space. They get the final say and if they don’t like the way your wife hangs out laundry or the way you discipline your dog, you are gone.

Some have committees or boards or some other form of leadership in an effort to appear unbiased and democratic, but these are still most likely friends of the person who owns the land and they will toe the line with whatever the Community Organizer wishes. At best, I think these things are along the same lines as buying a time share or renting a camping space.

What do you think?

I think it sounds like an HOA

[Prodigal_Sun]

You really want to know what would happen? Look at the past two years in South Africa.

[jeffcoslacker]

They are selling inclusion in a closed/tightly controlled community for safety and security if TEOTWAWKI happens.
They usually have a large piece of land that they don’t disclose the location of for security reasons.
The total number of people/slots is set at a fixed number.
They talk about the traits of the land, improvements to be made (eventually) and the abundant resources surrounding their retreat area.
As expected, they have rules for joining, minimum supply requirements each family must bring and in most cases disciplinary guidelines for those who “don’t pull their weight” or in some other way “get out of line”.
There is naturally a fee for joining and an interview process.
Many have pictures of the land complete with game cameras views of all the wild animals you will find there.
And lastly, in my opinion, most are doomed to fail.
Why would a survival community fail?
Yes, you read that right. I do believe that most if not all of these groups you see on the internet will fail. If not during some actual emergency that would cause you to need to bug out to the thousand acres of beautiful land, teaming with slow-moving wildlife, but most likely well before that. Why do I think this would happen? Well, I could go into great detail, but I do think that anytime you have a “survival community” like this, there really isn’t “a community” at all before long. Someone owns the land and you aren’t buying an equal share/stake. You are just purchasing a space. They get the final say and if they don’t like the way your wife hangs out laundry or the way you discipline your dog, you are gone.

Some have committees or boards or some other form of leadership in an effort to appear unbiased and democratic, but these are still most likely friends of the person who owns the land and they will toe the line with whatever the Community Organizer wishes. At best, I think these things are along the same lines as buying a time share or renting a camping space.

What do you think?

I think it sounds like an HOA

That was exactly my thought too.

I wonder how most people would fare when it comes to hard decisions like clipping sick/disabled/injured members who are putting drag on the whole group.