Most resilient communities / locations in the event of rapid collapse

With regards to the mutual aid and bartering in a small town or village, what resources do you think those people will have to do that with? I grew up in a town of 600 people. My family hunted, fished, gardened, had a lot of fruit trees, and some canned goods put up. We were somewhat collapse minded, probably the most collapse minded in town, but wouldn't have had anything to spare for others. Most of the town doesn't do any self sustaining skills anymore. They may garden, but they aren't growing any calories. They maybe a buck hunter, but don't broadly hunt. I moved away and have focused super hard on building up more skills and having food put away. I'd rather be in the country than in town. There aren't people to barter with as no one has things of value post collapse. I've had manyyy collapse minded friends and verrrry few have put in efforts to learn valuable skills. You can't rely on others for anything other than companionship. I've tried to get to the point where I can support a small group myself because no one else will be serious about preparing. But I love some people that will be good to be around when they do have to be serious when it all goes down. I won't be trading anything as few are likely to have anything of value to me.

Very good question.

Firstly, it's not a zero sum game of false dichotomies.

The fact that cities are not a good choice, doesn't mean that the alternative is living in isolation.

I've gone for this....

A small but close community of a few thousand with multi skilled people who farm, grow, fish, hunt etc. It's near wilderness and mountains, but not in them. It has a river upstream of all industry, varied microclimates due to the selection of altitudes and flora locally. It's a defensible position that could probably be walled on three sides, with the river on the other. Lots of wildlife, varied weather, virgin forest, mountains, low altitude farms, etc... a bit of everything that lies far from the coast or any city.

The problem with these fantasies is you have to specify all the various conditions. How fast? Based on what? War, nukes, disease? Rapid climate shift? Every detail makes the answer different. This usually ends up in a zombie apocalypse fantasy discussion, unless you're seeking to some some specific problems.

Here is how I look at. Your mileage, of course, will vary.

In the best case scenario there will be a rapidly declining population in a grid down situation.

In the United States there is not 1 in 100 [probably more like 1 in 10,000] people that can feed themselves off the land. Which is to say there are going to be a lot of starving desperate people.

Now, where would you like to be and with whom under those conditions?

That is the vision that guides my aspirations.

toktomi

I think northern USA or Canada would be least affected and the best places to go. Sure it's cold but you'll have a stable government, resources here are plentiful and human activity destroying the land is minimal especially here in Canada. It takes alot of skills to be a survivalist out here but it can be done. However I don't think things will get that bad here in Canada as long as the government stays stable and there isn't a massive refugee influx or population boom.

I could be biased though cause I'm Canadian. However I've also lived the majority of my life in an isolated third world country and things there seem to be going from bad to worse.

Why are people so concerned about cold but not deadly heat? Air conditioning is considerably harder to create and isn't a bi-product of nearly everything like heat is.

I personally think that a community dedicated to surviving the collapse would be best. My old gift economy project, Anarkikomunismolando seems quite suited for this.

The problem with moving to a small community (say 500-1000 people) is that you may not always get what you want. You might just be moving to a community that looks great on paper, but is dead weight in the event of a disaster. You might be trading your suburb neighborhood, with an ER doctor two doors down, a guy who takes primitive survival classes three doors down, and a guy who runs a small blacksmithing business out of his garage down the other side of the street for a small town filled with people whose main past time consists of smoking meth in mobile homes. The grass isn't always greener.

And in the event of a serious 'long-term' disaster, a vast majority of communities will be unable to feed themselves -- regardless of size. Even small communities will likely face long periods of famine due to lack of good grains to plant, no fertilizer, and no draft animals or plow equipment for them to pull in the first place. Just because the farm in your community has twenty acres of wheat growing, doesn't mean that farmer has the skills, tools or means to harvest or plant that crop by hand or with draft animals. Modern industrial farming is worlds away from the Medieval type of farming we would be pushed back into.

​

A cabin in the woods would be exposed to wildfires.

​

I'm a former firefighter with wildland experience and I've always found this risk for cabins in a disaster to be rather overblown. It isn't exceptionally difficult to ensure your home has a clear break cut between it and the wood/shrub line around it to prevent fire from reaching it. Clearing the immediate woods around your home of ladder fuels will do even more. Finally ensuring combustibles, like firewood or building materials, is kept well away from your home and having a steady source of water will probably see you through 99% of fires your home might be exposed to.

​

​

I've been thinking about this. And there isn't a good answer. Being on a Northerly latitude is an advantage in all likelihood. But there probably won't be anything we can do to avoid food scarcity. There won't be any wild food to forage or catch. Wildfires are going to be common everywhere. It's very difficult.