In the event of the fall of society and the apocalyptic scenario, to what country would you try to go for survival, and why?
I myself would take on a snowy place, cause it's much harder to fight and survive on the snow, so there would be less potential threats. A woodland somewhere in Scandinavian territory or Finland.
Also Innawoods.net thread I guess?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
...
...
What a retarded idea. Would be much better to survive in the south
>few/no large predators
>but enough game to easily hunt and survive
>low population density to avoid conflict with other humans
Ideal would be some lone island with large wildlife, but no predators. Realistically, you'd probably have to settle for something like Scandinavia or perhaps Russia and North America, but I don't know enough about bears to be sure that they won't be a problem there (They should usually leave humans alone, right?).
Perhaps central Asia is also an option, but I don't know about wildlife there.
And because of that everyone would be there. The enemy is not nature, is other humans.
Other good places: Pripyat, Ukraine. Safest place on earth.
The Amazon jungle.
>The enemy is not nature, is other humans.
That's just wrong. Disease, hunger, cold would be much larger threats. As long as you're a decent sized group with some firearms noone will bother messing with you and you can trade with them
>post-apocalyptic scenario
>other humans not biggest thread
No wonder you Swedes love sandniggers so much. You don't even get what danger other humans pose in peacetime, yet alone apocalypse. I'm sure Ahmed and Mbongo will share their food, medicine and blankets with you when shit hits the fan.
You're obviously retarded, I would love for you and the brazilian to run around in the north in -40 degrees
Humans have always survived better and have built civilization through tribes where the climate is at least mild
Lol, "trade with them".
It's never enough for any group, they would want better things, more supplies, it's called expansionism. Once a single group decides to go that route they'd go assimilating smaller groups into it, getting bigger, and once they were bigger than your group they'd give you two options, join and stand by their rules or be killed, raped and pillaged.
It has happened literally through the entire course of human history, and you think without order and society -the best scenario to brew savagery and conquest- that wouldn't happen? You're very naive.
You're the one who is naive who think you would survive better in the north rather than the south. I literally have the entire human history on my side that shows despite violence people did survive better in milder climates
Yeah, "people" did. That doesn't mean you'd be included. Most of those "people" died in horrific ways, so your logic is to gamble the lottery of not being torn to pieces by other tribes, cause living in the cold is unpleasant.
>people survived better in milder climates
You are still not aware that we're talking about individual survival and not about a "the more the better" scenario for the human race. Sure, as a numbers game temperate regions will host more survivors, but there'll be much more violence leading to a much higher chance for the individual to die. If you're happy that others will continue the human race after they have killed you, took your stuff and raped your women, then fine, go south.
>In the event of the fall of society and the apocalyptic scenario, to what country would you try to go for survival, and why?
Somewhere mountainous
Maybe Georgia? classic bandit country
And more people obviously died in the north since there has never been a thriving civilization there
>cause living in the cold is unpleasant.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You wouldn't survive one winter.
It's simple logic, there's no way you can't get it at this point
Individuals would die immediately. Those who survive and thrive would do so in groups where there's plenty of resources
Are you imagining yourself surviving in the Scandi wasteland by yourself?
Rate my gear
you'd get picked off at long range
First of all, I obviously would try to be in a small group of people I can trust. Second, survival on your own is not as nice, but possible, given the right gear. If you have some cabin as a base of operation it would be even easier.
Sorry, you'd be surprised in the instinct to survive that most people still have, even if it often doesn't seem so nowadays.
What do you need the smartphone for? Also, I'm not sure a shotgun is the best choice. I'd go for a .22lr.
You guys are fags lmao
Your chances are still lowered a huge amount when you're alone. Humans thrive with each other and being able to trade with other groups
Even in a Bosnian city in one year people froze and starved to death
Forgot something for chopping down trees
Gear is made for Canadian rocky mountain forest wilderness
>smartphone
>wallet
>gun cleaning kit
>28 shots
>3 bottles
you wouldnt even last 2 weeks
It's not impossible to survive even in the artic if you have a good base and supplies to begin with. Keep it a small group and separate yourselves from the rest of the soon-to-be-forming groups.
There would be many generations before a heavy settled area went into any remote peace, in our lifetimes there would just be war and murder. And you'd be included in it.
A sawed off would be good in dense woods and if we were talking zombies and shit. Otherwise you'd be picked off by rifles.
Like I already said you have no idea what you're talking about. You're arguing against human history
lemme guess, you'd just go to WalMart.
>Even in a Bosnian city
Your pic just proves what I and Brazil are saying. Stay the fuck away from populated areas. You act as freezing is inevitable. How do you think our ancestors survived? It's possible, I never claimed it's easy. And for individual survival, you definitely will prefer going to a unpopulated cold than a densely populated warm area.
And again, I'd never say I'd aim for going alone, small group of people you can trust is ideal, but if necessary, you could also survive alone witth the right gear.
Tried to be as realistic as possible if a Armageddon happens one day.
>The Amazon jungle.
you'd die there in a week
Your argument is not based on survival, nothing you have said is relevant to individual survival (which also applies to a small group).
You'd be one of the many bodies that a civilization built itself upon, good for you. I'd try to live a somewhat decent life for a while. If my group produced children, then maybe in two generations they could go for the south and join an already established commune. My genes would be intact because I isolated myself from the human conflict that would spawn from territorial wars, while you threw yourself head first into a hot pot of murder. You are now forgotten and your line eradicated.
I rest my case.
No no, YOU'D die there.
I've lived many a year in the jungle with natives, senpai.
I see now
>flag
then indeed it's your natural habitat so you'd thrive
lmao ure fucked.
You don't have a higher chance of surviving in the north. Stop being delusional.
>What do you need the smartphone for?
Music, games, pictures, maybe sat nav.
>I'd go for a .22lr.
Do you expect to kill human beings with that shit? At least i can fire slugs from my boomstick.
>not cleaning your gun regularly
Have another creation of mine. This one's supposed to be a bike/horse rider.
>What do you need the smartphone for?
>Music, games, pictures, maybe sat nav.
topkek
Shit, I didn't know you could stack items in the same slot.
Also why so few carrying flint and steel? That's like the best thing you could possibly have for survival anywhere.
Fuck, you're annoying, Sweden.
>I'm an internet tough guy i dont need recreation
Fuck off autist
It's true tho, you'd be heading to the most populated parts of the world.
Personally i'd just go to the countryside and hide there, maybe pantanal.
Also going futher south isn't a bad idea either.
Rate my innawoods for a mountainous/forested terrain
No, his argument is that you SHOULD go to the most populated places and seeking isolation is a bad idea.
He's talking about the furthest north of Norway/Sweden/Finland and how it would be easier to survive there than more south (which already is quite empty)
>disagreeing with going to one of the most inhospitable places on the planet means saying you should go to the most populated areas
that's just a strawman
I my opinion it silly getting further north, wasting time and resources.
Just go to the jungle in the countryside ffs, there's food there for you to live for the rest of your life. Fuck not even the natives will notice that the world is ended.
>world went to shit(finally)
>take all your shit and take some guns
>run to the countryside
>build your wood camp
>life of animals, fruits and whatever
>survive while the world kills themselves a la The Walking Dead
It ain't rocket science.
I'd at least take a full tang fixed blade knife.
You literally have said this, ya jabroni.
"Individuals would die immediately. Those who survive and thrive would do so in groups where there's plenty of resources"
Switch my geographical location to Canada, then. I stand by my point that snowy terrain would be much safer. And to avoid big groups.
Good idea to have a fishing set on you
a) I'd try to avoid humans that aren't part of my group, but yes, a .22lr is not ideal, but able to kill humans (vid very related).
b) I can carry thousands of rounds of .22lr with me, giving me the ability to hunt for years in a post-apocalyptic world. Additionally, it's the round you will most likely find in numbers if you are scavenging. If fighting humans is something you expect to occur more commonly, get some handgun or smg for that.
c) the rifle itself is also lighter than high-caliber rifles, allowing me to carry even more ammo.
You will run out of your slugs in no time if you go hunting, what good is it then?
Also, how are you intending to charge your smartphone? Let's be honest, it's just additional weight, especially if you also have to carry some solar panels with you to charge it. Or you waste your energy power powering a dynamo + battery. Get a rubiks cube or something if you want entertainment.
Isn't there a lot of shit in the jungle that will kill you (large predators, venomous shit and so on?).
Yep, that's why i said take some guns with you.
If you're gonna build a camp, don't build it on the ground, build up. Or you can do like the guy on the video, but for a non-specialist it would take a few weeks.
Yes, the jungle is the single hardest place to survive along with the desert. It's much much easier to survive on cold climate.
I'm skeptical, what good are my guns if I get bitten by some spider while shitting in the jungle? Or mauled by a Jaguar.
I like this Brazilian more.
Yes, there are risks of course. But you'd have WAY more resources than a cold climate, also you'd have to keep yourself warm at all times, and cold clothing alone won't help you at all.
Belarus or Romania
r8 my setup
...
This is the stuff I'd probably manage to get in the first 5 minutes and leave the house with it. From there I'd head to the local fort that's about 15 minutes from my house to see if maybe more people gather there. I'd be fucked with no guns, but the closest that I know I could get them 100% is my father's or grandfather's house which are both at least a few hours walking distance. Other than that I think my region would be pretty good for an apocalypse setting, the fort is a pretty good location, but there are also many hills nearby where partisans hid during the war.
looks heavy
are these stones or potatoes?
more potatoes maybe?
my people know how to make fire
potatoes
...
I'm a big guy
Yes i know. For me doesn't worth it going to cold places to survive. I'd rather do like that guy on the video and stay comfy in my mud house :3
It's monday. Go buy a gun.
I take it you are just trying to kill other people for fun?
How else am I gonna get dosh?
Man I'm a poor student, can't afford that shit atm and I'm too lazy. Guess I'll just throw my axe at people.
Set for jungle. Consider the backpack and the vest as "base" stuff, not to be carried around on every trail.
Keeping the Mosin just because of how reliable it is and requiring low maintenance, and the Taurus Judge because having a handgun with 12 gauge is extremely versatile.
Isn't this a Killing Floor class?
Best one baby!
...
I call it ambassador killer
>ITT: Neckbeards fantasizing about a post apocalypse scenario where in reality if it actually happened, they would die after the fridge and cabinets were empty.
Jokes on you, i'm in the military.
Also roll.
rolling
I don't drink, lol
Joke's on you, I'm a professional shooter, lived in the Amazon and I know how to make several kinds of home-made grenades, pipe-bombs and gasoline bombs.
Just not great at bushcraft shit. I'm not good with knots.
I just shaved...
Why not a shotgun?
It's easier than the Taurus.
...
what the heck is innawoods
innawoods.net
I still don't get it
Just pick the things you want and put on it's designated areas.
Rolling
It's usually a /k/ thing to go to the woods and fuck some shit up
why though, what's the point?
So it's literaly a dress up game?
k don't mind me have fun in your thread i won't bother you anymore we're adults here right? bye
k bye :D
*tips in your direction*
It's just a little game, there is no point.
Can you work the concept of a game in your head?
meh, I have enough guns, ammo and food to hide out for months in my apartment as long the water is running. My first and foremost problem would be getting out of the city alive, especially since I live in a sandnigger populated area.
Somewhere similar to Italy