Is the ability to Survive Naturally massively under, or overrated?

It depends on your knowledge of a specific area.

If you want to live, you need to eat, and if you want to eat, you need to know the local animals.

It isn't a general skill that you can apply to any place.

>>1036884
>It depends on your knowledge of a specific area.
This. If you cut me lose in the area I live I'd be fine, but if you dropped me in southern Utah I'd probably die in an hour.

I think it's largely a wish fulfillment fantasy.

99% of people won't need any of that skillset in their lives and you'd be far better off spending the time working a second job, buying and selling thrift store items, teaching piano on the side, or other similar gigs.

It depends on the scenario and what the defined limit of 'survive naturally, in the wild, is.

Since we ARE human beings, sharing knowledge or acquiring knowledge can still be done, and you can still survive 'naturally in the wild'.

You aren't using the money system, so getting word of mouth information about your area from fellow humans, there is nothing unnatural about that.

I think you COULD say 'general' things about being human, that pertain to our survival. So in that I disagree with the above posts.

There is a reason why we as humans have civilisation in the first place. Civilisation itself is a natural outcome of our abilities as humans.

So under the right circumstances natural survival may be very overrated. But in other circumstances, underrated.

Because if what is being talked about is surviving without society - deliberately not using the social constructs of your fellow humans - that is not entirely a natural thing for a human to do. And so you'd be making your survival harder on purpose.

Surviving as you do now, in a city, or in a society of some kind, is what is, in fact, natural. And in many cases it is quite easy to survive this way. And in other cases, it is not - depending on many factors that effect human societies.

>On the other hand every other animal is significantly less intelligent than you are and yet they managed to find a way to survive just fine, without even fire.
That's not really valid. The animals we see are highly, highly physically and psychologically adapted to the specific areas they inhabit and even with those adaptations, everyday life is a crapshoot for even the most fit/skilled animals. Humans on the other hand are adapted to living in communities, and for us to survive alone is an evolutionary abnormality. Consider how easily minor scrapes can become fatal cases of gangrene (read "the snows of kilimanjaro") without extremely basic medical supplies like alcohol and sterile bandages. Rare is the survivalist who could get by for more than a few years without an outside source of manmade supplies.

>>1036890
I think that's good practical advice. And it's also natural. Living in the woods alone is not natural for a human being. Get 5 people together and they instantly form a group, a family, get more, and they instantly form a society of some kind. It's how we live. Whether in the forest or pouring concrete over the ground. Doesn't make a difference to us.

>>1036898
Well isn't a human smart enough to find a spot they can perfectly adapt to? I mean we've done it before. We adapted the entire environment to suit our needs no matter where we go. We make even our mode of transportation (cars) into mini tropical to sub-tropical climates so we can move around comfortably in a less than ideal climate.

I agree that we're community creatures and that it's unnecessarily hard for us to try and survive alone, and unnatural too. But I don't agree that the ability to survive alone because other animals manage it is not a valid point. A human is more than smart enough to learn how to survive. Animals use what nature gave them to survive, there are animals that are local and niche, humans have their intelligence.

If I knew I had to survive alone, naturally I would do what any sane human would do and study the living daylights out of 'where' to live, 'what' was there, and 'how' to use those things to survive.

I might not be happy to be alone but I could technically survive. Couldn't I?

>>1036898
Same poster as before - I actually liked most of your points and agreed with them just so you know. I only brought that one disagreement up for the sake of conversation.

So to be clear, I agree with everything you said except that 'because animals do it' is not a valid argument. I think it is a valid argument. I think we as humans are just as capable as any other animal of base survival under the right conditions or armed with the right knowledge.

And knowledge gathering is a human trait.

As an example, you were talking about surviving without alcohol - prisoners make alcohol out of bread crumbs and fruit, in socks. THAT'S what it means to be human.

You can technically make alcohol with JUST fruit, if you are willing to wait long enough. And then of course you can distill it with fire if you want to.

That's how crafty/clever humans are.

Would a lone human by themself be as inclined to do that? or as motivated? Probably not. As you said, it's the community that matters - prison, even though it is severely resource limited, is a community where humans can share knowledge.

>>1036878
Survivalism is a LARPing fad pushed by reality shows and e-celebs
Because going /out/ wasn't show worthy for a boring jaded audience, they had to make going /out/ EXTREME!!!
And everybody lapped it up, especially since they have no /out/ experience.
The unknown is scary and fear makes good television for plebs and great fodder for advertising
Even stodgy REI now stocks "survivalist" toys
I never saw any of this shit in the before the mid 90s, but now people think survivalism is the norm /out/

If you can read a map, navigate with a compass, and can recognise the difference between clean water and an animals cum dumpster..youll be alright..anything beyond that is breaking into larp territory. Oh and don't be fat

>>1036907
Problem is, pretty much everywhere on the planet requires the use of tools made with skilled labor. Whether it's clothes (100% required anywhere not tropical, which is ~80% of all landmass), knives, etc.

Going out, even to an ideal location, and basically starting from scratch by yourself for longer than the clothes you're wearing will last is a long shot simply because of how intensive making these necessary tools is. A small group is different, they can specialize and focus on one specific task (1 hunter, 1 farmer, 1 tool-maker type shit). Expecting one person to be able to establish a homestead well enough before his knife breaks or his clothes literally rot off him to have the free time to dedicate to creating textiles or forging iron (assuming it's even accessible without further mass-produced modern tools) is a real stretch.

>>1037540
australian abos lived on a technological level somewhat under a frogs ass. they did alright with no clothes no metals no nothing only a few sticks and stones.

>>1037571
In groups. Not solo.

Don't suppose you read that part about being able to do it in groups but probably not solo in my post, did you?

>>1036878
surviving in the wild is about as useful as speaking Latin fluently.
Sure it would be handy if you run into some Romans from 2000 years ago, but you never will.

I think the difficulty is pretty underrated. Without modern medicine. tricky food supply.

>>1036878
>Is the ability to Survive Naturally massively under, or overrated?

Are you an idiot? Why is that even a question? If you don't survive, you are DEAD. Also, surviving in the wild is pretty damn fucking easy. What isn't easy would be surviving in the wild when there's millions of other people trying to survive in the wild against you. Like there's some "disaster" and for some reason, everyone goes against their human nature and decides to be isolationists instead of banding together.

You isolationists are retarded. During every disaster to have ever happened in human history, we have banded together and survived together.

The number 1 rule for prepping is being friends with your family and neighbors so that you can all rely on each other during a disaster. Isolationists are doomed.

>>1036878
Depends on your economic and geographical background. Some poor people who work shit jobs could do better for themselves outdoors with the correct tools and knwlege

I think a lot of people forget that you have to survive the winter too. Unless you're somewhere that's warm all year most survivalist just aren't going to find enough food even if they do manage to stay warm

>>1036878
>managed to find a way to survive just fine, without even fire.
Go out in the woods and try to live like an animal, you won't last long

>>1039399
surviving in the wild is pretty damn fucking easy.

What, no it's not. Stop watching nat geo.
It's not all piss drinking and battoning, people like you make me sick. You don't know how to survive in the wild. You might last a month with your fat storage but the intense pooping will eventually get you.
Nature is harsh. Without shelter and community people die. Plain and simple.

>>1036878
drink piss

>>1036878
Hunger is a big issue. You need to consume 2-3000 calories pr day, depending on your size.

Extremely difficult in a long term, maybe permanent situation. Going on a hunting trip is never guaranteed to yield results, and it's a skill in itself that you simply need to learn. Fishing is good, but you need to eat more than just fish or else you'll be malnourished. Overfishing can also make fish scarce, some lakes etc. don't even have that much fish. Wild edibles hardly contain any nutrition. If food was abundant out there, it would be populated already.

In short term survival situations people just depend on willpower and fat reserves to get through it, they don't actually thrive out there, they just get back to civilization before they die.

>>1036887

This

Being a city fag I know how to beg for dollars. What parks to sleep in. And where the water fountains are

>>1036878
If you somehow manage to end up naked in the amazon with no gear and/or means of communication you should just go ahead and kys already, drug addict

bush people, as in nomads who live like the other animals and don't farm, are a lot smaller than what we think of as modern humans. look at the san bushmen of southern africa.

there's no strong evidence, but I'm pretty sure there used to be tiny strange elf people like that in europe as well, and the cro-magnons and neanderthal hybrids killed the fuck out of them.

>>1036878
Those stupid animals have iron stomachs that let them drink any water source and eat raw meat. They also have fur and a metabolism the keeps them warm.

>>1036878

I personally feel it's extremely underrated to the point that in the modern age, most people actually look negatively on it, especially with the whole anti-masculine push that covers the topic. But it should be a part of public education on some level. Even the most basic of basics skills, like starting a fire without tools, making a shelter, finding water in different environments and purifying said water, etc. would even suffice.

I took Boy Scouts and NJTROC (it was a combo of Marine and Navy, but focused more on Navy) programs as a kiddo and as an angsty teen.

>>1045295

Cont.

I forgot to add:

And I learned a good deal about survival and orienteering.

>>1036878
>On the other hand every other animal is significantly less intelligent than you are and yet they managed to find a way to survive just fine, without even fire
Because they have furs, claws, fangs, special organs, or what have you. We evolved to be social, tool using creatures. We are physically different from our plant preferring ape brethren.

Ability to survive in the wild is extremely underrated. I've got 40 years experience and I still dont believe I can survive with nothing but a knfie, even in what's basically my own backyard, for more than a month.

Wilderness survival. It's such a useless skill. If there is an Apoc scenario, it's the urban jungle. You need to learn how to track through a concrete wasteland, how to scavenge, and how to lead to rebuild society. Our skills dont do shit for this.

It's really nothing more than a recreational activity, no more than watching or playing basketball, football, or what else. Keeps you healthy, keeps you busy. Except ours is better because we get to take our girls out and fuck in a tent.

>>1039355
As a person who frequently wanders aimlessly alone through the wilderness with little more than a groundpad and a water filter, actual survival skills are important to me. Not meme-tier shit like batonning, but knowing that that patch of funny-looking plants I just passed is edible raw and that based on the position of the sun above the horizon I have two-and-a-half hours to figure out a basic shelter and a fire before the dark rolls in and it starts to get particularly cold because there was low humidity and no cloud cover, and I've got a long day of crawling downhill tomorrow to find and follow the waterflow if I have any expectation of finding the nearest town on a fractured fibula.

But for car-campers that are twenty feet from the nearest outlet, survival skills are pretty over-rated.

>>1036878

>Do you think the ability to survive naturally, in the wild, as an adult human being, is under-rated or over-rated in terms of difficulty?
We live in a heavily modernized world, so for the average citizen? Not a necessary skill, at all. The collapse of modern society isn't happening anytime soon, and it won't happen overnight so people will have enough to time to prepare, should it happen.

The only case where survival skills are needed is during natural disasters, and depending on your area, the type of disaster, and the extent of damage, it might not be necessary at all.

>On the one hand you have the intense amount of physical activity required to establish yourself - make a decent shelter, find a good spot, etc.
This is good on paper, but not viable unless you're a young healthy male. Your points do not include women, children, the elderly, and the sick.

>Are we over rating how difficult survival is because we live in the bubble of civil society?
It isn't a bubble. It's the reality we live in, and the only one we know how to live in. For the worse, or for the better.

>>1036913
>So to be clear, I agree with everything you said except that 'because animals do it' is not a valid argument. I think it is a valid argument. I think we as humans are just as capable as any other animal of base survival under the right conditions or armed with the right knowledge.
Animals have undergone centuries of adaptation and modification of their bodies to be able to survive in the conditions they live in. Special organs, body parts, special senses, etc. And by no means was an easy process, and by no means is failure-proof. Humans only have our brains as our only tool, as our body cannot withstand the same punishment other animals do.

Animals and humans can't compare. We are a separate category, both physically and mentally. It's unreasonable to try and compare the two.

>>1036878
It's impossible for most people to survive entirely on their own for extended periods of time.

It always has been. People have always survived in groups because you can't survive long on your own.
So your question is akin to asking how important it is to kill unicorns. It simply doesn't matter because it isn't possible now and it never was in the past either.

>>1036878
The only way this argument is getting replies is because you're being vague as fuck OP.

Survival might be important in places like, say, small remote communities that do hunting and gathering to survive. But for someone who spent their lives in cities and will likely keep doing so it's not important at all.

But you don't specify any of that. You can't speak of some skill and think it applies to everyone. Not everyone lives in the same conditions.