Slashdot Mirror
10 Wearable Habitats To Shelter You From the Apocalypse
fangmcgee writes "The end may not be nigh, but with vicious storms, severe flooding, and rising temperatures becoming the new normal, the apocalypse might be closer than we think. In the case of a cataclysmic event that could displace thousands, if not millions, of people, the availability of emergency shelter becomes a pressing concern. Here are 10 'wearable shelters' that serve as protective all-weather garments in the day and insulating dwellings at night."
All one needs is a towel.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
The 4th one reminds me of something from a Red Hot Chilli Peppers video
Homeless people get robbed if they have anything valuable or as useful as a sleeping bag.
(Also, the one in the main cover image (images 7/10/11 in the gallery) is clearly just taking the piss.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Bivy sacks those are not.
Are you a turtle?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Similar terms, but they do not mean the same thing.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Main reason I often don't read TFA? Because of trash sites like the one linked in TFS.
Anything where normal parts of the article are disguised as ads (or vice versa) is an immediate bounce for me. Present your content like a responsible adult and people might read.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Ok, I looked it over and am not impressed.
A hammock and a plastic tarp stuffed into a jacket pocket is not a bad solution.
Nobody will know it's me falling asleep on my keyboard.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
And this one comes complete with a tin foil brain protection system, and the tin foil is completely inspectable and replaceable by you, the whackjob^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hintelligent purchaser of portable habitats.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
How can they handle the apocalypse when they can't even handle being Slashdotted?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
This Apocalypse stuff is really starting to annoy me. If civilization falls, it will be gradual. And we won't go back to the stone age.
Why because we know how to not live in the stone age.
We know about metals and melting ore to to create them. We know about magnets and how they can be used to generate electricity or using electricity to create maniacal energy. We understand that silicon has a semi-conductive state and how to arrange semi-conductors into not gates and not gates into And and Or gates and further on to a computer.
As a group of people we know a lot of stuff. and will not live like in a stone age. Short term we may be living in camps. But we would have a lot of things to help out.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It is a collection of ten photos of art projects, which are neither useful, nor available for any practical use. Sort of like showing an exotic concept car.
Got a particularly good link?
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It's not survival gear, it's silly jackoff "art" and it's not news for nerds and it doesn't fucking matter.
Want to survive? Arm your mind, arm yourself (with a legal concealed weapon) and have a serious bugout bag and serious clothing (including BROKEN IN combat or hiking boots).
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
... at the next Occupy Movement sit-in with my new Ecouterre wearable habitat!
Well, I retract my original statement. Apparently energy is up slightly in the last few years, with the result that we are now in a 30-year low, no longer a 40-year slump.
Here is one source, and here is another.
Just two examples. It is pretty easy to google that, and the information is not somebody's "opinion", it is what the science says. BUT... while those particular sources are often attacked, keep in mind that they are presenting someone else's scientific studies, they are not "the source". You aren't likely to find that information on sites about "climate change" because they don't want to point it out to you; it weakens their arguments and apocalyptic prognostications.
Is this you?
Stuff that matters
"The Vessel" looked good and seemed useful (I'd actually buy it), and the "JakPak" and "Refugewear" seemed useful, even though they look like crap. The rest were pretty lame, though.
And lo, out of the four corners came a misting of water that fell on all the sons of Abraham.
And the iniquitous were chilled slightly by it, and proclaimed their shame...
The children of the lamb were sheltered by their light clothing.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Hahaha. As usual, contradicting "mainstream" rhetoric -- no matter how correct I was -- got me modded "troll" again.
It's no longer even just sad. It has gotten to the point it's almost amusing.
In the case of a cataclysmic event that could displace thousands, if not millions, of people, the availability of emergency shelter becomes a pressing concern.
The things that will actually make a difference in your ability to survive a cataclysmic event have very little to do with simple products you can buy. Some things that will make a huge difference:
- How much warning you get: The more time you have, the more survivable the mess is.
- Your willingness to believe the warning: If you don't believe it (not uncommon at all), you won't react in time to do anything useful.
- Whether you have the resources to get to somewhere else in between the warning and the actual cataclysm: If you don't have anywhere to go, don't have a car, etc, then leaving is much more difficult.
- Your willingness to lose most of your stuff: Many people have died going for their valuables rather than going to a safer place.
- Whether you have any chronic medical conditions: A lot of deaths in disaster areas are people not getting the medication they need to treat chronic illness.
- Your age: Elderly and young children will get the worst of it.
- Your physical fitness: If you're hale and hardy, you can consider options like loading up everything you need in a backpack and walking out of the disaster area. If you're morbidly obese, you can't.
Basically, the standard strategy for dealing with a serious but localized disaster is (1) Try to get everyone out of there before it strikes. (2) After it strikes, bring as many supplies into the area as you can while getting as many people out of the area as you can as quickly as possible. (3) As the people are leaving, start fixing the underlying problems to the degree possible. (4) As the disaster area recovers, people start trickling back in.
I am officially gone from
Until you run out of Ammo. I'll stick with my sword, knife and crossbow.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Frilly cover over a miniskirt and heels for the Apocalypse? About as good as a wrapper on a hamburger, and will probably serve the same purpose.
I would envision something like a space suit, with chain mail over Kevlar to resist bladed weapon puctures and bullets. It would not need to be airtight, but would allow a slight overpressure for nuclear/biological/chemical survival, something like armored firefighter turnout gear with SCBA, with an armored helmet with facemask.
Accessorize with melee weapons and big guns...ouila! The fashion statement of the Apocalypse.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
AND tie wraps - that's the trinity
A blog I run for the wealth
BHO sounds less like body odor. It also sounds more like well-liked Presidents such as FDR and JFK.
someone got it
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
You can't argue with biodiversity plummeting towards the zero axis.
But it's not actually plummeting towards the zero axis, let us note.
Nothing like this has ever happened before
You're making the fundamental error of assuming that geological era mass extinctions are measured in the same way that the current era's extinctions are. For example, the extinction that marks the end of the Cretaceous period killed 75% of all organisms that left fossils. It is worth noting here that the only large animals to survive were reptile scavengers like crocodiles. That is, if you were a large land animal of the Cretaceous and you didn't feed on dead meat or could survive months without food, then you didn't make it.
In comparison, plenty of large animals survive today with little threat looming on the horizon. That tells me right there that the harm of the current period of humanity is exaggerated.
In case anyone's wondering, there is no likely solution to this, because the extinction isn't being caused by anything as simple as CO2 or global warming, it's being caused by destruction of habitats as a direct result of what we call "civilization". Good luck trying to get humans to stop the impact of technology on the biosphere and live with nature, it's not gonna happen.
The likely solution is the creation of some wilderness zones, which has already been shown successful in North America.
Have you checked the state of the biosphere recently?
He might or might not have done so. We can't tell from available evidence. However, we can determine from your baseless concerns that you haven't.
But we can't survive without the biosphere, and we're doing an excellent job of killing it off, very rapidly indeed.
I'm chilling in Yellowstone National Park as I type this. There's no evidence of biosphere killing going on here. So it can't be "very rapid".
Somebody thinks they've "invented", the poncho, the parka, and the bivouac bag.
Total global cyclonic energy ("vicious storms") has been at a 40-year LOW. Yes, the Atlantic got some storms last year but they were only seemingly "more vicious" because they happened near cities. The overall rate of "vicious storms" is DOWN, not up.
Well, 40-year low is possibly a bit misleading if you intend to imply there's a downward trend. ACE varies pretty wildly from year to year, so it's extremely hard to say if there's a trend in one direction or the other. This is why most climate and atmospheric scientists are extremely reluctant to blame any one storm season on climate change, despite the media biting at the bullet to do so.
Though, what's interesting to me is how strong everyone predicted this season was going to be in the Atlantic and how anemic it has been so far. I haven't seen a good explanation of that, though we've got 3 more months to go.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I would envision something like a space suit, with chain mail over Kevlar to resist bladed weapon puctures and bullets. It would not need to be airtight, but would allow a slight overpressure for nuclear/biological/chemical survival, something like armored firefighter turnout gear with SCBA, with an armored helmet with facemask.
Accessorize with melee weapons and big guns...ouila! The fashion statement of the Apocalypse.
Spoken like someone who has never hiked long distance. Weight is your enemy.
You are no better than the fashionista, proposing something so utterly impractical yet "cool" looking.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"Well, 40-year low is possibly a bit misleading if you intend to imply there's a downward trend. "
Well, first, I corrected this to 30 years. And second, I wasn't suggesting a downward trend, but a persistent dip in ACE for a number of years. It is my understanding that it has actually been up a bit, on average, over the last few years but that we are still at a relatively low spot in the long-term record.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. It means what it means in the context it is used in.
Only I can judge you.
You can't save the biosphere by creating a few reserves.
But you can by creating a lot of reserves - which is what is happening.
You really need to get out of your basement and tread on soil some day.
I work and play in Yellowstone National Park. That and considerable surrounding national forests and some private reserves, occupies up to 80,000 sq km, depending how you define the "Greater Yellowstone" region (which includes considerable neighboring national forests and some private conservation efforts. That's crudely 1 part in 2000 of the total land area of the world (roughly 150 million sq km) just by itself.
Similarly, consider all US national parks and forests, which is roughly 1.1 million sq km. That's about 0.7% of all land area of the world just in the US.
There are many similar land set asides elsewhere. Roughly, 10-15% of the entire land area of Earth is in such "protected areas".
You can reasonably argue that this isn't enough land to compensate for the degree of environmental change that humanity does (particularly invasive species and habitat destruction), But we've gone far past the stage of debating whether or not to create large spaces of such reserves.
Neither of these are new. We've always had hurricanes and hot weather, going back before the industrial age..
Rule 10: You take life too seriously.
Rule 6: Remember: You're not getting out of it alive.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
But it seems you still may not grasp that the places where biodiversity needs to survive and flourish are those where our food is grown and our fish are caught
I don't "grasp" it because such a claim doesn't make sense. A monoculture farm field is where we need "biodiversity"? The whole point of wild areas is to hold that biodiversity that won't ever be found on the farm. As I see it, 10-15% sounds adequate to me though it probably needs to be connected better.
A whole 1/3rd of the extra CO2 in the air is released by tilling
And stored by the resulting crops that grows afterward (including when the land is left fallow, a standard practice). There is a lot of seasonal variation in CO2 which doesn't contribute to cumulative CO2 growth. This is some of it.
Think of it a different way, if tilling released so much carbon from the soil permanently each time it was done, then you'd only be able to farm land for a few years before it became too infertile to do so, even with fertilizer (which doesn't contribute carbon to the soil).
Instead, the more serious problem for farmland fertility is nitrogen depletion. Which is why so much effort is expended on various ways to put nitrogen into the soil.
So while I applaud that you work in Yellowstone and understand forest successions from the invasive plants through which nature starts to repair our destruction all the way to mature forests, unless you propose that all farmland be turned into ecological reservations and simultaneously farmed sustainably then you're missing the big picture. In the big picture outside of our protected habitats, it's all a completely hopeless descent towards biosphere collapse, and the areas that are protected from it won't help because those are not where the food is grown.
And what is the mechanism by which this collapse is going to happen? I just see some vague talk of releasing CO2 from the soil and a little fertilizer getting into the oceans. At some point, you'll need to demonstrate that there's substantial stress on biospheres that aren't subject directly to heavy pollution. I don't think it is there.