[Oberrheiner]

Of course not.
I got shot in the head many times with BB guns when I was young, I'm still here to talk about it

Seriously though, any ammo will eventually slow down enough with distance that it doesn't do any damage at all anymore.
22lr doesn't have much power and the human cranium is pretty solid too.
Now at which distance it wouldn't have any effect is more than 20 meters, but killing is less easy than most imagine.

I know a guy who sat on his P220 at the range and got shot in the asscheek, he got out of the hospital a couple of days later with no traces left (except probably a scar on his ass, I didn't ask to verify lol).

[Leonard D Neubache]

(02-12-2019 07:25 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 10:14 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

Wouldn't a headshot at 20 yards be fatal even with 22lr ?

Wouldn't a headshot at any distance be fatal regardless of ammunition?

I used to think this but statistically something like 50% of shots to the head are not fatal (I suspect that statistic excluded BBs )

From the front most shots below the eyes are not going to hit anything especially vital except perhaps the spine. From the side that's anything below the ears. There's a chance the bullet deviates into the brain but that's just luck. Shots to the head for man and beast need to be focused on the brain rather than the head itself. Even then the 22lr is not exactly a sure thing. Think of the skull like the armor on a tank. A lesser round combined with a glancing shot at the side can result in an ugly flesh wound rather than a penetrating shot.

In any case making a head shot under life or death duress at anything other than a stationary target is going to be in the realms of special forces training. More experienced men than me suggest upper body shots for unarmored targets and waist/head for guys with kevlar or plate carriers. If you foresee a future where you have to use a gun for self defense then leave the rabbit gun for rabbits and get yourself a 12 gauge shotgun, assuming you're not allowed to own a centerfire rifle.

All in all for all the Hollywood glamour headshots are a bit overrated. Most hunters aim for shot that will make a mess of the lungs, heart and any other organ which leads to immediate loss of mobility and motor control. Ideally the first hit will be before the creature in question is aware of the danger since adrenaline can carry an animal a long way when it's functionally dead on its feet. Humans on certain drugs/adrenaline are also notably difficult to take down for this reason. There is minimal testing to determine the results of hunting animals which are under the effect of drugs, though. So if you find yourself in that scenario then maybe a shot to the head would be preferable.

[Tail Gunner]

(02-12-2019 07:25 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 10:14 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

Wouldn't a headshot at 20 yards be fatal even with 22lr ?

Wouldn't a headshot at any distance be fatal regardless of ammunition?

It all depends on many factors, e.g., where you get shot in the head, the velocity and energy of the projectile, etc.

Quote:

According to Aarabi, 20,000 people in the United States die each year from gunshot wounds to the head. The survival rate is about 5 percent, with only 3 percent achieving a good quality of life afterward. In 2000, Maryland recorded 235 penetrating brain injuries - 208 of them lethal.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bal-...story.html

[Buddydowrongright2]

(02-12-2019 11:17 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 07:25 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 10:14 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

Wouldn't a headshot at 20 yards be fatal even with 22lr ?

Wouldn't a headshot at any distance be fatal regardless of ammunition?

It all depends on many factors, e.g., where you get shot in the head, the velocity and energy of the projectile, etc.

Quote:

According to Aarabi, 20,000 people in the United States die each year from gunshot wounds to the head. The survival rate is about 5 percent, with only 3 percent achieving a good quality of life afterward. In 2000, Maryland recorded 235 penetrating brain injuries - 208 of them lethal.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bal-...story.html

Headshots are not always fatal even at point blank range. Remember the Afghani Girl who survived getting shot by the Taliban? Malala? She took a bullet through the skull - and spine, too, actually - at 11 years old and lived. This is why American soldiers "double tap" downed enemies whenever they are able to (two shots to the cranium). It ensures old Ackbar Spillyguts won't get up again someday to kill more of our boys.

[Thersites]

(02-12-2019 01:19 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 09:27 PM)Thersites Wrote:  

Additional information from internet, search for anything by Selco, Bosnian War Survivor, as he gives his practical knowledge based on his experiences. The blog from his website shtfschool.org has been wipe, but archive.org copy is still attainable. You can find some of his writing here from the Organic Prepper.

Another good site that been around for long time is Survival Blog, and for those looking into more sensible advice and experience with economic meltdown in place like Argentine, another good resource is http://www.themodernsurvivalist.com/ by Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre. He has book by the same name in print if you want a copy.

Yes, many people in this thread are trying to reinvent the wheel, when they can garner first-hand experience regarding what really works -- and what does not -- when a society collapses. For example, Fernando “FerFAL” Aguirre wrote a book entitled "The Modern Survival Manual," which is based on his first-hand experience during the 2001 economic collapse in Argentina. I have not read it, but 70% of all reviewers gave it five stars on Amazon. The point is that seeking out people with actual experience surviving a societal collapse is the first place to start.

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Survival-M...9870563457

I

FerFal's website has direct link to amazon for his two books. The second one is relocating to another countries bases on his experience moving to Europe, if I recall correctly.

[SlickyBoy]

I agree with the idea of keeping a bug out bag or two, and also with the notion that long term living from your bug out bag is foolish and utterly unrealistic. That said, people are wondering about the longer haul during bad times.

A few thoughts on worst case scenarios, beyond the bug out bag:

1) As mentioned earlier, barring massive and repeated solar flares or complete destruction of the power grid world wide, the end of times is much more likely to be from a series of events rather than one big shock which sends us back into the stone age. The gradual piling on of massive social cultural insanity, bit by bit, will cause more permanent damage to modern civilization than one volcano or tsunami ever could. Consider the compound effects of 57 genders, 11 year old drag queens, deprecation of the military and massive inflows of cost ineffective 3rd world migrants into the first world as just a few examples. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it also took longer than that to fall - with plenty of warning.

2) Contrary to what people think, major world economies are not out of the woods yet. The debt to GDP ratio in the US alone is positively staggering and hyperinflation (not a mere recession) could be just a few bank moves away. No, we cannot grow our way out of this and even Trump can't stop it. The best non-gold bug, non bitcoin-preaching book on the subject is here.

3) That said, even if hyperinflation were to occur the immediate effects would not be a permanent shift into Mad Max territory. The initial shock would probably go on for a couple of months before governments found a way to cobble some of it back together, in spite of massive political upheaval and unpopular changes to handout schemes. But it would be difficult for a while just to function the way anyone urban and under 30 years old could ever fathom.

4) Given the likelihood that you should only need to endure at most a few months of "prepper" life, setting aside a warehouse full of toilet paper and soap makes even less sense than it did. First, much of what you'll really need is perishable. Second and more importantly, if you had six months or more of supplies in your basement, you run the risk of becoming psychologically attached to your stash, perhaps remaining in the area long past the point where it would be sensible to bug the hell out.

5) On that note, the advice of having multiple avenues of escape is solid. By this I don't mean simply physical routes out of town and places to hang out upcountry. I mean any possible residential alternatives abroad, with friends, family or in communities where you have an opportunity to ride things out and survive a bit easier, at least for a while. It may not be critical to move far away, but it's something to consider.

6) Finally, though you can't go through life in a perpetual state of paranoia, neither should you live a sanguine existence when all signs point to trouble. There are a lot of people who stayed just a bit too long in Rhodesia in 1980 who probably could have left while they had the chance, but they blew things off for whatever reason. Ditto for the place where some of them went - South Africa. Ditto again, for those who stayed in Venezuela once the shelves started going bare and most of the Chavez-loving moron voters didn't change their habits. Need I mention any Jews with means who stuck around Germany even though they had the means to escape after Kristallnacht?

Everyone here should research any possible alternatives and plan them out while there is time. Though it may disgust your instincts, sometimes you need to think a bit like a globalist - keep all your options in mind.

[Tail Gunner]

(02-12-2019 04:01 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

6) Finally, though you can't go through life in a perpetual state of paranoia, neither should you live a sanguine existence when all signs point to trouble.

This is the key point to this entire thread. Have a balance to your life. Hope for the best, but make some reasonable plans for the worst. The more options that you create in your life, the better you will be.

For example, even if no societal collapse ever happens, I am much better off now financially than if I had never planned for a societal collapse (because I found low-risk high-reward offshore investments that I would never have discovered had I not planned for the worst, visited other countries, and made some boots-on-the-ground research trips). There are plenty of things that you can do to prepare for the worst, which will improve your life even if the worst never happens.

[Laner]

(02-12-2019 07:43 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

Of course not.
I got shot in the head many times with BB guns when I was young, I'm still here to talk about it

Seriously though, any ammo will eventually slow down enough with distance that it doesn't do any damage at all anymore.
22lr doesn't have much power and the human cranium is pretty solid too.
Now at which distance it wouldn't have any effect is more than 20 meters, but killing is less easy than most imagine.

I know a guy who sat on his P220 at the range and got shot in the asscheek, he got out of the hospital a couple of days later with no traces left (except probably a scar on his ass, I didn't ask to verify lol).

A buddy took a pellet to the hand stopping what might have been a pretty bad shot to the face while we were partying with some pretty wild Indians in northern Alberta. The pellet was still in his hand 36 hours later when we left the rez and by the time we got to a clinic it was pretty bad. When they popped it out all sorts of nasty shit came with it and they gave him antibiotics for the infection.

So while a high powered pellet might not kill on impact, it will take the fight out of someone who doesn't have the desperation in them. And over the course of a week, would probably kill them if not properly treated.

[Tail Gunner]

(02-12-2019 05:56 PM)Laner Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 07:43 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

Of course not.
I got shot in the head many times with BB guns when I was young, I'm still here to talk about it

Seriously though, any ammo will eventually slow down enough with distance that it doesn't do any damage at all anymore.
22lr doesn't have much power and the human cranium is pretty solid too.
Now at which distance it wouldn't have any effect is more than 20 meters, but killing is less easy than most imagine.

I know a guy who sat on his P220 at the range and got shot in the asscheek, he got out of the hospital a couple of days later with no traces left (except probably a scar on his ass, I didn't ask to verify lol).

A buddy took a pellet to the hand stopping what might have been a pretty bad shot to the face while we were partying with some pretty wild Indians in northern Alberta. The pellet was still in his hand 36 hours later when we left the rez and by the time we got to a clinic it was pretty bad. When they popped it out all sorts of nasty shit came with it and they gave him antibiotics for the infection.

So while a high powered pellet might not kill on impact, it will take the fight out of someone who doesn't have the desperation in them. And over the course of a week, would probably kill them if not properly treated.

I never engaged in this activity because I was raised to respect firearms, but I had two friends (each of whom were from anti-gun families) that would dress up in heavy clothing, down coats, and goggles and then hunt each other with pellet rifles. This was well before the advent of paint ball guns.

Using only two pumps in a Crossman air rifle, which was the minimum power that you could use, one of them hit the other in the temple and knocked him unconscious. The point is that anything can happen with firearms and they are not to be trifled with. Some who should be dead, can live. Someone who should have lived, can die.

In a survival situation, you need to think things through in advance and play the odds. For example, if someone rolls up on you in an automobile while holding a gun, demanding that you get in, just run. There is a 50% chance that they will fire, a 50% chance that they will hit you, a 50% chance that they will mortally wound you, etc. Once you get in the car, however, they have you completely under their control, where the odds of survival are negligible.

[Kid Twist]

Hyperinflation is not going to happen. If anything, it'll be worldwide deflation, due to lack of liquidity and the strong USD, which is what is going to screw everything up eventually. It's classic contrarian theory, and it's right on. Just like none of these guys has been right about any of their doom porn yet, they are wrong on this issue as well.

Problems will come, but not from hyperinflation, at least in the United States. Until the agreement of what to DO about the strong dollar changes everything.

[Tail Gunner]

(02-13-2019 10:01 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

Hyperinflation is not going to happen. If anything, it'll be worldwide deflation, due to lack of liquidity and the strong USD, which is what is going to screw everything up eventually. It's classic contrarian theory, and it's right on. Just like none of these guys has been right about any of their doom porn yet, they are wrong on this issue as well.

Problems will come, but not from hyperinflation, at least in the United States. Until the agreement of what to DO about the strong dollar changes everything.

As a matter of history, with the exception of Weimar Germany, no first world nation has ever experienced hyper-inflation. Very painful inflation, yes (e.g., stagflation in the U.S. in the 1970's). Hyper-inflation, no.

[Thersites]

(02-12-2019 04:01 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

6) Finally, though you can't go through life in a perpetual state of paranoia, neither should you live a sanguine existence when all signs point to trouble. There are a lot of people who stayed just a bit too long in Rhodesia in 1980 who probably could have left while they had the chance, but they blew things off for whatever reason. Ditto for the place where some of them went - South Africa. Ditto again, for those who stayed in Venezuela once the shelves started going bare and most of the Chavez-loving moron voters didn't change their habits. Need I mention any Jews with means who stuck around Germany even though they had the means to escape after Kristallnacht?

Everyone here should research any possible alternatives and plan them out while there is time. Though it may disgust your instincts, sometimes you need to think a bit like a globalist - keep all your options in mind.

Instead of living in a perpetual state of paranoia, there is one way of thinking to incorporate appropriate mindset for survival/prepping in your everyday life. The key question that each of person must ask is the following: what degrees of escalation can handle you handle? Can a person handle the little things before handle bigger situations. Why prepare for the end of world, when you can barely handle day to day living. Start working those degrees before you worry about SHTF situation. Can you run down to the bus in time not miss ride work? If the answer is no, then head to gym to improve your physical condition. Why focus getting bunch of guns, when you don't have good enough everyday carry to handle the little things like opening a package, cutting a sandwich, and wiring a girls number into a notebook.

Personal example, I am prepared for handle a bout of the cold during winter? I walk to medicine cabinet, see if keep any medication that is up to date for the cold. Empty packets on the shelves. Hop into the truck, head to dollar store and stock up on cheap meds to handle 10 days of cold, sleeping pills, and anti-diarrhea meds. I not prepare for full on medical emergency, but can handle the simple things first. In time, I will slowly work up my medical cabinet with appropriate meds and supplies to handle simple things like cold to worse case situation like gunshot wounds.

So what degree of escalation can you handle?

[SlickyBoy]

^not sure I got a handle on that...

[Thersites]

(02-13-2019 11:45 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

^not sure I got a handle on that...

Prepping and Survival has the mindset to prepare for the worst case scenarios. Instead on focusing on preparing extreme situations, start to prepare and handle minor situations such as inconveniences on smaller scale. Overtime you have better foundation to handle bigger events.

[mickeyd]

A standard velocity .22 lr to the head under 100 yards will absolutely be devastating. also 22 lr comes in a variety of loads from air rifle energy to near .22 magnum energy.

[CaptainChardonnay]

22 to the head or other vital areas will without a doubt kill even at range but there are better rounds for the job. In a defensive situation you are trying to incapacitate to stop the attack.

223/556 nato is the same diameter as 22 but one weighs less and is not flying as fast.

If you imagine 22 impacting at a closer range, because it is not flying as fast, the round will actually compress on impact and make a bigger entry and possibly exit hole than a 223 which would just rip through because of the speed at which 223 flies at.

[Leonard D Neubache]

While I don't want to turn this thread into a defacto gun thread that's a myth, CC.

I can't speak for FMJ rounds which are rarely used by shooting enthusiasts outside of right-to-bear-arms nations but a .223/5.56 hunting round will turn a head inside out.

I once shot a watermelon with a .223 thinking the same thing you do. That the bullet would just whizz straight through. Without exaggeration the top travelled 15 feet into the air and the sides were found ten feet to the left and right. The folks making these rounds really know their shit. I wont even post some of the pictures I've seen of .223 decapitations. Forget NSFW. They're not safe for sanity.



These are full metal jacket rounds. Hunting rounds expand at even shallower depths. Comparing the measurements to the diameter of the typical human head shows that even military rounds will often have delivered half of their energy by the time they exit a head, and leave an exit wound the size of a fist. What these charts don't show is also the effect of hydrostatic shock which is a whole other thing.

Catching a bullet in the head is never going to end well, but there's virtually no circumstance where bigger/faster isn't better assuming like/like bullet type. That .223 is delivering between 5-10 times the energy of the 22lr. Even if it wastes half it's still ahead by more than double at minimum.

I don't want to sandbag anyone but there are a lot of myths when it comes to this sort of stuff.

[H1N1]

There is some confusion surrounding the effects of different rounds on people.

Full metal jacket 5.56 is surprisingly non-lethal. Indeed, a significant part of the point of it, something that NATO doesn't make a song and dance of, is that it is specifically designed to wound and demoralise. 5.56 can, and regularly does, go straight through people without immediately incapacitating them. Shock is also much less of a concern with 5.56.

7.62 is a better choice if soldiers are less well trained, as the significantly bigger, heavier bullet makes a big difference for troops who are not combat hardened and well drilled. Shock is a much greater factor, and the bullet generally expends a far greater proportion of its energy in a target - meaning that even peripheral wounds or through-and-throughs can be lethal.

I don't subscribe to the chiliastic vision personally, and see things getting more or less better, though not necessarily linearly. For those that want to think about these things though, unless you are training regularly under high stress conditions, lethality generally improves with a bigger, heavier, relatively slower bullet.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(01-13-2019 01:35 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 10:32 PM)bigolteddies Wrote:  

...
What's your plan then where do you think the best places to be are?

The best retreat location will have as many of the following factors as possible.

1) Inside the town boundaries of a functional farming, fishing, mining or milling community that is not completely dead or on welfare.
2) At an increased elevation to any cities in the area, one of which you obviously work and live at.
3) Preferably above the snow line for short periods of the year.
4) Has access to a river or gravity-fed dam-based water source that is unlikely to be seriously contaminated by anyone upstream.
5) If not a farming or fishing village it needs to have a minimal population and good prospects for hunting.
6) Town/area population large enough to mount a serious resistance to outsiders but small enough not to have lost a sense of community.
7) Be within realistic hiking distance from the city you live in.
8) Either be populated by co-ethnics and/or people who can be convinced to recognize and welcome you.
9) Has several defensible geographical bottlenecks between itself and serious population centers.
10) Has several towns with similar qualities between itself and any serious population centers to acts as buffers for refugee drift.

I wanted to expand on this to go into what to look for in the retreat property itself instead of the location.

As always the first thing you want to decide is whether you're buying an investment property that will double as a retreat or whether you just want to buy a retreat property that will remain uninhabited when you're not there.

An uninhabited retreat makes the process more simple but obviously the drawback is that you're putting large amounts of money into something that doesn't provide a stream of revenue. Granted it's not like throwing money away on MREs that never get eaten. It's an asset that doesn't depreciate too much over time. But it's still sacrificing your investment capacity for the sake of survivalism which is something I generally advise against where it's reasonably avoidable.

A good way to manage the benefits and the drawbacks is to seek out a property that has a separate studio-type living quarters that remains your exclusive domain while the tenant lives in the house-proper. A fallback to that is simply to negotiate rights to keep and access a storage space on the property such as a shipping container or the garden shed. This will allow you to store your supplies and have a place to rough it after the bombs drop while the lease runs out or you make other arrangements.

That might sound like a real hassle but there are some hidden benefits. A good tenant will act as your own night-watchman for your supply cache and will also be tending to basic maintenance of the house and grounds. The happiest medium is to find a boring old widow who pays her rent on time and mostly keeps to herself. These are surprisingly common in regions like the ones I listed above. The women outlive the men by about ten years or so. It might be best to run the lease through an agency and give them their cut since the tyranny of distance will make life hard as a landlord. The local realtors also know the local old folks and will have a tendency to put trouble-free tenants on their rosters.

In a slow decline you can bail out of the city at your leisure and decline to renew the lease. You move in and that's that. In a swift decline you can arrive and crash out in the studio, shipping container or garden shed. The tenant is likely going to move in with their kids ASAP. I wouldn't concern myself overly with fears that you're going to be frozen out of your own property. Country folk are extreme sticklers for property rights.

The other option is to simply buy the property for your sole personal use. This denies you a revenue stream from your investment but it on the flip side it allows you to be an absolute scrooge in terms of what you settle for as "acceptable".

I've seen crap-shacks inside of town boundaries go for as little $60K AUD, the repayments on which would be a pittance as an investment property. Usually the drawbacks are that it needs serious work on the plumbing and the electrical and the phones lines etc but if you're buying it as a doomsday retreat then that stuff is suddenly far less relevant, giving you the power to negotiate a rock-bottom price without ever intending to fix it up.
Some of these old rural houses have hot water systems attached to wood fire heaters or wood fire kitchen stoves. If it's functional then this is a real bonus. You can negotiate a much lower price because normally using that stuff is an absolute pain in the ass but the reality is that this is precisely the kind of technology you actually want. Win/Win.

This outside-the-box thinking has it's limits. Check local regulations to make sure you're not going to be forced to fix any of this shit even though you don't need it. Other standards for the house will have to be met just as they normally would. Solid foundations. No termites. Roof is well sealed. Chimneys are in good, working condition as are wood-burning appliances. Plumbing is again a case-by-case question. After things get ugly the long-drop is going to make a big comeback and water will unlikely be something you wastefully blast out of a tap so if the plumbing is rubbish it's not the end of the world. Negotiate the price down accordingly and commit to fixing it or living with it.

As usual make sure the building has permits for all work done so you don't get hit with any orders to demolish or bring stuff up to industry standard.

This is the bargain basement option I'm giving here. As I've said already several times in the thread, it's not wise to mortgage your pre-disaster life preparing for something that may not happen on schedule or perhaps ever. A retreat of the kind just mentioned should not be viewed as a comfy mansion to ride out tough times. It should be viewed as a hell of a tent, which is a fuckload more than 99% of people will have when things go south.

In the meanwhile you can use it as a meditative retreat to get away from the noise of society. Have fun stashing supplies in the wallspaces and furniture. Just remember to lay down a shitload of rat poison where the neighbor's cats wont eat it.

[DJ-Matt]

My rifle is a 270 winchester, wonder how that stacks up with the others on that chart. Those fucking cartridges are expensive as hell too, literally around a buck per, no wonder my bro in law reloads.

[SlickyBoy]

(02-14-2019 11:35 AM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

My rifle is a 270 winchester, wonder how that stacks up with the others on that chart. Those fucking cartridges are expensive as hell too, literally around a buck per, no wonder my bro in law reloads.

.270 is a good round and very under appreciated nowadays. It was created from a 30-06 and necked down to a smaller bullet, making it faster. It's even better nowadays with the advent of better powders than when it was first introduced (also very true for the .30-06, which came out over a hundred years ago).

Right now it may be expensive, but remember the best part about .270 is during political panic times, nobody is thinking about .270 since it is not a a round used by eeeevil black rifles constantly on the gun grabbers hit list.

I remember back when Obama wanted a "conversation" about gun control (lecture, laws, confiscation, etc.) everybody was freaking out trying to get as much .308 and .223 (7.62 and 5.56, respectively) as they could while the .270 was sitting on the shelf, readily available from multiple manufacturers.

It's a common enough round, yet not so unusual that it's scarce even in non-panic periods. Reloading supplies are readily available too and make economic sense if you shoot a lot - worth considering.

[Laner]

(02-14-2019 03:42 AM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  

22 to the head or other vital areas will without a doubt kill even at range but there are better rounds for the job. In a defensive situation you are trying to incapacitate to stop the attack.

223/556 nato is the same diameter as 22 but one weighs less and is not flying as fast.

If you imagine 22 impacting at a closer range, because it is not flying as fast, the round will actually compress on impact and make a bigger entry and possibly exit hole than a 223 which would just rip through because of the speed at which 223 flies at.

Its why my .222 isn't much fun unless its on a bench at a long range. Up close, it has too much velocity to make things jump. And its too expensive to make plinking cans any fun.

For close range fun and making shit disappear nothing is more fun than an old 12 gauge.

[debeguiled]

LD.

You interested in permaculture?

[debeguiled]

Still banging the drum for permaculture.

Shape the land to harvest and retain water, plant low to no maintenance food crops as a forest, integrate livestock to kill pests and weeds as well as spread manure, and plant many diverse food crops and nitrogen fixing plants for the soil which creates soil instead of depleting it.

This guy is building a kind of Eden on earth while his neighbors suffer from floods and droughts, he just keeps trucking with his micro climates and bio-experiments.

There are worse lives than this, being a farming mad scientist, observing natural processes and figuring out how to mimic and tame them for domestic use.

It's like being a grown man and still playing in the world's largest sandbox, playing with mud and carving up the land with earth movers.

What a life.

[Foolsgo1d]

So all the things aside which we will never correctly predict, if ever, what are your physical capabilities as a man?

Can you run 800m at a decent pace without getting gassed? How about 1500? 2000m? Now how well can you jog with 20lbs on you for 1000m?

I always see extremes when it comes to fitness, either you're a IG whore looking for those curves or muscles or some marathon mutant who looks like they need some weight gain. Past year I've been aiming for a good inbetween and getting that stamina and toughness down.

Cant survive bad shit if your body isn't good to go.