[mattmanser]

No idea why you've been d/ved, as you say, there's so many potential, but low risk, scenarios. Even in America and the EU we've all got a 0.5%, maybe 0.1% every year that something could go very wrong. Most likely is that it doesn't spiral, like the 2008 financial crisis, but there was a real, but small, chance that could have gone much worse.

His comment not only is ignoring real-life examples that have happened within his life time (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Venezula, Katrina, Puerto Rico, etc.), he's also postulating that these new governmental structures would magically spring up over night, rather than taking years or even decades to emerge.

I'm no prepper, but I do feel that I am knowingly taking a risk, albeit a very small one, by not being one. If I had a family to care for, I would definitely be more prepared with 3 months food and some emergency medical supplies beyond a first aid kit. It's a small enough risk that it will probably not happen for my generation or my country, but it does happen.

I also often don't buy insurance for things I think aren't worth it, but it's still a deliberate choice rather than sleep walking into it.

It's almost on the same risk percentage as Home Insurance, so if you're insuring your home, why aren't you 'spending' a little time each year prepping? Just because it's socially unacceptable, but home insurance is regarded as socially acceptable?

[barrow-rider]

Doesn't even have to be something destructive like Iraq or Puerto Rico, Argentina comes to mind: serious economic collapse, maybe not Venezula-style, but enough that it disrupted things heavily.

I agree with the parent -- it's just insurance, and is a cost-benefit trade-off that needs to be evaluated in a similar fashion as flood insurance or the like.

There are a lot of what I'd call "psychological" or perception-based factors for doing things like hoarding guns and food, and it's easy to go overboard, but they're not fundamentally poor choices.