[mulvya]

'Preppers', by definition, are those who have decided the world is unstable and on the brink of collapse. Their presence or opinion, by itself, is not an indicator of how unstable Germany is.

What would give an indication is how many there are. And the article references no polls or surveys or statistics on the number of preppers in Germany. The closest it comes is,

"There are around 20m preppers in the world today according to Bradley Garrett, an academic who has studied them; anywhere from 5m-15m are thought to be in America."

Let's say, 10M are in the US. That leaves 10M out of ~7.55B in the rest of the world. Assuming uniform prevalence, that's 0.13% of the population.

This is typical of much of modern journalism. Long-form emotional tone painting and little of substance.

[paxys]

Disagree with the first part. 'Prepping' has evolved into a subculture that is more and more removed from the actual scenario of imminent societal collapse. Even here in Northern California a lot of people engage in prepping/survivalism as a hobby and social group. Very few are the real tinfoil type.

Of course this supports the point even more that the article's premise is idiotic.

Funny enough you won't find many preppers in countries/regions that actually qualify as unstable, because it is very expensive to stockpile food reserves, water, medicine, generators, fuel, gold, valuables, guns, ammo, communication equipment. It is a very "first world" hobby.

[WelcomeShorty]

> people engage in prepping/survivalism as a hobby and social group

Color me guilty! For me it started with cooking, that led to gardening, then hunting. Combine that with camping and here I am, part of a small group of very diverse people who like to spend time with as little modern conveniences as possible, as far away from modern life with the smallest possible food print.

We leave our homes with what we can carry, walk as far as we can, collect food en route and hide as good as we can.

If I would be a classic prepper, I would do this with the most important people in the world: my family, but I do not. It is just for fun and to meet different people and how to take care of each other without outside assistance. Challenging and suitable for everyone since you can do it for as long or short, as far or as close as your means allow you to.

[KronisLV]

A lot of it is actually pretty practical!

Growing your own produce is a pretty good way to keep yourself busy (and i find it relaxing), learn more about plants in general, as well as lets you have a better idea of what actually goes into your meals (vs store bought produce, which might have certain pesticides or other additives).

The same goes for cooking, for which there are also very tangible and immediate financial benefits, when compared to eating out. So much so, that people have organized various communities around the idea of cooking stuff yourself and doing so in an efficient manner, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/MealPrepSunday/top/?t=month

Hunting also makes you develop more appreciation for having meat in general - personally, after having to drag a carcass from the forest all the way home and to help my dad prepare the meat made me view it as something to have occasionally, not as often as other people might. Of course, learning firearms safety and a thing or two about how to behave in forests is useful as well.

Of course, some people might take it a bit too far - like having a bunker in their basement or stockpiling MREs for years, many of which will simply go bad, but i'd argue that most things, even having your own generator are pretty reasonable in the grand scheme of things, especially in regards to bad weather conditions and inconsistent power supply.

[soco]

All those stockpiles make you in unstable regions probably also a target.

[fighterpilot]

> 'Preppers', by definition, are those who have decided the world is unstable and on the brink of collapse.

Not by definition. Maybe in practice.

You might be a 'prepper' even if you think the chance of society collapsing is only 0.1% because you think it's a prudent hedge against a highly unlikely worst-case scenario. This might be rational from a personal perspective if you have enough wealth to burn such that 'prepping' for this 0.1% situation only costs 0.01% of your net worth.

[ericbarrett]

I have known some preppers and I think there's a pretty clear line when it crosses into a paranoia, and begins consuming your life. A rich person building a panic room or even a very rich person buying an island is a different from somebody of humble means who eschews working, to live in the boondocks and stockpile ammo and food. But I don't think money itself is the divisor; a modestly wealthy person buying an island to escape Armageddon might also qualify.

[mulvya]

Oxford defines prudent as "sensible and careful when you make judgements and decisions; avoiding unnecessary risks"

How can it be sensible if one thinks it's 'highly unlikely'?

If one is very rich, then prepping may be financially affordable, but that doesn't make it cognitively rational.

[fighterpilot]

> How can it be sensible if one thinks it's 'highly unlikely'?

Hedging a highly unlikely situation can still be sensible. Those two things are definitely not mutually exclusive.

If all your net worth is tied up in your house, it's probably sensible and rational to get fire insurance on your house, even if it's highly unlikely that your house will burn down. This question has been studied extensively in utility theory.

[goatlover]

But should you get insurance in case a meteor hits your house? Fires happen often enough, but some events are low enough probability not to worry about. A house being destroyed by a meteor strike isn't worth spending money on.

[fighterpilot]

X = P(bad_outcome) * magnitude_of_badness

Y = your net worth

You can trade-off one with the other.

People with lots of Y will be more happy to reduce Y in order to reduce X, because the marginal utility of Y declines with larger values of Y, whereas marginal utility of X remains roughly the same irrespective of values of Y.

> Fires happen often enough, but some events are low enough probability not to worry about.

This ignores the second part of X, which is magnitude_of_badness. Your house burning down has a smaller magnitude_of_badness than society collapsing which will likely lead to death.

It's also ignoring the marginal utility of wealth for large values of Y. Even if X is small, people with large Y will be more happy to reduce Y in order to reduce X.

[eloeffler]

That's right. Even the amount of preppers would only be an indicator of subjective stability. It could as well be a kind of new apocalyptic religion.

On a sidenote, the talk of social collapse is a popular propaganda theme of the extreme right.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

> 'Preppers', by definition, are those who have decided the world is unstable and on the brink of collapse.

As others have noted, not necessarily - there are many shades here. Depending on your situation, being prepared for unforeseen situations is not paranoiac but sensible. The key point is how much time, effort, and mental energy you put in this. Having some cash, food and basic tools just in case is one thing - piling up tons of stuff and worrying constantly is something different. The former is actually something to be promoted as a healthy attitude in an ever-changing world. And even if noting serious happens until the end of your life, you have the comfort of knowing, "At least I'm a bit prepared."

[ashtonkem]

And even knowing the percentage of peepers in a country doesn’t tell you much about the stability of said country; social factors can affect that rate independent of how likely a collapse is.

[jfoutz]

I'm pretty sure a perhaps 2B of those ~7.55B don't have electricity, or loss of electricity would be an inconvenience.

Electricity may not be the best proxy for stability, but it's a huge deal in my life, and I think important for a lot of of those ~7.55B. Electricity also requires a lot of infrastructure.

I don't think it changes your analysis. I wanted to highlight Stability for a random HN reader is probably more complex than stability for a random human.

[nroets]

I agree, but want to add that I think 'prepping' is in my genes and also in the genes of many of the settlers who left Europe and colonized the new world: They left because they did not trust a king or a church.

They romanticized self sufficient farming. Isn't that 'prepping' taken to the extreme ?

[LargoLasskhyfv]

To announce being a prepper would be bad OPSEC. Maybe there are way more, taking OPSEC seriously, sitting back and giggling madly in anticipation of 'the EVENT' which enables them to write told you so with their bullets onto the crumbling walls!1!!