Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Idle Technology

10 Wearable Habitats To Shelter You From the Apocalypse 135

Posted by samzenpus
from the tucking-in-for-the-night dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

10 Wearable Habitats To Shelter You From the Apocalypse

Comments Filter:
  • by Freshly Exhumed (105597) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:34PM (#44479447) Homepage

    All one needs is a towel.

    • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:51PM (#44479625) Homepage

      All one needs is a towel.

      That isn't entirely correct. One of the big issues I have with Mr. Adams is that he totally ignored WD40 and Duct tape. I don't care if he thinks he knows the answer to everything, your travel bag is not complete without those two essentials.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:18PM (#44479849)

      A towel might actually be as useful as anything else, given the circumstances.

      Despite the joking, people who don't think that "the end is nigh" probably haven't looked up "mass extinction" [wikipedia.org] and specifically, the 6th mass extinction that's currently underway.

      You can't argue with biodiversity plummeting towards the zero axis. Prior mass extinctions have been relatively gradual downward curves in geological time. This one is a vertical drop.

      Nothing like this has ever happened before, and the maths says we will shortly be toast, for values of "shortly" ranging from a few decades to a few centuries. And nobody knows exactly where the tipping point lies, the point where the interdependencies between species are no longer self-sustaining and the biosphere collapses like a house of cards.

      At that point it's bye bye homo sapiens. We *are* part of the biosphere, not outside of it.

      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.

      So we're toast. I'll have a towel too please.

      • by khallow (566160) on Monday August 05, 2013 @05:17PM (#44480889)

        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.

    • by Ambvai (1106941) on Monday August 05, 2013 @06:36PM (#44481527)
      Sadly enough, I read that as [i]trowel[/i] on my first pass and found it a surprisingly interesting statement. Compact, can be used to dig a hole for shelter, a sharpened edge can be used as a knife, build a dam, uproot plants for transit, go gardening... then I saw the response and it turned out to be nothing more than a Hitchhiker's reference. Sigh.
    • by Black LED (1957016) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @12:25AM (#44483367)
      Gore-Tex ponchos for all!
  • by shortscruffydave (638529) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:36PM (#44479471)
    The 4th one reminds me of something from a Red Hot Chilli Peppers video
  • by FatLittleMonkey (1341387) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:37PM (#44479473)

    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.)

    • by couchslug (175151) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:10PM (#44479785)

      "Homeless people get robbed if they have anything valuable or as useful as a sleeping bag."

      The first tool to "wear" when you start moving away from a disaster is your legal concealed firearm (which you have PRACTICED with and are proficient in handling).

      Bug out defense can be advanced:

      One vet I know has a short-but-legal AR-15 with a folding buttstock (not retracting, folding) that fits nicely in a standard small backpack. Of course he has a pistol handy because CHUDs won't give you time to free your rifle, but its main duty is feral hogs and dogs where its ability to fit under a truck seat is handy.

      The other thing to do is make sure you don't stand out as a target. For example, a small shelter could be useful for concealment just-off-highway when doing a long march away from the disaster area.

      No need for anything special though. At least four pairs of good socks, broken-in hiking boots, and a poncho should do for temperate weather.

      • The first tool to "wear" when you start moving away from a disaster is your legal concealed firearm (which you have PRACTICED with and are proficient in handling).

        Way to rub it in, asshole. Some of us can't afford the luxury of residing in the bible belt, appalachia, or some other shithole where "legal concealed firearm" isn't an oxymoron. And I say this as an owner of several firearms, a few of which could be (and would be) carried concealed if the legal climate in the developed states wasn't so fucking unconstitutional.

        because CHUDs

        LOL.

        • The first tool to "wear" when you start moving away from a disaster is your legal concealed firearm (which you have PRACTICED with and are proficient in handling).

          Way to rub it in, asshole. Some of us can't afford the luxury of residing in the bible belt, appalachia, or some other shithole where "legal concealed firearm" isn't an oxymoron. And I say this as an owner of several firearms, a few of which could be (and would be) carried concealed if the legal climate in the developed states wasn't so fucking unconstitutional.

          because CHUDs

          LOL.

          Move? Or, stop voting for the idiots that don't let you carry? Carry anyway?

          • by Jeff Flanagan (2981883) on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:13PM (#44480313)
            >Move?

            What states allow concealed-carry, but don't have conservative christians imposing, or trying to impose their superstitions on kids at school? Illinois is a possibility as long as you avoid southern Illinois, but I'd wait a couple of years to see of the new concealed carry laws hold up.

            >Or, stop voting for the idiots that don't let you carry?

            Not a bad plan, unless their opponents have larger issues, which is often the case.

            >Carry anyway?

            Really terrible idea, unless you're trying to go to jail, in which case it's a pretty good idea.
          • Move? Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said "some of us can't afford the luxury of residing in..."

            Moving costs money. Living somewhere that lacks tech jobs costs opportunity. Being surrounded by rednecks, hicks, and the Jesus fan club costs sanity.

            Also, I don't see how not voting in elections would bring about legal concealed carry. In case that last sentence went over your head, I'm implying that the only ones on the ballot are the idiots that don't let you carry. Despite voting for write-ins for the last few elections, I still can't legally carry concealed, so this suggestion of yours doesn't seem to be panning out either.

            And yes, carry anyway. That's a great way of earning yourself a mandatory minimum sentence. I refer you to the exciting story of Brian Aitken [wikipedia.org] who had the pleasure of exploring the maze of NJ firearms laws personally. Carrying anyway is only a good idea if you don't mind spending several years in prison.
            • by stoploss (2842505) on Monday August 05, 2013 @06:13PM (#44481357)

              Move? Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said "some of us can't afford the luxury of residing in..."

              Oh, please. Don't couch this as a need, when it's clearly just the integrated outcome of your decisions to stay in (what I infer to be) "...god damn New Jersey".

              I know for a fact that I would literally turn down $500k/year in salary if the job required me to live in NJ (or any of those other godforsaken liberal hellhole states). I would be much happier even if I could only make a tenth of that while living in relative freedom.

              So, I believe that when you define moving to live in freedom as impossible, you must be including your standard of living preconceived notions, etc. This is disingenuous if you don't qualify your absolute "can't afford it" statement. Otherwise, are you literally claiming you can't just walk away from your material possessions and start over someplace more free? Or is it, as I suspect, more that you just don't want to do so?

              • by cas2000 (148703) on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @02:41AM (#44494589)

                I know for a fact that I would literally turn down $500k/year in salary if the job required me to live in NJ (or any of those other godforsaken liberal hellhole states).

                thank you for providing a perfect example that gun nuts are fucking stupid in a general sense as well as in the childish fantasy make-believe sense of "i need my gun to protect myself from da gubmint".

                making $500K/year in a liberal western democracy isn't exactly an onerous hardship. you're not at risk of being dragged off to the gulags for not saluting the flag or blowing jesus enthusiastically enough (as might be the case in a jesusland state), and you won't be tortured or lynched or burnt or dragged in chains behind a car for miles just for being different.

                making $500k/year for a year or three or five is enough to set you up to live however you like, wherever you like afterwards....and with a living standard better than about 98% of everyone else in the world.

                but that would be intolerable to you because....why? is it because "liberal hellhole" states have and enforce laws about separation of church and state, minimum wages, employment conditions, food safety standards, and ..... you know what, I just can't figure out what the fuck it is that people like you think is so bad about "liberal hellhole states" that doesn't just boil down to brainwashed propaganda that "liberal is a dirty word".

                personally, i live in a civilised country and think even your "liberal hellhole" states are regressive, backward, authoritarian police-state hellholes. i'd *hate* to have to live anywhere in america but i could tolerate somewhere on either the east or west coasts (the semi-civilised parts - NY or Boston or Seattle or San Francisco for example) for a year or five if i was making $500K/year. It might even be worth it at $250K/year. In contrast, I probably wouldn't last a month in some redneck jesusland state where freedom means the freedom to look, think, dress and act just like everyone else if you want to remain intact or alive.

                I would be much happier even if I could only make a tenth of that while living in relative freedom.

                why is it that nutters like you never see the irony of railing against "liberal" values yet wishing for "freedom"?

                • by Svenia (3001819) on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @12:02PM (#44498323)
                  I'm just curious, and you don't have to answer this if you don't want to (obviously), but which country do you reside in? I'm mostly asking this because I've always felt the US was a little too... American? for me.. but I don't have enough worldly experience to really be able to judge where might be more to my tastes. So I'm curious of this liberal place you describe, and perhaps one day I can visit it. (I'm not trying to troll or start an Anti/Pro US flame-war, I'm genuinely curious.)
                • by stoploss (2842505) on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @11:38PM (#44505465)

                  See, you completely misunderstood and decided to knee-jerk.

                  The reason I don't want to live in a liberal hell-hole is that it's populated with your ilk. It's not about gun rights; that is merely a bellwether that approximates to a first-order whether the culture of the area is rife with people who are constitutionally incapable of minding their own business.

                  By all means, please keep yourself and people like you away from the remaining nice places to live. Your kind flees what your policies have wrought, whereupon you alight in an unsullied locale and ironically begin to recapitulate the same political agenda that despoiled where you left. Cf. what the left coasters have done to the Front Range of Colorado, Jackson Wyoming, etc.

                  I will return the favor by staying far away from your preferred environs. *Please* continue to believe there is nothing but corn, rust, and mandatory church attendance (punishable by burning at the stake) in non-liberal America.

                  I think everyone will be happier that way.

            • Being surrounded by rednecks, hicks, and the Jesus fan club costs sanity.

              Nothing like sheltered Yankees with no clue about life outside the beltway that they didn't learn from reruns of the Beverly Hillbillys. AMIRITE?

      • RTFA, most of these were intended for existing homeless people in cities, or for temporary mass refugees. Not paranoid survivalist teotwawki gun nuts who presumably can just buy a regular sleeping bag and/or bivy.

      • by g0bshiTe (596213) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:49PM (#44480123)
        Or better yet a blue tarp, multifunction at it's finest, fold your gear into it and it's a makeshift Yukon pack http://kayakdave.com/2012/09/13/how-to-build-a-yukon-portage-pack/ [kayakdave.com] it also doubles as a makeshift tent at night or in rain.

        Part of surviving something like that is too look like you have nothing. Someone with a ragged tarp looking backpack may be less of a target than someone toting a North Face backpack.

        This guy http://i825.photobucket.com/albums/zz179/556mp/IMG_3213.jpg [photobucket.com] probably stands a better chance of not getting robbed as opposed to this guy http://attractions.uptake.com/blog/files/2009/06/camping-backpack.jpg [uptake.com] who you can clearly see has a nice toasty warm sleeping bag and even a foam sleeping pad.
      • The first tool to "wear" when you start moving away from a disaster is your legal concealed firearm (which you have PRACTICED with and are proficient in handling).

        Illegal in many states, and illegal or effectively illegal in most states.

        One vet I know has a short-but-legal AR-15 with a folding buttstock (not retracting, folding) that fits nicely in a standard small backpack.

        Illegal virtually everywhere, if you actually carry it in the backpack anyway.

        No need for anything special though. At least four pairs of good socks, broken-in hiking boots, and a poncho should do for temperate weather.

        Emergency blankets and butane lighters, and a knife, in addition to your large environment-colored waterproof poncho. Exposure kills surprisingly many people.

  • by Anne_Nonymous (313852) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:38PM (#44479501) Homepage Journal

    Bivy sacks those are not.

  • by frovingslosh (582462) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:40PM (#44479521)
    Are you a turtle?
  • by intermodal (534361) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:45PM (#44479575) Homepage Journal

    Similar terms, but they do not mean the same thing.

  • -1 Annoying (Score:5, Informative)

    by pspahn (1175617) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:47PM (#44479595)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:50PM (#44479621)

    What? There's no tin foil outfit. They missed their biggest market...

  • by Anon-Admin (443764) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:52PM (#44479641) Journal

    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.

  • by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:00PM (#44479685)

    Nobody will know it's me falling asleep on my keyboard.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:01PM (#44479709)

    Why is trash like this appearing on Slashdot?

    Perhaps it's time to reconsider how this site is run.

  • by canadiannomad (1745008) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:04PM (#44479735) Homepage

    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.

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:11PM (#44479791)
    Enough with the exaggerated apocalyptic BS.

    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.

    I would thank you to stop spreading the alarmist BS. Look at the actual figures instead.
    • by couchslug (175151) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:31PM (#44479971)

      Got a particularly good link?

      • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:53PM (#44480163)
        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, [wattsupwiththat.com] and here is another. [theinconve...keptic.com]

        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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:35PM (#44480001)

      Enough with the exaggerated apocalyptic BS.

      Have you checked the state of the biosphere recently? Look up fisheries, biodiversity, anoxia.

      Storms are immaterial to human survival, and humans won't go extinct from global warming nor even a 100m rise in ocean levels. But we can't survive without the biosphere, and we're doing an excellent job of killing it off, very rapidly indeed.

      • by khallow (566160) on Monday August 05, 2013 @05:23PM (#44480945)

        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".

    • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:31PM (#44480445)
      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.
    • by Valdrax (32670) on Monday August 05, 2013 @06:00PM (#44481261)

      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.

      • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday August 05, 2013 @06:16PM (#44481379)

        "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.

  • Apocalypse? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:17PM (#44479839)
    How can they handle the apocalypse when they can't even handle being Slashdotted?
  • by jellomizer (103300) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:22PM (#44479885)

    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.

    • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:22PM (#44480381) Homepage Journal

      This Apocalypse stuff is really starting to annoy me.

      That I agree with, but remember, this is marketing hype. "Apocalypse" is trending pretty high right now, so it's one of the buzzwords that's en vogue. Next week it might be "Green," oh wait that was last week; thus is the mercurial nature of advertising.

      Long story short, "Wearable Apocalypse Shelter" probably generates a lot more impressions than "Stupid Art Projects That Emulate Clothing"

      If civilization falls, it will be gradual.

      Depends on what causes the fall; an asteroid strike, fast-moving plague that wipes out 3/4 - 2/3 of the human populace, or all-out nuclear holocaust would tear down what humanity has built in a hurry. Hell, some anomalous event that completely wipes out all digitally-stored information, but doesn't touch infrastructure, would be pretty devastating to modern society.

      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.

      Collectively, perhaps that's true. And, presuming our civilization has a long fall that does not include destruction of knowledge (which, as any student of history can tell you, never happens; consider the Library of Alexandria, for example, which was believed to have contained the sum of human knowledge up to that point in history - burned by invading armies).

      However, there are some issues. First, we should presume that any information that is stored in a purely digital format (i.e., no hard-copies, or so few hard-copies that spreading the knowledge across a vast geographic area quickly without electronic transmission would be nigh impossible) would be lost completely. Second, we should also consider that it's likely a majority of survivors would either A) not understand much of the material, and thus consider it to be more useful as fuel than as knowledge, or B) be too busy just staying alive to care how things like semi-conductors, which would not be essential to daily life, work. So, aside from the 0-day loss of all digital-only information, you'd also see a steady decrease in the amount of material available due to human nature (and, let's face it, general stupidity).

      Plus, presuming the need to completely rebuild civilization from the ground up, computers are one of the last items to consider in terms of importance. So, while falling all the way back to the actual Stone Age is pretty unlikely, considering, it's not too far fetched to imagine the post-apocalyptic future as a modified reboot of the Iron Age.

    • by Shortguy881 (2883333) on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:24PM (#44480395)
      This isnt true. Check out this study:

      http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/PopulationSize.pdf [santafe.edu]

      If the population shrinks enough, ie massive plague or apocalyptic type stuff, technology will regress, even to a stone age like state.
    • by evilviper (135110) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @04:48AM (#44484233) Journal

      We know about metals and melting ore to to create them

      A tiny fraction of the human population would recognize iron ore if it bit them on the ass. Fewer still have any idea how to turn it into steel.

      We know about magnets and how they can be used to generate electricity or using electricity to create maniacal [sic] energy.

      Most people know that electricity exists, in about the same way they know men have walked on the moon. Ask them to make it happen, though, and they'll be dumbfounded. Maybe a not-tiny percentage could figure out that turning a generator is a good idea, if they found one lying around, but starting from scratch? Nope.

      Besides, being "stone aged" isn't about lack of knowledge (though that can sure help), it's about barely surviving day to day, so that you don't have any free time, or material wealth, with which to spend on redeveloping technology. Look around the world today, and there are a decent number of people living worse off than dark-age peasants, even with modern technology all around them.

      How many of use could perform a cesarean section, today, unassisted, and with nothing more than what we would carry in a survival pack? An astronomical number of women will die in child-birth within just the first few years.

    • by delt0r (999393) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @07:08AM (#44484671)
      I have a few simple goals for the Zombie apocalypse. Since a real apocalypse they way people think of it as is about as realistic as zombies. It has a particular congruence.

      Goal 1. If i become a zombie, I wish to be patient zero. The Alpha Zombie if you will.
      Goal 2. If not i intend to be immune. No not that loser Legend but a real one.
      Turns out exposing myself to everything infectious is the way to go for both 1 and 2. Like a poor mans vaccination. And gives me a reason to call a lot of friends out on ridiculous hygiene rules. Things like if a cooked chicken gets warm for like 10 secs and you eat it, you die. A cold breeze with make you sick (gota love the german "zugluft") etc. I am a scientist and you wouldn't believe the unscientific things they all believe. So i get to do all that in the name of the Zombie apocalypse. Seriously if we all died the second someone coughed, or didn't cook chicken to a dry overcooked chewy, we wouldn't be here

      On a more serious note. If such a topic can ever be serious. Most of the "provisions" and stuff people think is preparation wouldn't work anyway if there was a genuine Apocalypse. Goretex or anything else for that matter never lasts forever. If people think its back to the stone age. They better learn how to actually live in the stone age. I for one would miss toilet paper.

      The scary thing is some people really do think there is an impending apocalypse. There is always a group that does. Its a sure way to get followers, preach that the end is nigh. Even the AGW crowed are doing it now (the "do the math guy" for example). What is really funny, is even though people believe it, they just go about things the same way as if they didn't.

      The fact is with current levels of industrialization and technology. Even a big asteroid is not going to wipe out humans. Nuclear war won't wipe us even if we tried. And the "slow apocalypse of climate change" will be a slow shift compared to the technology changes of that time frame. We have intelligence and it is the pinnacle of adaptability.
  • Pointless story. (Score:4, Informative)

    by ttucker (2884057) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:27PM (#44479939)
    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.
  • by couchslug (175151) on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:37PM (#44480017)

    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).

    • by turbidostato (878842) on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:00PM (#44480231)

      In the end of civilization as we know it you are really concerned for your concealed weapon to be legal?

      Do you remember mars attack? Would you want to bet who do you remember me from that film?

      By the way, good luck with your legal concealed weapon without ammunition (you didn't mentioned it, did you?)

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:45PM (#44480555)

      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).

      If you are in a position to execute such a strategy you must have no children, no pets, no worthwhile romantic or platonic relationships etc.

      I would rather live a fulfilling life now, while it is still possible, and accept my untimely demise with the comfort that I enjoyed life while it was enjoyable.

      Not interested in scraping through some post-apocalyptic existence, which no matter your preparation, is sure to be short and thoroughly un-enjoyable.

      • by khallow (566160) on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:57PM (#44480701)

        Not interested in scraping through some post-apocalyptic existence, which no matter your preparation, is sure to be short and thoroughly un-enjoyable.

        Just because you aren't, doesn't mean that everyone else shares your views. I must admit that I probably would find day to day life in such a world more fulfilling (where merely surviving helps future humanity in a big way).

        • by Valdrax (32670) on Monday August 05, 2013 @06:02PM (#44481275)

          I must admit that I probably would find day to day life in such a world more fulfilling (where merely surviving helps future humanity in a big way).

          Well, it certainly lowers the bar for meaningful participation, doesn't it?

          • by khallow (566160) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @12:42AM (#44483425)

            Well, it certainly lowers the bar for meaningful participation, doesn't it?

            That's probably a part of the reason that apocalypse and disaster movies do well. For example, consider the occasional internet discussion about what one would do in a zombie apocalypse. I doubt many people actually want such disasters to befall mankind, but they do like the clarity (and sure, lower standards for meaningful participation) that such situations give.

            For example, the guy that is only good at killing zombies can be a valued, contributing member of society who saves humanity single-handedly rather than some weird neckbeard who happens to live in his mother's basement and reads Soldier of Fortune when he's not poring over his ninja throwing star collection or working as a janitor at the local mall.

            Most of us, including myself, will be lost to time without much effect except perhaps a bit of genetic input or the oddly influential circumstance.

            But having said that, it's entirely possible that preparing for such disasters means that they're suck sufficiently less that you're willing to make a go of it.

      • by dlingman (1757250) on Monday August 05, 2013 @08:52PM (#44482355)

        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).

        If you are in a position to execute such a strategy you must have no children, no pets, no worthwhile romantic or platonic relationships etc.

        I would rather live a fulfilling life now, while it is still possible, and accept my untimely demise with the comfort that I enjoyed life while it was enjoyable.

        Not interested in scraping through some post-apocalyptic existence, which no matter your preparation, is sure to be short and thoroughly un-enjoyable.

        Ummm - This is slashdot. You've just described 90+% of the readership.

      • by couchslug (175151) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @10:48AM (#44486287)

        "If you are in a position to execute such a strategy you must have no children, no pets, no worthwhile romantic or platonic relationships etc."

        My late wife was more than competent to "execute such a strategy" and my dogs are portable.

        If you have dependants you'll may be forced to execute that strategy with them in tow! Gear is cheap enough and if you go camping now and then you'll get good fun out of it too. A side effect of going camping is you and yours can be comfortable in nature. It's peaceful and fun.

          If you live in an area subject to floods or storm surge staying in place can kill you and yours. Some disasters FORCE you to evacuate. Your personal vehicle will move you and loved ones. Keep it fully fuelled (if you run near the bottom of your fuel tank on modern fuel-injected vehicles it kills fuel pumps by sucking up water etc) and serviced. You can add range by bringing additional fuel in (quality) gas cans you can already own and when TSHTF you grab your people and GTFO. It's better to be a live refugee than a dead statistic.

        Most equipment you'd need is dual or multiple-use anyway. I won't derail this into a gear-fetish thread. I'm not a "prepper".

        Basic "disaster preparedness" dovetails with "Apocalypse preparedness" (Apocalypse merely meaning "bigger more general disaster").

        If you have people to defend in-place from disaster plus social collapse, know who will team with you (society is a team sport) and may help form the natural post-anarchy defensive unit which is a local "militia" (no political definition applied here, they vary globally but their purpose is similar).

        I live inland and in a community that is very well-armed, has farms so it will not starve if the those are protected, and has various other advantages so I would prefer to defend in-place. That means aggressive patrolling to deter and expel enemy forces (my community has many veterans, another advantage). I can hand-pump water and happen to have backyard chickens (not out of paranoia, they are droll pets) which produce more eggs than I can eat. I enjoy welding and thanks to Craigslist have many oxygen/acetylene/LP cylinders so I can repair or build most anything I might need for a long time if the electricity goes out. Tools aplenty and skill to use them make self and other techy friends valuable during reconstruction.

        "I would rather live a fulfilling life now, while it is still possible, and accept my untimely demise with the comfort that I enjoyed life while it was enjoyable."

        So die if things get sticky, your life belongs to you. I lead a fulfilling life now and intend to keep at it because it makes me smile.

        I admire human endurance. I have built a cozy life but if the excrement hits the Emerson I'd fight and help my friends and community for the sake of the challenge.

        Read of the seiges of Leningrad and Moscow and the battle of Stalingrad. They make most "disasters" look like a day at the beach. What the people of those cities and the soldiers who fought there can do, other people and soldiers can do.

    • by delt0r (999393) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @07:11AM (#44484683)
      Sooo.... Where are you going to get all those bullets for that gun in an Apocalypse?
  • by mt1955 (698912) <mt1955@@@gmail...com> on Monday August 05, 2013 @03:51PM (#44480143) Homepage Journal

    ... at the next Occupy Movement sit-in with my new Ecouterre wearable habitat!

  • by harvestsun (2948641) on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:15PM (#44480335)
    Stuff that matters
  • by RSKennan (835119) on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:16PM (#44480345)
    "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.

  • Everyone PANIC! (Score:4, Informative)

    by dkleinsc (563838) on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:43PM (#44480533) Homepage

    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.

  • by Irate Engineer (2814313) on Monday August 05, 2013 @04:44PM (#44480545)
    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.
  • by Jawnn (445279) on Monday August 05, 2013 @05:55PM (#44481217)
    Somebody thinks they've "invented", the poncho, the parka, and the bivouac bag.
  • by epyT-R (613989) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @03:35AM (#44483953)

    Neither of these are new. We've always had hurricanes and hot weather, going back before the industrial age..

  • Remember: this is a slashdot idle article -- and a collapsed one at that. You shouldn't be taking it too seriously. It's meant to amuse you not inform you.

    Rule 10: You take life too seriously.

    Rule 6: Remember: You're not getting out of it alive.

When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.

Working...