Is prepping worth the hassle? (Gilles Mingasson/Getty)
Forewarned is forearmed, so they say, but the Government has decided to do things in reverse. We are urged to prepare ourselves for disaster without being told much about the immediate foe. Whether the perpetrator is Putin, El Niňo, or Claude, the answer in every case seems to be three days’ worth of supplies and a wind-up torch. And vague advice seems to be contagious: France, Japan, and Australia have all just issued their own versions too.
To galvanize the nation, Labour’s posable action figure Al Carns has made a video urging us all to “be ready for an emergency”, but he, too, is eerily silent on what exactly that means. The bathetic chasm between jumpy headlines and strangely repressed instructions — buy in a bit of bottled water and tinned food, write down a few phone numbers, order medication in good time — is also jarring. Should the National Grid fail, then so will every refrigeration unit, food production line, and water treatment plant in the country. The difference between dying of thirst immediately and doing so three days later seems somewhat academic; and the same goes for eking out small amounts of food and meds. Are we really supposed to be facing down the apocalypse with half a big shop each?
Some might prefer to take a leaf out of the grizzled North American handbook and get serious about survival. The internet is full of information for disaster preppers, as they are known, and bits of it already seem pertinent to British life. Start small by assembling what is known as a Get Home Bag, designed to help you bypass paralyzed transport systems during blackouts, and also for when you are stuck on Avanti. Next, graduate to a Bug Out Bag, useful for fleeing your house for 72 hours at short notice in order to go to a music festival. After that, though, it all gets complicated and expensive. The basic kit for civilizational collapse includes a renewable-powered generator, water filtration system, and waste disposal system; none of which is really practicable when you live in a small terraced house or flat. It is all slightly easier when you live on the prairie or in the desert, able to whip up a solar gravity shower or compostable toilet without needing planning permission first.
Browsing websites for useful tips, it appears there are psychological pitfalls to avoid here as well as practical ones. A big one is not letting the whole prepping project take over your life; hard to do when the main motivator is cold sweat in the middle of night, and there is no upper limit to what counts as being adequately prepared. A different problem is when your partner is not quite as fixated on doomsday scenarios as you are. Some men online seem to long for global breakdown, just so they can justify all the money they have spent on methane-harvesting septic systems to their wives.
Resentment arrives from another direction in discussions about what the best attitude is to take to blindsided normies. Some imagine themselves as generously sharing their knowledge and resources during future disasters, but these tend to be in the minority. Having invested so much time and money in securing their own family’s future, most preppers insist no mercy will be shown to clueless panickers begging for shelter and spare tins of spam. They had so many chances to ready themselves for Armageddon, yet chose to go to Disneyland instead.
Take this line of thought only a little further, and you start picturing aggressive attempts by others to steal whatever it is you own. Indeed, the presumed covetousness of others puts a prepper of average sociability in a strange position: tempted to brag about the sheer scale of his root cellar on Facebook, while also being aware he might just as well be making an advert saying “free food here!”. The truly sagacious doomer would surely not bother to build or buy much himself, but simply keep a map of the most productive and least ferocious-looking local preppers handy for a rainy day.
For this sort of reason, most of what is loosely called “the prepper community” seems to spend a lot of time and money securing their set-ups from the predatory designs of fellow members. Alongside husbandry tips, their websites are also full of information about the best motion sensors and automatic weaponry to buy. The track from hobbyist to Hobbesian looks fairly short. One minute you are buying zucchini seeds, the next you are contemplating the ferocity of human nature and investing in camo and a crossbow.
When imported into Britain, such visions of rugged self-sufficiency look immediately comic: less John Rambo and more The Good Life. Faced with the prospect of intense competition for resources, plus the collapse of established order, there is not enough land here to avoid encountering hostile others altogether; and nor (thankfully) are we allowed to stockpile weaponry in preparation. If there had been a supply emergency in Surbiton, Margot and Jerry would presumably have cheerfully waltzed straight off with Tom and Barbara’s marrows.
Whatever the Government pretends, transplanted into our relatively small-scale, close-knit setting, the notion that a household could be “emergency ready” on its own is obviously fantastical. When it comes to national disasters, there can be no substitute for a shock-proofed state to manage the response. Slowly, the authorities do seem to be realizing this. Under Keir Starmer, Labour instigated a lot of programs in the name of increasing national “resilience”, though whether they work in practice remains to be seen. My own impression of key organizations such as the UK Resilience Academy and the Centre for Long-term Resilience suggests that far too many bureaucrats and effective altruists are leading the conversation, and not enough ex-military.
As the 2025 UK Government Resilience Action Plan correctly puts it, “building a truly resilient society requires a fundamental cultural shift”. The point applies as much to professional organizations as it does to individuals: lanyards and nice-sounding platitudes are not going to cut it in a genuinely dramatic crisis. But equally, we will need citizens with a strong sense of agency, who possess the skills and aptitudes helpful for negotiating energy- and screen-free zones.
It is a shame, then, that so many of us are avoidant about leaving the house now, and horribly dependent on technology for things that we used to do ourselves; and that successive authorities have cheered this trend on. To take just one example: a society that prefers to deal with the obesity crisis by introducing highly complex international supply chains, rather than simply telling people to run about a bit, does not exactly inspire confidence that it will cope WTSHTF.
There are accelerationist figures, both on Right and Left, who desire a world where our heads are always in clouds and vice versa. Goodbye, physical objects; hello, total tech dependence. The more we blindly go along with their superficially appealing program, the worse the shock of systemic failure is likely to be. As Thomas Hobbes once wrote, with his pen, human beings are “made fit for Society not by Nature, but by Education”. But do we want to educate people for the society where they have hoverboards and Meta glasses, or for the one where they contemplate eating their pets?
Until our politicians decide to prioritize a modicum of self-reliance, talk of emergency prep will continue to ring hollow. Even tinned goods are no use when nobody remembers how a can opener works. And if there really is limited time left before some amorphous entity attacks civilisation as we know it, we should probably use our remaining internet hours wisely, skip the Al Carns videos, and learn a few basic knots and self-defense moves instead.
