I have not done any prepping but maybe I should. Something I wonder about when it comes to the apocalypse is fortress vs nomad. That is, do you stay where you are e.g. your home, and defend it like a fortress. Alternatively, do you make yourself mobile by having multiple passports, assets across multiple countries, etc so that you can move from one country to the next if things go south. The nomad approach can be seen in e.g. the
five flags theory. One of the weaknesses of the nomad approach is if rising energy prices make air travel prohibitively expensive. The fortress approach has weaknesses as well e.g. if you stay where you are an have solar, batteries, EV, and stockpiles of dry beans and toilet paper, you are vulnerable to being attacked by looters. In many countries outside of the US, owning guns is illegal, but during an apocalyptic scenario, it is likely the "bad guys" will be able to find guns. Based on all this, I think the nomad approach is better because guns are illegal where I live.
That being said, something I also think about is the mentality behind prepping and survivalism. Many here talk about how some people take it to the extreme. In my opinion, people seem to think that there are only two options: business as usual vs apocalypse. There is a middle option in here which is a slow and gradual decline, which I think is more likely. This slow and gradual decline is marked by e.g. cost of living getting higher and higher, ratcheting up gradually; house and apartment prices gradually rising; social cohesion gradually being eroded etc. This slow grinding attrition-based decline I think is so depressing and painful for many people that they actually wish for an actual collapse to happen so that there is a sense of closure, which is why there is so much survivalist performance and imagery out there as well as consumer survivalist products.
