![IMG_0342[1]](https://i0.wp.com/starvinlarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/img_03421.jpg?w=325&h=243&ssl=1 "IMG_0342[1]")
Worth the read- I fully agree that building a community is a requirement to surviving any long term SHTF- societal collapse-economic collapse scenario.
The “lone wolf” guys ain’t gonna make it unless they live in true wilderness a long long way from any city or town. It takes a group- more people is better in this case- to defend yourselves 24/7 everyone’s gotta sleep. That’s why lone guys and pairs of people or even groups of 3 or 4 have little chance of surviving the people who will kill for food and supplies.
A group of families in the same small community in a rural or semi- rural area has the best chance of surviving. There will be many different skills needed- larger groups will have people with a wide range of skills.
You need to be working on building your community now- if it’s not possible where you live – move if at all possible.
Starvin Larry 
So what makes the ideal or even the minimum group size?
That’s an interesting question that needs answering.
I’ve got a thought about that.
For me it’s four, made up of two established couples.
Why established couples?
A pairing ‘moderates’ their partners behaviour.
Why is that important?
Ever worked with someone who has always been alone for a long time?
They can develop “unusual behaviour”.
Most established couples also interact on a level that needs no words, and couples support each other.
Yet, why two couples?
An odd number in whatever mixture can cause ‘conflicts’.
Yep, a sexual comment so I’m going to hell.
So why not all men or all women?
That works too only not so well.
Apart from all that, a group of 4 means 6 hour shifts.
1 on 3 sleep. Sound good?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree on the couples plan-that’s probably the best for those not surrounded by a community of like minded people who have been working together for a while-and who can work together to insure the survival of the community.
LikeLiked by 1 person