By Catherine Viel, August 3, 2021
(Golden Age of Gaia)
August 2, 2021
To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles…
~William Shakespeare, Hamlet
In some ways, Hamlet‘s plaintive soliloquy could apply to prepping for potential food shortages. “To be or not to be” might be answered by whether or not I’ve laid in enough supplies to last through Armageddon.
I’ve seen a wide variety of opinions on this topic. For example, I believe that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are supposed to have a two-year supply put aside.
Now that’s what I call preparing.
At the polar opposite are individuals who don’t want to invite an undesirable circumstance by giving it any energy at all. Perhaps this is applying the Law of Attraction in a negative fashion. I don’t want it, so I won’t invite it by getting ready for its arrival.
So where am I on this spectrum?
*****
The idea of preparing for potential shortages of necessities like food and paper goods has been a recurring theme since the beginning of Covid.
I’ve written about it a couple of times, including last week. After that it sort of subsided out of mind like the Loch Ness monster sinking back into her realm of murky darkness.
Nessie surfaced again with Simon Parkes’ recent blurb about possible shortages:
“Food chain collapse two or three weeks away…
“For a long time I have warned that we face not 10 days of darkness. But days of disruption ahead…
“If you have run down your food stores, now would be a good time to build back up.
“Don’t forget the dogs and cats etc…” (1)
That sure sounds grim. Food chain collapse? In two or three weeks?
Say it ain’t so, Simon! But what if it is, indeed, coming?
*****
How many cans of beans and bags of flour is enough? Too much? Where on the spectrum between the Mormons and the Law of Attraction adherents does this land me?
Maybe not a two-year supply…more like two weeks.
Like many things in life, this decision boils down to sovereignty, self-knowledge, and the ability to choose wisely and well.
But I have dependent family members, feline and human. I feel I shouldn’t forego commonsense precautions based on the (accurate or inaccurate) belief that preparing for a potential disaster might make it manifest.
If I lived alone, the decisions would be much simpler. What do I truly need? How do I want to direct my energy toward the possibilities?
Instead, it feels prudent to err on the side of caution. I would hate to be responsible for shortchanging those who depend upon me because I wanted to rigidly follow a spiritual law that they’re not even aware of.
*****
Everyone is unique, ditto our circumstances.
It really is about sovereignty and personal choice. I suppose the deciding factor in my type of circumstance is that I must extend my umbrella of sovereignty to cover what my family also likely wants.
I believe they would rather eat than starve. That is the choice I hope someone would make on my behalf if I were unable to shop, and were totally dependent on others.
And if the shortages don’t come to pass?
Then we’ll have enough bags of flour to make bread for weeks and plenty of beans for soup to go with it.
This feels like the best decision I can make at this time, because I am at peace with it. And as always, peace is my priority.
(1) https://www.simonparkes.org/post/food-chain-collapse-2-or-3-weeks-away