Many of us are trying to develop an environment in-which we hope will sustain us should the SHTF. In doing so, we often will look at our requirements and identify our shortcomings. To address these, we may consider how other individuals could be added to our group to develop a stronger nucleus. At the onset, this seems to be prudent and a reasonable approach.

Every survival situation has to be evaluated on it's own merit. What can be hoped to be accomplished is dependent on the skill, experience, fitness and mental outlook of the individual(s) involved.

When I was younger I was an avid mountaineer. I loved to climb and was thirsty for knowledge and experience. The more my skill progressed, the more difficult I found it to move forward, Expert climbers were very particular with whom they climbed with. I became more aware of the affect of the human dynamic and how it influences a group.

I came to witness climbs that were unsuccessful solely because of differences of opinion, how people got along and questions of leadership. External obstacles could be managed, but the internal ones could be catastrophic. I developed an understanding of why thing were the way they were.

At this time, I was living in a commune. I was surprised to see that some people pulled their weight and others didn't. Rather than a feeling of contentment (make love not war) there was an edge to life that I hadn't expected. Everyone knew what was expected, but few did what they should (women mainly did the work which was an embarrassment to me).

Over the years I've taught wilderness survival in many potentially hazardous environments. Strife often occurs when people are presented with hardship that wasn't previously perceived. Sometimes shared hardship binds people together as life-long friends and at other times, you're fortunate that it's only the experience that was lost.

Regardless of teaching various programs to a variety of people of different ages, backgrounds and occupations and despite considering myself a reasonable judge of character, I've been unable to pre-determine problematic individuals. It's as if there is a invisible wall that's hit and the problem occurs.

As a Police Officer I became well acquainted with the dark-side of human nature. In day-to-day life people can be truly wonderful. When the conditions change, some will rise as heroes and others will become a danger to themselves and others.

For me, my experiences have affected my survival plan. As a result, I limit myself to members of my family and selected others that have past through the fire (so to speak) in real life situations. People that I can trust with my life and who believe that I can be trusted upon.

This is not to say that I'm not interested in cooperation with others, but introducing a unknown entity to the group for me is too risky. My family is the most precious thing in my life and any optional risk is too great. You never know how someone will react to a situation until they've been exposed to it (or something similar) in your presence. How anyone will react may affect the groups chances of survival.

These thoughts were brought to light after reading comments made by others in the 'Do you plan to be a lone wolf or part of a like minded band?' thread. Obviously everyone has their own criteria for coming to their own conclusion. How do you evaluate this?