I always considered the ability to properly grow plants to be essentials to surviving the apocalypse. I was looking up life expectancy and found something shocking:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expec ... for_humans
The sharp drop in life expectancy with the advent of the Neolithic mirrors the evidence that the advent of agriculture actually marked a sharp drop in life expectancy that humans are only recovering from in affluent nations today.
Basically, human life expectancy actually dropped considerably when we began to grow and harvest our own food, which is really what we would consider to be a new glorious age for humanity. We have ultimately compensated for this in more recent times with all the other comforts that technology affords, but so much to say a human who literally lives off the land, nomadic and going around hunting, would appear to be more apt than a low tech agriculturally capable human.
Without an elaborate social infrastructure here to provide me with a lot of resources, would I be any better off than someone like an aboriginal somewhere that is still living out in the wild? Humanity in all it's strengths seems very fragile in light of this evidence.
I think I need an anthropologist on my team...