It’s a Jungle in There

America is as safe as it’s ever been. Life expectancy is up, crime is down and the Cold War is over. But amid this time of relative security and longevity, America is strangely preoccupied with surviving . . . something. Anything. Earthquakes, shipwrecks, plane crashes, hurricanes, the wilderness and even each other. It doesn’t matter. Just push them to the brink of death, and they will watch it, read it or buy it.

Survival has always been part of the zeitgeist, but rarely has the motif been so prominent or pervasive. Its themes stock the bookstores with huge sellers like “Into Thin Air” and light up the silver screen with hits like “The Perfect Storm.”

“We all have this nagging question in our minds, ‘What if everything fell to hell? How would I respond?’ ” said Nathaniel Philbrick, author of “In the Heart of the Sea” (Viking, 2000), a bestseller about a band of 19th century whalers who survive 94 days at sea in a small vessel. “But these days we’re so insulated, so removed from the real world, which is nature. You can have all the computers you want, but nature is out there, and that is what determines whether we live or die.”

The subtler threads of survival run through the schoolyard’s cargo pants fashions, the suburbanite’s SUV with Global Positioning Satellite, and Father’s Day gifts like a solar-powered emergency radio-flashlight. All hint at some far-off disaster that may befall its owner.

And it’s no accident that the biggest summertime TV hit in recent memory was named “Survivor.” It might have easily been known as “Expedition: Robinson” as it is Sweden, the show’s birthplace. Or it might have been “Castaway 2000,” its title in Great Britain. Or, in a true nod to “reality” TV, it could have simply been called “The Island of Bad People.”

A crucial element to the show’s success was creating the illusion of danger on a remote Pacific Island when, in reality, safety was only a camera crew away.

“It used to be whalers would go out to sea, and every voyage someone would die,” said Philbrick, director of the Egan Institute of Maritime Studies in Nantucket. “We are so safe now. All this survivor business is just games. Games with a net. You get kicked off the island, but you don’t die.”

It’s more than a mere Y2K hangover. In addition to “Survivor II,” set to premiere in January, a steady stream of other survival-laced tales and products are rushing toward the marketplace. Tom Hanks will star later this year in “Castaway,” a movie already generating talk of an Oscar. The plot? He plays a business executive whose plane crashes on a deserted tropical island where he must fend for himself or die.

Handbook for Survival Scenarios

Meanwhile, on bookshelves, “The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook” (Chronicle Books, 1999) is a bestseller, offering helpful hints on such topics as surviving a skydive if your parachute fails, and escaping quicksand. The book has spawned a calendar and a sequel of sorts called the “The Worst-Case Scenario Traveler’s Survival Handbook,” which is due out in the spring. The current book, which has sold about 750,000 copies in less than a year, is also being considered as the basis for a new television show.

“Everything in our book is extremely unlikely,” said humor author David Borgenicht, who co-wrote the quirky guide with Joshua Piven. “You are much more likely to die getting out of your bathtub than getting eaten by a shark.”

Another book released last month, which is being marketed as a holiday gift, is “Living Safe in an Unsafe World” by Kate Kelly (New American Library). It includes helpful sections on how to recognize a tsunami and how to bat-proof your home.

Readers of both “Unsafe World” and “Worst-Case Scenario,” however, might be confused if confronted by killer bees. The books recommend contradictory responses to elude the attackers. “Unsafe World” directs the reader to jump into water if possible. “Worst-Case Scenario” urges readers to avoid water because the bees probably will be waiting for you when you surface.

Even the magazine Men’s Journal, which produced the book “The Great Life: A Man’s Guide to Sports Skills, Fitness and Serious Fun” (Penguin Books) for release next month somehow felt obliged to have a 20-plus page section on survival techniques. Among others, it provides instructions on how to emerge intact from an avalanche, a lightning storm, and how to survive a commuter plane crash without breaking your legs (apparently, a common injury in small plane crashes).

“Most of us live in cocoons of safety entirely divorced from nature,” said Frank Farley, former president of the American Psychological Assn. “We are looking for extreme experiences. Some actually want them, but most want them from the safety of their living room. . . . It’s a simulated roller-coaster ride.”

Merchandisers are cashing in on the trend as well. The appeal of emergency products continues to broaden, even though consumers will probably never use them for their original purpose. So-called “survival” knives, which range from $10 to as much as $180, are available at more than 100 shopping sites on the Yahoo search engine alone.

Then there’s the emergency smoke hoods, which are endorsed by everyone from travel Web sites to a former chief of the Federal Aviation Administration. The hoods, which cost between $50 and $150, protect passengers from smoke inhalation after a plane crash.

Less well-known products aimed at the ultra-prepared include: StrikeAlert, a $79.95 beeper-size personal lightning detector; the Auto Escape Hammer, a $19.95 tool to cut through seat belts and smash windows in the event you become trapped inside your car; and, a Sierra Survival Scarf, an $11 bandanna imprinted in indelible ink with wilderness survival information.

“This is definitely a growing market,” said Doug Ritter, whose nonprofit Web site (https://www.equipped.org) reviews outdoor and survival equipment. “Even boat shows are offering many of these products now.”

But what are the chances of any of these catastrophes occurring? Has there been a rash of people getting lost in the woods or on the high seas? Are more planes tumbling from the skies than usual? Are natural disasters claiming more lives than ever?

The short answer is no, but with an asterisk. According to the National Park Service, parkland rescues rose from about 4,700 instances to 6,900 between 1988 and 1998, but park attendance also shot up an additional 18 million visitors during the same period. Likewise, the U.S. Coast Guard reported more rescues during the last six years in Southern California waters--from 593 in 1993 to 650 in 1999--but also a corresponding rise in boaters in the area.

The Likelihood of Catastrophes

According to researchers at UC Berkeley, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, the odds of perishing in other hot-topic survival scenarios are:

* 2.1 in 100,000 in a residential fire.

* 1 in 1.9 million from a lightning strike.

* 1 in 5.5 million from a bee sting.

* 1 in 7 million in a U.S. commercial jet airline crash.

In contrast, the odds of dying in a coast-to-coast car trip are much greater--about 1 in 14,000. (But it’s doubtful the publishing world will be rocked by a new bestseller about surviving a summer trip to Grandma’s.)

And interestingly, U.S. natural disasters, which include floods, fires, hurricanes, droughts and tornadoes, are indeed on the rise. The Federal Emergency Management Agency declared an average of 24 disasters per year during the 1980s. Between 1990 and 1998, that figure more than doubled, to 51.

In part, FEMA officials blame the increase on global warming. The incremental temperature bumps have produced more severe weather (but it’s unknown, they say, whether these changes are permanent or part of a cycle). By far the bigger culprit in FEMA disaster declarations is that more people are living in more places that were once uninhabited. Years ago an empty plain area might have flooded, but the event transpired with little note since few people resided there.

“What we’re seeing is a lot of people building new homes so they can be closer to nature,” said James L. Witt, the national director of FEMA. “But they are building next to mountains, the woods and other high-risk areas.”

Tellingly, while surviving astronomically remote events are of intense interest to many people, the natural disasters that could more realistically strike them are not. Many residents of southeastern states are as ill prepared for hurricanes as Californians are for earthquakes, according to government and relief organizations.

As part of its first National Hurricane Survival Initiative, FEMA conducted a poll that found nearly half of southeastern residents underestimated the risk of a hurricane in their communities and also failed to take steps to protect themselves and their property.

“The poll results really just blew me away,” said Witt, head of the federal agency since 1993. “After all the preaching we’ve done about preparedness, it was shocking.”

In Southern California, local Red Cross officials say some residents--mostly families with young children--have followed safety guidelines by storing water, food, medical supplies and other necessities in the event of a major quake. And some have had their homes bolted to the foundation. But a vast majority have failed to anchor heavy furniture and other large objects, which are most likely to cause injury and property damage, officials say.

“A lot of mitigation measures take time and knowledge,” said Peggy Brutsche with the American Red Cross of Greater Los Angeles. “And I think some people are just intimidated by that.”

More than any other single factor, however, denial seems to be chiefly responsible for poor disaster readiness, officials say. “I think we like to watch ‘Survivor,’ read books and fantasize about a survival situation,” said Brutsche. “But, in reality, I think most people don’t like to think about [actual] disasters.”

Rather than a phenomenon that might detract from disaster readiness, the wave of keen interest in unlikely survival situations might be healthy, contend others. Ritter, who in addition to his Web site also writes and lectures frequently on survival, said society seems less in denial about its personal safety than ever.

A Healthy Respect for Danger

A simple example is that skateboarders and cyclists now routinely wear protective head gear, something rarely seen a couple decades ago. The practice has led to a dramatic drop in traumatic injuries.

“It used to be that a lot of [mainstream] publications didn’t want to discuss the topic of survival in any way, because it implied a risk,” said Ritter, who has written extensively for aviation magazines. “But I think we’ve grown beyond that. I think people are now more willing to recognize that what they do carries some risk, and they are willing to do something about it.”

In books like Kelly’s “Living Safe in an Unsafe World,” there may indeed be reams of information of questionable use. But there is also a good portion of practicality. For example, Kelly’s book details the importance of family disaster planning, of preventing home accidents and of defensive driving. Car crashes claimed 41,200 lives, while home accidents took 28,200 in 1998, the latest statistics available from the National Safety Council. In comparison, bee stings claimed 93 lives in 1998.

“A lot of people say this stuff is paranoid,” said Kelly. “But I think a lot of people worry about these kinds of things and never do anything about it. Writing this book gave me a tremendous sense of control. I feel like I could actually handle a bad experience, and that feeling alone might make all the difference.”

*

Martin Miller can be reached at martin.miller@latimes.com.