1. "any" disaster is "plausible", some just more probable than not. 2. Looking forward to a disaster? Do you mean like a firefighter "looks forward to" fires or EMS "looks forward to" MVAs? While I can't speak for the 'preppers' you generalize, I can speak for fire fighters and EMS in that they feel that when TSHTF, they want to be there.... unless the 'preppers' you know are straight up lunatics. 3. "Jehoavh's witnesses 'mentality' has nothing to do with 'prepping'. They think (IIRC) that only a certain number of people will be 'saved', preparations be damned. So... what does that have to do with 'prepping'?

Also, why do you inject 'no talk of violence'? as if all the survivors of a catastrophe will be peace-nicks? have you not read any of the studies put out by think tanks or books on previous governmental/environmental collapses? Violence is almost a certainty (in long-term, wide spread catastrophic anomalies). Why do you feel it isn't in your best interest to also prepare for that as you would food, water, etc... ?

Good list. There's a fourth major factor that might even be bigger than those three combined: How receptive the viewer is to ideas that don't mesh with their current world view.

Any discussion about fundamental preparedness has to be had with someone who's not already on board with the idea, otherwise it's just preaching to the choir. This means that the conversation will inevitably challenge their world view, often fundamentally. This is not a comfortable exercise for the recipient.

Many folks are deeply uncomfortable entertaining new ideas, and doubly so if the implications of those ideas would be unpleasant to them and theirs. For many people, if someone suggests to them that they might find themselves in a life threatening situation, is taken as if the person proposing that scenario is directly threatening their life.

Fundamentally it's an unfortunate human instinct to want to shoot the messenger, as an emotional reaction to the message.