The idea of living "off the grid" is gaining in popularity in America. There are TV shows like Risking It All on TLC, Unplugged on the FYI Network, Alaskan Bush People, and Alaska: The Final Frontier, both on The Discovery Channel. Even Americans who do not desire to jaunt off into the wilderness are becoming interested in self-sustainability projects such as gardening and water collection (oddly enough, this trend has not caught on in Bangladesh). This interest is not limited to the milieu of hippie communes, but is becoming popular across socioeconomic boundaries. While this is due in part to the interest among some Americans to reduce their "carbon footprint" and a rejection of the corporate, processed, industrialization of consumer products, this isn't the whole story. As I've mentioned before, there is a rising interest in "zombie apocalypse" stories in TV and film that is a barely-concealed analog for a society that has collapsed. Since no one actually believes that zombies are a remote possibility, it is my contention that these concurrent interests speak to the widespread fear of a situation where the production capacity of our country has collapsed.
Any student of Austrian economics can tell you what the most likely doomsday scenario would be: a massive devaluation of the US dollar, perhaps with a corollary military crackdown as a desperate authoritarian regime attempts to cling to its aura of legitimacy. In contrast to a zombie apocalypse, this is a very real possibility in the near future. The purchasing power of the US dollar has decreased by 98% since 1913, and as of this writing is showing signs of falling even further. Even those who are uneducated in economics know, or have a sense that this is unsustainable, and that a collapse must come. People who have likely never heard of the Austrian business cycle theory seem to understand that the busts caused by monetary inflation hit the producer's goods markets harder than the consumer goods, and it might be necessary to prepare for this contingency.
On the plus side, it won't stop working if you drop it in water.
Now, I'm not going to suggest that learning to be self-sustaining is a bad idea. Far from it. However, if we really want to be prepared for the apocalypse, it's very important to be realistic about what that would likely entail, and where preparedness goes too far. For instance, it is not uncommon to find fears of North Korean missile strikes and UN gun confiscation attempts in Facebook groups dedicated to off-grid and survivalist ideas. This cockamamie paranoia is completely without merit. North Korea would never invite the full might of the US military down upon itself, because the Kims want to stay in power. Being carpet bombed into oblivion is not a good way to stay in power. While it's possible that globalists might have designs on gun confiscation in the US, guns are already regularly confiscated by American police, and their owners sent to prison for violating gun laws.
It's important to understand that if the US economy were to experience hyperinflation, it would not cause tractors and cars to burst into flames, reducing us to riding mules and practicing subsistence agriculture. The infrastructre of modern industrial processes would still exist, as well as the expertise necessary to operate them. The people living at the time would not simply give over to living in grinding poverty, but would want to return to their previous standards of living as quickly as possible. The desire to maintain production of the goods and services that had made their lives so much easier would be very strong indeed. In a hyperinflation scenario, nearly all malinvestment would be exposed and the liquidation process would begin. One can only hope that such an occurrence would leave the central government powerless to prevent the liquidation process from proceeding apace, because any such interventionist attempts would only deepen and worsen the suffering, as they did during the Great Depression. ((America's Great Depression, Murray Rothbard, 1963)) Many wasteful infrastructures that we might think of as indisposable might be abandoned entirely. For example, in Afghanistan, the vast majority of people have bypassed land line telephones, and instead use cell phones almost exclusively.
Thus, it should be apparent that learning to make our own clothing is not necessary. Nor is even learning to farm. Farmers will continue to produce far more food than they could consume themselves. Farmers, in turn, will have need for a myriad of goods that will have to be supplied by others. The division of labor will continue to enable us all to enjoy higher standards of living than would be possible if we all became autonomous islands. If all the malinvestment in the US economy were to be exposed tomorrow, there would certainly be a great deal of upheaval in almost every production process in the economy. However, those who provide real value to consumers would still find their skills in demand. Engineers, scientists, doctors, mechanics, welders, writers, fishermen, teachers, chefs, drivers, construction workers would all still have an incentive to remain in their fields. It is not necessary for these people to busy themselves with farming when each farmer can produce far more food than they could eat. Each member of the economy should engage themselves in the productive activities in which they have a comparative advantage relative to others. This is called the division of labor. When each actor in an economy devotes themselves to specializing in a few areas of expertise rather than trying to do everything for themselves, they are able to benefit others around them and receive payment from those who value their goods and services. When preppers and survivalists say that everyone should learn to grow their own food, they are saying that people who do not have a comparative advantage in farming should waste time with farming that they could be spending engaged in other necessary tasks. No one would say that everyone should learn to build houses or fix cars, and they should extend this logic to farming.
Even money, that is, commodity-backed mediums of exchange, would quickly fill the void left by the debased dollar. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin would also find wider use. The US economy would not be reduced to one where a majority of its inhabitants were living hand to mouth. Far from it. In fact, if a dollar collapse were to render the US government impotent, it could end up resulting in greater prosperity after the liquidation process had run its course. I would also hope that people would correctly identify the true culprit responsible for their suffering, instead of blaming the convenient villains (the rich, bankers, speculators, gold hoarders, etc.) to whom political demagogues would certainly attempt to assign guilt.
Preparedness is important. Ignorant paranoia and economic illiteracy is harmful, and will lead to wasted efforts in preparing for eventualities that will not be forthcoming.