One part of me thinks that preparing for the worst case scenario is understandable, within reason.
Let's say a massive storm knocks out power to your city while snowing you in. One can only assume that in all your preparations for doomsday, you've adequately prepared for such emergencies that they are merely inconveniences. Being over-prepared in such emergencies don't really harm you.
Let's say an asteroid hits the earth. Or someone does start a nuclear exchange. Or a volcano somewhere goes Krakatoa on a larger scale. If there is a collapse of social order, even if its temporary, having the tools necessary to feed and defend oneself would be handy. Just because none of these events is frequent or recent doesn't mean they can't or won't happen. Normally I'd say "hey, if you have the resources to devote to this preparation, then why not?"
Except than then I wonder: when SHTF (just enough that social order disintegrates, but not quite enough for annihilation), how much preparation is being put into actually helping preserve or rebuild social order? Being able to protect yourself is good, okay; are they preparing for a role in directing recovery, rebuilding infrastructure, protecting others, contributing (as in the pictures cited below)? What, exactly, are they prepping for?
And is their prepping simply reactive, not proactive? Do they support NASA and investment in space technology (to detect and avoid that asteroid impact)? Science and research in general (to detect and avoid natural disasters)? When you're prepping for the end of the world, does that include taking steps to avert the end of the world itself?