We can temporarily use resources faster than Earth regenerates them only by borrowing from the future productivity of the planet, leaving less for our descendants. But we cannot do this for long. One way or another, the economy (and here we are talking mostly about the economies of industrial nations) must shrink until it subsists on what Earth can provide long-term.

Saying “one way or another” implies that this process can occur either advertently or inadvertently: that is, if we do not shrink the economy deliberately, it will contract of its own accord after reaching non-negotiable limits. As I explained in my book The End of Growth, there are reasons to think that such limits are already starting to bite. Indeed, most industrial economies are either slowing or finding it difficult to grow at rates customary during the second half of the last century. Modern economies have been constructed to require growth, so that shrinkage causes defaults and layoffs; mere lack of growth is perceived as a serious problem requiring immediate application of economic stimulus. If nothing is done deliberately to reverse growth or pre-adapt to inevitable economic stagnation and contraction, the likely result will be an episodic, protracted, and chaotic process of collapse continuing for many decades or perhaps centuries, with innumerable human and non-human casualties. This may in fact be the most likely path forward.

Is it possible, at least in principle, to manage the process of economic contraction so as to avert chaotic collapse? Such a course of action would face daunting obstacles. Business, labor, and government all want more growth in order to expand tax revenues, create more jobs, and provide returns on investments. There is no significant constituency within society advocating a deliberate, policy-led process of degrowth, while there are powerful interests seeking to maintain growth and to deny evidence that expansion is no longer feasible.

Nevertheless, managed contraction would almost certainly yield better outcomes than chaotic collapse—for everyone, elites included. If there is a theoretical pathway to a significantly smaller economy that does not pass through the harrowing wasteland of conflict, decay, and dissolution, we should try to identify it. The following modest ten-point plan is an attempt to do so.

1. Energy: cap, reduce, and ration it. Energy is what makes the economy go, and expanded energy consumption is what makes it grow. Climate scientists advocate capping and reducing carbon emissions to prevent planetary disaster, and cutting carbon emissions inevitably entails reducing energy from fossil fuels. However, if we aim to shrink the size of the economy, we should restrain not just fossil energy, but all energy consumption. The fairest way to do that would probably be with tradable energy quotas.

2. Make it renewable. As we reduce overall energy production and consumption, we must rapidly reduce the proportion of our energy coming from fossil sources while increasing the proportion from renewable sources in order to avert catastrophic climate change—which, if allowed to run its current course, will itself result in chaotic economic collapse. However, this is a complicated process. It will not be possible merely to unplug coal power plants, plug in solar panels, and continue with business as usual: we have built our immense modern industrial infrastructure of cities, suburbs, highways, airports, and factories to take advantage of the unique qualities and characteristics of fossil fuels. Thus, as we transition to alternative energy sources, the ways we use energy will have to adapt, often in profound ways. For example, our food system—which is currently overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels for transport, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides—will have to become far more localized. In the best instance, it would transition to an ecological, perennial-based agriculture designed for the long haul.

3. Restore the commons. As Karl Polanyi pointed out in the 1940s, it was the commodification of land, labor, and money that drove the “great transformation” leading to the market economy we know today. Without continued economic growth, the market economy probably can’t function long. This suggests we should run the transformational process in reverse by decommodifying land, labor, and money. Decommodification effectively translates to a reduction in the use of money to mediate human interactions. We could decommodify labor by helping people establish professions and vocations, as opposed to seeking jobs (“slavery on the installment plan”), and by promoting worker ownership of companies. As economist Henry George said over a century ago, land—which people do not create by their labor—should be owned by the community, not by individuals or corporations; and access to land should be granted on the basis of need and the willingness to use it in the community’s interest.

4. Get rid of debt. Decommodifying money means letting it revert to its function as an inert medium of exchange and store of value, and reducing or eliminating the expectation that money should reproduce more of itself. This ultimately means doing away with interest and the trading or manipulation of currencies. Make investing a community-mediated process of directing capital toward projects that are of unquestioned collective benefit. The first step: cancel existing debt. Then ban derivatives, and tax and tightly regulate the buying and selling of financial instruments of all kinds.

5. Rethink money. Virtually all of today’s national currencies are loaned into existence (usually by banks). Debt-based monetary systems assume both the growing need for debt, and the near-universal ability to repay it, with interest—relatively safe assumptions when economies are stable and expanding. But debt-based money probably won’t work in an economy that is steadily contracting: as the amount of outstanding debt ebbs in tandem with rising numbers of defaults, so does the money supply, leading to a deflationary collapse. In recent years the panic to prevent such a collapse has led central banks in the US, Japan, China, and the UK to inject trillions of dollars, yen, yuan, and pounds into their respective national economies. Such extreme measures cannot be maintained indefinitely, nor reverted to repeatedly. When debt-based currencies do fail, alternatives will be needed. Nations and communities should pre-adapt by developing an ecosystem of currencies serving complementary functions, as advocated by alternative monetary theorists such as Thomas Greco and Michael Linton.

6. Promote equity. In a shrinking economy, extreme inequality is a social time bomb whose explosion often takes the form of rebellion and revolt. Reducing economic inequality requires two simultaneous lines of action: First, reduce the surplus of those who have the most by taxing wealth and instituting a maximum income rate. Second, improve the lot of those who have least by making it easier for people to get by with minimal use of money (prevent evictions; subsidize food and make it easier for people to grow their own). This effort can be helped through the widespread cultural glorification of the virtue of material modesty (the reverse of most current advertising messages).

7. Reduce population. If the economy shrinks but population continues to expand, there will be a smaller pie to divide among more people. On the other hand, economic contraction will entail much less hardship if population ceases growing and starts to decline. Population growth leads to overcrowding and hyper-competition anyway. How to achieve population decline without violating basic human rights? Enact non-coercive policies to promote small families and non-reproduction; wherever possible, employ social incentives rather than monetary ones.

8. Re-localize. One of the difficulties in the transition to renewable energy is that liquid fuels are hard to substitute. Oil drives nearly all transportation currently, and it is highly unlikely that alternative fuels will enable anything like current levels of mobility (electric airliners and cargo ships are non-starters; massive production of biofuels is a mere fantasy). That means communities will be obtaining fewer provisions from far-off places. Of course trade will continue in some form: even hunter-gatherers trade. Re-localization will merely reverse the recent globalizing trade trend until most necessities are once again produced close by, so that we—like our ancestors only a century ago—are once again acquainted with the people who make our shoes and grow our food.

9. Re-ruralize. Urbanization was the dominant demographic trend of the 20^th century, but it cannot be sustained. Indeed, without cheap transport and abundant energy, megacities will become increasingly dysfunctional. Meanwhile, we’ll need lots more farmers. Solution: dedicate more societal resources to towns and villages, make land available to young farmers, and work to revitalize rural culture.

10. Promote the pursuit of social and inner sources of happiness. Consumerism was a solution to the problem of overproduction; it entailed engineering the human psyche to become more individualistic and to demand ever more material stimulation. Beyond a certain point this doesn’t make us happier (in fact, just the opposite), and it can’t go on much longer. When people’s ability to afford consumer products wanes, as does the economy’s ability to produce and deliver those products, people must be encouraged to enjoy more traditional and innately satisfying rewards—including philosophical contemplation and the appreciation of nature. Music, dance, art, oratory, poetry, participatory sports, and theater can all be produced locally and featured at seasonal festivals: fun for the whole family!

*          *          *

More recommendations could certainly be fielded, but ten is a nice round number.

Surely many readers will wonder: Isn’t this just running “progress” in reverse, and isn’t doing so antithetical to our core value as a society? Yes, during the past few centuries we have become hooked on the idea of progress, and we have come to define progress almost entirely in terms of technological innovation and economic growth—two trends that are approaching dead ends. If we wish to avoid the cognitive pain of having to relinquish our deep-seated infatuation with progress, we could redefine that word in social or ecological terms. Similarly, many people who judge that society is far too wedded to the pursuit of economic growth to be persuaded to give it up advocate redefining “growth” in terms of increasing human happiness and societal sustainability. Such efforts at redefinition have some limited usefulness. Certainly the act of collective self-limitation involved in deliberately shrinking the economy would denote a new level of species maturity that would likely be reflected throughout our culture. Socially and spiritually, this would be a step forward—and is hence perhaps describable as progress or growth. But it is hard to monopolize the redefinition of terms like “progress” or “growth”: there are already powerful interests hard at work tying new meanings of the latter to inventive interpretations of manicured and manipulated GDP, employment, and stock market data.

It might be more honest to refer to the program outlined above as a simple reversion to sanity. It is also our best chance for preserving the best of civilization’s scientific, cultural, and technological achievements over the last few centuries—achievements that could be lost altogether if society collapses in a way similar to past civilizations.

 The recommendations above imply the ability and willingness of elites to turn the ship around. But both their ability and willingness to do this are questionable. Our current political system seems designed to prevent collective self-limitation, and also to resist serious attempts at reform. The plainest gauge of the likelihood of the implementation of my ten-point plan is a simple thought exercise: name a single prominent politician, financier, or industrialist who would propose or advocate even a small portion of it.

Still, there’s a deep irony here. While there’s no support for degrowth among elites, many if not most of the elements of the above plan have a very large real or potential constituency among the populace in general. How many people would prefer life in a small, stable community to existence in an overcrowded, hyper-competitive megacity; a profession to a job; debt-free life to the chains of onerous financial obligations? Maybe by articulating the plan and its objectives, and exploring the implications in more detail, we can help this constituency coalesce and grow.

58 Comments on "Heinberg: How to Shrink the Economy without Crashing It A Ten-Point Plan"

Steve O on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 6:41 am 



Reduce population should be first on the list. If we don’t do it by choice, famine and disease will do it the hard way.

meld on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 6:45 am 



And how do you suggest “we” reduce population Steve?

I’d rather famine, disease and war did it rather than some government program.

Davy on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 7:17 am 



Richard Heinberg is one of those people that shaped my early years as a doomer. All his books are in my library. This article has good ideas but I know he knows this is theoretical and optimistic. I know he knows he is speaking to people that cannot understand what he understands so he has to talk in parables. In effect what he is saying in this article is like a parable in that he is saying something that for all practical purposes is not possible to get something done that is possible.

There is no managed degrowth there is only the managed condition of being in a free fall. We should focus on mitigation strategies not degrowth strategies. Managed degrowth assumes we have problems. Mitigation of a free fall admits we are in major and intractable predicaments. I visualize Easter Island when the last great Palm grove was cut down. At that very moment the problems became predicaments

There was a time when we almost could have successfully managed a degrowth without too much free fall. When population was half and energy reserves double. I am thinking of an ideal world of the early 70’s. If you study systems you come to the conclusion manage degrowth is never possible. A successful collapse management on the other hand may have worked back then.

His ideas are nothing new and they are great for the greenies consumption. Richard message is a good one and the only kind of language that can hint at doom and make a difference in today’s sugar coated world. The world is bulging with corns and optimist. They have to be spoken to if we are going to get any kind of change in motion. Anything will help almost nothing will prepare us for what is ahead. In any case his message is better than the standard cornucopian stale beer.

Jerry McManus on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 7:20 am 



Reading pointless screeds like this makes me want to vomit. Heinberg is totally wasting everyone’s time.

Asking people to do any of these things is like asking anteaters to stop eating ants.

Even if by some miracle (or by force) you were able to get the “industrialized nations” to agree to what amounts to voluntary poverty, there are a few billion Asians and Africans who have no such compunction and will be more than happy to consume any resources we don’t use.

Far better course of action is what I call the “Dr. Strangelove option”. Why fight the peak of industrialized civilization? Celebrate it! Do your part by importing a rainforest and burning it in your backyard. Invite your friends for BBQ!

All that is required is that we accelerate the unrestrained consumption of natural capital, unchecked growth of population, and unregulated pollution of the planet until there is nothing left, at which point the whole thing collapses catastrophically in a giant fireball.

Oh, wait…, we’re already doing that. See how easy that was?!?

rockman on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 7:55 am 



Why not create an energy source that costs only a few cents per Btu? That should be much easier to do then his collective wish list. LOL. Just one more example of what we don’t need: an explanation of changes that would help. What’s desperately need is a list of PRACTICAL approaches to institute changes.

ghung on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 7:56 am 



Hoping for a soft landing and expecting one are two different things. That said, I’ve decided that a soft landing runs counter to the long-term survival of humans.

paulo1 on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 8:25 am 



re: #6

Seems to me is in direct contradiction to Human Nature. Good luck with that one.

Me? I’ll stay where we are having already ‘re-ruralized’.

Greer invites people to collapse ahead of time in a deliberate fashion. Best advice yet.

Paulo suggests some preps and purchases are made now, before times toughen up.

regards…Paulo

Makati1 on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 8:40 am 



Better to step down the ladder at your own pace than to wait for events to pull it out from under you.

We are too late for most of these ‘voluntary’ changes. But, we can be sure that Mother Nature is already working on the problem. She will wipe the slate clean and start over with a few bacteria or whatever survives the next century or so. In a few million years, give or take, there will be a new ecology on the earth….sans homo sapiens. Maybe her next attempt at intelligent life will be something that lives in the sea.

Kenz300 on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 8:46 am 



Too many people and too few resources.

Family planning services needs to be available to all that want it.

If you can not provide for yourself, you can not provide for a child.

Davy on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 8:57 am 



Mak, your ladder is pretty short already being 70. It is no wonder you talk like a dead man walking with death, NUK war, and desolation. It must make you feel better knowing everyone else might die along with you.

poaecdotcom on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 9:31 am 



Davy. Too harsh. You are better than that.

I do not have a crystal ball but do NOT believe mother nature will ‘wipe the slate clean’.

I do believe one thing though; that hope is the ONLY functional mindset and we should cherish it.

Go local.

Davy on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 9:36 am 



Thanks Poa, being not right I need my face slapped occasionally. We can call it a muddle i.e some where in between or may luck be with you.

GregT on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 9:53 am 



“If nothing is done deliberately to reverse growth or pre-adapt to inevitable economic stagnation and contraction, the likely result will be an episodic, protracted, and chaotic process of collapse continuing for many decades or perhaps centuries, with innumerable human and non-human casualties. This may in fact be the most likely path forward.”

Heinberg gets it.

JuanP on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 10:05 am 



I like RH, but today’s essay is an exercise in futility and I stopped participating at #1.
I am not going to waste my time reading about almost impossible things that I believe go against human nature and will never happen.
I’m taking a brake to sharpen my blades! Tomorrow we take our tomahawk to the island to practice throwing it. The tides washed in a plywood/foam raft that makes a perfect target.

JuanP on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 10:11 am 



Greg, I agree that paragraph is great.

ghung on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 10:12 am 



Managed contraction is a pipe dream, I agree. How can we manage contraction when we’ve utterly failed to manage growth?

JuanP on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 10:21 am 



Davy’s point that this is for the masses is good.
Jerry, that having your friends over for a rainforest BBQ still has me laughing.

My mind has gone down those paths many times. It is impossible to know the consequences of our actions. Things we do with the best of intentions (like having too many kids) end up destroying the biosphere for future generations and maybe leading to self extinction.

We live in a world of unintended consequences.

Northwest Resident on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 10:25 am 



Collapse is baked into the cake and nothing is going to change that.

Peace, love and kumbaya make for good vibrations. But you can’t eat them, you can’t defend yourself with them and you can’t build a shelter out of them. You can’t even wipe your butt with them. Practical approaches to survival are needed at this point — sharpening the blades for example as JuanP points out.

poaecdotcom on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 10:28 am 



My guess that RH released this piece as a conscious ease. Providing problems (predicaments actually) and no solutions wears on the soul.

I have great respect for the man and do not begrudge his attempts at solutions where there are likely none.

A discerning reader (like GregT) can easily see where RH’s inner thoughts are. “This may in fact be the most likely path forward”

Plantagenet on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 10:34 am 



Heinberg is delusional. There is no way we will shrink the economy without crashing it.

We can’t even figure out how to grow the economy without occasional crashes.

poaecdotcom on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 10:40 am 



If Heinberg is delusional, then what are our politicians, leaders, CEOS, managers, economists, professors, friends who don’t even question the denial dogma?

Give me more delusional Heinbergs please.

Plantagenet on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 10:49 am 



@poacdotcom

Of course our politicians, leaders, CEOS, managers, economists, professors, and friends who don’t even question the denial dogma are delusional as well.

That doesn’t mean the answer is Heinberg’s magical thinking that we will shrink the global economy without crashing it is anything more than wishful thinking.

poaecdotcom on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 11:03 am 



Plant. You might feel more comfortable if no one engages in wishful thinking. Fair enough.

For me, I am actively attempting to contract my personal life without crashing and am active in my community to help ‘contract now and avoid the rush’.

If you think outside the box you can apply most of those 10 points above to your family and your community.

We have too many exceptional brains on wall street fabricating exotic derivatives and fair too few bright sparks engaged in wishing thinking.

If Heinberg should read any of these posts then I do not want anything other than to keep him cranking out pieces, delusional or not.

That is my wishful thinking!!

Plantagenet on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 11:25 am 



Heinberg could’ve written the same book with the same ideas, but left out the Pollyannish claim that he has figured out a way to shrink the global economy without crashing it.

It just isn’t going to happen. The global economy crashed in 2008 and still hasn’t recovered—and that happened when global growth slowed and briefly paused. Imagine how bad things will get when global GDP actually starts shrinking year after year.

Please Mr. Heinberg—stop misleading these simple and gullible souls who trust you with your silly claim that we can shrink the global economy without having an economic crash.

Lawfish on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 11:31 am 



All these discussions raise for me the most unanswerable question for my own family. What do I advise my kids to do? I’ve spent years educating them in a private school to prepare for college, only recently to discover that the world I was born into was quite different from the world they were born into. I can’t go back and not have children, but I can prepare them for the future. My son is considering a sustainable agriculture major in college. As the article says, many more people will have to become farmers. But my daughter is into 4WD trucks and accessories and thinks BAU will continue forever.

I just started a serious garden last year and I’m still struggling to get decent yields out of it. Live and learn, but farming without inorganic fertilizers and pesticides is tough. Do I advise my kids to get college degrees that may be useless in 10 years (or less)? What if the collapse is further off then we all think?

They know I’m a prepper and anti-debt, anti-consumption, but trying to convince kids that the future is bleak is very hard. Most of them simply expect to go to college and live BAU for the rest of their lives.

poaecdotcom on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 11:32 am 



Anyone can put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and yell “crash, crash, crash” and they will likely be right.

For those brave enough to try anything else. Bravo!

poaecdotcom on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 11:43 am 



LAW, I face the same issue with my children and it is one of the biggest challenges I have to date.

What I do is have a honesty zone at the dinner table where we allow no long-term-BAU BS.

The really fun stuff happens when relatives are in town and wax on about “they will find a new energy technology gismo for the future, have faith”. so, in front of my (8 &10) kids i start busting out the Laws of thermodynamics and the shroud of mass social denial, fun stuff, good times!!!

Seriously though, any time and space with no-spin/brutal honesty serves as a useful anchor in my book.

Good luck and plz share any tips you might have.

Cheers

Davy on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 11:46 am 



Law, I personally would push to shorter term trade type careers. They usually are less expensive. Agriculture is a growth industry but BAU AG is equal to Corp AG. Trying to get going in corporate AG is scary. I did it for 4 year about killed me mentally.

You know the numbers on college the investment in the degrees are not paying unless your daddy has connections. It won’t be very long until our dumbest generation sees the writing on the wall. I am working on my 26yr old. She listens to me but is still attached to a BAU mentality. My twin boys are 7 so they will grow into a collapsed world. Collapse will be their boot camp.

Your question is very important because the younger generation is our greatest resource.

Plantagenet on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 11:56 am 



People who base their future plans on the delusional belief that we can shrink the GDP without economic crashes aren’t being brave—they are just engaging in a slightly different kind of magical thinking then the people who think BAU can go on forever without crashing.

Northwest Resident on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 12:00 pm 



Lawfish — I had that conversation with my 15-yo. Good question: Accepting the inevitability of collapse, what course of study would best prepare a kid for the uncertain future.

We brainstormed on it and came up with these ideas:

1) Mechanical engineering — Knowing how things work mechanically could be a very valuable skill in a future where a lot of jerry-rigging and McGyver-like ingenuity will be needed

2) Chemistry — Knowing the properties of all the different chemical compounds, how to isolate them, what they can be used for, etc… could end up being a highly valuable skill. A chemist with a little NG to fuel the Bunsen Burner, a few test tubes and any number of different compounds could be used to produce all kinds of stuff that people need.

3) Agriculture for obvious reasons.

4) Medical — nursing, general practice — people will always need to go to the doctor or get medical treatment for different ailments. But, forget the specialties — they won’t be doing a lot of brain surgery in the future we’re headed into

5) Dental — not so much. There’s going to be a lot of tooth pulling and not a lot of tooth drilling in our future. Official Puller Of Teeth — not a job title I would want to have.

6) Undertaker — high demand employment opportunity. Just morbid humor but oh so true. Strong frame for digging required.

7) Musician, entertainer, story teller — for when the boob tube dies

8) Religious leader — not a choice we’re interest in at all, but somebody has to fill that role because there most certainly will be demand for it

9) Enforcer — of the law, protector, soldier, guy who patrols and keeps the zombies and demons at bay, insures order, deals with miscreants, etc…

10) Blacksmith, wood cutter/hauler, fisherman, long-distance trader, etc…

Davy on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 12:12 pm 



Damn, NR, brilliant with the Undertaker idea. Tell me this where are we going to dispose of so many dead bodies. Maybe Undertaker engineering would be a good post collapse field to go into.

poaecdotcom on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 12:13 pm 



@Plant.

Go ahead and be BRAVE enough to apply all 10 points to your family and your community.

Stop hiding behind the trite position that anyone who gets off their ass to do something/anything is somehow naive.

We all know the titanic is sinking but you are still at the bar. Go look for a life boat or at least don’t trip those that try.

Lead, follow of get the #$%#$ out the way!!

Peace :O)

Northwest Resident on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 12:17 pm 



Davy — I’m thinking all those big office buildings will make great tombs. And there will be plenty of empty houses to dump them in. The key is to put them all someplace where the flies can’t get in or out — if you know what I mean.

I forgot one! Although this isn’t one that I discussed with my son, it should not go without mentioning. Pimping will probably be a real career growth opportunity field going forward.

And two more I didn’t discuss with my son: Pot Grower and Moonshine Maker — although those might more appropriately be classified under agriculture and chemistry respectively.

JuanP on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 12:25 pm 



Lawfish, I don’t have kids, but I couldn’t ignore such a challenging question. NWR’s recommendations were very good. Undertaker! LOL.

Your son’s choice to study sustainable agriculture would delight me as a father, I think it definitely makes the short list. Sustainable food production will become increasingly important and his skills and knowledge will be valuable and in demand.

As Davy points out, making it as a farmer is tough in this BAU world, but, IMO, it will be necessary in the future.
I find Permaculture, organic and sustainable gardening and farming, and related fields fascinating and I am focusing on learning more about these subjects in preparation for what’s coming and because I enjoy the process, too.

Plantagenet on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 12:35 pm 



@poaecdotdom

You don’t get it. I’m not saying people shouldn’t do anything. I believe people should definitely do something, do everything, do whatever it takes to prepare for the future.

I’m simply disagreeing with Heinberg’s unrealistic claim that we can shrink global GDP without the economy crashing. We can’t even grow global GDP without the economy crashing. Its just not realistic to imagine that the entire economy can reverse direction and start shrinking without crashing when even minor slowdowns in GDP growth cause crashes.

Get it now?

Northwest Resident on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 12:41 pm 



Me personally… I plan to corner the market on honey, bee’s wax candles and accessories. They will know me as the provider of top quality worm humus, go-to place for your own batch of wriggly worms or voracious night crawlers, best corn bread and potatoes in town, supplier of high quality garlic varieties, seller of quality seeds and advice-for-a-price on how to grow said seeds, and shotgun and/or fists of fire for hire.

poaecdotcom on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 12:57 pm 



I read “crashing” to mean “mad maxing” i.e. in “chaotic collapse”. Katrina times Somalia squared.

You appear to have read it as though “crashing” was a 2008 style event which I regard as an awkward little pothole as we drive off the cliff.

Re-read the article substituting “crashing” for “mad maxing” “and I think you will find that those 10 points are very constructive and can be applied at almost every level.

Davy on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 1:36 pm 



Juan/NR, any recommendations on a book for seed preservation for use in next years garden. Somehow I have this feeling my slick as snot Amazon buying experience will be one of those stories I tell my grandchildren about. I am worried I make it through a harvest with few good options for next years garden.

Northwest Resident on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 1:56 pm 



Davy — Good question. Seed propagation from one harvest to the next is a major factor in self-sufficiency. After all, all those online seed retailers aren’t going to be there in the future scenario we’re contemplating and planning for.

I’m no expert and I don’t have any single book to recommend. But I have compiled a large amount of information from different websites on this subject and copied/pasted it all into a “Farmer John” manual (my term for it) — a Word document that I have printed and make updates to as needed.

In general, you want to keep you seeds in a cool, dry place. Large swings in temperature over a period of time is harder on seeds than leaving them in a slightly too cool or slightly too warm storage place. Dry is key — you don’t want to put your seeds in a high humidity area or god forbid in a place where they are exposed to water or moisture directly.

Knowing what crops you intend to grow and sticking with a tried-and-proven set of seeds that are well suited for your particular local/climate is also key. Trying to grow too many varieties of seed or growing nice-to-have plants at the expense of growing more of the must-have varieties is something to consider.

Also, some plants (kale, carrots, garlic, onions for example) need two years to go to seed. If you want seed from those plants (and I do), you need to plant several or more of those seeds NOT in your main planter areas where you’ll be rotating crops annually (or should), but instead grow your plants that are pre-destined to go to produce seed in separate pots/planter areas — keep them separate from what you’re going to harvest.

Corn — you have to let the cob dry for a while before shelling those seeds off. Wheat and rye and the other grains — you want to let it ripen in the field and harvest before the rains start — thrashing that wheat/grain manually is a real labor-intensive activity which I did for the first time this year. I finally got a good system that worked — you’ll have to work on your own system, study it and collect info now so you’ll know what to do.

Reading and collecting info now while the internet is still up and all that information is readily available and searchable is key. Also, I believe that actual experience is key. Getting started asap and developing expertise in growing, harvesting and propagating seed is really important, I think.

poaecdotcom on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 1:59 pm 



I have read quite a few gardening / seed saving books in my time. Here are two that I recommend:

Saving seeds : Marc Rogers

Gardening when it counts: Steve Solomon

Good luck!!

Perk Earl on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 2:12 pm 



Heinberg knows full well the situation but he’s part salesman, knowing the positive viewpoint will win points with concerned corns that may purchase his books. He’s positioned himself as the doomer with a non-doomer message ‘IF’ people suddenly completely change their natural inclinations (cough cough). He’s a smart guy, so I’m sure he knows this is simply a sales pitch.

Plantagenet on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 2:31 pm 



Hi poaecdotdom.

I’m glad you clarified what you were imagining the word “crash” to mean. Of course crashing doesn’t mean “mad max crashing.” That kind of thing only happens in the movies.

Heinberg himself defines what he means by crash. Heinberg says: an episodic, protracted, and chaotic process of collapse continuing for many decades or perhaps centuries. Thats what I mean too.

IMHO We are going to see episodic crashes as the global economy slows and then starts to contract. In fact, we are still dealing with the first major “peak oil” economic crash that occurred in 2008 after conventional oil peaked and prices rocketed to $148/bbl. We’ve got a little window of low oil prices happening right now, thanks to frakking in the US and price cutting by KSA, but eventually peak oil will kick in and we’ll see another crash. It won’t be mad max—but its still gonna be ugly.

CHEERS!

Northwest Resident on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 2:31 pm 



Totally off topic, but we’ve beat this horse to death anyway.

I just got out of a “key employee” meeting with the CEO/Owner of the company I work for. In closing remarks, the CEO assured us that 2015 will be a “killer year”.

gulp…

Davy on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 2:40 pm 



Thanks guys on seed saving info

poaecdotcom on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 2:44 pm 



Plant,

I think we are splitting hairs but…

Heinberg also refers to a “harrowing wasteland of conflict, decay, and dissolution” which sounds petty mad max to me.

And “Of course crashing doesn’t mean “mad max crashing.” That kind of thing only happens in the movies.”

I would not be too sure. I was in NOLA for Katrina and it was no picnic let me tell you. Gangs shooting down police helicopters with AK-47s is not just confined to HBO dramas. I am a true believer that as a society, we are nine meals away from savagery.

Respectfully though, our views are not as fair apart as I first thought and there is no harm in a good bit of ‘peak banter’. Cheers!

Plantagenet on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 2:48 pm 



poaecdotdom

I agree…we are very close on this.

Good luck on your garden next year!

vulcanelli on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 2:51 pm 



I have read many of Richards’s writings and early on found them valuable, however beyond the conveyance of keen observations to educate any suggestions of problem solving is inconsequential because there is no problem to solve. A problem is a human invention. It is an intellectual filter through which experiences are passed. There is only life doing what it does and it will take its course regardless of our ideas about it. We do not understand life because understanding is the child of language and life is not directed by words. Life happens in silence. The intellect is just along for the ride. It has no more effect on the world than trying to stop puberty by thinking it should not happen. We are driven by unspoken biological drives period. As in all life forms those drives seek to maximize growth to the available resources. We have been clever enough to leverage energy in ways that no other life form has and there is no escape from the boomerang of tremendous consequence for what our biology is driving us to do with this leverage.

Perk Earl on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 3:16 pm 



“We are driven by unspoken biological drives period. As in all life forms those drives seek to maximize growth to the available resources.”

Nailed it, vulcanelli.

The person with 3 mansions wants 4
The person with 10 grandchildren wants 20
The person with a porsche wants a Lamborghini

Few people want less, most want more and there’s no stopping that. In fact, the whole idea of having more seems to be gaining much greater momentum than any previous time I’m aware of. It’s celebrated in our social media. The more money someone can accumulate the more it is commented on. Bill Gates nixed XP so he could get people to switch to another operating system so he could make more what?: Money. Because 76 billion is not enough.

Like Edward G. Robinson’s character said in the movie, Key Largo, “Yeah, that’s what I want, I want more!”

Northwest Resident on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 3:16 pm 



“…the boomerang of tremendous consequence…”

Really nice allegory there vulcanelli.

Yeah, good luck dodging the return trip of that boomerang.

But I prefer “the rubber band of doom”. We’ve stretched the age of oil out as far as it can go. And when that sucker snaps back it is going to leave one hell of a mark.

farmboy on Tue, 4th Nov 2014 3:24 pm 



one tool that just might give someone an edge is a heavy built nut cracker for walnuts something like this one or heavier would be better http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kenkel-Hardshell-NutcrackerNut-Cracker-English-Black-Walnut-Chestnut-Hazelnut-/381034573763?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item58b76e2fc3 and planting perrenials should be part of any survival kit Hazelnuts http://www.badgersett.com/ sunchokes autumn berries etc and learning to forage