Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 19, 2015
The Myth of Self Reliance
A mass emailing went out a while back from a prominent permaculturist looking for “projects where people are fully self sufficient in providing for their own food, clothing, shelter, energy and community needs. . .” There it was, the myth of “fully self sufficient,” coming from one of the best-known permaculturists in the world. In most US permaculture circles, the idea that anyone could be self sufficient at anything past a very primitive level was abandoned a while ago, and the softer term “self reliant” replaced it. But even self-reliance is barely possible, and, other than as way of expressing a desire to throw off the shackles of corporate consumerism, I don’t think it’s desirable.
I took a Googling cruise around the internet and found that “self sufficient” shows up as a desirable goal on several top permaculture websites. I’d like to hammer a few coffin nails into that phrase. My dictionary says that self sufficient means being “able to maintain oneself without outside aid.” Who lives without outside aid? No one. Let’s unpack that a bit further. The meaning of “self sufficient in food” is something most of us can agree on: supplying 100% of your food needs from your own land and efforts. I have never met anyone who has done this. I’m sure there are a few people doing it, but even subsistence farmers usually raise, alongside their food, a cash crop to buy the foods that are impractical for them to grow.
I hear people say they are growing 30%, 50%, even 70% of their own food. What they usually mean is that they are growing fruits and vegetables that make up some percentage of the total cost or weight—but not calories—of their food. Vegetables are high in wet weight, but low in calories. If you are growing 100% of your own vegetables, they provide about 15-20% of your daily calories, unless you are living mostly on potatoes or other starchy veggies. Most daily calories come from grains, meat, or dairy products. So if you’re not raising large-scale grains or animals, it’s unlikely that you are growing more than one-quarter of your own food, measured honestly by nutritional content. In that case, it’s not accurate to claim you are “70% food self-sufficient.” If you are getting most of your calories from your land, you’re almost certainly a full-time farmer, and I salute you for your hard work. Now we begin to see how difficult, and even undesirable, self sufficiency is. You won’t have time for much else if you are truly food self-sufficient, even in a permaculture system.
But even if you grow all your own food, can you claim you are self sufficient if you don’t grow all your own seeds? Provide all your fertility? Where do your farm tools and fuel come from? Permaculturists understand as well as anyone how interconnected life is. At what point do you claim to be disconnected from the broad human community in anything? Is there really a way to be “fully self sufficient” in food?
Let’s take a quick pass at clothing, shelter and energy. Even if you sew all your clothes, do you grow the cotton, raise the sheep? If you milled all the lumber or dug the stone for your home, did you forge the glass, fabricate the wiring? In the off-the-grid house, what complex community of engineers and factories assembled the solar panels? We’re reliant on all of that.
Claiming self sufficiency in almost anything insults and ignores the mountain of shoulders we all stand on. US permaculturists are a pretty politically correct crew, and it became obvious to some of us that “self sufficient” was not just impossible, but was a slap in the face to all those whose sweat provides for us, and was another perpetuation of the cowboy ethic that puts the individual at the center of the universe. So the term morphed into “self reliance,” to show that we know we are interdependent, but are choosing to be less reliant on others. At its best, self reliance means developing skills to provide for basic needs, so we can stop supporting unethical and destructive industries. But I see much less need for self-reliant people who can do everything themselves, and much more need for self-reliant communities, where not everyone knows how to weave or farm, but there is clothing and food for all.
There is still a deep prejudice in permaculture, as websites and emails show, that doing it all ourselves, and on our own land, is the most noble path. And insofar as our skills make us less dependent on corporate monopolies, developing the abilities that we think of as self-reliant is worth doing. However, the more we limit our lives to what we can do ourselves, the fewer our opportunities are. Each connection outside ourselves enriches us. When we create a web of interdependencies, we grow richer, stronger, safer, and wiser. Why would you not want to rely on others? To fully probe that would take us down a psychological rabbit-hole, but some of it is grounded in a belief that others are unreliable or unethical, and that we weaken ourselves by interdependencies. But the old saying “if you want a job done well, do it yourself” simply shows poor management skills.
If you’re still skeptical, I’ll resort to scripture: a quote from the Book of Mollison, Introduction to Permaculture, page two: “We can also begin to take some part in food production. This doesn’t mean that we all need to grow our own potatoes, but it may mean that we will buy them directly from a person who is already growing potatoes responsibly. In fact, one would probably do better to organize a farmer-purchasing group in the neighborhood than to grow potatoes.”
As veteran permaculture designer Larry Santoyo says, go to the highest generalization to fill your needs. Thinking “I must grow my food” is painfully limited. Thinking “I must satisfy food needs responsibly” opens up a vast array of possibilities, from which you can choose the most stable and appropriate. Individual efforts are often less stable and resilient than community enterprises. And they’re bad design: self-reliance means that a critical function is supported in only one way. If you grow all your food and get hurt, you are now injured, hungry, and watching your crops wither from your wheelchair. That won’t happen in a community farm. And for those worried about an impending collapse of society, the roving turnip-bandits are much more likely to raid your lonely plot while you sleep exhausted from a hard day of spadework, and less likely to attack a garden protected by a crew of strong, pitchfork-wielding farmers who can guard it round the clock.
Creating community reliance gives us yet another application of permacultural zones: Zone zero in this sense is our home and land. Zone one is our connection to other individuals and families, zone two to local commerce and activities in our neighborhood, zone three to regional businesses and organizations, zone four to larger and more distant enterprises. Why would we limit ourselves to staying only in zone zero? We can organize our lives so that our need for zone-four excursions—say, to buy petroleum or metal products—is very limited, while our interactions with the local farmers’ market and restaurants are frequent. This builds a strong community.
Self reliance fails to grow social capital, a truly regenerative resource that can only increase by being used. Why would I not want to connect to my community in every way that I can? If we don’t help fill our community’s needs, there’s more chance that our neighbors will shop at big-box stores. An unexamined belief in self reliance is a destructive myth that hands opportunity to those who are taking our community away from us.
If you love being a farmer, then yes, grow all your own food. And sell the rest for the other things you need, in a way that supports your community. But is there really a difference between a farmer exchanging the product of her labor—food—for goods and money, and me selling the product of my labor—education—for goods and money? We both are trading our life energy within a system that supports us, and I’d like to think that we are both making wise ethical choices.
A good permaculture design is one that provides for the inhabitants’ needs in a responsible and ecologically sound manner. But there’s nothing in permaculture that says that it’s important for all yields to come from the owner’s site! If I can accomplish one thing in this essay, it is to smash that myth. Permaculture design simply says that our needs and products need to be taken care of responsibly in our design, not on our own land. That design can—and must—include off-site connections. If you are an acupuncturist whose income is provided by your community and you are getting most of your needs met from mostly local sources you believe to be ethical, then that’s excellent permaculture design. Your design will be stronger if your needs and products are connected to many off-site elements and systems.
It’s very permacultural to develop skills that will connect you more deeply to land, home, and community. And sometimes the skills that we gained in search of self reliance are the same ones we need to be more community-reliant. But self reliance, as a goal in itself, is a tired old myth that needs to die. It’s unpermacultural.
50 Comments on "The Myth of Self Reliance"
justeunperdant on Tue, 19th May 2015 1:41 pm
There is no such thing as sustainable living or agriculture. The only living possible is the one that respect nature and work with the same rules of nature works. For example, no health care for animals in nature, so there should be no health care for human. This video capture this very well
Meet one of the last Siberian nomadic tribe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88QosNCLbBA
ghung on Tue, 19th May 2015 2:28 pm
I’m getting pretty tired of the absolutists in our midst. That no one connected to our civilization is fully self-sufficient doesn’t mean that some people aren’t less reliant upon civilization’s complex systems. Few of us could outrun a bear, but some certainly can run fast enough to be pretty sure it’s someone else the bear takes to dinner, eh?
From the article: “But is there really a difference between a farmer exchanging the product of her labor—food—for goods and money, and me selling the product of my labor—education—for goods and money? We both are trading our life energy within a system that supports us, and I’d like to think that we are both making wise ethical choices.”
There could be a huge difference. The ‘skills’ many folks have may end up being largely useless, while everyone needs food. What percentage of folks are intermediaries that could be dispensed with in an economic or societal crisis? Some (most?) folks livelihoods are utterly reliant upon the continuation of BAU; others, not as much.
Lawfish1964 on Tue, 19th May 2015 2:30 pm
Where did this author get the idea that people interested in permaculture seek to be isolationists and rigid anti-community people? I don’t get that. I read a lot of John Michael Greer and James Howard Kunstler, and those guys don’t claim any of us has to be 100% self-reliant. They only claim that it will be very useful in the coming period of unrest to be able to grow food using only natural inputs.
That’s how I look at it. At some point, going outside zone 3 will be a virtual physical impossibility due to the lack of fossil fuels. My focus is on keeping it local and keeping the skills of growing food and raising chickens alive to be passed on to the next generation, who I think will need them much more than I will in what’s left of my lifetime.
It’s interesting, though, that going through the process of learning those old skills that our grandparents all had is quite enjoyable. It is very rewarding to eat a fresh, ripe tomato grown in one’s own back yard. As my sister says, “Gardening is cheaper than therapy and you get tomatoes!”
Northwest Resident on Tue, 19th May 2015 3:18 pm
ghung — Really good point you’re making.
You know, if I don’t have but desperately need some item or substance in order to maintain myself in the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed, but I can’t make it, grow it or catch it — does that make me NOT self sufficient EVEN THOUGH I can still get that item or substance by trading my labor or other items or substances for it?
I am very good at growing food (and producing honey), but I need some bullets to keep the bad guys away, I still would consider myself self-sufficient if I can trade some of my excess food/honey for those bullets.
It isn’t so much that an individual is self-sufficient — what is vitally important is that the community that he is a part of IS self-sufficient.
Self-sufficient individuals are going to be far and few between, and when found, they’ll turn out to be very gnarly dudes.
GregT on Tue, 19th May 2015 3:25 pm
The Author, Toby Hemenway, is the author of Gaia’s Garden: A Guide to Home-Scale Permaculture. An excellent book, and IMHO, a must have for any prepper’s library.
I suspect that Toby is trying to squash any idea that permaculture is about being entirely self-sustainable. While learning to grow ones own food is of utmost importance, no man is an island as they say. Community is every bit as important.
My focus is also on being as self reliant as possible, but I also understand that strength lies in numbers, and everyone has their own personal strengths and weaknesses. A strong community of like minded individuals will be a necessary ingredient for survival in a sustainable post industrial society. Get out there and meet your neighbours!
old dog on Tue, 19th May 2015 3:31 pm
Here is North America, the rugged individual and the frontier are powerful myths. A few individuals may have lived that way, but the settlers were much more social, relying on cooperation and mutual aid as well as being able to be self-reliant in some ways. House raisings, changing works, corn husking bees, quilting bees all point people who supported each other in providing the necessities of life. Only in the past couple generations have we gotten away from doing that. We don’t work cooperatively any more because we are too well off enough to have to do that. Perhaps we will revert to those strategies in the years ahead.
GregT on Tue, 19th May 2015 3:35 pm
” I need some bullets to keep the bad guys away”
For a few hundred bucks, you can buy everything needed to supply yourself with ammo for a very long time NWR. I have been stockpiling bullets, brass, primers, and powders for several years now. I also cast my own bullets from lead that I buy from a battery recycling facility. The only caliber that I don’t reload is 22LR. Those I buy when I find them on sale. I have several thousand rounds on hand now. I figure I have enough supplies to pass down for at least a few generations, unless a war breaks out.
apneaman on Tue, 19th May 2015 3:45 pm
No social creatures are self reliant. That would contradict the evolutionary strategy. Now a Tiger on the other hand only needs another tiger for mating. He carries every thing he needs wherever he goes and needs no one else.
hiruitnguyse on Tue, 19th May 2015 3:54 pm
http://media.law.uark.edu/arklawreview/2015/05/15/militarization-of-school-police-one-route-on-the-school-to-prison-pipeline/
The above article might be a bit too long for the attention spans of Generation Twerkbook.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 19th May 2015 4:43 pm
GregT — I think I’m good on the ammo prep. I was just using that as an example. I’m focused on 12ga shotgun shells of all kinds — bird, varmint, zombie, 9mm tactical, 38-special hollow point for my pocket piece and all the 22 long rifle I can get for whatever the other stuff isn’t good for. But to be honest, I don’t think I’ll ever use much of it, and to be even more honest, I hope I never have to. If post-collapse turns into raids and skirmishes and rebellions, then my theory is that there’ll be plenty of extra weapons and ammo laying around — if I’m there to pick it up. Maybe in a few years or more after the bottleneck and the population thins out a little, the deer and elk hiding up in the hills will come down into my area to graze on the unmaintained lawns, and if/when that happens, I’ve got a 50lb recurve bow that I’m pretty good with at a hundred feet or less.
Lore on Tue, 19th May 2015 5:13 pm
I have to agree with much of this article. Bunker mentality is so last century.
Davy on Tue, 19th May 2015 5:17 pm
N/R/Greg, I have 2 – 308’s 2-45, and 2-12 gauge. I have plenty of ammo but need more it is just I have other prep priorities at the moment. I am not a gun freak. I just want to have a deterrent and something to hunt with if need be.
I have been buying several traps lately to use for hunting instead of ammo. Ammo is going to run out. Well made traps will last. I need to find some bear traps to use on people if the Mad Maxers come around.
Lore on Tue, 19th May 2015 5:23 pm
When you’re with a community you can concentrate more on the beans and less on the bullets.
Trust more to luck then your gun and trust me from someone who knows.
justeunperdant on Tue, 19th May 2015 5:32 pm
I agree with apneaman. I would add that human are not well equipped to be self reliant compare let say to a grizzly bear.
We are weak physically, we need clothing, guns to defend against animal, heat to keep us warn, we have no natural weapon such like grizzly teeth.
Self-reliant means the you don’t need any body else to survive. You body is equipped with everything you need to defend yourself, hunt, protect your body against outside weather. This is not the case. Human in community are less self-reliant
GregT on Tue, 19th May 2015 5:40 pm
Sorry NWR,
I keep forgetting, things are a bit different stateside. Not many people actually own firearms here in the city, and handguns are a really big deal. I’m sure most people in Canada still think that they’re illegal to own.
I’m definitely with you NWR, I hope the day never comes that I need a firearm for self defence against other humans. I do plan on getting back into hunting though. I’m not crazy about not knowing what chemicals and crap are in our meat. I’d rather eat naturally.
Lore on Tue, 19th May 2015 5:59 pm
@GregT,
May I ask, hunt for what? If things ever got that bad the competition would wipe out most game in a matter of few months. You won’t need a gun for grubs and worms.
apneaman on Tue, 19th May 2015 6:19 pm
Global Donner Party
ghung on Tue, 19th May 2015 6:20 pm
I avoid commenting on firearms; sort of like my sex life – a personal matter. That said, it’s not my fault that my species wasn’t endowed with fangs, claws, speed, heightened senses; all that. I certainly won’t be guilty of playing the role of victim under any circumstances.
I was an archery instructor in a former life and still have some of my equipment. The key to being a good marksman is practice, practice, practice; a bit expensive with firearms (not to mention pissing off the neighbors), and rotator cuff issues limit my ability to pull a high-power bow repeatedly, so I’m in the market for a good crossbow to play with. I’m proficient at building arrows (‘bolts’ in crossbow land) and plan to teach my grandkids some of these skills if they’re willing. Lots of fun there.
GregT on Tue, 19th May 2015 6:37 pm
Lots to hunt where I’m headed Lore, and little competition.
A ten minute walk from my back door and you could get lost in the bush for a very, very long time.
Lore on Tue, 19th May 2015 7:06 pm
I live in Michigan, a hunter’s paradise. We have a deer herd population of about seven million. About two million of which are killed off annually. Mostly during the two week firearm season. Now figure an open season of twelve months, with no restrictions, and everyone down to a slingshot user after them. Doesn’t take a lot of math skill to figure extinction of most wild life worth the calories to catch by millions of hungry humans.
Hugh Culliton on Tue, 19th May 2015 8:16 pm
I’m reminded of a Robin Williams comedy from the early ’80s about inept survivalists. “No man’s an island. But some men are peninsulas.”
GregT on Tue, 19th May 2015 8:20 pm
Here in BC we have a total population of 4.6 million people, of which close to 3 million are concentrated in the Greater Vancouver area of 2800 sq km. The province is 950,000 sq km, which leaves 947,200 sq km inhabited by 1.6 million people. BC is more than just a hunters paradise. It is probably close to 930,000 sq km of untouched wilderness. Michigan, on the other hand, has a population of close to 10 million people in an area 1/4 of the size. Also, people in Canada are nowhere near as avid firearms enthusiasts or hunters.
Cloud9 on Tue, 19th May 2015 8:32 pm
Bows should not be discounted but in the long emergency somebody is going to set up a powder mill and somebody is going to start cranking out mercury fulminate primers. Modern firearms are 19th century technology.
Lore on Tue, 19th May 2015 8:37 pm
GregT…
Get use to some new neighbors if it came to that. You won’t feel lonely for long. Also, check your game reserves. Surprisingly there are more deer here in Michigan’s lower peninsula then the upper even though it’s more inhabited by humans. I would venture to say even without an influx of immigrants there are still way too many people in BC to successfully hunt for a living.
Also, if you’re worried about human confrontation in desperate times, just go out by yourself looking for scarce game. A sure way to get your rear blown off.
GregT on Tue, 19th May 2015 8:48 pm
If it ever came down to what you are talking about Lore, people will not be travelling 2 days by car and boat to hunt for a deer. I am not worried about human confrontation, the population is very small where I am headed, and the local deer population is far larger than the human population.
Davy on Tue, 19th May 2015 9:03 pm
Lore, you are speculating on a collapse instead of acknowledging this will be a process, over time, and “local” dependent. You seem to have a preconceived idea of the way it will be. The truth is we won’t know until it happens. There are too many possibilities. A long or short emergency? Who knows? The short refers to an ass kicken not a quick then it gets better scenario. My parents have a summer home Harbor Springs, MI. I love the area. I am in the Ozarks of MO. We have good food potential around here. I think Greg is well placed with his doomstead. He has the right attitude also. I am still trying to figure you out.
steve on Tue, 19th May 2015 9:05 pm
I still think you are underestimating the great world war that is coming….yes a quick collapse would maybe insure that that does not happen but if you look at the reactions of the “waring” countries you can see that they won’t wait long to start a war. I don’t see any other way…
Lore on Tue, 19th May 2015 9:05 pm
Not to get in a long discussion here, but checking on BC deer populations, there are something like less than half a million. Moose are declining, only about 113,000 culled a year and bear substantially less. That leaves a few birds, rabbits, squirrels and other such varmints.
I guess it was with good reason that most natives settled along the coastal areas because of the fish.
steve on Tue, 19th May 2015 9:07 pm
I too am in the cold north and I worry about carrying capacity here. Much easier to live in warmer climates where more can grow..
Lore on Tue, 19th May 2015 9:16 pm
Davy…
Not much to figure. The days of the hunter gatherers is long over. It died even as the first Europeans set foot in North America.
Community is the only chance for individual survival in a stable environment where crops and domestic animals can be raised and protected.
Apneaman on Tue, 19th May 2015 9:30 pm
Lore, BC is a big place and much of it is rugged and mountainous. Around half the people in BC live on the coast and won’t last more than a few weeks in a petroleum limited world. Same for the majority in the big towns. There are still plenty of places to get lost. For a number of years I grew up in a little coal mining town in the BC Rockies, Elkford. Start walking from the center of town and you could disappear in 5 mins. Plenty of game. It will be climate change ruining their habitat that gets them.
Michigan encompasses 58,110 square miles (150,504 km²) of land
BC encompasses 364,764 sq mi( 944,735 km2)of land
HOW BIG IS BRITISH COLUMBIA?
http://www.bcrobyn.com/2012/12/how-big-is-british-columbia/
Lore on Tue, 19th May 2015 9:52 pm
Apneaman,
It’s not a matter of land size it’s what you have. As I just pointed out. The wild deer population of Michigan exceeds that of BC by more than ten times over. The majority of the population here is centered in the SE side of the state.
I use to think that rugged individualism was the answer too, but as you get older you realize why you’re still here. Just trying to give a little friendly advice and save you some grief.
As for disappearing, there is no place far or secret enough to escape the effects of the coming change. I agree that it will be a long process with many people looking for solutions, some in the wrong places. Don’t be surprised if those people also encroach on yours.
GregT on Tue, 19th May 2015 9:52 pm
There are many communities up and down the coast of BC, where indigenous peoples are still living predominately as “hunter gatherers.” I lived my entire life up until I moved out as a young adult, on Moose, Cariboo, Elk, and Deer. I currently have over 20 salmon vacuum packed in the freezer from last fall, as well as at least 40 pounds smoked. That was without even trying very hard. More like recreational fun.
I have done my homework Lore, and I am confident in my choice of locale, and community. I really could care less what you have to say. You have no idea as to what you are talking about. You do not live here, you live in a largely overpopulated area in North America. If I were you I would move, but I’m not, and I already have. If I were you, I would be far more concerned with my own bad choices than spending my time attempting to marginalize others.
Good luck to you, you’ll need all of the luck you can get by the sounds of things. 🙂
Davy on Tue, 19th May 2015 10:20 pm
Lore, I think you got a case of “know it all”. I get that often. First you define the argument in your words. You don’t listen to others responses. Finally you talk over the others responses replying per your original arguments. IOW you basically have a conversation with yourself.
I recommend asshole meds. I use them. The problem is once I think I am cured then I go off them. That is my problems because I then go right back to being an asshole. So lore gets some asshole meds and stay on them. Don’t be like me a serial asshole.
Apneaman on Tue, 19th May 2015 11:37 pm
Lore in that country deer are appetizers. Elk are the entrees.I won’t be there, I’ll be dead, but some of the locals there will survive the longest. Especially the life long bushwhacker guides who hand hold American wanna be hunter-tourists (babes in the woods) so they don’t get lost and ascared-ed.
Lore on Wed, 20th May 2015 6:40 am
GregT…
“If I were you I would move, but I’m not, and I already have. If I were you, I would be far more concerned with my own bad choices than spending my time attempting to marginalize others.”
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black here. Listen to yourself? The topic of the article is “self reliance” I happen to agree with the author. I’m not here to change what bed you’re lying in. Just to point out that my cup of tea is strength through numbers in a small close rural community and that the life of the hunter gatherer is an anachronism. I moved here several years ago just for that reason and haven’t regreted the decision one bit.
Davy on Wed, 20th May 2015 7:06 am
Lore, the ingredients for successful prepping are many and varied. These ingredients relate to the local, community, and one’s individual disposition. Most of all on one’s attitude. It is attitude that motivates and creates action. Your problem lore is you are talking out your ass tell people your way is the best way.
It sounds like you have made a good choice in dooming and prepping. I am glad you are here on this board and please contribute good ideas I can learn from. This is a board for doomers and preppers to assist each other. When one understands PO then you doom.
My problem currently with you is we don’t know the outcome of BAU decay in any way shape or form in the details. We can speculate and show generalities. These speculations and generalities can offer newbie’s a blueprint and a map of a positive direction to proceed in their risk management. You seem to want to reinforce your decision as the right one and downgrade others so as to strengthen your position.
ghung on Wed, 20th May 2015 7:08 am
Interesting back-and-forths here; both right in the sense in that you seem to be doing what suits you; both wrong, perhaps, in your assertions that your choices are likely the right ones. Hunter/gatherers were generally constantly moving, following the food and other resources. Those who chose to make a stand with community in one place, no matter how carefully chosen that place, have frequently been rolled over and squashed by history.
No right or wrong choices here. The point is that you’re both aware of the circumstances and are able to make choices.
GregT on Wed, 20th May 2015 7:38 am
Lore,
Perhaps you might like to go back and read what was written above. You jumped in at the point where I mentioned that I plan on doing some hunting again. If you had of been around for the past several years, you would realize that I am a strong advocate of community. Which is also exactly what I wrote above. You are just stirring shit up.
Lawfish1964 on Wed, 20th May 2015 7:38 am
I have to agree with Lore. I have thought out the various collapse scenarios in my head the past few years. I originally decided the best plan was an off-grid cabin in the woods, so I bought 30 acres with a strong creek running through it. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that in a quick collapse scenario, hunting regulations would go out the window and deer would be quickly hunted to extinction. Therefore, I think the better plan is animal husbandry.
In that vein, I now have 7 chickens for eggs, but that’s all I can have since I live within city limits. In retirement, I would like to have a small herd of goats as a fail-safe. Pets unless meat runs short, then food. And because goats are small, it would be easier to preserve their meat. In the absence of electricity, I can’t see preserving a 1500 lb. cow.
And I agree with the community thing. Two people in a cabin in the woods are sitting ducks for even a small roving band of bad guys. However, a whole neighborhood with only two ways in or out, or a peninsula with a choke-point are easily defended by a community.
Lore on Wed, 20th May 2015 7:43 am
GregT…
Yes, I seen that post and apologize if I gave you the wrong impression. I totally agree with your statement on community and neighbors.
GregT on Wed, 20th May 2015 7:57 am
My biggest concern at this point Lore is CC. We are heading for what appears to be a period of drought. My first focus of attention will be water storage. I don’t discount that at some point hunting may no longer be possible. That is not the case at the moment. The area is overrun with deer, and there are very few hunters. I also belong to the local fish and game club. There is only one road in and out of town. Attempting to circumvent that road would be extremely difficult given the terrain. I have access to some 30000 sq km of wilderness with almost no people.
Davy on Wed, 20th May 2015 8:09 am
Law, I have a small cabin with two large barns on a farm within 20 minutes of a larger town. I have several neighbors near the property. I am within 800 acres of family ground 400 is my responsibility to manage. I have 60 acres I have been developing into a management intensive grazing area for eventually 20 cow calf pairs and 20 goats. Goats will eat the brush and weeds cows the grass. This is the highest of permaculture grazing technics. It is one I got cost share on. I have short term prep complete. I am in excellent position short term and nearly complete with the long term basics. Long term prep will never be over.
This area has bountiful fresh water with springs and clean rivers. There is bountiful game resources. Animal husbandry is the primary activity. There is low population densities. The Ozarks are located on the southern boundary of the American grain belt. I have the farm cabin but I have a small house in Hermann, MO. An excellent town situated on the MO River with rail, river transport, and a new bridge. It is a stable town of 3000 with good Ag potential all around it. I have options in case of a collapse.
Now can you tell me this is not a good a strategy? I am not in a town but I am still in a populated area. Can you tell me a small town located near a large city will not be overrun? Can you tell me what a collapse will look like? Will it be a long or a short destructive one? Where will it start and what time of the year? Will there be NUK war? Will there be a pandemic, food shortages, and or fuel shortages? Will marshal law be in effect? I have a large military base nearby. Will the military protect me from roving bands of bandits? Will my neighbors band together to defend the area. When will this collapse hit 3-5-10 years? In short we just don’t know how the when, where, and how.
I agreed with both of your options with the cabin in the wood and your house in the town. Why not both. If you have the money have two options. IMHO have a sound basic plan. Get to the right location. We know the locations with zero future. Las Vegas is an example along with LA, NY, and Miami. I would not want to be in populated Chinese areas or the ME.
Decay and collapse are characterized by decay and decay is characterized by randomness. We will see dysfunctional systems, economic abandonment, and irrational human responses. This along with normal and functioning systems. IOW surreal compared to the lifetime of growth we have been part of. This is a paradigm shift of epic proportions where right is wrong and wrong is right in relation to growth and decay. We know the generalities but the details are ephemeral.
Lawfish1964 on Wed, 20th May 2015 8:29 am
Davy, I have no clue what the collapse will look like. I think I’ve posted before that I also have a beach house within 40 miles of here that is on a peninsula that’s very easily defended. That’s probably my plan A in a quick collapse. In a slow collapse, I plan to stay in my current house and expand the garden to the adjacent vacant lot (which I used to own, but sold to a rich acquaintance – mother of my neighbor to the west). With that additional land fenced, I could have a sizeable garden and still have some goats.
I am keeping the 30 acres as a plan C of sorts. At this point, I’m trying to allocate my non-work time for the most efficient prepping. For now, that means improving the existing homestead and the beach property. Once I’m ahead of that curve, the off-grid cabin can occur.
I’ve tried to become a hunter, but it’s just not in me. I planned to put up a deer stand and feed plot on the 30 acres, but I’m just not motivated. However, I’m a very good fisherman, and so are the rest of my family, so I just eat a lot of fish now. Jack of all trades, master of none. At my age, this old dog can’t learn many new tricks, so I’m honing the skills I have. It’s fine, though, because I have several friends who shoot deer every year and I trade fish for venison. In the slow collapse, my chicken operation will become one for meat, not just eggs.
Davy on Wed, 20th May 2015 8:36 am
Sounds like a winner Law. Now if we can be spared the worst of climate change like Greg mentioned. For that option I can move to my parents house in Harbor Springs Michigan. That is if the roads are safe enough to get there.
yellowcanoe on Wed, 20th May 2015 11:28 am
Our community newspaper carries stories by Mary Cook about growing up on a farm near Renfrew, Ontario during the Great Depression. As a mixed farm, common at the time, they were able to produce most of the food they needed. However, despite being incredibly resourceful by today’s standards, they still needed to generate some cash by selling goods to townfolk to purchase manufactured goods that they could not replicate using the resources of the farm. The idea that anyone could be completely self sufficient in food, clothing, etc. is a pipe dream.
R1verat on Wed, 20th May 2015 12:18 pm
Ghung appreciated your point, although the targeted audience never missed a beat & continued on…..
One thing that I’ve noticed consistently when discussing an emergency consolidation with like minded souls heedful of a collapse is that NO ONE wants to move. THEIR spot is nirvana! YOUR spot is foolish….. And of course this renders the entire discussion moot.
My point being, am sure anyone that has deliberately planned being wherever they are is whatever is right for them. None of us can read the crystal ball so grow where you’re planted. Little point in snarling at each other, second-guessing who is in the “optimum” place.
One thing I do know is without community you’re screwed! No one can do all things. Even with a partner (who may die, leave unexpectedly or get burned out with this lifestyle), this lifestyle takes alot of physical effort. Most folks are not into much that requires actual work!!
Apneaman on Wed, 20th May 2015 12:48 pm
This is not the ‘paleo lifestyle’: I learned to thrive in the wild, as my ancestors did
My Native American ancestors lived for thousands of years in the wilderness. I spent a week reflecting on a simpler life – and I learned that almost always, less is more
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/18/oregon-lifestyle-wild-native-american-ancestors
GregT on Wed, 20th May 2015 12:51 pm
R1ver,
My wife and myself spent the last 4 years travelling around our province with an eye out for the best possible choice for a future for not only ourselves, but also for our children.
The spot that we currently live in is not nirvana. That is why we have chosen to make the move. Interestingly enough, we are actually moving away from the area that has the fastest growing community in North America, to an area that is pretty much stagnant in so far as population growth is concerned. I have chosen to end my career early, to spend my time working the land. I am very well aware of the amount of hard physical labour that awaits me, and I am looking forward to it.
You are correct, nobody knows what the future will bring, and there are far too many variables to be taken into consideration. That being said, we have spent a huge amount of our time and energy in an attempt to identify an area that will fullfil our requirements. We are very confident in our choice, but are also aware that there are many circumstances that are beyond anyone’s control. If any number of those circumstances come into play, it really won’t matter much at all where a person chooses to go.
penury on Wed, 20th May 2015 1:03 pm
We can all discuss our own favorite means of survival during the coming days. The result will be different for people in different areas. I think that we all can agree if you live in an area which requires all consumables being imported you are toast. If you are dependent upon modern medicine to remain alive you are hosed. If you are alone and over forty you are not a candidate for survival. Having lived for twelve years in conditions which approximate a mild form of resiliance I can say with certainty that ninety-nine per cent will be dead within thirty days. And you will not know if you are a survivor or just a late die off.