by dinopello » Thu 12 Oct 2006, 14:08:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'W')ell that may be fine for those who live inthe few "walkable" commiunities left but I don't see how they can expect to be doing well if all the "unwalkable" communities are in desperate straits. I would expect you could walk to the local grocery just to find it empty, and you could walk to your job (except you wouldn't have one anymore).
Someone on here mentioned a step down collapse being most likely. It seems reasonable enough. recession, rinse, repeat until the whole country looks like Zimbabwe....
-G
Annecdotal evidence tells me that the number of walkable communities including revitalized citie cores, small towns, and new urbanist communities is on the rise. But regardless, I tend to agree with the step down or sawtooth theory. To me that mean that you best get changin, or else as energy gets expensive, the higher-energy lifestyle will just suck a greater and greater percentage of your wealth. Where I live might not be the best due to the surrounding farmlands being used up by sprawl. Places like where Kunstler is might be better - small towns surrounded by farmland. Who knows, but my advice would be that regardless of how much energy you use, try to move your situation and
that of your community to one where you could, if needed live on less. Sounds obvious to me, and my community but I guess not to everyone. And yes, it does worry me that those that aren't moving in this direction might just drag us all down with them.
Did you see this Haiku over at
http://www.energybulletin.net/21272.html$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')i]Dew sparkles on grass
Morning light brings magic here
Oh shit, there's die-off.