by Revi » Mon 21 Sep 2009, 08:45:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')
It's hard for me to see a return to peasantry in the US and other developed countries, no matter how poor they get. Because in virtually all of the poorest countries in the world today, like Haiti, they are undergoing rapid urbanization.
That flowing into the city has two sources. Population excess and economic opportunities. That is not an issue here in the US. And peasants are not how I would describe the vast majority of agricultural workers in developing countries. They are farmers, land owners, usual with very small acreage farms compared to the US and still living in extended families in tight knit communities.
There is nothing stopping rural US from falling back to this basic structure. There is still a high quality of life possible. It only requires a re socialization. It will take a generation augmented by the catalysts of necessity.
This will all happen so much more easily than most people imagine. Necessity can knock you off your high horse of self entitlement within a couple of years. Rural folks are more resilient and already adapted to external forces beyond their control that they submit to........like the weather for example.
No problem here really
It's already happening around here. We have a farmer's market with at least 16 farmers who are now selling their produce locally instead of to a distant market. Land that has been barely used for years is coming back, and most importantly the community is re-organizing under the farmer's market and downtown revitalization groups. Organizations like the Grange need to change and embrace this new movement. It's happening anyway.
http://www.skowheganfarmersmarket.com/
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
by mos6507 » Mon 21 Sep 2009, 09:07:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')Screw JD
You're doing just what you said we're not supposed to do with peakers, i.e. blaming the messenger. I don't like JD's overarching goals, but I'm willing to read his arguments if any of them make any sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, they do. Making that concession is not a blanket endorsement of JD. But I don't think it's smart to have a see-no-evil attitude about peak oil critics.
I have my own personal reasons for not liking reurbanization, even if it is effective from a thermodynamic perspective. For one thing, I don't like cramped metropolis style living. I think it is highly unlikely that a reurbanized city would be a Kunstler paradise. More than likely, post-peak, a reurbanized city would be like Calcutta.
It also involves continued faith in macro-level systems. Monsanto, Roundup, etc... When you cramp yourself into some sort of Blade Runner living situation, you have no self sufficiency whatsoever. You are a machine in the economy that must exchange your labor for your sustenance. Maybe one tomato plant in your balcony window is about all you can arrange. So everybody is locked into sinking or swimming based on the fate of the house of cards.
I believe that a lot of today's Alex Jones paranoia springs from this sense of hopeless dependence on a vast complicated system for life support. If for any reason some malicious force decided to deliberately pull the plug here and there, then we'd see massive die-offs result. So whether such plans exist or not, people have a growing sense of vulnerability to forces well beyond their control.
Lastly, reurbanization is not a long-term solution to our environmental/carrying-capacity problems. I don't see how megafarms can clean up their act and no longer cause soil erosion, nitrogen algae blooms, aquifer depletion, etc... So it seems to me as nothing more than an effective stalling maneuver.
But perhaps that's the way we'll have to go, to adapt in different ways as the situation on the ground evolves. What is most effective at the earlier stages of post-peak is probably different from what is most effective when we're on our last legs.
But if Kunstler says that the suburbs were the biggest waste of resources in history, I can only imagine how the world will judge massive urbanization if, at some more future point, the house of cards still collapses, resulting in a boomerang effect of back to the landers. I would prefer that we not keep frantically moving from tactic to tactic, but to stick to one path.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')Asphalt covers up dirt. The soil was removed (bad for road beds) and went away. Poof. It will not be farmed again.
That's funny. I'm "farming" in raised beds on top of concrete. Seems to be okay even for nantes half-length carrots. Now of course I had to buy soil to get that started, and I don't know how much there is of that. But if there is a will, there is a way.
If I had to do this without buying soil materials I guess I'd do the
lasagna thing with cardboard. There is certainly plenty of that around.
by JohnDenver » Mon 21 Sep 2009, 12:16:10
Some more realworld info on how rural areas get mauled by high gas prices:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')oaring gas prices are a double-whammy for many rural residents: They often pay more than people who live in cities and suburbs because of the expense of hauling fuel to their communities, and they must drive greater distances for life's necessities: work, groceries, medical care and, of course, gas.
Meanwhile, incomes typically are lower in rural areas, making increasingly high gas prices an especially urgent concern. Rural households also are more likely to have older, less fuel-efficient vehicles such as pickups, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) says. The average age of a vehicle in a rural household: 8.7 years, compared with 7.9 years for an urban vehicle.
Rural residents do more driving, too — an average of 3,100 miles a year more than urban dwellers, the FHWA says.
A May survey by the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS), a fuel analysis company, and Wright Express, a company that collects data on credit card transactions, found that people in rural areas spend as much as 16.02% of their monthly family income on gas, while people in urban areas of New York and New Jersey spend as little as 2.05%.
I haven't looked it up again, but there was an article on TOD quite a while ago about gas stations closing in rural regions, forcing people to drive long distances for gas -- which can turn into a nasty EROEI situation. Here's some reporting in the same vein:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen the only gas station in Allen, Neb., closed last summer, a gallon of gas cost $2.56, according to prices posted on two abandoned pumps. Since then, Allen's 411 residents have been driving 11 miles to Wakefield or 28 miles to South Sioux City to fill up.
Allen's grocery store went out of business last August, forcing people to shop in South Sioux City or 21 miles away in Wayne. Doctors, dentists and other essentials also require a road trip. The nearest movie theater is in Wayne.
"You have to leave town for about everything," says Jerry Schroeder, an insurance agent who has lived in Allen for all of his 57 years.
The above quotes are from another summer 2008 article,
High gas prices threaten to shut down rural towns.
Here's still more reporting in the same vein:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') These days, they're also cussing and shaking their heads about the price of that gasoline. People are doing that everywhere, but in small towns such as Leeton, population 619, it's even more of a gut punch because nearly every working adult commutes to jobs elsewhere.
These days, there had better be a really good job on the other end of that trip.
Don Campbell's daily commute to Kansas City - about 100 miles each way - costs him roughly $866 a month at $3.90 per gallon. But he's a union iron worker and says he can make the math work.
Most of his neighbors can't. For them and thousands of other small-town residents across the country who drive long distances to jobs that pay little more than minimum wage, the high cost of gas is making that daily commute cost-prohibitive.
So much so that economists predict that over the next few years, the country could see a migration that would greatly reduce the population of Small Town America - resulting in a painful shift away from lifestyle, family roots, traditions and school ties.
from
High Gas Prices Threaten to Drain Small Towns' Populations.
These are very serious problems caused by high oil prices, not in suburbs or exurbs (as Pstarr is misreading) but in the country, i.e. rural America, i.e. the sticks. If you think about it, it's just a straightforward extension of Kunstler's logic. The suburbs will die because they are too oil dependent. Therefore, the rural areas will die even quicker because they are even more oil dependent.
Here's more reporting:
Rural drivers feeling rise in gas prices more than their urban counterpartsGas prices hit harder in rural areas: It's even worse in rural areas like Bickleton, where driving is a necessityHigh Gas Prices Hit Rural Poor HardestRural Residents Struggle with High Gas Tab[Fuel prices rocket in rural areasIbon and Pops, I know you are idealistic well-intentioned people, but I think you're in denial about the realities described by these articles. I think it would be very valuable if guys like you actually read the articles I've cited, fully digested the problems, and then addressed them, rather than just trying to bluff your way through on idealism.
Naturally if you don't have to work or you're wealthy, then moving to a rural area may be a great response to peak oil. I'm not talking about such people. Likewise, if you can be extremely self-sufficient, and perhaps squat on some land, then my critique doesn't apply.
But if you're a working person who needs income to live or to build up a doomstead, it seems to me that going rural is jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Pops, I read your link from "Community Solutions". Here's Megan's business plan for local food:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')tructures of Local Food
Now, local food systems look very different from conventional food systems. We're not going to have local food supermarkets. So what are the distribution mechanisms of local food systems?
Well, a variety of structures is a good way to go. We have on-farm and in-town vegetable stands operated by farmers, farmers' markets, fairs, CSA or Community-Supported Agriculture farm subscription programs, cooperatives, and direct sales from farmers to consumers, to name a few. Importantly, there is a human element in local food systems. Direct relationships are developed between those who grow the food and those who eat it. We should embrace that.
by Pops » Mon 21 Sep 2009, 12:37:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'Y')ou seem to be mainly handwaving about how the rural US might work well someday, if it gets repopulated and undergoes an amazing transformation. Of course, you may be right, and that may happen in the long term.
I don't know if I'm hand-waving but that is exactly what I hope to see happen because I don't see much choice.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')he question isn't whether rural America will survive in the long term. Of course it will. The question is: Can working back-to-the-country POers survive a series of oil price spikes? I don't think they can...
Well, John I don't get it, if people are going to survive in the country in the long term that pretty well means they need to survive in the medium and short term as well, correct? They aren't just going to wander out there in 30 years or however long horseback and start turning soil.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
by Pops » Mon 21 Sep 2009, 12:41:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'I')f wheat, corn, beans etc. will continue to be grown, processed and transported large scale, what makes fruits and vegetables any different? Why will bulk transport be prohibitively expensive for f&v but not for other items, like beans?
Come on john, because people need calories not salads.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-
Pops
- Elite
-
- Posts: 19746
- Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
-
by mos6507 » Mon 21 Sep 2009, 13:00:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')JD is not a peak oil critic rather he is a misanthrope and a egotist. His point was not that cities are more efficient (anything is more efficient than the American Exurbs) but rather that 'doomerss' are naive romantics. That is absolute BS. We undestand planetary and technologic limits and are willing to commit to personal and social change for the good of ourselves, children and future generations.
Then either ignore him entirely or respond to him on point. Don't just resort to ad homs.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')You have not studied Kunstler and probably have not been to Paris. A well-designed and implemented City is a beautiful, enlightening and delightful place to be. But then how would an American ever know this if they have not traveled. Our cities were gutted by the automotive cartels.
I think Boston is kind of nice too, as long as you stay out of Dorchester or Mattapan. I lived in the brownstones in the Back Bay when I was in college. I just saw the fireworks at the hatch shell. It's nice. I just don't think a hasty retreat to the city in the midst of energy descent is going to lead to any sort of paradise. I don't think there will be the kind of free-flowing capital to transform the cities in a way that allow them to accomodate all these people comfortably. There may also not be enough resources in general to support the infrastructure such an abrupt population spike would require.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')You are correct. Cities are not solutions, but they are better than the burbs. Neither living arrangement places humans on the ground in the field and that is the only way that nutrients and information can cycle between humans and the food source.
David Holmgren is a pretty strong proponent in reforming the suburbs rather than abandoning it. So I'm not so sure we should write off its potential. How practical that is, is another matter. I certainly don't see a lot of evidence of the right kind of things starting up in my town currently.
These debates always go around in circles and get very repetitive. I certainly don't think a growing population can afford not to fully utilitize all of the land area that is available. Certainly the suburbs will be used for something whether the people there now stay or leave.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')It is a matter of scale. Try this as an exercise. You put down 1 foot of topsoil on the concrete. Now extrapolate and place that much on an acre, the amount of land that USDA says is necessary to feed a person.
How much does it weigh?
![[smilie=car3.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/car3.gif "car3")
