Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby careinke » Tue 04 Mar 2014, 21:43:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '
')I don't know man, that just rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry for the snarky remark.

In my experience, hogs are definitely spooked by the gunshots. I'm sure they don't know their siblings are dying and might not care, but the crack of a .22 Magnum panics them.

As for raising two cats, my cat would disagree. No one hates cats more than he does :wink:


Well I've slaughtered 3 sets and never had a panic.....yet. Not saying it couldn't happen, but so far it has not happened to me.

I should have qualified the cat thing. They need to be raised together from kittens. My lone mouser would not tollerate another cat either, but she got along famously with her brother.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Narz » Tue 04 Mar 2014, 23:54:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'T')he average city worker drives something like a half hour each way, consuming a few gallons of gas, with no productive output.

Very few people in NYC drive. Rural miles driven is far higher.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'C')ondo dwellers either per walk or use transit. Transit is only marginally better than a car, and very few walk.

Can't speak for other cities but in NY everyone walks & public transit is much better than everyone owning their own private vehicle (or two or three) as people due in suburban & rural areas.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', ' ') Our cities are just not set up to house the working population.

Thanks exactly what they're for. It's much more efficient to keep workers in cities which is why it's set up that way.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'T')he city worker requires an office building with bathrooms, elevators, doormen, roads, transit systems, fire, water, etc. just to go to work. The farmer steps out of his house. The city worker takes land out of useful production by having an office and paving over farmland for roads, parking lots, airports, tracks, etc.

99% of people in the suburbans & rural areas are not farmers. Are you saying we should all be farmers?

If we took all the non-farmers & put them in cities it would be much more efficient.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'T')he city worker has at the end of the day created nothing tangible. No product, no good, no value added. He has run adds argued lawsuits, balanced ledgers, filled forms, checked you through security, held prisoners in jail. These are mostly make work projects to kill time and allow us to think of lives have meaning. The farmer grows food.

I agree most jobs are useless but there's more to life than food. I like books for instance. My daughter likes toys. Many people like art.

If we're going to live all lives all about food we may as well be animals.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Narz » Wed 05 Mar 2014, 00:06:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'L')OL, that is a pretty funny statement, cities are more "ecologically viable"?

Where do you think all the stuff needed to maintain cities comes from? I guess if you strip-mine everywhere else and ship the goods to town then yeah. LOL

Well they are more sustainable than suburbs & most rural areas. Unless we all want to be farmers which is not going to happen.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'B')ut you present a false dilemma, the point is self-sufficiency, not location. As Newf points out, if the rural person is simply a suburbanite with a longer commute and a horse instead of a plastic flamingo as a lawn ornament then yes, they are just as dependent as a city mouse in the apartment. The person in an apartment has no choice but to be completely dependent on long supply chains for his every need: food, water, heat, clothing - everything. It just isn't possible to be otherwise. He is not only dependent on the fossil fueled supply chain for his inputs, he is dependent upon the fossil fueled economy for his "output". His output - a paycheck - in most cases is 100% a manifestation of the that same FF economy. He is doubly dependent.

But while there is little possibility of being independent in an apartment, the farther one gets from the city center and the closer to the primary resource - sun/soil/water - the greater the opportunity to be independent.

I cut up some firewood from my property last week because propane prices are high, I ate canned food I grew and meat I raised and drank some water I harvested and thereby eliminated my need for that much income- I was self-sufficient in those areas. The guy in the apartment (if lucky) gor a paycheck and paid his water & gas bill and ate food flown in from out here by me or maybe from Peru. Who is more self-sufficient?

The whole self-sufficient dick measuring contest is pointless. You use tools, cans, electricity, the Internet, entertainment all from other places. In hard times the supplies to rural areas will get cut off first. Think having a farm will make you powerful? Likely it will just make you exploited in the endtimes type scenerio many doomers worry about. Farmers are always oppressed, rarely powerful, just look at The Seven Samurai (fiction of course but illustrates the point, and a great movie of course :)).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'T')he question isn't whether NYC will fail, it's whether a particular New Yorker's paycheck will fail, especially if that new Yorker is me. Considering that today's cities and suburbs are completely at the mercy of fossil fuels to be "ecologically viable" in both their inputs and outputs, my choice is to be less dependent on FFs and more on elbow grease.

Ok so the city dweller produces 0% of his own goods whereas the average rural dweller maybe .1% and perhaps you 1%. I'm not trying to knock your skill-set. I think it's badass to be able to grow lettuce & cukes & raise some chickens & it certainly all tastes better than supermarket stuff but it's a drop in the bucket overall.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'N')arz I will concede however that we are trained by circumstance to be more and more dependent. To live in cities completely tethered to the FF economy has become quite a bit easier physically. My grandparents at my grandkid's age had infinitely greater practical knowledge simply because their world was one of physical self-reliance. My grandkids rarely leave the cocoon of the fossil fueled screen-glow, although they certainly have a better grasp of Mario Brothers.

It also saddens me that my daughter knows the Disney Princesses & exotic African animals (elephant, lion, etc.) but doesn't know much about her native landscape (well her native landscape is NJ so there's not a whole lot of interesting native animals & certainly nothing relevant to her life).

I wish she could swim in clean streams & learn about herbs & hopefully someday she will (maybe this summer I'll take her on some adventures) but urbanization alone is not the source of the problem & seeing city dwellers as "mice" or useless sheeple who don't produce anything useful (as Newfie said) isn't a useful or accurate perspective. There simply isn't enough room for 7 billion humans to be living the idyllic rural lifestyle with 3 acres & a mule & frankly, most people would find it dull. For most of my life I've been pulled back & forth between abundant nature & abundant human variety & for me, cities always win. Without a car, without connections life on the outskirts is miserable. It's the same story around the world, that's why people are drawn to cities & misanthropes are attracted to rural areas (not calling you a misanthrope Pops though I'd say it certainly applies to much of the doomer population).
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Pops » Wed 05 Mar 2014, 11:05:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'T')he whole self-sufficient dick measuring contest is pointless. You use tools, cans, electricity, the Internet, entertainment all from other places. In hard times the supplies to rural areas will get cut off first.

There's the thing, I think you see this as a contest, an internet game with the object of defending your lifestyle instead of a chance to make your position more resilient. Most folks' rely 100% on a paycheck and regularly purchasing every need so telling me Walmart will be the first to close in the big crash means you win the game, LOL.

You miss the real point, which is being less dependent on the economy itself and that means a paycheck first of all. It's a strawman and far from inevitable that everything will crash overnight and every store outside Manhattan will close and I won't be able to buy jar lids. I think it's much more likely that the economy will simply shrink or at worse suffer serial recessions, eliminating surplus goods and surplus jobs along the way. So if a person is independently wealthy the city is great (aside from simply being stuck in the middle of a bunch of people who aren't, that is) but if he is dependent on the next paycheck for his every need then not so much.

Pillaging strawmen aside, the point of self-sufficiency, resiliency, etc is to be less dependent on the system both for income to purchase essentials as well as essentials themselves.
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)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby basil_hayden » Wed 05 Mar 2014, 12:09:23

The Ideal of Total Self Sufficiency is not misguided, but it's merely an ideal to work towards, not practical in every sense.
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 05 Mar 2014, 13:13:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'T')he whole self-sufficient dick measuring contest is pointless. You use tools, cans, electricity, the Internet, entertainment all from other places. In hard times the supplies to rural areas will get cut off first.

There's the thing, I think you see this as a contest, an internet game with the object of defending your lifestyle instead of a chance to make your position more resilient. Most folks' rely 100% on a paycheck and regularly purchasing every need so telling me Walmart will be the first to close in the big crash means you win the game, LOL.

You miss the real point, which is being less dependent on the economy itself and that means a paycheck first of all. It's a strawman and far from inevitable that everything will crash overnight and every store outside Manhattan will close and I won't be able to buy jar lids. I think it's much more likely that the economy will simply shrink or at worse suffer serial recessions, eliminating surplus goods and surplus jobs along the way. So if a person is independently wealthy the city is great (aside from simply being stuck in the middle of a bunch of people who aren't, that is) but if he is dependent on the next paycheck for his every need then not so much.

Pillaging strawmen aside, the point of self-sufficiency, resiliency, etc is to be less dependent on the system both for income to purchase essentials as well as essentials themselves.


Yes, use the existing system, while it lasts, to build you self sufficiency.

I don't know that we can ever be totally self sufficient, no man in an island. We will probably be working to find ways for our communities to interact so as to be overall sufficient in the current situation, which will be constantly evolving.

As some know I'm into sailing, there may (MAY) be some opportunity for coastal trading via sail. Who knows.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Top

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby dolanbaker » Wed 05 Mar 2014, 17:34:37

The human race as a whole is self sufficient, no intergalactic supply ships are ever going to visit.
An important point to remember while we're emptying the stores without any real thought of how they're going to sustain future generations.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:Anonymous
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Hungrymoggy "I am now predicting that Europe will NUKE ITSELF sometime in the first week of January"
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3855
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 10:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Wed 05 Mar 2014, 19:17:37

BRB Im busy building a statue of John Frum
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 01:43:28

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 05 Mar 2014, 19:38:17

As well you should. You will be well rewarded.

( I had to look up John Frum, kinda Kool)
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 05 Mar 2014, 22:21:57

Narz,

I grew up in rural South Jersey. I'm only half Newfie, the other half is Piney.

Back then it was NOTHING like the norther portion. At one time I could take you to a crystal clear lake in the woods. I can still canoe down a quiet river for six hours. There were a number of clammers on our creek, including Dad, who made there living tonging. The water in the bay was sufficiently clear to see the bottom. You could always hear owls. And a Whip-o-Will on the roof would lift you out of bed.

It was a beautiful place a one time.

I dislike going back, it's too painful to see what we have done to it.

That's part of why I have reinforced my Newfie connections, there is some greater continuity there. A damn site fewer people.

It's a pity your Dauhgter will ever only know the carcass, not the living body.

My condolences.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Narz » Thu 06 Mar 2014, 05:40:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'T')here's the thing, I think you see this as a contest, an internet game with the object of defending your lifestyle instead of a chance to make your position more resilient.

Not at all, this is my life. If I thought going to the boonies, growing carrots & living in a shack would make me more self-sufficient I would do it.

I lived in an ecovillage in Massachusetts & I feel safer here in the city than I did there. I have freedom of movement, I'm not dependent on a car. I think cities are the future. If we had clean energy & the right design they could be paradises.

Newfie, I don't necessarily want to raise her in NJ, I just don't have a choice right now. Very difficult situation having children with someone not on the same page, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 06 Mar 2014, 09:07:14

Been there, done that, sucks.

I do disagree with your analysis of cities. But I suspect that we have some fundamental, even subliminal difference of perception.

In the above back and forth I think we all are talking past one another, very little understanding. There must be some deep perceptional difference.

I suspect that deep in our genes, or in early experiences, deploy held opinions exist that color our perception. Of course, I think I see clearly, just as you think you are the one with the correct view. Finding the true truth is difficult.

Although I grew up a hick I now live in cc Philadelphia. I have spent much of my career working in mass transit on the NE corridor, DC to Boston. I do see that cities, aggregations of people, have value. We can not be individually self sufficient, we need one another.

Perhaps the real question is more along the lines of ....."How independent can we be of fossil fuels?"

The less packaged energy we have the more we will have to do by hand the more we revert to an agrarian society the less well big cities work.

It is hard to see how we can retain the farmer to city dweller ratio we now have in the face of expensive or rare oil.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Narz » Fri 07 Mar 2014, 22:23:08

But you don't address the issue of land. There's not enough room for all the "city mice" to have 3 acres & a mule. During any kind of economic contraction especially. The only way the world will become "re-ruralified" is if 90% of the population kicks the bucket.

I mean, do you see a way to house 7+ billion people without cities?
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Loki » Fri 07 Mar 2014, 23:35:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'B')ut you don't address the issue of land. There's not enough room for all the "city mice" to have 3 acres & a mule. During any kind of economic contraction especially. The only way the world will become "re-ruralified" is if 90% of the population kicks the bucket.

I mean, do you see a way to house 7+ billion people without cities?

No, not everyone in the US/Europe/Japan/et al. should move to the country and become a farmer. But more of us should. I made the move in 2010, best thing I've ever done, I love farming.

I'm actually quite grateful for people like you who prefer city living. I lived in the city for many years. Fun at first, then I grew to hate it. Stacked up on each other like hens in a battery cage. But after observing herd animal behavior in some detail, I understand why some folks prefer to huddle up, even with strangers.

A small degree of self-sufficiency is still possible in the city. But most don't bother to try. I hope you're not one of them, Narz. You haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater, have you? How big was your garden last year? How much food did you put away?
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Pops » Sat 08 Mar 2014, 09:46:26

Not everyone should be a farmer or even rural, again thats a false choice and a strawman.

I suppose from the time we began producing crop surpluses and began specializing, cities provided for trade and then manufacturing, that won't change. What will change, eventually, is the surpluses provided by FFs will diminish and with that surplus will go lots of jobs. Unless the Jetson Economy sprouts (which it shows no sign of doing) the folks doing the back office work to the FF economy and providing the services that economy allows will be on the street.

If that is a ways down the road or not I have no way of guessing, I don't know if the economy is fragile or tough, your guess is as good as mine. But like everyone else I have my own experiences and have heard a particular set of family fables and they lead me to believe that fortunes can turn on a dime.

That point of view leads my to believe and pontificate endlessly that everyone should at least try to be a little more self sufficient. Even short term preps like candles, spaghettiOs & bottled water take up little room and cost less than a month's texting but would make a difference when the power goes out or the pink slip arrives. What's more, just thinking about buying a few more canned goods than you need for the weekend puts one in the frame of mind to consider the tenuous nature of our lifestyle and perhaps do a little more.

The post FF, post GW world will be inhabited by people accustomed to that world, I don't know what it will look like and most likely it will be after my time. I'm pretty sure that unless the energy fairy pulls out a plum, life will be harder than what we have today. But, it will be the way things are and all those folks know. I've always thought the hardest will be the inbetween part, the getting from here to there because the transition won't be all feel good, locavore, crunchy chicken.
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)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 08 Mar 2014, 10:34:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'B')ut you don't address the issue of land. There's not enough room for all the "city mice" to have 3 acres & a mule. During any kind of economic contraction especially. The only way the world will become "re-ruralified" is if 90% of the population kicks the bucket.

I mean, do you see a way to house 7+ billion people without cities?


Narz,

It may be our bigger disagreement is in the overall future. If you still have hope we can sustain the kind of populations we have now, then I can see your argument. I have given up on that hope altogether.

There is no way to house 7 billion with out cities. There won't be 7 billion, cities or not. Once you remove fossil fuels, ignoring renewables, the sustainable population is nearer 1 billion. Renewables MAY raise that a bit. But there are other issues besides, we will be living in a much hotter world where much of now arable land will be desert. We won't have ff to make renewable energy sources. Shipping will become expensive once again. Exotic drugs will be less available. Etc.

In my mind we are beyond stopping such a calamity. I'll save my reasoning for other posts and topics. I'm not predicting the how or when, but expect it to be too brutal and too soon. I suppose that puts me in the camp of the doomed nuts, so be it.

I believe that the trick to survival is to find a way for you and/or your off spring to find a way through the bottleneck. There are different approaches to this, total sustainability is just one. It is very difficult to see living in a city as a viable solution. Working there and wringing the last resources of of the system before it collapses has some merit.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Top

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby dinopello » Sat 08 Mar 2014, 15:39:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '
')There is no way to house 7 billion with out cities.


And there would be cities even if there were only 100 people on this earth. Cities (I included towns, villages, hamlets, teepee and igloo collectives etc). they are different forms of the same thing. Humans are mostly social animals and like to live in close proximity to each other. Even nomadic cultures move in clusters although they don't have fixed settlements like cities. There are a small percentage that can bear to be or sometimes like to be isolated but that is not the norm. Cities enable social interaction, cultural development, local trade and in the past defense and security.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 08 Mar 2014, 19:31:11

D & P, FWIW I agree, we are social critters who tend to aggregate. The true loner is very unusual.

But I think what Narz Was talking about is something very different, think NYC, Boston, DC. The question, as u understand it is, are Those very large aggregations of people sustainable? Can we sustain a human population of 7 billion?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Total Self-Sufficiency is a Misguided Ideal

Unread postby Loki » Sat 08 Mar 2014, 22:29:38

Dino, you can't lump hamlets and villages with mega-cities like NYC. Totally different creatures.

Yes, humans are social animals, doesn't mean mega-cities are our natural habitat.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron