by jdmartin » Wed 27 Jul 2005, 18:07:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Novus', 'I') don't think anyone is EVER goint to have to worry about starving hordes. What I would worry about is being alone in the middle of nowhere years after the collapse and a lone theif steals my only horse on a moonless night. Or what if my horse or cow simply dies. There would be no way to replace them. The interconnected mega farms will not have this problem. Becoming 100% independent of the system is ultimately a death sentence.
I see independence as luxury. An usustainable luxury brought to you by cheap energy. One thousand years ago there was no such thing as independance for the individual. Life was extreamly hard and the only way to survive was through the close-nit interdependance of the Feudal system. If you did something bad to the collective they would not kill you they would just exile you because that would produce the same result only they wouldn't have to go through the trouble of murdering you and disposing of your corpse. As life slowly got better and people starting using coal for heating the Feudal manor system died out and was replaced by larger towns where people could be more independant then just a serf. People were still highly interdependant and exile was still a death sentence. Around the same time or a little later farming became a family affair with large extended families living together on one Farm. Over the generations these farms were subdivided into smaller and smaller plots which gave rise to more and more independance as it took less land to feed the same amount of people. Industrialization gave rise to more independance coming in the form of the nuclear family. In the 20th century independance of the individual became a cultural cliche with everyone wanting a peice of the american dream. Everyone wanted their own home in the burbs and their own car.
Now with cheap energy comming to an end don't you think the clock will turn back with interdependance replacing independance. We can already begin to see it happening. The youngest generation has been coined as the boomerang generation because life has become so hard for twenty-somethings they have had to more back in with their parents. Once again we are starting to see three generations living under one roof which was unheard of 20 years ago. I expect this to continue and excelerate as times get harder post peak. We are also seeing the rise of the four and five income household where 4 or 5 working adults share one house. In the poorest neighborehoods as many as 10 or more working adults are needed to sustain one house. Post peak this will be common place and a necessity for survival. Independance will be seen as a curse and exile will once again become a death sentence.
Man, and I thought
I was a doomer...
Unusual for me, but I think I disagree with almost everything in this post.
The greatest human need after water, food, and shelter (in that order) is that of companionship. The reason for exiling someone was to deny them the ability to interact with others, not to starve them out of existence. In lands of tribes and communal use of the land (i.e., everywhere save most of Europe and parts of Asia), the land belonged to everyone. As a tribesman (or woman), chances are that you knew how to make a bow & arrow out of rocks and sticks, forage for berries, hide in a cave, and dress yourself in an animal skin. You weren't likely to die by being cast away from your tribe. Rather, you would be denied the ability to take part in the human experience. If you died, it was likely because you either had an accident (animal, act of God), were captured by a rival tribe, or decided to end it all. The most likely reason that one wouldn't be an individual survivalist, then, is because you would miss being with other people. The idea that all this crap that surrounds us will suddenly go away, so that you'll have nothing anywhere to fashion even rudimentary tools and objects with, is ridiculous. If we're at a point where it's akin to the stone age, or bronze age, or iron age, etc, you're not going to be trying to build TV's. You can fashion a crude plow out of almost any hunk of metal or wood.
Where I live, there are a lot of Mexicans who live here seasonally to work the tomato, tobacco and apple fields. Some of them live 10 adults to a house, but it is not because they have to in order to survive. Rather, they exist fairly rudimentary and send most of their earnings back home to support their family. I have a friend that owns a Mexican restaurant and he tells me that many of these people's families live quite well back home since a dollar goes much further. Granted, spending 5 months away from your family would suck. 10 people working full time to support one house? If they were each making minimum wage you'd be talking about over 2 grand a month coming in. Besides that, at some point you're talking about diminishing returns. If it takes every bit of a minimum wage to support one person, then adding people makes no sense. In other words, when you reach the point of equilibrium for the fixed expenses (rent, for example), every person you add that doesn't increase the available money is simply a neutral or negative drain on the system. Obviously, in my example, the 10 Mexicans who live together have enough money to not only maintain the house but send most of it back home. Which means it really doesn't take 10 of them to maintain the house. I would challenge you to find any middle-class enclave where 4 or 5 working adults are necessary just to survive, because I don't believe it exists (not in the US). Even the worst-off people I know, which is many, can make ends meet with the husband and wife working. Yes, they're living close to the edge, but they're nowhere near your Max-Max world.
After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.