[Novus]

I have three points in why I believe subsistance farming is an impossible solution to deal with peak oil. First point subsistance farming does not grow enough food. Even if you pull it off one year there is no guarentee you will be able to grow enough food next year because of soil depletion and lack of fertilizer. The second point is that only the mega-farms will be protected by the government. The subsistance farmers who are not part of the system will be on their own in a lawless environment. The third point is that subsistance farmers have no way of sharing risk. If they get hurt or if their animal dies unexpectedly the subsistance farmer cannot recover and will die. Interdependence is a strength, independence is weakness.

[Pops]

I guess I’m tiring of this talk, to Seekers delight I'm sure.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Novus', 'R')eguarding money I do not know what my income will be in the future. This is why I beleive staying out of debt and saving money is more important than playing farmer.

[Ghog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Novus', 'I') have three points in why I believe subsistance farming is an impossible solution to deal with peak oil. First point subsistance farming does not grow enough food. Even if you pull it off one year there is no guarentee you will be able to grow enough food next year because of soil depletion and lack of fertilizer. The second point is that only the mega-farms will be protected by the government. The subsistance farmers who are not part of the system will be on their own in a lawless environment. The third point is that subsistance farmers have no way of sharing risk. If they get hurt or if their animal dies unexpectedly the subsistance farmer cannot recover and will die. Interdependence is a strength, independence is weakness.

[Ludi]

Thank you for clarifying, Novus.

Ghog pretty much covered the arguments against your points, so I won't go over that again.

[Novus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ghog', '
') Biointensive farming can be done on less land, with less water and fertilizer and with better yields, while working to preserve soil quality.


Second, I think those who are talking of avoiding the cities are looking at having small sustainable communities (50-1000?), not one person on a 20 acre farm. Why wouldn't you get 100 like-minded people together, each with contributing skills, to join the fight to survive? I think you would be more likely to have people used to the country working together than the selfish masses of the cities who are going to be looking to the government to feed them. And if they can't, we shall see how much the government will be able to maintain control. I agree that the suburbs will be the lawless lands, unless the cities lose control also, but not remote communites situated far from the skyscrapers. I'll take my chances with 50 people out to help each other, than with 100,000 out to do anything to anyone in order to stay on top.

With all of guns in this country, what is going to stop someone from shooting you for your money in a dark alley somewhere? Where would all that savings get you then? In times of the massive and EXPECTED blackouts, you think everyone is just going to stay in their homes and behave? Crimes occur constantly in cities. Do you think detectives are going to waste time investigating every crime commited on every street? It just won't be feasible. Don't expect to be living with 100,000 angels waiting to do their next good deed. In fact, I expect gangs to rule many neighborhoods, kind of like they do now.

I'm sorry if it seems like I am picking on what you are saying, but it surprises me that some think the cities will be utopias of PO. Are we bringing ALL of our troops home to enforce these times of marshall law? They are having a hard time with Iraq. How do you think they would fare dispersed among the big cities? Anyway, I will let it go. I wholeheartedly disagree with you though. To each his own.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Novus', '
')
Biointensive farming is already a multi-billion dollar industry employed on the mega-farms .

[Novus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')
No it isn't. What an incredibly ignorant comment! What the heck are you talking about? Do you even know what Biointensive agriculture is? No, you don't.

[Ludi]

Novus, Biointensive agriculture is not the same thing as "organic farming." Biointensive is a particular method of farming which is not used by megafarms because it depends on hand labor. Are you interested in learning about it or do you prefer to remain ignorant?


http://www.growbiointensive.org/

I get an especial chuckle out of this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Novus', ' ')You should not slander things you know nothing about.

[Novus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'N')ovus, Biointensive agriculture is not the same thing as "organic farming." Biointensive is a particular method of farming which is not used by megafarms because it depends on hand labor. Are you interested in learning about it or do you prefer to remain ignorant?

http://www.growbiointensive.org/

[Ghog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for crime in the cities it is only a problem in the decayed areas where a bad element has moved in.

[Ghog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')are to proove that statement or are you just flaming? The whole foods organic movement is multi-billion dollar industry that employs biointensive agriculture.

[Ludi]

Novus, there are no mega-farms using the Biointensive method. If they claim to be, they are going against the ideals, vision, and method pioneered by Alan Chadwick and John Jeavons, who explicitly intended people to grow their own food.

I never claimed megafarms don't use hand labor. Much produce is hand harvested. What I am saying, which you seem to refuse to believe, is that the word "Biointensive" has a specific meaning in agriculture and refers to a specific set of techniques, not the same as organic farming.

[Novus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ghog', '
')Care to prove yours? You were the one stating 'fact'. Probably the biggest part of biointensive farming is land use. Spacing. I highly doubt they are using biointensive techniques for mass farming. These techniques are primarily used in mini-farming/gardening. You've been to the website, but it doesn't seem you read about it. You lump it in with organic agriculture which is not correct. It is about efficiency and where in our current culture do you see examples of that? Cheap oil has kept everyone from caring about 'not wasting'.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Novus', ' ')Organic farms uses the same spacing, field rotation, and fallow soil regeneration techniques that biointensive farms .

[Ghog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Novus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ghog', '
')Care to prove yours? You were the one stating 'fact'. Probably the biggest part of biointensive farming is land use. Spacing. I highly doubt they are using biointensive techniques for mass farming. These techniques are primarily used in mini-farming/gardening. You've been to the website, but it doesn't seem you read about it. You lump it in with organic agriculture which is not correct. It is about efficiency and where in our current culture do you see examples of that? Cheap oil has kept everyone from caring about 'not wasting'.

[eric_b]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Novus', ' ')Organic farms uses the same spacing, field rotation, and fallow soil regeneration techniques that biointensive farms .

[Novus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ghog', '
')I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I fear you are having trouble coming to grips with the 'realities' of PO. I'm afraid you are in the wrong place if you want people to tell you how everything will be OK.

[Ghog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he debate over what is biointensive farming and what isn't is totally irrelevant. If it will make you feel better I conceed the point and you can keep the word 'biointensive' for yourself because it's semantics are totally irrelevant. It doesn't change the FACT that organic farming is a multi-billion dollar industry and that its' methods can be sustainable with less oil.

[Drakn]

I think the topic - a solution for society - that was originally trying to be encouraged never got off the ground to fly as it were.

Seeker has been trying, rather adamantly, to get discussion going to solve this oil crisis. I think everybody here concedes that the way of life is going to change a fair bit. But it is here that I want to say it is not the end of the world. Higher society, society where advancements were made, have existed without the use of oil. While I would recommend there will be a very long economic recession, similar to the depression, humans are clever and social beings. I don't know about the reader, but as I recall, the depression did not lead to uncontrolled theivery, looting, chaos and other such nonsense that has been recommended throughout this thread. It lead to hard times.
But I concede this point - to get an accurate answer on exactly how it will effect society would require a test run. I'm sure somebody will be around to test my theory - that being; humans will act similarly to how we acted in the depression. [The liklihood that a depression will strike is almost obvious - after every major price spike there has been a recession. A permanent price high will equate to a permanent recession until oil is not as needed.]

Now onto Seekers original question of a solution to the problem.

We here concede that society will change - the question is how. One can help answer this by asking what does less oil mean? One can readily say that it means less automated processes. It does not mean everybody will loose their electricity. [As has been implied. I expect electricians to still have jobs, as they will be no doubt in high demand. Everyone loves energy.]

Following this one can ask; what automated processes will most likely be effected? A large portion of oil is used for transportation. So a probable solution comes from eliminating transportation that uses oil products [gas].

From here the solution is obvious; merely organise society such that it can use transportation such as walking and riding bikes. [Both of which happen to be environmentally friendly - which is convenient]

So here is my stab at a solution - create communities that have a population of 58,000 to 39,000 in size. They will be approximations of circles with a radius of 2500m [2780 yards]. They will have adequate farmland around that radius. [I haven't estimated how much would be needed.]

[Aside - You can arrive at these numbers by first assuming everything will be organised in an approximation of a circle. Assume that everyone will walk 1/2 hour to reach their destination in the centre. And that people will walk to their destination at 5km/h. Create a circle with the distance travelled as the radius. Also assume people will have 55" by 100" lots or [495m2]. Assume they fit perfectly. Residential zone to commercial/ industrial zone is about a 6/5 ratio so divide the circle's area by 11/6. This is the amount left for residential area. Divide this by the lot size [495m2] to determine how many houses you can have. This gives rise to about 21000 lots. Assume different numbers of people (2-3) per house and times by 90% for the reality that we can't have perfect circle as a solution.]

They would attempt to be circular with the industry and commerce in the centre. Restaurants would be close to residential zones. [This way people do not have to transport food back and forth to their homes.]

The electricity needs would be expected to be around 94MW which could either be solved by a small nearby hyrdo dam, coal plant, or several communities could have a nuclear plant. [If you are living in, or near a desert, you could use solar technologies with troughs to meet most of your needs ~ tested 80MW systems exist - with a coal power plant as backup. That would be more environmentally friendly than just coal.] And don't worry about your coal needs, at least not for about 200 years. [Then it is expected to peak... but let them worry about that :)] I recognise that most people won't have the luxery of having a hyrdo-electric dam nearby. Which is why I suspect most electricity needs will be met by either coal or natural gas. The natural gas one is not very stable though, as it is expected to peak shortly after oil. [Within decades.]

Transportation in between communities could be done by using a train. This would slow down commodity flow, but would not require the oil, as it could run on electricity, or even coal.

Farming could still be done by oil, on the outskirts of the community. Remember we can still use oil, just not as much. However, once the technologies are made, we could convert our farm equipment to electric [using batteries] or hydrogen. I personally don't like either system but what can you do- batteries require lots of processing and break down easily, hyrdogen is extremely hard to handle. [Very explosive, and it leaks like crazy.] It may end up being more feasible to drop the automation of farm land altogether and just hire raw workers to do it. - but that would require a feasibility study when it was actually happening so I'm not about to say either way. It has worked in the past.
Another option is of course to convert the few automated vehicles to biodiesel. [I don't trust ethanol - the energy ratio to output is too low -1.34 at best which is using 75% of the energy to grow the crop. That is assuming you are not in Brazil, but that's another topic.]

Cotton could also be grown on the outskirts. This could then be made into clothing.

Transporting things from train to houses like furniture, or moving things around the community may end up being done by electric vehicles. [Again I am not sure I like electric cars] OR if a feasibility study at the time is done, it may warrant the use of horses instead.

Every community will have a set of 'specialties' they work on in their industrial area which will be their method of getting cash for goods produced elsewhere.


So in short, you eliminate the use of gas for transportation by organising them into a community. Transportation across country can be done by electric trains. As for ships, hydrogen fuel cells or coal may be the only alternative.


Evaluating the solution

This solution will require an increase in electricity demands, requiring more coal plants, or nuclear plants. [Unfortunately most hydroelectric dams are taken.] This may cause an increase in CO2 emmisions from the electricity sector.

The solution would also rely heavily on coal. This is unfavourable as it gives off greenhouse gases. It is also a limited resource. However, it is either this, or a standard of living decrease, or population decrease. The eventual running out of coal is inevitable, but it is a solution until we can reduce our numbers somewhat. [I can see a time when higher society is mainly be centred around hydro-electric dams.]

The solution would also require a massive amount of processing to get the communities set-up. We may have to abandon our current residences in order to make sustainable communities elsewhere. This part of the solution is very unfavourable - but may be a reality we have to face. [I will try to estimate how many man-hours it would take sometime.]

Now, I do have additional solutions to other problems in society [economical ones] which would likely be necessary to ensure productivity in a post peak economy. Perhaps I will share those another time

Does anybody see any likely problems - or does anybody else have a solution? Or perhaps everybody will just keep debating whether organic foods are biointensive or not - sweet

[Ghog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')oes anybody see any likely problems - or does anybody else have a solution? Or perhaps everybody will just keep debating whether organic foods are biointensive or not - sweet