by Auntie_Cipation » Sun 12 Oct 2008, 19:57:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', 'J')enab6 wrote, in summary, I don't need to run for hills because I already live in one, my neighbors and I can take care of ourselves "unless soldiers or other thieves come in and steal the food we produce". I hope not, but think it's a self-fulling prophecy.
I certainly agree that no self-sufficient community is likely to be just left in peace while there is trouble nearby.
But still, I'm left with "what else is there to do?"
I suppose then one can decide how one feels about defense, but IMO that's a separate issue than striving for sustainability.
You can get sustainable and then prepare to defend your resources, or you can get sustainable and then decide to rely on hope/luck/karma to keep you safe, or you can get sustainable and then strategize how to include or otherwise respond to those who would take your resources.
But all options start with "get sustainable"!
I'm in the same boat as jenab -- my community has definite potential to be sustainable, given our climate, soil, and current/historical (low) population. Of course, we can never say with certainty that we'll be ok, only that we have the *potential* to be -- we have less people than our local resources can support. If a million people decide to bug-out here, that changes our resource balance considerably. Same with the soldiers/thieves.
"... among the ways available in which a man can die, it is a rare and signal distinction to be killed by a leopard."
-- Raymond Dasmann