by mos6507 » Fri 05 Feb 2010, 14:12:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '
')I think the zombie horde problem could be partially resolved due to the hugely increased requirement for agricultural workers. It'd be a delicate time for sure, as these people would need to be fed before they become productive. But this would be the case in any collapse scenario unless you're an advocate of butchering all refugees.
That paragraph opens up quite a lot of issues.
For instance, one can see landowners becoming the new lords of the manor in which ex-urbanites become the new serfs, human beasts of burden who work the farmer's land (because the fuel isn't available for the tractors anymore) in exchange for barely enough scraps to survive. Is that preferable to "green communism"?
Also, the term "partially" implies some acknowledgement of EROEI. If you have a dozen serfs, maybe it's a net gain vs. trying to do everything yourself. If you have a thousand serfs, the mouths to feed exceed the productivity gains of their labor. Negative EROEI. So you just can't find a job for an infinite number of people because the resources of the land reaches a point of diminishing returns. They literally eat you out of house and home.
Most of the time when your ideas are presented (by others) they aren't even qualified with "partially". There is this idea that maybe we aren't
really in overshoot, but just our way of life is. So this really cuts to the core of the matter.
Either natural resources will be a limiting factor on population or it won't.
Al Bartlett explained how beyond a certain sweet spot, adding more people drags society down. This would be true of a society with or without fossil fuels. There is only so much food you can produce out of the soil, so much fresh water, so much wood for heating and crafting.
I do expect that people will labor over carrying capacity calculations because they are so elusive, and highly colored by people's emotions (fear, fantasy, greed, guilt, compassion, etc...). Many will make bad calls, either letting too many people in, or not being generous enough.
What I see most likely is that we will be at this crossover point between BAU and post-peak doom in which, at the civic level, there won't even be a recognition of carrying capacity, and so collectively, these seemingly resilient communities, whether they are official transition towns or not, will allow their populations to swell, hence dooming them.
In a slow collapse, creeping demographic changes will be almost impossible to enforce. But it would seemingly be a lot easier to keep people out than to find a way to kick them out after they've settled. You see this play out currently with illegal immigration, and that's far more of a clear-cut case of lawbreaking.
So when people advocate local solutions, you HAVE to consider the above. if you're going to attempt to draw a circle around your town and say with confidence that you can support your community solely on local resources, then you have to find a way to prevent the local population from exceeding carrying capacity, either through immigration or birth rates.