by FoolYap » Fri 29 Feb 2008, 15:19:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'P')eople will be able to grow crops for nutrition (vegetables, fruits) but there is probably not enough land in city or suburban yards or landscaping areas to grow all the calories needed by a family. It takes a minimum of 1000 square feet per person to grow a complete (vegan) diet plus 3000 more square feet per person to grow the needed compost and mulch crops.
I assumed he meant, one could supplement the current production by adding suburban backyards into the mix? Seems true to me.
OTOH, I have a lot of co-workers who will do this only when they'll starve if they don't. One guy was bitching about the high cost of heating this year. I shrugged and said I've been offsetting that by burning a lot of firewood.
"Yeah, but that's gotten expensive too!"
I said, not if you cut and split it yourself, especially if you own the timber.
"Yeah, but that's hard work!"
Well, duh. Then stop bitching and keep taking the easy way out.
Seems to me that until the majority start to
need to grow some of their own calories, the only ones who will be doing it are those who want to try to save money; or try to have better (fresher, organically-raised) food; try to be more self-sufficient; or who just enjoy it as a hobby.
As for saving money, I'm not convinced most people can do that, today. Peruse a gardening catalog like Gardens Alive! (sorry to pick on them, but once on their mailing list, always on their mailing list) and tell me that if you bought most of your supplies through them, that you'd actually result in
cheaper tomatoes et cetera? I don't think so. And yet, many people do garden this way; lots of cute gadgets and expensive fertilizer mixes. (Not that there's anything wrong with doing it that way, but you don't save money doing it that way.)
I do think we'll get there, in the next decade or two. Meanwhile, I don't see the majority of American suburbanites doing this.
--Steve