Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Why local self-sufficient communities will fail

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Why local self-sufficient communities will fail

Unread postby OldSprocket » Sun 15 May 2005, 17:29:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '4'). There will prove to be no viable political arrangements.


The town meeting is alive and well throughout New England. This town already has all the "viable political arrangements" that it needs. The complexity may increase, but the arrangements are already made.

On materials: If the stipulation is that there is NO trade, then communities will indeed have a very difficult time. I suspect that there will be limited, guarded trade between groups as there has been for a dozen millennia.
User avatar
OldSprocket
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri 24 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Maine

Unread postby bobcousins » Sun 15 May 2005, 18:31:55

Even if small communities could be self-sufficient enough to survive, they would not for the simple reason is that it takes a lot less know-how to wield a gun. They would be repeatedly attacked by bands of marauders.

Our modern society has been built brick by brick over many centuries, but unfortunately it won't be simple to rearrange the bricks.

How do these folks currently without electricity cope without medical aid?
It's all downhill from here
User avatar
bobcousins
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Left the cult

Unread postby FarmMama » Sun 15 May 2005, 20:36:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', ':')!:

2) Another reason why such communities would fail : They would be ripe targets and the type of individuals who would form them would be the hippie, non-violent types (see authors of previous dissenting posts). Much as I like hippies, they dont have a real great instinct for survival. Likewise, those communities composed of violent types would have neither the intellectual capacity nor the skills in cooperation to maintain ANY level of technology. Mixing the 2 types of people into one community (either voluntarily or involuntarily) would invariably turn the first type of community into the second, making it non-viable.


Wow. Now I admit, I've been called a hippie before, even by my own family (gasp!).

One of the things I've learned in my lifetime is that before I can care for anything else (including the earth) I need to care for myself. After all, you can't give away what you yourself don't possess, eh? After a lifetime of aquiring a healthly level of self esteem and self empowerment I found that I also wound up with a rather keen sense of self-preservation. I won't go into detail about the firearms I own, but I assure you that after considering the situations and circumstances to their myriad conclusions I have no problem pulling the trigger. I also feel it would be highly unlikely that it would ever occur. I'm sure there will be violence in the cities, but from where I sit, most people would die of a heart attack just trying to get to my little speck of dirt.

Your comments assume much, koch. Either you don't get out much or you're using stereotypes instead of first hand knowledge.
User avatar
FarmMama
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby FarmMama » Sun 15 May 2005, 20:43:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'E')ven if small communities could be self-sufficient enough to survive, they would not for the simple reason is that it takes a lot less know-how to wield a gun. They would be repeatedly attacked by bands of marauders.


Are you talking about marauding bands of city folk? The ones who never walk, eat potato chips and puff up mightily on their keyboards but have never discharged a firearm?

Anyway . . . there are plenty of folks here who are capable not only of survival, but of passing on their knowledge to others. My money is on us :)
User avatar
FarmMama
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Ludi » Sun 15 May 2005, 21:35:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FarmMama', 'A')re you talking about marauding bands of city folk? The ones who never walk, eat potato chips and puff up mightily on their keyboards but have never discharged a firearm?



Hard to imagine these people getting up the gumption to go marauding....let alone imagining them marauding many miles from their homes.....with no fuel, how will they get out here to do all this marauding?
Ludi
 

Unread postby ArimoDave » Sun 15 May 2005, 22:08:08

Don't overlook the innercity gang members. Some of these folks are seasoned street fighters and killers.
Drive by shootings, close quarter stabbings, and the like are common enough for them that they will show little,
if any, fear. I, at one point in my life, worked in several "gang infested" areas in and around the Los Angeles
area. I was an armed security officer. While so occupied, I almost got involved in two shooting incidents.

Talking about being prepared is one thing -- actually being prepared is another.

However, many small town folk are seasoned hunters, and really know how to shoot well -- unlike many
gang members. I'm just not sure that most people are really prepared to take a human life. Some are; they
are the ones who are potentially dangerous to the "enemy."

ArimoDave
I know exactly where we are;
. . . .
don't know where we're going, but no use in being late.
(Mathew Quigley [Tom Selleck])
User avatar
ArimoDave
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun 17 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Rual ID, USA, World

Unread postby TrueKaiser » Sun 15 May 2005, 23:45:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ake away the outside world and a town becomes like a fish out of water.
I wouldn't assume everything will collapse at once, leaving people stranded. This is going to be a decades-long ride down, with radical rearrangements in living conditions along the way. Some will adapt, because they have to. The rest will go by the wayside.


and thus the doomers here (which i have to say is a good 75% of the forum) loose the main and only leg their mad max fantasys cling to. of course they won't admit this. they have spent many months if not years building up their stockpile thinking it would put them in a postion of power or somthing similar. to admit that the collapse will be slow but not painless would be the same as saying they wasted all that time, effort, and most impotently money only to end up in a worse position then they started out in.

the transition down will be longer then the buildup to the peak. everyone here in their mid 20's will see before he or she dies of the average age of 70 or so, at worst 1/2 of the full decline and at best less then 1/3.
User avatar
TrueKaiser
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu 28 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby bart » Mon 16 May 2005, 00:32:24

Some interesting things have come out in this thread, but I don't think it has much to do with the real future. The themes have more to do with our American psyche, with our myths and fears.

It starts with Peak Oil:
    1. We know that something will happen, but it's hard to figure out what. We feel anxiety and powerlessness.

    2. We leap immediately to a breakdown of civilization, Mad Max and crazed motorcycle gangs.

    3. There is a morality play: we have lost the skills of our forefathers and foremothers. Those who are hard-working and self-reliant will survive; the others -- well, they just will get what they deserved.

    4. Inevitably, the discussion turns to guns -- guns as symbols of our ability to protect ourselves and our (small) circle of loved ones. We don't go looking for trouble, not we! But nobody better mess with us!

Shouldn't we be suspicious that this future bears a striking resemblance to a John Wayne Western? Rugged individuals against effete city folk and bands of marauders.

The positive aspect of such a myth is that it gives us confidence in our ability to handle a threatening future. It can prompt us to learn basic skills and make preparations.

The negative aspect is that events wll probably turn out differently than this scenario predicts. Preparations made under the influence of a myth may be wildly inappropriate.

The more likely case is that PO will manifest itself as economic troubles - recessions, stagflation, etc. The future of the US may be more like Argentina and Russia than Cimarron City.

Or - horror of horrors to rugged individualists - a post-PO society like Communist Cuba, with a strong government of the left or the right.

It's important to keep a mind open to multiple possibilities -- to admit that there's a lot that we don't know. Reading about life during wartime and Depressions can be helpful. And gardening and self-reliance skills are handy in almost any scenario.
User avatar
bart
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif

Re: Why local self-sufficient communities will fail

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Mon 16 May 2005, 03:36:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OldSprocket', '
')If the stipulation is that there is NO trade, then communities will indeed have a very difficult time. I suspect that there will be limited, guarded trade between groups as there has been for a dozen millennia.
Yes, that was the stipulation that there is no trade at all. That is not to say that I think there won't be any trade after a total collapse or, for that matter, that there will even be a total collapse. It could turn out that if our technological systems are wiped out and we are forced to get by with only the energy that comes from the Sun, that trade moving over these roads we have built is the very thing that keeps us going. The point of the 'no trade' stipulation is to focus on the main idea which is local viability. We see a lot of mention of 'local solutions' and I wanted to start a thread where we could look critically at this idea that the answers to the coming crisis lie in local actions that people take. Just what local actions should be taken? It all depends on what the goals are. There could be trade but how much and what could you get by trading? How far away could you hope to find your trading partners? Perhaps the insecurities of trading will be such a problem as to make trading neglegible; that and the practical difficulty of moving any bulky items without trucks or trains. If Kunstler and the doomers in general are right then the question of local viability becomes a most important question. When it is suggested that national governments will be erased from the scene and we need to begin looking for 'local solutions' then I think we should look very closely at what in fact this means.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Unread postby Specop_007 » Mon 16 May 2005, 03:59:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', ' ')some will survive, probably the most ruthless ...... types but some will survive.


*raises hand*

:-D
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Mon 16 May 2005, 04:51:51

Kunstler is saying that its national governments that won't be viable. What sort of government will even be possible if national governments collapse?
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Unread postby Specop_007 » Mon 16 May 2005, 06:26:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'K')unstler is saying that its national governments that won't be viable. What sort of government will even be possible if national governments collapse?


Well, in terms of America, our founding fathers never meant for our government to get to where it is today. Our national government was supposed to be small, efficient and "hands off" whereas todays government is huge, bloated, inefficient and digging into every little aspect of our live.
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Why local self-sufficient communities will fail

Unread postby katkinkate » Mon 16 May 2005, 08:00:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '.').. There will be NO IMPORTS OF ANYTHING into your community....


I don't see why not. There will probably be other small communities nearby. I'm sure trading systems will be developed over time. Maybe even social gatherings when several communites come together to swap genes as well as goods. There are still a few people around with blacksmith skills. Granted, mostly just as a hobby these days, but they will be ready to set up shop and take apprentices, make and repair metal goods. Metal will come from recycling things we don't need any more.

People with other skills (weaving/spinning, woodwork, coopers, tanners and shoesmiths...) will train others and eventually the old skills will spread out to neighbouring communities.

You're right in that no community for many centuries has been totally self-sufficient and cut off from others. And they won't be if we have a civilization crash either.
Kind regards, Katkinkate

"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
User avatar
katkinkate
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Top

Unread postby katkinkate » Mon 16 May 2005, 08:10:51

Greetings, FarmMama, and welcome. We always need more voices of reason and common sense. :wink:
Kind regards, Katkinkate

"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
User avatar
katkinkate
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread postby katkinkate » Mon 16 May 2005, 08:22:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '.')..You big city boys are dead if you come looking for trouble in a typical small town. We got plenty room to bury more bodies.


They make great fertilizer for the fruit/nut trees.
Kind regards, Katkinkate

"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
User avatar
katkinkate
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Top

Unread postby mgibbons19 » Mon 16 May 2005, 09:25:19

I have to agree that the assumptions upon which this thread are built are a little off, and I love bart's (I think) mythological analysis. But that is what culture does, it speaks to our often unexamined mythology.


First, I've not read hienberg yet, but I've read plenty of Kunstler and I think you sell him far short. Nowhere do I read that cute little small towns are going to make for a nice smooth transition. Simply that they have the best chance at transitioning at all. They have less sprawl infrastructure. They are closer to realistic resources. And they are communities, which makes for built in self-governance. Those are the resources he seems to identify as important.

Second, if we run into thermonuclear war, I'm not sure any of our bantering about the internet is going to matter. There is simply no point in worrying about that. Can't plan for it. Don't know how it would go down. etc.

Third, there will always be trade. Even if it's on the back of a donkey.

Now, look at the cultural references presented and look at how we've responded, knowing that most of the board (not all certainly) are Americans. "Country Boys" is a fun song, but it sure plays into (rural) Americans' thinking about 'city people'. Westerns and country music work for us because they tap into the underlying tenets that support Americans' world views.

Thing is, it is real hard to know what is real, and what we want and need to be real to support that world view. So how much is this a scientific and sociological forum about resource depletion, and how much is it tieing into our own personal and socialpsycological apocalypse fears?
mgibbons19
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Why local self-sufficient communities will fail

Unread postby Pops » Mon 16 May 2005, 11:01:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ')We see a lot of mention of 'local solutions' and I wanted to start a thread where we could look critically at this idea that the answers to the coming crisis lie in local actions that people take. Just what local actions should be taken?


Ok that’s fair.

Here is a start; invest in your community.

The fact is we’ve “rolled back” prices to the point of being largely dependent on foreign workers - and especially in small communities, a few huge retailers for most necessities. We bitch and moan about all the exported jobs while standing in line at wal-mart to save a few pennies (sometimes) then hand our money to a cashier who used to work for a locally owned business before it was forced OUT of business because we all want to save (supposedly) a few cents.

Of course the most important is to support the people at the local farmers market, join a subscription farm or other CSA, buy direct at the u-pick strawberry farm – even getting your pumpkins for Halloween off the farm helps. Simply buying produce in season in your area helps local farmers.

Buy as much as possible of everything from locally owned businesses – not chain stores whose only tie to your community is the profit they can take away. And certainly not internet companies with NO concern for your town. Use independent local mechanics and small tradesmen– not someone employed by a chain for the same reason.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Unread postby threadbear » Mon 16 May 2005, 12:41:26

Penultimate, In the scenario you envision, small "sustainable" communities won't survive. Period. We are so far from sustainability it's hilarious. Even the Amish would have a tough go, but they might make it, with great difficulty. Not only are we faced with economic and energy difficulty, our climate is changing, turning once arable land into desert. The nation, at present, though suffering through the indignity of corporatism, is utterly dependant on it and the strong central and state govts that support them, in turn.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby EdF » Mon 16 May 2005, 14:12:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'O')ne thing those stone age people had going for them Ludi was a thriving ecosystem. We have diverted so much of the natural world for our own cultivation that we crowded out and depleted what the stone age people lived on.


Pick up "Gaviotas" by Alan Weisman to see what can be done in a hostile environment with some knowledge and will.

- Ed
EdF
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun 08 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Mon 16 May 2005, 16:40:00

Say that Kunstler is right and all the large social systems wither away. No more global corporations, no more UN, no more United States of America, no more State Government (except maybe in Rhode Island). Its back to the drawing board and localities are on their own. No more machines with moving parts - justs jacks and saws and hammers, crowbars, bolt-cutters (I've got one of those). What we have must be protected because there aren't going to be anymore coming off the production lines for a very long time, if ever. We can distinguish between two major concerns: short term survival, and long term survival. In the short run, there are still some fuel supplies here and there, there are many firearms, and there are vast supplies of canned foods, dried beans, etc. The problems in the short run are to get new food production going, to secure water supplies, to organize the local population into a new form of government, to establish order and dispatch criminals, to establish what is needed and find trading partners and trade routes Perhaps the most vital thing to be traded in the initial years of rebuilding will be heritage or heirloom seeds. Long term survival issues include defense, weapons production, reestablishment of technological production. Sure, it could be done. I think we all agree that trade will be vital. Without trade people in localities will slip into lassitute and death. So maybe what is needed to be done, more than anything is for the donkey population to be increased in a hurry!
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron