Personal plans and a "dim" view of the post-PO fut

xerces

Hi all,

I found out about Peak Oil some two and a half years ago. At first, I spent a fair amount of time learning/re-learning basic self-sufficiency skills(Gardening, Fishing, Hunting, Gathering, Wood-working). I have been maintaining a blog for the last 2 years which documented my efforts. The blog can be found here:

http://backtowilderness.blogspot.com/

The original plan was to acquire a rural homestead far from the major urban centers where I could survive the crash. However, over time( and much diligent research ), my view of how the future would play out changed significantly. I have come to strongly believe that the decline of cheap oil will not result in the collapse of major cities, but rather that of rural areas far from major cities. Simply put, many major cities are incredibly energy efficient due to sheer population density. Huge numbers of people live in centrally heated buildings, walk to nearby grocery stores, travel via highly efficient subway and rail systems. In effect, urbanites can live a 21st century life-style on a small fraction of the energy usage of their rural counterparts.

After reading of recent population movements in many third world countries, it seems that when resources are constrained, utilities and services are always cut off at the peripheral in favor of the centers. Thus in most 3rd world nations facing chronic fuel shortages, the flow has been generally from the countryside into the cities(due to availability of jobs/utilities/services in the cities), not the other way around. The other aspect of this phenomenon is that after a certain number of people have left far-flung rural areas, the remaining population do not have enough specialists to maintain the technical trappings of a "modern" society. What usually happens is that rural areas beyond centralized control quickly becomes destabilized by warlords/drug lords OR they evolve into highly tribal/clannish societies that war against each other almost continuously.

So gradually a picture of the future began to emerge in my mind's eye. Basically, I'm seeing a population influx into the major metro regions(city+nearby suburbs/farmland) of the U.S. These metro centers will be tightly linked to each other by high speed rail networks as well as highway, airline, and advanced communications networks. Additionally I believe that major stretches of productive agricultural and resource extraction territories will also be connected into this network where utility/transport/service coverage will remain. Large areas of the nation that is unproductive or marginally productive would gradually be abandoned. The infrastructure of these areas will be allowed to degrade over time, and most of the population living there would be motivated to move to the centers.

That were the thoughts in my mind as of one year ago. At that point, I made the strategic decision to implement my plans and move to NYC. Being the largest metropolis in the entire region, NYC would have first dibs on fuel/resources when the going gets tough. It was a hard decision, I had a nice consulting job(that required me to fly every week). I lived in a nice house outside of Philly, and all of my friends and family were located 20-30 miles west of me. And of course my garden, leaving that little piece of heaven was VERY DIFFICULT! Sad

In any case, 9 months ago, I moved to NYC and posted a thread on this board about it. The responses were largely negative as one would expect(as I personally expected during moments of doubt). In the time that has passed, much has happened:

1. My gross annual income has more than DOUBLED due to several factors.

a. Significantly larger salary from the job switch(regional urban job pays much better than my former jet-setting sub-urban position)

b. My house near Philly was rented out since last year. Due to high gas prices, the area experienced a population influx of people trying to move closer to Philadelphia to shorten their commutes. Additionally, the housing crises has increased the number of local renters as well. This increase in the number of people needing housing has drastically driven up rent prices(+10%) this year.

c. The population densities of the urban setting have allowed me to start a small "green" business on the side. In the suburbs there would never have been enough of a market.

d. Significant Portions of my savings( previously dedicated to buying farmland) was instead invested into high-yield alternative energy and resource commodity stock and ETF portfolios. This investment has grown by ~30% this year and has provided me with very generous dividends.

2. My total energy usage is around 1/5 that of a year ago. This is due to a combination of careful usage and a different lifestyle. For example my studio is only 500 sqft. It uses 1/8th the electricity of my 2000 sqft house.

3. My total food costs is around 1/10 that of a year ago. This is largely due to being able to cook food at home instead of being forced to buy it from restaurants when traveling.

4. I got rid of my car and don't fly any more. My legs, my bicycle, the subway, or high speed rail handles all of my transportation needs.

5. I produce no garbage at this point. All food/paper scraps are composted in an indoor worm compost bin. All other plastic/glass/metal trash is recycled.

From what I have learned and experienced so far, the city may be the ideal place to ride out this energy crisis. This place gets the lion's share of food/energy/resources by mandate. The newest technology comes here first. Certain conservation measures could be(and have been) quickly implemented across the entire city in a matter of weeks. Money flows into the city during every crisis, houses in NYC and surrounding areas are still rising in price even as housing prices in the distant suburbs and rural areas continues to decline. And then there's the flow of population, it is very apparent that many people are moving into this city for jobs. They come not only from 3rd world countries but also from the U.S hinterland. All of these trends create major economic opportunities for those who recognize it.

Of course there is the flip side. There is an ENORMOUS deal of social inequality here. Low end service jobs pay very badly, and poorer citizens/immigrants are literally living 6 to 8 people in a room. Poor neighborhoods suffer frequent service outages and of course governmental/criminal/police corruption. This will of course only get worse. Additionally, there are restrictions on rights and freedoms for citizens. For example, we can't keep arms and can be arbitrarily searched(without a warrant) by police/military personnel while in the subway or major public places.

Still...when all things are considered, I think I have made the right move.

mark

I too have had a nagging suspicion that cities may be a better place to be than rural communities. It was not my initial conclusion and may not be my final thoughts on the matter. I suspect that loss of freedom may be the price one must pay for a reasonably “modern” lifestyle. In Chicago there’re trying to install cameras everywhere to monitor suspicious behavior according to some pre-programmed criteria. Given the criminal behavior of the US ruling class, the advantage technology has provided those who wish to monitor all activity, the precarious status of our financial house of cards and it’s likely collapse, and the passive nature of our citizens, it may be healthier in the long run to avoid the state controlled megalopolis.

Of course, for most unthinking americans, it will be an easy choice. Big screen TV’s for watching american idol, gas at the corner station for $10.00 a gallon (but you can get it), and the happy illusion of normal life goes on.

No, I don’t have much faith in the average american. He’s dumber than dirt and easily manipulated. The revolution, if and when it comes, will start in the outlands. Not a pretty picture for those who love freedom, justice and social responsibility.
_________________
Who is John Galt?

FireJack · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 16, 2005 Posts: 448

I get the feeling that the first major consequence of peak oil will be a major food shortage. Being in the city won't help you with that though you could be prepared by having a years supply of food. If there is power losses for significant periods of time sewage will be a big problem. If they cant keep the water pressure going everything will fall apart fast.

xerces

essex

Thanks, xerces for a well reasoned post. I have a small forest block near a small city( 9 kms ) and am looking at a larger block of land also very close in ( 14 kms ) which has the potential to support a few families and also has the potential for off grid living via micro hydro. Remote rural areas are a long way from that essential pack of seeds. I don't have much time for the gun toting, hoarding mentality. Yes, times will get tough. Now is the time to get to know your neighbours.

wisconsin_cur

Of course the best place to be is where you have the skills and the personality to make do. I would be miserable every second in NYC, even minneapolis would be hell in minature. I do not understand people in large urban areas. They do not understand me. I do not understand the enviroment and I have lived or worked in a large metro area (of a variety of sizes) since I was 18.

No doubt many "city mice" would feel the same in my neck of the woods. I feel clostraphobic in the city, they would feel naked and exsposed. They would not know how to interact with the farmer down the road (we have documented evidence of this just go down to the bowling alley some night and get people to talk about their neighbors from Chicago or Minneapolis).

Your good in the city pulling down the big bucks? good for you, I hope it works out. I could not imitate it so I won't try.
_________________
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
-Friedrich von Schiller

"A waste is a terrible thing to mind."
-Mama Cur

Cornelian

Interesting and thought-provoking post - thanks.

I, too, have chosen a city in which to live, although nowhere as big as NYC! As xerces reasoned, it has the services, it has everything I need within walking distance, it also is close to agricultural land, has a deep water port in the very heart of the city, has transport links and is going to hog the power while outlying areas may lose out if there is any sustained power crisis. I don't have a studio, but a house on half an acre (that being the kind of city it is - very small, but it has everything, and is the major city on this island), so I can still have my garden. Smile

(Suburbia here is very small - again, everything is within easy biking or walking distance to most services).

Pops

I think you have started a great thread x.

Not because of your talk but because of your walk.

The idea anyplace is going to become uninhabitable overnight and the only out in the near or medium term is to go native has always been my biggest gripe about many of the threads hereabouts – especially when posted by armchair native wannabes.

It will be interesting to compare notes.

Good Luck!
_________________
Make a plan and work it:

Loki · Expert Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 976 Location: Cascadia

An interesting post, Xerces. I agree that a mass dieoff scenario is exceptionally unlikely, esp. for the US and other advanced wealthy countries. A Great Depression or Argentina-like collapse is far more likely.

I certainly haven't heard of a massive exodus from the cities in Argentina after their collapse. There was also a slight increase in the urban population in the US during the Great Depression (though it varied quite a bit by state). The economic opportunities and services that cities offer will continue to be more attractive than the alternative, which is grinding rural poverty.

In fact, I seem to recollect that the people who suffered the most from malnutrition in Argentina following the collapse came primarily from rural areas. This story mentions that former farmworkers who had moved to the city accounted for a large portion of the malnourished. The situation in the countryside obviously wasn't any better for them. In the city they may be malnourished, but at least there are soup kitchens. If they stayed in the country they'd presumably just starve to death. Just because there's lots of land out there doesn't mean that people will be allowed to use it for their own purposes. A radical land redistribution policy would be required for poor people to be able to grow their own food, and that would probably require a violent bloodbath of a revolution.

I also agree completely that living a more energy-efficient lifestyle is far easier in the city. If my vehicle died tomorrow (and it could very well), I'd still be able to get to work, get to the grocery store, and do everything else I need to do. Quite easily actually. If I lived out in the sticks, that would not be the case. I grew up in the sticks and we had to drive for EVERYTHING.

Services are also more reliable here, especially electricity. My juice has gone down on occasion, but it's always back on after a few hours, while the people in the country sometimes have to wait days for their's to be repaired. As for self-defense, my state has preemption, so we urbanites have the same gun rights as everyone else.

That said, I'd still rather live out in the sticks. The city grinds me down. Too many goddamn naked apes. But this is where the work is.

TheDude

Great post!

TheDude

There are a couple of current topics at TOD on farming:

Does Less Energy Mean More Farmers?

POLL: Theoildrum.com readers and food growing...

One poster there, highplainsfarmer, is convinced farmers will be doing great on the down side of the curve, owing to their commodity becoming so valuable fuel prices of any stripe won't faze them. I read his posts and can almost hear him firing his pistol in the air!
_________________
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
You will receive no bill.

waldo · Tar Sands Joined: Dec 22, 2007 Posts: 44

I have a suspicion that urban areas work in these situations, like in Argentina, only because other parts of the world are "normal". Where did the soup for the line come from? Probably the US. What happens to cities when there is no "US"?

billp

xerces

Ludi

I've said many times that people should live where they feel comfortable and safe. I also think in times of shortages, the cities will get supplies whereas the country will be forgotten. It just makes sense most attention will be paid where the most people live, which is in the cities.

(as you all know, I live in the country)
_________________
"...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy