Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
Homesteader wrote:
nobodypanic wrote:
wisconsin_cur wrote:
biofuel13 wrote:
wisconsin_cur wrote:
.....if they try to rely on game, so is everyone else which means that game will only last so long, even here in WI were we are choking on deer... everyone hunts deer... someone runs out of deer.
I'm from the northwoods of WI originally as well.....just looked at the deer census info for WI for 2007.....it was/is over 1,200,000. That's alot of meat! The estimated population of WI is about 5.5 million people. When you factor out the young, old, and inexperienced/illequiped to hunt I think it leaves more than enough deer to go around for the rest of us. I only plan on taking the occasional deer to supplement the rabbits, squirrels, beaver, porcupine, pheasant, duck and grouse etc. that will be my main staples.
I plan on feeding my young. My wife is inexperienced, I plan on feeding her too. If granny were to show up on my front stoop, i would feed her also.
Do most people who can kill a deer have the means to preserve it without a freezer? Sounds like a lot of wasted meat.
And if they run out of deer in one area (say south of Wausau) then it does the people south of Wausau little good if there are still 500k deer left.
Wild game is not a plan.
completely disagree. i think it's probably as good a plan as the one you likely have.
what happens if the deer 'run out' in one area? you follow the game, just like we used to do for 99% of human history.
I'll say this as gently as I can. . .No f'ing way.
If you can't figure that out for yourself I'm sure I won't convince you and so won't waste the time.
But really ". . .you follow the game, just like we used to do for 99% of human history".
Bawhaaaaaaaa, choke, gasp, Bawhaaaaaaaa, choke, gasp etc. . .
You will be fighting the locals for road killed possums inside of two weeks of the rubber hitting the road in regards to your plan.
and you won't? that's not only a very dangerous assumption on your part, but it's stupid as well.
i don't think you're immune from as much as you think you are if you stay put. there's absolutely no guarantee you wouldn't be fighting to fend off others.
flexibility is my plan. if i have to walk away from everything, then so be it; if i have to hunker down, then fine. i however don't intend to be completely tied to any single strategy.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12024 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
nobodypanic wrote:
flexibility is my plan. if i have to walk away from everything, then so be it; if i have to hunker down, then fine. i however don't intend to be completely tied to any single strategy.
That's a good plan, I'm for it 100%. However, not all people have that option. For some of us, leaving our homesteads would be a virtual death sentence. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Joined: Apr 12, 2007 Posts: 1162 Location: Central NC
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
nobodypanic wrote:
Homesteader wrote:
nobodypanic wrote:
wisconsin_cur wrote:
biofuel13 wrote:
wisconsin_cur wrote:
.....if they try to rely on game, so is everyone else which means that game will only last so long, even here in WI were we are choking on deer... everyone hunts deer... someone runs out of deer.
I'm from the northwoods of WI originally as well.....just looked at the deer census info for WI for 2007.....it was/is over 1,200,000. That's alot of meat! The estimated population of WI is about 5.5 million people. When you factor out the young, old, and inexperienced/illequiped to hunt I think it leaves more than enough deer to go around for the rest of us. I only plan on taking the occasional deer to supplement the rabbits, squirrels, beaver, porcupine, pheasant, duck and grouse etc. that will be my main staples.
I plan on feeding my young. My wife is inexperienced, I plan on feeding her too. If granny were to show up on my front stoop, i would feed her also.
Do most people who can kill a deer have the means to preserve it without a freezer? Sounds like a lot of wasted meat.
And if they run out of deer in one area (say south of Wausau) then it does the people south of Wausau little good if there are still 500k deer left.
Wild game is not a plan.
completely disagree. i think it's probably as good a plan as the one you likely have.
what happens if the deer 'run out' in one area? you follow the game, just like we used to do for 99% of human history.
I'll say this as gently as I can. . .No f'ing way.
If you can't figure that out for yourself I'm sure I won't convince you and so won't waste the time.
But really ". . .you follow the game, just like we used to do for 99% of human history".
Bawhaaaaaaaa, choke, gasp, Bawhaaaaaaaa, choke, gasp etc. . .
You will be fighting the locals for road killed possums inside of two weeks of the rubber hitting the road in regards to your plan.
and you won't? that's not only a very dangerous assumption on your part, but it's stupid as well.
i don't think you're immune from as much as you think you are if you stay put. there's absolutely no guarantee you wouldn't be fighting to fend off others.
flexibility is my plan. if i have to walk away from everything, then so be it; if i have to hunker down, then fine. i however don't intend to be completely tied to any single strategy.
Please quote me where I stated I wouldn't be a local fighting for a road-killed possum. Please, quote me. _________________ "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill
Joined: May 10, 2007 Posts: 2745 Location: The Entropisphere
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
I would ask why famine in settled ag? Perhaps because they were more successful at reproducing and growing to a point where there were too many of them? Famine comes in a bad year after the population has grown for decades of good and normal years.
We also have better records because most years you could employ record keepers.
Settled societies had the people to ship them off to whole other continents in the Western Hemisphere.
Famine is a problem the successful suffer when there is a bad year (or two). I would contend that we do not have records of what happen to hunter gatherers in bad years (or two) because there are no permanent records.
I was wrong to refer to average lifespans... I don't even understand statistics so I should not try to use them. I do understand history... history tells me that settled civs are more stable and prosperous... it is that stability and prosperity which is their undoing when it is absent because they cannot sustain as many people with hunter-gathering methods.
I'm planning on sustaining ~10 people, some unable to trek the northwoods looking for game or following the herd. Keeping as "many options as possible" for me means making a stand here... and if not here than at the site of "plan b" (another place to settle just a bit more agriculturally marginal than currently occupied and thus more dependent on hunting/gathering as well as ag). _________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
-Friedrich von Schiller
"What I try, may not work. It may be ineffective. It might even turn out in the pages of history to be the exact wrong thing to do, but I'm going to try to do what I c
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12024 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
wisconsin_cur wrote:
I would contend that we do not have records of what happen to hunter gatherers in bad years (or two) because there are no permanent records.
Anthropologists study remains from both hunter-gatherer and settled populations to see damage to bones caused by famine.
Hunter-gatherer populations are quite stable over time. So I'm not sure how you think settled (agricultural) populations are "more stable." They aren't typically stable, they typically continue to grow. Stability is not a feature of agricultural populations - growth and collapse are features of those populations. Horticultural and hunter-gatherer populations tend to be more stable. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 3140 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
wisconsin_cur wrote:
I would contend that we do not have records of what happen to hunter gatherers in bad years (or two) because there are no permanent records.
It's academic one way or another. Hunter/gatherer is a luxury for an underpopulated world teaming with wilderness. That's not the world we live in and whatever pockets now exist where that is possible will cease to exist post peak-oil. _________________ Peak oil is sort of like a mental Everlasting Gobstopper, except it tastes like ass and you can't get it out of your mouth.
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 3140 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
Ludi wrote:
Stability is not a feature of agricultural populations - growth and collapse are features of those populations. Horticultural and hunter-gatherer populations tend to be more stable.
OK, it's the 21st century. Let's have a new concept. Agricultural populations 2.0, this time with birth control! _________________ Peak oil is sort of like a mental Everlasting Gobstopper, except it tastes like ass and you can't get it out of your mouth.
Joined: May 10, 2007 Posts: 2745 Location: The Entropisphere
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
Ludi wrote:
wisconsin_cur wrote:
I would contend that we do not have records of what happen to hunter gatherers in bad years (or two) because there are no permanent records.
Anthropologists study remains from both hunter-gatherer and settled populations to see damage to bones caused by famine.
Hunter-gatherer populations are quite stable over time. So I'm not sure how you think settled (agricultural) populations are "more stable." They aren't typically stable, they typically continue to grow. Stability is not a feature of agricultural populations - growth and collapse are features of those populations. Horticultural and hunter-gatherer populations tend to be more stable.
And growth is a sign of success. I want to succeed.
Perhaps horticultutal society would be more of what I would advocate. I have to confess some ignorance on the differences in definition between ag and hort.
I would question, however, how... representative the bones of hunter gatherers studied are compared to settled communities. You have a better idea of where to look for bones and there is a larger surviving sample, since settled communities have a larger population base. _________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
-Friedrich von Schiller
"What I try, may not work. It may be ineffective. It might even turn out in the pages of history to be the exact wrong thing to do, but I'm going to try to do what I c
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12024 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
mos6507 wrote:
It's academic one way or another. Hunter/gatherer is a luxury for an underpopulated world teaming with wilderness. That's not the world we live in and whatever pockets now exist where that is possible will cease to exist post peak-oil.
Do you really think it is more likely that people will move into undisturbed areas without benefit of heavy equipment? I think it is less likely that people will move into undisturbed areas. They will tend to concentrate on the already developed land rather than wasting their time and limited energy hacking into wilderness, in my opinion. But I've already stated my opinion many times that people will cluster in developed areas and especially cities rather than spreading out into the countryside. However, I may be surprised by some unprecedented behavior! _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Joined: May 10, 2007 Posts: 2745 Location: The Entropisphere
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
Ludi wrote:
mos6507 wrote:
It's academic one way or another. Hunter/gatherer is a luxury for an underpopulated world teaming with wilderness. That's not the world we live in and whatever pockets now exist where that is possible will cease to exist post peak-oil.
Do you really think it is more likely that people will move into undisturbed areas without benefit of heavy equipment? I think it is less likely that people will move into undisturbed areas. They will tend to concentrate on the already developed land rather than wasting their time and limited energy hacking into wilderness, in my opinion. But I've already stated my opinion many times that people will cluster in developed areas and especially cities rather than spreading out into the countryside. However, I may be surprised by some unprecedented behavior!
On this we are agreed... I hate to say it but I am somewhat dependent upon it... _________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
-Friedrich von Schiller
"What I try, may not work. It may be ineffective. It might even turn out in the pages of history to be the exact wrong thing to do, but I'm going to try to do what I c
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12024 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
wisconsin_cur wrote:
And growth is a sign of success. I want to succeed.
For me, growth alone is not a sign of success. Stability over time is a sign of success. But that's just me!
wisconsin_cur wrote:
Perhaps horticultutal society would be more of what I would advocate. I have to confess some ignorance on the differences in definition between ag and hort.
I would question, however, how... representative the bones of hunter gatherers studied are compared to settled communities. You have a better idea of where to look for bones and there is a larger surviving sample, since settled communities have a larger population base.
You might question the methods of physical anthropologists in general, and probably not accept much if any of their science, since it is all based on rather small numbers of samples. For instance, our entire understanding of human evolution is based on a relatively small sample of remains of hunter-gatherers. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Joined: May 10, 2007 Posts: 2745 Location: The Entropisphere
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
Ludi wrote:
wisconsin_cur wrote:
I would question, however, how... representative the bones of hunter gatherers studied are compared to settled communities. You have a better idea of where to look for bones and there is a larger surviving sample, since settled communities have a larger population base.
You might question the methods of physical anthropologists in general, and probably not accept much if any of their science, since it is all based on rather small numbers of samples. For instance, our entire understanding of human evolution is based on a relatively small sample of remains of hunter-gatherers.
Evolution "works" as a theory because of the lack of scientific alternatives, the more philosophical argument used to support it and (here I tread into something I know very little about) that modern science (which assumes evolution as a necessary premise) "works" in an objective an verifiable way.
I can... "work with" anthropologists work on evolution but I can't help but think that those who spend their lives studying hunter/gatherer societies might be a little biased in favor of those societies. I can question some of their conclusions that do not seem to have a large enough base of support in science just as I would an economist or a historian who comes to conclusions that do not seem to account for the sparcity of evidence to reach the conclusions they make.
edited x2 for increased clarity _________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
-Friedrich von Schiller
"What I try, may not work. It may be ineffective. It might even turn out in the pages of history to be the exact wrong thing to do, but I'm going to try to do what I c
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12024 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
wisconsin_cur wrote:
I can question some of their conclusions that do not seem to have a large enough base of support in science just as I would an economist or a historian who comes to conclusions that do not seem to account for the sparcity of evidence to reach the conclusions they make.
I think you'd need to know how they compared their samples to know if they didn't account for the sparsity of evidence.
Do you feel the physical anthropologists studying hunter-gatherers do not have a large enough base in science? What is your evidence for this opinion, if I might ask? You say you are familiar with history, but not with anthropology, so, I guess I'm curious how you came by your conclusions. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Joined: May 10, 2007 Posts: 2745 Location: The Entropisphere
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
Ludi wrote:
wisconsin_cur wrote:
I can question some of their conclusions that do not seem to have a large enough base of support in science just as I would an economist or a historian who comes to conclusions that do not seem to account for the sparcity of evidence to reach the conclusions they make.
I think you'd need to know how they compared their samples to know if they didn't account for the sparsity of evidence.
Do you feel the physical anthropologists studying hunter-gatherers do not have a large enough base in science? What is your evidence for this opinion, if I might ask? You say you are familiar with history, but not with anthropology, so, I guess I'm curious how you came by your conclusions.
Not in a "scientific way" but the same way I judge a lot of conclusions I wait until I hear them talk about something I do know about and how well they do. Anthropologist have fallen down on this account a couple of times, just like every other profession when they start talking about things they know nothing about. When economists talk about the physics of energy or the geology of oil wells; or when pastors start talking about politics or when my mother in law opens her mouth on nearly any issue.
To the issue at hand, I do not know what the evidence is or how they discerned it.
I do know that hunter gathering does not leave as big a footprint as settled society.
I do know a lot more effort has been put into studying the footprints of settled society than hunter gatherers.
I do know that hunter/gatherers are not monolithic (Inuit vs Austrialia versus North American Native.
I'll go out on a limb as say that at least those who wandered as part of their hunting and gathering did not bury their dead in one place. Pops mentioned "starving time" in another thread, our (taking kinship with the settled) bury our people in the same place no matter when they died... and often times buried our people in the same place across many centuries. Perhaps some hunter/gatherers did also... but all of them?
I also know that I am asked to believe monolithic conclusions about very diverse populations that do not receive the funding or the sum total of brain power (due to less people studying it not their individual intelligence) as what they are contrasting against, then yes I am suspicious.
For that matter I am also suspicious of economists, historians, theologians, politicians, physicists (they want to make small black holes?), urban planners, engineers, business people, doctors, and lots of other folks who forget that there is more to the world than their individual specialty and that we all jump to conclusions that we cannot substantiate.
Their's (and mine) is the sin of hubris. They don't know what they don't know and they sub-consciously or consciously fill in blanks in order to keep from admitting what they do know that they do not know. _________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
-Friedrich von Schiller
"What I try, may not work. It may be ineffective. It might even turn out in the pages of history to be the exact wrong thing to do, but I'm going to try to do what I c
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12024 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: Will starving masses roam or stay put?
Being suspicious of "monolithic conclusions" is a good thing. The conclusions "hunter-gatherers in general show less evidence of famine than agriculturists" may or may not be a monolithic conclusion. "Agriculturists are more successful than hunter-gatherer" seems, to me, to be a monolithic conclusion. But I think maybe it is more of a semantic or even value-based conclusion ("success" being rather subjective).
I guess, I'm just not sure why physical anthropologists would be more likely to be biased about their subject, than, say, historians.
Anyway, I'm tired of these arguments. Believe what you want. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
