Urban vs. Rural Post-Peak Living

[Loki]

I've been dabbling in preparedness for about a decade now, particularly since I found out about peak oil 5 or 6 years ago. I spent most of that time in Oregon's largest city, a metro area of about 2 million, where I worked first in academia, then in arboriculture. A bit over a year ago I left the city and moved to a rural part of the state to work full-time on an organic farm in order to learn the farming trade.

Since the rural vs. urban question has been an ongoing concern here at PO.com (thanks in large part to Thuja), I thought I'd share some thoughts based on my experience with preparedness in both the city and the country.


PROS OF RURAL LIVING

(1) Keeping Your Belly Full
The main advantage of living in the country, of course, is that there's plenty of land to grow food. In the last year I've gotten most of my produce, eggs, and meat from the farms I've worked at, and from coworkers/neighbors. There are lots of folks within a few miles who have milk, beef, broiler chickens, goats, ducks and turkeys, dried beans, fruit, nuts, etc., for sale or barter. There is also an unlimited supply of blackberries growing wild out here, as well as various sundry other wild edibles, and plenty of hunting opportunities. In the city I had a big container garden at my apartment and a community garden plot, I gleaned fruit and nuts from street trees and wild blackberries along the river, and I went to farmers markets and had a CSA subscription. Those were all fun and useful experiments, but it was nothing compared to what I'm doing now in terms of food self-sufficiency and local eating.

(2) Post-Peak Living Experiments
It's easier to do preparedness experiments in the country. Some examples: Last weekend I got a rocket stove, which I've been dabbling with a bit (link to my thread)---it'd be hard to do that in my old urban apartment, where the smoke would have gone right into the apartments next door. Also a lot easier to go shooting out here, I can practice on the hill nearby instead of driving two cities over to shoot at a range with an entrance fee and lots of rules. I have access to plenty of free firewood, which I'll be using for some Dutch oven and pit oven cooking experiments soon. This last winter I put together a simple little off-grid generator-battery power system, to which I plan on adding a couple solar panels in the next month or two. And my post-peak poverty experiment in RV living is described in this thread. Hard to do this kind of stuff in an urban apartment.

Living Cheap
I've found it easier to live cheaply in the country. Aside from reduced food expenses, the last few months I've been able to cut my rent to zero thanks to the RV. I figure I could reduce my monthly expenses to <$600 if I cut some fat from the budget; got more serious about food self-sufficiency (making my own cheese, baking my own bread, never eating out, etc.); made all my own beer/cider/mead and grew herb/tobacco; and reduced my driving to the barest minimum, got a motorcycle, and paid less attention to insurance laws. I'm not there now, but could be if I had to. But I don't drive much---many rural folks drive far too much and will be screwed if gas goes up much more.

Crime & Government
Living in the country means I'm not as affected by urban disturbances and crime, should things get really bad. I had very few problems crime-wise in my 15 years in Portland. But should things deteriorate to the point of Argentina (if FerFAL's descriptions are accurate) or worse, I'd prefer to be in the country. I'd also rather be in the country if the fedgov should decide to go apeshit on the homefront---out here Heaven is higher and the Emperor further away than in the city.

Personal Preference
I personally prefer living in the country, it suits me. I love looking at the stars at night, listening to the frogs croak and the chickens cluck, being able to piss outside whenever I want, etc. I haven't missed the city one bit.


CONS OF RURAL LIVING

Jobs
Jobs in the country, or lack thereof. If I lost my current job or couldn't physically do farm work any more, I'd have to move, there just aren't a lot of non-farm jobs out here aside from logging, mill work, gathering wild mushrooms, or growing pot. I'd like to stay in farming, but if it doesn't work out, I may very well end up back in the city. This is by far the greatest problem with rural post-peak living, at least for working-age (30s) folks like myself.

Transportation
I've become far more reliant on my truck. Since I live where I work I don't have to commute, but for groceries and other supplies, and for socializing, I have to drive. When I lived in the city I could walk or take the bus or train most anywhere I wanted to go---because I lived and worked in the urban core, I lived for many years without even owning a vehicle. I don't drive much, but what little driving I do has become more vital.

Infrastructure
Rural areas are more vulnerable to infrastructure problems, power outages, road and bridge problems, etc. From a long-term perspective I have my doubts about rural electricity. As the Long Emergency accelerates I think rural areas may very well experience a lot more brownouts and extended blackouts. Cities probably will, too, but to a lesser extent and for shorter periods. On the other hand, I'm able to experiment with a little off-grid power system out here in the country, which would have been difficult in my urban apartment---the generator has come in handy a couple times this winter, and I'm hoping to be able to afford enough PV panels by the summer to be mostly self-sufficient in the electricity department.

Education
There are fewer formal educational opportunities in the country, a problem if you need to reskill for work. I took lots of classes in the city, some of which proved useful in finding work (horticulture, GIS), some of which were for general preparedness (martial arts, wilderness first aid). Out here in the country there are few formal learning opportunities, except a non-credit welding class that I'll probably take this summer. On the other hand, I've met a lot of people here with really solid practical skills, so there are plenty of opportunities for informal education. And I don't have money for classes now anyway.

Social networking
There are fewer choices for social networking in the country. In the city there are lots of opportunities to meet a variety of people, in the country less so. Rural living has definitely exacerbated my hermit-like tendencies.


Internet access is also more of a challenge in the country, but I'm not sure if that's a pro or a con

[argyle]

a thread I'm gonna follow..

About infractructure..

I think rural will even beat urban in this one.
Except for electricity, you don't have the possibility to dig your own well (water being the most basic item you need), build your own waste-treatment (reed land/pond).
Roads & bridges (not many bridges around here if any) and if transport will take a big hit, the current roads will last a long time.

[vision-master]

Go where your karma takes you.

[jdmartin]

I like your thread

I think a combo of the two seems to me a reasonable alternative to the cons of each. As much as I think the suburbs are a waste for most people, who have little use for the outside world and would be much better served not having to drive anywhere, the suburbs are a nice compromise between being in the middle of nowhere and its attendant problems, and being clustered in an area where it's impossible to grow enough food to survive and you're fighting off the zombie hordes.

Where I live, most suburban lots are half an acre in size or more. I have a little less than an acre of land, on a steep hillside, yet I am amazed at how much food I've been able to cram into that hillside with intensive gardening - and been able to turn all my leaves into compost, use rain barrels for my watering needs, etc. Yet I'm still just a few minutes from getting into "the city" (such as it could be called) and could reasonably ride a bicycle there if I had to. I have neighbors, but not gobs of them, there's no county laws almost at all, I've got septic and could dig a well if I needed to, I back up to a national forest and there is plenty of game around, etc.

I think some of where you think is perfect to ride things out depends on whether you're a hard core doomer, a soft lander, or a cornucopian. A doomer is probably going to opt for middle of nowhere, because it's the safest bet from the biggest threat (zombie hordes). I'm kind of a soft lander/soft doomer mix, and a cornucopian isn't going to be having this conversation

[vision-master]

Is 'doomer' a new age religious term?

[Pops]

Ah yes, a subject near to my heart!

You lay it out a pretty good, Loki. I also think you've done yourself a real favor (no matter what happens) with your time in the country.

Of course all standard caveats apply but I'm gonna say one of the biggest advantages to living rural is flexibility.

Today there is no reason a commute of 30-40 miles to a half way decent job is prohibitive and until fuel (and jobs of course) are just downright unavailable, car or van pooling will make commuting viable - unless you are waay out.

Looking back a couple of generation to a time when roads and vehicles weren't as cushy and quick as today, we can maybe get a glimpse of how "rural" might look back in the future. When travel was not fast and climate controlled , "ex-urban" was much different than it appears today from the fast lane of the interstate. I live just a couple miles from old Route 66, and even now, 80 years after it's heyday you can still see the remnants of little burgs every 5 or 10 miles.

If you are 50+ and grew up in small town America or beyond, you remember little gas stations, grocery stores, feed stores, bars, etc every few miles on the county roads. Of course they're gone now but at one time not that long ago most everyone had a market within walking distance - again with the exception of the west where there were only 2 people per 100 square miles.

I live about 5 miles from the county seat of a fairly rural county, the population there is about 5k. But I have a post office map from 1904 showing a post office just on the other end of the section from us (about a mile). So nowhere around were you more than 3-4 miles from a post office. I'd think that was pretty common for a settled area of smaller farms. Again, not areas of 1,000 acre dry land ranches of course or poorer country of whatever kind. Today there is no evidence whatsoever of that little town but at one time the post office, general store, maybe a smithy etc was probably more convenient to our house than the strip mall is to most suburbanites today.

Obviously I'm not 100% convinced what will happen in the future. The Energy Fairy could pull a miracle out of her ear and we'll all be Jetsons. If so, I like the quiet out here and freedom to do stuff you can't do in the city or the 'burbs so I'll continue to telecommute and living exactly like today. If on the off chance we were cut off from everything tomorrow we could get by here for a long time with no outside help at all, longer yet with help from our neighbors and indefinitely by growing stuff to trade in town for what we don't have.

I'll list some downsides of rural I've discovered later.

[cephalotus]

If you plan to survive on growing your own food in a devastated country with millions of dying people around you the rural option could be better (difficult to say, in 3rd world countries people move from rural areas to the cities...)

But is this really what you want for your future?

If you want to be part of a modern society it would be the best option to use as little resources as possible and try to improve society as a specialised worker, not as an (inefficient) farmer & hunter.

In my opinion it is easier to live a sustainable life in the cities.

[ritter]

In my opinion it is easier to live a sustainable life in the cities.

As long as there is some inefficient farmer supplying said cities with food, right?

As many pigeons as there are in cities, I'm not sure I want to eat them. I've seen their diets.

[vision-master]

These Urban vs. Rural Post-Peak Living threads come up all the time on 'doomer' 4ums. They always run the same course. The rural ppl with a bit of land that happen to grow some veggies always put urban ppl on the defensive and claim rural living is better. It's the same story, over and over again.....

[cephalotus]

As long as there is some inefficient farmer supplying said cities with food, right?

most farmers those days are extremely efficient and can feed 100 people with the work of 1 person.

they are also extremely efficient in producing lots of food calories per ha.

Food is not our problem, the resource problems of the coming years / decades are fossil fuel resources, some rare metals and minerals, water in some regions and maybe the inability of the ecosphere to absorb all CO2 without any unwanted change in the system.

There is also the problem with our economic models but I doubt that there is a single person in the world who understands our economic problems well enough to predict the future or offer a solution.

so for me, "peak oil" means a lack of resources, a economic collapse probably means the lack of well paid jobs, but _I_ don't see a szenario where you could easily drive your car but are unable to feed yourself. Maybe that's different in the US?

On the other hand: different opinions can coexist in message boards, so if you think a rural life needs less resources and if you think that food will be the stuff that people will start to fight over its fine for me.

I personally try to live my life in such a way to avoid the collapse of our society.

As many pigeons as there are in cities, I'm not sure I want to eat them. I've seen their diets.

yeah. Nice doomer porn

[cephalotus]

These Urban vs. Rural Post-Peak Living threads come up all the time on 'doomer' 4ums. They always run the same course. The rural ppl with a bit of land that happen to grow some veggies always put urban ppl on the defensive and claim rural living is better. It's the same story, over and over again.....

More than 50% of the people on Earth now live in cities. The rate is higher in most developed nations.

Solutions are needed for both rural and urban regions. The people in the city need to eat, the people in the country need mobility, we all need a complex society with technology, otherwise 80-90% of the people will die and the world will fall back to the year 1700 level.
Except that the water will be polluted, poisonous and radioactive waste will be everywhere, genetically modified crops will get out of control and the resources that in 1700 would have been easily available will all be gone...

I believe that individual preparation is a good thing, especially as a buffer in hard times and catastrophic events. But I also believe that only those societies will survive where people care for each other and find solutions for the whole society.
A society of people dying in the streets while others are sitting in their bunkers feeding on canned food has little chance.

If you think that it is good and future proof to build your doomstead in the country and become a self sustainable farmer (with a 1.000 gal gasoline consumption per year) feel free to do so, but do your really believe that this strategy will be successful in a peak oil scenario?

[Pops]

You make all the usual assumptions, ceph.
Rural = remote
Rural = bunker
Rural = survivalist
Rural = misanthrope
Rural = subsistence

I have no commute and have a small town nearby so use very little fuel, I've no bunker, just a couple old guns, I actually hope humans find a path through the bottleneck and had a bigger garden when I lived in town - although I do raise some beef.

What I do have is the flexibility to deal with many different situations, including, but not limited to, very severe economic problems. So severe that my income could be virtually zip and I could get by; not without struggle mind you, but I can't imaging a scenario where I would be on the street and hungry or even huddled in a house with no food, no heat, no water, no sanitation, no protection simply because I have no job.

You might have that covered where you live but I have never had that assurance in any town I lived. If you are satisfied that you'll never be in that situation, good for you, but don't assume your imaginary "doomsteader" stereotype is any more valid than the typical Zombie Housewives of Dystopia Lane fantasy is of post-peak cities.

[cephalotus]

You make all the usual assumptions, ceph.
Rural = remote
Rural = bunker
Rural = survivalist
Rural = misanthrope
Rural = subsistence

That's more or less a reply on the 1st post in this thread.

as I said I do see sustainable concepts in cities but also in rural areas, so i do not disagrre with your opinion here.

My view is just a bit different on the "we will have nothing to eat in the future but I need 3 cars" scenarios...

But maybe I'm wrong. I hope that we will never find out.

(btw, .some people in this forum seem to -hope- for a collapse, I don't....)

[ritter]

most farmers those days are extremely efficient and can feed 100 people with the work of 1 person.

Earlier you said:

If you want to be part of a modern society it would be the best option to use as little resources as possible and try to improve society as a specialised worker, not as an (inefficient) farmer & hunter.

I was just giving you a little ribbing!

There's no easy answer. I don't think living far out in the boonies (bunkerville) is going to work. I don't think living in a large city will be viable either. I live in a town of around 10,000, 15 miles from a city of 180,000. I don't know if this is the right location, but it's where I am and will hold until something gives. Fallback is to a more rural location with land, but not the boonies.

[Pops]

(btw, .some people in this forum seem to -hope- for a collapse, I don't....)

I think both PO and AGW are bait for environmentalists with extreme views as well as a few Luddites and assorted misanthropes but I haven't noticed an urban/rural preference.


Anyway I was going to point out a few downsides to rural living. These are mostly about current conditions:

First off it's rural, which by definition means away from city lights, nightlife, galleries, trendy clubs and restaurants, espresso/cigar/sushi bars, shopping malls, spas & sports clubs, ballet lessons... the list goes on. I think this is where many people get the idea that rural means more miles, which I guess it does if you are simply a suburbanite with a big yard and long commute. For us it isn't much of a problem, there was a time I made pretty good money and we went out on the company dime when out of town but never enjoyed it enough to spend our own money on going out much. It's important for some people though and as long as the music plays I think they should stay and party.

Second, it's rural. There are no street lights, there are animals wondering around other than kitties, roosters crow, bulls whistle and bellow, tractors rumble by, depending on which way the wind blows you might get a whiff of fresh mown hay or dead calf, you are responsible if the well quits/the leach lines back up/the pipes freeze, and the neighbors are... rural.

But finally, it's rural. When there is a storm you are usually down the list to get the lights back on and the roads plowed (actually that isn't correct, our roads are always plowed but only the primary roads in town are plowed). Depending on how far out you are or maybe how poor the area there may be problems with emergency services, we called the FD soon after moving in (the house was hit by lightening and a propane leak caused a minor kaboom) and they showed up fast enough that if there were a fire discovered in an early stage they would probably save it. Ambulance response is slower too, we have 2 ambulances in town so they are pretty quick but it's a 20-30 minute ride to the ER.

We're about 5 miles to a little town, but it has all the basics of survival, McDonalds, gasoline and beer! Actually there is a Taco bell and KFC too, plus a hardware store and lumber yard, groceries, pharmacy, auto parts, couple of docs and dentists. Downside is not much selection, not that there is much anywhere anymore outside Super Walmart but if it isn't a really common item you gotta wait 'till you have enough errands to make a trip to the big town - or wait for the mail.


I've said at least a dozen times here that living rural isn't for everyone and in fact probably isn't for many. But here is something I probably haven't said enough; living rural isn't a plan B either, being frugal and rural takes lots more experience, skill and practice than steppin' and fetchin' on a "job" - so unless it's where you came from or you are going to make it plan A maybe there is a better alternative.

Someone linked to JMG earlier and I think this post is apropos.

[vision-master]

There are better day-today bargins close by in the big city. There is this little store about 2 miles away were I can get two loafs of good (day old) bread for $1.

Also, the scooter works great in town where speed limits tend to be from 30 to 45 mph. Filled up again yesterday - under $3.

The list goes on and on, better bargains to be had in the big city.

~just sayin'

[DomusAlbion]

I took the decision to get to the country some 35 years ago. I was in grad school at USC and contracting at various IT shops in the LA area. The incredible complexity, over-crowding and automobile culture of Southern California was a clear message to me, someone that grew up in a small western (and rather unique & privileged) town that modern urban life could not be sustained, nor was it good for the human animal.
There are too many variables ; too great a disparity of populations/incomes (just imagine Beverly Hills and Compton, CA not more than 20 miles apart by road) and too much dependence on importation of goods from outlying areas. It's a bomb waiting to explode and LA has several times within my life.
The decision taken does not always result in immediate action, however. I went on to live and work in NYC and saw the same problems only on a much more compressed and heightened scale.
Eventually I got back out West but not until I lived in some large population centers and experienced the same dread. I love the culture available in the city and often thought that if I were a multi-millionaire that having a condo on the Westside in New York would be great for several months of the year.
Some 15 years ago I left the Puget Sound, moved to a smaller city in Eastern Washington and telecommuted to my Seattle firm; still there were too many people and too many of the same problems.
Finally we made the move to the country and I couldn't be happier. There are some downsides - mostly the remoteness but there are huge upsides - one of which is the remoteness.

[thuja]

Rural people will all die miserably, sad and without any friends. City people will all live prosperously and without a care in the world post-peak. There...its over. THE DEBATE IS OVER!

[cephalotus]

...being frugal and rural takes lots more experience, skill and practice than steppin' and fetchin' on a "job" -...

frugal living is possible in the city, too. No matter if you have a well paid job or not.

I live on 60m² in the upper store of a 5 store building, so my "footprint" for my home is only 60/5 = 12m² + a small amount for the stairs, etc...

I don't own a car. If I need one I can rent one, the nextcar sharing station is 200m away. I can walk by foot to the public tranport system and to the main station, I can reach almost everything within my town (500,000 people) by bike. The public transport system (the tram run on electricity) also drives during the night.
I go shopping with my big backpack and I do not mind to carry 30kg, if I need to (would be more difficult if I would be older)
I once had a 500m² garden within the city (not to difficult to obtain one), but I simply lacked the time and the will for such a huge area (imho). I can grow some vegatables on my windowsills and on a public place near my flat.

My heating bill is extremely low, because I only need 1.000-2.000 kWh of heat during on year. I keep the temperature low during winter, that's fine for me. Heat comes from the "waste heat" of a natural gas fired power plant. my electricity useage is roughly 700-800kWh/a with electric cooking, washing machine, netbook, TV and so on...
(I use an additional 1.000kWh for lighting my carnivourous plants = hobby).

So if gas, heat and electricity prices rise by a factor of 10 I wouldn't hurt me.

I'm far from perfect on my resource usage (I eat a lot of meat for example and every few years I take a plane to a country far away) and if the supermarkets would be empty tomorrow I will get hungry after roughly 2 months. (I have 1 months of food and another month of emergency food, just in case). On the other hand I live quite well on my 40 hours/week job as an engineer with 6 weeks paid holiday (and 1-2 weeks extra holiday for compensation of overtime work) and when the sun shines I'm walking down to the beach and will sunbath instead of building a shelter or feeding the chickens.

My earning is only average but I keep my fixed costs quite low, so I can save roughly 1/3rds on my income and if I would need a car tomorrow I just would by one in cash. That's also some kind of freedom, at least in current times

Why living a post peak oil live today if it isn't a post peak oil world yet?

I do have the typical preparations like bail out backbag, food storage, small solar system, drinking water filtration and desinfection system, two bikes (one electric), camping equipment, some emergency cooking options, first aid kit, gold, silver, money in cash and even gasmasks + protection suits. (I will add some emergency communication system in the near future, too).

I do feel well prepared for most situations, if the cities will go under I will try my luck in the rural areas (i.e. my parents home) and I assume that in such a scenario millions of people will move from city to rural areas.
After WW II farmers in Germany have been forced by German government to share their food with the people living in the city. In many cases they had more and better to eat, but hoarding and hiding food was punished.

If you believe in scenarios where living in cities will not work for most, how long do you think such scenarios will last and do you thing that (millions of) people will die of hunger while the government and military will sit idle and watch?

My scenario is that peak oil will be a problem of money. People will not be able to heat their home at 23°C, they will not be able to afford commuting long distances and probably they will not be able to afford even basic health care. But those that have or earn enough money will still have everything, not matter if they live in the city or in the countryside.

Just do the maths. Multiply all your energy costs by 2,3,5 or 10 and ask yourself if it would hurt you. If you like, multiply the price of food also by 2,3,5 or 10 and do the same maths.
I could afford food prices 10 times as high as today and energy prices 10 times as high as today IF I CAN KEEP MY JOB. Of course my home would not be very warm in that scenario and my diet would be a bit different than today (more wheat, less meat...) but I wouldn't be hungry.
I assume that 95% of the people could not continue their current live on a 10-fold of energy and food prices, so I doubt that prices can get higher than this even in the worst scenarios (except apocalypse).

[DomusAlbion]

Rural people will all die miserably, sad and without any friends. City people will all live prosperously and without a care in the world post-peak. There...its over. THE DEBATE IS OVER!

Well thank you, Dr. Buzz Kill. I guess you're right though, Thuja. You do live in that beautiful (but moist, moldy and chilly) city of Portland. I guess I'll just go out and spend my sad and miserable life wallowing in the mud with my pigs.