Urban vs. Rural Post-Peak Living

[vtsnowedin]

Bottom line is that we are going to face dwindling resources at higher cost. Would you rather live in an area (urban) with 2,000 people per square mile or an area (rural) with 200 people per square mile? Your choice.

I suppose 200/sm meets most people's definition of rural but I would find any more then the 30/sm I live in now a bit to citified for my taste.

[Lore]

There is a point at which you need just enough of a population for local support. Too many and the burden becomes overwhelming for the resources at hand. Too few threatens personal safety and food security in the other direction.

[vtsnowedin]

There is a point at which you need just enough of a population for local support. Too many and the burden becomes overwhelming for the resources at hand. Too few threatens personal safety and food security in the other direction.

I fail to see where having too few people would ever be a problem until you get to an Adam and Eve situation. As to too many people for a given area you must also consider what can be both imported and exported to pay for the imports. No man is an island and no post peak community will live in isolation for long.

[stephankrasner]

There is a point at which you need just enough of a population for local support. Too many and the burden becomes overwhelming for the resources at hand. Too few threatens personal safety and food security in the other direction.

I fail to see where having too few people would ever be a problem until you get to an Adam and Eve situation. As to too many people for a given area you must also consider what can be both imported and exported to pay for the imports. No man is an island and no post peak community will live in isolation for long.

Yes! I'm glad someone brought this up. To survive post-peak you can't be a loner. The gangs of people in cities others talked about in earlier posts are one method of survival. They are also not "brainless" they will most likely have a leader who knows what he is doing.

Living in a "rural" area will not protect you either if you are alone or only have a few people around you. Those same gangs and or caravans of migrants looking for food will most likely have larger numbers than your camp. While they may not have the means to drive, they can most certainly walk, people have migrated that way for tens of thousands of years. Whether they come with an open hand or a loaded gun, you will most certainly have trouble keeping them away from anything you are farming or storing.

The only way I see to be absolutely safe would be to start a colony/kool-aid club east of the cascade mountains. But this is way extreme! The happy alternative would be to join a farming community that is already established now, 30mins to an hour outside a medium sized city, and build a strong relationship with both law enforcement in the area and your immediate farming neighbors. Friends in these areas who are already self reliant and have useful trade skills are extremely valuable. It is much more comfortable and way less dangerous to have a functioning community than a bunker in the middle of the woods. There are easier things for the masses to feed on than a tight knit town.

Also, on a side note, after the crash, continued security will also depend on charity in the form of teaching the skills you know to the unskilled. While many may have their eyes and ears shut now, they will be open to guidance down the road. In a best case scenario people guided by you could create another sustainable community nearby offering further support and safety.

[davep]

Good post, stephankrasner. I agree that joining an existing rural community is probably the best option (well I would do, because that's what I've done!).

There are a couple of towns with a couple of thousand people within about five miles. This is more than enough to establish an effective militia if needed.

[vtsnowedin]

Good post, stephankrasner. I agree that joining an existing rural community is probably the best option (well I would do, because that's what I've done!).

There are a couple of towns with a couple of thousand people within about five miles. This is more than enough to establish an effective militia if needed.

The difficulty will come in the time it takes to organise a militia and set in place it's leadership and authority to use force when needed. Here you could assemble a hundred rifles overnight with just a few phone calls but no one present would have any authority to break any current law and current law vests such tasks to the State police and the National guard under command of the state governors. Of course if invaders are sacking and pillaging the houses in the next town over you might not want to wait for orders from the capital.

[davep]

Good post, stephankrasner. I agree that joining an existing rural community is probably the best option (well I would do, because that's what I've done!).

There are a couple of towns with a couple of thousand people within about five miles. This is more than enough to establish an effective militia if needed.

The difficulty will come in the time it takes to organise a militia and set in place it's leadership and authority to use force when needed. Here you could assemble a hundred rifles overnight with just a few phone calls but no one present would have any authority to break any current law and current law vests such tasks to the State police and the National guard under command of the state governors. Of course if invaders are sacking and pillaging the houses in the next town over you might not want to wait for orders from the capital.

Good point. We have a local Gendarmerie that could be some sort of hub for leadership once things get too much for them to handle on their own.

[Lore]

Good point. We have a local Gendarmerie that could be some sort of hub for leadership once things get too much for them to handle on their own.

It's normal for any functioning community small or otherwise to already have established authority in place. For the most part, human nature abhors chaos and anarchy, which is why groups form in the first place.

I really don't buy into intelligent roving gangs of any great numbers pouring out of cities. For the most part they would be tactically inept out of their own environment, untrained, undisciplined and unskilled. I’d be more worried about ex-military types forming militia.

[Pops]

... after the crash...But this is way extreme!

Hi Stephan, welcome.
Not picking on you here but I think you've uncovered the biggest misconception and stumbling block for planning for a post peak future.

I'm going to say, just for the sake of argument, that the "crash" is happening right now. In fact it's already happened for millions around the world. They've seen their net worth drop, lost their job, gone on aid of some kind, been put out of their homes, etc.

I'm also going to say that there will be such a wide difference in how individuals are affected as to make the "crash" pretty well invisible for a long time. This isn't necessarily because some people "prepared", but simply because incomes, local economies, governments, etc, are unique and more or less vulnerable to the effects of peak oil. But more than that, we all have a tendency to think things are going keep going on the current path and kind of ignore signs they aren't.

I lived in one of the hardest hit areas of the real estate crises.



Most of those "sales" the last couple years are actually title transfers - foreclosures, quit claims, etc and lately it's people buying up those foreclosures for rentals. That area was so hard hit because the market was dependent on commuters to sustain the property values - it's obvious from the chart that high gas prices hurt values there way before other areas had even peaked.

Unemployment there is now 25% and home values have dropped 60% - those are great depression numbers. But even there, for the people who still have a job, things haven't changed much. Sure, gas and food prices are higher, credit is harder to get, they probably are more thrifty, taxes are going up and gov services down but it certainly doesn't look like the Great Depression from their perspective.


So what am I blathering on about? A couple of things, first, don't bet on a big headline announcing:
The End!

The announcement will more likely be the pink-slip in your pay packet.

The "crash" will not be of the Orlov collapse variety for most of us. The Soviet economic "system" fell apart because in was a monolith directed from the top. So called "free markets" are for the most part self organized - if you see a need and can make a profit by filling it you do it, that is a much more resilient set-up at the little guy level.

Big headlines like '08 are to be expected but they don't really have much to do with the average guy, they are just numbers that journalists can hang a headline on. For example, the average guy had already seen the writing on the wall back in '07 while the "experts" were still pumpin' and dumpin equities, derivatives and whatall':




I think it is a real mistake to think me and my neighbor will agree on exactly when it is "after the crash". The uneven "pink-slip distribution" means there will be pockets of relative wealth most everywhere for a long time, certainly enough to support order at the very least. And a big part of "order" is frowning on vigilanteism. Don't forget one man's militia is another's - well - militia.


I'm not saying there won't be the occasional OK corral, just that planning for the wild wild west is probably a waste of time unless you're just entertaining fantasy.


[[edit: ... or basically what Lore said ]

[stephankrasner]

Good post, stephankrasner. I agree that joining an existing rural community is probably the best option (well I would do, because that's what I've done!).

There are a couple of towns with a couple of thousand people within about five miles. This is more than enough to establish an effective militia if needed.

The difficulty will come in the time it takes to organise a militia and set in place it's leadership and authority to use force when needed. Here you could assemble a hundred rifles overnight with just a few phone calls but no one present would have any authority to break any current law and current law vests such tasks to the State police and the National guard under command of the state governors. Of course if invaders are sacking and pillaging the houses in the next town over you might not want to wait for orders from the capital.

I think that complete lawlessness like sacking and pillaging will be unlikely. We may not have access to fuel, power, and food but the military will. Martial Law is more likely if it gets really bad. Big cities and their immediate surrounding suburbs will be the first to lock down. I think you would have more to fear from greedy commanders that want to take from communities in the name of the Fed. Even that fear is a long-shot, especially if the Fed has enough provisions to keep their forces happy.

In either case, nobody has to use traditional landlines to communicate. Radios don't require much power, and can easily be used to warn local town leaders of surrounding danger. Any local/state law enforcement leader worth his salt will also be smart enough to know that they should not rattle the cage of their food and provisions suppliers. Bureaucracy takes a backseat in survival mode.

[stephankrasner]

I think it is a real mistake to think me and my neighbor will agree on exactly when it is "after the crash". The uneven "pink-slip distribution" means there will be pockets of relative wealth most everywhere for a long time, certainly enough to support order at the very least. And a big part of "order" is frowning on vigilanteism. Don't forget one man's militia is another's - well - militia.


I'm not saying there won't be the occasional OK corral, just that planning for the wild wild west is probably a waste of time unless you're just entertaining fantasy.

No offense taken. You bring up a valid point, the decline may very well be slow, which in the long run would be the best, and safest way to get through the oil crash. I completely agree that mad max style anarchy or even caravans are highly unlikely.

Even in this case I think it is still better to live in a tight knit rural, sustainable community. Most likely if you live in one of these types of towns, your neighbor will be on your wavelength no matter what the outcome. As prices slowly rise and people in towns completely dependent on oil decline, ultimately your community will be a leader for the surrounding areas.

[davep]

I’d be more worried about ex-military types forming militia.

That is the scariest of scenarios. I don't think a local militia should even take them on directly or they'd get destroyed.

The only hope in that scenario is asymmetrical warfare with a bit of long-range sniping (hunters are particularly well-adapted to this, and there are plenty of them where I live) and the likes of IEDs/Claymore clones. I'd never want to meet these people face to face.

[thuja]

Pops...always a voice of wisdom. I don't think I need to add the two cents I always say here about Rural vs. City...but here's another thought...

Life is short.

If you enjoy farming and living simply off the land...make it happen. And if culture, the arts, diversity, great music and restaurants are your thing...enjoy living in the city.

In other words, enjoy doing what you love. Why force yourself into survival mode just for the sake of surviving?

[vtsnowedin]

[I think that complete lawlessness like sacking and pillaging will be unlikely. .

Unfortunately history is replete with examples where you are completely wrong.

[Pops]

Unfortunately history is replete with examples where you are completely wrong.

There are also historical examples of humans playing golf on the moon.

Still, when it comes to actually doing something about preparing for the future, I rate practicing with my short irons pretty low.




... ditto for live-fire drills defending my melon patch from Soccer Moms Gone Bad

[vtsnowedin]

There are also historical examples of humans playing golf on the moon. Still, when it comes to actually doing something about preparing for the future, I rate practicing with my short irons pretty low.

... ditto for live-fire drills defending my melon patch from Soccer Moms Gone Bad

I'm usually with your position on almost every post so I think there is a miscommunication here but (To be argumentative) there is just one and only ONE example of men playing golf on the moon and there are hundreds of recorded examples of cities being sacked with perhaps thousands of equal examples left unrecorded by the burning of records that sacking raping and pillaging a city usually involves.

[Newfie]

When it comes to 'fast crash' or 'slow crash' none of us really know what will happen in any given area, or even globally.

I do tend to think that we have gone past the summit and are now tending downhill. The slope is slow and wobbly..........so far.

Will it stay that way? Maybe. Hopefully. Assuredly? Nope!

My biggest concern is the financial market thingy. I stipulate to being pretty stupid about that. But the one thing that I have taken to heart is that the whole global financial system works on trust and trust alone. When that is sufficiently shaken then almost anything can happen. And what happens does not need to be logical, logic may well have nothing to do with it. And it can be fast, very fast.

That is where it gets really interesting.

The question, in my mind, on the urban vs. rural question is; where will my chances of survival be better?

Frankly I don't know, and the answer may be it depends. But, if I had to bet, I would bet some version of rural.

[Pops]

I'm usually with your position on almost every post so I think there is a miscommunication here

I'm just saying there are only so many things I can be sorta good at and spending the considerable time and money and for that matter the head time, to become - at best - a middle-aged, near-sighted, pot-bellied, paramilitary poseur - in preparation for the very slim chance law and order might evaporate - is not a priority for me.

But that's just me, if someone else thinks government is on the verge of not showing up to work tomorrow and thinks owning (and getting good with) all sorts of "rattle" is valuable, more power to ya.

In the overall matrix of what I think might happen and what I can reasonably do something about... it would be a huge waste for me.

[davep]

to become - at best - a middle-aged, near-sighted, pot-bellied, paramilitary poseur

I just knew I shouldn't have posted that pic of myself with the shotgun

But, seriously, i do think being tooled up in a rural environment is prudent. This doesn't necessarily mean that I intend taking on the zombie hordes, just that it may deter perps who could otherwise just come and take everything including the lives of my family.

See also: big scary dog.

[pstarr]

I am soooo glad this thread took a turn to the interesting. God! I miss those zombies and raiding parties and all the lovable survivors this place used to attract. What happened to the gun forum? (by the way. wasn't AMC great this weekend!!!!! Patton and Pearl Harbor and Midway all on one weekend and for free. Who was your favorite stone-cold killa? George C. Scott or those cool Japanese Admiral dudes in Black Full Dress?)