Not the impression that you are too lazy to farm but that you have decided that your course of action (remain with the city, count on mega-efficient farms) is the prudent one, and that, furthermore, the idea that people can be self-sufficient is delusional. What I believe you have done is transposed the lifestyle of today (non-mobile agricultural) to a lifestyle that would be necessary to be completely self-sufficient (nomadic hunter-gatherer).

There are three things you need to be completely self-sufficient:

1. A favorable location - nuts, fruits, roots, greens, etc that can be gathered. Access to clean water. Enough resources for other animals to consume so that you may consume them. Almost anyplace can be a suitable location with the proper knowledge, though some defy reality (parts of the Sahara, the Antarctic, etc).

2. The phyical ability to be self-sufficient - Able to walk, manipulate objects with limbs and digits, mental capacity to ration and reason.

3. The knowledge of how to be self-sufficient - what to eat, what to avoid, how to follow migration of other huntable beings (birds, deer, whatever), how to find or construct shelter and clothing, etc.

That's it! If you have those 3 things you can be self-sufficient. Does it mean you'll be hunkered down on your suburban plot with a nice garden? Unlikely, although not completely impossible. But you could survive with the above knowledge.

That doesn't mean it's a smart way to survive. It is smarter to utilize the resources of others to reduce the workload on the individual and provide specialized skills that are not present in each individual. For example, when my wife & I go backpacking, I can carry the tent and the cookware, while she carries the food. When I go alone, I have to carry everything. I can carry everything but it's a bitch!

Like anything, however, there is a point of diminishing returns. If a huge mega farm is the most efficient way to come up with most of the food, is a megacivilization the most efficient way to support most of the people? My guess is no. What happens when a locust swarm happens to land on this spot and eats everything, or some plant disease wipes out the whole crop because of lack of diversification? In my little garden, because it's just big enough for me to tend, I can have 10 different crops in a 20x20 space. The efficiency in mega-anything is gone when you start diversifying.

For the record, I'm one of the people that thinks we're going to have a few spikes and a gradual decline in most things rather than a total collapse.

On your original post, I think that without a huge reversal (this is in the US) of the development of our prime farm land close to the cities (remember most cities were placed in favorable areas), homesteading will be necessary for most people to survive. For most of civilization the vast majority of us have been concerned with where to get our food, water, and shelter. If we can't reverse the trends of suburbanization to return that land to utilization in forests, pasture, and farmland, it will likely be impossible to feed everyone in the cities. As it is right now we can't feed everyone in the world. Millions of people starve to death every year because there's not enough food, or no way to get enough food to them. Missionaries did the easy work of bringing vaccinations to the third world, but haven't yet figured out a way to economically bring enough food to support those who would have died off previously.

I agree with most everything said here. Self-sufficiency is a highly relative term -- I don't think anyone here wants to go off and be a hermit. I don't think that's a very good strategy for survival, either.

The way I see it, we're way past the point of dangerous dependency, and need to work on sliding back to a point where we're at least somewhat comfortably independent. This does not mean heading for the hills, or living in caves, or all of the incredibly silly notions that people have about those who seek to live outside of civilization's dependency scheme. Rather, quite the opposite. In most cases, those who become successfully independent are those who live in supportive communities, those who sought a gradual transition, etc.



That's actually not quite true. We CAN feed everyone in the world, it's just not economically profitable for us to do so. And the mechanics of food production and globalization (what you refer to as "missionaries") are surrounded by myths. Here are some good links on those subjects.

Side note: Global Issues is an excellent site, but as yet unaware of Peak Oil. Wonder if we should send something to them...

That is what I meant, which is why I qualified it at the end of my sentence with "economically". I should have rewritten the paragraph but I was too lazy . And I mean missionaries in a broad sense; not simply religious conversion outfits but also peace corp workers, humanitarian aid groups, et al. Generally anyone that goes "there" from "here" to intervene in some way (I would say help but the verdict would be out as to whether or not convincing natives that their religion is bunk is 'helpful').

I know what you meant by missionaries... most of my links are about food aid.

The First World thinks it is so enlightened, we tend to interfere and screw things up all over the world, thinking we're being helpful. Or worse, knowing that we're not being helpful, but doing it anyway -- for the profit and power gained from the dependency of other nations.

Hi Ghog,
My intention was to have a discussion about peak oil issues, not to nitpick my or anyones motivations for posting, or their overriding philosophy. That kind of discussion is not useful. Take my posting as having honest intent, if not then I can't, and don't want, to convince you of anything.

Blech

Yea, sometimes it’s hard to get off on the right foot, especially on a topic with so much seemingly riding on it.

Just like going to a new school as a kids, the folks you get into a fight with on the first day may wind up being your best friend down the road.

Blech, if you want to stay in the city here are some resources on urban survival.

that website is great and has probably been mentioned here before.

Understand, this forum is full of sensitive subjects. Some touch on turning simple lives upside down, others on moral issues, and ultimately not everyone will agree. As this is a public forum, like any other, it is prone to pranksters. When I saw your 'conflicting' posts and numerous threads started by you in a very short period of time (7 in under 2 hours), I got a little suspicious. Call it nitpicking if you will, but I was only trying to see if you were serious. Especially when I see two different threads titled 'How Tech Won't Save Us' followed shortly by 'How Tech Will Save Us'. See my point?

Anyway, I'm sure you will continue to add to these forums in a positive manner. I 'm here in the interest of learning and contributing. If that means I teach someone something worthwhile, then great. If that means I learn something worthwhile (and I already have ten times over) whether it's from your post or someone elses, then great! To me, this is forgotten. Hopefully you accept my 'reasoning' as truth, along with a sincere apology (sorry) and can do the same.

You have some insiteful ideas. Keep it up, although I disagree with you on staying in the city. That will continue to be debated by more than just the two of us. Have a good evening.

Blech has brought up good points, some of which can be easily addressed, others require more thought on location.

1. "Self" doesn't have to mean that one's farm produces everything; one can trade with other farms and craftspeople.

2. Danger, with two legs: I too believe that marauders will be the biggest danger of an otherwise working farm. Yes, people will have to group together and form their own alert system and militia. Dogs are helpful here, but are more mouths to feed.

I currently have a farm, an energy efficient house powered by solar panels and heated (partially) with passive solar. The family has a Prius and an Insight, though we like to bike as many places as possible. I vanpool to work. We have a thriving garden (sheep manure is fantastic fertilizer).

But we are far from self sufficient. Draft horse is in the plans, though we have to build a stable first. Then acquire the horse drawn equipment, harnesses, etc.

My parents both grew up on farms during the depression, so I know it can be done with little money and lots of hard work.

I started the apartment dwellers thread. TSHTF doesn't imply a nuclear holocaust or other event that eliminates the social order. A depression can very easily be considered TSHTF, with a LSSS beginning at that point and heading downward.

Yes, planning calls for moderation, but it also calls for preparing for the worst as best you can.

I like this guy!

I can imagine that it would be extremely hard to change from city life to farm life, especially if you're married, have kids, job in the city etc. The thought of being anywhere near self-sufficiency seems very hard to people like me who didn't grow up on farms and whos skills are all technology based.

From my perspective, it would be many times easier and more realistic to instead learn about how to store food today so you can survive any major catastrophe. For example, if there is some world-wide event, and there are shortages for many months, millions of people will die. Once the population is much lower, there will naturally be much more supply available, either through the normal means or from the government.

While it may not be wise for everyone to try to change their whole life and become a "self-sufficient" farmer, we can at least learn about storage and consumption issues, and prepare to outlast most other city/suburban dwellers until the supply chain's fill up the stores again.

And if there is no major catastrophe that causes millions of deaths, then by getting out of debt and having low expenses will help you buy the limited resources that everyone is going to be competing for. If you do neither of these, then you will not survive any better than your other city/suburban neighbors. Even though I'm in a big subdivision, and have done very little to prepare so far, I feel like I'm already better off than 90% of my neighbors.

Speaking of self-sufficiency, does earth have an ancient alien-technology installed meteor protection system ?

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/i ... tion1.html

There are powers-that-be that infiltrated and took over our government(s) have been around for a long time. They are not friendly towards the rest. Survival will entail taking care of that threat in a group manner.

People are born just about completely dependent and many end close to that.

Lot's of reasons not to bug out and be isolated. This forum for instance is helpful...

Blech -

on an historical note, the farmer/author /activist John Seymour, who launched the "Self-sufficiency" movement with a book of that name,
was himself unsure of the title given the farmer's utter reliance on a host of other trades.

Possible alternative titles ranged from "Community self reliance" through to "Traditional mixed farming" but none seemed more satisfactory than the one he finally chose.

I think he'd be much amused to find it as a subject of international discussions via computors so many years later.

regards,

Backstop

I hope it will be clear why this thread reminded me of the following essay:

http://www.oilcrisis.com/whatToDo/decline.htm


We're talking about a different dichotomy here, but I think the point about considering a range of possiblities is still relevant.

Rhetoric is often polarized, but I think reality is rarely so polarized. Peak Oil in particular is FULL of polarized rhetoric. "Self sufficiency" is a topic that similarly deserves exploring, not just in the extremes. (but it's certainly not the only one.)

I also think that looking beyond extremes in thought is a really necessary part of considering a transitional process. As mentioned above, taking steps away from dependency and toward increased self-sufficiency is probably a good thing. This certainly doesn't require a belief that one should or even can become "truly" self-sufficient to see that the steps still provide a benefit.