[ENER] PEAK OIL - Current Update

[Bill P]

Has World Crude Oil Production Peaked?
by Joseph Dancy, LSGI Advisors, Inc.
Adjunct Professor, SMU School of Law
September 10, 2003



In 1956 American geophysicist M. King Hubbert completed his analysis of future crude oil production in the United States. Hubbert’s work was groundbreaking because it combined geophysics with statistical analysis, projecting the trend of domestic oil production levels for years to come. Hulbert predicted that production would follow a bell curve: production would go up, but it would inevitably peak and then start to decline following a bell curve pattern.

The math told Hubbert that the peak of U.S. production would occur in the early 1970s, clashing with the conventional wisdom of the time. Amazingly Hubbard was right: U.S. oil production hit its high in 1970, then started to decline just in time for the OPEC-induced oil crisis.

Ken Deffeyes, a Shell Oil company engineer who worked with Hubbert, was impressed by Hubbert’s methodology and predictions. At the time Deffeyes was one of the few people who took Hubbert's prediction seriously. "I realized that a contracting oil industry was not a good career prospect," he says, "so I decided to get out and go into academia."

Deffeyes, now a retired Princeton University Professor of Geology, recently revisited Hubbert’s study of U.S. production trends to attempt to identify when the world’s crude oil production will peak. The results of his inquiry was published in 2001 in a book entitled “Hubbert's Peak.”

Consequences of Peak World Crude Oil Production

The peak of world oil production has profound economic implications. In 2002 crude oil accounted for 39% of the energy consumption in the United States. U.S. oil demand has climbed on average 1- 2% per year since the late 1980s according to a report prepared for the Bush Administration, and worldwide demand is also increasing. Natural gas accounted for 24% of U.S. energy demand, with coal accounting for 23%.

Increasing worldwide production of crude oil year after year over the last century has fostered impressive economic growth, especially in developed countries. Even today, looking at worldwide statistics, five of six global inhabitants use virtually no energy. The one of six who live in a developed economy use a considerable amount of energy.

Rates of oil production tend to accelerate, experts say, until about half of the oil reserves are drained from the oil fields. From that point forward, oil is produced more slowly and more expensively. The point at which production stops accelerating and starts to slow down is known as the production peak.

If world crude oil production should peak, or begin to decline, the law of supply and demand would mean that prices for the product will increase substantially. This increase in price will be global, and will create “chaos in the oil industry, in governments, and in national economies” writes Deffeyes. Short term solutions will be few and costly. U.S. dependence on crude oil imports is “incredibly large” and growing, adding to the problem.

Deffeyes’ Conclusion – When Will World Oil Production Peak?

Examining the data and analysis several different ways, Deffeyes reaches a conclusion with far-reaching consequences for the entire industrialized world. The conclusion is this: somewhere between today and six years from now worldwide crude oil production will peak. After that, higher prices or chronic shortages will become a way of life. The 100-year reign of crude oil will be over, along with the economic growth that it nurtured.

Using "reasonably accurate [world oil] production inventories" Deffeyes provides an educated guess on the total amount of world crude oil that will be produced. This method was used successfully by Hubbert in his prediction of the U.S. production peak. The inventory method, as applied by Deffeyes, determines that world crude oil production should peak in 2009.

Deffeyes also uses an alternative method used by Hubbert, "fitting parallel curves to the cumulative production and to discoveries (cumulative production plus reserves)" to determine the date of peak production. This method predicts that peak production will be in 2003.

Several other analysts began applying Hubbert's method to world oil production starting in 1995, and “most of them estimate that the peak year for world oil will be between 2004 and 2008," writes Deffeyes – very close to his estimates.

Other Recent Analysis – Simmons & Company

Investment banker Matthew Simmons of Simmons & Company, a close advisor to the Bush Administration, concurs with Deffeyes’ analysis. They note that many scientists agree that peak production occurs when around “the best 50%” of reserves are gone, and note it is very difficult to project an exact date or recoverable percentage before a production decline occurs.

Simmons notes that the rate of decline of crude oil production has increased as smaller fields are developed and technology increases production rates. Many major oil fields are producing more water, a sign of resource depletion. Economics can increase the amount of reserves recoverable, but the rate of production is more difficult to affect.

Simmons claims that his “analysis leads me to worry that peaking is at hand, not years away.” He admits he may be wrong, but if he is right “the consequences are too serious to ignore.”

Recent Developments

"Hubbert’s Peak” was published in 2001, and Deffeyes stands by his conclusions today – except for one fact: several weeks ago he said he was wrong about world production reaching its peak midway through this decade. He now claims that it probably has already happened - in 2000.

"Production in 2001 and 2002 was down from 2000, and 2003 is not off to a great start. After 2004, the rest of the world's production capability will have dropped enough so that opening all the valves in Saudi Arabia will not catch up to the year 2000."

Solutions

Although world oil production should peak at some time between 2000 and 2009, Deffeyes observes that none of our political leaders seem to be paying attention. Even oil companies are not buying up existing oil fields that they would if they believed the prediction.

Using the latest technology has not helped increase overall production as the discovery of new oil fields has declined sharply since the 1960’s. Some geologists argue that the new technology has only shown that there isn't much oil left to be found. And most oil occurs between 5,000 and 15,000 feet underground – deeper than this and the heat generally causes the hydrocarbons to become natural gas – so drilling deeper is not a solution.

Over the next decade, if crude oil becomes more expensive, natural gas will probably be the most attractive hydrocarbon to substitute for oil, at least for electricity generation and heating. It is relatively clean and by all estimates plentiful – on a worldwide basis anyway.

But production of conventional sources of natural gas appears to have peaked in the U.S. in the 1990s – but huge natural gas reserves and productive capacity exist worldwide. Liquefied natural gas can be imported into the U.S. to meet projected energy needs, but the infrastructure costs for such facilities will be measured in the billions of dollars.

"In a sense, the fossil fuels are a one-time gift that lifted us up from subsistence agriculture and eventually should lead us to a future based on renewable resources," Deffeyes concludes.


©http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2003/0910.htm 2003 Joseph Dancy

 

[Bill P]

IEA: Oil stocks are dangerously low

By Elio Ohep of Petroleumworld
CARACAS 09 10 03
Petroleumworld.com

The International Energy Agency warned in a monthly report on Wednesday that oil stocks are dangerously low, getting industrial nations economies at high risk by pressuring prices and making markets volatile, reported AFP.

"In a period of increased import dependency and geopolitical uncertainty, reduced inventory levels expose the global economy to elevated risks associated with factors such as weather and even small supply disruptions," the Paris-based agency said, AFP reported.

Industry oil stocks in the OEDC nations were at the bottom of the range seen over the last five years as northern hemisphere moves into the winter season, when oil consumption rise for heating purposes, the IEA said.

The situation is worse by the current low level of spare production capacity estimated at one million barrels per day (bpd) and this is feelt by strained inventories, and has resulted in record gasoline prices for US motorists, the IEA said.

The IEA said "Lower industry stocks contribute to higher average oil prices and increased market volatility: someone benefits and someone pays."

The IEA report also said, that the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries was likely to hold its production quotas steady for now, quoting OPEC and market sources.

Claude Mandil, IEA executive director said on Monday that oil prices were too high, calling on OPEC increase production.

OPEC is to meet in Vienna on September 24 to decided on production quotas. At the last meeting, on July 31 it decided to leave its production ceiling unchanged at 25.4 million bpd.

Meanwhile, oil prices were stable Wednesday waiting with the of the release of US inventories data later in the day, reported news agencies.

By Elio Ohep, Petroleumworld Editor, editorpw@hotmail.com, 58 412 996 3730.

Petroleumworld News 09 10 03

 

[Todd]

What folks on TB2K better understand is that there isn't any societial alternative energy fix as petroleum and natural gas poop out.

TB2Kers might want to start with Ted Trainer's September 2003 report, Renewable Energy: What are the Limits? http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D74.Renewable-Energy.html It is 60 pages long and reviews the energy available from a variety of alternative sources. To quote a post from Ted on the ER forum regarding his paper, "In general renewable energy sources will not be able to sustain industrial-affluent-consumer-capitalist societies at their present levels, let alone those economic growth will lead to."

Energy available from alternative sources is fully documented in this paper. It's not a perfect paper but it is more comprehensive than you will find anywhere else.

Spend the ink and paper and print Ted's report out and read it if you are serious about the future.

Ted (and Bill I assume) push a concept called the Simplier Way. I disagree with this in many ways but that is my problem and it will not impact your better understanding of options.

Todd

 

[Bill P]

Hi, Todd,

I quite agree with what you have posted.

But just want to add that "The Simpler Way" is not the only future alternative.

Nuclear fusion technology has the promise of providing fantastic energy returns quite capable of displacing fossil fuels.

But currently the fusion energy obtained has a 1:5 ratio to the enregy required to contain a plasma and initiate a fusion reaction.

And there is not much I can do to impact the outcome of fusion R&D.

Nuclear fission could buy some time and slow the Decline but it carries its own obstacles: disposal of the toxic waste, the eventual depletion of uranium, long lead times fropm conception to start up and adampt local opposition from the NIMBY people.

IMO coal is quite likely going to be the "alternative energy" of the near to intermediate future, initially I expect that the CO2 from increased coal burning will be accepted as a necessary evil until which time global warming becomes a much more critical issue.

Conservation, while rational, only extends the time until Peak Oil is reached and probably allows an increasing population resulting in a harder Fall when the fossil fuel limits are reached.

My examination of this issue lead me to conclude that:

1. The current system which relies on fossil fuel is unsustainable.

2. Depletion of fossil fuel is already limiting economic growth and will soon take on greater significance as the supply is limited and becomes increasingly unavailable at any price.

3. The best way to increase ones individual probability for surviving a transition to a more sustainable system based on renewable energies is via a group effort that permits some degree of specialization and division of labor.


As long as current military ventures maintain a balance of power and some semblance of status quo, I am confident that the full impacts of Peak Oil are perhaps 5 - 10 years in the future leaving some time for planning and appropriate action now.

I know you disagree with PT 3 above as you prefer an individual response to these threats. I applaud your actions but wonder if in the end you might not need some help in confronting the threats. I think you will agree that you are already in a reasonably sustainable situation barring major shifts and that if a major shift does occur you could count on your neighbors. I would submit that you are already in a sustainable community of the type whiuch I am advocating.

 

[Kris Gandillon]

And to add as always...

Never forget the thousands of non-energy, petroleum-based products for which we also do not have a ready alternative.

There is much work to be done to develop sustainable alternatives to not only the energy side of the "Peak Oil" problem but also for the petroleum-based plastics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, lubricants, etc., that will begin to become increasingly more costly or disappear altogether.

This problem is much bigger than just energy.

Kris

 

[Todd]

Bill,

This might be a great thread to open up discussion on what I call "individual" sustainability versus your "community" sustainablity.

You and I totally agree about the future. Our disagreement centers upon how best to deal with it.

I know of your involvement with CSA but I don't know about your background so I have to assume you are suburban and have never spent a great deal of time in a rural area.

1. There appears to be an assumption that a community will allow for a division of labor, that is, jobs. Therefore, my first question is, Where will the resources, whether non-renewable or not, come from?

In the long term, the only resource is the sun and products of the sun. I would give more credence to a division of labor were it stated that the communities would mine abandoned cities.

2. Based upon my experience as a semi-urban, suburban and rural resident, I cannot conceive of a community having a positive ERORI. However, it is assumed that this is the case.

You posit ecominiums. Simply pumping water to an upper floor takes more energy than pumping to my one story house. I walk 100 feet to my garden and orchard. A multi-family community cannot do this and still allow for other land uses.

A community requires high quality resources. I can live well on my 10gph well but it would be useless for even 10 families.

I can harvest all my wood for heating by walking if necessary. A community would require significant woodlands were wood a major source of energy and have to use some kind of powered equipment to bring it to the community.

3. There is an assumption that individuals would live indenpendently, outside of a community. Yet, both historically and currently, co-operation is the name of the game. There were the threshing circles of the 20-40's and every ranch around here works together to gather cows today. The difference is that I run my place as I want without direction from a community. If I fail, that's my problem.

The best example of this are the Amish where there are individual operations but community co-operation when necessary.

4. All of the community schemes seem to be located in some sort of Galt's Gluch where the weather is great and lots of resources at hand - all it takes is smarts to tap them.

I read a post of yours on another forum where you were talking about making steel. Well, it took 10 acres of trees to make 1 ton of steel and that's assuming you have some kind of ore around.

5. I am not going to trust my very survival to a bunch of people who probably don't know much. I'm not snipping here but it seems to me that anyone with any smarts would have already made a decision to protect themselves rather then relying upon a group of people who also didn't have the foresight to do anything.

I won't expand at this point since I don't know whether a discussion will ensue.

You and I are peas in a pod - just opposite ends.

Todd

 

[Bill P]

Todd,

You assume correctly, I currently live in a suburb of Cincinnati on a 3/4 acre lot on a cul de sac. My employment is in process optimization for heavy industry, mostly iron and steelmaking.

I have a close friend that has a 22 acre horse ranch and a sister in law that has a 16 acre former-farmstead and I have been working with a local CSA to learn more about organic gardening and sustainable design.

I dont see that the vast masses have the option to do what you are doing. Heck, I dont have the wherewithal to do what you are doing.

Nor do I see the masses just rolling over and going quietly into the night of post-Peak Oil Decline. Nor do I plan to sit and watch the Decline.

I think there will eventually be a stable and sustainable society based on Flows - solar, hydro-wind, anerobic methane, bio-gas , bio-diesel etc.

But Transition to a sustainable society will IMO be a rocky road where statistical probaility is against survival - various sources I read suggest Earth's carrying capacity based on renewable resources and organic agriculture will be 1-2 billion - far less than the current 6.3 billion planetary human inhabitants. The USA will IMO be the hardest hit because we use the most and are the most dependent on fossil fuels for our auto driven distributed society. I expect to see a lengthy deterioration with rising unemployment, social and economic chaos, financial collapse, wars and anarchy leading eventually to a stabilization of a new society based on Sustainable principles.

I am looking to work with others to

A. leverage investments for example:

$100,000 low head hydro unit like that recently described in BackHome Magazine is beyind my means but could supply electricity for a small village.

B. Provide some security in numbers:

The CSA I worked with had hoped to profit from growing extra garlic for local markets but apparently other local growers saew the same opportunity as the local price for garlic fell such that the CSA had a lot of garlic that they could not sell or even give away.

Also, with the Decline I expect to see threats to fixed locations from roving bands of marauders and there would more security in a group defense.

C. Model after a for profit per share corporation:

I see the CSA model as a workable framework for community development:

The greater community would invest and buy shares with funds used to support the first movers aka colonists. Similar to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1600s. The first ,movers would set up appropriate technologies that could be expanded to fuel community growth. In turn, the first movers would receive addes upport from the other investors in the terms of capital and sweat equity investment.

D. Organize more specialties and workers so that there are synegistic effects greater than one individual could hope to achieve. I am not highly motivated for subsistence farming, but believe I could work well with others to achieve a higher than subsistence level of prosperity based on renewable technologies.

E. Preserve the technolgies and know-how that can be used to build a sustainable future society from the decay of our current unsustainable situation. I am 50 years old and expect this process to evolve over a life span longer than mine or others lifetimes, so this is also an attempt to preserve some of what may be useful today for those that come after us tomorrow.


As far as "mining abandonded cities"; one of my recent interests is in scouting out historical museums that demonstrate useful technology that can be imitated or transplanted post-Decline. An example is the 1930s display at the Cincinnati Museum of a steam boiler fired machine tool shop making bolt action carbines from stoick to finish/ Also, the Kentucky Horse Park in Lexington has full working blacksmith and farrier shops for smithing and leatherworking. These crafts are all part of what I see as a sustainable society.

As far as steelmaking, I hope in the previous post you reference that I said that I didnt see a renewable energy source capable of making steel. I am quiet aware of the old blast furnaces still standing in SE Ohio that were fueled using local charcoal to reduce local iron ore for limited ironmaking.

I also see opportunity for "modern technology" like aquaculture and hydroponics in a sustainable community.

I see that what you are doing today is well ahead of what I hope to do and is the only practical and reasonable response to a coming (in short order) decline of complexity.

 

[Bill P]

Todd and others,

This recently posted article from the EnergyResources @yahoogroups list IMO underlines the need for a group response to Peak Oil. The Decline will impact everyone in ways yet unforeseen. I do think it Too Late to Save the World as We Know It, but not too late for individuals to wqork together for their common good.


"If it's any consolation, I repeat what I have said in this space in previous rants: that we are headed into a social and economic maelstrom so severe, as the people on this earth contest over the remaining oil and gas supplies, that everything about contemporary life in America will have to be rearranged, reorganized, reformed, and re-scaled. The infrastructure of suburbia just won't work without utterly dependable supplies of reliably cheap oil and natural gas. No combination of alternative fuels or energy systems will permit us to run what we are currently running, or even close to it. The vaunted hydrogen economy is, at this stage, a complete fantasy, and at the very least there is going to be an interlude of severe disorder and economic discontinuity between the unwinding of the cheap oil age and anything that might plausibly follow it."

For the original article:
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/oo/curmudgeon/index_curmudgeon.html

~~~~~~~~ Start ~~~~~~~~
Big and Blue in the USA
by James Howard Kunstler

Having just returned from a week in England where, among other things, walking more than ten yards a day is quite normal, I was once again startled by the crypto-human land whales waddling down the aisles of my local supermarket in search of Nabisco Snack-Wells, Wow chips, and other fraudulent inducements to "diet" by overindulgence in "low-fat" carbohydrate-laden treats. And they did not look happy.

To say that Americans are shockingly obese is hardly a novel observation, yet it is discouraging to see so many of your fellow citizens in such a desperate and unhealthy condition, and I'm sure it is even more discouraging to be in such a state. Related to this is the recent disclosure that one-third of all Americans are taking prescribed antidepressant medications, specifically the SSRIs of the Prozac family (Selective Seratonin Re-uptake Inhibitors, including Zoloft, Paxil, and Celexa). That's one out of every three men, women, and children! The American media routinely regard the scandalous levels of both obesity and emotional distress here with befuddlement and even indignation, as though it were inexplicable and even unfair that such a friendly, generous, valiant, humorous, and enterprising folk as we should be so mysteriously afflicted with The Blues.

Have any reporters noticed how we actually live here in America? With very few exceptions, our cities are hollowed out ruins. Our towns have committed ritualized suicide in thrall to the WalMart God. Most Americans live in suburban habitats that are isolating, disaggregated, and neurologically punishing, and from which every last human quality unrelated to shopping convenience and personal hygiene has been expunged. We live in places where virtually no activity or service can be accessed without driving a car, and the (usually solo) journey past horrifying vistas of on-ramps and off-ramps offers no chance of a social encounter along the way. Our suburban environments have by definition destroyed the transition between the urban habitat and the rural hinterlands. In other words, we can't walk out of town into the countryside anywhere. Our "homes," as we have taken to calling mere mass-produced vinyl boxes at the prompting of the realtors, exist in settings leached of meaningful public space or connection to civic amenity, with all activity focused inward to the canned entertainments piped into giant receivers -- where the children especially sprawl in masturbatory trances, fondling joysticks and keyboards, engorged on cheez doodles and taco chips.

We've sunk so much of our national wealth
into a particular way of doing things that we're
psychologically compelled to defend it even
if it drives us crazy and kills us.

Placed in such an environment even a theoretically healthy individual would sooner or later succumb to the kind of despair and anomie that we have labeled "depression" in our less than honest attempt to shift the blame for these predictable responses from our own behavioral choices and national philosophy to some more random "disease" process. But the misery is multiplied when these very behavioral choices -- inactivity, isolation, and overeating sugary foods -- lead to disfiguring obesity on top of despair. And it must be obvious that I am describing a self-reinforcing feedback loop that generates evermore personal misery and self-destruction.

Another way of looking at our predicament is as the result of a high entropy economy -- entropy being provoked by huge "free" energy "inputs" in the form of a hundred years of cheap oil, and entropy being expressed in forms as varied as toxic waste, ruined soils, and buildings so remorselessly ugly that the pain of living with them corrodes our souls. Depression (despair and anomie) and obesity are as much expressions of high entropy as the commercial highway strips, the Big Box stores, the housing subdivisions, the hamburger chains, and all the other accessories of the wished-for drive-in Utopia.

It doesn't help, of course, that this entropic fiasco of self-reinforcing feedback loops, and diminishing returns have been labeled the American Dream -- because neither patriotism nor all the Prozac in the world will immunize us from the consequences of our own behavior, our foolish choices, and our self-destructive beliefs. This particular American Dream more and more looks suspiciously like a previous investment trap -- we've sunk so much of our national wealth into a particular way of doing things that we're psychologically compelled to defend it even if it drives us crazy and kills us.

It was interesting to note over in England how many people were out enjoying themselves in the public realm, with other people. By public realm I mean in the streets, the cafes, the pubs, the parks, the riverside promenades and other places explicitly designed for humans to enact their hard-wired social proclivities. Everywhere I went in Oxford, Cambridge, and London I was amazed at the hordes of young people so obviously enjoying the company of groups of their friends, and what a contrast this was to the current culture back home where you hardly ever see anything but a couple, or perhaps two couples, out in a bar or restaurant, and where the Starbucks cafes are filled with solitary individuals, and the streets are for cars only, usually with lone occupants. It was also startling in England to see groups of old people walking together in the streets or sitting on a blanket in the park, because in America old people have been conditioned to go about outside of home only in cars. Today's older Americans have spent their entire lives in a car-obsessed culture in which walking is seen as uncomfortable at least and at worst socially stigmatizing, something only winos do.

In Europe, people make 33% of their trips by foot or bicycle, compared with 9.4% for Americans. American suburbanites weigh on average 6 pounds more than their counterparts in walkable cities. They have higher blood pressure, are more susceptible to diabetes, and live two years fewer on average than Europeans. Pedestrians in the US are three times more likely to be killed in traffic than in Germany, six times more likely than in Holland. Bicyclists here are twice as likely to be killed in traffic than Germans, three times as likely as Dutch.

Statistics hardly tell the whole story, though. The emotional toll of the American Dream is steep. What we see all over our nation is a situational loneliness of the most extreme kind; and it is sometimes only recognizable in contrast to the ways that people behave in other countries. Any culture, after all, is an immersive environment, and I suspect that most Americans are unaware of how socially isolated they are among the strip malls and the gated apartment complexes. Or, to put it another way, of what an effort it takes to put themselves in the company of other people.

This pervasive situational loneliness, of being stuck alone in your car, alone in your work cubicle, alone in your apartment, alone at the supermarket, alone at the video rental shop -- because that's how American daily life has come to be organized -- is the injury to which the insult of living in degrading, ugly, frightening, and monotonous surroundings is added. Is it any wonder that Americans resort to the few things available that afford even a semblance of contentment: eating easily obtainable and cheap junk food and popping a daily dose of Paxil or Prozac to stave off feelings of despair that might actually be a predictable response to settings and circumstances of our lives? (I'd add pornography to the list also, a substitute for sex with other real people who cannot be accessed in the condition of pervasive situational loneliness).

How depressing.

If it's any consolation, I repeat what I have said in this space in previous rants: that we are headed into a social and economic maelstrom so severe, as the people on this earth contest over the remaining oil and gas supplies, that everything about contemporary life in America will have to be rearranged, reorganized, reformed, and re-scaled. The infrastructure of suburbia just won't work without utterly dependable supplies of reliably cheap oil and natural gas. No combination of alternative fuels or energy systems will permit us to run what we are currently running, or even close to it. The vaunted hydrogen economy is, at this stage, a complete fantasy, and at the very least there is going to be an interlude of severe disorder and economic discontinuity between the unwinding of the cheap oil age and anything that might plausibly follow it.

We will be driving a lot less than we do now and cars will generally be a diminished presence in our lives. The automakers and the oil companies can lobby all they like, but history has a velocity of its own, and it is taking us into uncharted territory where the GM Yukons and Ford Excursions will be useless. When the suburbs tank, they will go down hard and fast. The loss of hallucinated wealth is going to shock us to our socks, and the fight over the table scraps of the 20th century is liable to entail a lot of political mischief here in the USA.

The physical arrangements for daily living will have to be revised and re-ordered accordingly. We're going to have to return to traditional human habitats: towns, villages, cities, and agricultural landscapes. We will have to walk out of necessity, or at least ride some places with other people. We may be too busy to indulge in the blandishments of television and the other entertainment narcotics we've become addicted to, and even the Internet may be made irrelevant in a world of regular brownouts. We may have to grow more of our food closer to home and do some of the physical work ourselves. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a Cheez Doodle bush. We are going to be living a lot more locally and thrown on our own resources.

We're going to have to do this whether we like it or not, because circumstances will compel us to. There may be a lot of hardship and difficulty, but in the process we are going to get some things back that we threw away in our foolish attempt to become a drive-in civilization. And most of these things we get back will have to do with living on more intimate terms with other people, getting more regular exercise, eating better food, leading more purposeful lives, and rediscovering the public realm that is the dwelling place of our collective spirit. Paradoxically, when that happens fewer of us will need Prozac or the Atkins diet.

Photos by Jason Houston

James Howard Kunstler harangues OrionOnline readers regularly. He is the author of The Geography of Nowhere and Home From Nowhere. His newest book is The City in Mind: Notes on the Urban Condition.

kunstler@aol.com

Support your local independent bookstore!

Curmudgeon Archives:

Do Food Additives Cause Republicans? by Dante Langston
Signs of Dimentia by Seth Zuckerman
NPR.ORGY by Sally Eckhoff
Maul of America by James Howard Kunstler
No Such Thing! by Jane Holtz Kay
Man in Nature: The Fiasco of Suburbia by James Howard Kunstler
The Road to Hell is Paved by Chet Raymo

Copyright 2003 Orion Society. Reprint requests

~~~~~~~ End ~~~~~~~

 

[Bill P]

Todd,

I reread your post and think I have a better understanding of our differing opinions:

WE both agree that the current fossil fuel dependent, complex society is not sustainable.

You make a favorable argument for building a survival effort on the one solid building block that you can control - your own homestead. I would say this has a complexity of 1. And modern society might have a complexity average of 1000 give or take alot.

I am looking for a sustainable solution less complex than the current over extended society but with a complexity > 1 say about 100 - 120 so every one does know each other and everyone can contribute a specialty for synergistic effect of greater prosperity and increased probability for survival.

 

[MinnesotaSmith]

Good thread...

I wish to emphasize above all that prepping for the coming feces storm(s) is largely pointless if you don't relocate appropriately. Availability of resources, and low #s of nearby people (both in & out of gov't) inclined to take what you have by force are the 2 main issues IMO WRT location.

 

[Todd]

Bill,

At least we are in the same ballpark age-wise, I'm just about 65 and, perhaps, we aren't that far apart on technology.

I certainly utilize a ton of technology - my current level is probably well above your projected 100-120. But I recognize that it would not be sustainable generationally. This is why I have argued on other threads for alternatives that can be produced on site.

I truly believe that one can have a satisfying life without most of the stuff we have today by taking our current technology and adapting it.

But there are still differences. For example, a division of labor concerns me. Aside from assuming that there are resources available to allow a division, how do you ensure an egalantarian (sp) society?

I don't mind expending effort doing dog work like cutting firewood, working in the garden or doing mechanics on my place. However, it would fry me if there were a group of people who never shared equally in this work because of "expertise".

I also question whether a small community, 100 families or so, can really support a division of labor since there would be such small demands. For example, once houses were built, what would a carpenter do? Same thing with blacksmiths.

Returning to my Galts Gulch analogy above, there are many areas that will allow a good life but don't lend themselves to "communities". My mountain region is one of them (and it obviously influences some of my thinking). There are many natural resources ranging from game to forests to an OK, but not great, climate.

I am also close enough to the ocean, 25 miles or so, to hike for fishing.

However, this area does not lend itself to concentrations of people. My 57 acres can support no more than 8 people. It takes 40 acres of unirrigated pasture to just run a cow-calf pair (and other areas of the US would give their eye teeth to stock at that level).

As far as the masses go, I just don't see more then a few people heading off to the boondocks with the exception of nukes or a plague. My rationale is that the cities will still have more resources and what is left of the goverment will provide some kind of food.

The Bay Area is the closest major urban area to me. It has a super climate and you can grow anything, there are fish in the bay and ocean, it is close to the central valley, etc. Why would someone leave that for an area like mine which gets snow and a climate where you have to understand growing to get good crops.

I really want to pursue the technology and EROEI aspects of individual versus community but I have to eat breakfast so I can irrigate. I'll take some time this afternoon to continue this.

Todd

Edited to add - I grew up in northern Ohio and went to college in Granville. My HS girlfriend attended Miami U in Oxford so I got down your way.

I've also lived in NJ and DE.

 

[Ultrconservative]

Bill P and Todd.

I read your exchanges and infer that, you both are headed in roughly the same direction.

My observations of "sustainable communities" are that, they are successful as long as the goals of the group, are largely consistent with the goals of EACH and EVERY individual in the group.

My observation of human nature is that no two individuals will ever have common goals for more than the briefest periods of time. Eventually, one will become slighted by the inadvertant action of another. Or as in Todds' example, one will tire of doing the hard labor while those about him endeavor to forward the community by a more "white collar" type of labor.

The failure of almost all "commune" type societies demonstrate this failing of human nature, over and over again. Only limited success is possible and all eventually fail, as resentment and discontent festers within the community and members either leave or resort to violence, or worse, to right their perceived wrongs. Read this thread for a very good demonstration of this fact. http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77034

In a smaller group, with less divergent goals, some success is possible, but in a group of 1000 or more people, just the administrative duties would become onerous and counter productive. A large, extended family could probably do well, as there is typically one person (usually the father or grandfather) to which all other family members answer, and who is the undisputed "leader" of the group.

I base our sustainability on only what I and my wife can produce. I also avail myself on the labor of freinds, family, and certain nieghbors......but I never intrust my or my wifes' life to those people. If I absolutely need something in order to survive, I will obtain it/grow it/harvest it/make it myself.

In short, on the topic of community vs individual surrvival, I have retained my automomy, but was quite particular about where I relocated my family in 1998. I.e. we chose to buy acreage in an area of Tennessee that has a moderate climate, far removed from any urban areas, and a fairly close knit...almost clannish, population. Nearly all the people around here are very self-reliant, hard working, honest and community minded. There is no doubt in my mind that if TSHTF, this community would band together in extremely short order for the protection of the citizens and to provide for the unfortunate.

As to generational sustainability, you all fail to remember that it has been less than a century since this country consisted of mostly rural agricultural communities. The growth of the suburbs and urban areas is largely a recent (50 years) trend....albeit one made possible by cheap petroleum energy. We are living in an aberation of history, a return to an agricultural type rural life style would be a return to the norm. A much welcome return IMHO.

Mind you, I am not a "technophobe" and I much enjoy many of the miraculous products made possible by modern society. But on the other hand I observe all the attendant trappings of modern life with a certain astonishment...astonishment that, seemingly sane people, would expend so much time, energy and effort to obtain and possess them.

This society consumes shoddy Chinese made JUNK by the container full. This society consumes oil wells full of energy heating and air conditioning poorly constructed McMansions that are grossly oversized for their inhabitats and for most of the day empty. This society provides so much excess and abundance that even the poorest of the poor are provided food, shelter, education, color TV and cable....and most of that provided free of charge or responsibility.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that this society could reduce or nearly eliminate its' energy consumption to a sustainable level with a few attitude adjustments, and habit changes that do not retract from the comfort level of its' citizens.

But, that is not the current fad. Bigger and bigger, fast and faster, more and more expensive...all the time. The Jones' have a 5000 square foot house with a pool so we most have 5500 square feet.

I am convinced that future populations will look back at the population of this time; shake their collective heads in disgust and say, "what the hell were those idiots thinking?......did they not realize the folly of their never-ending pursuits of nearly useless "STUFF"?".

Rather than veiwing the inevitable depletion of oil as a catastrophy, I view it as a opportunity to develope a lifestyle completely independant of petro products. A challenge of intellect, if you will. For every use of oil energy there is a renewable substitute. Rather than lament the lack or price of oil, I intend to experiment, find, and refine the substitute.

And this frame of mind has its' perks. For example, I can shoot the meter reader if he crosses my property line. I can thumb my nose at and/or flip the bird to the power company as I drive by.

Every time I drink my tap water I can be sure it isn't full of flouride or any of the other myriad of chemicals pumped into a city water supplies, all the while knowing the water is, for all intents and purposes free. And the same can be said for my food supply.

Rather than humping my butt at work to pay "this months" power bill, I hump my butt to pay for my hydroelectric power for the next couple of DECADES.

Rather than paying a huge monthly McMansion mortgage that sends the Banksters' kids to college, I will hump my butt and skrimp and scrounge to build a 1500 square foot house debt free that can be heated with a candle and cooled with a subterianien (sp) heat exchanger.

Well enough of my ranting...sorry to go so far off-topic.

 

[Todd]

UC,

No, Bill and I are not headed in the same direction. We both agree that there will be an energy poor future and that society as it is know won't survive.

Where we disagree revolves around the points you raised. I am for going it alone and want no part of group survival. I've lived in a rural area for over 30 years and everyone helps out everyone when needed. However, this is vastly different than a community of people who are trying to survive as a group.

Bill and I have carried on this conversation for some time. There have been several arguments made that a group offers a better chance at survival than going it alone, specifically shared resources, energy efficiency and expertise, that is, a division of labor and/or the ability to achieve something more than could be accomplished alone (synergy).

I rasised a few of my issues in my post above. Further, since I have lived a life similar to,(although vastly more energy intensive than would be possible in the future) the collapse scenario, I guestion whether a group of people with no rural living/survial skills could survive. I also question whether it is possible to arrive at a functioning group consciousness.

But my thrust is that I can see no way that a group effort will be as efficient as an individual one. Additionally, groups require high quality resources and the reason for my reference to Galts Gulch (This won't mean anything to you if you haven't read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.)and my well.

I'll hold off the rest of the energy stuff I wanted to discuss until Bill has had a chance to respond.

Todd

 

[Troke]

"....But my thrust is that I can see no way that a group effort will be as efficient as an individual one..."

As I have stated in other threads, we going to have an inconvenient 20th century experience, (high fuel costs, rationing forcing smaller cars, smaller house, public transport etc)

OR possibly a 19th century experience (that assumes law and order prevails, but no fossil fuels for the ordinary citizen)

OR a 6th century experience. (No law and order, everybody in fortified villages for protection.)

Most people here seem to do it backwards. They set up their preps based on what they can or want to do.

It should be the other way around. Figure out the scenario and then prepare for that.

At least one poster here is talking social chaos. That's 6th century, folks! If you are prepping for that, you are figuring on a village. A scattered rural population will never muster the manpower to defend itself.

Personally, I am expecting an inconvenient 20th century thing unless gov decides to do something to make it worse. One thing for sure, when the crunch comes it will be due to gov action, theirs or ours or both.

BTW, why are not the oil companies buying into the Hubbert thing? Surely they have geologists>

 

[Ultrconservative]

Todd,

I think that I agree with your asessment of the group vs individual.

Bill and I have carried on this conversation for some time. There have been several arguments made that a group offers a better chance at survival than going it alone, specifically shared resources, energy efficiency and expertise, that is, a division of labor and/or the ability to achieve something more than could be accomplished alone (synergy).

As witnessed by my diatribe above, I refuse to be lazy enough to accept that my friends and neighbors will solve the problems of my survival, or even, in fact, even bother themselves with the problem at all.

As to the arguements of synergy and division of labor, allow me to point out that synergy is something that evolves from personal interaction between like minded individuals with similar (note that I used the word similar...not identical) goals. It is NOT something that can be artificially created or mandated by some .Gov agency or law, or by a communes' bylaws.

I share a certain amount of synergy with a neighbor of mine......he incites me to riot at times and I incite him....we feed off of each others' knowledge, strength, and convictions.....no one else can seem to understand our passions, conversations and the eventual outcome of our shared explorations of physics, mechanics and plain old African American Engineering...if you will.

But our synergy provides us both with electricity far removed from any power grid...etc...just an example mind you. And furthermore, if we were both invited to a discussion of the topics at hand we would both politely decline, first because we are both extremely opinionated, and our opinions have been formed in the crucible of experience. And second because we don't get along well together. But, together, and in spite of our diametrically opposite approach to things, we create many wonderful things.

But at the end of the day, he retires to his castle, and I retire to mine. If my ideas carried the day...fine. If his ideas carried the day...fine.

But irregardless who carried the day, both of our families are fed clothed and sheltered, because neither of us would neglect the responsibility we have to do so INDIVIDUALLY.

That I can sometimes rely upon his experience and help is helpful. That he, his wife, and children can rely upon my help and experience is a given. That is how a HUMAN BEING treats a fellow human being, IMHO.

As to the "division of labor" point that you labor so,....well...how do I say this without aleinating the readers of this post?

......no, can't say that

......mmmm, better not.

......well maybe, but....

......Geez, this is tough, especially after spending so much time on the Ayn Rand thread today.

.......OK try this, Troke will probably have a heart attack after reading this, but after reading this he will realize that I DON'T CARE if his pragmatic retired ass likes it or not. .... mmmm...BTW I do like Troke.

A division of labor to me suggests that certain labor is of more value than other labors.

As a white collar worker (structural engineer), I recognize the value of an engineer to society.

As an unemployeed structural engineer who is scheduled to start driving a log skidder tommorrow, I also understand the value a blue collar log skidder to society.

Any one doubting the value of my work to society, needs only to read the muliple post today on TB2K regarding the difficulties in moving wood from the woods to the mills, due to this years weather aberations, and the addentant plywood pricing and unavailability due to this fact. I will be forwarding logs several miles at a time over trails that trucks cannot reach due to weather conditions.

Wether I am working as a skidder or an engineer, I am providing a service ( much to my distaste) to this society. My labor insulates my family from the adverice(sp) of the tax man, the child support people and the agents of the .gov, that would see my efforts result in naught.

As an engineer I have wrought many miracles, in many states from many poorly conceived architechs' designs. I have saved countless lives from countless ill-conceived fiascos' of design and planning, ingendering the wrath of countless clueless architechs while doing so. Examples of my work endure from California to New Hampshire, and include nearly every state between. And today they ALL stand, a mute testamony to my ability.

Given the above where does my value fall in your division of labor scale?

Am I a neccessary evil, or a vital cog in the machinery of modern society?

Am I better served to suck the teat of .gov and wait for meaningfull paying work as an Engineer?,

Or, provide a much needed asistance to a blue collar enterprise that manages to provide work to many local folks, in exchange for a very vital industry production ...required for those McMansions and Iraqui wars listed above?

How am I more equal?...as an engineer or a skidder operator?

And then you most extrapolate for me how you arrive at the descision that I am more valuable as an engineer than as an equipment operator.

And further, after you do that, you must explain to me why I am getting paid more to skid logs than, I am to design skyscrapers.

The answer to the above questions, of course, are that "some animals are more equal than others". Need I type more? Do you remember 1984. And do you now understand why I detest the phrase "division of labor"?

Whilst Bill P is struggling to maintain his trophy home in his trophy neighborhood, with his 3/4 acre lot...with his city water, electric,sewer, trash collection, lawn maintainence, and his long suffering .gov job and pension, I am suffering thru solving his sorry a$$ed sustainability problems....in spite of him. And when I solve those problems, he will be the last to enjoy the fruits of MY DIVISION OF LABOR.

I am as much an equal to the pig/horse/politician/.gov servant/JBT/ as anyone.

As much as I value Bill Ps' input to this discussion, I must impune his contributions as being academic, and without merit, and certainly without anything to add but the "chicken little" element.

His continued ascertations of the validity of the commune model are nothing less than absurd. His eventual failure has already been writ large in the failure of EVERY SOCAILIST ENDEAVOR IN THE LAST 500 YEARS.

But, I do wish him well, he is, after all, attempting to overturn every single rule of human nature that has ever been established with his singleminded attempt at self-suffieciency on a 3/4 acre plot in ?. I wish him nothing but the best.

Socalism doesn't work Bill, never has and never will. Quit expending your efforts to advance a system that will never bear anything but rotten fruit.

You are an, otherwise, cogent voice in the wilderness.....quit wasting it on those that care not, and care not to help themselves.

 

[Todd]

Troke,

In fact, it appears that petro companies are buying into the Hubbert thing. They are consolidating and reducing E&P.

There would also be no push for stuff like going into ANWR or going to the expense of deepsea drilling if there was lots of easy oil around.

Further, no one is arguing that petroleum will drop off a cliff, although this is likely to be the case with natural gas.

However, we do have a society structured upon the usage of huge quantities of these products. Further, as countries such as India and China industrialize, there will be even less product to go around. It is worth noting that boe (barrels of oil equivalent) has been dropping per capita globally for almost 30 years.

My view is that the US will collapse economically because everything is integrated around energy availability and there aren't any viable options to petroleum. (See Trainer's report linked above) I am unconcerned about the timing of this collapse but I do anticipate its occurance within the lifetime of most people on this board.

As I recall, you lived through the Depression and I was a Depression baby. I saw what happened to my family. I made a decision years ago that continuance of life-style was important to me. This led me to rural living.

Frankly, there is far more quantifiable information regarding petroleum then the presumed masses that are going to invade every nook and crany of the boondocks. Assuming a slow collapse, city people are going to stay where they are. I fully expect the government to nationalize food production and take over housing to keep people where they are, that is, forgive loans by assigning the property to the gov.

UC,

I agree that there are few examples of communities working and they aren't for me. I saw that in the communes around here that collapsed one by one. However, there are examples such as the Bruderhof that have worked. I'm willing to listen to Bill because there are people who might be able to make a go of one and this discussion might help them.

I am interested in the energy aspects of community not the social aspects. Energy is going to be where it's at regarding quality of life. I can't see how a community can be more energy efficient than I am. Perhaps Bill can shed some light on that.

I am not trying to convince Bill that he is wrong and he is not trying to convince me that he is right. We are having a discussion not a debate where there will be a "winner". However, discussions lead to better understanding.

Todd

 

[Bill P]

Wow - where to start?

First - UltraConservative - just for the record I dont have lawn service and I dont work for the .gov. I wouldnt consider my fairly average suburban home about 1800 sq ft to be a trophy McMansion. I did install an efficient heat pump in 1997 and beefed up the insulation in 1999. And I am aware that my current lifestyle and economic well being is not sustainable.

I agree with nearly everything you write, I too have deep reservation about communes and communism.

But there is in my opinion a wide spectrum of options between an individual homestead and a 1000 person commune; just as there is a wide spectrum of business options between a sole proprietorship and ExxonMobil.

I think the corporate model where shares are sold and the proceeds of a business are divided according to ones shares has merit in developing a solution to Peak Oil survivability and sustainability.

In a self sufficient survival community of people with different skills and needs I say there is merit and a need for an unequal sharing of inputs and outputs. One should participate in enjoying the outputs commensurate with their level of inputs. Some could gain shares through sweat equity other could invest in shares in return for a share of the produce.

For a long term and sustainable society, I believe the smallest workable unit will be the village as any homestead will require inputs not available from their homestead on a varying basis over time.

Dentists and doctors come first come to mind.

My hope is to design a system using appropriate off-grid and fossil fuel independent technology so that a level of social complexity is possible so that not everyone is reduced to a subsistence farmer/hunter/gatherer and to take advantage of the fact that there is safety in numbers. Some examples of appropriate technology would include:

A steam powered machine tool shop fed using wood from a renewably managed woodlot.

A blacksmith shop capable of making various horse/oxen drawn agricultural implements.

Energy systems, using for example low head hydro, where economies of scale for village level designs provide basic refrigeration, lighting, communication etc.

Underground, earth bermed houses for energy efficiency and safety.


Troke, Peak Oil will result in a steady year-on-year reduction in available fossil fuel. Conservation will slow the decline but not stabilize the decline. So I expect the 22nd century to be similar to the 1800s with the inclusion of any renewable technology invented since that is independent of the Grid and fossil fuel. like aquacultre and hydroponics.

Getting to a sustainable 22nd century is what I am trying to envision. The transition will IMO be a rocky one with a significant decline in populations.


Todd and UC, your individual efforts are excellent and I have no criticism of them. What I am trying to do is develop a workable larger system that will employ greater numbers of people in a synergistic design.

Are either of you familiar with L.E.T.S - it stands for something like Local Economy Transfer System or such and basically means a village keeps its own credits and debits according to ones inputs and use of outputs. A market is established on a small scale agreed to by the participants so that every transaction does not require a horse trading negotiation.

Todd,

I have asked for some reinforcements (other posters on other lists) that might help with insights on the ERoEI of individual versus village economies of scale.

For the record,

I am not interested in a commune for the exact reasons stated by you in this thread.

More soon.

 

[Todd]

Bill,

Yes, I'm familiar with LETS. Are you familiar with Ralph Borsodi's "Constants"? The intent was to tie "value" to a comsumable grain such as wheat. All of the information I saw reagrding this came from The Green Revolution magazine published by, I think, the Heathcliff commune in VA in the late 60's, early 70's. Richard something was the editor. I still have some issues around some place.

But, but, but...you are assuming there will be an economy that supports a LETS-type program. That kind of an ecomony requires not only natural resources but also energy. I don't see it happening generationally.

Let me use docs and dentists as an example. Over the years we have had a number of very close personal friends in medicine (GPs, surgeons, dentists, etc.) The realitiy is that their expertise is useless without the panoplay of medical stuff such as medicines, sutures, anethesia, x-rays/MRI's and on and on. There is simply no way that even a large community can produce these necessary elements. In reality, there is no way that even a series of related communities could produce them.

I was a process development manager, new plant start-up manager and plant manager in the chemical industry before moving to the country. I understand what goes into producing a sophisticated product and home brewing won't do it.

This is why I simply rejected Trainer's idea of the Simplier Way out of hand - he appears to believe that the rudiments of the 20th century can be continued on a sustainable scale generationally.

Now, I will agree that a community could hang in there for a while by taping into what remains of society - but not sustainably. If this is the case, why not bite the bullet and establish a community (or in my case, homestead) that can survive generationally right from the outset?

Let's say your community wanted to produce an anti-biotic. Technically it's pretty simple. But you need either glass lined vessels or 316 stainless ones. Tell me how your community is going to not only come up with the raw materials but also the energy to make these vessels? You need vacuum pumps and driers. You need temperature control systems. All of these items take resources and energy to produce.

You said that you foresaw a 100-120 technical level in the community you foresaw. But anything that we take for granted today has to go at that level.

I do believe that we can adapt today's technology. For example, absorbtion refigeration looks like something that could be continued. So are solar hot water heaters and a miriad of other things. But the end result would not be the same as today. It would permit a good existance and quality of life but many things accepted today would have to be foregone.

Todd

 

[Ultrconservative]

Todd,
I to enjoy Bills' input, and wish to continue in hearing and learning from it.

Bill P,

Sir, after rereading my post to you of last evening, I realize I have overstepped the bounds of civility.

I offer my humble appology.

In my defence I will state that we are typing about a matter that, I think, will have a huge impact upon the rest of all our lives. It matters a great deal, and the sooner it is addressed the better.

That said, and with much clearer understanding of your proposed community structure, I will grant that there is a much better chance at success with each individual having a vested interest. But, for many of the same reasons enumerated above, I remain skeptical.

For a long term and sustainable society, I believe the smallest workable unit will be the village as any homestead will require inputs not available from their homestead on a varying basis over time.

I must, once again revisit this ascertion, as it seem false to me.

At this point I could go into a long winded desertation about apathy on the part of community members, disparate needs and useage, lack of knowledge....etc. But I won't, that logg skidder beat the hell out of me today and I am ready to call it a day.

I will, however, state that every member of my family and extended family know, acknowledge and understand the need to conserve the resources I produce for them. For the sake of illustration, I will discuss electricity.

I can generate arround 6 kilowatts continuous 24/7. I choose, based upon historical useage to generate about 8 KWH/day.

When I am working, this is enough for lights, cordless phone, answering machine, ceiling fans, toaster, microwave, vacumn, clocks, TV and computer 24/7. I refridgerate with propane for now.

I also have 6 grandkids who love to visit because we have tractors, go-carts and neighbors with four wheelers and ...sigh.....Dawn and Wanda

As we are living in a single wide MOBILE home during the construction of my house, I bought a small camper for the grandbrats to stay in whilst they are here. I parked it about 800 feet from the trailer, next to the pond, and allowed them to decorate it and add a porch... etc.

And as a lark (and because I didn't have 800 feet of wire to string) I threw in a 75 watt solar panel and a single deep cell battery, along with a 600 watt inverter. Hooked it all up and told them they could use anything they wanted....but when the battery went dead......tough (inverter has a shut-off to protect the battery).

The week prior to the camper set-up, they came up and the youngest played their PS-2 at the house ALL DAY for a couple of rainy days. I was working but, did notice the extra drain on the house battery bank. I could hardly beleive that sorry assed electronic babysitter used as much juice as a TV, VCR and desktop computer combined.

Long story short, the next weekend, kids came back...brought the damn PS-2....Thursday night plugged it in, in the camper....20 minutes later, they unplugged it because of battery drain...........and never took the frigging thing outa its' case again.

Moral of the preceding story is, until the conservation of , and production of energy is a very personal subject, every one will assume it is merely a convenient commodity that flows from a plug in the wall.

Many times these children have seen me produce my electricty, and in fact, the eldest is second to no-one in being able to use my system. But, not until he was faced with the RESPONSIBILITY of maintaining his own system, and ascertaining the value imparted to its' use, (I made him responsibile for the camper, mind you) did he determine the uselessness of that inane PS-2.

They no longer bring it with them on visits, and I have not had to explain to them why I detest it since that day. Now one of their major goals is to purchase more batteries for their camper.....so thay can run a larger TV , ALL DAMN night.

But at least they have learned that much.

Point being, electrical conservation WILL NOT be done until bitter experience teaches us the value of the loss of the commodity. Same with gasoline consumption, air conditioning, heating, fresh veggys', clean underwear and new tires.

If, by forming a commune (or a similar co-operative), you remove the end user from the responsibilty of aquiring and facilitating the production of the energy they consume, they will take for granted that Bubba, or Geoge or Sam is gonna pump out all the kilowatts their PS2 can consume.....and they will consume as much as they wish, when they wish...even at the detriment to their own family or community.

It is human nature to take for granted anything that is easily aquired.

And that Sir, is why I continue to ascert that a community, or even a village, will never be more effeicent (sp) than a homestead or a family farmstead. Economies of scale aside, economies of VALUES ASCRIBED, are far more important.

And once again we return to the reason for the downfall of all socialistic endeavors (IMHO, this one included).

There is no linkage therein between sacrifice and return....no reward for hard work vs complacency.......no personal responsibility, or lack of reward for malfeasance.

Even a vested monetary investment in a community such as you describe, would eventually desend into a, "I'll get mine and you be damned" type of situation. Maybe not soon, maybe after a very long time....but, with-out a doubt eventually.

I do however Sir, wish you nothing but success, honestly.
I can think of nothing that would please this tired old jaded heart more than to see your idea succede.

5:30 comes early and my sorry assed old artharitic(sp) knees need a rest, I will respond after my 30 or 40 turns tommorrow.


Todd,

I see that you have added some comments, as I composed this fiasco, that I urgently wish to respond to.

But urgent for me tonight, means tommorrow....I am all done for today.

 

[Just a thought]

Thermal technology might just set us all free!!! Great strides and impacts are happening every day with our technology. It might just be that one single discovery that turns the tables for many people. The net can relay that info to people like ourselves who might be able to figure something out!

Ahh, the eternal optimist!!! I'm getting into thermal technology because it is cheap and shows great potential! Where it will take me I have no idea! So far the interdimensional time space warp drive hasn't been installed on my Beemer and I'm getting a little antsy!!!! Now if the stasis field would just hold up a few more seconds......


Communities are just that communities, and nothing more. All they do is increase the odds that whatever skill turns out to be necessary will be present. However, by their very nature in selecting suitable canidates, may exclude the very person they need the most!!! I'm more one to get through whatever happens and then pick and choose amongst the survivors as to who I will form links and bonds with to try and further civilization into the future.

 

[Bill P]

Bill P is attaching the input I received from others regarding my query to them regarding the ERoEI of individual versus group survival plans:

===============snip=================

I think there is a reasonably easy scientific method to look at the EROEI of groups vs individuals. The experiment is simple and involves no expense, but it would involve time. All you have to do is try and live independently of other people. You don't use anything that someone else has made or transported or even given information about. If you can go out essentially naked like this and make a good living for a cycle of seasons or two, meaning a good EROEI, enough that you could easily think about
reproducing, then you can come back to people and report that there is no EROEI advantage to groups, that working with other people is optional.

I've never heard of credible claims that this can be done. Survival classes are almost universally about staying alive long enough to get reunited with society again. If someone claims to be able to do it, the clear question comes, why did they come back? If it was so easy and fine, what is the attraction of coming back to put up with people again? Are psychological needs for company and reproduction not involved with having a good EROEI? If you become depressed due to loneliness and it is destroying your EROEI, that is a real problem. If you can't find someone of the opposite sex living a somewhat similar life and reproduce, then your EROEI is not sustainable, your way will die out. Even people who have studied and practiced primitive skills often find staying out for more than a few weeks to be extremely challenging, though, only in very forgiving climatesmis there even the chance of a skilled person going very long, and such places are already packed with people.

A positive EROEI would mean that you could deal with these people on your terms, not theirs. I have yet to see that happen.

I am also dubious about couples managing to be independent. You just don't see examples of this being done for very long, and when it is done, again you see lots of tools and supplies brought along that were made by others. If children are born, the level of needs rises and makes it even more difficult.

It is really pretty simple. I think people are interdependent on a physical and psychological level. I constantly see people talk about being self sufficient, but when I look at what they are doing, I see all sorts of artifacts they didn't make, but obtained in the present social structure. They are not self sufficient, and their awareness doesn't look very bright, either. People live together in the same way that a fire only works with several burning sticks, take the sticks apart and they burn briefly and then go out. People trying to live independently will do the
same thing. Individual survival strategies can work only as brief methods to prolong the flame of life until contact with others can be made again.

Maybe in the backs of their heads, this is really what individualists are thinking, that they will survive alone until things blow over and they can hook up with others again, replenish supplies. I don't like how they are going about this. I think it can be a reasonable strategy in some circumstances that the group scatter, but only with specific plans of where and when to regroup. Leaving such things to chance, with indefinite periods of being alone, looks to me like playing revolver roulette.

Arthur

PS. I don't think I want to join another list, but if you want to put this on it, that is ok with me.

=================end snip======================


This post mixes up some of my - Bill P's - words with Todd's as I believe the post is being done from the poster's memory. I am posting it as is (as it raises additional points for consideration) without any corrections by me - Bill P - to change the misquoted statements:


=================snip==========================

Community is ESSENTIAL to Sustainability

While an "individual" can be sustained, using life support methods which are "sustainable", absent cloning technology, an individual is not "sustainable". That requires some form of "community", if for no other reason than reproduction / genetics.

That said, it does NOT require communities as are prevalent in the U.S. today. Perhaps Todd could be won-over with the idea of a "high tech" (whatever we can maintain) village.

Has Todd ever been to Arizona? (re "All of the community schemes seem to be located in some sort of Galt's Gluch where the weather is great and lots of resources at hand - all it takes is smarts to tap them.")... While I'm looking for a location a little less harsh than Yuma, nevertheless I'm looking in a rather harsh area, which is part of my "security" consideration.

He is right in the aspect, we do not want to trust our survival to a bunch of people who probably don't know much... But that's the point of creating a community NOW. You in Ohio, I here in Arizona, and the rest in the varied "intentional community" world, are seeking to gather those who DO know things, who DO see the problems, and are ready, willing and able to put our personal time and money "on the line" to do something about it.

If all I cared about was my personal survival, or the mere lifetime of myself, my wife, and daughter, I could probably equip and stock a bunker, and disappear.

That solves nothing. It's a dead end.

A happy family, living in an earthship, with loads of spare parts, biointensive garden, etc., is a dead end.

Todd's clearly right, in that the vast masses do NOT have the option to prepare. Part of my fear re speed of preparations is that we're in a horrible game of "musical chairs"... But instead of chairs, it's the very factors for life support, clean air, water, food, clothing and shelter. SOME of the people prancing around in the circle are aware that the chairs are being taken away, or that they're broken beyond use... When enough people wake up, it won't matter whether the music has stopped or not, it'll be too late to act.

RIGHT NOW, relatively remote, yet useable land is still reasonably priced. The chunk of land, and some type of shelter, holding supplies, is at least a start on a "lifeboat". RIGHT NOW, it's still "affordable", even for a kid working slinging burgers. SOON, it will not be.

While Todd posits there will "eventually" be a stable and sustainable society based on Flows - solar, hydro-wind, anerobic methane, bio-gas , bio-diesel etc., he appears to fail to take any personal responsibility or initiative in ACHIEVING such.

If everyone digs their personal bunker, and thinks they can wait it out until the crash is over, and someone ELSE starts rebuilding, what it seems we end up with is a major crash, with disjointed survivors, who then have their own crash.

To the best of my scientific knowledge, I WILL grow old, forget things, and in general become less capable. "On my own", I die. In a community, I can at least hobble about and pull weeds...(I doubt the village will need a lawyer...)

I hope to see, and care for, my grandchildren, eventually. Though my daughter is at the present only 9, if I truely believe in the nature and extent of the coming crash, I need to position our family, and our resources, such that her future, and HER children's future, is as secure as I can make it.

The future NEEDS people who survive the crash healthy, educated, trained, and safe, with knowledge and life support intact. This requires advance preparation. This requires more than an isolated family.

The initial coming scenario is indeed probably social chaos. The government, in trying to maintain it's control, can be COUNTED ON to make it worse...

Todd seem to have associated attempts to create a miniature "community", with the word "commune". I'd not noticed such an approach in your postings to date...

Ronald.

================end snip======================

Todd and UC,

I can see merit to both individual and community survival planning AND that these efforts are not absolutely mutually exclusive.

Todd's point about surgery and pharmaceuticals is well taken.

During the Descent, I expect that these "most" valued technologies will continue to be available esp for the elite. Economic chaos and finacial pressure on .gov budgets will IMO reduce the availability of medical technolgies - first to the poorest and most needy and then to a growing number of unemployed and uninsured formerly mid - to - upper middle class families - myself included. Prepping for this may fall back to a Defense in Depth strategy of trying to maintain wellness using natural herbs and healing for which I personally am poorly prepared. This IMO illustrates the need for some specilization in a survival community.

In a devolved, stabilized society based on renewable energy, medical technology would receive a high priority for preservation and re-creation. I think life will be better than the 1800s but not as good as the late 20th and early 21st century.



I was reading the August 4 issue of TIME magazine yesterday which had an article about criminal activity - marijuana growing, meth labs and coke labs - growing in rural USA esp remote National Forest land due to our tighter borders post 9/11. It appears that this criminal activity is growing rapidily and is basically unchecked as the Park Service budget can only intercept about 10% of the growing activity. These guys have serious weaponry and will IMO pose a serious threat to both individual and group surival plans. The 2200s may look like the 1800s with sophisticated gangs posing the threat.

 

[Bill P]

Additional input from other lists that I queried:

========================snip===================

Focussing on ERoEI may or may not make sense, depending on the objective. Is the objective for the individual, or group, to
survive in perpetuity, generation on generation? Or just to save
their skins as long as they are alive? If the latter, then just
get all set up with the alternative power apparatus, the garden
and orchard, the various supplies (figuring on multi-decades, or
until you/everyone dies), etc., etc. But if perpetuity is the
goal, then it is a different ballgame altogether, and things like
ERoEI, and community, are critical. Also, the idea of a single
family making a go of it, in perpetuity, seems beyond the pale,
even leaving aside the problem of inbreeding, unless they are
(would be) satisfied with the crudest, most spare existence
imaginable. Division of labor, even before energy, is at the core
of everything that we call civilization. A single family can have
a division of labor, but barely enough to spit at, and nowhere
near enough to support even a drastically trimmed-back version of
civilization. I am assuming for the moment that something like
that ("drastically trimmed-back version of civilization") is
desirable, though I admit it is arguable.

Alan


======================== end snip===================

 

[Bill P]

More thought provoking input:


>Bill, have you though of investing in gold or other investment in the
>mean time?
>
>I've done some thinking about this, myself, and I've come to the
>conclusion that there is going to be a 'slow' decline. There will be
>opportunity to increase the value of your savings for quite some time.
>
>Even, for example, if there was only a five months decline into chaos.
>Money in gold would increase in value substantially in that time. You
>could buy the hydro unit then, and use far less of your resources to get it.

Michael- the problem with these ideas is, first, it assumes that the government won't nationalize gold (it's happened before). Second, and far more important in my experience, is it takes TIME- a lot more than you'd ever believe possible- to get even a basic, Luddite homestead up and running. Forget ERoRI for a few minutes, and instead think about much more basic figuring. Like the time it takes to get proficient enough (and the soil healthy enough) to get more than double your seed back on a crop. (If that doesn't sound difficult, or sounds like a lot, you've got a LOT more to learn about even the basics. Oh, this is NOT pointed at any one person in particular, BTW. Read it as the "generic you")

Figure the first 5 years after planting any varieties of fruit trees to be "investment time". Only after that will they start giving you somewhat reliable yields, and only then if you've mastered the basics of pruning, mulching (in severe climates) rodent control, deer control, and whatever you are going to use to guarantee that your apples won't have more protein (from moving objects) than vitamins...

Strawberries, brambles and other berries have shorter times before they bear- but also tend (not all) to have shorter lifespans, and need to be renovated or replanted more frequently.

PLUS- in the last two orders we've gotten from a very reputable nursery, over half the plants never grew at all. They are wonderful about replacing them free of charge, but that's still a lost year at the very least. This wasn't even possibly something we did wrong, either- they never even started to bud out after planting. DOA.

Livestock production is even more complicated in many ways. And the time-to-return can be nearly as long as fruit trees. Not chickens and rabbits, of course, but cattle and horses are not a quick "crop". And if you're considering using horses (or oxen) as draft animals, there is a huge learning curve to get somewhat safe and effective as a driver. And young animals aren't much more reliable than inexperienced handlers. The combination of the two can be- and often is- disastrous. For a horse, from the day the mare is bred until the foal is considered mature enough and well enough trained (IF they are started as mid two year olds and handled and worked daily- think about the time investment in that!) to be solidly usable without needing constant attention by an experienced driver/rider, is right at 6 years! Oxen possibly a year, or even 2 years less.

OK-
The other problem with even a "slow crash" (which I do believe is most likely, but I also believe we are about 5 years into it- it just hasn't been noticed much yet) is that getting tools for basic subsistence living is going to get harder. Harder because it's likely that, given the usual bureaucratic blindness, bungling and plain incompetence, manufacturers of those tools may well be considered "inessential" and given short shrift when it comes to fuel and material allocations. If people do see what is coming down the pike, the demand for those tools will go way up. They are generally made in quite small batches (I'm talking about horse drawn cultivators, manure spreaders and the like and *quality* hand tools like forks and shovels and hoes. Not the junk you can pick up at Wal-Mart that isn't worth your time), and ramping up production more than a nominal amount per year is not going to be easy.

And last, although the economics would seem to show a generalized crash in real estate, people who have a clue are likely to be focused on land which will support a homestead type operation- and there is only so much of that to go around. Right now, in south-western NY state, land prices (bare land, hills, brush, some woods, some tillable, much pasture) can be found for under $500 an acre.

Although deflation may well be possible, inflation is probably equally likely, and for many, it's going to be difficult to even keep afloat financially, even if their jobs are solid. Someone who is already on the land and learning can begin producing some of their own foods, increasing the amounts and variety of types every year. For years, I've heard people say that they can't be bothered gardening because "you can buy it cheaper" at the store. For some types of things- especially mass produced canned goods like canned beans and corn, that's still almost true. For lots of other things- especially high quality fresh vegetables and fruits- it isn't even close to true.

I figured up the "supermarket value" of the fresh veggies we ate here on the farm (2 of us, with a college age son eating some meals with us) over a period of a week, and it was nearly $100. For ONE week's worth of fresh stuff!

And we haven't even had a good year in the garden- it was way too wet. But we can easily go through 2 or 3 cucumbers, a couple of orange sweet peppers, a sweet onion or two and a small head of cabbage at a meal. At one point this spring, we were eating a quart of strawberries a day, mostly on the way to and from the horse paddock. I've been picking stalks of celery almost daily for various uses, and even though the tomatoes got blight from the weather, we've been eating several a day (plus about a pint of cherry tomatoes a day) and I've got a bushel in the dehydrator right now.

If you figure the amount of wages you'd have to earn before you could have that $400 a month in cash to spend on food, that garden is paying off pretty well.

Much of this gets into why Todd (at TB2k) and I and others who are "just doing it" are leery of even thinking of getting into a community situation
.
Many of us (most?) have made significant sacrifices in many areas of our lives to get as far as we have towards self sufficiency. I think we have a justifiable question about the commitment level of others who have stayed with the rat race, trying to get the goodies while they are still there, hoping that they can buy into the efforts, sweat equity and hard won experience of those who gave up on the "goodies" and put their money where their mouth is.

That is not meant in any way as criticism of anyone here. I've tried several times to put into words why I think a planned community (as opposed to a "community" of people living on their own homesteads and loosely connected by common values, beliefs and the ability to share some tasks which require more manpower) may not work. I probably haven't managed it again.

Linda
==========================================

Bill P comment: I agree with the above esp about a slow Decline that has already started. This means that available discretionary energy and capital needs to be focused on prepositioning and action now. It also points out IMO the need for a Group effort: I am sufficiently specialized IMO to be of contribution to a Group Effort, but I lack the genral skills and capital to duplicate what Linda describes above solely on my own.

I recall a point from Catton's Overshoot where Carrying Capacity can be improved by combining individuals or regions of differing specialities example: A network of survival communities or individual homesteads could trade excess production improving each ones survivability chances. EX: Cotton from Arkansas traded for corn from Ohio.

 

[Todd]

Bill,

Interesting responses.

First of all, let's be clear what I said and didn't say. I never mentioned stuff like bio-diesel, etc., only that a generational communinty or homestead would have to rely on solar energy as the power source. It is unrealistic to see machines with engines or electric usage of any kind (along with most of the stuff our society believes it needs) generationally because they will eventually fail or be unrepairable. Light bulbs are a good example of this. I do see things such as solar thermosyphon hot water systems. I do see the use of wood gas for a variety of uses.

I clearly have not been clear about my use of the word "homestead". I fully agree that two people would have a difficult time surviving as they age. The picture I had in my mind's eye was a multi-generational family. I know of several 3 and 4 generation families living successfully together.

When I speak of ERORI I mean, how much energy does it take to survive. Given the fact that energy is squandered in our society, I don't think it makes any difference how negative it is for the construction of a community or homestead. If I had the bucks, I'd build a gold plated homestead out of poured concerte with 316ss plumbing. (However, I did just order a book on concrete home construction.) Realistically, there will never be enough people becoming, or trying to become, self-sufficient/sustainable to make a dent in the energy picture.

I still feel that a community will not be as energy efficient as a homestead. A community requires significant infrastructure. A homestead does not. Resources are not at hand. Consider a community of 100 families or 400 people. And let's allow 5 acres per person for necessary resources (food, crops for clothing, wood or an alternative for heat, etc.). That's 2,000 acres or over 3 square miles. Five acres per person assumes high quality resource. Lower quality resources would require a greater area.

Right off the bat it is clear that modes of transportation would be necessary to get around the tract. I walk 100 feet to my garden and orchard. I can walk to trees to fell for fire wood and carry the split wood home (I don't actually do this because I'm lazy and take the truck. But I could, and would have to, in a survival situation.)

Let's talk about water. As I have said, we have a 10 gpm well. Proportioning this to a community of 400 people requires a 2,000 gallon per minute well. Pumping that kind of volume requires a big engine. Now it can be argued that this community will be so resource efficient that it can get by with a 500 gallon per minute well. That still requires a huge pump and an excellent aquafir.

This leads to the question of how you are going to irrigate your crops? Are you going to use even more pumps and consequent energy?

I don't want to belabor this stuff. I'm just trying to point out that pro-community people really need to do an energy balance as is done in the chemical industry.

Todd

 

[Bill P]

Todd,

I think you are in the right ballpark of 2000 acres for a 400 person survival community. My thought was 40 acres for 50 families of four per family or 200 people. The predominant amount of acreage would be pasture and sustainable woodlot. And my estimates are based on my limited knowledge of areas east of the Mississippi where rainfall is greater than 40" per year. In the drier west I would think that pasture land and woodlot would have to increase.

Linda has mentioned raw land in western NY is available for $500 per acre. In SE Ohio/KY/Va/Wva I would guestimate that suitable raw land is at least double that or more than $1000 per acre. Many farms are sold off at $3000 per acre.

So just acquiring the raw land would be at least $1,000,000 and probaly greater than $2,000,000. And this is before any capital investment for sustainabel development and entrepreneurship.

This is well beyond my individual capability but I think I could readily cover 1/50 of this. This is my reasoning for developing a group survival response made of genetically diverse and synergistically skilled people with a goal of surviving the Decline (as a Group, not necessarily as an individual) and prospering in the 2200s.


BTW, I have not heard of Ralph Borsodi's "Constants". I will investigate this.

Also, Linda has recommended an historical fiction series - The Skystone by Jack Whyte. This is about Roman legionaires that build an independent survival community in the wilds of England in the 400s AD to survive the fall of Rome. Ive read the first 4 of the books of the series and appreciate the history and the design of a Roman survival community. The Skystone was a meteroite that gave them a high nickel steel for making the best of swords.

Best regards.

 

[Bill P]

My search for Borsodi has taken me to: http://www.schumachersociety.org/

This a mother lode of information on establishing a local independent sustainable community.

Schumacher's Small is Beautiful is a classic I first read in the 1970s.

The society appears to have thought through much of what we are discussing and debating above.

Thanks, Todd.

 

[Todd]

Bill,

I hated to miss a day posting to this thread but I had to spend the day doing stuff at my in-laws...my father-in-law is dying of old age(90)..and there's no one else to do the work.

Anyway, I had never heard of the Shumacher site. I do have his book, Small is Beautiful. I looked at the site this AM but don't have time to browse through it because now I'm behind at home.

Ralph Borsodi really predated Helen and Scot Nearing about returning to the country. If you haven't read it, you should check out his book, Flight from the City. My copy is a paperback from the 1970's but I think it was first published in either the 30's or 40's. It's a good read.

If you are interested in his "Constants" and can't find anything, let me know and I'll search my "stacks" for the Green Revolution magazines. I seldom throw that kind of stuff out. I guess that's why I/we also have thousands of books. (As an aside, it strikes my wife and I funny when visitors ask us whether we read the books that line the walls in our house. I'm always tempted to say something like, "Acutally, we don't read them but my hobby is building bookcases and we need something to put on them.")

By the way, have you ever read any of Louis Bronfield's books such as Peaceful Valley, From the Earth or Malabar Farm? I think you will find his thoughts interesting and his farm is now incorporated as a non-profit. It has a web site (Malabarfarm.org I think). It is located somewhat west of Mount Vernon, OH if I remember right. I'm sorry I never visited it when I was in college in Granville.

One point to remember regarding land; quality has to be the primary, and I would say sole, consideration not price. The city people moving into my area are buying junk land, that will never be useful, at outrageous prices. It seems to be that having 10 or 100 Ac after a city lot blinds them to the reality of land quality.

Some city guy just bought 120 Ac near me for a ton of money and it is so steep you can hardly walk on it.

In CA, good ag land that is either undeveloped or semi-developed is going for $2,500 - 3,500/Ac. It is also difficult to find large parcels of over 1,000 Ac. Here's a example from the current issue of California Farmer - 684 Ac Andrus Island (in the delta) Frontage on Hwy 12 & Mokelumme River, Tomatoes, Alfalfa, Corn, Duck & Geese shooting - $1,966,500.

Well, the sun is finally up and I need to get to work outside. I do have some other things your reponders might like to consider but I'll hold off.

Todd

 

[Deena in GA]

I have all the Nearing's books but don't think I've heard of Borsodi. I'm going to see if I can find his book. Sounds really good.

Btw, Todd, your comments about your books made me think of something someone told me a while back when they walked into my home for the first time. "Oh, you decorate with books!" We have thousands of them all over. One small room is floor to ceiling, wall to wall book shelves. The overflow is in all the other rooms.

 

[Laurane]

We live in Alberta with the Tar Sands.....

much has been done to improve the capacity coming from the Alberta Tar Sands and the output has increased, with the world price supporting the increase in costs to produce a barrel of heavy oil.

Utah (for one) has lots of oil in the shale, but I have not read much on how much capacity there is in either type of production.
Does anyone think these products are viable longterm - how many years, and what portion of the market will they produce?

As investors in heavy oil companies, we hear only "good" things about future production, but how do they fit in the grand scheme of oil production in N. America?

We also have tried to do what we can individually to preserve our own way of life and that of our family in the countryside, but are curious as to how long you all think the current oil or natural gas production will sustain the economy of N. America.

If there has been (or soon will be a peak), how long before we really see a breakdown in delivery to customers, both residential and commercial and to the infrastructure of communities, like heating plants, water plants etc. - when the price becomes too high for people to buy???

 

[Curious]

For those of you who trade stuff this chart of Crude might be interesting.

Crude has come down to the 200d MA, which has been good support at the same time the stochastics are turning up. Pump is primed for a potential move to the upside.

Can't take credit for the chart ... comes via Citi's analytical department.

Curious

 

[Curious]

For those of you wondering about how much land it takes to support a group of people I think a review of the size of the "family" farms of the last century is in order.

In the productive areas of the Midwest the smallest effective farm sizes before mechanization were 80A per family. Now families were larger then than now ... about 5 to 8 kids per family, plus a couple of adults, but that is still a LOT of land needed to sustain ONE family.

The important thing to keep in mind with this number is that is the SMALLEST SIZE that remained sustainable over a number of years. Yes there were smaller farms ... but they would go bye bye fairly quickly.

If the land was NOT superb, the farm size quickly grew to 100/120A or even a full quarter section, 160A. It all depended upon how much land was actually usable, and how much was of marginal use because of woods, hills, high water table, etc..

I found this discussion interesting, but the reality of life is that without modern technology the carrying capacity of the land in the US will be greatly reduced. The areas that will be particularly hard hit would be the West since out there without technology, there is virtually NO food production.

25,000,000 Californians are NOT going to be able to eat (or drink) if the complex water distribution system of their state shuts down. Same with Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and eastern Washington.

The entire Western part of the US would be a complete chaotic mess without complexity. Those from the West would be like locusts decending upon and consuming everything in their path if even 30% of them moved east because of the collapse of our complex society rendered them unable to find food to eat.

This whole discussion and scerario projections point out why I feel that the greatest single way to quickly disrupt the US would be attack the Water Systems in the West ... while leaving the consuming masses of people out there untouched. The chaos created by no water ... and 50 million thirsty people would be humongous.

Curious

 

[dragonslayer2001]

How many serious people?

Make an assumption that an "average" family is going to be 4 members. Make another assumption that you are not going to get 100 "families" to uproot and move and build a sustainable community any time soon.

I have put a lot of thought into this also.

Yes, you can fort up by yourself and become somewhat self-sufficient. But if TEOTWAWKI takes place, unless you are really way off in the hinterland, you are dead meat if you are by yourself and you have ANYONE close by who wants what you have.

Hiding out and picking off the one or two adults who could put up a fight would be very simple for anyone who has the skills and the patience. You have to go outside sooner or later.

And it is a simple fact that most people go nuts off by themselves or with only one or two other people and NO other social interaction with others.

So, if you take these two givens, that 1) very few people are going to uproot and start a commune or community, and 2) you need a group of some kind for self defense and "community" what I have mulled over in my mind for several years is this:

How many people would be serious in devoting how much money into a group who is willing to work together in having an area where if things got really really bad could, if at all possible, get there and "fort up" until either the calamity passed, or enough of the "mob" died off and it was safe to come out of the woods?

And, how much would it cost?

I have long thought about starting a group, getting the land, and building enough structures on it, stocking and provisioning it, having people care-take it, and then it just sits there waiting for TEOTWAWKI and the group to hunker down together.

The odds are very good that I would have started this already, and would have had the funds to do so, if my family life had not taken a drastic turn for the worst a few years ago.

So, my thoughts have been this:

You need a chunk of land that you can buy (with a legal option to acquire more next to it within a specified bit of time so you can expand) that is far from most huge population centers. IE: Kali is out for the simple reason if even 10% of the population fled the cities most of the state would be overrun within hours. Same with much of the rest of the country.

Second it has to have a good source of water; deep wells, a powerful river and/or a deep lake would be best.

Third it would have to have at least some arable land to do some amount of gardening on.

Fourth, you would have to have a group of people large enough to devote between $20,000 and $40,000 per group of 4 to get started, with a minimum buy in of between $10K and $20K for individuals or couples.

Fifth, I have already inquired and yes, I can distribute, sell, and build log cabins, and dome shelters, so once the basic “fort” was built, the “group” could also, if the desire was there, market and build houses and shelters as a means of making a living for yourself, with a portion going into improving the land or buying more, individual lots. As a business it could also become a way of building a “retirement” community for anyone interested so that long range, you would be putting money or effort into something for your old age.

Sixth, yes I have already inquired and I can distribute, sell, and market storage foods, for the same reasons as above, wholesale.

Then the rest becomes problematical. My assumption is that buying long term (5-10yrs) bulk food would cost approximately $5000 per "family" for a 3 year supply, that would include staples but also freeze dried and nitrogen packed food. The rest of the money would go into buying a bit of land, putting up some structures such as some log cabins (bought wholesale) but mostly dome structures (bought wholesale). A certain amount of tools and supplies would have to be bought.

MOST people would not be willing (or able) to come out and help develop the land so they would have to be willing to pay more to have others do the work and to help pay for the care taking. Hence the difference in pricing.

My personal feeling is that we have between one week and 3 years to get it done.

What this would get you (at the minimum) would be a place to rush to find group sheltering against MOST catastrophes (including on the outside an asteroid strike, massive plague, and nuclear war), a source of stored and pumpable water, food to last at least 2 years and a certain amount of group weaponry in case you can't get there in a hurry with your own. And a small amount of storage to store personal items.

The funding is realistic for more than just basic survival. This wouldn’t be “you get everything you ever dreamed of” at least in the beginning, this would be a place to fort up with like minded individuals, a group code to live by if things really fell apart, food and water to last (until things quieted down or the bulk died off or became apathetic) and others to cover your six. Everything else could come if time permitted.

Beyond the basics (group sheltering, group eating and sleeping) the options to buy extra land around, individuals could come out and build their own place and do what they wanted AFTER the basic “fort” was constructed so that people would be assured that they are getting their moneys worth, before Americans, being highly individualistic, became highly individualistic.

And lastly, the land would be pleasant enough to go camp, hunt and fish on for members so if life went on they would have a nice place to summer on and fill their bellies.

So? I am curious for other’s opinions.

 

[LMonty911]

DS
THis sounds a lot like what Bruce Beech has already done, with his Ark project. THeres folks here that could give you contact info for him, and his newsletter is posted here occasionally. Might be that he has already ironed out some wrinkles and gotten some answers to soem of the questions you have, which would help jump start yuour planning. I'd contact him...
Laura

 

[dragonslayer2001]

Thanks Laura

Contacting him for info is a good idea.

His choice of survival placing is terrible.

He is a little over an hour away from Toronto, one of Canada's largest cities, and a huge urban area. Lots of farmland but tons of people.

Close to a nuclear target.

Close to nuclear power plants.

In a place where a citizen is little better than a slave, where the slightest infraction will cost you all your firearms, where handguns are forbidden and where at least half the citizens will argue and get VERY vocal and VERY physically upset about you or anyone having the right to own a weapon of any kind.

I couldn't believe how violently upset the brainwashed up here get if you even talk about firearms around them - and I am up in the hunting country far away from southern Ontario.

I am a Yank but have spent about 1/3 of my life in Canada. Most Canadians haven't got the slightest clue about what it means to have a heritage of being "free" and that your "property" is yours. For the most part they are a docile obediant lot and I wouldn't depend on the majority to watch my six and pull the trigger if it was called for.

On the other hand I can think of innumerable fellow Americans I would trust to at least pick up a firearm to protect hearth and home and friends.

My point is not to build a long term sustainable community, at least at the start, but to build a "freehold" where like minded people can hunker down during the worst of a crisis, and most of them don't have to absolutely give up everything they already have. A freehold where people want to live in peace and harmony and with nature, but are willing to fight to survive.

 

[Todd]

DS,

I hate to start thread drift but I want to respond to you.

As I have said before, I don't expect a mass exdous from the cities. However, I question a hunkering down group too.

You know, in rural communities, everyone knows what's going on. To me, a hunkering down group is like a magnet attracting any crap that's around. Unless you have done a good PR job, and blown your cover in the process, it is likely that the locals will view you and the group as a threat.

Thirty years ago there were some died in the wool survialists around my area. They frightened everyone. They were unliked and untrusted. In a worst case scenario, the locals would have attacked them regardless of what city people did.
Why? Because they believed, rightly or wrongly, that these people would try to "take over".

Now, had these people established a community (whether a single parcel or adjoining individual parcels) and become known to the locals, I doubt that anything would happen because they would be a known quantity.

As I have said on and on, I'm not hot on group stuff but if a group is going to establish a bugout place they would be wise to test the air.

Todd

 

[dragonslayer2001]

Todd

While working in Ireland many years ago, we were flying helicoptor and found out that many locals - at first - thought we were part of the British army looking for weapons caches.

We got drunk with them several times and put things right.

And while flying in Oregon one faction of local paranoids thought we were looking for where they were growing their stash, faction two thought that we were out planting missles for the military at night, and faction 3 thought we were out spraying the locals and sterilizing them. No shit.

I would never dream of moving into a place with a large proportion of paranoid locals and try to keep everything secret.

I would simply be part of a "retirement" community, or "timeshare group", go into town get drunk a few times, talk to a lot of people, and set their minds at ease.

Only after the whole army got their would we take over.

 

[dragonslayer2001]

ya gotta wonder

is tomorrow the soltice or something?

nasa types have done some very strange things around planetary alignments, belts of orions, etc, etc, etc,

and why didn't they just bypass and see how long the signal would last?

doing it to avoid the moon is a JOKE, nasa made a JOKE.

 

[jed turtle]

DS - "and why didn't they just bypass and see how long the signal would last?

doing it to avoid the moon is a JOKE, nasa made a JOKE."

too cryptic for me. could you translate this?

great thread. i remember reading about Borsardi's constant in a Plowboy interview in Mother Earth News long time ago. some folks in a vermont town were going to introduce a local silver currency based on the idea that it would stay local and everyone's service or product would have a known value in its terms. never heard of it again tho.

i'm with the Amish model. develop your homestead whilst you go about your regular dayjob. develop and acquire the skills and tools that will eventually be your "part of the community" job, if that isn't to be some agricultural product. my model for dealing with the day when TSHTF is based on an illogical, but innate, supposition that it will be like "in the days of Noe" (to quote a famous Messiah) , that is: sudden, overwhelming destruction, very few left standing. and after the days of Noah, the survivors spread out. buying land wasn't a consideration. they owned the entire world. all they had to do was stay alive in it.

now my solar powered (laptop? LEDs? fill-in-the-blank) and solar water heaters may not have any solar power if a cataclysmic cloud cover shuts out most sunlight for a few years/decades, but it may still be possible to generate electricity via pedal power, wind, hydro perhaps. but i personally know that electricity is a luxury. even lights are a luxury if you at least have a tree or a cave to put some distance between you and nitetime critters.
but heat and water and food are not luxuries.
and as far as building a fort, bunker...
it is well known that you can't defend a static position, should circumstances arise that impact one's security. the future, then, is for the quiet, invisible nomads. 0h, an underground house is fine for fuel conservation now, or a root cellar for surviving wind/ fire/ maybe even temperary radiation problems. but a Bruce Beach type Ark as a fortress. nope. temporary refuge for a temporary cataclysm only. on the bright side, if the cataclysm is cosmic enough, all you have to do is survive it. chances are you will be the only one on your block to manage that much. after that, any other survivors will most likely be a welcome sight.

 

[dragonslayer2001]

Jed

The nasa joke thing is that they could have sent the probe on it's way into deep space, and just for the fun of it, see how long they could pick up the signal. What is the possible reason for putting some of our space junk into Jupiter's atmosphere? Nothing happens without a reason, there is some reason we don't know about. It might be assinine, but it is there somewhere.

Now, as for your other statement:


"but heat and water and food are not luxuries.
and as far as building a fort, bunker...
it is well known that you can't defend a static position, should circumstances arise that impact one's security. "

It is well known that you can't defend a static position..........nonsense, history is full of examples of defending static positions. Even at Dien Ben Phu, overwhelmed sometimes by odds of 10-1 the French could have won, and came very close to beating the morale of the Viet Minh, and that was with only 30% of the defenders putting up a stiff resistance.

If defending forces have enough water and food, avoid plague, are well armed and have enough people to man the defenses, and have the will power and gumption, they have way better odds than the besiegers. The worse the weather, the more desperate the food situation outside the "fort", the better it gets.

Your statement of static positions is entirely based on massive munitions. If you are off in the boonies somewhere the odds are very low that your opponents are going to have high powered explosives, needed to blow a whole into a good defensive position. Go pick up a copy of "hell in a very small place" by Bernard Fall, the battle of dien ben phu.

And I don't want to get too barbaric here, but the key to victory in "that" kind of war would be to out terrorize your opponents.

And also, it has never been my position to "go to war" against any indigenous population, you make friends and become a trading center or become the place that knows how to distill liquer or brew beer. If they don't have those skills you will be very welcome indeed. How about be the only place around who had the forsight to have tobacco seeds on hand. Or herb seeds? Or large amounts of salt?

Remember, my idea has at it's core a decent number of defenders hunkering down together.

And if TEOTWAWKI does occur, most of your neighbors are NOT going to go all barbaric right off the bat, social mores are too deeply ingrained for that. If you are well fed while the people around run out of food, and you can hold your own for a month or two while most of them go hungry, you will be in much better position to dominate the local area. Most people tend to get very apathetic when starving.

And, logically my mind tells me that things will go on, but get slowly worse, my gut has always told me that TEOTWAWKI was going to occur at the turn of the centuries.

In that case, I never planned on being a sodbuster for the rest of my life. Horses and weapons was what I had envisioned.

 

[Bill P]

dragonslayer2001,

Your vision and strategies are very close to my own.

On another list, your "freehold" is termed a "Lifeboat" strategy which is a well stocked survival center designed for the transitional period from the current paradigm to a future paradigm where self sufficiency based on renewable resources is the way of life.

As you say - surviving will be the critical step.

The survivors could then come out of the "lifeboat" and re-establish themselves in the land.

I agree picking a good site is critical. I would favor one near good water and woods and arable land. I also favor scoping out historical sites and museums today so to see what can be replicated tomorrow.

I also agree that Bruce Beach has prepped for one and only one scenario - wodespread thermo-nuclear war.

I'm at work now and will expand on this later.