Driving toward disaster -- or self-sufficiency

I spent yesterday working with a local goat breeder so that I'll know the ropes before trying to raise my own livestock. My wife has a vegetable garden growing in the backyard.

I'd move out to the country tomorrow if I had the chance (not to mention the money). However, for a young person with limited resources, it's not a realistic short-term goal. I just hope the whole system doesn't collapse before I can achieve my goals.

Scott R.- Good question. You may want to stock up on angry mob gear (torches, clubs and motorcycle chains seem to be popular in the apocalyptic movies) so that you can swarm out to the country and steal their food. Wearing lots of leather seems to be important also, especially if you want to be the mob leader.

Steve

The thing I don't get about the article is why they felt the need to get rid of their TV.

"install radiation detective devices"

Join us once again next week for "Ray Roentgen, Radiation Detective"...this is GBS, the Gamma Broadcasting System [cue organ-cadenza fadeout]...

Curiously, the only book I still have from the 70's is the original John Seymours book of self sufficiency. It had marvelous illustrations, and information about doing anything a self sufficient person would ever do. My copy was almost 30 years old, and then it started coming apart. I took it to Kinko's, and had it rebound.
I just never wanted to let go of it. Maybe there was a reason why. I think people are going to find so many such books interesting. I collect books on gardening, woodworking, farming, animal keeping, boatbuilding, etc, from before the 60's, most from before the second world war. This was before the "photography everything" computer generated books of today. They are often filled with wonderful line drawings, and illustrations, along with the fact that people couldn't go to Lowes and get strandboard, etc. They had to know how to do it themselves. The books are often beautifully made. Even book printing was a fine art then. My suggestion is to visit used book stores, flea markets, etc. and spend some time looking. You will be amazed at what useful books there are. Modern books are often are not as useful for the homesteader type of person. They often assume a big shop full of expensive power tools. Most of these did not exist when these books were published.

In a sudden catastrophic event, only the government has the resources to help pull things through (nuke major earthquake). In order to deal with these more gradual changes brought on by loss of cheap oil, we will need a collaborative effort between free enterprise and government. Large infrastructure changes can only be achieved by pooled resources. True innovation usually comes from private business. It would certainly help if we had true political leadership, but I think it unlikely that we will have a president willing to tell us we need to conserve again very soon. Carter was lambasted for it. Our government is in debt and private citizens are not saving either.

As individuals the first thing we need to decide is if we still want to try to influence change in our society or just withdraw. Why not vote for people who will make positive changes in how we run our government. Vote for someone who will balance our budget. Someone willing to invest in infrastructure. Someone willing to support research on sustainable energy. Eliminate policies that put such a huge percentage of our wealth in the hands of very few people. There are lots of good reasons to develop a more self-sufficient lifestyle. Learn to raise your own food. Ride a bike when you can or walk. Learn to fix stuff. Learn to live with less stuff. We still need the rest of society to alter its behavior.

We will probably go to coal and get all of the oil we can out of those Canadian sand piles. Those will run out also. At some point our population will have to settle at a number that can be supported by renewable energy sources. Or, we figure out fusion.

One of the biggest problems I see are restrictive local zoning ordinances (on the gov't level) and residential covenants (on the private.) People are denied the use of the land they have by restrictions such as no livestock; no "field crops;" no hanging out laundry.

There are other gov't restrictions that will make things very burdensome for people, such as rules against raw milk sales; rules about selling other farm products such as eggs, newly butchered meat, etc. Many suburbanites have property expansive enough to have at least a few chickens, rabbits, and gardens - IF the residential covenants, city, and state laws would let them be.

So it seems to me that weakening these restrictions is a small step towards being able to survive *where we live* (and where many people have to work.)

Rod, you forgot one thing in that list of things that will change. It will change the way we plan wars. For the first time in our nation's history we may see our leadership initiate a war for the sole purpose of taking control of the natural resources of another nation. And this time it would be blatant and obvious, not couched in some verbiage about "removing a terrorist from power" or "destroying WMDs." It would be the simple concept of they have it and we need it.

Those living in the city may have the toughest time of it. Cities are not the best places to try to build self-sustaining enclaves. It can be done, but it would take a lot more work and a lot more resources than the average Joe or Jill have. The biggest restraint, as one commenter has already mentioned, is land. There will have to be changes in zoning and land-use ordinances. We may find our neighborhoods resembling something from the middle ages, with livestock and crops growing in plots behind homes, and horses and ox carts traversing the streets.

If the problem reaches a certain level, the government could just decree that car MPG's must be more than, say, 30 (or pick another number). For most people (especially in cities) there is no reason to run a SUV or pickup. I've heard that autos use something like 60% of the oil in this country? Making the fleet 20% more efficient or more, would be a step in the right direction.
In the meantime, start building more power plants based on something other than oil.
I live less than 2 miles from work. I could walk. We could get rid of the 2nd car. If it comes to that, I'll do it.

Those living in the city may have the toughest time of it. Cities are not the best places to try to build self-sustaining enclaves. It can be done, but it would take a lot more work and a lot more resources than the average Joe or Jill have. The biggest restraint, as one commenter has already mentioned, is land.

Second biggest restraint: time. How on earth is a working couple to manage growing their own food? Julie visited an urban microfarm in a Dallas suburb last week. She said it's pretty incredible. It's worked full time by the wife in the couple, and her apprentice. Julie said she was admiring the farm, and mentioned to the farmer how she (Julie) wishes she could do that. The farmer said, "You have children" -- meaning, "I don't have kids to raise, which is why I can pour myself into this work."

Old Susan, it's not the case that everybody in a city has to grow their own food or urbanism ceases to exist. That's a straw man. It only has to be possible to grow sufficient food to feed a city, within reasonable transport distance. Cities that are far from arable land will be in trouble. Everybody else will adjust -- after all, how many New Yorkers grew their own food during the Depression? -- but it will be traumatic to make the transition.

So why aren't presidential candidates and politicians in general speaking about increased and better mass transit options. Once upon a time for longer trips Americans went by rail. Why aren' they talking about improving existing rail systems (like Amtrak) and expanding it. More metro systems and expanded bus routes in medium or small cities. Having been in Germany last September I was very impressed by their rail system. I live in Michigan and two or three times a year I drive 40 minutes south to Holland and get the train. If the weather is even a little wet or snowy we arrive late at Union Station. Amtrak in this part of the country doesn't own the tracks but leases them from freight lines and they don't keep them up to par the way they should, therefore Amtrak has to give freight trains preference as well as put up with the poor service on the tracks. I live in a small city which has railroads running through it but no passenger service and limited bus service. I think its time for the US to start seriously examining and investing in mass transit in the US.
That said I have started taking baby steps in changing my lifestyle. I just started putting my laundry out on a clothesline in the backyard to dry. I also just saw a newspaper article that said some cities, towns, housing developments are being pressured to change zoning regulations/rules because hanging your laundry outside can get you ticketed! Keep chickens in your yard for food, a cow for milking, forget it, but 100 years ago it was common to have some farm animals living in town. You didn't have a garage but you had a barn.

I read Seymour's book back in 2004 and blogged about it then, before I got wise, and stopped blogging altogether. . .but it was fun while it lasted. I'd be curious to see what Julie thinks about this entry. She and I are in a very similar boat: http://blogs.salon.com/0001754/2004/06/22.html

P.S. When I got wise, I stopped reading Kunstler altogether, but that's a different matter. Stop reading Kunstler and start reading a little John O'Donhue. Your life will change immeasurably for the better!

And it's Aaron--For The Win! Seriously, your place sounds very cool. I'm jealous because that's exactly the kind of thing I used to dream of in my young years, long ago. Back then, of course, all the conservative pundits were scorning such behavior. "What kind of dirty hippie losers would want to retreat from our American society with all its glorious achievements? Only a bunch of self-hating, grimy LEFTISTS would want to go raise goats when they could be wearing a suit and tie to the Young Republican Ox Roast! Such behavior is a self-indulgent dead end!" And so on and so forth. Being the good little conservative tool of the patriarchy that I was back then, I dutifully felt guilty for longing to go raise goats and apple trees instead of being a Productive Member of Society. Who would have guessed that I'd be wrong again, all these years later. I guess it just goes to show you that you shouldn't listen too much to conservative pundits . . . . ; )

*chuckle*

I think we will after the Rapture, much less just a mere economic and social meltdown.

Life is fleeting, all flesh is grass, but student loans?

They're forever.

mdavid: I think this is a very prescient observation. ... [C]odes exist because people are rootless, and when people dig roots, keep the place up, and visit next door and give Christmas cookies every year...well, it's amazing what people will overlook :-). Even compost heaps, front yard gardens, etc.

RJohnson: The biggest restraint, as one commenter has already mentioned, is land. There will have to be changes in zoning and land-use ordinances. We may find our neighborhoods resembling something from the middle ages, with livestock and crops growing in plots behind homes, and horses and ox carts traversing the streets.

Works for me.

LOL, mdavid, RJohnson, and myself, all on the same page! High-fives all around.

That is an excellent point, mdavid, about keeping up good relations with neighbors, so that little "violations" here and there are overlooked. Not sure we could squeeze chickens in to our backyard, though. That would be pushing it.

However - with loosened zoning, *other* people within walking distance probably *could* sell chickens, eggs, goat milk and cheese, etc. Sustainability doesn't mean *every* household has to be completely independent. It can also mean that groups of people within walking / biking distance of each other can *specialize* and sell what they make; what others need. The key here is to also free ourselves not only from too much dependence on petroleum, but to also free ourselves from "corporatism" - from being *forced* through gov't edict to buy from corporations rather than each other.

The only objection I have to the "peak oil" ideas re: urban homesteading is this. People are far more likely to do something like garden, make their own clothes or cheese, etc. if they *like* it and see the immediate, positive benefits for themselves - NOT out of reaction to a potential coming crisis. Other than that, I can't see a thing wrong with the idea.

Rod: Re: working couples. Working couples, especially without children, spend enormous amounts of time off work 1) watching TV; 2) going to the gym (sometimes driving some distance to do so.) Digging up the back yard is excellent exercise - and (hopefully) has a payoff at the end of all that work. In many parts of the US, it's possible to get not one growing season in but two. That's a lot of digging and physical work.

I also think the remark "You have children" meant that children can contribute a great deal to "urban homesteading" labor. There are many small jobs which children can do, tasks which give them a sense of accomplishment and actually help, once the children get into the habit.

I'd advise not panicking. Of course, if all of civilization collapses within a few months, that would be a good time to panic, but perhaps what we'll see is just a gradual slide into being less and less wealthy, without much looting and mobs and all that. We just don't know what's going to happen.

And let's not forget that lots of great things happened long before oil was discovered. The level of wealth our society now has isn't required for true civilization.

At the same time of course, if even the non-panicky predictions come to pass, it won't be easy. So what to do?

Here's a thought. It's not clear that moving to the boonies is a great idea. It's not clear that moving to the cities is a great idea. But if we're all going to get poorer, then one practical thing we can do is to start getting used to getting by with less.

Is this crunchy? I wonder. At least some crunchy cons adore things that seem unbelievably expensive to people like me (one-income family, professor's salary, seven children, expensive part of the country). Someone may need to develop a version of crunchy that doesn't taste so yummy or look so good. Life's hard sometimes. (Homework assignment: reread the Little House books. They seem to have eaten a lot of salt pork!)

One way to get by with less: do more of the economic production at home. Why pay others to bake your bread, or clean your house, or whatever, if you can do these things yourself?

Another way: find ways to have fun that don't cost much money. E.g., reading aloud together rather than going to the movies.

Another way: simply do without certain things, such as cable TV or the phone or the gym membership.

Many people--not all, but many--could spend less than they do. If you can learn to be thrifty, you'll be getting ready for the big crash, or the big slide, or whatever.

I'm not saying we shouldn't also learn to grow veggies or shoot straight or whatever. I'm just saying that getting used to having less will be helpful on any scenario--indeed, it will be useful even if the economy somehow doesn't tank!

Student loans? Get rid of them fast with three years in the Army, up to $60,000. Plus you can get a nice little nest egg from bonuses and combat pay. You won't have any expenses while you are in, if you are single, lower expenses if you are married. I'm not even kidding. It's tough, but you'll come out debt-free, and tens of thousands of dollars ahead if you are smart about it.

Or if you're constitutionally against killing people, there are several Federal agencies which will pay down $10,000 a year. Not as fast as Army service, but a touch easier.

When I return to civilianhood, I intend to live within bicycling distance of work and have a gardenable plot. I will learn to preserve and can the produce from the garden. I already know how to knit. If it gets downright apocalyptic I'll run for the hills just like everyone else. I hope it never comes to that. There is a very dark pool of inhumanity in each of us, and it doesn't take very much at all for society to fall apart and for that darkness to come out. It's not a pretty thing. For now, I'll aim for "sustainable" in every since of the word.

I'm all for living smaller, more simply. I'm against sprawl. I'm for living near where you do other things like work and go to school.

And collapse is always possible - personaly, I'm more concerned about the poor around the world crushed by skyrocketing food prices than I am by the threat to American suburbanites.

But it could happen.

But it also couldn't. Who knows.

Here's something to think about - Chrysler has just started this 2.99/gallon gas thing for three years if you buy one of their vehicles.

Does anyone seriously think that Chrysler would do something like this if they knew that gas was just going to keep going up, up up?

No, I'm thinking they're doing it because they know it will go down, back to under 3/gallon again.

Just something to think about.

Does John Jeavons have any books about raising livestock, i.e. "How to Eat More Steak?" That would be worth reading.

I like this blog, but the urge to surmise "we're all gonna die!" is a bit too strong.

I agree with anonymous at 9:21. It's fun to talk about raising crops and livestock, and it's salutary for all to try to avoid debt, learn useful skills, etc. But I think it borders on lunacy for people living in the most fortunate country in the world to go about their daily lives in fear of some potential disaster. Probably 100,000 people are dead in Myanmar, and 2.5 million affected--all from one storm. Over 60,000 dead in China, in one earthquake. Iraqi officials say at least 50,000 people have died violently since the war started. Some estimates are ten times that many. I don't know how many people have died violently in Africa in the last couple of years. Honestly, I think you're doing something rather abusive to your families if you teach them to go around fearing the future. If we, as Americans, can't face the future with our heads up, who in the world can? If Christians can't live in hope, without constant paranoia, then who will? I think everyone should live the lifestyle that is most congenial to them, but I think I have more respect for those who are using their brains and skills, working and trying to keep the whole country a safe, good place for our children, rather than abandoning the enterprise out of fear to curl up in a tiny corner of it.

Great fun to hear you reference Seymour's book! My wife and I bought a Seymour book when we got married 30 years ago, and we still use it.

Clearly, we Christians have genuine hope so we reject despair, fear and panic. But prudence is a Christian virtue, and a prudent person can already see how our globalized, over-industrialized, oil-addicted society is beginning to sputter. Its simply prudent to relearn the traditional skills that enabled our ancestors to weather storms of various types.

Plus, another good reason to relearn the traditional ways is that they often are much more satisfying than the "modern" alternative. I pulled some rhubarb in our garden last night, and a neighbor suggested using it in a savory stew he recommended.

Point being, of course, that when in custody of those with gunpower, you obviously don't direct the STFU commandment at them, you bind yourself with it - especially if your tendencies in the opposite direction do, indeed, have a history of causing the SHTF...