Where would you move?

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by sz, Dec 20, 2006.

  1. christopher

    christopher Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Jim Bob, someone should split the topic up, but.... its moving along so well!

    Your points about change being inevitable, but misery and chaos not being inevitable are very valid. Valid, and a bit depressing. Alternative fantasies are so appealing when confronted with this, hence denial at many levels: "They'll find a solution.." "The problems not that bad" "They're finding new sources of oil..." "Ethanol from corn will replace gasoline", none of which bears much scrutiny, but why bother looking if it is only going to make you feel uncomfortable.

    A few months ago we had this whole abiotic oil cornucopian fantasy land goo goo stuff (greased with a nasty film of anti-semitism, if you will recall) and many people are willing to indulge in these unsupportable fantasies because the truth pops their bubble. If the bubble bursting is too much, then denial and anger is next. As long as this type of silliness gets something like equal billing, then denial is possible, even as fuel prices climb.

    Example: If on the tellie we are given interviews of any one of the thousands of scientists who say oil is running out, and after that, the media decides to "counterbalance" this with an interview of Dr Nutjob, one of three "scientists" who says that the Russians have discovered the solution to the problem, that abiotic oil means there will never be any problem, many people will choose to believe Dr Nutjob. Making corrective measures in the face of that type of misinformation is extremely difficult.

    Anyway, its very depressing..... tho, read "Natural Capitalism" and you can even be otimistic, sort of....

    I was just in Venezuela, as I have mentioned. I drove from Maracaibo to Merida, from Merida to Zulia to Merida, from Merida to Zulia to Barquisimeto, on to Cata, Ocumare, Cuyagua and then back to Maracaibo (via Barquisimeto), easily 35 hours in a car... and we didn't spend more than USD6 for all the fuel we used. Who needs to be conservative in consumption when gasoline is USD.10 a gallon? There is a country FULL of 8 cylinder gas trucks! How do you reach that mindset? Hybrids will NEVER catch on there! (must go read optimistic book, must go read optimistic book, must....)
     
  2. Jim Bob

    Jim Bob Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, we who wish for a change, when presenting it to the public, have to use the right approach.

    For example, old Dave Hicks has been rotting in Guatanamo, without charge or trial, for almost five years now, and he's not even accused of shooting at anyone, just thinking about it. The real issue is "rule of law." You cannot just grab people off the street and lock them up indefinitely; this was established about 1209 by the barons fighting King John. It's an old principle, "rule of law." But you know, that won't sell to the general public.

    Why not? Well, the general public doesn't believe much in rule of law. They don't believe in presumption of innocence. That's why some barrister who defends an accused paedophile in court will get hate mail. The public already decided he was guilty, therefore the barrister is scum for defending him. So if you want to get Hicksy released, you shouldn't bother talking about rule of law. Public doesn't care.

    That's why his supporters go on about what a nice chap he is, he was just a mixed-up kid, didn't know what he was doing, etc. Since the public doesn't generally care about abstract principles like rule of law, they appeal to what the public does care about - a sympathetic individual.

    We have to do the same thing. So for example if we want people to stop using so much oil, there's no use talking about it running out or boiling the planet. That's sometime in the far future, who thinks about that? When someone gets a "fixed rate" mortgage, do they think, "well, it's fixed for two years, but not fixed for 18 years after that. Hmmm... what if interest rates double in that time? They've been double what they are now less than 18 years ago... hmmm." People just don't think like that.

    So a better approach would be to say, "hey, if we cut down oil use, replace it with ethanol, better public transport, then we can forget about the Middle East, bring the troops home. No more war!" That's a good selling-point. Another one is, "Hey, if we support solar and wind power, well we're a world leader in that already. And there are 3 billion Asians and 500 million Africans who'd really like a modern lifestyle like us, and that takes electricity. If they can buy a non-polluting one, they will. So let's support solar and wind power here, that'll build up the industry, and we can sell to those 3.5 billion people. Think of the export income. Money, money, money!"

    No more wars, and money money money. That'll get us the same end result - less fossil fuels burned, and less greenhouse effects.

    They do respond to public pressure, you know. I mean, anyone watch that morning show on telly? That stupid bald economist idiot, and that stupid blonde woman? There was a federal government solar panel rebate, was supposed to expire soon. For about a week these guys said every day, "write in if you think the rebate should continue!" People of course wrote in. Who's going to be against getting money back from the government for something? Then after a week of that, they interviewed old Smirk Costello. "Will the federal government be continuing the rebate?" Smirk looked a bit uncomfortable and said they would.

    Now, if you watch that show you'll see those two are not terribly bright. Sometimes when they talk to their guests they have a few blank stares and nervous giggles. These kids are off the short bus, know what I mean? But they managed this small thing. How? Public pressure.

    So if you can be bothered with it, it's quite possible to have a larger-scale effect. Me, I can't be bothered. I'll just live by example, as best I can.

    I'm sure when Muzza recovers from his NYE binge he'll split this thread ;)
     
  3. Jim Bob

    Jim Bob Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Incidentally, did you see the guys I've mentioned before?

    I found two interesting articles on the BBC talking about cocoa production in Ocumare. The first article was in July 2004, and talked about how the area was impoverished, no longer producing much cocoa, and how they were beginning efforts to revive the industry and make it organic. The second article from two years later (August 2006) reports that they were successful, and their cocoa beans now fetch $7 a kilogramme instead of the non-organic price of $2.

    A cocoa farmer Jose Lugo tells us, "We don't use any artificial fertilisers, just natural compost... It's twice as much work as before but it's definitely worth it."

    Twice as much work, but more than three times the profit. Sounds like a good thing to me! It's also itneresting that the recent article mentions a European saying, they have to keep the prices down, while the first article was telling us that low world prices had stopped local production.

    The other interesting thing I didn't know was that cocoa plants actually require a rainforest above and around them. It must be nice to work on such a farm.

    I think these two articles are remarkable for telling us a lot about permaculture principles in modern economies. Firstly, it's twice the work but three times the profit. Secondly, the buyers will try to push the prices down so low that people don't even bother producing the stuff anymore; so intelligent people are needed as both producers and buyers who recognise that they need a price somewhere in the middle.

    But overall I think it's good to hear of some successful organic agriculture, and increasing the wealth and well-being of some poor people.
     
  4. sz

    sz Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jez - yes, Australia is on my short list of places to look at for a number of reasons, including those you've mentioned. New Zealand, though not tropical, has a relatively mild climate in the coastal areas, and is also interesting for many of the same reasons Australia is - low population density, remote geographic location (well, at least relative to the USA!), less developed that much of the world, seemingly fairly stable political situation. I don't get the impression that it has quite as many areas with cheaper land as Australia might, but it does seem a bit less aligned politically with the USA, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I worry about the repercussions for close allies if the USA throws itself into yet another stupid war.


    With respect to the other subthread which has popped up, I think the most frustrating aspect of the situation is simply that there are possible solutions to most, if not all of the problems we face in terms of oil supply decline and environmental destruction. Unfortunately they all involve lifestyle changes that aren't going to be adopted until much more damage has been done and necessity forces re-evaluation of how we live. This pretty much guarantees a lot more damage to our environment, a lot more people slated to starve, and a lot more political instability with undoubtedly ugly effects.
     
  5. christopher

    christopher Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Jim Bob,

    I read that, and then forgot it. Hahahahaa! Now I have been there, which was incredible.
    That is a big part of why I love cacao. I worked for 7 years for an organic chocolate company, and visited hundreds of cacao farms in Belize, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and Venezuela, all of which were really interesting. Some of the larger farms were frankly unimpressive.

    One in Costa Rica which was lauded as being amazing, blah, blah, had little shade and was maintained through applying 10 tonnes of compost per hectare a year. The farm was 100 Hectares! Not exacytly a replicable model, tho the kilograms per hectar model applied to this farm was impressive for its yeild... in a siple two dimensiional kind of way.

    The most interesting tended to be smaller diversified farms, while the species selection varied, they tended to reflect the cultural needs of the farmers. We learned that the Bri-bri indigenous people of south east Costa Rica used a palm we have here for thatching, but didn't eat the heart, while the Maya use another palm (which the Bri-bri lack) for thatching, and eat the heart of the "jippy jappa" palm....

    Our "rainforest" is highly modified, with a species selection for our needs, timber, fruit, starches, palms for oil, cajanus for beans, etc. Again, permaculture in the lowland humid tropics is pretty easy to design for because the analogue plant community and arboreal architecture can be mimic'ed to great effect, utilizing multiple components with multiple yields, ongoing nutrient cycling, soil, water and biodiversity retention, recreating the form and structure of the prmary rainforest in microcosm with very high caloric returns (calories spent versus calories harvested) and good economic returns.

    Coffee also has this potential, too, and there are some excellent coffee farms in Costa Rica, Nicaragua anfd Venezuela which are also done on stacked polycultural model.

    Part of why I love Richards posts so much because he and I share common language in botany, common view in how-it-all-works, understanding in species selection, etc. We live in similar climatic zones....

    Regarding selling renewables, I believe that the profit motive is what will get things done, and once people can understand the value decreased emissions, and the potential in terms of sales for renewables, the over all economic benefits, that is the way people can be reached, so good point there, too.
     
  6. Jim Bob

    Jim Bob Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's very interesting to hear about the cacao farms. I don't suppose you're planning to write an article complete with photographs? :D

    It's something I'm pretty ignorant of, but also something I think we'll see more and more of in the world in years to come. When the big farms are finally depleted of their soil, and the oil pinch happens, lots of jobs will be lost, and lots of people will be hungry. I think that like Cuba, many of the people will say, "bugger the government, bugger big business," and just organise things for themselves, and what they organise will look more like a permaculture polyculture than it does like a traditional monoculture.

    So I'd like to know about it ahead of time, before most people do, I'm a bit egotistical that way. Article, then? :D

    To my mind it's not a new idea, it's a return to old ideas. "Capitalism" is meant to be that way. The idea of capitalism was originally that you'd build something, make a profit, and reinvest the profits in the thing to grow it. So for example a clothing factory has 20 sewing machines and workers, and it costs $50,000 to set up a station and train and pay someone to use it. The company makes $200,000 profit this year; $100,000 goes to pay dividends to the owners and taxes, and $100,000 goes to adding 2 new stations and workers, so that now it's a 22 sewing machine strong factory. Then next year they make $220,000 profit, and so on.

    Take part of what you've earned, and put it back into the business to make it grow. That's capitalism. Just ripping stuff out of the ground and leave a wasteland behind isn't capitalism, it's theft and neglect.

    So the sorts of ways of producing things we'd advocate, these are more like real capitalism. We grow food, eat some, sell some, and put the waste back into the ground, to decay and make the earth more productive next season.

    I don't think it's wrong to exploit the Earth, I'm not a communist or New Age. I just want to exploit it in such a way that we have more to exploit tomorrow, instead of less. The way those Venezuelans are managing their cacao farms, sounds like they're doing that. They took a crappy shitty piece of land and made it fruitful, they took poverty and made wealth. And if the oil runs out tomorrow, they can still do it. Not many Aussie farmers could say the same thing.
     
  7. Richard on Maui

    Richard on Maui Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I'm not exactly a communist (and I'm definitely not new age), but I am skeptical that the profit motive is going to save us from disaster.
    I do like Lovins' idea that a thorough accounting of our exploitation of resources will reveal the real bottom line, that you won't have any economy without a healthy environment.
    But... isn't it obvious that the profit motive, which is essentially about competing for resources, is behind all the overexploitation that we have seen since the beginning of civilisation?
    Isn't it obvious that what we need is to develop a cooperative model of resource use, where we recognise that the well being of the rest of the parts of the system we are in are at least as important as the well being of ourselves? That our well being is dependent on the wellbeing of the planet and everything in it?
    Seems to me that it is a bloody huge paradigm shift to go from self motivated capitalism to earth motivated capitalism, that you may as well just get it together and get over it all together and evolve into a cooperative species. Or is it devolve? Most hunter gather societies wouldn't get capitalism at all... not to say that they didn't trade.
    The ethics of Permaculture - Care of the Earth, Care of the People, Share the Surplus...
    Notice it isn't profit from the surplus because you so cleverly designed for your own needs that you have extra and can make a buck... :lol: Whatever... :D
     
  8. Jim Bob

    Jim Bob Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A "co-operative" method is "communist" in the old sense of the word, "commune," a group of people holding property in common, and doing work for the common good.

    It's certainly a big shift to go from "self motivated capitalism to earth motivated capitalism". But, two points.

    The first is that it's an easier change from "self-motivated" to "earth-motivated" capitalism, than it is from "self-motivated" capitalism to "community-oriented" non-capitalism; it's easier to change one thing than two.

    The second is that changes are accepted more easily if they're presented as simply alterations of the old thing. So for example television was presented as theatre on a screen, chemotherapy is actually a 19th-century word, cars were called "horseless buggies" and so on. Often we've tried to emphasise just how new and revolutionary permaculture is. However, in persuading people to take it on, it's better to emphasise how much it is like what we've done for a long time. People are more easily persuaded to do something that's just a variation of what they already do, than something entirely new.

    So I'd not say that it's "earth-motivated capitalism." In the end, if humans perish but the Earth goes on, do we care? Nope. So, permaculture - it's for us. It's nice to respect the earth and all, but really it's for us, in the end. Modern capitalism is just for us, too.

    You're talking about ends, I'm talking about means. People will change their minds about means more easily than about ends. If you say, "your end goal is you, my end goal is the earth," people won't go for that. If you say, "our end goals are ourselves, for both of us - but my method looks after us forever, your method looks after us for a few years." Someone who wants money, wants money; they may change jobs, but they won't change wanting money. Someone who wants children, wants children; they may have them by adoption, IVF, or natural birth, but they won't change wanting children. It's easier to persuade people to change their means than to persuade them to change their ends.

    It's certainly true that the profit motive is behind our overexploitation of resources. But which argument will be more effective,

    a) "Give up the profit motive, don't try to make a profit," or,

    b) "Instead of $1 million today, how about $100,000 a year forever?"

    The first is the approach permaculturists have often take in public debates. It asks people to change their ends, their goals in life, their entire cultures. The second is the approach I suggest, for people to change their means to their ends, how they achieve their goals.

    I think it's easier to get people to change one thing than two.

    Make no mistake: things will change. The only question is much chaos and misery we have before things change.
     
  9. christopher

    christopher Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Regarding Capitalism versus Communism: they bot have extractive relationships to the earth, and the natural capital, soil, minerals, petroluem, carbon in any form, etc, are seen as profit when extracted. The world views on the distribution of that profit are different, but the same pattern of destruction exists in either economic model.

    I am rereading Natural Capitalism, and it points out that emptying your bank account of natural resources and calling it "profit" is the larger problem, and it is a problem of both the capitalist and communist economic systems. JB (and Insomnia), "Theft and neglect" is a good way to look at the present model of capitalism.

    I usually don't think about economics, I prefer plants and animals, being fairly predictable and noncontentious, but communism doesn't appeal to me, though a good social safty net is a desireable thing to have, particularlyin wealthy countries who can afford it and are, IMO, morally obligated by their wealth to help those less fortunate.

    Richard, Share the Surplus is good, but I noticed the gas station doesn't have any surplus diesel for me, which is a huge dissapointment :lol:

    However, we do provide food to the an old peoples center in PG, which provides meals to house bound older people. Its usually not much, but its something.... (just had to put out my share the suprlus bonafides)
     
  10. Richard on Maui

    Richard on Maui Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah, yes. I care a lot, actually... Look, if that is how we are defining commnunism, Ok, I'm there!
    There you go Christopher, making my point for me! :lol: No look, I am serious! What would be better? A gas station that delivers that the cheapest product to the highes bidder regardless of the environmental consequences, or a cooperative that takes in waste cooking oil, &/or runs a rooftop algae distillery and converts it into biodiesel and distributes it according to the best interests of the community?
    Of course, economics is at the heart of Permaculture, it is even more important that plant/animal assemblages. You are right, it is a horribly contentious subject!
    I don't know how supply/demand can ever be divorced from a capital based distributive system. By its nature, it requires a degree of the populace to insecure in terms of resources, and this practically guarantees environmental degradation. Think about it. (sorry for that last patronising comment, I couldn't help it :wink: )
     
  11. christopher

    christopher Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Richard,

    I see things as The Way They Are, The Way We Would Like Them To Be, and The Way We Might Reasonably Hope For Things To Be And Might Actually (Some Day) Be Attainable. I understand what you are saying, and, truly, I admire your optimism and deep philosophical commitment to making things better. In a perfect world...

    However, again, communism just isn't the answer. I see the "communist" experiments as being nothing more than autocratic exercises in state capitalism that were just as desturctive to the environment as non-state capitalism (take a look at China!). Such a system makes what you and I are doing impossible, living off the grid, growing our own food, etc. That the two economic theories came from a different economic paradigm regarding the distribution of the resulting products from those resources doesn't change the environmentally damaging nature of the underlying economic system, a system, like "capitalism", of destructive extraction with little regard to a future beyond the next few years.

    Ecovillages, noneheirarchical communal living, etc, are wonderful, but very difficult to scale up to a larger economy. Additionally, most people are not cut out for that life, and the "communities" that I have visited (I will not mention any names, so don't ask :lol: ) had all of the same problems of social interaction of regular society, wrapped in a granola hue, with patchouli scented incense, except for these problems were compounded by the intimacy of group living and the accumulated hostory of close living. They spent a lot of time talking about their social problems, which I would find taxing!

    That they had lower environmental impact, good pooling of resources, wonderfully clever solutions to energy and group housing, etc was admirable, but.... the constant group evaluations (at one place), and internal bickering and politics were not attractive to me.

    Cohousing makes a lot of sense.... less issues, more private space, pooled recources etc....

    So, to me, more important is how do we make changes that are palatable to the average Joe? Walmart just decided they are going to promote compact flourescent (CF) lights. They want to sell 100,000,000 of them! The light bulb manufacturers, who make regular income from replaacing broken filament light bulbs, are up in arms, but the ONLY way to displace the older, wasteful technology os to achieve an economy of scale where the bulbs are available at a reasonable price. I am not defending Walmart, but look at the power they have to make change! The article on it in the NYTimes:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/...em&ex=1167886800&en=fbebaf845f8a7042&ei=5087

    The reason to use these bulbs:
    I live with these lights because I make my own power from our own modest solar system, and I watch my watts! If someone is grid connected, and they feel that they shouldn't use them because they can "afford" to buy all the electricity they need, how do you convince them that these bulbs are b etter? You appeal to their selfish needs (save $30 a bulb!), and you educate about them. You and I can do that... on a micro-micro scale, but look what Walmart can do... if they decide to do it.

    Um, so Walmart can save the world, see? Capitalism IS the answer!































    :lol:
     
  12. christopher

    christopher Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Jim Bob,

    I wrote about cacao and stacked polycultures in a bunch of threads in 2005, and found two of them:
    https://forums.permaculture.org.au/viewtopic.php?t=1370&highlight=saul+garcia
    https://forums.permaculture.org.au/viewtopic.php?t=977

    There is a huge amount of potential for organic cacao in the context of a stacked polyculture. Coffee stands the same way. That cacao/coffee complex agroforestry systems are dependent on international trade is problematic. The market vaguaries, price fluctuations, etc, make the "anchor crop" of cacao/coffee very important, but by diversifieing into other crops, long term timber, herbaceous perrenials, medicinals, vanilla, food crops (all those artocarpus's, etc) the farmer has a much stronger base, and can weather a drop in price.

    If such a system is tied into local marketables, like, for example, chooks, eggs, pigs, goats, and banana, plantain, coco, cassava, yam, the situation of the farmer is improved significantly.

    More complex systems are harder to manage, take longer to establish, require more forethought to establish, the degree of complexity is inversely proportioned to the quantity of size of any one commodity (cacao/coffee, etc): You want high yields? Growing more of crop X means that X,Y and Z will be smaller.

    And not all peoples want to engage in agroforestry. Here, if you are rich, you graze cattle, with predictable results to the soil, compacted, steril, pitted, messed up... and if you are poor, you might want the quicker return that milpa rice and corn can give you.

    Somewhere you mentioned the sustainabilty of maize and other grains, but maize has huge environmental costs. Milpa agriculture claims more rainforest every year than logging in Belize. And slash and burn agriculture is not long term sustainable, eiether. After a few years, the site is abandoned, and the people move on. Fine if you have a low population density, you can return after about 12-15 years and the soil fertility has recovered.... but look at what happened to the ancient Maya. They had the most impressive culture of all the pre columbian Americas. They had writing, art, architecture, religeon, a highly evolved esthetic style, they practiced forms of agriculture that were highly productive (with agroforestry being the bulk, IMO, no way to get such surpluses otherwise), but eventually they overtaxed the lands carrying capacity, and their society collapsed.... there were an estimated two million Maya in Belize, pffffft, most of them gone, through war and famine. They collapsed so hard that they lost their ability to read their ancestors writing.

    That is why agroforestry is so valuable, and why many of the principles of permaculture are already a part of indegenous attitudes towards agriculture and land use.


    Anyway, foods on. Bread nut, cassava, black bean soup and salad, with pineapple vinegar, and, the single concession to international trade on the menu today, olive oil.... Got to run!

    C
     
  13. Richard on Maui

    Richard on Maui Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Christopher, compact fluoro's are a step in the right direction, but... they still only last a year or two and then they wear out and you have to buy more. More pollution, more consumption of embodied energy...

    Do you think it is not within our ability to build a light bulb that will last say 20 years? Or 50? Or 100?
    I would suggest that capitalism even severely regulated by government will never produce such a light bulb.

    We really need that light bulb. We really need that type of thinking in every kind of technolodgy we use from here on out. Do you really think that capitalism is up to the challenge?

    I know I sound idealistic and naieve. But wait until our children are our ages and are beset with rising sea levels and totally fucked up climate. I think I will sound a lot more like a pragmatist in that context.
     
  14. christopher

    christopher Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The CF lights were only an example. The ones we use have lasted 6 years. The only ones we have replaced are ones that got broken. They are not perfect, I am still waiting for LED lights to come down in price (and those are pretty close to perfect), but they are better than incandescent lights

    I have to admit, I am applauding half measures, if only because less than that is less than a half measure. In my drive to remain optimistric, I see small changes, or even talk of small changes and think, okay, progress.

    As far as any economic model, the one we have now is the one we are likely to have for some time. Trying to get the best out of it is the most likely to effect wide spread change. Even if all of us lived in yurts and read our books under the glow of coconut oil lamps, most people will still be partticipating in the dominant model, and reducing their impact is important.

    Richard, you don't sound naive to me. You do sound concerned and informed. The thing is, mosst of the people in business have children too, and they, too, will eventually see where we are headed. Saving energy actually makes money (as Amory Lovins explains). Hopefully more people will understand that soon.
     
  15. treetopsdreaming

    treetopsdreaming Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I enjoyed reading this thread (although the majority of the content seemed to deviate from the original question after several posts). I myself have been considering a similar question:

    · Would you consider migrating to a different region of the world in the next few years so that your family might be better positioned to deal with the challenges of the future (ie. climate change, population growth, peak oil, etc.) and why (or why not)?

    · And, if so, where would you consider going and why?

    ---------------

    As for me, here are my initial thoughts (completely subject to change over time, of course):

    Like sz (the originator of this thread), my family is limited in our options due to financial limitations. So, at present, our family is in the situation where we "do what we can, with what we have, where we are". And, if that is all we are ever able to do, that is okay.

    However, to deal with the challenges that we believe are coming in the near future, we would consider relocating to north or south western Tasmania, Australia or New Zealand. Our reasons are varied but are mainly driven by a desire to locate to a less populated, more affordable, high rainfall, southern latitude location. We particularly like the look of Cygnet, Tasmania (which may be familiar to those who followed Matthew Evans on Gourmet Farmer). Cygnet is also a transition town and is a commutable distance to Hobart...

    Does anyone else have any new ideas to share?
     
  16. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I have too much invested with my current job, so moving within the next 9.5 years would be somewhat silly. I work half a mile from where I live now, and probably won't be moved from that station because of my close proximity. My daughter works within 5 miles of the house, but travels much further for college(15 miles one way, 2 days per week). Overall, I'm perfectly situated for travel time for both of us.

    While I would like more land, buying anything locally would cost way too much money(somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 per acre) and would not have as much longevity as I would like. Coastal erosion is a real issue in Louisiana, and throwing Christmas trees into the wetlands is not going to prevent it. The BP oil spill is just speeding up the process by killing the vegetation that is holding the soil in place. As such, I expect to be owning gulf coast real estate within the next 20-50 years because I know the government won't unbind the Mississippi river to allow all that silt back into the delta and wetlands where it belongs(instead of dredging the commercial waterways to allow shipping). I think a wise man once said that the problem is the solution!

    I do plan on moving after retirement, but not to an entirely different setting. I had thought about returning to England, but with a daughter in the States, that thought quickly died. There are still some cheap(ish) lands available in the Louisiana/Mississippi area which I have given a lot of thought to for my retirement/weekend home/grocery store. While it's not a drastic move, it will perform the function of having a place to go when/if the shit hits the fan(science could still pull us out of this one because new forms of fuel are usually discovered when the economics of the old fuel source are no longer feasible...just like when we moved from whale oil to kerosene). There probably will be social turmoil this time around, just because of the large population and the globalization our world has. But if the basic needs of life(food, water and shelter) are provided for(which I hope to do), then this turmoil can be cushioned if only for my daughter and her family.

    If I work 3 extra years, I could probably get a big check for ~$150,000(if the DROP is still available at that time). If I buy the land before I retire, I can start the cultivation and succession work early and be ready for when I retire. I should have enough seed for some good insectary plants/soil conditioning plants for a large acreage from my own back yard by then, along with quite a bit more that I can propagate. So, if I buy the land within the next 5 years I should be sitting pretty(in a permacultural and bohemian sort of way). The land should be situated so as to not have to worry about coastal erosion, rising sea levels or hurricanes, while still being relatively close to a city that I call home. I'm pretty sure I can have a relatively nice house built for $150,000 that is completely off the grid(not a 4 bedroom/2 bathroom house I currently have, but something smaller). I do need to research ways of construction that can make the house "tornado proof" to a point(even if it is burying the house into a hillside) since everything close, but out of hurricane range, is prone to tornadoes.
     
  17. eco4560

    eco4560 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,925
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for bumping this one up!
    I'd find it hard to leave the Sunny Coast. The permaculture community is really strong here, and that's a huge plus. I do fantasise about living in an intentional community and having a creek running through my property. But there's one just across the road from behind behind my neighbours place, and once Peak Oil bites I reckon my culdesac will become an intentional community!
    I'm far enough inland that rising sea levels won't see me get wet feet.
     
  18. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    we moved about 2 hours or so drive from where we were, app' 50k in from the coast very northern sunny coast qld. our water will come from the clouds, only creeks around here are mostly storm water gullies. if we get flooded then sad to say there will be lots more go before us. built our own as comfy naturally as possible within tight budget, almost no pre-built homes out there with any natural comfort or sustainability, also too over priced as well. 1.25acre block with good grass just in case we opt for a milking goat early days yet raised beds to build and chook house to build planted 3 doz' trees app' 70% natives got lots more native food trees and other food trees to plant yet, try and have something to eat when petrol gets too artificially high jsut like power, get a solar panel or 2 and a windy going as well.

    anyway again against the trend found a block with good soil and actually got a view of northern hip range, though view was way down our criteria list. not worried about peak anything that is all conspiracy science like the climate science's(scare monger stuff that will cost heaps and deliver naught), just reckon it is all hand in glove stuff at gov' level to cause the little people down here to pay more and suffer a bit.

    len
     
  19. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,016
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    More likely orchestrated misinformation campaign about the science, is the way the rich get to rape and pillage more and faster and have the little people blame government for having to pay more and not blame or tax the people who are profiting from the rape and pillage.
    There is no magic pudding and greed knows no bounds and the people with the money have control of the information and the the power and the minds of most of the little people.
    ..................................
    I am happy with where I am
    Im preparing for peak everything and trying to prepare my community.
    My soil is crap rock and dust,but my views are breathtaking even after over a decade
    I am working on that soil, my food forest is upto 10 years old and still getting added too.
    I have the solar set up but I would like to add more.
    Basic plan is to use less, reduce costs and improve lifestyle.
    Power and food are basically sorted.
    I cant control the price of Oil but I can drive less.
    I cant control insurance,taxes and charges and unfortunately cant escape them
    I'm not preparing for total collapse, just end of growth and slow decline and this is a good place for it.
     
  20. treetopsdreaming

    treetopsdreaming Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Unmutual, eco4560, gardenlen, and grasshopper. Thanks for adding your posts to this discussion - they all made for some interesting reading! I suppose only time will tell whether "peak anything" is a real problem or not. However, I'm glad to know that others are at least thinking about the future, forming their own opinions, and making good plans (that are right for their situation) - quite inspiring really...
     

Share This Page

-->