It'd be interesting to know what percentage of this community could 'live off the land' as it were in a localized, not globalized economy, Where food didn't travel 1,000 miles to get to your plate. Where your staple food might not be able to be bananas because England doesn't have the climate, Would we change the staple to 30 apples a day?... I think about questions like these all the time, after researching peak-oil and everything related too that. I'm very passionate about self-sustainability and community and all that good stuff, any thoughts? :)
We are tropical creatures. Our home is within the tropical belt, about 2000 miles north and south from the equator. Close to half of the world's population still lives within that region today.
Cheap fossil fuels made it possible for people to live outside the tropics, but that's finite and not sustainable long term. Once cheap oil/coal/gas runs out it's going to be tough.. people will cut down all the forests to heat their homes and to cook their food. It's going to be a disaster. Most of them will starve to death or migrate back to the tropics. A small number of them might stay and it might be sustainable for them if they manage the resources right.
This could happen in a year or 10 or 50 or 200 or whenever.. we can't tell the future.. but we do know that resources are finite and human desires are infinite.. and the population is growing..
My advice is: move to the tropics.. before it's too late.. I did 1.5 years ago.. it was the best decision ever.
The Celts of Europe would argue otherwise that "cheap fossil fuels made it possible for people to live outside the tropics" I don't see no historical evidence of huge oil refinery's down in there.. Not everybody can live in the tropics so that is not an alternative lol
I meant in large numbers in modern times.
Back in the Celts time there was only about 200 million people on the whole planet.. today we have 7 billion.. they could cut down all the trees they wanted and it barely made a dent.. try that today..
"Not everybody can live in the tropics"
Why not? Half of the world lives there and there's plenty of space for the other half too.
I don't think the only factors involved with "moving the other half" is 'Space' ...
& oh misunderstanding then yeah
The only real factor is space and if that space can provide resources. And it can via permaculture.
The rest is excuses and cultural BS.
I kind of agree but... Not everybody thinks like us, People have emotional ties to certain places and certain things .. it's a web of complexity but if there was a huge turning point where people realized that it was the only way of survival then yeah they'd move. Who would even delegate land? because not everyone has enough money to buy a 5 acre farm, The type of scenario which is proposed is highly unlikely to happen and highly complicated, especially in a capitalist system, i don't think the "sharing is caring" would really apply to the western 'developed' world especially, if you get my drift
Don't be such a pessimist lol..
There's plenty of cheap land available all around. I paid 14K for my 5 acres, but 2 acres would be enough too and it's even cheaper in most other tropical places.
Land should be free (it would be if there was no coercive governments/states) and everyone should only occupy a portion that they can cultivate, maintain and care for.
Land in itself doesn't really have value.. we create value by building a house, planting trees, etc.
But until statism collapses and an anarchist/voluntaryst society emerges, the best we can do is buy land and plant trees.
Some of us will do it.. others will keep coming up with excuses..
It's not pessimism, it's realism. There are a lot of monetarily poor people around the world, not everyone can cough up 14k for 5 acres, That's one question and the other would be is there enough 2-5 acre plots for the "other half of the population" ? Tropics house about 3.5billion atm, Who knows, maybe it is possible.
But yeah i agree with you and i don't believe in nationalism or statism, It should be a more community-helpful based organisation compared to what we have now. Land does have value in a sense, it's fertile land, but i don't believe in 'owning' the earth, we work WITH the earth, not a dominant hand that's there to control and own it. I'm not too sure on anarchy either, it has some flaws, prefer the socialist/communist approach
I was poor once.. I didn't "cough up" the money.. I worked for it.
14K in Florida, but I'm sure you can buy 1-2 acres for a couple of thousands, perhaps even a few hundred in rural tropical places.
But not everyone has to have their own 2-5 acre lot. If you're into communism you can pool your resources with other like minded people, buy a plot of land and build your dream socialist community right there. Nobody is stopping you from doing that.
But all the land is occupied so buying is the only option until statism collapses.
Definitely respect that, ah you moved to Florida? when you said tropics i was thinking somewhere further south! haha, Yeah at the end of the day, we need what we need, not what we want. Even small plots of land can be hugely abundant especially with perma-culture, Yeah i guess nobody is stopping me .. until it happens then America puts an embargo on me like Cuba haha
Yeah, south Florida is a tropical pocket that is outside of the tropical belt.
The biggest obstacle today isn't money, but the difficulty to move around.. the governments protect their tax farms vehemently.
Although i do agree with this current globalized economical system that the case is cheap fossil fuels has made it possible, There was a time before oil became such a significant driving force in humans lives prior to the 1900's when it boomed. And yeah i agree we are artificially sustaining the lives of billions of people from a finite resource: oil. That's a dilemma that is difficult to resolve.