Peak Oil and Community Considerations

I have previously written a paper entitled Blueprint for Preparation as a for-sale piece over at Matt Savinar’s site Life After the Oil Crash. The main purpose of Blueprint was to outline a set of practical steps we could take in our effort to prepare for the long period of crisis and social transformation which in reality has already begun to unfold on our civilization—a prioritized path by which we might gradually ‘disengage’ ourselves from the suicidal culture we inhabit, and to thereby insulate ourselves to a large degree from its collapse. The ultimate ideal this path points to is a conscious and intentional reinvention of our culture into a more self-reliant, responsible and humble way of life. And as the practical vision for our preparations, I pointed toward the model most ecovillages have been pursuing, although I stressed that:

“…in all fairness it should be accepted that for many people, joining an ecovillage may only represent an ideal, and that in practice a change of this magnitude might prove too great a hurdle…. Nevertheless I’d encourage you to study the matter carefully and to keep the basic premise of it present in your thoughts as you go about your preparations and begin to organize your life in this direction.”

In reality however there's a far more viable option available to us and one that, in light of how urgent I believe our situation has become, is probably more appropriate for most people to consider. We can also try, in effect, to retro-fit some existing small-town communities to meet our demands. More specifically I should say we can identify communities that have optimal characteristics for meeting the demands of the coming years, then direct our energies toward educating as many of the present populace there as are open to it about the issues we face and the solutions we might embrace, and hope they'll become committed to a proper response. This would certainly seem at first glance to be much easier than creating a whole new community from scratch as the ecovillage movement is doing. And it’s obviously a more comfortable and accessible alternative for most people to embrace.

But I would caution that in actual practice I think the obstacles to this are going to be substantial, and very, very few communities are going to suffice, especially if the collapse happens too quickly or too forcefully. Certainly any prospective candidate-community would need to have a sufficient “infrastructure” already in place for self-reliance, and that's the main concern I want to address here. But also, a community must be willing to embrace the cultural imperatives of a new way of life—willing right away to study and face our situation unflinchingly, and to work quickly and efficiently to reinvent themselves so as to be able to weather two decades or more of substantial self-reliance (inter-reliance is probably a more appropriate term since what we hope is to establish not so much "self" sufficiency as regionalized sufficiency). Yet as I imagine most readers of this article have found, it’s already difficult enough just convincing our loved ones and those close to us of the need to transform their lives in the radical ways that are necessary. Trying to achieve this as a newcomer within a long-established community that’s largely unaware or unconvinced of the need for change is going to be nigh on impossible—unless the community is already predisposed to accepting and embracing counter-culture ways of living (and I should state here that by “counter-culture” I’m speaking in the broadest sense of any way of life that runs counter to our present unsustainable culture).

So I strongly suspect that the communal inter-reliance that’s needed will prove an insurmountable obstacle for many small communities, where decades of conservatism, inflexibility, isolationism and/or social inertia will have to be overcome. This is the primary reason the ecovillage movement exists, because it's often easier to forge new communities on new cultural foundations than it is to try to teach old dogs new tricks. Still, it’s become apparent to me over the past year or so that some communities are open to seeing and preparing for what is to come. The trick then is to excite an interest in people.

So in an effort to simply focus on practical preparations we might act on right now in this direction, what I’d like to outline are the criteria that I personally think will be crucial for us to consider when choosing an existing community to relocate into. I realize here that I’m glossing over a host of questions people might want to ask about why they should choose to relocate—but I’m hoping most of those will become clear when considering the traits which help define a more sustainable community. Suffice it to say, however, that while I can imagine how large urban centers might prove more viable during the initial stages of economic collapse, ultimately we have to understand that cities themselves will not be safe havens against the coming storms. Like corporations, large cities are essentially only a reflection of (and in truth the agents of) our hyper-exploitive resources culture. As such, when that culture collapses—when resources can’t or won’t be allowed to travel far and wide any longer—large cities will begin to unravel as well. And no amount of rooftop gardening is likely to change that fate. In fact we should logically expect them to be the very first casualties (and in this regard it’s no surprise that American auto-makers and airlines would appear to be signaling the sea-change to come).

And once again I’ll acknowledge that there are considerable personal obstacles which all of us face (with the possible exception of young, single people) should we accept that we can’t adequately prepare for the future where we now live. And certainly we can’t expect much support from within the confines of our present culture to help us in adopting a new one, since culture is by its very nature a binding force. In fact as I tried to point out in Blueprint for Preparation, it's work enough just breaking the myriad ties we have already. I also don’t have any advice for how to make a living in a small town, or for convincing the spouse about how we want to pull the kids out of school and begin again somewhere far away because the sky is falling, the sky is falling.… These are the personal struggles we all must face. But it’s worth noting that confronting these kinds of issues is in itself part of our journey into a new way of living. And if it’s helpful, I’ll offer up that what I’ve found for myself is that the resistance almost always exists because I haven’t yet entered deeply enough into a clear understanding of my situation—and here l should stress that by understanding I’m not talking about an emotional conviction, but rather simply a clear, impartial recognition of why we are in the situation we’re in...what it is about my life that makes our society unsustainable.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

So the following items represent a kind of checklist of things I believe we’ll have to consider when seeking a community which might give us the best chances of dealing with the coming collapse. I imagine it’s not perfect or complete or even fully applicable to every particular situation. But for me these characteristics form a sound basis for evaluation. So in deciding where I want to be for the next decade or more I should at least be very clear about my reasons for accepting anything that doesn’t measure up to this checklist.

1) It should be a small community with a small town or two as its focus. The optimal population will vary depending on resources, but I would guess that anything over 50,000 people will probably be too great, while anything under 5,000 people may not have enough diversity of labor (these numbers are debatable). A small town gives the community a center of focus, which will be crucial for communicating and reorganizing the way of life. Regardless, the community shouldn’t be too “scattered”.

2) It should have some vestige of a pre-petroleum infrastructure and traditions. Admittedly, however, this doesn’t necessarily mean the town must have been established long ago, although older communities will probably offer the best opportunities in this regard. Older farming towns in the Northeast and Midwest are good examples. How many of the houses and buildings depend solely on propane or gas? Are there still people practicing traditional trades and crafts, or other skilled "cottage industries"? Is there an active Farmer's Market? Is there still a diversity of independent stores or has Wal-Mart strangled the local suppliers out entirely?

3) It should have abundant fresh water. Surface water is dicey for regular consumption, but may have many other advantages. A reliable water-table (indicating reliable well-water) is probably ideal—and then again, abundant surface water will generally be an indicator of the latter. One caveat: per item #9 below, I would personally shy away from anything located along a major waterway because of increased traffic and pollution concerns. For instance I've seen photos of shanty-towns that grew up all along the Mississippi River during the Great Depression, and obviously similar situations exist in other very poor countries...which means there will be human waste-flow all downstream. Admittedly, however, the transportation opportunities that being on a large waterway offers may be important in a post-oil world. It's a consideration. In general, though, water purity measurements and concerns are critical to research.

4) It should have abundant sustainable farming/dairy/cattle ranching in the immediate area. Corporate farming is actually a detriment for a variety of reasons (and such farms may not even be able to commit their produce to the local community anyway). Keep in mind that we're only looking toward practical solutions we can embrace right away, so for our immediate needs “sustainable” doesn’t have to be defined too strictly and might be almost anything that doesn’t severly deplete the soil or other resources and which is not dependent on long-range irrigation systems. Really, we want to have several organic meat and agricultural farms nearby, and plentiful forest land available. Also, any area known to have rich soil is definitely a plus since it will allow for increased agriculture in the future (i.e. should the community find itself a haven during hard times).

5) The present attitude can be either progressive or conservative, but we want to be convinced that the people will pull-together in times of hardship. And generally speaking we tend to find this quality in many small communities anyway—another good reason to distrust the viability of cities. All things considered, however, a progressive community is probably going to be a better fit for the following reason:

6) It should have an established “alternative” care and services scene—holistic medicine and health care, dentistry, alternative schooling, alternative energies, building methods, etc. This doesn't mean anything "new age", but most "alternative" sciences and skills do seem to represent the needs and thinking of the coming era. If there is a good traditional hospital in the area, terrific! But we want to know that the community is not blindly bound to conventional systems of thinking. And that if supplies, drugs and other equipment cannot be maintained there will still be a viable body of knowledge to draw on in addition. Other important "alternatives" to have are alternative energies technicians, home-systems businesses and craftspeople skilled in alternative building methods—because at some point we simply may not be able to build with modern materials and methods.

7) It should have a diverse age range among the populace. We'll want a community which appreciates its children and allows them to flourish. We also want to have old-timer’s around who remember how things got done before there were semi-trucks and power tools and refrigerators and cheap chemical-products and stuff.

8) It should be able to support a strong local economy. So for instance, the area should not be a “company town” substantially dependent on one or two companies or industries. Similarly, it shouldn’t be too dependent on any one particular resource.

9) It should NOT have any nearby or upstream chemical plants, toxic industrial plants or mines, nuclear reactors, dumping grounds or landfills, superfund sites, military installations, etc. In good times most of these industries treat the fines they receive for “accidents” as just the cost of doing business…what will they be like when things start to get truly unregulated? It'd be ideal not to have any large factory farms or agribusinesses upstream, either...but that's probably not realistic.

10) It should be located several miles from any major highways. I don't by any means believe the world will turn into "Mad Max" in the coming years, but as a practical rule: if you're doing well while others are struggling, it's best to keep a very low profile. Also, in the near term at least, highway and rail access makes an area more attractive to businesses and developers. And as a side note, as cities start to become undesirable there'll be a migration of people out to the countryside, and this could threaten to overwhelm small communities with attractive assets. Still, it's also worth noting that most "immigrants" moving into a town won't be just aimlessly wandering...they'll likely be coming because they have relatives or friends there who've invited them in--so there's no way to insulate from these events entirely. Hence the need for good soil and resources for growth.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

In the above list I didn’t discuss issues related to regional weather conditions because I’ve generally found that people only fear extremes of heat or cold when they're not personally used to it. Still, each region’s weather and other environmental conditions should be understood and evaluated. For instance, what about living near the ocean or on an island off-shore…is global warming going to raise the sea-levels beyond your front doorstep? I don’t know. But again, I think it's important to only concentrate on issues that are of immediate practical concern and which will get us just the first two or three steps down the road of preparation and increased self-reliance.

Similarly, an areas tax rate may be an important consideration, as well as the relative freedom or restrictiveness of it's local laws and regulations (which will have an effect on building codes, businesses and such). But these aren't necessarily "deal-breakers", as they say, if the area has considerable opportunity otherwise.

Also, I suppose it should be helpful to be located near a railway line. Certainly there are plusses to that, but there are minuses as well, and I imagine only time will tell if train travel will have a renewed importance in our future.

And perhaps other criteria or considerations will come to mind later. If so I reserve the right to update this list whenever I wish, and obviously you should too….

In summary, however, I would just stress again that we cannot realistically move in and try to force our ideas about change upon an existing community of people, and any heavy-handed attempts to do so will likely be disastrous. Therefore we would simply aim to make an open effort to initiate whatever people might be interested about our situation (and if we’ve chosen the community well there should be at least a handful). And in this light we can find support in the fact that at some point soon the awareness of peak oil is going to appear in the popular media, and then more and more people will begin looking for information and answers. Then, for example, if we've already assembled a group of people from the area who are open to these changes it might be possible to approach the City Council and secure funds for certain key projects, or to bring in speakers and educators with key talents who can offer workshops or training for the community. There are a myriad small, practical things such a group could begin with and which would have a farther-reaching effect in a small town than in a larger city—and these efforts would help provide an initial example and direction for how the community can begin to work together over the coming years.

The payoff in this respect is that we don’t have to create a brand new community from the ground up the way the ecovillage model does; we’re doing something more akin to renovating an existing community. And while there are still many considerations and obstacles involved in this course of action, I think if we’re meticulous in our identification of a community with the right characteristics then we’ll find most of the pieces we would want will already be in place. So this might actually be the most efficient and realistic solution available to most people.

[Readers interested in this topic can find further advice in Paula Hay's article "Escape from Megalopolis" or Gene GeRue's book "How to Find Your Ideal Country Home"

Comments

[Survival Acres]

The ecovillage concept is, in my mind, a "dead" idea. One million ecovillages (an absurd number) would not be enough. The community suggestion is exactly what I'm leaning to, but your town size is far too large for sustainability. 50,000 people require an awful lot of energy, water, sanitation, food and production capacity.

Scaling back is the only viable option the human race has. Which is what you're saying all along I'm sure, but the numbers need to go way down.

Even towns the size of 5,000 are pretty large, but there is zero chance that 50,000 will function without a great deal of outside energy inputs.

Cattle ranching is pretty agriculturally intensive, requiring large amounts of resources (fodder and water) and creating a large amount of pollution. I'd not relocate near such a facility if I could help it. Meat animals are not that beneficial without outside energy inputs, they were primarily used for labor saving work. Only with the advent of cheap energy or lots of free land to open range and feed themselves, were meat animal production viable as a commercial enterprise.

Small scale ranching would be the best bet for a small community. I'd put these numbers at 15,000 maximum to 100 minimum. The era of the large town is over, not just the city.

I would also state the educating others in the community, while necessary, not be the top priority. What will work best over word of mouth and sharing information such as Internet articles and research papers will be functioning farms and sustainable homesteads. These will speak volumes about the ability for communities (which are comprised of families) to do the same thing.

I'm not sure about #10 either. The exchange of necessary goods and services will be a priority. Good access to other towns and villages will be necessary. Most existing towns and villages already have good access for this reason and that will still be necessary in the future. Determined attackers or marauders won't be dissuaded by distances from highways, you'll have to deal with them anyway.

Here's what I think will be the worst problem regarding retrofitting a small town. Private property and zoning requirements.

Owning or controlling enough land, access to water and being allowed to develop a sustainable homestead without running afoul of the stupid bureaucrats and idiotic lawmakers in this country. You'd think they'd wise up and realize the need to "make the switch" but they won't, don't and have no vested interest in letting this happen.

Think "taxes" and property values and you'll understand what I mean.

You'd be way better off locating to a small town that already has lax zoning requirements and low property prices, along with decent weather (check the stories on global warming on my blog) and good water then to try to get a "uppity" little town to wake up and smell the manure needed in your planned homestead.

[george]

Steven,

I think that you are right on track. What you are suggesting is close to what I have already done. I feel certain that there must be plenty of places available to do the same sort of thing, probably in the rural area of many states which were settled in the early to mid 1800's.

In my travels around the southern states, I have noticed that most rural areas seem to be very similar (in appearance), from state to state. It was just as easy to get a flat tire fixed on an old motorhome with "split ring" wheels in the panhandle of Florida as it was in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas. (But absolutely impossible in a city at a "big box" tire dealer.)

My place is in a rural area, no zoning, between two towns of approx 2500 people. About 11 miles to either one.

I have a good friend and neighbor who grew up in the same area of the Arkansas Ozarks where I have my country place, who is thirty-something years old, and remembers when they first got electricity.

There are older people in the area who still grow beautiful huge gardens every year, and still grow their own potatoes. How readily available, and inexpensive are potatoes?

I can still get my property logged with someone who hauls the logs out with mules, which does far less damage to the land.

Many people still heat primarily with wood.

There is a fairly large population of "hippies" who fled back to the land in the seventies, and are still here, now they are artists, shop owners, craftsmen, etc.

I bet you can find the same thing in MN.

Part of the key to my situation, is that I found a rural place only 80 miles away from my city home/business. That way, I did not have to abandon my "city life" in order to get started on my "country life". I can run up after work, if I need to for some reason, and still be back in town by bedtime.

[chris]

I think it'd be cool to do a google maps 'mashup' of all of you who think they are heading towards or are already in a potentially excellent place to be post-economic collapse.

Not to have a pissing contest on whose got the best location (in mind), but to discreetly draw together those who are either mentally prepared for or in search of culture-change.

If you hit me up with your town or region I could compile and post either. I hope I get some response to plot this out. This could be cool. Thanks for your time.

[c]

Ouch- 2nd sentence "who's" for "whose". Thanks.

I do not believe that I am in a "potentially excellent" spot. It's just that I am here already, and it does have a lot going for it. It is also probably a little too far south. People lived here before air conditioning, but it can be hard to imagine how they did it sometimes. On the flip side, it is easier to keep warm in the winter.

I was just suggesting that any state that was settled in the mid 1800's and had a rural agrarian component to it at that time, probably still has some areas that would be good (or better) to be in post collapse.

Last year I made a couple of road trips that took me through Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee. There is a whole lot of pretty farm land, and there are many small towns out there!

[Cornfed]

"[..] anything under 5,000 people may not have enough diversity of labor. [..] And any area known to have rich soil is definitely a plus, since it will allow for increased agriculture in the future."

Sounds like you're determined to try to keep the present dysfunctional culture of agriculture, slave labor and rationing going, even as it collapses. That age is over now. Let it go.

[Steven Lagavulin]

Cornfed,

I'm not talking about "work force" for exploitation or about unsustainable bulk-farming or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that we'll probably need lots of people working together to create enough of a "new" economy to resist the breakdown of the old one.

It's all about creating a "transition" culture...because outside of maybe a small number of established ecovillages you're never going to see a diverse community in which everyone can support themselves. It takes a certain critical mass of different efforts to sustain the group.

I mean, maybe one day human civilization will revert to semi-nomadic hunter gatherers, but it's not going to happen in our lifetime (or at least if it does then we've got bigger problems than unsustainable farming methods). My view is that while we want to move as quickly as possible, we still need to view the culture change as a step-down process. Does that make sense to you, or do you disagree?

[Cornfed]

I disagree. I think your plans for a yuppie Amerika-in-miniature are spiritually highly undesirable and practically unworkable in the near term. The idea of an "economy" of 5k+ people with a "division of labor" implies the existence of a rationing system within which people are compelled to operate. They are not doing what they want to but instead have to do what they don't want to in order to obtain sustenance within the context of the imposed external punishment/reward system. That is; they are slaves. We've had to put up with this crap for 8k years and now that it is finally on its last legs, you seem determined to keep it going for as long as possible. That's fairly tacky.

On a practical level, there really is no such thing as sustainable agriculture. It may look like there is at first glance, but in practice there is always external stuff being fed into the system. Once this is no longer possible, the agriculturalists are screwed. Furthermore, you should look at the globalization of agriculture as a logical consequence of its unsustainability of a small scale. Once smallholders operating in relative isolation had drained the land to the extent that they couldn't grow anything any more, methods had to be devised to import more and more stuff into the agricultural system from further and further away, eventually culminating in a the current massive global agrichemical distribution system, with all its associated overheads. Now, when that is breaking down, you think you can use land that is even more worn out to do something that wasn't working in the first place?

As to people reverting to being hunter-gatherers, semi-nomadic or otherwise, this seems like a very good thing and easily doable. Of course, sheeple can't or won't do this, so the solution is for them to starve to death. It is perfectly within the capacity of people to hunt, fish, trap and forage, just as it is perfectly within the capacity of sheeple to starve. We are all going to have to decide which category we fall into and which associated fate we choose before long. If we choose the former, then we really must undergo a spiritual transformation to get us there. Conscious planning and goal setting - relics of the now-defunct slave society - will no longer help us.

[J.W.]

Steven, I think your piece on community considerations is quite interesting. However, I think you have left out another dimension to community issues that is important.

The "sustainable size of towns" is quite debatable--and has been ever since this movement got started. Some say 10000, others say 50000, others say 100000, and others say merely 150. However, there is an aspect of "sustainable" size that I think you left out here.

First, you did not point out that what makes cities rely on outside resources is not just their size--but their density. Their density is too high for "rooftop gardening" to support them. Population density is another factor here in determining a sustainable town, and I did not notice that mentioned in this essay.

New York City, like all large cities, is reliant on outside inputs of energy not just because 8 million people live there, but because 8 million people live in such a small space.

What determines the sustainability of a town is not just its size, but its density. When we consider any town, regardless of its size, be it 50000 or 1 million, we need to think about how dense it is. Despite the "end of suburbia" talk that has arisen in the Peak Oil crowd, David Holmgren has shown how the low density nature of suburbs and semi-rural areas are an asset in a post-peak world. His plan on retrofitting suburbs might not work, but his ideas about low density being better (contrary to the New Urbanist schemes) are good contributions to the discussion.

Let's consider a set of towns that I am familiar with, in the Chicago area. One might immediately think that, since these towns are "suburbs" located in a large metro area, that means that they do not have a future in a post-peak world. However, when you analyze how these towns are made, a more critical analysis can be made.

Consider Barrington Hills, one low-dense suburb of Chicago. There are 4000 people living in it, yet the area encompasses 28 square miles and the average population density is 140 people per square mile. This means that each person, on average, has four acres in this town. Those acres could be used to grow permaculture gardens and grow a significant part of the town's food. 4000 people in a single acre, however, would rely on outside inputs (which you see in places like Tokyo or Manhattan).

A neighboring town, South Barrington, has the same population but with the average density of 550 people per square mile, giving each person around an acre.

My point is--this is an area, given the size and its low density, that in theory, could grow a significant portion of its food via permaculture within the town boundaries. If these areas were not close to an urban center, wouldn't they be a canddate for adaptation? And theoretically, couldn't a town of 50000 people, each with their own two to five acres, grow much of their food in their property, as well as the open spaces in their town? Many suburbs, especially the rich ones, are full of open land that could be used to grow food.

So the question here I'm asking is this--in finding a viable town, the question is: Is there enough land in the town or directly around the town to support the needs of it, based on its density? If we assume that 1 1/2 acres are necessary to support a person (that's what Henry Thoreau lived on, after all), then we could say that a town of 50000 with a density like one of the Barrington towns could produce a significant amount of food on their own. And finally, we can realize that there are exceptions to most rules. Reliance on outside inputs of energy is not always unsustainable--look at ancient Egypt. The Egyptians were able to farm the land around the Nile long after they turned the area into a desert because the Nile flooded its banks, and support their large cities. And of course, a town of 15000, in ancient days, was a large city.

Just some food for thought. As David Holmgren says, "Most think that farmland must lie outside the village, but in Asian towns and cities, there have been urban farms and gardens that have existed for thousands of years." Large cities might not be able to be supported by them, but the idea that growing food can take place within a town is still an idea worth acting on nonetheless.

[bovine_blue]

Cornfed

How do you propose hunting and gathering feed the billions of people alive now? Agriculture can sustain more people than hunting and gathering. I don't see how it is easily doable especially as most people don't have the knowledge to survive.

[Rashidas]

What all the contributors to this dialogue seem to be overlooking is the social and cultural realities of rural America. Our countryside, especially in the southeast, is a very conservative and religious place, the happy hunting ground of fundamentalists and Christian fanatics. It is the base for Bush and the Republican party. How will these people welcome an influx of free thinking urbanites? Will they roll out the welcome mat like they did for the Katrina refugees or will they draw in the wagons against an alien influx? Remember they are well armed and organized. Its odd that none of the contributors to these oil crash talk groups discusses these cultural facts of life in rural America.

[Rick H.]

I am moving to a town with an abundance of solar energy. Northern NM. Thats all I will need for powere and I can grow herb to pass the time. You doom and gloomers are going way too far... Look I have already invested in gold...now relax and enjoy life.

[Steven Lagavulin]

Rashidas,

You're absolutely right and that's part of what I was alluding to when I said "I strongly suspect that the communal inter-reliance that’s needed will prove an insurmountable obstacle for many small communities, where decades of conservatism, inflexibility, isolationism and/or social inertia will have to be overcome."

But not everywhere in the US is like that. California, for instance, has an abundance of small towns with their feet firmly planted in counter-culture. The Midwest and parts of the Northeast have more of what I call "open-minded conservative" thinking.

[Cornfed]

"Cornfed

How do you propose hunting and gathering feed the billions of people alive now?"

I don't. I imagine that most people alive now will starve come the collapse, but that doesn't mean that I have to. The fact that most people don't have the knowledge or inclination to survive by hunting will mean that the few who do should be in fairly good shape.

"Agriculture can sustain more people than hunting and gathering"

It can if there is a bare minimum of arable land and a source of external energy and organic material to feed into the system. This whole discussion is about a time in the near future when that will not be the case.

[mtlouie]

Steven

Reading your site for quite awhile and really think you have some great ideas and you are thinking ahead within the confines of the known. It's all we can do at this point.

I live in central Montana. Not much population density here. Yesterday, my husband, son, and I were driving back through the mountains from Missoula to our home in Great Falls. I started looking out at all the cattle grazing and the deer foraging in the fields. I started wondering how long it would take for starving people to kill off all these animals. Not long, I'll bet. I can't imagine what it would be like east of the Mississippi. Not very pretty.

There is so much to think about and I have a good background. My ex-husband and I lived the "back to the land" life for twenty years. He wasn't much of a money person and we lived a pretty slight existence compared to most of "Amerika" (as Cornfed puts it) but I learned how to do a lot with not a lot of money. I grew most of our food, home-schooled our two children, we had chickens, ducks, pigs, a calf every year, and sheep. It is a hard, hard life. No vacations. The animals have to be fed every day.

I am planning on a more vegetarian diet this time around, as with bird flu and what I expect to be the first-round kill off of any animal moving for food by the starving, meat will probably be very hard to come by.

Our city is just about 50,000 and I agree with Cornfed that that is probably just too big. Also we have a military base here, which makes me cringe at all the implications. But we will just have to make do until we can't. Just like people always have. And that is all we can do. Prepare as we can and make do. I think attitude is going to have a lot to do with it, and I am a firm believer that attitude gets spread around very easily, either good or bad. I'm trying to get a good attitude going in our local group and hope it gets spread around.

Thanks for your work,
mtlouie

[Aaron]

Hey Cornfed

You might want to get off your high horse a bit. The majority of people in western society are not ready for the crash. The idea of having a viable local economy means that these people will have the time and space to make the adjustment. If your town is totally dependant on the global economy its going to get really desperate really quick and I can't be sure but I don't think being able to hunt and gather is going to be much use for very long. Desperate people aren't very interested in caring for the environment as the more degraded parts of the third world have shown.

[Gryphon]

Steve,

Your article just reassured my wife and I, after having done our own similar research/consideration and searching over the past year, that the place we just relocated to this month aligns exactly with your list. We didn't even have to move out of California either!

As for the consideration of 'weather' -- that should be a major one. Cold equals cost, and with NatGas prices escalating immensisely, it should be a factor for anyone who's serious about downscaling their lives in a Post Peak world. At our new place, some of the appliances run on propane (water heater for washing and radiant floor heating, cooktop), but we're planning to add PV and hot water solar while remaining tied to the grid to power most of our water, cooking, and space heating needs -- in addition to the wood stove of course. Needless to say, access to timber is important for anyone relying on a wood stove. Finally, redundancy in any home system is extremely crucial, so if something goes out there's a fall-back.