Hypothetical question - Living off the land
- Thread starter Adi007
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
In 1900, 90% of the population of the U.S. lived on the land, and 10% lived in the urban areas. That trend has been reversing ever since. Today 90% of the people live in urban areas and 10% live on the land, and feed the other 90 percent and export food as well.
Coincidentally, over 1/2 of all the people in the United States live within 50 miles of the coast. So, I don't think we will be rushing to the coast to fish and eat seaweed. lol.
The population density of the U.S. is 31 people/sq. km.
The population density of the U.K. is 246 people/sq. km.
These numbers would, of course, would be catastrophic in the event of some sort of national collapse. I just checked the figures, and for 2007, 42 percent of the U.K.'s food was imported.
9.9 bn. £ of foodstuffs were exported and 23.5 bn. £ were imported. This looks rather bad, but another way of looking at it is to examine U.K. self sufficency. Self sufficency for "all foods" is 58%. This appears to be a very troubling number, but remember, it would include all of those food items that you don't strictly have to have. Oranges, cocoa, pineapples, tea (did I just say tea? -- wash my mouth out with soap!) etc. etc. On the other hand, the U.K. provides 72 percent of all its "indigenous foods." (Those foods that have always been produced in the U.K.) wheat, barley, rye, oats, beef, pork, etc.
In other words, you would have 72 percent of all the basic foods. Of course, that is based on the very big assumption that you still had sufficient gasoline and oil to run the farm machinery and keep the transportation grid up and running.
Lets face it, we all live in a very fragile world, held together primarily by a planet-wide transportation grid that is fueled by petroleum.
Obviously, the more industrialized, and urban the country, the greater the catastrophe would be. Undoubtedly, there are some areas of the world that would hardly take notice that anything had happened.
Well, that is all the "doom and gloom" I can take for one evening.
Coincidentally, over 1/2 of all the people in the United States live within 50 miles of the coast. So, I don't think we will be rushing to the coast to fish and eat seaweed. lol.
The population density of the U.S. is 31 people/sq. km.
The population density of the U.K. is 246 people/sq. km.
These numbers would, of course, would be catastrophic in the event of some sort of national collapse. I just checked the figures, and for 2007, 42 percent of the U.K.'s food was imported.
9.9 bn. £ of foodstuffs were exported and 23.5 bn. £ were imported. This looks rather bad, but another way of looking at it is to examine U.K. self sufficency. Self sufficency for "all foods" is 58%. This appears to be a very troubling number, but remember, it would include all of those food items that you don't strictly have to have. Oranges, cocoa, pineapples, tea (did I just say tea? -- wash my mouth out with soap!) etc. etc. On the other hand, the U.K. provides 72 percent of all its "indigenous foods." (Those foods that have always been produced in the U.K.) wheat, barley, rye, oats, beef, pork, etc.
In other words, you would have 72 percent of all the basic foods. Of course, that is based on the very big assumption that you still had sufficient gasoline and oil to run the farm machinery and keep the transportation grid up and running.
Lets face it, we all live in a very fragile world, held together primarily by a planet-wide transportation grid that is fueled by petroleum.
Obviously, the more industrialized, and urban the country, the greater the catastrophe would be. Undoubtedly, there are some areas of the world that would hardly take notice that anything had happened.
Well, that is all the "doom and gloom" I can take for one evening.
Interesting question.....! but a tad open ended to permit a reasonable prediction.
depending on.............
Why, how quickly and how long......then given the best case scenario, it could well be that the whole population could be supported by native produce if it was centrally co-ordinated and rationed, as we did during the war...........which means no wasteage and without imports absolutely no luxuries, not even Hurschie Bars!
Smoggy,
Good. Ye are thinking about this.
Now let's start doing something about it, and solve most of the problems before they are actually biting us in the ****. Let's use the skill and resourcefullness that we have learned through bushcraft in as constructive a way as possible.
1. Start to buy more local produce and goods, and wean ourselves off the exports.
2. Start to grow some food for ourselves. Even a patio can produce some food.
3. Start to develop networks withing our areas so that people can work with one another when the manure hits the windmill.
Now let's start doing something about it, and solve most of the problems before they are actually biting us in the ****. Let's use the skill and resourcefullness that we have learned through bushcraft in as constructive a way as possible.
1. Start to buy more local produce and goods, and wean ourselves off the exports.
2. Start to grow some food for ourselves. Even a patio can produce some food.
3. Start to develop networks withing our areas so that people can work with one another when the manure hits the windmill.
I have just stumbled upon this thread...
As a farmer (who delights in bushcraft) this type of debate intrests me immensley...
i thought these figures may help disscussion:
in the UK we have 62m people and 18.4m Ha of USEABLE agricultural land
=0.29Ha per person (0.7acres) doesnt sound too bad??
well 0.086ha is moor, 0.12Ha is grass (neither of which is able to feed us without the help of that environmental criminal the ruminant) were well over half that per person allocation.....
0.07ha is arable and 0.03ha is veg land
(source: National beef association)
without being patronising... I dont know how many of you have seen 0.29ha, its an area 50mX60m not much!
This also doesnt account for the fact that a large part of the population are not even aware that milk come from cows and vegetables grow in soil etc etc
Also some of the reasons we are not self sufficient (I dont know if we could achieve 100% or not):
-polotics, the government pays some farmers NOT to produce food??? if you can work that one out let me know. and the department of agriculture (defra) has decided its 'safer' to import as much as possible despite rising drought world wide.
-Organics plays a huge part, thought it was good for the environment? think again. this decreases UK output increasing imports and also results in less well regulated countries scrambling for our buisness, cutting down rainforest and using huge amounts of chemicals.
In my opinion the answer to securing food supplies (and to some extent controling global warming) lies in two solutions: either limit population size (how? and vastly unpopular I would imagine!) or
GM (I am still undecided on the GM thing). GM has recieved alot of bad press but I think theres alot more to it than what they publish in the daily mail. there are of course issues such as the monopoly held by Monsanto to sort out aswell as cross contamination issues.
Im a bit off topic now, I apologise, in answer to the question, probably not the current population without drastic changes ie GM
Anyway I hope this is of interest, None of this is intended to be antagonistic sorry for babaling on
MK
As a farmer (who delights in bushcraft) this type of debate intrests me immensley...
i thought these figures may help disscussion:
in the UK we have 62m people and 18.4m Ha of USEABLE agricultural land
=0.29Ha per person (0.7acres) doesnt sound too bad??
well 0.086ha is moor, 0.12Ha is grass (neither of which is able to feed us without the help of that environmental criminal the ruminant) were well over half that per person allocation.....
0.07ha is arable and 0.03ha is veg land
(source: National beef association)
without being patronising... I dont know how many of you have seen 0.29ha, its an area 50mX60m not much!
This also doesnt account for the fact that a large part of the population are not even aware that milk come from cows and vegetables grow in soil etc etc
Also some of the reasons we are not self sufficient (I dont know if we could achieve 100% or not):
-polotics, the government pays some farmers NOT to produce food??? if you can work that one out let me know. and the department of agriculture (defra) has decided its 'safer' to import as much as possible despite rising drought world wide.
-Organics plays a huge part, thought it was good for the environment? think again. this decreases UK output increasing imports and also results in less well regulated countries scrambling for our buisness, cutting down rainforest and using huge amounts of chemicals.
In my opinion the answer to securing food supplies (and to some extent controling global warming) lies in two solutions: either limit population size (how? and vastly unpopular I would imagine!) or
GM (I am still undecided on the GM thing). GM has recieved alot of bad press but I think theres alot more to it than what they publish in the daily mail. there are of course issues such as the monopoly held by Monsanto to sort out aswell as cross contamination issues.
Im a bit off topic now, I apologise, in answer to the question, probably not the current population without drastic changes ie GM
Anyway I hope this is of interest, None of this is intended to be antagonistic sorry for babaling on
MK
Last edited:
Take the scenario of:
the banks collapse
swine flu mutates and starts killing hundreds of thousands/milions
Both of which are entirely possible, then society as we know it would break down totally. There would be no money, within 5 days very little food (in supermarkets), petrol/diesel would run dry within hours so no travel by car/bus/train/plane.
No matter how efficient our bushcraft skills were in that scenario, you'd be lucky to survice longer than 2 months. there would be total lawlessness, looting, killing, you name it. Our only realistic chance would be if we lived somewhere with land/water/food (ie animals and crops or wild plants etc) or by the sea etc. I'd guess that within a year, the UK population would be back to the low 7 figures, and even then, think of the disease, the un-buried bodies. Cholera etc.
Interesting website at www.optimumpopulation.org
the banks collapse
swine flu mutates and starts killing hundreds of thousands/milions
Both of which are entirely possible, then society as we know it would break down totally. There would be no money, within 5 days very little food (in supermarkets), petrol/diesel would run dry within hours so no travel by car/bus/train/plane.
No matter how efficient our bushcraft skills were in that scenario, you'd be lucky to survice longer than 2 months. there would be total lawlessness, looting, killing, you name it. Our only realistic chance would be if we lived somewhere with land/water/food (ie animals and crops or wild plants etc) or by the sea etc. I'd guess that within a year, the UK population would be back to the low 7 figures, and even then, think of the disease, the un-buried bodies. Cholera etc.
Interesting website at www.optimumpopulation.org
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I've seen a paper from a Swedish Agricultural University indicating that about 1 ha/person is pretty much the minium for sustainable self sufficiency. Grains, vegetables, legumes, shared animals, some flax for clothes. And it assumes that someone, somewhere is making tools for the farming. And IIRC a medieval familly farm was something like 10 ha (but forest for grazing, firewood, etc was additional to that).
What a refreshingly honest answer and while full of GM seems free of BS:umbrella:
Also interesting to note that sales of organic food in the UK has dropped since a report stated that organic food has no health/nutritional benefit over standard grown food.
Survival in the UK on your own away from a group and long term is zero in the sense that you would die of starvation and I don't care how good your 'survival' skills are; you would starve to death over a period of time.
There is a very good thread over on British Blades about this very topic.
this is a good thread so ill add to it . ive only read the last dozen posts so im sorry if i repeat something already said . in my opinion 62m people will very rapidly fall as fuels , power , and readily available food dwindles . The old ,sick and the vulnerable would perish in the first winter but values would still compel the relatives to honour and bury their dead so the threat of desease would be contained for quite a while. the 0.29 ha per person would be adequate because some people would still feel the desire to remain in an area thats familiar to them and not having the skills or courage to venture into the unfamiliar so there would still be large concentrations of people and the wilder areas would be empty, also given the choice most people would rather not try to live rough in the extremely remote and harsh (weather i mean)areas of britain eg . the scotish highlands , snowdonia, the pennines etc . so these areas would remain sparsely populated . And lastly as the situation heightens the lazy and the incapable members of society would also perish ,ie life would be hard enough without carrying free loaders. i also think that in situations like this a tribal and maybe nomadic lifestyle would develop . im just speculating and have a very active imagination so dont take any of this to heart!!!!
Should also be noted that because of the recent recession people have been buying on a tighter budget, and Tesco's blue stripe or wherever is usually cheaper than "Organic".
Just need to get UK population down to 17 million and we might have a chance of being a bit more self-sustainable
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3292
Maybe, though "In a true survival situation" in "normal" times, they could walk to civilization provided they were not injured badly in a short period than it would take for them to die of starvation. "In the UK" you would have to search long and hard to find a place so isolated not to be able to get away from it in under 7 days
This whole 'I can live off the land' is blown out of proportion. Lets say 99% are dead and you are on your own; without transport you are stuffed, you can't just swan off down to the coast for some seafood, you can't plant and harvest, what would you eat in winter?. Lets say you killed a bull, what you going to do with it before it goes bad? Dry it? sure, how long will that take, who will fetch your wood, find your other food. How many here have handled even a hind quarter of beef? I have and they ain't they easy to deal with so a whole animal would be a nightmare on your own.
One of the members here did the Journeyman course when Ray was teaching and asked the man if he could survive a year in the UK on his own, his answer was "It would be extremely difficult".
How many weekends do you go to when the food for the group is all 'found' and not shipped in from Tesco?
One of the members here did the Journeyman course when Ray was teaching and asked the man if he could survive a year in the UK on his own, his answer was "It would be extremely difficult".
How many weekends do you go to when the food for the group is all 'found' and not shipped in from Tesco?
A good thread, this...
Richard's comments and Chinkapin's GREAT post are worth their weight in gold and are dead on the mark.
Even though they approach the question from different perspectives -- one focusing on solo survival, the other on national self sufficiency -- they touch on the fallacies we've talked ourselves into about how sustainable things are.
The good news is there is time to minimize the coming crises: water, food, the end of oil, climatic upheaval, global resource contention, runaway population. But to do so will require a kind of determined focus on the future humans have seldom exhibited.
And of course as others have noted, the population problem has already passed the point where it could be managed and now only truly heartbreaking prospects face us on that front. (Some would argue that oil depletion is also past managing and they can summon a pretty convincing case there too...)
I remain an optimist though in this respect: I sense a greater level of honesty amongst the public in Western nations about facing the problems that confront us. We're not quite where we need to be, but we're getting there... slowly....
I think Britain's domestic adaptations to survive during WWII shows us what an industrialized culture can do when pressed to the breaking point. Let's hope all of us alive can unflinchingly confront the situations before us and show as much character and will as your parents and grandparents did back then.
A long winter faces us and as we all know from bushcraft the ones who survive the winter are those who were busy in the summer the summer and autumn.
As a people, it's time to get busy, eh?
My dad was a wholesale fruit and veg trader in Birmingham's busy wholesale market. The winter of 1963, the worst in a couple of hundred years put him and other smaller traders out of business; how?
Back then most of what he sold was grown in the UK, you would get some imports, bananas and tangerines spring to mind but the rest was seasonal and that winter there just was not much to buy in and sell on, he went bust.
Can you imagine the effects a similar three month sub zero winter would have on the UK now?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/anniversary/winter1962-63.html
Back then most of what he sold was grown in the UK, you would get some imports, bananas and tangerines spring to mind but the rest was seasonal and that winter there just was not much to buy in and sell on, he went bust.
Can you imagine the effects a similar three month sub zero winter would have on the UK now?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/anniversary/winter1962-63.html
How has this become 99% of the population has died off?
The chances of that scenario are very minute Rik, but if that was the case, the "Survivors" would have quite a lot of food to scavange.
Rik,
I cant quote exaact figures, but since around the 1950's agricultural ouput has more than doubled from the same acerage.
Advances in technology such as plant breeding, fertiliser and pestcides means that most farming could withstand a 3month freeze, I know here we could still put milk on the door steps, at other farms, wheat, onions, potatoes are already in stores and beef could still be produced. Things like spring sown cereals are a relitivley new technology, which would be sown after the freeze.
To be honest, I think I would delight in a good freeze, it would beat the soggy mess I trudge through at the moment!!!!
It would certainly have an adverse effect (and any longer though and things would really struggle) but I dont think we would see a return to the disaster you mention in the 60's
The climate is getting more challenging, but I feel the UK is extremely well placed to do well, so far we are seeing increased temperatures and rain fall, what could be better for growing things? while in other parts of the world, heavily relied on for world food, drought, heat, fires even desertification.
MK
I cant quote exaact figures, but since around the 1950's agricultural ouput has more than doubled from the same acerage.
Advances in technology such as plant breeding, fertiliser and pestcides means that most farming could withstand a 3month freeze, I know here we could still put milk on the door steps, at other farms, wheat, onions, potatoes are already in stores and beef could still be produced. Things like spring sown cereals are a relitivley new technology, which would be sown after the freeze.
To be honest, I think I would delight in a good freeze, it would beat the soggy mess I trudge through at the moment!!!!
It would certainly have an adverse effect (and any longer though and things would really struggle) but I dont think we would see a return to the disaster you mention in the 60's
The climate is getting more challenging, but I feel the UK is extremely well placed to do well, so far we are seeing increased temperatures and rain fall, what could be better for growing things? while in other parts of the world, heavily relied on for world food, drought, heat, fires even desertification.
MK
How has this become 99% of the population has died off?
The chances of that scenario are very minute Rik, but if that was the case, the "Survivors" would have quite a lot of food to scavange.
Hypothetical, but what food would that be?
From an agricultural perspective, I think there's something to your point about climate change being OK in some respects in Britain because it's in a temperate belt (leaving aside the flooding you'll get...)
Maybe our beloved farmers on BCUK can clue us in on their current thinking in this regard.
However, the next giant problem with agriculture is this: modern high yield farming requires abundant and very cheap fuel. And of course the age of cheap and abundant fuel is going away too.
Globally, the linkage between oil and food is genuinely alarming. I've seen estimates that it takes as many as 10 kcal of oil to produce 1 kcal of food... If true, this leads to big problems.
While malnutrition remains a big global issue, we're still able to barely feed the world now by burning astonishing amounts of fuel for farming and transport. When that fuel gets too expensive, people will starve in the millions.
Months ago, someone here posted a fascinating video of a farm in England ... or maybe it was Wales... where they had started using oxen again. I applaud such efforts, but sadly, the efficiencies of non-petroleum based farming not good enough to feed our current population levels. (And of course, the productivity of petroleum based farming contributed to the population boom itself...)
Of course, starvation won't be the first symptom of an ugly global triage in the developing world. Water will be.
But that's another discussion altogether.
We can mitigate and manage these problems but we need to become committed as a world community to addressing them. I remain an optimist albeit a sober one.
Well hypothetically if the current population of the UK is 60,000,000 and if hypothetically all but 1% died that would leave something like 600,000 people alive.
So hypothetically there is a weeks supply of food per person in the UK at any one time that would be the equivalent of 59,400,000 weeks worth of food for those 600,000 to scavenge.
Of course this would depend on the time scale the hypothetical die off took, Also much of the "fresh" food would go off, and food in freezers wouldn't last, but with the availability of tinned, dried and "other" produce the scavengers would have a good amount of time to learn some new skills such as market style gardening.
Also one person or small group wouldn't consider killing a beast the size of a cow/bull for food if they had no way of preserving it, most likely they would dispatch a pig which can be processed more easily.
So hypothetically there would not be a mad dash to starvation because lack of food.
Something else that may be of interest is the future of farming on video.
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?do...=Natural+World+-+A+Farm+for+the+Future&hl=nl#
Last edited:
Dogwood,
I cannot argue with you!
This is where the biofuels argument becomes extremely tenuous, as I believe it has been proven that more oil goes in than the crop replaces at the other end. acres for food or fuel?
But what do you do? Either cut population, or redirect remaining fossil fuels into food production? Farmers will continue to cut use of fossil fuels (as this is our biggest cost) but this will invariably have an impact on output. This is already happening, and as a result food prices will have to rise sometime soon. Currently our docs are full of fertiliser which the companys cannot sell.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, GM could possibly be the answer, as it may cut the fossil fuel input required to grow crops. While I am not an expert (or a supporter, Im still on the fence!!), I can attempt to elaborate on this point if you wish.
The main oil use is in nitrogen manufacture, this is one of the most important nutrients in producing almost all foods.
I do aim to work in a system which is 'sustainable' and though we still need to use high amounts of N, our system has been carbon footprinted and is considerably lower than current standard Uk Practice.
As you say, water could be the 1st problem we have to deal with
MK
I cannot argue with you!
This is where the biofuels argument becomes extremely tenuous, as I believe it has been proven that more oil goes in than the crop replaces at the other end. acres for food or fuel?
But what do you do? Either cut population, or redirect remaining fossil fuels into food production? Farmers will continue to cut use of fossil fuels (as this is our biggest cost) but this will invariably have an impact on output. This is already happening, and as a result food prices will have to rise sometime soon. Currently our docs are full of fertiliser which the companys cannot sell.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, GM could possibly be the answer, as it may cut the fossil fuel input required to grow crops. While I am not an expert (or a supporter, Im still on the fence!!), I can attempt to elaborate on this point if you wish.
The main oil use is in nitrogen manufacture, this is one of the most important nutrients in producing almost all foods.
I do aim to work in a system which is 'sustainable' and though we still need to use high amounts of N, our system has been carbon footprinted and is considerably lower than current standard Uk Practice.
As you say, water could be the 1st problem we have to deal with
MK
Similar threads
