Hypothetical question - Living off the land

  • 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.

rik_uk3

Banned
Jun 10, 2006
13,320
24
69
south wales
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.:D

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#


There would be little food to scavenge, certainly not in supermarkets which empty fast enough anyway, introduce a pandemic or something and the shelves would be cleaned in a day.

As for killing a pig, you have to find one first.

Do you know where to find good seeds? Little things like that are important.

You'd die in the end, if not from starvation then from some idiot who really wanted your stash of tinned food.
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
We all die in the end, that's quite normal.:lmao:

If it isn't in the supermarkets it is in the house, just go door to door clearing the pantry from each one.

Depends what seeds you are needing, to start there will be a lot of outlets that have them, most won't be looking for long term sollutions, just short term results.:(
 

Neumo

Full Member
Jul 16, 2009
1,675
0
West Sussex
It does make you think this thread... It is bringing out the hidden survivalist tendancy in me. I keep thinking about buying a house in the country, on the top of a hill, with a spring, wood etc... and a much larger cabinet...

To be serious, I like the message of being becoming more food self sufficient, as sort of invertment in your future, and to start collecting some things that would be usefull to have if things ever did hit the fan big time; such as a shoebox full of vegitable seeds, some more tools, an old manual grain mill etc.. Sort of like a survival kit for your house... Lots to think about there, for me.
 

rik_uk3

Banned
Jun 10, 2006
13,320
24
69
south wales
We all die in the end, that's quite normal.:lmao:

If it isn't in the supermarkets it is in the house, just go door to door clearing the pantry from each one.

Depends what seeds you are needing, to start there will be a lot of outlets that have them, most won't be looking for long term sollutions, just short term results.:(


I store a bit of food, about three months worh, but most people don't store a lot, slim pickings could be had house scavenging.

A lot of seeds are hybrid, one off jobs, you need the seeds you can gather from after a season.

Panic buying would clear the shelves of a lot of stuff, not just food.
 

Laurentius

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Aug 13, 2009
2,422
614
Knowhere
Well I hope you will pardon the bogey "asperger man" jumping in here with a total lack of social nous, but I have a lot of thoughts on this, too many to set down. Being now on the wrong side of fifty I can take things stoically.

My parents were of a generation to remember rationing and we supplemented our food with home grown vegetables and home made wine :)

In my later years I grew what I could in a very small urban garden I turned from solid clay to fertile soil, but now I live in flat so there is no hope at all. Such is the world today that being practically the last on my estate to have an open hearth I am not even allowed to use it now elfin safety has banned me, when I used to forage for wood when I first moved in, and yes I could cook over it too if I had to.

Of course it T**** it would be bollox to elfin safety and I reckon I probably have a better idea of how to survive than the local chav's.

There is still a lot of open space notwithstanding and if there was a real communal effort it could be turned over to food production like in the war.

You wouldn't get fat on it, but it would help to keep the proverbial wolf from the door.

Thing is the way the world is going perhaps it is better to be on the wrong side of fifty, because I will not live to see the worst of it, yep Malthus probably had it right all along, all we have done with technology is put off the inevitable, and those who see the greener pastures on the far far side of the coming tribulation, will like the late medieval society who survived the black death see vast improvements in there living standards.

It's not total gloom, because even if the sea were to rise 100 metres it still leaves the whole of Greenland and Antarctica to turn into productive land, never mind there might still be enough natural resources under there to keep a more enlightened and frugal society going long enough to launch off into outer space, cos nothing lasts forever :)

Forty thousand years ago had I survived the age of forty, I woudn't need to worry about the rest of society keeping me going I would be the Shaman :)
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
Forty thousand years ago had I survived the age of forty, I woudn't need to worry about the rest of society keeping me going I would be the Shaman :)

Probably not that long ago, even a few of hundred years ago the life expectancy wasn't much higher than forty, and there are places on the planet where it is still "elder" status.

Too much technology keeping us here for longer than is necessary, remove the technology and let nature take its course.
 

apj1974

Nomad
Nov 17, 2009
321
0
Lancashire. UK
www.apj.org.uk
I'm not convinced about this idea that in the past forty was old. Yes life expectancy was lower on average, but this was largely due to high infant mortality, if you take that out of the equation then I suspect that you would find that most adults who survived childhood, lived to an age which we would find reasonably normal, say 60 to 70 years.

Edit - Just found some evidence for the above http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

basically it shows that at age forty or fifty the average life expectancy has increased by about 8-10 years in the last 150 years but the average life expectancy at birth has changed by about fortty years. In other words if you were born in 1850 the average age you might expect would be late thirties whereas now it would be late seventies, however if you were 40 in 1850 the average age you might expect to live to would be late sixties whereas now it would be late seventies. So on average all our increase in life expectancy actually means is that less children die, which is a good thing. I'm not so sure if an extra few years in your seventies or eighties is such a benefit.
 
Last edited:

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0793c.asp

From 8000 B.C., the line is nearly horizontal. Then at about 200 years ago, it turns up like a rocket. Life expectancy jumped from under 30 years to over 75.

But more worrying is the population doubling rate :eek:
The growth in world population is equally dramatic. The population stood at about 5 million in 10,000 B.C. For 99.9 percent of human history, population doubled about every 35,000 years. But beginning in 1650, that doubling time began to shrink. Between then and 1750, it was 240 years. Between 1850 and 1900 it fell to 115 years. In 1970, the doubling time shrank to a mere 35 years, a population growth rate of 2.1 percent a year.
 

sandsnakes

Life Member
May 22, 2006
983
13
68
West London
Many years ago there was a guy who wrote articles such as 'Feed your family from a window box'. His comment idead was that a domestic garden could be turned into a small farm using competative agriculture.

Can anybody remember his name?

Sandnakes
 

Chinkapin

Settler
Jan 5, 2009
746
1
83
Kansas USA
Regarding the question, how old was "old", back in earlier times, I cannot give any definitive answer to that, but I can share with you something that has stuck with me for many years.

While doing some research of a historical nature I just happened upon a newspaper obituary. This was printed about 1850 in a newspaper somewhere in the south of the United States. The obituary stated that Mr. ________ had died recently. His age was given as 50, and the cause of death was listed as "old age."

At the time, this struck me as so different from today that it has always stayed with me.

Obviously this is anecdotal and not true evidence, yet it clearly reflected the opinion, not of the author of the newspaper article but apparently that of the doctor who attended the patient. Even if the cause of death was not from a doctor, at the very least it represented the collective opinion on the man's family.

certainly, people lived beyond their 50,s and well beyond on occasion. But it seems that for a good many people, if you made it to 50, you were considered to have reached old age. Shocking, from our perspective.
 

Laurentius

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Aug 13, 2009
2,422
614
Knowhere
My Grandfather who was born in 1878 lived to be no older than 59, likewise my dad lasted until 58. At 54 I am beginning to feel a little old now.

I think by the time you reached 50 you would be pretty much worn out, even if you might survive another 20 years.

Modern medicine may have achieved a lot of things but it hasn't stopped the hair loss, or the greying of whats left of it, never mind that affliction that has been around since the time of the dinosaurs, arthritis. There are other things that are past there sell by date too, but probably too indelicate to mention on a family forum.
 

Adrian

Forager
Aug 5, 2005
138
3
70
South East London
There are currently about 67 million people in the UK, projected to rise to about 70 million in the next 5-10 years - at least I think that's the timescale.

If we all HAD to revert back to living off the land, then assuming that means a farming/fishing/foraging/hunting/ local manufacturing of cloth and wood/metal implements economy, then probably not much more than 3-4 million - perhaps up to 5 million. That's about the population of the Elizabethan/Stuart period. Actually the Elizabethan population was just over 3 million.

If we're talking hunter/gatherer, then it would be sustainable for a LOT fewer people than that - even assuming that the fish/game/wild edible and medicinal plants were reasonably available(which they are not any more); probably not much more than 50 - 100 thousand. I think a nomadic HG lifestyle requires quite a lot of range to sustain. Remember that during the HG period in the British Isles there was a LOT of wild game around; extensive forests and plant habitats existed and even then the population was not much more than about 30 thousand (if I recall it correctly). The population only really began to get rolling with the advent of agriculture and "proper" fishing.
 

Minotaur

Native
Apr 27, 2005
1,600
232
Birmingham
A lot of seeds are hybrid, one off jobs, you need the seeds you can gather from after a season.

Yeah this would be a big problem. Could go vintage but they not as good growers as modern. Also think about what we eat? How hard would rice or a lot of fruit we take for granted be to grow in our climate?

I think the big thing would be what happened?

The main reason for the rise of age, is medicine which would be a big problem. A cut finger could kill you without medical back up, the flu, or any of the other medium illnesses we ignore on a regular basis.

You could also put forward an argument for the various Revolutions over the last 200 years. The whole world changed in the last 200 years. This is a big thing to think about when looking at how much land you would need to live on etc we know a lot more than people 100 years ago. Also things like perma-culture and square foot gardening would be worth thinking about. You are not trying to feed everyone once, but your family for a year.

For this sort of thing a castle, cottage garden, or forester model would be better than a farm. Also think about storage? You would need to be able to store upto three years of certain things, and have a three month or so gap every year to cover food wise.

Go forward with the fact that you would need to defend what you have, from everyone.

Then you have things like power, tools, and clothing to think about. Take a look at the British Library, that is the size of building needed to house all of human knowledge, in English.
 

Siberianfury

Native
Jan 1, 1970
1,534
6
mendip hills, somerset
Hypothetical question - if Britain were to return (for whatever reason) to people having to live off the land, how many people do you think the UK could support?

not very many, many would starve or be killed by others, many wouldnt have a clue as they have lived in towns and citys all their lives and couldnt look after themselves in the wild.
 

Laurentius

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Aug 13, 2009
2,422
614
Knowhere
I think it is more realistic to suppose civilization will end with a wimper rather than a bang. Yes there might be some catastrophic event on the horizon, but what is more likely is that there will be a steady spiralling rise in the cost of everything, more like a Zimbabwe situation than New Orleans.

What will happen as food begins to approach what it really costs to produce is that the poorer sections of society will become increasingly marginalised and unable to afford more and more. Diseases of poverty will rise again in proportion to the rise in malnutrition (which will hit before outright starvation) and the poor will simply start to die off in ever increasing numbers. Of course this will probably leave civilisation more vulnerable to catastrophic events which will just increase the number.

The population cannot continue to rise exponentially that is for sure, the difficulty comes in the adjustment period if you and your family are one of those who don't have the resources to make it through to the other side.
 

Paul_B

Bushcrafter through and through
Jul 14, 2008
6,154
1,546
Cumbria
Wingstoo mentioned something about being near to population wherever we are in the UK in an earlier post (much earlier). I just thought it an interesting aside but on another forum someone posted that the OS had found the point that was the furthest from signs of human activity. Do you know how far away from signs of human activity it was? The answer was 7 miles and it is in Scotland BTW!

This is a very hypothetical question and is the sort to lead to varied conversations from armageddon fighting situations with looting and murder through to a sustainable society based around community support for each other. Reality is if it was just our country those that can would de-camp. If it was a situation worldwide then we would be (like most "developed" countries) in a population decrease. Even countries with a low population density the population would decrease as there are fewer people with the knowledge to produce their own food. This has probably been said elsewhere much better than me but as a returnee to the site after a long absence I am catching up.

I am fortunate as I come from a long line of menfolk who grew their own food (or as much of it as possible). Indeed my Grandparents did really well during the war (he was in a reserved occupation and couldn't serve in the army BTW). They grew so much excess food that they bartered for goods and services. They always had enough meat (a butcher friend was always after fruit and veg and always had "excess" meat). I could grow my own fruit and veg given time to get the process started and the harvests through. I already have an allotment (only had it for a few months so no produce yet). Of course this would only work if I could prevent people nicking the food. This happens on allotments even now, especially with the financial thing apparently.

I do think we are all selfish by nature so it will be a case of me and mine sorted first. This would only work IMHO as a community basis. Now in a lot of areas there is no such thing as a community. I live in a small rural town and there is no reall community in my street. Not like where I grew up. My parents live in a village and are very much integrated into village life. Their community would survive if they were left to their own devices even though it is also a commutor village (allbeit with a high degree of farming and rural occupations around). The cities are not sustainable without a high degree of national organisation. I doubt we would be able to sustain that these days if things have gone as wrong as the question seems to imply.

One thing is certain, if limited food supply is present then obesity will be limited and we'd end up with a healtier population left over. See there is a bright side to every cloud.
 

locum76

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Oct 9, 2005
2,772
9
47
Kirkliston
I've mentioned this before but there is already an organisation which proposes measures to deal with these issues. Its called 'the Transition Movement'. There aim is to increase resilience and sustainability within local communities by promoting (among other things); seed banking, growing your own food, localisation of currency, low fuel use, recycling, reusing, repairing, local manufacture of clothing etc, production of medicine (herbal). etc, etc, etc.

Of course it doesn't deal with overpopulation but it does create a framework for survival and 'living off the land' on a local scale. Providing of course, that the groundwork is undertaken NOW.

I'm not sure I would fully subscribe to their methods (they are a bit too hippy even for me) but I think it's the best approach so far. The hard part is getting the buy in of a WHOLE community not just the middle class liberal types.
 

Minotaur

Native
Apr 27, 2005
1,600
232
Birmingham
I think it is more realistic to suppose civilization will end with a wimper rather than a bang. Yes there might be some catastrophic event on the horizon, but what is more likely is that there will be a steady spiralling rise in the cost of everything, more like a Zimbabwe situation than New Orleans.

I would not be surprised if a disease solved the population problem. You only have to look at swine flu's spread to see how dangerous something like that could be. The big thing with that would be it would affect cities massively. And the people who can stay away from other people would survive the longest.
 

Neumo

Full Member
Jul 16, 2009
1,675
0
West Sussex
It's probably only a matter of time before a large outbreak of a nasty disease hits a large part of the western world. Something like the Spanish Flue outbreak of 1918, which is reckoned to have killed off up to 100 million people, when there were a lot less people around then there are today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

If a significant proportion of the population got ill and died then everything would fall apart for quite a few years but I am sure humans would bounce back in the end. Does make you wonder & there is not that much you can do to prepare for things like that, especially if it goes on for months or years.
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE