Hypothetical question - Living off the land

[george]

Just thinking about the pro Technology/anti Technology thing. I think we're kind of off the point. Technology is just tools.

How we use tools is the point - whether we use tools for good or for ill. Yup we can have simple tools or we can have complex tools, and sometime we may not have a choice.

Whether or not we could survive TEOCAWKI would depend on our ability to work with others and how much hate we harbour.

In Rwanda they have already been through the end of civilisation as they knew it - the high tech tools that were used in the massacres there were Pangas.

More recently in the Muslim/Christian violence throughout the Molluccas parangs were the technology of choice for ending civilisation as they knew it.

Civilisation changed irrevoccably in those areas because of hatred - technology had nothing to do with rebuilding anything. It was the desire of the survivors to try to move on and to recover and perhaps to try to ensure that it wouldn't happen again that allowed them to rebuild some semblance of normalcy - but civilisation as they had known it for many hundreds of years certainly ended.

George

 

[Great Pebble]

True, although the end of a civilization is not always brought about by hate.

 

[george]

I use the word "hate" loosely. I could also have used greed, envy, stupidity, ignorance, racism, religious hatred and many others.

Aside from natural disasters, for example disease or volcanic eruptions, can you think of any time a civilisation was ended other than by human intervention with one of these words at the heart of it?

George

 

[Kim]

Slartibartfast?

 

[jakunen]

Slartibartfast?

:rolmao::rolmao: :rolmao: :rolmao: :rolmao: :rolmao: :rolmao: :You_Rock_

 

[george]

Slartibartfast?

OK smartass!!

 

[Gary]

We'll get more efficient when it's more profitable for the more powerful businesses to do so. Sure they won't do so as early as any rational person would think it wise to do so but in the end they'll look out for the bottom line; global economic meltdown is bad for business. I don't doubt it'll be a bumpy road (a huge euphemism) before that happens and if certain people had more sense it would happen a lot quicker and with a lot less casualties. What I don't think is that it'll all go 'tits up'; humans can be pretty dumb but they can also be pretty smart too.

Make you right there mate!

As for living off the land or living from the land - surely this is just one aspect of the whole - to be truely self sufficient you'd need to be able to farm or hunt as well as sustanable resources such as fire wood and water - living from the land is really only a short term option and as such its worth bearing in mind hat with plenty of water and a fire we dont really need that much food or put another way we can go hungry for a reasonably long time!

 

[RovingArcher]

Well, I stand by my first statement about technology being the bane of humankind and in fact, is the bane of all life on this planet. Technological manufacturing is just like a human being in the respect that it consumes available resources and deposits it's waste onto the Earth. Everything that we make consumes and contaminates, but the level at which the contamination is produced with our technology, exceeds the Earths ability to deal with it and it will all eventually dump into the oceans. The oceans are not finite and can die. As I type this, the very basis of all life, the plankton, are dying.

One computer might not contaminate much, but a billion of them contaminate on a catastrophic level. The automobile is the largest glutton of resources, because each vehicle consumes and deposits it's waste for years and years.

Yes, technology is just a tool, but when a tool destroys more than it creates, is it a wise decision to keep using it?

The millions of tons of poisons that are being dumped onto the Earth, into her waterways, her soil and her air, are changing us on a genetic level. The Y chromosome in men is starting to break down.

Many of the toxins cannot be cleaned up and will remain in the water and soil. As an example, a governmental warning was issued a short time ago here in the states. The warning told our people, in not so many words, that we've been so reckless with our environment, that some 70% of our fresh water on this continent is so contaminated with mercury that the fish have been deemed inedible and consuming the fish WILL cause eventual mercury poisoning. Then nothing. No one dared speak about it and no one does anything about it. When I stood at a meeting of citizens in our area who wanted to build another golf course and said, why don't we change our direction and spend the money to clean up our river, I was boo'd out of the building, literally. They want money. They want their greed, plain and simple. The good for me and to heck with you attitude is alive and well. If we put jobs ahead of the environment, we put self ahead of the whole. That is a very short sighted position to take.

The problem with the polluting that industrialized nations create, is that it's on a global level. It has been said that over 95% of the fresh water on our very small planet has measurable levels of pollutants in them. When you consider that such a small amount of the water on the Earth is actually fresh and drinkable, that doesn't leave much clean water for good health. Now, before you all say, well, we can purify the water and drink it, my question would be, why should we have to?

It has been the mindset of Europeans (not pointing fingers because if I'm pointing at you with one finger, I got three pointing right back at me and they are on my hand) that it doesn't matter what happens after they are dead. It's on future generations to take care of it. To be honest, there is no bigger truth in this world today. If, they had listened to the indigenous people when they got here, or at least understood what was being said, we wouldn't be in the fix we are in today. The philosophy of the indigenous peoples were that you never, ever do anything that will adversely effect our children 7 generations in time. That along with never taking more than your people can consume and you never over burden the land with population, meant that there would be nutritious food, clean water and plenty of medicines available to future generations. This mindset insured that there would be a future for their people.

I apologize for continually referring to the Indian people here, but it is my upbringing and the teachings that were gifted to me that drive how I view things. So I hope that I am not offending anyone with my words.

Anyways, when a minority uses 90% of the resources and produces 99% of the pollution without consideration for the rest of humanity and the other creatures that share this planet with us. There is a serious problem.

We will either place the Earth before all of our needs or the Earth will place herself above all of our needs. She lives and she can die and she will fight to stay alive, just like you and I. Perhaps it's time for us to reconsider our priorities.

 

[jamesdevine]

Right on RA.

This very of topic so I'll keep it short. My father told me of a articule he read last week about a certain marsh area in the UK some where (similar to the everglades) It was used a great deal by recreational boaters and surrounded by farmland.

The fish stock were dying of dramatically and the farms blamed the boaters so it was banned. The fish stocks reduced even more and even quicker further investigation showed it was the fertilizers used by the farmerS and boaters were slowing it's progress by moving the water. They were willing to damage the earth for money and blame it on everyone else something that happens allot here unfortunatly no one looking at the bigger picture. It will all end in tears mostly ours I fear.

James(that wasn't all that short was it.Sorry)

 

[Not Bob]

If, they had listened to the indigenous people when they got here, or at least understood what was being said, we wouldn't be in the fix we are in today. The philosophy of the indigenous peoples were that you never, ever do anything that will adversely effect our children 7 generations in time.

Are these the same indigenous people that wiped out the megafauna (e.g. giant ground sloths, sabre-toothed cats andshort-faced bears etc) in the Americas at the end of the last Ice Age? Not pointing a finger (we Europeans can hardly do that) but simply recognising we've all got blood on our hands.

 

[george]

RA, I don't disagree with what you say - except about technology being the bane of humankind. To me technology is the ability to make and use tools. From flint knives to fish hooks and beyond but now we are producing tools that we don't really need and that is a big part of the problem, Yes, the way we produce these tools is appalling and yes we are destroying the earth with our greed and our short sightedness - but the tools themselves are not the problem - we are we asked for them.(present company excepted of course)

We allow it to happen, we buy the products, we vote people in to power who do little about it, we drive our cars, we fly off in jet planes on holiday, we eat factory farmed food and a million other things. How many of you out there bought shares in one of the power company sell offs or when they de-regulated the water companies? Who holds shares in a multi-national of any kind? If none of us bought the products how long do you think the factories etc would continue to produce what they do?

No offence to anyone here, but it's our fault. As someone once said "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem".

George

Rant over

 

[Mike T]

Pass me my soap box someone...
George, I think you're right. Every little bit helps, either pushing us further down the line of destruction, or (hopefully) conversely the other way; I used to think I could have no effect by my actions but for the last few years, I've tried to think and behave differantly, opting for organic, and/or ethically traded goods where I could - you mention utilities/shares - personally I never had them, but if folk do and if on reflection they feel uneasy about that, they could always sell them and give a share of the profits to a pressure group that fights to save the rainforest or whatever. With whatever they gain on their sale, they could invest in an ethical fund (I'm advised there are some good performing trusts out there). They can easily enquire where their bank/Building Society invests and ask themselves if they feel easy about the answers; and if not - why not try call the ethical building society or Triodos Bank or another similar? There are plenty out there and it's never been easier to find them.
All I am saying is that we CAN do something that is legal and effective and if enough of us do, it will help. And slow change is better in some ways than rapid - it would be a problem if all the people who work in the arms industry/ agro-chemical industry / etc etc had no living overnight because we'd all changed our habits; gradual change allows for market change - but it's upto people like us to maintain the already-slowly changing mindset by not giving up in apathy.

 

[george]

OK folks - I reckon I've taken this a bit off topic. Sorry.

I've had my say, so no more from me.

George

 

[Greenpete]

I'm looking forwards to the Gulf Stream packing up, it's a bit of a fantasy of mine! Then I think most of the towny type people that think going without deodorant and a flushing toilet is intolerable will either die or head south. Either way I'm staying here to enjoy the peace and quiet or die at the hand of our Mother Nature!
I also think that we eat far too much food (as well as waste it) We can live on a lot less food and would probably be better off for it.
I wouldn't like to say how many the U.K. could support but I would use my skills to avaide and survive on my own, or with a very small group of people. Communities have there positive side but I think a lot of trouble is born of too many people living too close.
This might all sound miserable and selfish, but I don't mean it to be. I would still do all I could to help others. It would just be nice to have a BIG kick up the bum! Were all too soft (me included).
Oooh stop me now! :yikes:

 

[RovingArcher]

Are these the same indigenous people that wiped out the megafauna (e.g. giant ground sloths, sabre-toothed cats andshort-faced bears etc) in the Americas at the end of the last Ice Age? Not pointing a finger (we Europeans can hardly do that) but simply recognising we've all got blood on our hands.

Don't know. I wasn't there and neither were those whose theories say it is so. I suppose that anyone can theorize as to what happened, but I can only imagine that the times prior to, during and immediately following the ice age were extremely hard and difficult for all life. Our stories say things happened differently, but those that try to study such things typically discount them because they aren't written in a book by a guy with initials after their name. Well, there is one book, as controversial as it is said to be, that explains what our stories say and how the Indian peoples know the accounts to be true. The authors name is Vine Deloria, but I won't state the titles here, because I don't wish to stir up anymore emotion than has already been done.

I can only state what I am taught by my Elders and they by their Elders and so on for 1000s of years. Somewhere in all of this, there is definitely a truth to be known and as truth usually does, it lies somewhere in between the opposing sides of the discussion. One thing I can state is that those of us that feel the passions inside of us for one side or the other will eventually have to come to an impass and join together in figuring out what we all have to do to make our Mother Earth a livable place for us all for many generations to come.

 

[Great Pebble]

Greenpete,

I'd have similar thoughts myself. We live in the wrong country though, no real wilderness and a positive distaste for anyone who does anything "alone".

 

[Gary]

History is written by the victory - or hollywood these days!

And just as technological advances promoted by boffins who believe themselves to be all knowing often goes wrong to the detriment of us all so to does scientific theory and historical note.

With history never believe anything as fact unless their is concrete evidence for all history is fluid, every new discovery changes it. This said aboringinal peoples be they Australia, Native American or our own beaker people or all guilty of ecological errors this is true - but 0 and its a big but - their errors didnt destroy entire ecosystems, more importantly they didnt compound their errors with more errors until they had forced our planet to the brink.

There is a whole arguement here about native religions and modern ones, about the so called 18th Century enlightenment and all those other good things and if we drag all of these themes into the thread it will go on forever. Point is the original question was one pertinant to us now and not to Ugg and his small hunter gather clan.

As for the gulf stream or Atlantic conveyer - I'm with you Greenpete, and as I'm biodegradable I will try not to make to much mess in the end!

 

[arctic hobo]

Just a reply to the ethnocentrism accusations - Don't forget us western people with our PC's and cars and TV's may be a small part of the world, but a big part of the problem. Our discussion is not ethnocentric - here's why.
If everyone living off urban wealth died:
In Africa, those that could not survive without foreign aid would die, and the rest pretty much are on subsistence agriculture. In Asia, the only people around would be a bunch of monks and farmers as well. In North America, very few people would be still around. In South America, those not in the cities would continue as normal. In Europe, well, there would not be many people left, except the poorer regions eg Armenia and emptier regions (Norway! :-D) where people are self sufficient anyway. I've left out Oceania because I don't know much about it :-(
This means, despite us talking only about Europe and the US, that's all we need to talk about, because that's where the problem lies.

 

[Great Pebble]

From my own point of view, it's the only ethnicity on which I'm qualified to comment, my experience of other less technologically oriented cultures being limited to watching the odd episode of Mr. Mears last show.

 

[Roving Rich]

Well it just so happens that I know of an answer to the origional question ):

Jack Hargreaves posed just the same question back in the late 70s. So your in very good company there Adi. It provoked a responce from the TV critic of the Observer ( "A nice man with whom he had often fished" :roll: ) that " Not even God has the right to ask Such a question ". Adi

Well they worked out that at the current population then, if the inhabitants of the UK were all to take a trip out to the countryside and spread themselves out evenly across the surface of the isle, there would be a mere 80 yards between us. That does include people stranding on every motorway, mudflat and presumably a few hundred swimming in lakes and rivers...
So - there is room, ? Well not if you go on to consider that it took 2000 acres of land to keep a hunter gatherer family alive if they worked at it full time. (this is according to Jack Hargreaves) Then as farming developed beyond keeping a nomadic tame herd, as this meant you had to move on even more often and therefore needed more space, to growing our own crops, which is when the global human population exploded (it took 50 000 years for the human global population to reach its 1 000 000 000 000 (thats one billion !) but only 14 years to go from 3-4 billion last century), it took just 25 acres to, not only feed but but have a surplus of food for the same family. This meant not everyone needed to be involved in the production of food, and the weak, old and crippled that could not keep up in the nomadic era, now found work in crafts.The population grew and trade and economics were soon to follow...
Anyway - our man Jack happened to dine one day with a University Vice Chancellor, who spent some time on a commitee, formed to research the optimum population of the UK for the generation of there grandchildren, by some organ of Government.
Their criteria were :
For their Grand children to have full and happy lives. All to be heathy and well educated. All to have purposeful things to do and leisure in the proper amount. All to have the goods that would then be available to them then. all to have enough space to preserve them from the stress of density (earlier on in the book he defines the minimum space a human needs to them selves and thus comdemns all cities), houses that would give them comfort and services that would see all the tasks of civilisation done. We are talking Utopia here not TEOTCAWKI
So Jack says "when will it be finished ?" Bod says "it has been" - Jack says "when will it be published" bod says "it Won't" - "Why not"
" Because you see the figure arrived at was 36 million people and the population of the day was 65 million" (59.6 last year according to our current government :?: but hey i know they missed half the folk found here...)
What government is going to publish a report that states to live comfortably we need to remove 29 million people from the population." :shock:
He goes on to quote Aldous Huxley from a lecture on Human Numbers he was lucky enough to attend. Huxley managed to get through the whole lecture without once saying "population" only stating there is no problem of housing or transport (and umpteen other examples) only a problem of Human numbers.
He quotes Huxley as saying "Man who has faced all the problems of nature fearlessly cannot face the problem of himself. " - Overpopulation
Jack Hargreaves himself concludes " Perhaps man is no more than a blind horse with the bit between his teeth, that cannot be stopped until he hits a haybarn "
Well Thats what the great Jack Hargreaves had to say and I consider him very wise. I think i have waffled enough for the moment, so I'll save my own points on it for later.
Cheers
Rich