Sustainable living but no homesteading?

[7Wannabe5]

Organic and sustainable are inversely proportional. The lack of chemical control options increases the need for tillage. More tillage= more fuel and worse soil health. Worse soil health=more erosion and more ferilizer...

It would be nice to have a one answer buzz word that we could all support for all situations, but the world is too complicated for that.

Yes, it is very complex. Another example would be the lack of comprehension that in cold weather regions livestock can only be pastured part of the year. The history of Chicago within its eco-system I am reading makes it very clear that the fact that American farmers were so successful at growing grain cheaply led to the heavy marketing and consumption of "dressed meats" once refrigerator train cars were invented. Once grain was rendered into a uniform product based on grading standards established by the "Change, middlemen were given the power to leach profits from the farmers. The more value and/or unique branding a farmer can add before being subjected to extremely competitive market forces, the more profit he will retain. So, it becomes a question of balancing this with difficulty/cost of somehow bringing product to market through alternative channels.

One of the main principles of perma-culture is that it should tend towards overall reduction of inputs including human labor. Perma-culture projects can start from any set of initial conditions; hard-packed depleted heavy clay soil urban lot, conventional farm, second growth woodlands, desert, or floodplain. I got into it starting from a set of Mel Bartholomew Square foot vegetable plots combined with an ornamental perennial garden. At some point, due to combination of laziness and aesthetics, I morphed them together in a more free-flowing version of French potager style, which led to an interest in edible perennials which led to an interest in permaculture and foraging. It's interesting to learn about the perspective of people who started from other points on the map.

And maybe some kind of birth control, so the entire planet doesn't have to be dedicated to just human survival? I did this math back when I was buying my Whidbey property, and decided I was comfortable with buying up woods and growing trees and some deer. Yes, I took more than my fair share, AND I didn't even have the decency to clear it for crops, but since I am only concerned with the next 50 or so years, future generations can clear it after we are gone.

Good on you. I think any suggested model that is internally consistent is valid. I was not suggesting divvy of 2 acres per human as ideal model, just one based on something vaguely approaching reality. A plan to reduce human population through use of birth control to hunter-gatherer level would also be valid. A plan to carry on with SOP and let God sort it out would also be valid plan for somebody who holds that belief structure. A green-tech robots and space-escape plan could also be valid depending on details. I am interested in theoretical math-based modeling, not moral judgment.

[jacob]

space-escape plan could also be valid depending on details.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=G ... ++%2F+year

This is mostly to demonstrate the awesomeness of Wolfram Alpha for those who don't know it. (The above is a literal "search" engine string!)

We'll ignore the details for now

[ThisDinosaur]

The details are the best part. Launching hundreds of thousands of people off earth every day would release enough green house gas to finish Earth off for good.

One of the main principles of perma-culture is that it should tend towards overall reduction of inputs including human labor.

That's the appeal. Laziness. Allegedly, hunter-gatherers work something like 15 hours a week, about a third of what farmers do. But we'll still tear up the soil to build a garden of Eden. There's a line in Van Halen's "Right Now" that goes, "working so hard to make it easy," that fits here.

[7Wannabe5]

So, if I read your formula correctly, at a bare minimum approximately .3% of the total energy capacity of the world's power plants (6,000 GW) would have to be diverted to blasting 2% of the human population into space each year?

[jacob]

Yes, cargo only at 100% efficiency (real world efficiencies are around 2-5%). Of course, I'm rating each person at 60kg, so that does not account for life support(*), like water, food, space suits, etc. that humans would presumably want to carry with them.

In terms of economics, if those were launched with the cheapest realistically planned vehicle (SpaceX's Falcon Heavy), the annual cost would run at ~$15T (about a quarter of global GDP). This is so far off how the current world economy is organized that the cost-number is meaningless anyway.

Overall, this is a rather silly exercise...

(*) Humans haven't figured out a self-contained sustainable solution to that anyway.

[Riggerjack]

(*) Humans haven't figured out a self-contained sustainable solution to that anyway.

If we had, we wouldn't need to leave.

I am interested in theoretical math-based modeling, not moral judgment.

I'm sorry, I wasn't going for moral judgement. You often speak of the Polish nobility who had the right to ride all the land. I'm currently listening to the world without us. It referenced a Polish old growth lowland forest on the border of Belurus. It was the property of polish aristocrats, kept as a hunting reserve. Then, in WWI, the native bison we're nearly wiped out by hungry soldiers. In WWII, Nazis claimed the forest for more elite hunting grounds, somehow the greater glory of the 3rd Reich was involved. Then the Soviets claimed it, and in the name of the people, it was claimed by party elites as a hunting reserve.

We have a lowland, old growth forest in Europe, only because it was claimed by powerful men for their own ends. They didn't do it for moral reasons. They did it because they wanted to, and they could. They used the tools and rules available to them at the time.

I have taken more than my fair share. Then, to keep the neighboring land free from nieghbors, I bought it as well. Today, I spend almost 1k/yr in property taxes to keep people out of that neighboring land. I didn't do it to signal morality, I did it because I wanted to, and could.

This makes me no more inherently moral than aristocrats, Nazis or Soviets.

I am simply one of the few people who, when concerned about nature, bought a piece to take care of, rather than kicking money to a charity to lobby for temporary support from a government power to reduce the damage to a larger area for a limited time. A conservationist approach as opposed to an environmentalist approach. You can easily identify the difference. One gets a piece of land and all the costs and responsibility that go with it, the other has a bumper sticker.

But, as with my choice not to breed, this was a selfish decision.

[7Wannabe5]

Overall, this is a rather silly exercise...

(*) Humans haven't figured out a self-contained sustainable solution to that anyway.

Silly?!?! (note my choice of avatar)

However, if we add 300 plants to the payload of the first colonist, and the biomass of the plants chosen doubles every year in its new location, and the number of colonists ejected from Earth doubles every year, then we ought to reach equilibrium in less than two generations. The first colonists will be male prisoners who will have to work at a factory that makes solar panels from available materials in order to earn enough points to pay for a sex robot kit. Of course, this plan didn't work very well at Jamestown, etc., but worst case scenario equilibrium will be achieved by ejection of most violent humans from planet resulting in greater likelihood of their death, as opposed to death of random 6 year old child in Bangladesh which is otherwise likely. Given the negative value to humanity of the initial colonists (maybe $10,000/yr to keep one alive in prison) highly experimental very inexpensive rocket designs might also be tested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfubFghdUjs


@Riggerjack:

They (Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, other members of Tidewater gentry) emulated the learned, slaveholding elite of ancient Athens, basing their enlightened political philosophies around the ancient Latin concept of libertas or liberty. This was a fundamentally different notion from the Germanic concept of Freiheit, or freedom, which informed the political thought of Yankeedom and the Midlands...

For the Norse, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch, and other Germanic tribes of northern Europe, "freedom" was a birthright of free peoples, which they considered themselves to be. Individuals might have differences in status and wealth, but all were literally "born free."- "American Nations"- Colin Woodard"

In the United States, 40% of the land is publicly held and 60% is privately held. That means that there are around 3 acres of public land per capita, and an average of 4.5 acres per capita privately held. Most of the privately held land would be the over 400 million acres devoted to grazing. A great deal of federally held land is also grazed, much of the rest is forested. So, in some sense, any American citizen is "born free" with some fractional/factional dominion over approximately 3 acres of forest and grazing land. Enough to enjoy relatively cheap beef prices and holiday camping, but not much more. Beyond this shared commons, liberties such as leisure and extended realm of privacy may be earned and maintained by some. Odd coincidence that the 4.5 acres per capita of private property at current population levels is right around tenable homestead level. Of course, the fact that a good deal of land is in Alaska must also be taken into account. Another way to look at it would be that "buy in" on U.S citizenship might be rationally set at at least around 3 ($4000/acre)= $12,000. Obviously, shared infrastructure value would also have to be calculated and likelihood of taxable contributions vs. distributions, etc. etc.

Anyways, I might define a "conservationist" as somebody too grouchy to attend a town hall meeting

[Riggerjack]

Anyways, I might define a "conservationist" as somebody too grouchy to attend a town hall meeting

As usual,we are not far off. I would edit that to:
Anyways, I might define a "conservationist" as somebody too (capable/familiar with people) to attend a town hall meeting

The "appeal to group" solution is very appealing to folks who have a cause, and no real interest in seeing it resolved. I'm not saying that meetings are the opposite of solutions, more that town hall meetings are where solutions are executed. Talked to death is the usual means of execution, but referred to committee or delayed pending further information will work on the extraordinary solutions. Of course, none of that matters if the goal is signaling, rather than acting.

But that might mean that what I would call capable, others would call grouchy, and they may be right. I would describe myself as extraordinarily happy, but that is not the way most people who know me casually would describe me.

[Jean]

Step 1:Move to a village that export food, that is out of main roads, and with enough gun to defend itself
Step 2:Join the firefighting militia, the shooting assiciation, the brass band and the gymnastic association
step 3:Store food and start gardening
Step 4:Study medicin and become a physician
You are now the most valuable person in a sustainable community and should survive about anything more probably than anyone else.

[jennypenny]

If any of you are looking to stock up on some food supplies, Augason Farms has a big sale today. A lot of #10 cans are 50-70% off.

[jennypenny]

There's a new book available for free today on Kindle A Year Without the Grocery Store: A Step by Step Guide to Acquiring, Organizing, and Cooking Food Storage

It's pretty short and I haven't read it yet so I can't vouch for it, but the price is right.

[jacob]

I plowed through it. It's good. Main difference between her system and mine is that she goes 12 months out (so needs mylar bags and oxygen absorbers and a more elaborate rotation system), whereas I only store about 3 months (so little/no need). Otherwise, it's very similar. Even to the point of growing vegetables out of 5 gal buckets if you can't put down roots. Buying stuff in bulk or on sale and DIY storing/canning/freezing it instead of buying freeze dried or MREs. She uses Azure for bulk purchases. The importance of know how to cook with the ingredients and how this is accomplished by doing this on a regular basis and being able to improvise, that is, actually know how cooking works. (It's written in a context-free way for those think cooking = heating up a can of sauce and combining it with exact ingredients from a recipe list and not knowing what the ingredients do.) Also suggest practicing with the non-electric appliances before an emergency. I think that using non-electric appliances in general is better(*). There's a bunch of calculations of the 1 meals = x,y,z .. so 150 meals = ... which is useful to gain a sense of proportion and also not to end up for 10 buckets of stuff that never gets used. Alternatives for finicky eaters like paleo, gluten-free, ... The importance of water storage is discussed. At this point I was skimming, so I didn't see if water bricks were mentioned. I'm pretty sure I didn't see any mention of my beloved gamma seals.

(*) I learned what a Saratoga Jack is. Never heard of this before. Will it really substitute for a slowcooker? Or is it more like a 70% substitute e.g. vegetables, stews, and chilis but not hard stuff like beans. Some readers might learn that there's such things as non-electric can openers. The book is very complete/thorough.

Add: Okay, it looks like the Saratoga Jack is just a haybox with a carrying handle, so same as the Japanese thermal cookers. The little pot is an inset that goes on the top inside the pot ... not below it. Old-fashioned hayboxes had actual insets (like hot iron or stones) to retain heat longer.

[George the original one]

There's a new book available for free today on Kindle

Free on Kindle Unlimited ($9.99/mo). If you don't already subscribe, Amazon will let you trial 30 days for free.

If I've misunderstood the terms, please speak up!

[jacob]

It's free for second-class Amazon citizens too. You just have to 1-click-buy it for $0.00.

[George the original one]

Thanks, that worked!

[Pkate]

I homestead with a huge garden but I know it is not for everyone. I love gardening. I get exercise, sunshine, stress relief, food and joy from gardening. Most people do not get these benefits from gardening and shouldn't do something the detest doing. If you are going to homestead you need to have the time to not only grow the food but also process, store and cook all of it. It is a large commitment to cooking from scratch and to use all the food you produce. It is a labor of love but it isn't for everyone. It is also extremely difficult to produce all your own food even with permaculture practices. I will never try and grow all my meat or dairy but I do have the resources to by this things from other local farms that do produce them.

Urban living has it's advantages. I spent 11 years living in large cities with no car and roommates. I was mostly debt free and saving money. I wouldn't worry about staying in a urban environment as long as you are saving the resources to leave that city if the need arises. Renting with a low cost of living and having large financial cushion gives you so much flexibility. It is much easier to move out of an apartment than move a farm it things get difficult where you are.

If you want to encourage more farmers to produce food in your area start seeking them out and support those farms who produce food in a manner you want to encourage. It is easier to help support local food producers than it is to grow your own. It never hurts to have good relationships with local farmers. It is more expensive for me than buying form the local supermarket but I prefer the quality, flavor, higher nutritional content, and the ability to find out exactly how the food was produced.

I do recommend keeping a deep pantry to not only take advantage of good sales but life will throw you sideways. It is nice to not have to worry about food and other consumables during a personal emergency. Injuries, illness, job loss, and other hiccups along the road to FI will happen. All of these have happened to my husband and I in the 8 years we have been married and it is nice to have stuff on hand when I can't drive or he is between contacts.

[sky]

I recently threw out a 20lb bag of brown rice and a couple pails of rolled oats that had sat in my basement for about 10 years. I guess they were good insurance but were never needed.

My current method is to grow microgreens and cook beans. They seem to go well together. In addition, raisins and dried cranberries can make up the fruit part of my diet, although I prefer fresh fruit. Black Oil Sunflower seeds are my main microgreen, and as organic microgreen seed, they cost $35 for 5lbs, but I see black oil sunflower bird seed advertised at $15 for 40lbs. I use about 1lb per week of sunflower seed now, sprouted as greens for one person. I may buy some more pails with omega lids and store some sunflower bird seed. If I were set up with sprouts for several months, beans and raisins, I could probably last a long time together with foraging/fishing.

I have been a gardener without a great deal of success for many years. My soil is starting to get better but it is not easy to grow food outside.

[slowtraveler]

The skill and capacity to do it are most important.

I read a book called Green City that changed my mind on this. Cities are far more carbon and resource friendly than rural areas due to economy of scale, walkability, and things like that.