Preparedness for when

thriftwizard

I'd say, look to the past; there were roses as well as bread, as long as there were enough people around for some to specialise, as GQ points out. People had time & energy to spare creating the most astonishing works of art and fabulous, awe-inspiring buildings although (possibly even because) they didn't have 52" TVs. There's good evidence that medieval peasants actually had more days off (holy days = holidays) than most workers today.

I'm sure there was plenty of S, as well - roses grow better with a bit of it, after all! - you could be killed by a festering scratch, or a bad-tempered overlord, for example. But I don't think our ancestors' lives were necessarily all drudge & darkness, and they didn't need a constant supply of outside energy or idiotic entertainment to function.

calicocat

Morning folks,

I was out driving across country (west) to a friends birthday last night. Quite a lot of flood areas around there, or on the brink. Roads were passable, but not sure how long that will be after Thursdays bout coming. Lots of water from fields spilling out onto roads and streets. Certainly a couple that I think will end up closed after tomorrow.

Asbo has taken some of her toy mice and put into jacket den..... .

Blokie is off to work, so i'm going to wizz to the shops to get some stores in, get it hidden. He asked yesterday what I was going to do with ALL the pasta (all 4 packets of it)..... I smiled to myself in the knowledge that it will be double that by tomorrow. :rotfl:

He doesn't think past next week at the most....which I find very odd....takes all sorts of us though. , however, not how I could live.


If I didn't have a tv, I would get loads done. They definitely make you quite lazy.

nuatha

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

I wonder if anyone has actually done research on the optimum number of humans this ecosystem can support that would not only mean survival of the species but also allow a sustainable non subsistence lifestyle and also allow our fellow species to remain with us and not face extinction? I'm aware that there are more humans in existence now than there have ever been before and whilst each one has a right to life and a 'life' I've often wondered of late if some of the problem isn't just sheer weight of numbers in a finite resource situation.

I haven't been able to find such research (though some that passes as such based in eugenics and similar delights). Population studies of various species show that they will breed to exhaust resources, then die back, as the resources recover then populations expand again. Humans are very good at moving resources around the globe (usually away from developing countries) we're exhausting resources at an ever increasing rate and at the same time complaining when developing countries look to exploit the same resources. There has to be a crash, resources are running out and the next really big issue will be potable water - possibly before we exhaust usable carbon fuels.

thriftwizard wrote: »

I'd say, look to the past; there were roses as well as bread, as long as there were enough people around for some to specialise, as GQ points out. People had time & energy to spare creating the most astonishing works of art and fabulous, awe-inspiring buildings although (possibly even because) they didn't have 52" TVs. There's good evidence that medieval peasants actually had more days off (holy days = holidays) than most workers today.

I'm sure there was plenty of S, as well - roses grow better with a bit of it, after all! - you could be killed by a festering scratch, or a bad-tempered overlord, for example. But I don't think our ancestors' lives were necessarily all drudge & darkness, and they didn't need a constant supply of outside energy or idiotic entertainment to function.

Then as now, there were a number of people living far more affluent lives compared to the masses who may barely be surviving at times. Unfortunately the expectation seems to be that everyone can live a life of disposable affluence and any aspirations that differ from this are ridiculed.

mardatha

In the end, we are all human beings and we just have to bloody well get on with it to the best of our ability... which is what we have always done. You can't trust research/surveys because far too much depends on who financed them.

dreaming

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

I wonder if anyone has actually done research on the optimum number of humans this ecosystem can support that would not only mean survival of the species but also allow a sustainable non subsistence lifestyle and also allow our fellow species to remain with us and not face extinction? I'm aware that there are more humans in existence now than there have ever been before and whilst each one has a right to life and a 'life' I've often wondered of late if some of the problem isn't just sheer weight of numbers in a finite resource situation.

De-lurks. Many years ago (about 40 or more - eek!) I went to a science lecture given by Eric Laithwaite (1921-97; worked on linear induction motors amongst others). Anyway, at the Q&A section, someone asked what Prof. Laithwaite's views were on the hope for the world if 90% of the population were wiped out. The Professor replied that even if only 10% of the population survived it would still be more people then were alive in biblical times, and look at how far mankind had come. I'm not sure why that stuck in my mind (I had only gone to lecture to impress boyfriend) but it did and I keep meaning to check it out to see if it true.
At the time (Cold War era) it was probably nuclear war which was seen as the danger, and radiation would obviously have an impact on survival of remaining people and environment for many years, but the it is something that I still think about.
Goes off to re-lurk and look up the figures.

[Deleted User]

Thanks DREAMING, there is a prepping site called 'Wolf at the Door' and he reckons that if we do get to Post Peak Oil there will be a 90% die back in population and the remaining 10% will be at subsistence levels for the foreseeable future, but that that 10% will have a future so perhaps those stats from the lecture are not as outlandish as they sound at first reading.

Mojisola

The statistics are much more reassuring -
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/

Frugalsod

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

Thanks DREAMING, there is a prepping site called 'Wolf at the Door' and he reckons that if we do get to Post Peak Oil there will be a 90% die back in population and the remaining 10% will be at subsistence levels for the foreseeable future, but that that 10% will have a future so perhaps those stats from the lecture are not as outlandish as they sound at first reading.

There are many problems with that. We are already at peak oil or very close to it. I do not see a 90% die off likely immediately. They are probably assuming there will be no oil for fertilisers in which case food production suffers. In fact we could have oil for centuries but at what price? In fact most people use relatively little energy compared to the 1%.

With the risks of climate change I think that the replacement of most land transport with electric vehicles of varying kinds powered by renewables will allow us to reserve all oil for fertilisers, so eliminating much of the green house emissions, and maintaining food supplies. It might mean few flights to get from A to B and use of rail (electric) and ships would be necessary. Tractors would have to become electric powered by renewables but that could be sourced on site with solar panels or windmills, and combined with restricting oil use to fertilisers I see no need for a population slump.

Secondly there are highly efficient forms of farming called permaculture that use little or no fertilisers and have far higher land productivity. This could feed the population very much more easily.

The real issues with a ban on oil for transport and energy production is that certain big industries will suffer not necessarily the lifestyles of the bulk of us.

What you need to be aware of is that a big die off will be used as an excuse to not support the 90% of the population, that being us. Though I somehow think of the B ark when such figures are mentioned, and what happened to the elites when the telephone sanitisers were put on that ark.

Finally the speed of the cull is another matter. Remember many revolutions were preceded by famines. The French Revolution, the American war of Independence, the Russian Revolution and the Arab Spring all triggered in part by famines. So a government that tries to restrict food supplies will not last and its leaders will find themselves being toppled from power.

COOLTRIKERCHICK

I think, if oil was at a premium, then the big super farms/ producers would struggle , and the local small farmers / smallholders would come into their own.
As not only would transport and production cost go through the roof, but the packaging prices etc.where a local farmer/ producer wouldn't pack his carrots , tomatoes or bread in plastic display bags .
Fertilising the fields etc would go back to the traditional way of manue, and their own compost heap.
So yep I think village life would be bustling.

I also think nk it would hit TV programmes, and they might end up with loads of repeats ( what's new lol) and just update news programmes.. And only broadcasting for x amount of hours per day to conserve power.

Living off the land and turning your back on consumerism doesn't mean you are a peasant , or living a lower standard of life.. Tbh when we are at our smallholding and away from the TV, and the shops etc. There is a calming feeling of contentment ..and no pressure .. ..no keeping up of appearances ..
In all honestly I feel sorry for people who got high expectations of things and services etc.. As it means they can never be contented with what they got..
I must admit it took me a while to realise that myself, as society and the media brainwash you into thinking you should have this, or that. ..

[Deleted User]

I think the timescale for the 90% die back in population was over the first 100 years so a relatively gradual thing but with the numbers involved I suspect life would be hazardous as resources dwindled and food shortages bit. Permaculture is a wonderful concept, I've taken Permaculture Magazine for many years now and unfortunately a permaculture garden/forest garden takes quite some time to establish as a mature plot, I'm not sure you could rely on it to be instantly able to feed the numbers of population that would be needing to be fed in a Post Oil scenario. It would in the fullness of time be a good and productive plot but if you tried to crop it too hard in the first few years the trees and shrubs that are the 'bones of the system would not thrive and the whole thing might fail.