Susan Monroe wrote:
But the most important survival tool is between your ears.
survival seems to meen "survival for a while until the empire gets rolling again and we can go back to the store".True survival seems like it would aim for something a bit more self sufficiant.
I always chuckle when I see "survival guides" that say to have 3 days supply of food and water. it is obvious that is just a tactic to use while awaiting rescue.
!(I guess this is based on my premise that decetralized industrial society is acually more toxic than centralized)
I agree, with that premise, and since I think it is highly unlikely that even 20% of the modern world will ever be willing to go backwards as far as modern conveniences go I think a utopian view is fun to think about but seriously unproductive.
How much time for 100 peoples learning curves and maintnence instruction.
well if learning curves are not allowed I don't think any of us should be here
Many permie sites ive been too depend on chippers,rototillers,green houses,electicity(pumps ect..),mills,industrialy produced and imported grains,hay,and straw,resourse intensive metal for barns and fencing,and plastic for all sorts of stuff.If they are off the centralised grid then they are usually on the (just as toxic)alternative grid(I have lived on strictly solar for 9yrs and after years of research got dissilussioned with that too-LEAD batteries ect....)
This is why I think rewilding has alot to offer permacuture.It focuses our direction away from dependance on our ecologicaly devestating industrial society.(I originally thought thats what permaculture was supposed to be about but after 15yrs in the movement,Im pretty sure permaculture is just gardening and animal husbandry-same ole stuff just a new package)
permanent agriculture. that is what it is to me. sustainable agriculture. meaning it doesn't really matter what you use in the present as long as it is not preventing future agriculture. I think all the details of what does and does not prevent future agriculture is debatable and will continue to evolve. some things are trendy but unrealistic somethings are truly toxic and something are only regarded as so or are only toxic in large quantities like appleseeds.
Sure take what you can salvage from the system.Salvage is going to be huge in the future!But I prefer to use it in the direction of lessening my dependence.Like using this library computer to get ideas that manifest in the physical.
using the library computer is less dependent? to me you are depending on the good ole gooberment to provide you with access to the web. I can gaurantee the enviromental impact of the computer at the library is more than a home one. manufacturing is the same it jsut has to go through more sticky hands and red tape before it gets there
OK so my responses on this site might seem like personal attacks sometimes but really I just gotta say this stuff because I feel the need to defend permacultures name.
if you don't take things as personal attacks then assume others won't. permaculture doesn't need to be defended it needs healthy debate (that I happen to enjoy). if it becomes a permanent set of ideas then it will no longer be viable and will seek to become a dictatorship with a few self rightious people telling everyone else what to do/not to do. that is a recipe for alienating people to the whole concept and prevent the use of the permaculture name and ideas to truly make a difference in this world.
Why build a beautiful landscape dependent on the house of cards infrastrucure.
the point is to build a better infrastructure that is not a house of cards. permanent sustainable agricultural infrastructure. even if you use the other take on the definition...permanent culture....then that is not what you are talking about and certainly not what you are defending. you seem to be more concerned with promotion of an individualist mindset to become sustainable, not " culturist" ideas. and that is ok too. but never utilizing outside resources and "rewilding" is not a culture of like minded people it is a person living alone in the woods.
yea as soon as civilisation stops forcing me to experience it then I'll stop resisting.
Susan Monroe wrote:
I don't think we're looking at a nuclear war as much as we're probably staring a major depression right in the face...
Kelda O. wrote:
many people would just be unable to ration. being that we can live for three weeks without food,
Seth Pogue wrote:
Could be a good idea to be scared when camping alone in NY in a placwe where someone can drive to.
That's why I vastly prefer to go on foot, deep into the wilderness, where you don't have to worry about seeing another person, and the fish are always hungry.
Kirk Hutchison wrote:
Most people think of being stuck in the woods in a survival situation. I think of being stuck in the city and trying to get to the woods!
Fred Morgan wrote:
There is some truth to that. The TV show, survivor man (or whatever it is) were the man is dropped into a situation and has to survive was hilarious to those of us who know the jungles of Costa Rica. Drop me in a jungle here and I will come out fatter. It is amazing how much food is in a jungle if you can recognize it.
Kathleen Sanderson wrote:
A hand-cranked clothes wringer and a couple of scrub boards, also a set of laundry tubs (I know from experience that laundry is one of the more difficult things to deal with when the power is off, if you aren't set up for it).
John Polk wrote:
Hell, your neighbors may become Gypsies themselves and start looking at your hens!