Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did appreciate the thought processes that the blogger expressed. Not that I agreed with his conclusions, of course.
Living east of the Mississippi has many advantages. There are large areas between those population centers that are with five miles any direction of soil that would take seed and grow. There are rivers and streams and ditches that have running water year round, making hydro power possible to replace fossil fuels. Natural gas abounds. There are abandoned or under-utilized manufacturing centers that can still use the old technology.
Last edited by lollykoko; 02-25-2011 at 02:43 PM..
Reason: spelling error
What a crock. There is a reason why his choices all have micro scopic population density. It's called hardship. He has picked some great places to go camping in his Winnebago or hiking with his new Nikes. People don't live there because it's hard even with diesel tractor and the Farm Credit down the road.
What a crock. There is a reason why his choices all have micro scopic population density. It's called hardship. He has picked some great places to go camping in his Winnebago or hiking with his new Nikes. People don't live there because it's hard even with diesel tractor and the Farm Credit down the road.
It is difficult and/or impossible if one is interested in the "standard of living" that most everyone has come to expect and renders as "normal" these days. On the other hand, if one is not at all interested in such, it would still be difficult, yet preferable.
Just out of curiosity, are you looking for a flatter Plains type environment, as opposed to a rugged mountain environment; if so, why? Just personal preference because you like the look of wide open spaces, or does it fit in with your plan better, whatever that may be (gardening, etc...)? I'll just mention in passing that Plains tends to = colder.... The lower altitude tends to just be a big ol' cold sink. Along the continental divide and west of it tends to be better weather.
Actually, the biggest thing I've been looking at is distance from large urban centers. I have actually lived around high alpine mountains and dry basin and range deserts for most of my life. I think about the things you mention quite often. I will probably have a hard time with no hills and mountains around, just because I'm so used to them.
Problem with my area (Utah) is the massive population explosion. Not only is that bad for a survival situation, but it has made land prices absolutely ridiculous. There are a few areas in rural Utah that could work for me (if I could afford it). The higher elevation areas of extreme southeastern Utah could work: sufficient precipitation and a rather alpine setting in the mountain ranges down there. Quite isolated. And of course, there is the very sparsely populated western deserts/ranges--the "forgotten land." There actually are quite a few "survivalist" types out there. But it's just hotter than hell in the summer and very dry. Desert survival is a whole different kind of animal--although, surprisingly enough, there are some quite alpine areas with plentiful tree cover in some of those desert ranges.
In the end, my choice of North Dakota is not set in stone until I start packing. There are certainly some downsides. Lack of plentiful wood in most areas being one of the most significant. I still mull this stuff over all the time. It's a tough choice. I've mentioned northern Maine several times here. And Utah has a tradition of preparedness, which is kind of nice (it's been largely overrun with the influx of people lately, though). Thing is, with each passing month, it seems more and more critical to me that I make a final decision and get my butt in gear!
Chris one thing the east has is hard woods which burn hotter and longer over all. I know the pines there burn some wicked hot, but they make no coals.
In Cook City Mt I watched the Inn owners split food 4 feet long. I forget the name of that place but if say you come out of the Beartooth Range into Cook City that way they are about the first cabins type Inn on the right. Little brown log cabins, very quaint.
I zigged and zagged all around the nor'west corner of SD after the crash on Pine Ridge too. All I could see if I recall were some funny oaks with strange acorns and lots of lodge pole pines, an black spruce.
My LL is from Minnisota and he is accustomed to burning pine. When I found out he did that here I laffed in his face. For that i got to supply his pine off this place, and man that's workin' since it burns right up too fast too.
Yankees like me think of pine as sugar stove wood, and or kindling.
In just thinking...a lot of the places where one would think to go has some pretty harsh elements...Would it be wise to go some place where the elements arent as extreme?
In just thinking...a lot of the places where one would think to go has some pretty harsh elements...Would it be wise to go some place where the elements arent as extreme?
It more than likely makes sense, and that question is often asked from time to time. And I don't know if any answer has ever been given that really addresses that, or even if there can even be an answer that addresses it. Part of the problem is that I guess there are several criteria that go into selection ones preferred location. Any location, even ones with less averse elements, involve trade-offs of some sort.
I guess the question is, why do people commonly trade off things like a good climate for growing/raising food and a considerable reduction in heating needs for "other" criteria. And what are these other criteria.
I ask this somewhat rhetorically, as I certainly know why I make the trade-off, and by extension I think I know why many others make this trade-off, but it does not hurt to revisit the question from time to time as a sort of "reality check."
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 02-26-2011 at 11:44 PM..
In just thinking...a lot of the places where one would think to go has some pretty harsh elements...Would it be wise to go some place where the elements arent as extreme?
I guess the answer would involve a few other questions. For me, the first question is whether I'd rather deal with a harsher climate with shorter growing season... or massive urbanization, ridiculous land prices, and endless lists of restrictions--because if you think about it, the reason people flock to certain areas is because it's "not extreme" in climate and/or conditions. For me, the answer is that I'd certainly rather deal with subzero weather in the winter, hands down. And it isn't because I'm antisocial or anything like that (although I do prefer smaller towns and rural areas); it's more that when lots of people flock to a given area, they soon want to tell each other how to live with restrictions, CCR, covenants, zoning, building restrictions and other such nonsense (and impose it on the swallowed up rural land 100 miles in all directions). No thanks. As soon as I see a prospective property that has any hint of CCR or that it's a "gated community," it goes into file 13 immediately. That sort of thing tends not to happen in the north plains country so much, areas were few yuppies want a 50,000 sf "retreat cabin" where they can "rough it" or a place to drive their BMW with the top down in the summer.
If you look at the continent from outer space with a filter to detect "city lights" the eastern US looks pretty populated. And, if you were trying to hide a settlement the size of the Queen Mary in a mountain pass the western US would make sense. But if you trying to find a place to hide humans, where they can survive the elements and sustain themselves you would choose the eastern US. The blogger linked above knows squat. He was considering things like tax rates and people on welfare. If I'm bugging out, I am sure not paying any taxes much less worrying about what the state tax rates are. I think he was more into retirement in his Winnebago than bug out.
On the other hand, there are some very small settlements to my west, in basically one of the driest regions of the US, where the people live (right now) in seclusion and have minimal contact with the outside world. I'm thinking chances they would do fairly well in a meltdown are pretty good. First, hardly anyone knows they are even there; second, the parched desert is not where most people desperate for food or water would go; third, the energy and resources expended to "raid them" would surpass the gain--it simply would not be worth it.
Point is, there are all kinds of viable strategies--some more viable than others, of course--that can work given proper planning, and would work better for different people with different strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I'm not willing to deal with the population density of the east. More potential "threats" from others means greater chance of wasting energy and precious resources on armed conflict. That's mainly what I'm looking to avoid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
