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.
Aging soils are real. If you drive through the route from Ft Lauderdale to South Bay, you can see how the land has subsided under the sugar fields. OTOH... Aging soils are not a death warrant. Hydroponics have made great strides, and there can be advantages to growing plants in a perfectly tweaked growing medium.
Remember that the Sahara was once grassland - and likely vital to the growth of humanity. The world changes, no matter what we do. We likely have effects in the immediate time, but George Carlin used to point out that to the world humans may be nothing more than "a bad case of fleas" to be shrugged off.
Ognend, I agree with you on corporations taking the mantle of real persons. IF the laws are written that way, then they should ALSO be written that corporations may not exist longer than the lifespan of the average worker. I'll bet you would see immediate and amazing leaps in medicine if that were the case.
The real evil is the current set-up of the stock market. It allows a disconnect between those who rape the land and the people and those who reap the rewards. Imagine if all corporations had to be 1/3rd owned by employees. Do you think they would export their jobs or soil their beds?
Ever heard of aging soils? Without death and destruction caused by volcanoes, meteorites or glaciers, final succession of plants sooner or later would exhaust soil minerals to the point of collapse and extinction. This is especially true of northern latitudes.
I'm not talking philosophically. Nature is not sustainable in the sense of not being able to maintain stable environment & specie variety for eons. We live because first primitive organisms drowned themselves in their waste - oxygen that we breath. We burn coal and oil because natural processes responsible for deposits of coal and oil changed Earth climate dramatically (killing countless species in the process) to make our existence possible, and so on. An average specie is going extinct in 1-2 million years since its speciation (that's before humans). The point is - Nature is not "sustainable" in the long run, it's ever changing and indifferent to zillions acts of suffering and death.
Human civilizations are not sustainable even in the short run, there is enough of research to claim that even primitive civilization irreversibly impact their environment. That eco friendly garden or chicken coop of yours kills directly (or starves) countless critters, you use tools, energy and knowledge (knowledge is energy intensive and unsustainable in the "green" definition of the word) to practice your sustainable ways and so on. Agriculture (any agriculture) is NOT sustainable or eco friendly by default. There is no solid proof that solar (or wind) power are net energy producers, it takes enormous amount of energy and pollution to generate green energy.
What shall we do? Live, maybe it's our worldly mission to burn all the coal, oil, pollute and kill ourselves in the process in order to make another chapter of Earth natural history possible.
Well let's just get it over with then. (I guess I can't blame the poor OP for not coming back.)
And you are talking philosophically in the sense that the OP came on here to ask a simple question like how can I gain homestead skills and you and Harry go off on this tangent and you seem to be saying what's the use b/c the planet is going to burn itself out in a million years anyway or at least change beyond recognition?
Here's the way I look at it and this can fit in with any philosophy or religious belief you may have: let's say you hit adulthood and your parents give you the fantastic gift of a new house to live in to get you started in life. They come back in a few weeks and you have completely trashed the place. What are you going to say? Well it was going to get old and fall down in 100 years anyway so what's the use of keeping it up? The Christians call it stewardship but many don't have the faintest idea what that means.
We could invent a whole new way to live--a way that's sort of between what we had 100-200 years ago but with the advantages that we have now, but we're squandering the time we still have left to make choices. And on what? Hollywood gossip? 50 pairs of shoes in the closet and bags of potato chips and quarts of soda? Or worse?
Oh, and ognend, I agree. A corporation is not a person but if it was it would be a psychopath.
Well let's just get it over with then. (I guess I can't blame the poor OP for not coming back.)
And you are talking philosophically in the sense that the OP came on here to ask a simple question like how can I gain homestead skills and you and Harry go off on this tangent and you seem to be saying what's the use b/c the planet is going to burn itself out in a million years anyway or at least change beyond recognition?
Why would anyone associate homestead skills with "sustainable living"? Homesteading is never sustainable, no known cases in human history. Homesteaders wiped out natural environment of North America, Asia and Europe long before inventions of tractors and herbicides. I guess TS didn't pick correct title and correct forum. I do enjoy different aspects of self-sufficiency (i.e. doing things myself, especially growing things), however it's delusional to associate self-sufficiency with "sustainability" (whatever that means).
You see, humans had primitive agriculture in the past, they didn't discard it for no reason. Homestead like agriculture depends on vast land mass that can provide organic mass, manure, etc. to maintain fertility of the tilled land on a homestead. If there is no access to outside land (to strip it of its fertility), if there are no mineral fertilizers and energy inputs, it means imminent decline of productivity. I live in Ohio, I drive and see the field of poorer Amish (without access to outside land/hay/straw/manure/etc.), fields are worked to the death, homestead way. I have a reasonable chunk of land myself, I strip uncultivated land of its vegetation to provide organic matter for my garden, I use food scraps (delivered from Mexico, Chile or California) to add fertility to my garden. Had I had a closed system of my garden and little else, it wouldn't last for more than 3 years.
Besides, since TS is just starting out, I must warn him, homesteading costs lots of money to get started, it doesn't save much (cost of food is nothing compared to the costs of construction, health care, education, transportation, etc.). In short, it doesn't make much of the financial sense unless you do enjoy it. Small town living is way less expensive than trying to spend $100,000 (just an example) to save $500 on groceries.
Last edited by RememberMee; 01-03-2013 at 10:50 PM..
Besides, since TS is just starting out, I must warn him, homesteading costs lots of money to get started, it doesn't save much (cost of food is nothing compared to the costs of construction, health care, education, transportation, etc.). In short, it doesn't make much of the financial sense unless you do enjoy it. Small town living is way less expensive than trying to spend $100,000 (just an example) to save $500 on groceries.
You know RM, I get that, I really do. But this is one of those cases where someone asks a simple question and what do they get? The young lady did not ask us how to go buy a farm--she asked how to learn to grow a few peas in her garden. And no amount of discussion is going to convince me that growing peas in your garden is anywhere near less sustainable and healthy than buying them from a big ag producer that is one of the top 5 food corporations in the world, and they had to ship them 3000 miles to get them to your grocery store so you can go in and spend your shrinking paycheck for a can of that mush. And Monsanto is probably behind the scenes feverishly trying to splice some foreign genes into those peas if they haven't already.
As for homesteading--the real problem was population growth. I am under no illusions that the Native Americans were some great stewards of the earth, though it's obvious that they did better than us. But the main time they had problems was when they tried to put too many people on too small a piece of land. Well sure we've solved the problem of cities but no sooner did we do that than we turned around and screwed it up again--witness the demise of the streetcars so the car companies could sell more cars. Yes indeed, the love of money is the root of all evil. We could do things so much better but we're frittering away the planet that our children will have to deal with and then one of those children wants to know how to do things better, they get ridiculed. I wish you two could see the implications of that. I mean what do you think she should do--go join a gang somewhere? Just forget the whole thing and join the Justin Bieber fan club? Way to go guys.
Why would anyone associate homestead skills with "sustainable living"? Homesteading is never sustainable, no known cases in human history. Homesteaders wiped out natural environment of North America, Asia and Europe long before inventions of tractors and herbicides. I guess TS didn't pick correct title and correct forum. I do enjoy different aspects of self-sufficiency (i.e. doing things myself, especially growing things), however it's delusional to associate self-sufficiency with "sustainability" (whatever that means).
OK, we get it. You think that because something is not 100% true or possible, you should forget about it all together and just quit. No? Ruin everything you got around yourself and just move on. Yes?
Here is what I think: I think you are deliberately confusing things.
As I said: my house is hand built straw bale, I use off grid solar to produce energy, I don't have an A/C, I grow a lot of my veggies and all my herbs, I use composting toilets. I am on the way to completely restore 5.23 acres of VERY neglected land that was grazed down to rock. The lot was covered in weeds but now you are starting to see grass outcompeting the weeds (no chemicals used on the weeds - just stop grazing the land!). We have manually cleared the dead brush and branches on the acreage without use of any fossil fuels. I am soon to start building a wall around some parts of the property made entirely out of local stone (which my neighbor has in abundance). Except for the internet that I have, I don't have a TV or cable, I work from home with my own produced energy and I drive to town only to restock on whatever I cannot grow. My impact on the environment is MINIMAL and I live in a small town that is 15 miles to a larger town with lots of shopping, malls, Walmart etc. and 40 miles from a real big sized city. Following your logic I should have chosen the 2000+sqft poorly insulated (compared to straw bale) toxic wood stick home made out of lumber from Canada and shipped over 2,000+ miles, could have wrapped it in plastic, heat and cool on demand with serious energy hogging equipment etc. etc. I mean, what the heck, it is all going to hell anyways, no?
So, if your goal is to minimize your impact on your environment: who does a better job, me or you?
I just think you are full of it, sorry
Also, what Mother Nature does is Natural by default. You being part of Nature have to find some kind of a level that makes you content on where you fit into the whole scheme of things. Do you drive around in a diesel heavy duty truck as your daily commuter for 2 hours a day, spewing black smoke and wasting fuel? Or if you had to drive do you get an all electric vehicle like the Volt? Do you produce your energy cleanly by yourself using solar or are you part of the grand scheme of things where Peabody corp. evicts Navajos and Hopis from the tribal lands and relocates them by force just so that it can strip down another mountain top, producing crap that will harm the environment for the next 100 years? Is what Peabody does more natural in your world?
If you live in a world where it is ONLY black or white then you are in a pretty sad state of mind, sorry to say
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
You see, humans had primitive agriculture in the past, they didn't discard it for no reason. Homestead like agriculture depends on vast land mass that can provide organic mass, manure, etc. to maintain fertility of the tilled land on a homestead. If there is no access to outside land (to strip it of its fertility), if there are no mineral fertilizers and energy inputs, it means imminent decline of productivity. I live in Ohio, I drive and see the field of poorer Amish (without access to outside land/hay/straw/manure/etc.), fields are worked to the death, homestead way. I have a reasonable chunk of land myself, I strip uncultivated land of its vegetation to provide organic matter for my garden, I use food scraps (delivered from Mexico, Chile or California) to add fertility to my garden. Had I had a closed system of my garden and little else, it wouldn't last for more than 3 years.
You (conveniently) neglected to mention the alternative: 1000s of acres covered in monocultures, drowned in pesticides, fertilizers, harvested with expensive machinery that guzzles through inordinate amounts of fossil fuels. The farmers who are slaves to John Deere, the Bank and Monsanto. Monocultures that leave fields destitute and the land completely dead after a few seasons. GM seeds that are specifically grown to be resistant to the toxic crap you will throw on them just to kill the weeds that will grow around them. The total ownership of everything seed related and grown from that seed, like it or not, by one company.
The 5 acre homestead (heck, even the 1 acre homestead), if managed organically add things back into the soil. What you said above, I think, reflects your own ignorance. You can recycle a bunch of organic stuff back into your soil to enrich it, grow cover crops and till them back into the land to enrich it. You can grow plants in groups (something we learned from the native people) to combine their effects on soil and each other, there are multitude of organic ways to help your soil and make it RICHER ever year, not poorer (not to mention manure from livestock or your chicken etc.).
There are CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) organizations popping up everywhere. You take a 5 acre plot and you get people together to grow their own food. They grow various things, in high density, employing all sorts of organic methods that help the soil.
Again, what is your ALTERNATIVE? Or are you just going to sit here and point out some imaginary negatives? Tell me about your SOLUTIUONS and your ALTERNATIVES?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
Besides, since TS is just starting out, I must warn him, homesteading costs lots of money to get started, it doesn't save much (cost of food is nothing compared to the costs of construction, health care, education, transportation, etc.). In short, it doesn't make much of the financial sense unless you do enjoy it. Small town living is way less expensive than trying to spend $100,000 (just an example) to save $500 on groceries.
Take a look at this situation: straw bale is pretty useless. It is the dead leftovers after growing things like wheat or oats. They are too long and to dead to be tilled back into the soil so the producers used to burn them! Hey, BURN THEM, releasing carbon into the air, polluting the environment! Many estimates said that if instead you used the same straw bale to build homes locally, you could have built thousands and thousands of new homes every year, for next to NOTHING, eco friendly, better insulated and healthier than your wood stick crap. Did that happen? Nope. We still cut down forests (and have to replant new ones) to satisfy the demand for the garbage that is being built every day. Why is that? Can you explain?
I can build a 1000 sqft load bearing home (that means no stick frame) out of straw bale for about $10-$15,000 (that incudes doors, windows, roof, foundation). I can spend another $5-$7,000 to power it using completely off-grid solar. Let's say I decided to be hooked up to the city sewer and water. In that case, I am done with everything. I have myself a house for, let's say, $25,000.
How much would that house cost me if I hired a builder? Would the builder built home be of better quality? I doubt it. How about healthier? That's a definite NO. Etc. etc.
If you wanted to be on a well and have your own septic, that would increase your costs, depending on the area it can get expensive or cheap. But the land, well and septic would cost the same, as well as the cost of land, regardless of whether you built the toxic stick frame or any other home. In addition, my stick frame would require serious insulation (another toxic thing), something I get for free from the bales. In turn, th stick frame would require a bigger A/C to cool and waste more energy to heat. etc. etc.
So, who is more sustainable in this case? Me or you?
Finally, you talk about it being expensive to live in a small town. Nothing prevents you from building a straw bale home in the city and having a garden on your city lot. Cities like Austin have adopted building codes that incorporate alternative building methods and this is true for a lot of places around the south west (Tucson, the whole state of NM, probably lots of Arizona etc.). Nothing prevents you from collecting rainwater for your garden, having a few chickens, maybe going out and buying a load of chicken manure (if your chickens don't produce enough) to enrich your soil etc. etc. Maybe Ohio is back-a** backwards. Maybe you have to get engaged and pressure the local government to adopt better building codes and zoning regulations. This is a fight only people who care can fight.
You have got to live somewhere. HOW you live is what makes the difference.
The high cost may not be in the food (if you consider what is sold in the grocery stores as food). As soon as you start only trying to eat organic, though, the cost goes UP! Especially for a family of four, let's say.
The cost is in the housing. But, knowing how to build your own will save you at least 50% on the value of your home. The cost is in the transportation you say. Well, you can work from home and avoid it all together. If you don't have the opportunity to work from home, you can carpool (nowhere does it say you have to drive alone to work), you can choose public transport or bicycles (if you live in a place like Austin or New York (minus the bicycle)) or if you have to drive alone, you can choose an all EV or hybrid or even a good mileage vehicle like the VW diesels (some of them get up to 48 mpg!). Etc. etc.
You keep muddying up the definition of sustainable. Here, I will define it for you. Sustainable, as in, using the least natural resources possible to achieve a goal so that we have more of those resources available in the future. The major assumption is that these resources are all limited, NOT unlimited (as in, we have limited supplies of coal, oil, gas, water, space, etc.). Now, I know that Shell and BP have said that oil is unlimited but surely we know that that statement is not true, right?
I have a feeling you are just bored and are debating stuff for the sake of taking the opposite side? 'Cause I don't see how you have an argument here.
Yeah they just thought they'd like to make fun of a kid. One who actually wants to learn something. Too bad I can't rep you some more.
You know, I really didn't mind your comments before, because they furthered the debate and a debate always has two or more sides. That statement, however, is petty, a patent lie, and over-the-top. How DARE you say that I " just thought (I'd) like to make fun of a kid." If you "know" that, I am certain you also "know" exactly what I am thinking right now about the use of such attacks in a debate and the low morals of those that use them.
-Mods- please note that my post above is NOT a personal attack, but a statement of fact correcting an obvious intentional error, followed by a call for thought.
You know, I really didn't mind your comments before, because they furthered the debate and a debate always has two or more sides. That statement, however, is petty, a patent lie, and over-the-top. How DARE you say that I " just thought (I'd) like to make fun of a kid." If you "know" that, I am certain you also "know" exactly what I am thinking right now about the use of such attacks in a debate and the low morals of those that use them.
-Mods- please note that my post above is NOT a personal attack, but a statement of fact correcting an obvious intentional error, followed by a call for thought.
Harry forgive me. I went back and looked at your posts and realized that you were not poking fun at her at all, though I thought you were a bit condescending at times. Not the same thing at all, so I'm sorry.
To the original poster of this thread, an interesting must see.
Zeitgeist Watch Zeitgeist The Movie
If you have Netflix, one of them is on there. The one called Moving Forward, which is the one I watched. Just search "Zeitgeist."
It's a documentary on a new resource-based economy. It's really interesting and I think you'd like it as much as I did. Spooky at times but definitely food for thought when you think of how life COULD go.
Good luck in your adventure. I think any interest in this area will be good for you. One must go with their passions.
From one whose been called a nut for my "green living" I wouldn't let it discourage you. Back when I started it there wasn't a "green living channel." One must press on, you never know what you'll discover through the years.
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.
(I guess I can't blame the poor OP for not coming back.) 
