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.
... People who scratch in the soil to raise just enough food to feed and clothe their families live in flimsy huts, suffer from all kinds of nasty bacterial diseases from polluted water, and move on after they've despoiled their current areas. They tend to practice slash and burn agriculture.
Wow.
You and I clearly live on different planets. You should come and visit some time.
Your idea of other people is so far removed from any reality that I am in that we obviously can not be on the same planet.
None of what you say applies to anyone that I know, nor of anything that I have heard of in the USA.
On your planet, do Americans do these things? Do Americans live in such a manner?
Not to mention that the agriculture system we use today is unsustainable in the long run. It depletes the soil of resources, it pollutes the water supply etc. There is a reason why people were starving in India, there were too many for what the soil can SUSTAINABLY support. Now there are more, they eat contaminated crap just like we do but the planet is slowly turning arid, polluted and dying. So, yes, maybe the green revolution was a "fix" (and a bad one at that) but it only bought some time, nothing else.
Back to your original concern: your community with idle land and possible business opportunity
Have you researched community food cooperatives? That sounds like what you originally described.
Actually, to avoid possible inaccuracies, it could be cow manure. Well... or a steer/bullock dung. Or perhaps a trans-bull or trans-cow poop-pie?
But for the sufficiency types--looks like fire fuel in the formative stage.
Cute.
You are aware of anyone in the USA's self-sufficiency / homesteading / organic community who is described as:
Quote:
... poverty, disease, and starvation are the norm in those societies.
... live in flimsy huts,
... suffer from all kinds of nasty bacterial diseases from polluted water,
... move on after they've despoiled their current areas.
... practice slash and burn agriculture.
This is bull manure. You find subsistence economies in the Third World, and poverty, disease, and starvation are the norm in those societies. Historically, you find subsistence economies in the late Stone Age and early Bronze Age cultures. Get a clue, people have been abandoning subsistence agriculture economies for specialization and urban living for 10,000 years. bg7 has the right of it.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no correlation between subsistence agriculture and protection of soil fertility or water quality. Generally, it's just the opposite. People who scratch in the soil to raise just enough food to feed and clothe their families live in flimsy huts, suffer from all kinds of nasty bacterial diseases from polluted water, and move on after they've despoiled their current areas. They tend to practice slash and burn agriculture. People who terrace hillsides to prevent erosion or who build irrigation canals are part of advanced cultures where some farm and others observe celestial events or write on stone tablets or build aqueducts to supply water to cities. They aren't moving anywhere, so they take care of the soil and water that they have.
Great rational post.
This even happens to advanced cultures. For a long time there was great surprise that the Mayans had abandoned their cities. It was finally determined that they had simply depleted the surrounding land until the cities were too far away. Why they were no longer able to conceptualize and build new cities is another question but the current concensus is that slash and burn agriculture brought them back to primeval squalor.
It's one thing to desire a simpler life; it's quite another to extol the virtues of savagery.
Sorry I couldn't rep you; the evil modern machine said it was too soon.
We have had our disagreements here in the forum. However, I want all of you to know that even though we go back and forth here, I value a lot of your opinions and advice and insights. Even when we argue, I like most of you - I just hate the ragging on this or that group of people - would much more like to figure out how to get people to a better place instead of just pointing out that they are in a bad place now (I suppose part of fixing the problem is realizing that there is a problem but I think we all agree we have problems...).
In any case, I am curious what you all think about the following: when I lived in Florida, I lived in an unincorporated area where most of the lots were 1.5-2 acres. In my opinion, these lots could have provided most of the stuff a family would need in terms of veggies and fruits (at least tropical fruits but that would be enough), esp. given Florida's long growing season. On 2 acres one could also have a goat or two and chickens. Being Florida with a lot of sun, you would think everyone would have been on solar. Water was easy to come by, wells were pretty shallow. All in all, the whole population of that unincorporated town could have fed itself and produced all the energy they needed. Heck, the unincorporated area housed thousands of families and if they all produced and the land was used efficiently, they could have fed another town or two, besides themselves
Why didn't they? Instead, a lot of them chose crappy jobs in town, miserable existence working for someone else, driving 30-40 miles a day to get to the work site and then back etc. They relinquished all control of their food and energy supply to someone else. Why?
Same there where I am now. My neighbor to the left has 75 acres and all they have is 2 pet horses and a pet donkey. They do not hunt the deer on their land (it is legal), they don't grow veggies, no solar (I am in SW USA so lots of sun), no fruit trees, no nothin'. Many other neighbors around with parcels large and small and I think maybe 2% of the whole population of 3,000 has a veggie garden. If people have anything it may be goats but they are raised for shows or commercially and if a ranch is big they have cattle but a lot of them do it for tax exemptions and sometimes as a commercial outfit but they do not grow gardens, have no solar etc.
Again, why not?
Furthermore, is there a business model that would allow a person to help people setting all the self-sufficient stuff up, make a living doing that (not after getting rich, just make a living and help people)? When I lived in FL, I contemplated renting out people's backyards to plant veggies and fruits on them and pay them with the portion of the bounty. Opinions?
Thanks!
It has been my personal experience that becoming self-sufficient takes a heck of a lot of work. You must educate yourself by seeking out publications that deal with specific topics and you must learn how to do all the things that you don't already know how to do. For most non-homesteaders, that is practically everything. Then, you must DO IT, which is a considerable amount of work. Most people really and truly don't want to work that hard.
My husband has a small orchard of about 15 trees. Every year he must prune them, mulch them, fertilize them, then he has a schedule that he sprays them (we're not organic), lime-sulfur, fruit tree spray, copper, etc., etc., There is a regular schedule, some he sprays once a week, some every 10 days. Then if you have a garden you have to plant, fertilize, weed, water, water, water, water, thin, harvest and THEN preserve the harvest. Last year off of 10 tomato plants I canned about 6 quarts of tomatoes in different configurations. It was incredibly hard, hot work. If you have animals (sheep, rabbits, chickens) there is even more work. Most people don't even want to THINK about working this hard. It is much easier for them to drive to the grocery store and sit in front of the tv for three or four hours every night watching mindless shows.
People who want to be self-sufficient are a different breed. It kills me to see good land go unused, but that is just how it is.
It has been my personal experience that becoming self-sufficient takes a heck of a lot of work. You must educate yourself by seeking out publications that deal with specific topics and you must learn how to do all the things that you don't already know how to do. For most non-homesteaders, that is practically everything. Then, you must DO IT, which is a considerable amount of work. Most people really and truly don't want to work that hard.
My husband has a small orchard of about 15 trees. Every year he must prune them, mulch them, fertilize them, then he has a schedule that he sprays them (we're not organic), lime-sulfur, fruit tree spray, copper, etc., etc., There is a regular schedule, some he sprays once a week, some every 10 days. Then if you have a garden you have to plant, fertilize, weed, water, water, water, water, thin, harvest and THEN preserve the harvest. Last year off of 10 tomato plants I canned about 6 quarts of tomatoes in different configurations. It was incredibly hard, hot work. If you have animals (sheep, rabbits, chickens) there is even more work. Most people don't even want to THINK about working this hard. It is much easier for them to drive to the grocery store and sit in front of the tv for three or four hours every night watching mindless shows.
People who want to be self-sufficient are a different breed. It kills me to see good land go unused, but that is just how it is.
20yrsinBranson
No, I get it, I am in the same "boat" but for some reason I don't mind the hard work. We don't have a TV so there, problem solved, I am $80/month richer and much more time to do stuff I really like.
It is funny, my parents lived in the city, my grandparents in the country - my Mom's grandparents were self-sufficient, owned land, had flocks of various birds (chickens, turkeys etc.), cows, pigs, made their own jams, brandy, wine etc. etc. I remember them as the happiest people there were, my grand father is in fact still alive at ripe age of 91, still takes no medications.
My parents left all that, got education, raised us in the city and sent us to school etc. But, I am "back to the land" and so will my children be. I would consider it a punishment for a child not to grow up around a garden, an orchard, cows, horses, fresh air. My household will NEVER have a TV.
Funny, even my father who grew up in the country and tended cows when he was 10 and made a living picking cherries when he was 12 (7 children family after WW2 in a country ravaged by the war), could not wait to go to the city and make a life for himself. Nowadays he is big into growing food - he constantly tells me that he who grows healthy food has the most noblest profession of all....
This even happens to advanced cultures. For a long time there was great surprise that the Mayans had abandoned their cities. It was finally determined that they had simply depleted the surrounding land until the cities were too far away. Why they were no longer able to conceptualize and build new cities is another question but the current concensus is that slash and burn agriculture brought them back to primeval squalor.
It's one thing to desire a simpler life; it's quite another to extol the virtues of savagery.
Sorry I couldn't rep you; the evil modern machine said it was too soon.
How did we go from growing your own food to extolling the virtues of savagery? Who is advocating slash and burn? Talk about exaggerating....
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.
