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.
We are hoping to use locally quarried large oblong blocks of limestone, easily several tons each. The wall would be about 80' long, 35-40' deep set on a fairly steep southern facing slope, about 4-5' tall at the highest point along the back long wall, then filled with fill dirt then topsoil. It might be too much and we might have to go another route to flatten an area for large garden. There are tons of retaining walls all over the area as it is hilly but we can't seem to find anyone to do this. I'd prefer not to use Keystone or other small block system for something this big.
The one thing that isn't immediately available to us is garden space. The top of the hill where our home lies is stony, clayey, and tree covered. Below the house is a steep swaled pasture of about 3 acres. Below that is a large pond that almost overs the width of the property. Below the pond is bottomland crisscrossed with two creeks and woods. That area runs to brush in 10 minutes and would be difficult to tame enough to garden. We just mow down the scrub where we want to keep things shorter. The rest we leave.
We have been container gardening but we will need to change that as a lot of things just do better in the ground not to mention in the sun.
That's an excellent example of real self-sufficiency which is the ability to do what needs to be done. The fact that you hired someone doesn't make you less self-sufficient; it makes you more so. No one is an expert at doing more than a few things so the jack of all trades on short money ends up spending a lot of time to produce junk.
We should do what we like to do ourselves and use our money to pay to have the rest done. If someone should ask about those who don't have money I'll answer that those who can't make money can never be self-sufficient.
Remember tonight. Watch it and think about moving to Dubois. Sure, it's expensive, but what good things aren't? Make more money as I know you can and say good-bye to rednecks forever.
No, you won't freeze to death.
Watch him spin his gun. Wouldn't you like to do that? You know darn well you would. He does a much fancier job in so me other videos.
Now, stop being a rotten little communist and live the good life.
Haha - yeah Dubois I love, unfortunately it is expensive and you know it! Being self-sufficient there would be tough - I would not even know where to begin in that climate/location
However, if I was stuck (biased?) towards controlling EVERYTHING and doing ALL the labor ABSOLUTELY UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES 'cause "that's what self sufficient people and preppers do", well....
No argument here. We had a guy come in to grind down the gazillion stumps that we had left from taking out our diseased, dead and nearly dead trees on our top 3 acres around the house. It was beginning to look like a colonial homestead. It took he and is crew 5 hours and cost $900. No way we could have done that in any manner near the efficiency or ultimate cost. It just makes sense. Everything we do here we use metrics to decide what to do and how to go about it, weighing the final result as we are also interested in quality workmanship. Anything else is just plain unwise use of resources.
We are hoping to use locally quarried large oblong blocks of limestone, easily several tons each. The wall would be about 80' long, 35-40' deep set on a fairly steep southern facing slope, about 4-5' tall at the highest point along the back long wall, then filled with fill dirt then topsoil. It might be too much and we might have to go another route to flatten an area for large garden. There are tons of retaining walls all over the area as it is hilly but we can't seem to find anyone to do this. I'd prefer not to use Keystone or other small block system for something this big.
The one thing that isn't immediately available to us is garden space. The top of the hill where our home lies is stony, clayey, and tree covered. Below the house is a steep swaled pasture of about 3 acres. Below that is a large pond that almost overs the width of the property. Below the pond is bottomland crisscrossed with two creeks and woods. That area runs to brush in 10 minutes and would be difficult to tame enough to garden. We just mow down the scrub where we want to keep things shorter. The rest we leave.
We have been container gardening but we will need to change that as a lot of things just do better in the ground not to mention in the sun.
Quarried stone is easiest to set, but using stones of several tons, in long oblongs or rectangles, introduces new levels of complexity to the job because you need heavy equipment, like a crane to handle the stones, and you need to know how to rig the slings so the stone doesn't break under its own weight when you lift it.
This is a significant job you've got planned, and because of the danger, I would definitely reccomend getting a professional with their own liability and work comp insurance to do it.
You may have to cast your net out further to get someone, but this won't be a cheap job, even though it isn't that large in dimensions.
You don't say how steep the slope is, but 4-5 feet of drop in 35-40 feet of depth, in heavy clay soil, there could be some anchoring issues to avoid slipping with the fill weight behind the wall which would be compounded in the event of heavy rains.
I don't know any stonemasons in your area, or I'd be glad to shoot you their contact info, sorry.
This is a good example of when an individual may not have the means to do a job themselves. I understand you don't want to go with smaller materials you could handle yourselves, but adapting and overcoming is part of self sufficiency, so when one plan falls apart for whatever reason, you figure out another way to achieve you goals.
Maybe instead of one major level, you go with several smaller tiers?
Excellent thread and questions. (I don't post much in this forum but enjoy reading for ideas)
Normalcy Bias is very high, I would surmise it is 98 percent or higher. We've had conversations among family about what to do should certain types of situations / incidents occur, and there are some who, depending on scenario, are of the "I'll wait until it happens" and 'if it does or is that bad, I wouldn't want to survive' mindset.
As someone who lives in more urban setting I prepare mostly for things like supply chain disruptions and power outages due to some natural event. Part of the being prepared mindset is, as already mentioned, being adaptable, flexible, and resourceful i.e. knowing how to use what is available depending on environmental context. (For personal safety, defense and survival)
I say this because as someone who was a travel warrior for five year for work and who has traveled internationally (Europe only) I found the travel experience (due to how / and why I leisure travel) to be beneficial in having a preparedness mindset. It forces you to think what is the least I can carry with me to continue being mobile and function at my best to optimize the experience.
I think this is one of the aspects of preparedness that often is frequently overlooked, especially for those who stress 'bunker building' land based homesteads to seclude themselves. I realize this is all conditional upon ones lifestyle, point in life, and location - different strokes for different folks. This is why Normalcy bias is so high in my opinion. There are so many in urban centers who think nothing of being prepared and if they do it is limited to flashlight / batteries / cans of tuna. I am not the type to have my own personal bunker but I do prepare by having a 'go bag' and insuring I have certain items most always with me whether at work, home, in vehicle or near me.
Also, in urban environs, the situational awareness is heightened by the velocity of interaction. I play a game in my head of 'what if', on everything from; what if the three guys coming my way were going to attack and what would be best defense / escape, to, what if all the conventional transportation / communication options were suddenly out of commission (Carrington 1867 like event-EMP) how / where would I proceed?
From my experience, when I have tried to talk to friends they tend to deflect or think somehow if this type of event occurs, everyone will band together in some happy survival mode. This is where I see the greatest disconnect. While some people would be OK, I know by human nature there are others who cannot deal well with denial of current life comforts. And in today's more disconnected social interaction from technology I see less and less chance of this occurring in dense urban areas. In these types of scenario I think the 'urban prepper' has different priorities of preparedness such as situational awareness and knowing how live off the former grid while being mobile and safe
Though not a boy scout, I follow these logical concepts which I listed long ago in my teen years:
Be Prepared
Follow Through
Don't Invite work upon yourself (and don't 'create more work' for yourself) and
Owe No Man Anything (Biblical wisdom)
So much of independence and peace of mind (IMO) is attained through knowing your limitations. Physically, mentally and emotionally.
Normalcy Bias in the general public, at least here in the UK, is a continuation of the status quo, i.e. nothing bad will happen, so they continue doing what they are doing, don't prep and don't give emergencies a second thought-until it happens of course and then its a mad panic. and then of course its always someone else's job to help them!!!
Normalcy Bias in the general public, at least here in the UK, is a continuation of the status quo, i.e. nothing bad will happen, so they continue doing what they are doing, don't prep and don't give emergencies a second thought-until it happens of course and then its a mad panic. and then of course its always someone else's job to help them!!!
Well, if you think about it - this is only logical. Modern society (capitalism?) is entirely based on delegation of work and responsibility - you pay someone to do something and the expectation is that they will do it properly and to a certain standard as determined by the market and amount of moneys paid (whether this actually plays out in practice is a different question - I know I paid for many a service that did not live up to its promise and there was no recourse for me). Government functions in a similar way on multiple levels - you pay property taxes and expect police to protect you, you pay income taxes and expect the state and federal government to do certain things. You vote for the people you think most align with your beliefs and expectations. In fact, if there was no delegation of work and desire to improve current technology - there would be no science, no art, no nothing - we would all be hunters-gatherers and only the truly strongest and healthiest and most intelligent would survive. I, for one, do not shy away from manual labor when it needs doing but I also do not go looking for it.
Consider this: a hundred to hundred and fifty years ago letters were the way to communicate with people. The expectations were that it would take a week or two to get the letter across from A to B. The whole way of life and the way business was done was in line with that expectation. Today, you have email and cell phones and SMS (and ...) - the whole way business is done and things happens is based on that. Or, consider the government and what people expect: a hundred+ years ago the expectations of what the government will do for you were measly (but yet higher than what they were two hundred years ago). Today, in most developed Western democracies, these expectations are much higher (and people are happy to pay taxes to get these "basic minimums" taken care of). So are societal expectations - I am pretty sure the number of people in UK who would be OK with going back to feudal times is about 3 (one of them is you?) .
I guess what I am trying to say is that normalcy bias of X% today is not the same as normalcy bias of the same X% a hundred years ago - this normalcy bias of today is supported by the technology and possibilities we have today - the OP mentioned 70% - I wonder if someone measured this bias in 1870 what would it be?
The standards/expectations of what people want to live like today have changed - consider that most people today simply would not WANT to live without the Internet or books or gadgets or... Most people would not be interested in going to war over wheat or oil or gold and most people would not want to see all the buffalo killed or India conquered or Native people poisoned with tuberculosis blankets or Soviet gulags or... However (and for example), most people today will get a disease or condition of some sort and fully expect to go to the doctor and get cured. They would fully expect to live through many ordeals that our ancestors just 50-100 years ago would not have lived through. Even cars have become more intelligent and better in accidents - a lot of people die in car crashes but that's because there are many more car crashes on the roads, not because the cars are unsafe - in fact, the expectations with each new automobile generation are that they are getting safer and safer.
Which leads me to my next point - risk aversion - most of the population has become risk averse. Risk has been systematically taken out of daily life and the expectations of safety and security have increased in the general population. It is generally assumed in a Western society that if you obey the law, go to school, live in a city, have a job, family etc., live in a good neighborhood, drive a nice car, have a nice house, pay your taxes, vote, do not engage in risky behaviors (like paragliding or riding horses or taking drugs or criminal behavior or...) et cetera, et cetera - that life will be good, safe and you will live a long time. All this is supported by a network of services and technologies that work together. As a result, people have become cowards and have come to expect that there is no risk to them so long as they do their part in society
Well, if you think about it - this is only logical. Modern society (capitalism?) is entirely based on delegation of work and responsibility - you pay someone to do something and the expectation is that they will do it properly and to a certain standard as determined by the market and amount of moneys paid (whether this actually plays out in practice is a different question - I know I paid for many a service that did not live up to its promise and there was no recourse for me). Government functions in a similar way on multiple levels - you pay property taxes and expect police to protect you, you pay income taxes and expect the state and federal government to do certain things. You vote for the people you think most align with your beliefs and expectations. In fact, if there was no delegation of work and desire to improve current technology - there would be no science, no art, no nothing - we would all be hunters-gatherers and only the truly strongest and healthiest and most intelligent would survive. I, for one, do not shy away from manual labor when it needs doing but I also do not go looking for it.
Consider this: a hundred to hundred and fifty years ago letters were the way to communicate with people. The expectations were that it would take a week or two to get the letter across from A to B. The whole way of life and the way business was done was in line with that expectation. Today, you have email and cell phones and SMS (and ...) - the whole way business is done and things happens is based on that. Or, consider the government and what people expect: a hundred+ years ago the expectations of what the government will do for you were measly (but yet higher than what they were two hundred years ago). Today, in most developed Western democracies, these expectations are much higher (and people are happy to pay taxes to get these "basic minimums" taken care of). So are societal expectations - I am pretty sure the number of people in UK who would be OK with going back to feudal times is about 3 (one of them is you?) .
I guess what I am trying to say is that normalcy bias of X% today is not the same as normalcy bias of the same X% a hundred years ago - this normalcy bias of today is supported by the technology and possibilities we have today - the OP mentioned 70% - I wonder if someone measured this bias in 1870 what would it be?
The standards/expectations of what people want to live like today have changed - consider that most people today simply would not WANT to live without the Internet or books or gadgets or... Most people would not be interested in going to war over wheat or oil or gold and most people would not want to see all the buffalo killed or India conquered or Native people poisoned with tuberculosis blankets or Soviet gulags or... However (and for example), most people today will get a disease or condition of some sort and fully expect to go to the doctor and get cured. They would fully expect to live through many ordeals that our ancestors just 50-100 years ago would not have lived through. Even cars have become more intelligent and better in accidents - a lot of people die in car crashes but that's because there are many more car crashes on the roads, not because the cars are unsafe - in fact, the expectations with each new automobile generation are that they are getting safer and safer.
Which leads me to my next point - risk aversion - most of the population has become risk averse. Risk has been systematically taken out of daily life and the expectations of safety and security have increased in the general population. It is generally assumed in a Western society that if you obey the law, go to school, live in a city, have a job, family etc., live in a good neighborhood, drive a nice car, have a nice house, pay your taxes, vote, do not engage in risky behaviors (like paragliding or riding horses or taking drugs or criminal behavior or...) et cetera, et cetera - that life will be good, safe and you will live a long time. All this is supported by a network of services and technologies that work together. As a result, people have become cowards and have come to expect that there is no risk to them so long as they do their part in society
I don't disagree with you on any of these points. excellent post.
Recently I invited people to discuss Situational Awareness, which involves an alertness to one's surroundings, including other people, buildings, vehicles, machinery, fire, flooding, animals (in my given example) and just the ability to notice something out of the ordinary, which could represent potential danger.
Today I would like to discuss it's exact opposite: Normalcy Bias. This is the tendency for people, especially when facing a clearly hazardous circumstance, to go into denial. This is a normal reaction, and about 70% of people will react this way in a crisis, disbelieving that anything bad could ever actually happen, perhaps because it has never happened before (to them).
It's a sort of paralysis that prevents escape or evasive action. It is said that the Jews living under Hitler were victims of normalcy bias, assuming that things would not get worse. Most had the opportunity to leave Germany, but only a small percentage of them did so.
Have you ever tried to discuss the benefits of becoming more self-sufficient, or of being more prepared, with a friend, neighbor, or family member? Have they ever reacted as if you were out of your mind? Have you ever seen that same reaction here on this forum, or on another? Do you tend to fall into this mindset yourself? Do you accuse others, who practice situational awareness, of being alarmist or paranoid? What would it take to raise your awareness level?
The response is not to try to argue anyone into any kind of full-blown "prepper" ideas such as total global civilization collapse.
However, there are lower levels of disaster preparation that anyone should realistically accept.
For instance, anyone living in "tornado alley" or areas subject to heavy winter storms should always be prepared for a week without water or power, or the ability to shop for food or gasoline. That can happen to anyone in America at any time, and does several times a year.
Anyone living in a hurricane zone or a flood plain should be prepared ("mobility bags" packed and open credit card or cash in a national bank account accessible by ATM from anywhere) to evacuate at a moment's notice to somewhere a significant distance from home. Again, that happens to many people in the US every year.
Baby steps.
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.
.
