Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
In my country,the average year round temperature is 28degrees celsius.We grow everything all year round.If need be,transportation by sea to most of the country and all the Mediterranean and east is feasible.You can even get around with animals on land if necessary..Low population.A large number of the population is self sufficiency aware as they grew up on farms and in rural areas .There are therapeutical hot springs everywhere.Mineral water everywhere.Olivetrees everywhere,grapes everywhere.figs everywhere.almond and walnut trees everywhere.Clean underground water almost everywhere.Fish in the sea which is everywhere.Oil under the Aegean which is common knowledge but untapped yet.Probably enough natural recources to sustain this country for a while yet.We been here since almost 20000 bc but I wont give a history lesson now.Mount Olympus and Delphi protect us.Good luck in your quests. _________________ ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ
1/3 of agriculture production is exporterd. If agriculture production dropped by 1/3, the same amount of food would still be available to the population, as exports would be curtailed first.
The daily calorie intake per capita is approaching 3000, whereas in developing nations, it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1800, giving the US population another buffer against a decline in food production.
Poulation density in the US is lower than many countries, giving the population the capacity for backyard gardening, further cushioning the food production problem.
The market offers everything under the sun, giving the population the greatest potential to prepare for hard times. Gathering supplies, equipment, and tools is essential, but also the instructional material in books is vital.
In the event TSHTF, the sheer volume of construction and development offers a vast amount of material which can be recycled, scavanged, or put to different use.
The enormous volume of energy consumption is such that conservation will have the effect of delaying the Transition crisis. We can get by with considerably less energy consumption, and we will.
The wealth in the nation is such that purchasing power will enable the population to delay a Transition crisis longer than any other nation. The US will be the last to fall, giving people the greatest opportunity to prepare. An interesting sidenote: even in the face of impending disaster, many people will take no action whatsoever to prepare.
Industrial capacity offers the greatest ability to use remaining resources for manufacture of alternative energy devies, i.e. sola, wind, human powered turbines. Although not all remaining resources will be used for this, the market will respond with increased production as energy prices climb. This also adds to delaying and easing the Transition.
Citizens have the right to bear arms. Although an elected legislature can trample that right, collecting all the guns and arms would be impossible.
The size, scope, and capability of the US armed forces, as well as the armed population, offer the greatest probability that the US will not be invaded successfully or permanently by an outside agressor.
This does not mean all parts of the US are desireable, the cities and deserts are definately on the bad list, northern states are less desirable. Also, none of this means the US is immune to the Transition. The simple fact that more time is available is what will make it possible for some people to put themselves into a position to get through the Transition.
Joined: Sep 16, 2004 Posts: 4913 Location: Southwest WI
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:58 am Post subject:
Kpeavey~
I agree somewhat. I would NOT want to be near Chicago, LA, or any Megatropolis when/if TSHTF... However, I would say the Pacific NW area looks to be very promising, due to large amount of Hydropower, mild year round temp (cool summer, cool winters) abundant organic farms. Ability to produce large amount of tree fruits. Plenty of rain. Close to Canada in case you have to run!...oceans nearby... just my opinion...
Joined: Sep 16, 2004 Posts: 4913 Location: Southwest WI
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:59 am Post subject:
INternational i would have to say S. America...Brazil would be my first choice (away from the megacities.) Huge amount of land, very mild climate, rain, small population (for land size)....
My vote goes to any "developing" nation that has limited or no strategic value to the big global players. The place also should be relatively underpopulated too. Preferably one that has had some recent history of political stability too.
IN WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Costa Rica, Panama, Chile, plus parts of other countries
ELSEWHERE
Iceland, New Zealand and of course select sub-regions from a number of other countries.
Another thing, for those considering immigration, a country that has mixed origins or an immigrant history, you might have a better chance than one that has an ethnically homogenous population. (you'll stand out less)
Speaking of immigration, I think you'll begin to see an immigration FROM the US to anywhere else, for a variety of reasons. Ironic considering our history. _________________ UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
Joined: Dec 08, 2004 Posts: 1636 Location: Nez Perce Nation
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:03 am Post subject:
frankthetank wrote:
However, I would say the Pacific NW area looks to be very promising, due to large amount of Hydropower, mild year round temp (cool summer, cool winters) abundant organic farms. Ability to produce large amount of tree fruits. Plenty of rain.
I agree Frank. The entire NW is a good choice from Northern California up to and including western Idaho. Hydropower is king but there are large wind farms along the Columbia River as well, plus a large solar array on the Hanford reservation. And there is plenty of water available.
Good land, good agricultural infrastructure and killer wines. East of the Cascades the population density is quite low.
Read the book Ecotopia. The author, Callenbach I believe, had the idea back in the 60s and envisioned a new country carved out of this territory. _________________ "Modern Agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."
-- Albert Bartlett
"It will be a dark time. But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting."
-- James Lovelock
The USA
1/3 of agriculture production is exporterd. If agriculture production dropped by 1/3, the same amount of food would still be available to the population, as exports would be curtailed first.
kp
And decline it will. Much of that productivity is courtesy of a hyperefficient (from an economic not energetic perspective!) production system. Cut the energy inputs and I doubt that production could be sustained, though I havent seen good figures on what the viable number would be
kpeavey wrote:
The daily calorie intake per capita is approaching 3000, whereas in developing nations, it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1800, giving the US population another buffer against a decline in food production.
kp
The US's big problem isn't the total calorie consumption, it is how/what those cals are composed of...high energy processed foods and a preponderance of meat. We just eat too much of it. As a nation we need to eat MUCH less meat. I am NOT a vegetarian, nor probably are most of you. But the fact of the matter is we (collectively) eat too many animal products, which is an energetically inefficient way to consume. Part of the decline in food production should manifest itself in the form of less meat/dairy consumption and more beans&grains consumption. If not people will starve. As to the food processing (and shipment) system, that too will have to change. It just makes no sense (again energetically) to be shipping food clear across the country/world just so we can eat strawberries in Febuary. And the food we do get should probably be less processed and packaged, because that too wastes a decent amount of energy. I don't have numbers (and would welcome someones posting of them...) but comparing a frozen TV dinner--lets say a Mexican one, two chicken enchiladas, rice and beans--from the frozen section of your mega-grocery store to preparing your own from locally available/homegrown version of the same dish, one will probably be a net loss in energy and the other, hopefully positive.
Okay enough of that soapbox...
kpeavey wrote:
Poulation density in the US is lower than many countries, giving the population the capacity for backyard gardening, further cushioning the food production problem.
kp
I whole-heartedly agree with the population density arguemen, though I dont think it will provide a cushion for the whole food production arguement. Our cities are still screwed anyway you look at it.
kpeavey wrote:
The market offers everything under the sun, giving the population the greatest potential to prepare for hard times. Gathering supplies, equipment, and tools is essential, but also the instructional material in books is vital.
kp
Markets only work with rational players and a stable supply of resources. Mess with that formula and you won't be able to do anything. Remember, planning and preparation can only occure BEFORE the problem. Otherwise you are reacting, and probably won't have the advantage of relying on all of those supplies anticipated on.
kpeavey wrote:
In the event TSHTF, the sheer volume of construction and development offers a vast amount of material which can be recycled, scavanged, or put to different use.
kp
That is definately what I think will occur to our cities. Some of the worst excesses of 20th century capitalism will become the "strip mines" for the 21st century's metals, plastics, etc needs. And unlike virgin mining, it will require much less energy to do so. In this respect the US will still remain resource rich.
kpeavey wrote:
The enormous volume of energy consumption is such that conservation will have the effect of delaying the Transition crisis. We can get by with considerably less energy consumption, and we will.
kp
Try and tell your average suburban family that they will no longer be able to drive every day. Or even at all. Much of the easy conservation techniques have been accomplished. Sure we use less oil to produce on unit of output than we did in the 1970s. Does that help us? No, cos we just ended up producing more stuff instead, and most of that was crap stuff. But unfortunately all of those "excesive uses" turns out to be the livlihoods of many individuals. Cutting back means cutting jobs. Better hope your job isn't one of them. Because its going to take serious cutbacks to reduce energy demand to available supply. Driving a prius instead of a Hummer isn't going to help us out. Not driving at all will help, but sucks for those that bought into the wasteful energy lifestyle that is the "American Way of Life." Conservation helps us through the little crisis...but this isn't one of them!
kpeavey wrote:
The wealth in the nation is such that purchasing power will enable the population to delay a Transition crisis longer than any other nation. The US will be the last to fall, giving people the greatest opportunity to prepare. An interesting sidenote: even in the face of impending disaster, many people will take no action whatsoever to prepare.
Industrial capacity offers the greatest ability to use remaining resources for manufacture of alternative energy devies, i.e. sola, wind, human powered turbines. Although not all remaining resources will be used for this, the market will respond with increased production as energy prices climb. This also adds to delaying and easing the Transition.
kp
What wealth of our nation? The wealth we borrowed from China or Japan?
What industrial capacity? Last time I checked, a lot of capacity has vanished oversees, courtesy of the globalisation arguement. The US economy largely seems to be parasitic/canabalistic in nature. We are living off of the wealth accrued from years gone by (the proliferation of home equity loans), money lent to us by foreigners and the consumption of nonrenewable resources. We don't really produce much of anything anymore (we still do--but not compared to our past). Point is I don't believe the US will be the last to fall. We are deeply leveraged, both economically and ecologically and vulnerable to any crisis. When the SHTF, I don't think we will be able to buy those Chinese made tools we will need to prepare with because our Chinese derived easy credit will have dried up.
kpeavey wrote:
Citizens have the right to bear arms. Although an elected legislature can trample that right, collecting all the guns and arms would be impossible.
The size, scope, and capability of the US armed forces, as well as the armed population, offer the greatest probability that the US will not be invaded successfully or permanently by an outside agressor.
kp
Your arguement that the US will never be invaded or occupied by a foreign power is true. The US will NEVER fall from the outside. We are more like that rotten, termite infested house that just collapses under its own weight, due to its own instability.
Plus if China doesn't try and invade us now that oil is still available, its doubtful if they evercould, if they wanted to. Moving milllions of soldiers across a huge ocean would take a crapload of oil, something not in abundant supply.
--------------------------------
I do think the US has its survivable areas, but they are due to the natural wealth and circumstances of that particular area (access to renewable energy, fresh water, arable lands, etc) and not to the country as a whole. I am just not at all optomistic for the country as a whole, given its current leadership.
Unfortunately I agree with patrickjford.Even though there is much natural recource in the U.S.,I cant see an urban population of OVER 100MILLION people who are totally reliant on the current "fast food" lifestyle,getting through this for the simple reason that in order to prepare it would mean a sudden change of lifestyle .How sudden,I dont know.But if I take examples of my brother and sister and their suburbanite families who like their vacations in bermuda on a lounge chair by a pool,I would say you are in deep water.I can see the masses coming out of the ghettos,people with different ways of life,looking for anything and everything.Their eyes red like zombies.Where will these people go?The U.S.dosent need external enemies.There will be an internal holocaust of the worst magnitude.Civil war will probably be the least of your problems.If the government starts a mandatory awareness program now,you would probably need 10-20 years to adjust at best.But instead,they prefer to spend billions of your taxdollars on other things of less than peaceful nature .I know one thing,if someone WANTS peace they can find the way.If the countries of the world wanted to work together for the good of the planet they could.Unfortunately,the US will probably be one of the first to go down.You know the saying"they bigger they are......".The only safe places on the North American continent are the Rockies,the Yukon,the southern bayou,the Allagash wilderness in the north east.These are the sustainable environments of the continent,but you better eat nails for breakfast if you think you can live there for an extended period of time. _________________ ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ
Joined: Nov 06, 2004 Posts: 35 Location: Emmen The Netherlands
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:29 pm Post subject:
_sluimers_ wrote:
Norway
I agree. Thatts why i am moving there next year. There are others reasons for moving there ofcourse. Norway is also the biggest oil and gas producer in europe i think. So thats a good thing. Also Norway subsidize the agriculture so they produce a lot of food. And of course they catch a lot of fish.
1/3 of agriculture production is exporterd. If agriculture production dropped by 1/3, the same amount of food would still be available to the population, as exports would be curtailed first.
Wouldn't neccesarily count on that. Look at India right now. They are exporting tons of food to Europe, while many of their own people are starving to death. Europe makes it into food for cats and dogs, and India uses the proceeds to pay the interest on its IMF debt.
Same thing happened to Ireland during the "potato famine". Ireland was growing more food than it needed, but the English landlords were exporting lots of the food back to England and 25% of the population of Ireland starved to death.
The US is mortgaged up to it's eyeballs. I wouldn't assume that just because there is food growing here, that everyone here will get a chance to eat it. In fact, hunger might be a very usefull tool for those who would like to maintain their control.
1/3 of agriculture production is exporterd. If agriculture production dropped by 1/3, the same amount of food would still be available to the population, as exports would be curtailed first.
Wouldn't neccesarily count on that. Look at India right now. They are exporting tons of food to Europe, while many of their own people are starving to death. Europe makes it into food for cats and dogs, and India uses the proceeds to pay the interest on its IMF debt.
Same thing happened to Ireland during the "potato famine". Ireland was growing more food than it needed, but the English landlords were exporting lots of the food back to England and 25% of the population of Ireland starved to death.
The US is mortgaged up to it's eyeballs. I wouldn't assume that just because there is food growing here, that everyone here will get a chance to eat it. In fact, hunger might be a very usefull tool for those who would like to maintain their control.
The USA
1/3 of agriculture production is exporterd. If agriculture production dropped by 1/3, the same amount of food would still be available to the population, as exports would be curtailed first.
The article is not talking about the amount of food, but rather, the value of the food.
If you read the article you will find:
Quote:
In reporting the change, ERS chose language more suitable to politics than economics. Yes, 2005 ag imports will rise by $3.3 billion over 2004. "But, this 6 percent gain in import value," it noted, "is less than half the 15 percent import pace in 2004 import value."
and the reason being:
Quote:
Ironically, the very thing farmers have been told for years would be their savior - a cheaper dollar - is worsening the ag trade balance.
I would go into it further with USDA facts, but this line is getting off topic.
The topic in this thread is: Which Country would be the best to live in at or post peak. I stand by my selection of the USA.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
