[Location] Urban vs. Rural

lotrfan55345 · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:43 pm Post subject:

An example of right before/early stages of die-off of in major cities would be Addis Ababa, Lagos, Dakar, Harare, Poor areas of New Delhi, e.t.c.

lotrfan55345 · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:45 pm Post subject:

I dont think people will leave the city. I dont think they will realize soon enough that the situation is permanent. I don't think people may relate it with oil running out at all if we havea "overnight" scenario. People may think it's the "terrorists" and Uncle Sam will save them soon. And die thinking that...

Barbara · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:22 pm Post subject:

mmmm....
We are forgetting something.
If people will care only about food, then there will be very little to worry about robberies. A villa with swimming pool and a Mercedes in the garage won't provide more food than a hut, and the thieves will learn it very fast. There will be no use to go around trying to kill people in their own houses, in order to steal... what? A videocamera nobody cares about? Food, which nobody has? Unless you intend to eat humans, there's no place to go and robber.
Or better: thieves will try to assult government rationing stores. Military food reserves. Govt trucks or train. Wherever they know to find a "lot" of food. They won't risk their lives to come to your house, engage in fireshoots, maybe die to steal two nuts.
Farms will be in bigger danger than us stupid city people with nothing to share.
_________________
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.

stepka · Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:36 am Post subject:

jato · Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:12 pm Post subject:

Barbara, I partially agree with your post. Eventually, when most big cites are starving, SUVs and video cameras won't matter. Some people will be stealing (trying to steal, rob, etc.) resources. Food, clothing, water, shelter. Some will trade items. Others will simply scavenge and wait to die from thirst and starvation.

stepka · Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:27 am Post subject:

stepka · Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:34 am Post subject:

stepka · Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:24 pm Post subject:

Well, here in the midwest, I feel pretty safe, and though we can't know what to expect in the future, I'd say we'll feel the pinch less than either coast. I mean, people drive to get their mail with golf carts around here. Most small non glitzy towns can say the same, probably. There are more jobs than most people imagine in the rural areas, but the money may not sound too great. Of course, expenses are lower too.

mikela · Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:13 pm Post subject:

I'm also looking for arable land far from cities. Small towns are a good idea, especially if they were once thriving centers for farmers and homesteaders, indicating the land might sustain larger populations once again.

It is very useful to have community: to share the load of labor, specialize tasks among members of the community, share the wealth, and protect what is the group has worked for. But how much community should we have? No small community can work in isolation. We'll still need toilet paper, soap, housing and farm construction materials, propane, and various sundry parts mostly made in China these days. These items will be a lot more expensive post-peak, but especially so for those in remote small towns, making me think twice about whether this is a viable strategy. Even though this extra effort could be for naught if some marauding thugs discover your little utopia, I expect you'll still stand a better chance of defending yourself, and certainly of not being discovered, by building in a remote area.

Cities allow many benefits--cheaper access to a variety of goods and services, specialization that allows careers far removed from subsistence farming--but the minute a city makes serious steps towards being liveable post-peak, all the newly disenfranchised will flock there and make it unliveable again. Unless, of course, the city's borders are closed to all who can't prove they would be an asset to the community. Cities are probably not defendable in the short term, and so most of the wealth will be sucked out of them. The only borders that can readily be defended are national borders, and I think we'll all suffer for our countrymen's lack of preparedness, perhaps through socialistic redistribution of wealth, but I digress...

mikela · Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:48 pm Post subject:

Now that I think about it, some cities are already becoming fortresses in a sense with gated communities and good-paying jobs available mostly to the establishment. I wonder how sustainable this would be for the rich, who could afford lots of security guards for their food supply and gated communities. Just an idle thought, though...I'm not rich, and if things get this bad, I won't be anywhere near a city...

RIPSmithianEconomics · Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:21 am Post subject:

I suppose I take not living in the cities for granted, having never stayed for any great amount of time in one. Having spent highschool boarding (the bus journey isn't a practicle option) I take living isolated far from anywhere as the normal lifestyle. Then again, I take cattle grazing outside my window (as a cheeky deer is doing right now) as standard.
_________________
There'll be war, there'll be peace
But one day all things shall cease
All the iron turned to rust
All the proud men turned to dust
So all things time will mend
So this song will end

stepka · Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:15 pm Post subject:

You know, Mikela, when I think of this whole city, small town, country debate, I must consider history. A city like NY or LA would have been impossible before cheap oil. Very large cities would have been unlivable in olden times because of issues like sanitation, and bringing in food from the farms. These could again become issues.

As for rural life, people tended to band together in villages for mutual safety, then head out into the countryside to farm, and raise food for the village. The village could support a certain number of craftsmen, and a certain number of warriors, and I don't know for sure, but I"m guessing they kept a pretty tight ratio. And if they felt especially threatened, they would put a wall around that village. Also, the houses were pretty close together--nothing like a modern suburban neighborhood, or even a modern small town.

I live in the country, not in a small town, and I can't imagine there is much of anywhere that you could go, and build a homestead, and not get discovered eventually. And it gets pretty lonesome around here sometimes, so we jump in the car and go somewhere when it gets too quiet around here. Pioneer women used to commit suicide sometimes because of the loneliness--so don't negate that a factor when choosing your future abode.

TylerJC · Guest

I think there might be a short term benefit to those of us who understand the concept of a peak. When oil production/world economy/civilization peaks, take on a lot of debt. Buy every needed for survival. When the bill comes, you will be on a farm out in Montana. The creditors won't have the resources to find you and make you pay.

Word of caution, if you time the peak incorrectly...It's not going to be pretty.

The current, and legal Exclamation

, thing to do is buy gold. Keep it in your house/apartment/bunker. When the end comes, you and you alone will have a way of buying food.

What happens when gold is no longer a useful currency? Or the better question, what happens when there is no food to buy? I don't know. I don't own a gun yet and when there is no food to buy, there won't be any food to steal. Hunting and gathering looks like a good option for survival. I wonder what pine trees taste like...