Is self sufficiency sustainability?

[Bubblingbrooks]

Those that are living int he city, without the resources to move out, can certainly partner with neighbors to garden, and even partner with farmers to provide you needs.
Each partner can volunteer time on the farm in excahnge for part of the foods. This solves the need for hiring cheap labor, which in turn requires expanding the oporation.

None of this, buying up more land to produce more and more.

 

[patandchickens]

Start with the beans you planted...where did those seeds come from? Were they grown and packaged by "big ag" in some far-flung part of the US (or beyond, as I saw some seeds from CHINA at a store this year)? Did they not have to be shipped to the store? Did you not have to drive to the store to buy them?

Nope.

They came from the bean plants I grew last year. Which came from the bean plants I grew the year before. Etc.

And what about those glass jars? Saying you got them from a thrift store or 2nd hand doesn't cut it, because they had to be manufacturered somewhere at some time...how intensive is it to turn sand into glass? How much energy does that take, because I'm guessing it takes quite a lot.. And your lids and rings...where did those come from?

Jars can last for many decades with careful use; rings for a decade or more. Lids do need to be replaced more or less with each use.

But what about what you're *comparing* them to... metal cans which are either tossed into the landfill or, at best, hauled to a recycling plant and reprocessed. MUCH more energy going into THEM than into buying a measly little lid each year for basically-immortal glass jars.

And I dunno about you, but my electricity comes from burning coal. So, if I use my electric range to can a batch of beans, I'm effectively burning coal to do it.

So is the Heinz factory. No difference there, except potentially in amount.

Now, what you have to think about is this: What if EVERYONE DID IT YOUR WAY. If everyone did it your way, how many jars would have to be produced?? How many boxes of seeds would be shipped? How many cans full of gas would be purchased to run tillers? How much coal would be burned to heat all those small, individual batches of beans?

You don't have to till a garden with a tiller.

Sheesh, you DON'T HAVE TO CAN BEANS at all, just eat them fresh in season

If people would just do THAT -- just grow as much food as they can *and eat it fresh* -- that would be a HUGE step forwards in sustainability for our culture.

And would all that be MORE SUSTAINABLE than a few large producers canning beans on a large, efficient scale?

IMO, yes. Especially since the *growing* of the beans is done more sustainably, and there is no transportation cost at all.

Pat

 

[patandchickens]

I mean, many of us who strive for self-sufficiency do so out of some kind of nervousness about a SHTF type scenario, yet something so few people ever bring up is -- if and when TS really does HTF -- where would you get<snip> Nails. Just for instance. Or screws.

I am a bit puzzled as to what your definition of "self sufficiency" is, here.

But to answer your question, there is probably about 50-100 yrs supply of screws and nails already in existance for about as many people as are likely to *survive* such a scenario.

We waste things so much, like by not reusing screws and nails insofar as possible, that we hardly even REALIZE this anymore. THey did back in Depression days.

Plus, you don't need nails and screws for everything. A lot of things can be attached in other ways.

A century or so without industrial metal production *would* be a problem.... but frankly that is not something I am going to waste time contemplating, since, really, why?

JMHO,

Pat

 

[big brown horse]

Ok, I'm confused. In reading the debate big food vs. home canning, I can see where big food is more efficient but I'm not sure about sustainable. I think of sustainable as something that you can do over & over without decline in quality.

Farming, for instance, you can grow your produce by not using harmful chemicals/insecticides, save your seeds, add manure/compost/cover crops to keep the soil rich in nutrients. So it is something you can continue doing forever with no decline in food quality and no damage to the soil.

Reusing glass jars means less energy wasted making more glass jars, but making a new can for every x ounces of beans means more resources needed to make them.

Is this correct or am I missing something?


note to big Brown Horse: Quit bragging about your rocket stove. I can't find any fire bricks around here, so I can't have one. No fair.

Hey, ldychef used paver bricks..they are way cheaper too. They just don't hold the heat quite as long.

You can even make one by digging a hole in the ground!

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

Can you reference anything about "aid workers" doing what you claim they're doing here?

No specific referances, but look around at the foods that are being given. Beans, corn, "enriched" white rice and dehydrated meals, that contain no real fats, and lots of chemical fakes to give the appearance of nutrition.
I would like to see the US try to sustain themsleves on a diet like that for even a month!

Did you know, that in South Africa, farmers are only allowed to use 1% of the total land mass to produce food?

In many countries, the people are being pushed into settlements, where in the past, they use to be nomadic, and moved around according to the seasons.

 

[big brown horse]

I have a very dear friend that hand tills all her gardens and her gardens cover almost her whole [really big] yard.

I'm cheating and using a pig this year.

 

[cmjust0]

You are correct.
When you and hopefully your neighbor with you, are producing your own natural fertilizer, and you re saving seeds, or if need be, buying them from another neighbor who saves them, and using what others throw away, then you are well balanced, and not costing yourself or others.

I always find it funny when, in self-sufficiency forums and so forth, folks inevitably begin to mention bartering and micro-economies.

It's funny because it's the next logical step...in the direction of specialization, increased efficiency, etc., which is a step away from self-sufficiency.

See the progression? That's how it goes... That's the natural progression.. In a nutshell, it's caveman->farmer->industrialist->blogger.

I mean...we're all aware that somewhere in our pasts there lurks a self-sufficiency expert, right? Key word there being past?

I mean, look at us...chatting with each other on computers. Do any of us reeeeally think computers would exist if we all consumed ourselves with pounding bent nails straight again so we could re-use them to add on to our chicken coops?

Of course not..

Now, don't get me wrong here...I'm a self sufficiency proponent.

It just so happens that I'm also a specialization proponent.

And, yeah, I realize that those two positions are often diametrically opposed, which is why I'm not quite so ideological about either as I once was. These days, I tend to look at practicality more than anything else. I like my old 8N Ford, for instance, because its simple and I can work on it myself. Sure, that'll help if/when TSHTF...but it also saves me money NOW on repair bills.

FWIW, I don't expect many folks here to go "Oh, ok.. I get what he's saying now."

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

You are correct.
When you and hopefully your neighbor with you, are producing your own natural fertilizer, and you re saving seeds, or if need be, buying them from another neighbor who saves them, and using what others throw away, then you are well balanced, and not costing yourself or others.

I always find it funny when, in self-sufficiency forums and so forth, folks inevitably begin to mention bartering and micro-economies.

It's funny because it's the next logical step...in the direction of specialization, increased efficiency, etc., which is a step away from self-sufficiency.

See the progression? That's how it goes... That's the natural progression.. In a nutshell, it's caveman->farmer->industrialist->blogger.

I mean...we're all aware that somewhere in our pasts there lurks a self-sufficiency expert, right? Key word there being past?

I mean, look at us...chatting with each other on computers. Do any of us reeeeally think computers would exist if we all consumed ourselves with pounding bent nails straight again so we could re-use them to add on to our chicken coops?

Of course not..

Now, don't get me wrong here...I'm a self sufficiency proponent.

It just so happens that I'm also a specialization proponent.

And, yeah, I realize that those two positions are often diametrically opposed, which is why I'm not quite so ideological about either as I once was. These days, I tend to look at practicality more than anything else. I like my old 8N Ford, for instance, because its simple and I can work on it myself. Sure, that'll help if/when TSHTF...but it also saves me money NOW on repair bills.

FWIW, I don't expect many folks here to go "Oh, ok.. I get what he's saying now."

Ok, If being self sufficient means insulating myself from all interaction and ability to help each other (ie. community) without being taxed to death in the process, then count me out.
The agraian lifestyle requires working together, utilizing each others talents to provide for each others needs, close to home.

And if you are counting on catastrophic events to be easier because you can fix your own car, you might want to think again.
A horse who lives off the land and is able to reproduce itself, will serve you much better in the long term.

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

That's not the question.. The question is whether or not it's more sustainable to have fewer numbers of more efficient, highly specialized producers producing food for millions of people than for millions of people of various skill and efficiency levels individually producing food for themselves?

Again...I come back to comparing the image of a gigantic, highly specialized and efficient assembly line cranking out can after can of beans versus tens of millions of consumer-grade cook tops cranked to high for hours on end to accomplish the same task.

To me, it's a no-brainer. The factory wins, hands down.

How do you fit the unemployment rates into this?
We would not have unemplyment if factories were not doing all the work. And hiring cheap labor from other places.

The more interesting question is...what exactly do you think the impact on employment would be if EVERYONE suddenly started doing EVERYTHING for themselves?

Well, given that employment kinda means doing stuff for other people, the answer would be: 100% unemployment.

Which actually would be OK, since if we were all self-sufficient, we wouldn't need jobs. Or educations, really, except in our homesteading endeavors. We could all just keep to ourselves and do the best we could with what we had.

Like pioneers of yesterday.

Or Afghanis of today.

However you want to look at it, I guess.

See, there it is again. Since when has being sustainable/sufficient, meant being a hermit?
This seems to be a common misconception of us

 

[cmjust0]

I mean, many of us who strive for self-sufficiency do so out of some kind of nervousness about a SHTF type scenario, yet something so few people ever bring up is -- if and when TS really does HTF -- where would you get<snip> Nails. Just for instance. Or screws.

I am a bit puzzled as to what your definition of "self sufficiency" is, here.

Being self sufficient.

But to answer your question, there is probably about 50-100 yrs supply of screws and nails already in existance for about as many people as are likely to *survive* such a scenario.

Do you own all those nails and screws? I don't. I have a finite supply and when they run out, I can't make anymore.

If someone else has them, and I need them, then I gotta figure out a way to get them from that person. Which means bartering. Which means...uh oh...I'm no longer self-sufficient because I just relied on that guy to provide me with nails in exchange for some other good or service.

And before anyone goes and makes an argument that buying stuff doesn't preclude one from being self sufficient, keep in mind that I'll immediately make the argument that I can use proceeds from my employment to buy canned beans...which means I'm already self-sufficient.

Actually...that might go a little further toward explaining my view of self-sufficiency: Not needing anything from anybody.

Anything less is, at the end of the day, merely an illusion of self sufficiency.

We waste things so much, like by not reusing screws and nails insofar as possible, that we hardly even REALIZE this anymore. THey did back in Depression days.

You're right. They realized it and went "Hey Jim. Remember when we didn't have to pound nails back out straight"

And Jim said "Yeah. That sucked. This is much better."

Oh wait. That's not at all how that conversation went.

Plus, you don't need nails and screws for everything. A lot of things can be attached in other ways.

A century or so without industrial metal production *would* be a problem.... but frankly that is not something I am going to waste time contemplating, since, really, why?

JMHO,

Pat

I actually agree with you here.. I don't waste time thinking about it either.

What I waste my time thinking about is what I could do in a post-SHTF world that would be useful enough to earn me a living.

What I do now...not so useful in that world. But I can put up a pretty decent fence.