Is self sufficiency sustainability?

[Blackbird]

Those are all things you could be doing while a gigantic big machine in a factory somewhere makes cans of green beans for you, though.. No real savings.

But that's not self sufficiency, and that might not even be sustainability.

What you said was that I hadn't considered the things you could be doing while your beans were canning.. What I said was that you hadn't considered what you could be doing while someone else was canning beans for you.

It's the same stuff, btw.. The stuff you could be doing, I mean. Which is why there's no real savings of time or increase in productivity by doing other stuff while you're canning your own beans.

When you consider what went into growing that can of green beans, the labor, the equipment, the chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers - then the shipping - the prices of gas, the emissions the trucks put out, (if you want to delve deeper; the drilling that went into getting that gas and making that metal for that truck..) then cleaning the green beans at a facility, packaging process, more chemicals, the tin cans (how those tin cans were made..) Not to mention whatever resources the facility uses and the emissions they put out, then shipping back to a grocery store, and finally, into our own home. Relatively cheap on a mass scale, but the pollutants the process is using and putting out?

Ok...

If you compare that to walking outside, picking heirloom green beans that you planted, that the rain watered, and you use a canning jar that you've reused over and over before.. Yes, you might be using more water than a facility does, if you were to compare. You might use more energy (depending on what kind of energy you use, but I would guess a lot of majority facilities are not 'green')..

Well, ya, if you campare it to walking outside and picking beans...but let's "delve deeper" as you put it.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

My thinking is....no way. Not even close.

But, personally, there is some pride and satisfaction in doing it yourself, and the fact that you know how the food was handled and that it is SAFE outweighs however cheap that storebought can of green beans is.

Again...that's a whole different topic. Nobody's arguing that factory canned are better than home-canned.

I wasn't the one initially canning the green beans. We only water bath here so I wouldn't be walking around doing other things anyway. I can't remember who talked about canning the beans. LOL

Also remember I said HEIRLOOM seeds. Personally, a majority of my heirloom seeds have come from a dear friend, some are strains that she accidentally mixed up over time so they are authentic, but they have been in her family for years.

The thing about canning jars, they can be used over and over. How many times can a tin can be used for food once it has been opened? And when canning jars are initially shipped and made that one first time they aren't filled with food. That is a lot of tin being manufactured while a jar can reused.


I am not saying people need to do it my way, I just think it is more economically sustainable to do it yourself - and I am not condemning anyone who does not. What if every one continues doing it 'your' way? That outcome isn't so great, either, is it?

You keep saying some of these things are a completely different topic - How the food is grown, as Redux explained, is NOT off topic, as it plays into sustainability and affects our well being. The reason for home canning is not off topic - no one may be arguing the differences, but that doesn't make it off topic.

edit; again I step outside mid sentance and Pat answers while I am gone. Pat, you can take over here! LOL

 

[cmjust0]

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.

That's not self-sufficiency. You just said it yourself -- that's an agrarian community.

And if you are counting on catastrophic events to be easier because you can fix your own car, you might want to think again.

No kidding...which is why I've referenced the illusion of self sufficieny like three times.

It doesn't exist.

Your agrarian society is a much better idea.

But, unfortunately, being a better idea than self sufficiency doesn't make it self sufficiency.

A horse who lives off the land and is able to reproduce itself, will serve you much better in the long term.

Until you need a vet.

Uh oh.

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

OK, I hope I am not going to get in trouble for mentioning this.
But this is who I/we are, and it is not possible to seperate it out.

I hate using the term "self sufficient".
It is anything but Biblical.
I trust in the Lord to provide the ability for us to live off the land that was created for us to use.
I still have to do all the grunt work, but that does not make me "self" sufficient.
I think in the long run, we are more about sustainability, with full reliance on the Lord to provide for our needs in times of trouble.

Self sufficiency is in the end, selfish.

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

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.

That's not self-sufficiency. You just said it yourself -- that's an agrarian community.

And if you are counting on catastrophic events to be easier because you can fix your own car, you might want to think again.

No kidding...which is why I've referenced the illusion of self sufficieny like three times.

It doesn't exist.

Your agrarian society is a much better idea.

But, unfortunately, being a better idea than self sufficiency doesn't make it self sufficiency.

A horse who lives off the land and is able to reproduce itself, will serve you much better in the long term.

Until you need a vet.

Uh oh.

Yep! Thats why it behooves me to study up on basic animal vet care.
I've done it for us humans, and I am doing it for our animals.
Its not all that hard.

 

[cmjust0]

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

Actually, I'd say the "us" has a misconception of self-sufficiency.

It's not about being a hermit, either...not necessarily, anyway. But if you're self sufficient, you could be a hermit if necessary. If you couldn't be a hermit...that is, if you had to come out and do a little business with other folks from time to time in order to get by...then you're not self-sufficient.

What you guys are describing more like...voluntary simplicity.

 

[cmjust0]

Yep! Thats why it behooves me to study up on basic animal vet care.
I've done it for us humans, and I am doing it for our animals.
Its not all that hard.

I agree, and I do the same thing.

Not so much because it will help in a SHTF scenario...though it would...but because it keeps me out of the vet's office and saves me money.

Another example of self-sufficiency skills driven by practicality.

 

[meriruka]

Self sufficiency is in the end, selfish.

I disagree with this part. Taking care of myself means I put no burden on others to do so, and if I have cared for my own needs, I am in a better position to help others.

 

[patandchickens]

cmjust0, here is the problem.

You are taking "self sufficency" LITERALLY AND STRICTLY as a term, and assuming that eveyrone else ought to be using it the same way. That is, you are saying that to be "self sufficient" requires one to not have any truck with any goods or services produced by someone other than oneself.

This is a logical interpretation of the term, up to a point anyhow.

However it is NOT WHAT ANYONE HERE IS TALKING ABOUT when they use this phrase.

So what you are criticizing/debunking/making-fun-of... DOES NOT EXIST, well, is not something that anyone here is advocating anyhow.

So what about you set aside your straw man and listen to what people on this list actually MEAN by "self sufficiency", i.e. various degrees and types of "doing things yourself, and in simpler ways, and less".

Those things DO, fairly often, lead to a more sustainable lifestyle/society/world.

And to answer your question -- you don't have to OWN all the screws you would need in a postapocalyptic world, silly -- you go around and scavenge for them, disassemble things and root through peoples old collapsed cellers and such. Foraging is probably the oldest human activity, and still a most useful one to cultivate, collapse of civilization or not

Pat

 

[Aidenbaby]

I'm one of those that is forgoing a tiller in leiu of using a fork. I don't like what a tiller does to my worms and I've worked hard getting those worms to exist in my crappy soil to start with. While I may still kill a few, a TON more are surviving and thriving. Besides, it's an excellent workout. LOL

ETA: My definition of self-sufficiency is that I know that I can depend on myself to be able to provide food, clothes, whatever for my family without a significant reliance on others.

 

[Blackbird]

cmjust0, here is the problem.

You are taking "self sufficency" LITERALLY AND STRICTLY as a term, and assuming that eveyrone else ought to be using it the same way. That is, you are saying that to be "self sufficient" requires one to not have any truck with any goods or services produced by someone other than oneself.

This is a logical interpretation of the term, up to a point anyhow.

However it is NOT WHAT ANYONE HERE IS TALKING ABOUT when they use this phrase.

So what you are criticizing/debunking/making-fun-of... DOES NOT EXIST, well, is not something that anyone here is advocating anyhow.

So what about you set aside your straw man and listen to what people on this list actually MEAN by "self sufficiency", i.e. various degrees and types of "doing things yourself, and in simpler ways, and less".

Those things DO, fairly often, lead to a more sustainable lifestyle/society/world.

And to answer your question -- you don't have to OWN all the screws you would need in a postapocalyptic world, silly -- you go around and scavenge for them, disassemble things and root through peoples old collapsed cellers and such. Foraging is probably the oldest human activity, and still a most useful one to cultivate, collapse of civilization or not

Pat

I agree, you need to consider it in a different context. I also think many here apply the term to mean not relying as heavily on large corporations, facilities, stores, etc. etc. as compared to a majority in the US