Is self sufficiency sustainability?

[DrakeMaiden]

Another point that didn't get brought up is whether or not centralized production is sustainable in the long run. Is it more sustainable to have redundancy (all of the individual SSers) in the system?

 

[patandchickens]

Bartering and local economies would have been a much better tack for you to take to make your "not necessarily" point. Instead, you took the worst possible possibility (energy canned and shipped factory farmed mega-monocrop vegetables coated in fossil fuel).

Very bad idea.

ROTFLMAO.

+100 style points to Buster

(Plus which of course he is *right* )


Pat

 

[cmjust0]

It's the only logical interpretation I can think to assign the phrase within the context of growing one's own food, cutting one's own firewood, canning one's own veggies, etc..

Yeah but that ain't what ANYONE ELSE BESIDES YOU is meaning by it.

Really? Because, if you notice, quite a few people have jumped in and said they agree with my assessment of what it means.

Soooo...

You may indeed be surpassingly-more logical than anyone else here. Yay

Thanks!

But...

..oh..

...what if you listen to what people are actually SAYING, rather than getting hung up on nitpicking of vocabulary.

Is it nitpicking vocabulary if someone looks out across the ocean and says "Wow, look at that water-car!" and you say "Uh, that's a boat."

I don't think it is, personally.

It might lead to a much more productive conversation than off-topic comments about 'ha, you didn't *make* that stove yourself did you'

Not off topic at all...you mentioned the canning factory as if your stove came from thin air.

I was just pointing out what you'd missed.

I mean...if we open the door to the possibility of bartering and buying things we need...well, hey, most of us are already self sufficient.

Why treat it as a binary thing?

Are there not DEGREES of self-sufficiency (as we, not you, are using the term)????

I dunno... Are there degrees of pregnancy?

One could suggest there are by saying things like "WAAAAAY pregnant" or "huge pregnant" or "VERY pregnant" and people can probably infer what's meant...but ultimately, no. There aren't. A person is either pregnant, or they're not. Period.

To be "somewhat self sufficient" or whatever is a misnomer, just as "a little bit pregnant" is a misnomer -- though, again, people can probably infer what's meant by the statement.

A strawman is when you assign someone a position they haven't taken. If, however, the person has actually taken the position you're assigning...but won't admit it....it's not a strawman anymore.

Yes, that's right.

Nobody here has taken the position that they can expect to have ZERO reliance on other peoples' goods or services.

But don't call that self-sufficiency. It's not.

I'm sorry, but I wish you good luck in your endeavors to be the Terminology Police for the world, I do not think you are going to be all that successful. You might want to consider that, like it or not, sometimes people will use words in ways you find illogical, and it is more useful do discuss CONCEPTS than semantics.

Speaking of strawmen...I don't wish to be the terminology police for the world.

Then again, nobody's discussed the benefits package with me, soooooo..

 

[bibliophile birds]

FWIW, I don't think that being self-sufficient means removing yourself from society.. I simply think it means having the ability to remove yourself from society, if necessary.

And I think that because...yanno...that's actually what it means.

i don't think it means that at all. just because in includes the word "self" doesn't mean that it means "alone." arguably, we are cultural creatures and are not designed to exist alone. for that reason, i would say "self sufficiency" is more about not relying on a system to provide your goods (like industrialized food, grocery stores, Wal-Mart, etc). that doesn't preclude local community economies. i mean, we've been working together since the beginning of our species... i don't think anyone would suggest forgoing it now.

so, along those lines, someone who lives in the city, shops at a farmer's market where only local, sustainable goods are sold, and prepares all their meals from scratch... that's pretty self sufficient, even if they didn't grow the produce. someone who works a regular job so they can buy frozen food is not.

I'm sorry, but I wish you good luck in your endeavors to be the Terminology Police for the world, I do not think you are going to be all that successful. You might want to consider that, like it or not, sometimes people will use words in ways you find illogical, and it is more useful do discuss CONCEPTS than semantics.

oh, Pat, how i love thee!

Therefore, if I have a Polyface farm within near driving distance that can raise beef more efficiently and sustainably than I can (I do) and I fail to take advantage of that just for the sake of self sufficiency, I'm failing in that particular area.

i think it would be very interesting if someone did a study, a la Omnivore's Dilemma, that actually could break down the figures comparing mass industrialized canned beans to:

-beans canned at home, grown at home
-beans canned at home, bought from farmer's market (all local)
-beans canned at home, bought at grocery store
-canned beans bought from farmer's market (all local)

they'd also need to look into the resources used to:

-make glass jars
-reuse glass jars (the resale factor and the washing 1000 times factor)
-make tin cans
-recycle tin cans

basically, i'd be very interested to see if glass or tin is less resource intensive to make/recycle. again, i think doing things for yourself or bartering for goods made/grown locally is better for us, environmentally and socially, but it'd be interesting to have the numbers.

 

[cmjust0]

It is absolutely not the obvious comparison, unless that is the only kind of food production you know about outside of self-produced. If you want to make your point ("not necessarily sustainable"), a better example and most obvious would be a small to medium farm using sustainable practices.

Why? Because that's where most food comes from these days?

Oh, wait.

No, it doesn't.

You missed the point again.

The point was to compare what most folks do to what we strive to do, with regard to sustainability.

Which is what I think you are trying to say when you speak of specialization.

So, you compare it instead to local farm on the order of Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm. If you did that, you would have a much better case in your "not necessarily".

Therefore, if I have a Polyface farm withing near driving distance that can raise beef more efficiently and sustainably than I can (I do) and I fail to take advantage of that just for the sake of self sufficiency, I'm failing in that particular area.

From a sustainability standpoint, yeah.

What I am saying is, I am ceding your point. There can be a point where self sufficiency can be less sustainable than relying on an outside input (Phelan Ranch Beef, in this case).

So far, so good.

It is also the case if my neighbor is a mechanic (he is) but I insist on fixing my own car just to be self sufficient and take many more hours doing that than he would, when I could just trade him some eggs, chicken meat, and produce, which I much more efficient at producing than mechanic work. It is about opportunity cost. Cost in time that could be spent doing something more productive and thus more sustainable.

You're doing great.

However, if I insist on taking my car to a specific mechanic 80 miles away in Oklahoma City, or buy my chicken via Tyson's factory farm system, or produce from California... well, then self sufficiency would have been much more sustainable.

Aha - see, here's where we come back to what I said originally...

Not necessarily!

If the only guy who can fix your car is 80 miles away, and if would take you 2 years of school and $4,000 worth of tools and equpment to do what he can do for $400 and half a day....and you stil choose to go the DIY route in the name of self sufficiency.....do you see where I'm going with this??

Bartering and local economies would have been a much better tact for you to take to make your "not necessarily" point. Instead, you took the worst possible possibility (energy canned and shipped factory farmed mega-monocrop vegetables coated in fossil fuel).

Very bad idea.

If you're gonna put a theory to the test, put it to the worst possible test you can find. If it holds up under that -- which you ceded that it did -- it'll hold up under anything.

Overall, I'm pretty pleased with the way this is unfolding. I actually had you pegged as the last holdout.

Go figure.

 

[cmjust0]

i don't think it means that at all. just because in includes the word "self" doesn't mean that it means "alone."

What does it mean, then? Super curious to hear this......

arguably, we are cultural creatures and are not designed to exist alone. for that reason, i would say "self sufficiency" is more about not relying on a system to provide your goods (like industrialized food, grocery stores, Wal-Mart, etc). that doesn't preclude local community economies. i mean, we've been working together since the beginning of our species... i don't think anyone would suggest forgoing it now.

I'm not suggesting it...the term "self sufficiency" does.

I'm actually suggesting that true self-sufficiency is practically unattainable.

I'm also really amazed at how many people are coming back at me with pretty much exactly what I'm saying, only they're telling it to me like they thought it up..

so, along those lines, someone who lives in the city, shops at a farmer's market where only local, sustainable goods are sold, and prepares all their meals from scratch... that's pretty self sufficient, even if they didn't grow the produce. someone who works a regular job so they can buy frozen food is not.

Again...not really any such thing as "pretty self sufficient." You either are, or you're not.

I'm sorry, but I wish you good luck in your endeavors to be the Terminology Police for the world, I do not think you are going to be all that successful. You might want to consider that, like it or not, sometimes people will use words in ways you find illogical, and it is more useful do discuss CONCEPTS than semantics.

oh, Pat, how i love thee!

Oh, Pat.. Me too, actually.

Therefore, if I have a Polyface farm within near driving distance that can raise beef more efficiently and sustainably than I can (I do) and I fail to take advantage of that just for the sake of self sufficiency, I'm failing in that particular area.

i think it would be very interesting if someone did a study, a la Omnivore's Dilemma, that actually could break down the figures comparing mass industrialized canned beans to:

-beans canned at home, grown at home
-beans canned at home, bought from farmer's market (all local)
-beans canned at home, bought at grocery store
-canned beans bought from farmer's market (all local)

they'd also need to look into the resources used to:

-make glass jars
-reuse glass jars (the resale factor and the washing 1000 times factor)
-make tin cans
-recycle tin cans

basically, i'd be very interested to see if glass or tin is less resource intensive to make/recycle. again, i think doing things for yourself or bartering for goods made/grown locally is better for us, environmentally and socially, but it'd be interesting to have the numbers.

Pretty sure I already know the gist, but you're right...I'd like to see it.

 

[Blackbird]

Oh brother.

Cmjust, have you ever ONCE been proven wrong on ANYTHING, or do you always dance around and around until someone comes your way for you to stick your foot out to?

 

[Blackbird]

I'm actually suggesting that true self-sufficiency is practically unattainable.

Given the context and terms that you apply to this word and how you see it; I think we all understand this and comprehend this, and HAVE from the start of this topic.

Would you like an award?

 

[patandchickens]

Really? Because, if you notice, quite a few people have jumped in and said they agree with my assessment of what it means.

Soooo...

I defy you to find one person on this list who says that the self sufficiency they're striving for a) is a binary yes-no condition and b) requires the ability to use zero services or goods provided by anyone else.

People have agreed with *some* aspects of various things you've said, but not *that*.

Is it nitpicking vocabulary if someone looks out across the ocean and says "Wow, look at that water-car!" and you say "Uh, that's a boat." I don't think it is, personally.

Maybe not that first time.

But IMO it is if, having *established* the difference in local vocabulary, you then stand there and when someone says "do you see any other water-cars around?" reply "no", and when they say "you're sure? you're sure that there are no water-cars gonna be in the way when I shove *our* water-car off from the dock?" reply "no" again, and then feel all righteous when the other boat that you perfectly well SAW crashes into your own boat and everyone is dumped into the water

It might lead to a much more productive conversation than off-topic comments about 'ha, you didn't *make* that stove yourself did you'

Not off topic at all...you mentioned the canning factory as if your stove came from thin air.
I was just pointing out what you'd missed.

"Missed"? Hardly.

Found irrelevant to the discussion of canning w/r/t self-sufficiency AS PEOPLE ACTUALLY MEAN IT.

I don't see how you can argue that my stove is a cost of canning tomatoes at home, since I would have a stove no matter what, whether I can tomatoes or buy Heinz's or only ever eat at McDonalds. I's got the stove. It is there regardless. Same with everyone else's stove. Its manufacture or purchase is therefore not an element of the cost-benefit equation regarding home vs industrial canning.

A person is either pregnant, or they're not. Period.

If you say so. I don't feel like opening a whole nother pointless semantic argument

But, so what. We are not discussing pregnancy. Some things are very definitely a continuum. The degree to which you can do things for yourself is, heavens, FOR SURE a continuum.

Look, how about this solution here:

Import this thread into a word processing program. Do a global search-and-replace, so that everywhere "self sufficient" is typed in the original text, your MS Word or whatever changes it to "more able to do things yourself and for yourself".

OK?

Cuz that is what people MEAN.

Then perhaps we can talk about what is being MEANT, rather than playing logicaller-than-thou.


Pat

 

[patandchickens]

If I may digress from semantic rants and exchanges of snark for a minute back to the actual topic of the thread --

There actually HAVE been a variety of (academic) analyses of the total fossil fuel cost, carbon footprint, whateveryawannacallit, of the local vs distant production of a bunch of various things. I do not have any sources at hand but am sure that a bit of googling could start running into journal-paper citations.

What I DO remember, however, is that in (I think) Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food" (pardon me if I am thinking of the wrong book or author), there is mention made specifically of an analysis of the cost of producing off-season hothouse lettuce (was it lettuce? something like that) in England versus importing it halfway round the globe from New Zealand. Or maybe it was lamb. Something like that. Anyhow, in terms of carbon footprint it ended up being much lower impact to import it from NZ than grow it locally, on account of basically you were fighting the inherent local unsuitability of the climate compared to the extreme low-input ease of doin' it in NZ.

Although what you take away from this sort of example depends I think on what your inherent biases and assumptions are. And how much you think that (to take a slightly different example) eating nothing but cabbage and saurkraut and potatoes for 5 months of the year should be the natural-consequence "lot" of those who "choose" to live too far north for an extended growing season <g>

Personally, I'm stickin' with the opinion that which is "best" or lowest-impact or most-sustainable -- choice of individual, local or geographically-centralized production -- will differ between different products.

Pat