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.

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?

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').. 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.

Edit; Looks like Pat beat me to it on the other page. Must be slow on the draw =P

 

[patandchickens]

Did you build your own stove? I didn't.. Mine came from a factory which had to be built, equipped, maintained, etc...

Uh, would you not own a stove if you weren't canning tomatoes???

I think the vast majority of people (heck, even people these days who nearly always eat out) are going to own a stove ANYhow.

So I am skeptical that that should be included in the 'equation'.


Pat

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

This convo is getting silly.

 

[big brown horse]

Yup, my stove came with my house.

My rocket stove I hand built with my 13 year old daughter. It cost us about $30.

Other than canning methods...


Many of us on this fourm like myself, have also nixed non stick pans, plastic bags, paper towels, tupperware etc. and use instead reusable items like cotton hand towels, sham wows, glass containers, stainless utensils; ladels, spatulas etc.

We clean our houses with plain soap and water or vinegar and water.

We make our own shampoos and soaps.

We save seeds, use collected rain water or duck pond water to water our gardens, use our own animal poo to fertilize our gardens etc.

I have a cellar to store my root veggies, wine and other ferments.

I have chickens and ducks that are pastured right beside my two lawn mowing, fleece and milk (soon) producing sheep.

Oh I also have a pig rototilling my new garden space. He eats our scraps and has his share of hard boiled eggs. Soon he will be feeding us.

Yes of course we are more ecologically sustainable.

And I don't consider spending time working on my sustainable projects as a waste of time. Rather a learning experiecne, a workout and a nice rewarding, quiet, fun time outside.

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

Some, or all of you, may find this site to interesting.
It really "showcases" what we are striving after.
http://www.agrarianbible.com/Welcome.html

Tyranny requires people to sustain the system that exploits them. The 'system' may be the brainchild of a person, a government (military or political), or an infrastructure. But regardless of the source of the tyranny it can only be managed through intimidation and deceit. Where people are afraid they invariably yield to exploitation. Where people are deceived they tolerate tyranny (whatever its ilk) for as long as they remain deceived about the alleged benefits of the tyrannical system.

Whether intentional or not, the tyranny against local agricultural autonomy has two forms -- urbanization and industrialization. Where house is joined to house, so that the land can no longer sustain its inhabitants, agriculture becomes the slave of luxury. Everyone needs to eat but not everyone wants to work to grow the food they need to survive. That 'odious' task is relegated to those seen as 'less sophisticated laborers' -- in other words, to family farmers. By default, urbanization tyrannizes local agriculture.

To avoid the distasteful stigma of human agricultural exploitation (and to turn a healthy tax-profit in the process), governments usually promote agricultural industrialization. In this way, rather than exploiting their fellow man, they are able to exploit the efficiency of machines and the fertility of the land. However, the long-term productivity of the land is better served when tended personally by the smallholder rather than by industry. Of course, it may be legitimately argued, this effort neither makes one extravagantly wealthy nor is it industrially efficient. But is that really important in the epic scheme of things?

I love this article!
http://www.agrarianbible.com/Principles & Notions/5361810D-2867-47CC-810D-FB901DA0B6A5.html
Avatars or Neighbors?

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

I guess the question, then, is whether or not that can of beans is grown in a sustainable manner. Cheap is not the goal, I don't think. The goal is to produce food in such a way that it can be done ad infinitum.. not the scorch and burn mentality of modern agricultural techniques. If that can of beans is produced in such a way that it depletes and does not enrich, then it is not so efficient in the long run.

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.

 

[Buster]

So industrial agriculture, fertilized with petroleum products and shipped for miles with all attendant ecological consequences, is more sustainable than growing and preserving your own food from your own back yard? I am surprised at that position, coming from you, bib.

Cmjus01 on the other hand... well, I''ve learned to never to be surprised about anything.

And I mean that affectionately to both of you.

You're missing the point... If all the industrial ag and petroleum and shipping went into producing food just for you, then yeah, your way is much more efficient.. That's not how it works, though; all that stuff produces food for MILLIONS.

What I'm saying is that if all those MILLIONS for whom industrial ag is currently producing food started producing it for themselves, the process would be far less efficient than it is today.. With inefficiency comes a whole lot of waste. With waste comes unsustainability.

The defense of Big Food. Well, there's an argument I truly enjoy having.

All of that is built on oil, cmj. All of it. The fertilizers, the pesticides, the transportation, the packaging. Everything.

Sooner or later, it will collapse. Demand for oil is going to outpace supply, price of oil will go up, and at some point it will no longer be economically feasible to use it for producing food. It will be too scarce for that sort of thing. Even if it we decide food is a worthy use of this precious fluid (we won't), the cost of the food it will be used to grow will soon outpace the cost of producing food by more natural methods.

In the meantime, CAFOs and industrialized monocrops are poisoning our environment wholesale. Destroying our rivers, lakes, and oceans, killing most (if not every) desirable life form in them.

And they are depleting and/or poisoning our aquifers and topsoils, not to mention the air we breath, while at the same time creating super pathogens that will one day kill a lot of us.

Not only is it unsustainable over the long term, it is unsustainable now.

Compare sustainability of that to the average homesteader (urban, suburban, or rural, take your pick) who is producing at least some of their own food in their own place using ecologically friendly methods?

I think it is fairly obvious who wins that comparison.

 

[cmjust0]

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.

 

[cmjust0]

Did you build your own stove? I didn't.. Mine came from a factory which had to be built, equipped, maintained, etc...

Uh, would you not own a stove if you weren't canning tomatoes???

I think the vast majority of people (heck, even people these days who nearly always eat out) are going to own a stove ANYhow.

So I am skeptical that that should be included in the 'equation'.

Pat

That goes to a whole 'nuther part of what is -- and I'm sorry, but it is -- the illusion of self sufficiency..

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......

Oh, heck.. I won't go there in this topic.





Ok, I will.. Nails. Just for instance. Or screws.

Uh oh!

(What you guys have to understand about me is that I'm usually pretty ok with cognitive dissonance. Indeed, I find it stimulating and rather enjoy it. )

 

[cmjust0]

I guess the question, then, is whether or not that can of beans is grown in a sustainable manner. Cheap is not the goal, I don't think. The goal is to produce food in such a way that it can be done ad infinitum.. not the scorch and burn mentality of modern agricultural techniques. If that can of beans is produced in such a way that it depletes and does not enrich, then it is not so efficient in the long run.

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.