Sustainable population

[Patrick]

"It is also a real move twards sustainable living- which has to be done at a certain place with the design adapted to that place. The evolution I see coming is in some kind of communal housing. Like an apartment building in the boonies, with a bar and a resturant on the ground floor. And below, the wine cellar, root cellar, and laundry. With a few hundred acres around it of woods and fields to grow all the food and firewood needed. Maybe a wind turbine and solar for the AC."

Almost sounds like the frontier towns of the old west. Everything one needs centered around a public square. Add some dense housing within walking distance (~1/4 mile or less) and you have a car-free, sustainable village. You could even have a few automobiles which would be shared among the population for general use such as when they needed to go into a bigger city to re-supply. Or if there were enough people (say 2,000-3,000) you could run a passenger train if the town was situated near tracks. The overall energy use of the community would be so low in this arrangement that solar, wind, etc could provide all the necessary power.

[daybrown]

It is certainly not upta us. I posted a youtube clip on how bad the population problem will be in "the bad news" thread. I frankly dont think it'll get to the point where white people are a minority. The economy will collapse first, and genocidal war will break out.

Besides whatever the DNA endowment is, education, while necessary, is not sufficient for maximal mental childhood development. There are dietary deficiency and contamination issues that wont be dealt with cause it affects cultural sensibilities. We also have people coming in that havent been properly immunized, so we can expect a vastly increased risk of pandemic.

No. All we can do is consider where we want to live that will be the least likely to be affected by the changes coming whether we like them or not. That choice is complicated by the data we have, which we know is spun by the power elites.

I have been a little more hopeful seeing presentations on youtube and PBS about the environment; but common. 90% of the voters are watching football. The leadership will be selected by them, not us.

[isenhand]

Originally Posted by daybrown

No. All we can do is consider where we want to live that will be the least likely to be affected by the changes coming whether we like them or not. That choice is complicated by the data we have, which we know is spun by the power elites.

I have been a little more hopeful seeing presentations on youtube and PBS about the environment; but common. 90% of the voters are watching football. The leadership will be selected by them, not us.

Well, if you are going to try and move somewhere with the best possibilities of surviving, might I suggest that you also look at who you can cooperate with? Networking, I think, will have an important part to play in any long term plan to survive the worse if the worse was to happen.

.ui

[Corey]

Consider this I was recently reading that the climatologists have switched track with the supper computer to keep track of the climate changes a year or two in advance so that people in planning and action groups can better prepare for the struggles ahead..

Which made me start thinking. your better off staying where you are at at the moment and put your resources into preparing to become a nomad which would allow you to move where it is live able. trying to predict where is a good place to put your roots down and investing in infrastructure that you may have to abandon later.

Some of these investments that would be good to invest in is a water distiller which is the best means of getting the chemicals out of the water you drink. Weapons for hunting and self defence. weapons that are simple with simple sturdy parts for minimal wear. How to manuals on what you can or can't eat. etc.

Unmovable infrastructure is not recommended for you waste it when having to relocate.

Now to consider population in this. At the current population it won't be possible. Too many people fighting over the same resource food and water which are unmovable.

The best bet is we have a rapid die off to give the survivors the best chance at survival for reduced competition of the rapidly depleting resources especially of the animal and plant food variety.

this thread is a bit too depressing for me ....... For I am not in the boat which has the option to move to change tracks........

[daybrown]

Well, its not upta us. At best, all you can do is vote with your feet, or a U-haul to a community that you think is run in a more rational manner. But I cant recommend one of the well known ecogreen cities.

Think about it. If you have your city organized so that it can still operate at a much lower energy/capita level, then if oil prices keep going up, people will leave the areas that are no longer economically viable, and swamp the city that looks like it can still function.

Smart people are proud of not breeding, but are too stupid to realize that that does not prevent stupid people from being proud of breeding, the one thing they do really well. And with a system of one man, one vote, stupid leadership is chosen by the stupid. They are the majority.

This basically why the environmental movement only gets token support, and why so many of us fear total systemic collapse. Rational discourse, such as is carried on here, is only preaching to the converted. Everyone else is watching football.

It is time for smart people to get it, and figure out where they want to be if the folly we see now going on leads to environmental catastrophe. Global Warming will keep on getting worse, and the only question is whether you know how to grow food in whatever climate emerges where you are. With the rise in fuel prices, you'll have to feed those you care about mostly with what you can grow locally.