Give me two good reasons, why I oughta stay....

[Peter Goodchild]

A couple of random thoughts.

(2) If you?re not used to moving around, then it?s harder to leave your native land. Myself, I don?t have that problem, because I?ve been moving around all my life. If you?re not used to it, then obviously there?s a psychological barrier to be dealt with.

(1) As for countries to choose from, I can only tell you that I fell in love with Canada early on in my life. The population density of the UK is about 115 times greater than that of Canada ? quite a difference. Canada has a high urban population, though ? about 75% (like that of the UK). When their welfare checks run out, they?re finished. I think the remaining 25% will do well enough, though.

As you can guess, I?m a dedicated ?ruralite.? Here?s a passage from Barry Broadfoot, ?Ten Lost Years, 1929-1939: Memories of Canadians Who Survived the Depression,? p. 101:

?The cities and towns were dead-ends. Destitute people were not wanted, and transients were considered troublemakers and often run out of town. Many said to hell with it ? ?I can?t do any worse up in the bush than in this lousy town.?

?Their way was always north beyond civilization, or west to the coast. Their belief was that where they were going ? although few of them had a specific destination ? a man [or woman? ? PG] could be free, far from interference and the hassle of rules and regulations. And, with a lot of hard work, they knew that they had a chance of producing enough food to live on. So they headed out to take their chances in the bush.?

The urban/rural distinction wasn?t quite that simple, of course. Rural people in the Dust Bowl had a very hard time (read Steinbeck, ?The Grapes of Wrath?). But after wading through a fair number of books about the Depression, I think the consensus is that people generally did better away from the cities.

? Peter

PS: This past Monday morning, an enormous bull moose walked right past our house. Didn?t even touch the last of the kale. Of course the camera was out of reach until his last soulful backward glance as he prepared to cross the road.

[Erik]

(2) If you?re not used to moving around, then it?s harder to leave your native land. Myself, I don?t have that problem, because I?ve been moving around all my life. If you?re not used to it, then obviously there?s a psychological barrier to be dealt with.

Good point. The post-PO downslope period might not be a great time to start one's first "living abroad" experience!

(1) As for countries to choose from, I can only tell you that I fell in love with Canada early on in my life. The population density of the UK is about 115 times greater than that of Canada ? quite a difference. Canada has a high urban population, though ? about 75% (like that of the UK). When their welfare checks run out, they?re finished. I think the remaining 25% will do well enough, though.

115 times? How would that calculate if you corrected for suitability for farming though? Is as great a percentage of Canada's land farmable as in the UK? (though I guess with the climate warming up, Canada can only get better and better in this respect)

[Totally_Baffled]

(2) If you?re not used to moving around, then it?s harder to leave your native land. Myself, I don?t have that problem, because I?ve been moving around all my life. If you?re not used to it, then obviously there?s a psychological barrier to be dealt with.

Good point. The post-PO downslope period might not be a great time to start one's first "living abroad" experience!

(1) As for countries to choose from, I can only tell you that I fell in love with Canada early on in my life. The population density of the UK is about 115 times greater than that of Canada ? quite a difference. Canada has a high urban population, though ? about 75% (like that of the UK). When their welfare checks run out, they?re finished. I think the remaining 25% will do well enough, though.

115 times? How would that calculate if you corrected for suitability for farming though? Is as great a percentage of Canada's land farmable as in the UK? (though I guess with the climate warming up, Canada can only get better and better in this respect)

Also - how do you allow for the consequences of US occupation? (even those tar sands look attractive when they are on your doorstep! )

[Peter Goodchild]

Yes, some very good points there.

As for arable land, I went into all that in "Agriculture in a Post-Oil Economy":

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... sc&start=0

The UK scores reasonably well, but certainly not reasonably well enough. Yes, I'm always whining about "get out your calculator," but having done a fair bit of both farming and calculating, I can tell you that without the hydrocarbons for the fertilizer, pesticides, combines, tractors, etc. etc. etc., you're basically left with putting on your sombrero and sandals, sighing quietly, and getting on with the job.

As for the danger of US invasion. No, even I (Mr. Paranoia) don't worry about that too much. We've been living with that threat for two hundred years, and it's never amounted to anything. -- A curious but little-known fact is that the White House got its name after it was repainted. It was repainted because the Canadians gave it a good burning during the War of 1812, when the US thought they'd casually acquire Canada.

The threat of Americans never gets anywhere. Canada is not very congenial to those who've never developed a resistance to mosquitoes or blackflies. And city-dwellers who have never strayed more than ten feet from a vehicle find the Great North a little daunting in general. Better to die in your car than to get out and walk, it seems.

[WolfattheDoor]

The threat of Americans never gets anywhere. Canada is not very congenial to those who've never developed a resistance to mosquitoes or blackflies. And city-dwellers who have never strayed more than ten feet from a vehicle find the Great North a little daunting in general. Better to die in your car than to get out and walk, it seems.

There's no accounting for the future.

"When the going gets bad, the bad get going...into whichever country looks more attractive."

[Andy Hunt]

We've been living with that threat for two hundred years, and it's never amounted to anything.

Oops, thought I was listening to CERA talking about peak oil for a second there!

[Susukino]

If you move outside the UK you risk being the outsider that is at more risk from PO wherevr you end up.

Do you really believe that??? Surely the major factor post PO will not be accent or creed, but usefullness and ability.

SunnyJim, I have read many of your posts and you seem to be a sensible sort of person so I'm surprised to see this. Are you saying that you REALLY believe that despite several millenia of evidence to the contrary, rationality trumps emotion when it comes to human behaviour? I have lived a good part of my life abroad. Local ties always win in the end. Always. If you think otherwise you need to get out into the real world more.

Suss

[Peter Goodchild]

This is a pasting from earlier:

Here are some numbers on the ratio of population to arable land (hectares):

World: 3.3:1

Australia 0.4:1
Kazakhstan: 0.7:1
Canada: 0.7:1

And, dropping far down the list:

China: 9:1
UK: 11:1
Haiti: 11:1

And, much further:

Kuwait: 167:1

Out of a list of the 210 main countries of the world, listing the population/arable ratio (going down from ?best? to ?worst?), the UK ranks as number 139.


As for the "US invasion," yes, I see what you're getting it. Maybe I'll do some cogitating on the matter. But it's still basically a non-issue. Having met a great many Americans, I can tell you that they really have no interest in "invading us." There's just nothing for them to gain by doing so.

But it's by no means a simple issue. Conversely -- and in apparent self-contradiction -- one could say that they've "owned" us for a good many years already. A previous Canadian prime minister, Brian Mulroney, practically gave away everthing that wasn't nailed down. And I assume you're familiar with the long long NAFTA controversy. "Free Trade" basically means, "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine." Some interesting comments on free trade in Marx's Das Kapital, if you're looking for some bedtime reading.

From a practical point of view, the main complaint about Americans seems to be that they somwhat overrun the campgrounds in summer. Canadian trout-fishermen aren't the type to want company while they're selecting a suitable fly.

[Andy Hunt]

As for the "US invasion," yes, I see what you're getting it. Maybe I'll do some cogitating on the matter. But it's still basically a non-issue. Having met a great many Americans, I can tell you that they really have no interest in "invading us." There's just nothing for them to gain by doing so.

Except a big load of fertile land with a very low population density - which you have spent most of your time on this forum arguing is the single most important factor post-peak!

I'm amazed you can't see the irony and contradiction in your own arguments . . . of course the Americans will be looking at the vast empty Canadian expanses with envious eyes, that's how they came by their own country in the first place.

Just like the Chinese will be eyeing Siberia as the permafrost melts to reveal huge expanses of unoccupied fertile land . . . don't fool yourself.

[Susukino]

This is a pasting from earlier:
Here are some numbers on the ratio of population to arable land (hectares):
World: 3.3:1
Australia 0.4:1
Kazakhstan: 0.7:1
Canada: 0.7:1

People seem to be forgetting a basic issue: the countries with high population density have that population because they are relatively sympathetic to human habitation. They have a temperate climate, or have a good geographical position conducive to trade, or they have natural resources or whatever. These factors will not change post-peak. Those countries with low population density today have a low population density because they are essentially hostile to human habitation - climate being a major factor. Do you, Gentle Reader, really believe that such countries will support MORE people when cheap energy goes away? If you throw (cheap hydrocarbon) energy at marginal land through irrigation or fertilisation you can generate some kind of output. That doesn't mean it's sustainable when energy becomes more expensive. In relative terms, countries with high population densities relative to other countries will probably retain that relative advantage. Population may well contract in the high density countries but I cannot see any reason why they would not also contract in other places. You think the Canadians will continue to produce wheat at current levels on their 5,000 acre fields when the tractors stop running?

Basically, these figures say something about arable land as it is used now. They say nothing about what inputs are required to allow that land to be farmed. Australia supported only a tiny population before the advent of modern farming because most of it was not viable land. What will happen when the irrigation pumps stop? Canada I don't know about - wheat has been grown on some scale or other there for a couple of centuries I think. But I've visited Canada (Alberta) several times in mid-winter and it's pretty grim - not a place I would like to be post-peak. Especially with a growing season so much shorter than that of most of Europe.

Suss

[SunnyJim]

If you move outside the UK you risk being the outsider that is at more risk from PO wherevr you end up.

Do you really believe that??? Surely the major factor post PO will not be accent or creed, but usefullness and ability.

SunnyJim, I have read many of your posts and you seem to be a sensible sort of person so I'm surprised to see this. Are you saying that you REALLY believe that despite several millenia of evidence to the contrary, rationality trumps emotion when it comes to human behaviour? I have lived a good part of my life abroad. Local ties always win in the end. Always. If you think otherwise you need to get out into the real world more.

Suss

No, I don't REALLY believe that. I'm just exploring the reasons for staying. It's over a year now since I decided to stay here and try to weather the oncoming storm. I've never lived outside these shores. Rarely have I even travelled abroad, so I am indeed naive regarding this. I also spent much of my life in Cornwall, where we didn't have many immigrants. The Cornish love to hate the English, but mix readily with them and have basically sold the entire Cornish housing stock and economy to the English in recent years.

So, I really don't know. I was imagining living in a very rural community where existence depends on your neighbors and there is no choice but to get along. I think in this case then yes, ability/knowledge will count more than creed or accent.

I think my post was prompted by a few things. I had been listening to a few radio 4 programs. One recounting the experience of a Jew in the Nazi camps. Another was recounting the experience of a woman in Ethiopia under Pol-pot. Both made me wonder how much warning people had in the run up to such political systems and how many escaped such nightmares by fleeing their homes and countries. Which made me think if actually, looking at the realities of the situation a person listening hearing about the UK in 100 years from now will not wonder why we who understood the problems we are facing didn?t get out of here.

Lots of hypothetical?s here, and it was for me a bit of a thought experiment. I was hoping to be reassured that I have made the right decision (to stay), because I don?t think the facts really add up to support that.

[Blue Peter]

Another was recounting the experience of a woman in Ethiopia under Pol-pot.

Didn't she have other things to worry about than the experiences of the Cambodians?


Peter.

[Andy Hunt]

Unfortunately or fortunately, I don't really think we have as much control over our own destinies as we would like to believe. Yes we can influence them, but we are also products of our circumstances.

Those who run to the hills may really only be running from the demons inside their heads, running away from their own fears. Trouble is, their fears will follow them wherever they may run. There is no hiding from monsters if they inhabit your brain.

If you can't live in paradise, may as well do your best to try to make the place where you do actually live into the paradise you would like it to be, that's the way I look at it. Naive? Maybe. But a new day will dawn for those who stand long . . . and the forests will echo with laughter.

(urban forests included)

[Peter Goodchild]

I must be missing the point here. I really don't see why an American invasion is any sort of issue. The two countries have been (for better or worse) living side by side for two hundred years.

I know this sounds silly, but -- some of my best friends are Americans. I lived in the US for about seven years and had a wonderful time. (Sailing off the New England coast is about the biggest high one can have on this planet.) I still have American friends.

Do the British spend all night worrying about the French? Surely the French want a re-match because of the Battle of Agincourt.

I certainly have no great love for George Bush, but I can't spend forever worrying about the 49th parallel just because of him.

I haven't seen the slightest evidence of "American hordes" rushing across the border, ready to compromise the virtue of our doe-eyed Canadian girls. I'll let you know if I see anything.

At the risk of sounding spiteful (I don't mean to be) -- as has been said before, the "problem" of immigration works both ways, and the British shouldn't be assuming that they themselves will be welcomed with open arms. Perhaps it's best not to get too obsessed with borders, nationalities, and all that stuff, and just realize (as has also been said fairly often) is that if you want to be accepted somewhere, what matters is what skills and talents you can bring to a community, not what your national origin happens to be.

As for the issue of "what is the best country" --- I can only give you what I've already given you, which are figures that can easily be found in any atlas or gazeteer. Beyond that, it's really just a matter of one's own personal preference of a place to live. There are obviously a number of British ex-pats who prefer Spain. I wish them luck and I suspect they made a wise choice. It wouldn't work for me, because I just can't handle high temperatures. I'm like the ravens that circle this house -- the colder it gets, the happier I am.

Same goes for agriculture -- I'm quite happy dealing with the soil of 45N 78W, and if it doesn't suit anyone else then that's fine too.

Must go. There's actually snow on the ground, and it has to be shoveled. Best wishes.

--- Peter

[SunnyJim]

Another was recounting the experience of a woman in Ethiopia under Pol-pot.

Didn't she have other things to worry about than the experiences of the Cambodians?


Peter.

Ahem. Cambodia of course. Sorry.