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

[SunnyJim]

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)

But like, I'm not scared. It's not demons. The only time I really seriously consider moving is when I sit down in a rational mood and do the maths behind the problems we face. Its only then that I feel that the task we face may be just a tad too big! Then I feel myself resisting the facts, and thinking that I must stay, you know, I belong here and all the usual arguments. I'm not suggesting that I would run for the hills in some sort of survival mode.

I'm kind of thinking that the way life will likely be (see the Heinberg telegraph article) will be a nice life, and that I needent wait for it to happen here, when it is already happening in some places, i.e. low fossil fuel agricultural communities.

[SILVERHARP2]

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. Suss

There are exceptions to this , Ireland had a population of 8m in the early 19thC , the current population of the whole Island is 6m or so today

[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)

But like, I'm not scared. It's not demons. The only time I really seriously consider moving is when I sit down in a rational mood and do the maths behind the problems we face. Its only then that I feel that the task we face may be just a tad too big! I'm not suggesting that I would run for the hills in some sort of survival mode.

I'm kind of thinking that the way life will likely be (see the Heinberg telegraph article) will be a nice life, and that I needent wait for it to happen here, when it is already happening in some places, i.e. low fossil fuel agricultural communities.

It sounds like you are motivated by the desire for a life which is more in keeping with your own values, PO or no PO, which is different from being driven by fear.

If I and my OH were to do such a thing, it would mean forsaking our families, and at the moment we feel that being near family is the most important thing. We may feel differently in the future, who knows.

I just don't think that communities who try to separate themselves off from the rest of society will necessarily be at an advantage, I think the separation is illusory. The solutions to our problems will have to work at every level - community, town, city, county, country and ultimately the planet as a whole. And every individual in every circumstance will have a critical role to play in this.

[SunnyJim]

I agree, and England had towns and cities and villages long before oil, and they worked together then. In some countries I'm sure cities, towns and villages still work together as an agricultural society. I agree it's becoming rarer though.

I'd be interested to see figures on what percentage of each country's population works in agriculture. I think that would tell alot about a countries way of life, values and society.

[Susukino]

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. Suss

There are exceptions to this , Ireland had a population of 8m in the early 19thC , the current population of the whole Island is 6m or so today

I don't see how that alters the thesis above. In the case of Ireland you had famine plus substantial emigration, both of which were largely political problems (of either commission or omission). Obviously the factors controlling population density can change, otherwise you would never have population collapses, but my argument is meant to be "ceteris paribus" except for peak oil. Ireland has certain natural resources such as a temperate climate, plentiful precipitation and in some parts of the country good soil. Well-managed, that country could support more people per square mile than a tundra. That's my point...

Suss

[SunnyJim]

I agree, and England had towns and cities and villages long before oil, and they worked together then. In some countries I'm sure cities, towns and villages still work together as an agricultural society. I agree it's becoming rarer though.

I'd be interested to see figures on what percentage of each country's population works in agriculture. I think that would tell alot about a countries way of life, values and society.

The UK has a less than 2% of workforce in agriculture. Brazil has 20%. Poland 16%, France however, which is somewhere I have often thought still has a rural pesant economy in places has only 3.4% of its workforce in agriculture.

These are interesting figures, and if you accept that there needs to be a mass exodus back to the land, then we can see that some countries by their 'backwardness' are already ahead of us Very Newmanesque.

[RogerCO]

I'd be interested to see figures on what percentage of each country's population works in agriculture. I think that would tell alot about a countries way of life, values and society.

I can't find the reference now - I think it was a post on this forum about a year ago - but I have lodged in my mind the factoid that pre-oil (1900) approx 60% of the population (?of UK?) were directly engaged in the production and distribution of food (and this was post industrialisation, just pre-oil), whereas now the figure is less than 6%.
Wish I could find the source to verify this though, I might have remembered wrong, although I do use it in talks.

[Peter Goodchild]

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.
Suss

You?re assuming that human beings are distributed over the surface of the earth in some rational manner, in accordance with amount of arable land, the climate, and so on. But that?s not the case. Britain is bursting at the seams with over-population. Reason and common sense have nothing to do with it.

On the topic of ?American invasion? of Canada. Americans have no reason to invade Canada in search of land. They have plenty of vacant land of their own ? anywhere between Illinois and California is basically there for the taking. If I were living in NYC and wanted some open spaces, I?d head west, not north.

As for stealing Canada?s tar sands ? the tar sands are just one more ?alternative energy? scam. Anyone who wants them can have them, as far as I?m concerned. Two barrels of ordinary oil must be burned as fuel to get three barrels of ?tar sands? oil. It?s hardly worth the bother. Not to mention a great many other problems with that racket.

Oh, my God, it?s the full moon tomorrow. I?d better get to work on my lunar-energy project. One pie pan, some telephone cable, and a dead car battery.

And there?s further hope for humanity ? the Internet may be dead soon, and we?ll have to go back to reading books:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7103426.stm

[Erik]

The UK has a less than 2% of workforce in agriculture. Brazil has 20%. Poland 16%, France however, which is somewhere I have often thought still has a rural pesant economy in places has only 3.4% of its workforce in agriculture.

These are interesting figures, and if you accept that there needs to be a mass exodus back to the land, then we can see that some countries by their 'backwardness' are already ahead of us Very Newmanesque.

Interesting stuff. Something that is just as important is the trend, not just the actual current percentage of the workforce in agriculture. Which countries are accelerating away from agriculture and towards industry and services? Are any countries swinging back towards having a greater % of the population working in farming?

I don't have the exact er "backwardness data" ( ) for Spain but its evident that the rural population has declined since the 1960s and the workforce has moved away from agriculture (and seemingly into pen-pushing junk jobs in the cities). I have great hope for Spain being able to quickly turn around and pick up the pieces of its rather recent agricultural past, but it has to be said that at the moment the country is heading totally in the wrong direction (more and more motorways, airport expansions, hotel mega-complexes, even plans for 1000s of hectares of Las Vegas style theme parks for all these tourists which will NEVER arrive - Aaaargh crazy crazy crazy). So in some ways, for Spain the sooner the energy crunch comes the better, before the entire country gets paved over and made into some kind of bizarre and empty concrete amusement park.

[Totally_Baffled]

Peter.

I wasnt being serious regarding the US invasion comment - I was just having a comic tin foil hat moment

Regarding the UK - yes you are probably right - if we go to a zero fossil fuel supply in a short space of time, then yes we probably are screwed and way beyond our carrying capacity.

However - I think this is where we disagree. You will probably quote me high decline rates, the Export land model etc as to why we might go to zero supply within a few years. But I dont necessarily think they will hold true.

Also the EU has a lot of spare land and agricultural capacity, in the same way that US and Canada have. The UK is heavily/overly populated compared to the rest of the EU, but then so are certain states in the US.

I suspect we will get some inter EU migration or even food aid/imports to keep the Brits where the EU like them , in Britain! ( who wants a load of chav hoolligan refugees cluttering up the place and making trouble!? )

[RenewableCandy]

... But a new day will dawn for those who stand long . . . and the forests will echo with laughter.

(urban forests included)

Yes there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change your mind... (did you get a ticket you lucky b***er ?)

[Andy Hunt]

(did you get a ticket you lucky b***er ?)

no . . . then again, it's a bit of a gamble with those guys, isn't it. Will Jimmy Page be able to stand up? Will Robert Plant be able to manage more than a few dry croaks?

Saw them at Glastonbury a few years back with a full Egyptian orchestra on stage - awesome.

Only time will tell . . . have we had 'peak Led Zep'?

[Susukino]

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.
Suss

You?re assuming that human beings are distributed over the surface of the earth in some rational manner, in accordance with amount of arable land, the climate, and so on. But that?s not the case. Britain is bursting at the seams with over-population. Reason and common sense have nothing to do with it.

Population does not develop "rationally" but as a simple response to the availability of local resources. No resources, no population. Go and re-read your Jared Diamond. Why is Canada, here in the 21st century, not bursting at the seams with overpopulation? Because it is fundamentally less suited to supporting human life on a large scale than a country with a temperate climate like the UK. Are you denying this? Are you arguing that if we looked back to a point before hydrocarbon energy was widely used, say the late 19th century, we would find that the UK and Canada had comparable population densities? Remove oil from the equation and consider which place, over the long term, is going to support more people per square mile.

There is no point in getting fixated on the population here today UNLESS you believe civilisation will collapse overnight (a scenario that seems to include a complete cessation in trade and no local food production) leading to howling mobs outside the window. If you believe this is the most likely post-peak scenario, and apparently many people around here do, then maybe hiding out in the middle of a sub-arctic tundra makes sense. This is contingent on being able to survive some pretty nasty weather. If on the other hand you expect something like the Russian experience, where the population contracts in response to economic difficulties but you don't actually get famine, then it seems far more sensible to stay put somewhere. If you're already in the middle of Canada or Australia or wherever your perspective will differ, naturally.

Suss

[redlantern]

I'd be interested to see figures on what percentage of each country's population works in agriculture. I think that would tell alot about a countries way of life, values and society.

I can't find the reference now - I think it was a post on this forum about a year ago - but I have lodged in my mind the factoid that pre-oil (1900) approx 60% of the population (?of UK?) were directly engaged in the production and distribution of food (and this was post industrialisation, just pre-oil), whereas now the figure is less than 6%.
Wish I could find the source to verify this though, I might have remembered wrong, although I do use it in talks.

Source was "The Structures of Everyday Life" by Fernand Braudel, quoted in "The Little Ice Age" by Brian Fagan (p.79)

[redlantern]

I'd be interested to see figures on what percentage of each country's population works in agriculture. I think that would tell alot about a countries way of life, values and society.

I can't find the reference now - I think it was a post on this forum about a year ago - but I have lodged in my mind the factoid that pre-oil (1900) approx 60% of the population (?of UK?) were directly engaged in the production and distribution of food (and this was post industrialisation, just pre-oil), whereas now the figure is less than 6%.
Wish I could find the source to verify this though, I might have remembered wrong, although I do use it in talks.

90% of the population pre-industrialisation was engaged in food production and processing; source was "The Structures of Everyday Life" by Fernand Braudel, quoted in "The Little Ice Age" by Brian Fagan (p.79)

Unsure about the pre-oil % but 60% sounds about right.