Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

In a message dated 2/23/2008 1:57:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
genegerue AT ruralize.com writes:


> >"It is a proper use of whatever transportation we have" translated to  
> >me as you not caring much about the oil.
> 

Two things:  1) It would be a better use of what oil we have to transport 
oranges from Florida (Texas, California) that it would to have cities 
designed 
with exburbs requiring 70 mile commutes.  2) It wouldn't have to be oil.  
When 
oil depeletes so far that we cannot even power trains with it (unlikely, 
that), 
then it would be a good use of a few tons of coal or a few cords of wood, or 
saved up electricity to power a tain to deliver oranges.


> 
> >As much as we wimpy, spoiled Americans complain about prices, we are  
> >as food gods compared to citizens of many other countries.
> >

Yes.  And no.  We have at our disposal some pretty impressive spreads of food 
which we walk past and eat crap.



>As oil runs out, food production will decrease. As food  
> >production decreases, there will be a concomitant decrease in  
> >population. Just as any country acre has a carrying capacity, the  
> >pattern is true throughout nature.


IF ... the cranking down of consumerism, by means of dire necessity, is 
gradual.  Alas, the current situation shows that it might not be gradual.

> >>
> >>> Take a deep breath and inspect your computer for country of  
> >>> manufacture.
> >
> > That's an often used red herring.  That is, if we were all localists  
> > or
> > regionalists, where would we get computers from?
> 
> Pick any manufactured product. We could all do with far less  
> technology than we now use. That is not the issue. The issue is what  
> people want, not just computers but giant TV screens, surround sound  
> with wireless speakers, three vehicles, twenty pairs of shoes, closets  
> full of seldom-worn clothing. What people want, politicians strive to  
> provide. That's how they keep their jobs. One of the things I learned  
> from reading Alan Greenspan's book is that presidents commonly ignore  
> sound economic advice, but instead play to the voters.
> 
> >Other than helping to resist Alzheimer's, it seems to me that it is of  
> >little use to even debate the issue of globalism.

If by that you mean that globalism isn't going to be set aside voluntarily, 
then you are most correct.  The debate is apropos when you consider that the 
setting aside of globalism might not be volunatry at all, and might not be 
far 
off, and might not be gradual.


 >Every human animal  
> >wants all they can get with as little labor as possible to get it.  

Every??  You?   Me?  Certainly not me.  I could "get" a lot more things, have 
done it in the past, but have decided that more was distinctly unsatisfying.  
The Nearings, for example, were wealthy but chose to live frugally and do a 
lot of hard manual labor.  Long list could follow.




> > Right now most of the world's people  
> want to emulate our lifestyle. It is a wave that cannot be held back.
> 

Just my point.  When we North Americans and to a lesser extent Western 
Europeans could bamboozle the world out of its labor and resources for our 
own 
opulence and ease, the livestye was sustainable.  Now that countless billions 
in 
the rest of the world want a crust of the pie, the very resources that 
supported 
our lifestly are being burned at both ends and the middle.  The desire and 
notion of our lifestyle cannot be held back, but the reality of finite 
resources 
in an ever expanding ever upwardly mobile world population can.  And is.
   </HTML>