Posted by: Bingley
All of us live off the land: unsustainable? - 01/27/18 12:38 AM
I came across this article with the following conclusion:
From "Is this the end of civilisation? W...an, 24 Jan 2018. Note that much of the article offers political analysis -- not really the subject of discussion on this forum. However, I do think the claim that the world today cannot sustain all of us trying to live off the land is worth considering. This would especially be important for people who do long-term preps to live off the grid or be completely self-sufficient. If a large-scale disaster forces many people in a big region (say, an entire country or continent) to do that for years on end, will that mean many deaths just because the ecosystem cannot sustain so many people?
I always wonder about people who look to hunting as a means of survival when they live in or around major cities. If millions of people have the same plan, the woods will turn into a desert within hours.
Quote:
Complex societies have collapsed many times before. It has not always been a bad thing. As James C Scott points out in his fascinating book, Against the Grain, when centralised power began to collapse, through epidemics, crop failure, floods, soil erosion or the self-destructive perversities of government, its corralled subjects would take the chance to flee. In many cases they joined the “barbarians”. This so-called secondary primitivism, Scott notes, “may well have been experienced as a marked improvement in safety, nutrition and social order. Becoming a barbarian was often a bid to improve one’s lot.” The dark ages that inexorably followed the glory and grandeur of the state may, in that era, have been the best times to be alive.
But today there is nowhere to turn. The wild lands and rich ecosystems that once supported hunter gatherers, nomads and the refugees from imploding early states who joined them now scarcely exist. Only a tiny fraction of the current population could survive a return to the barbarian life. (Consider that, according to one estimate, the maximum population of Britain during the Mesolithic, when people survived by hunting and gathering, was 5000).In the nominally democratic era, the complex state is now, for all its flaws, all that stands between us and disaster.
But today there is nowhere to turn. The wild lands and rich ecosystems that once supported hunter gatherers, nomads and the refugees from imploding early states who joined them now scarcely exist. Only a tiny fraction of the current population could survive a return to the barbarian life. (Consider that, according to one estimate, the maximum population of Britain during the Mesolithic, when people survived by hunting and gathering, was 5000).In the nominally democratic era, the complex state is now, for all its flaws, all that stands between us and disaster.
From "Is this the end of civilisation? W...an, 24 Jan 2018. Note that much of the article offers political analysis -- not really the subject of discussion on this forum. However, I do think the claim that the world today cannot sustain all of us trying to live off the land is worth considering. This would especially be important for people who do long-term preps to live off the grid or be completely self-sufficient. If a large-scale disaster forces many people in a big region (say, an entire country or continent) to do that for years on end, will that mean many deaths just because the ecosystem cannot sustain so many people?
I always wonder about people who look to hunting as a means of survival when they live in or around major cities. If millions of people have the same plan, the woods will turn into a desert within hours.