I was listening to a podcast the other day on how we could sustain ourselves in a post-collapse world, but when it came to the best countries to survive the coming calamity, I burst out in laughter.
Immigration qualifications to enter New Zealand are very steep the last time I looked. You must have a needed skill or profession, relative youth, or lots of money; all three are best. Plug in your info at this page: https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/explore-visa-options
Well, New Zealand, which has two main islands folks, will let anyone with enough money instantly become a citizen, as Peter Thiel did. Our Western orientated government is creating "Gold" visas that allow non residents with money key residend rights.
We traveled the world with bikes, backpacks and 4 teenagers in 2005-2006, and I interviewed for a job in New Zealand. We bike toured the perimeter of the South Island, a long ride.
It was already "discovered", overpriced, and truly dependent upon imports, and with relatively low pay scales. We sadly concluded that Texas remained clearly better, even though we were very concerned under the Bush-II admin, and the Global War on Terror, with talk of a renewed draft.
Now we must also consider bad space weather with our planetary magnetic fields collapsing as magnetic poles shift:
A tropical climate near the ocean so it doesn't get too hot or cold. Where you can manage without heating and cooling. Where you can grow food year around. Where people traditionally work together instead of extrem individualism. Where you are part of a community that will look after all and share resources when needed.
I know an island which for most of the time is not very densely populated. Without ferries and aeroplanes it has plenty of room. Obviously, I’m not going to tell you where it is cause you might take my place ha ha.
And by Mediterranean I did not mean simply the shores of the Mediterranean just anywhere in the world which is warm, seasonal, temperate and reasonably easy to survive in. I think homo sapiens really got going, among other places, on the shores of what is now South Africa . Access to seafood moderate climate et cetera.
Compared to tempered areas, tropical ones tend to get extreme weather events : drought, floods, cyclones and so on. And have often poorer soil. Hence lower carrying capacity and population density.
So on the long term, it might be a good option. The problem is how the population density will be adjusted before that...
Re: "Compared to tempered areas, tropical ones tend to get extreme weather events : drought, floods, cyclones and so on. And have often poorer soil. Hence lower carrying capacity and population density."
True within the context of wilderness, but not necessarily true when you factor in humans serving the role of a keystone species (enriching tropical soils and increasing biodiversity while feeding themselves).
Yes, I've heard about this theory. It might be true to some extend. And there might be something to learn here regarding equatorial forest soil improvement.
But weather events will still take their toll every now and then while getting more violent with global warming.
Terra Preta is not a theory, it is a lived reality for many.
Also, what created it (coordinated multi-generational anthropogenic activity) is a replicable process using simple, widely accessible and free materials (that is a game changer).
Anthropologist William Balée argues that at least 12% of the Amazon was directly or indirectly created by humans using “Dark Earth.” Terra Preta (literally “black earth”) is a manmade soil of prehistoric origin that is higher in nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and calcium than adjacent soils. It controls water and reduces leaching of nutrients from the rhizosphere. Rich in humus, pieces of pre-Columbian unfired clay pottery, and black carbon, it’s like a “microbial reef” that promotes and sustains the growth of mycorrhizae and other beneficial microbes, and it has been shown to retain its fertility for thousands of years. In university trials, terra preta has increased crop yields by as much as 800 percent. It regrows itself when excavated.
William Devan, a geologist from the University of Wisconsin who is prominent in terra preta research, offers these comments: “The black terra preta is associated with long-enduring Indian village sites, and is filled with ceramics, animal and fish bones, and other cultural debris. The brown terra mulata, on the other hand, is much more extensive, generally surrounds the black midden soils, contains few artifacts, and apparently is the result of semi-intensive cultivation over long periods. Both forms are much more fertile than the surrounding highly weathered reddish soil, mostly oxisol, and they have generally sustained this fertility to the present despite the tropical climate and despite frequent or periodic cultivation. This is probably because of high carbon content and an associated high microbial activity which is self perpetuating.”
William I. Woods, a soil geographer at Southern Illinois University says terra preta covers a surface area in the Amazon equivalent to the size of France.
As Charles C. Mann wrote, in a piece that drastically changed the perception about native populations in the New World before contact, contrary to the popular isolated hunter-gatherer notions of natives, the New World was a highly advanced civilization that manipulated their environment on a large scale. He believed that humans were a keystone species—that is an animal that plays a crucial role in the functioning of an eco-system.
Charles C. Mann writes about terra preta, “Faced with an ecological problem, the Indians fixed it. The indians were in the process of terraforming the Amazon when Columbus showed up and ruined everything.”
But as I said, soil quality is only one part of the problem. After all, tropical areas with rice cultivation were among the most densely populated even before industrial time. So it's not only about forested area.
And still climate models show that these areas will be particularly hard hit by the consequences of climate change.
Also, growing food year round is not required to eat healthily, many cultures in cool to cold climates have created food forests that fed (and can feed) them well despite longer winters.
We can plant the seeds for "a community that will look after all and share resources when needed" regardless of where we live on Earth, that is what this project is about:
Thanks, B, for another excellent post. I boil it down to the basics: too many humans using too many nonrenewable natural resources and producing too much pollution, including GHG's, global heating, plastics from fossil fuel distillates, depleted agriculture, wars, etc. Michael Moore needs to produce a new feature: "Where To Run To Next?" It'll be a boxoffice hit! Have a blessed day/evening/life.
Quantity of humans is very much one of the key issues we are facing today.
The earth has never needed humans and it will be perfectly fine when the species that has absolutely trashed this planet for the last 8,000 years goes extinct.
I have elaborated extensively in my free online e-book PDF, “Stress R Us”, on the medical consequences of overpopulation/crowding/overconsumption leading to “overshoot”. You might wish to take a look before offering up your unscientific “opinion” piece.
I`ll address the fallacies you are promoting when I have more time. I have food forests to plant and that is more important than typing on computers to self-hating humans that lack the conviction to stand behind their beliefs.
I suppose you`ll tell me we should depopulate humans "humanely"? Is that like how they "humanely" depopulate cows in a factory farm? Or perhaps it involves vague programs that "educate" women?
I will actively subvert all anti-human agendas, and I am actively doing so with posts like this:
We are in a predicament not a problem with a solution. Any species that goes into absolute overshoot will crash back down to sustainable levels.
"Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change"
Is a seminal work.
Greeley Miklashek is not stating fallacies. Do not stipulate your opinions as fact.
I have studied ecology and overshoot.
I am just stating a fact.
Humans are in population overshoot. Whenever anyone responds by stating
"Well just kill yourself than" is admitting that they themselves have nothing of value to say.
It is also an act of violence.
The solution is to allow people to die of old age while not using expensive and modern technologies to extend lifespans longer than necessary and to keep births at no more than replacement levels.
Wes Jackson talks about this.
"An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the fate of humanity"
The article I referenced by John Gowdy discusses how the Holocene made agriculture possible which allowed for the explosion in the human population possible. The Pleistocene is our future. The Holocene was itself a blip.
It is not an "anti-human" agenda to point out facts nor is it a fallacy. Your unfounded opinions do not discount extensive research.
The hunter gather future is also a best case scenario. The extensive damage that humans have done to the planet during the Holocene may make even a modest hunter gather/forager lifestyle impossible.
You can not feed a population of 10 plus billion people on sustainable food practices. We are in absolute population overshoot. This is a fact. The only factor up for debate is by how much.
William Reese puts the sustainable population number at 1.7 to 2 billion.
He himself admits that this is an overly optimistic estimate.
I am not a white supremacist nor eugenicist. Race is itself nothing more than a social construct.
You are thinking like a Doctrine Of Discovery wielding imperialist in monoculture monotones. I do not advocate for "sustainable food practices" I live, design, install and empower people to replicate scalable regenerative food and medicine production systems.
Whining about violence while espousing and supporting it in your anti-human propaganda is nonsense.
You have not done your homework as you vaguely demonize humans as a whole without acknowledging that humans are capable of enriching biodiversity.
The limited reductionist thinking you have adopted that sees nature as separate from humans is what got us to where we are today.
While you moan about "overshoot" and look on humans as a disease, I will be creating bio-cultural refugia and helping families to increase the human population. I invite you to let go of your self-loathing and become part of the solution by using your gifts to create refugia in your own neck of the woods.
I have done my home work and I am not whining. You have not disproved or engaged with any of the subject material anyone here has provided. I am simply stating the fact that humans are in ecological overshoot. I have not engaged in any anti-human propaganda.
Again stating facts is not anti-human propaganda.
Humans are in overshoot. Any species that goes into overshoot crashes back down to sustainable levels.
The longer a species stays in overshoot. The greater the damage that is done and the sustainable population level is lowered.
I spoke of the Holocene and Pleistocene.
These are not anti-human propaganda.
"You have not done your homework as you vaguely demonize humans as a whole without acknowledging that humans are capable of enriching biodiversity."
I never did that. I am fully aware of the past 300,000 years of human history. Humans are capable of and lived as keystone species yes. Humans have also caused extinction events. Humans are capable of enriching biomes and causing extinctions. I do not see humans as separate from nature. Most of us on this sub stack acknowledge that the only truly form of sustainable living is that of the hunter gather/forager lifestyle.
The lifestyle that was lived for roughly 300,000 years.
You have constantly engaged in acts of defamation and espousing falsehoods while intentionally ignoring what I am saying.
Yes, the mindset that humans are separate from Nature is what got us into this mess.
A population reduction is a matter of ecological necessity to bring humans back in line with living sustainably with nature.
Overshoot is not propaganda nor a fallacy.
It is a fact that applies to all species.
Humans are in overshoot and Nature will correct this.
I am an anti-imperialist and opposed to monoculture farming, which is what gave rise to civilizations in the first place and started humans on the path to unsustainable living.
I am aware that there are indigenous peoples living throughout all regions of the world who are fighting to preserve their way of life.
I am aware of Wendigo. The mind virus.
B dedicated a whole article to it.
This whole sub stack is dedicated to the study of overshoot and that ties into ecology.
However, due to the polycrisis. See "The Great Simplification" that possible best case scenario might not even be possible.
You make false assumptions about the people here and whine when you get push back.
I do not advocate for the continuation of an unsustainable way of life that is destroying the planet.
Nor, however will I let the lie that humans are not in population overshoot go unchallenged.
Humans are not separate from Nature, and living with Nature also means adhering to the carrying capacity of the particular biome one finds oneself living in.
Some biomes are capable of supporting more than others.
"Go forth and multiply" is a key tenet of what got us into this mess.
Carrying capacity is ecology. It is not "anti-human" propaganda.
Probably the best piece of advice you gave in this article is the one about staying where you are because you are known.
When I first started thinking about this, over the past decade or so, I came to that same conclusion. I know this community, this community knows me, and we know what skills and resources we can contribute to the whole.
I think it would be easier to make a list of the *worst* places to be in the coming collapse than to list the *best* places!
Given that everything is changing, it seems unlikely that whatever drew you to where you are is not going to be true after the fossil sunlight curve reverses direction.
For example, most people currently live in cities. I can't imagine being in a major metropolitan area to be advantageous, post-collapse. All the metrics cited in this article as being an advantage look really bad for big cities. But perhaps I simply lack imagination.
Also, I don't think being in any particular "country" can be an advantage, in an age of growing political dissent and polarization. It might be fair to say that few large countries that exist today will remain single entities into the future. Saying "the US" or "Russia" could be more or less advantageous won't make sense if the US or Russia fail to continue.
I think islands may be a good place to be.
They often harbour an ethic — perhaps facetious — of self-reliance. Such an ethic may be useful even after the ships and planes stop arriving. Island inhabitants have a greater sense of mutual reliance and sharing. That could mean that they're more willing to work within limits that the greater world is. So I support having New Zealand, Tasmania, and perhaps even Ireland on the list.
This could include "virtual islands" that are fairly isolated, such as anywhere in the US that is a significant distance from an Interstate Highway, or coastal areas anywhere that only have water access, and a decent growing climate into the future.
In short, it seem that the more isolated a population is, the more they value mutual reliance, which is going to be worth more than the "rugged individualism" meme that dominates human life today.
First thing first, depending on one's culture/religion and ethnic origins, some places might be much better than other. It might be sad to say, but in times of trouble, people tend to stick with and trust people who look and think like them. This is called social cohesion. Or what's left of it. So this list is definitely Western-oriented (not to say White).
But regardless of this, I will rather bet on places where access to some fossil fuel (or alternatively lot of wood) will still be possible. Even in much smaller volume than today. Of course, it doesn't mean that life will be nice for everyone but that some kind of organized society, that is at the bare minimum some kind of basic food security, might still exists. Some places by the Persian Gulf area or in China might not be so bad. At least during a while.
But actually, for someone of European ascent and for a second half of the century (of which I probably wouldn't see much) and onward, my bet would also be on Russia (1). Interestingly enough, it's indeed not on the list. Probably for some political correctness. But on the long term, it is definitely one of reason why it was so stupid for the Europeans to antagonize its population.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the USA are too big a place to say anything. The South and South West are quite probably doomed by either drought or flooding. But the Great Lakes area has probably some potential (2).
Also, in time of trouble, coastal areas are to be avoided. Notwithstanding sea level rise, as history demonstrated time and again, they are much to easily plundered by marauding sea-people. But isolated, hight latitudes and mountainous islands like New Zealand or Iceland might reverse to Maori or Viking life-style after all (with the necessary and probably painful adjustment of population density of course).
-
(1) See for exemple, Bruce Johnstone's novel "A Change in the Wind" to understand what I mean.
(2) BTW, JM Greer wrote about it in several of his novels and essays.
Sorry, that YouTube clip is a bunch of MAGA fascist nonsense.
Yes the UK is well into collapse and clearly has zero resilience to what's coming. But all that stuff about neighbourhoods where the police are scared to go and civil war is bonkers. You lose all credibility like this.
Was Genghis Khan able to conquer so much land due to the training and skills of his archer/horseman warriors, or simply because his empire consisted of flat plains and was easy to traverse? Europe, in contrast, with its relatively flat areas (aside from the Alps ) and accessible waterways, made it easy for armies to traverse, resulting in thousands of years of invasions back and forth by armies. Even the Vikings were able to reach far inland on their boats.
Contrast this to the isolation enjoyed by Switzerland or the durability of Afghanistan (able to fend off the USSR and the US). What about American Indians? Lots of warring and raiding between tribes on the plains and eastern forests, but fewer in the mountains? Lower population density as well.
Something about the mountains affords relative protection from raiding gangs and armies and therefore may be the best places to survive the long haul. Your stuff will be looted if things get really bad. I think Fast Eddy on his substack made a very good point about the futility of trying to prep too deeply. It will boil down to what you can defend.
RE: "Your stuff will be looted if things get really bad. I think Fast Eddy on his substack made a very good point about the futility of trying to prep too deeply. It will boil down to what you can defend."
What survives collapse? What survives crisis? Community. What ever you give and contribute into your community and you generate that goodwill, and you generate those structures of taking care of each other and reciprocal (gift) relationships… that is an investment. That is a savings account that fires cannot burn and thieves cannot steal.
The best investment you can make is generosity, for only thing that cannot be taken from you is that which you give.
The thing about growing a garden and saving seed is that heirloom seeds are living beings and you always have more than enough for your own needs. Thus, the act of saving seed compels you to share your seeds and excess harvests with neighbors, developing symbiotic relationships and good will within that community which you live.
Now I could get into the reasons why even if we are talking about a hypothetical situation with mobs of callous, raging, thieving and pilfering neighbors, the choice to garden is still worth it purely due to number 23 on my list ( https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/25-reasons-you-should-start-a-garden ), but that would not address any people in the crowd that have more pragmatic (and perhaps self interested) atheistic concerns and priorities, so instead I will elaborate on how there are practical/pragmatic reasons why knowledge and skills related to food cultivation is more valuable than food stores, cryptocurrency, silver or cash (as they are accessible and applicable in and and all situations and cannot be taken from you.
So, here we are visualizing a post apocalyptic mad max type situation in which everyone has decided to behave like rabid selfish primates and they are stealing and thieving from their neighbor’s gardens (as silly as this is, some people think that is what human nature is when people get desperate as they have been watching lots of Hollywood psyops, so lets explore that hypothetical).
Even if the mobs of ravenous garden raiders stole all my crops from the garden, broke into my home and held me at gun point while they stole my pickled and freeze dried food stores I still have heirloom seeds which, after they leave, I could use both as emergency food and/or plant for a fast harvest microgreens garden.
Lets say they are super industrious and relatively intellectually well educated garden raiding and burglarizing thieves, and they steal all my heirloom seeds from in my house as well.
What then?
Well, first of all, people who are stealing from others, rather than cultivating and foraging for food in the first place are unlikely to be capable of recognizing the value of heirloom seeds, nor would they be likely to want to cultivate them, but lets say we are talking about some really unusually viscous and selfish thieves (that also have a green thumb). Okay, they took my seeds from in the house, but that still leaves the seeds I have outside in my living Soil Seed Bank.
That is the thing about permaculture design and regenerative gardening, along with saving seed inside, I also encourage the natural self-seeding processes that are part of the life cycle of my favorite and most nutritious crops (which means if you remove something from my garden, the sunlight will shine down on the mulch and compost layer, awakening an array of dormant seeds that always exist there). In a number of days I would have abundant microgreens to eat without any work. In a few weeks, I could have significant harvests to eat (also without any work).
Beyond the food security of my living soil seed bank (which is immune to thievery, well, unless the thieves arrived with an excavator to also steal my soil ) as stated above, I retain the knowledge and skills I have acquired through my choice to garden (knowledge and skills which are accessible and applicable in any and all situations, whether for planting another garden, or for plant identification and foraging outside the garden).
Now this brings me to something I brought up in reason # 𝟏𝟎 from my 25 reasons to start a garden in 2025 relating to the ubiquitous lack of plant identification skills and knowledge in most people in modern day urban industrialized western society.
We live in a time where most children in Canada and the US are capable of identifying over 1000 corporate logos, yet they can only identify less then 10 plant species.
I suspect that same lack of basic botanical awareness and plant literacy is equally reflected in the urbanized adult populations.
Part of my comment above was pertaining to food forest design.
If one was blessed to have enough space where they could begin to create a food forest one would essentially be creating a food production system that is camouflaged to most every day people in the western world. In a society where people can identify more corporate logos than they can plant species, a forest filled with a multi-layered food production system that seamlessly emulates a mature forest would be unrecognizable and essentially invisible to the mobs of lazy/desperate thieves and pilferers (that have a poverty of plant knowledge).
Thus, beyond all the factors that I mentioned above that make the choice to grow a regenerative garden in one’s yard a wise choice (regardless of outside circumstances) food forests, in and of themselves are resistant to thievery, due to the widespread poverty of eco-literacy in the modern western world.
This might be one of the most amazing things I've read in quite awhile. I'm one of the illiterate, but at least now you have me paying attention. True intelligence here, thanks for taking the time to post it.
Also, a lot of anthropocentrism, some coveting of modernity ( or "high end civilization" as you call it) and a fair bit of Stockholm syndrome flavored statist dogma.
You talk about "carrying capacity" of the land and minimum land required for producing food (and firewood/fibers etc) for one human but you are embracing the limited and ecologically illiterate thinking of a forest pillaging monoculture promoting Rockefeller when you vaguely reference "regenerative agriculture" (but then talk about it like a monoculture operation that requires tractors or draft animals to till the soil in a big open field). You seem to not know very much about regenerative agriculture (which is a relatively new term, invented by colonial people to describe something with much more ancient roots than their relatively young statist regimes).
What about the ancient food forests that exist on multiple continents? These food, medicine, firewood and fiber producing systems produce more food than any industrial agriculture system per hectare, and unlike open field monocultures, they do not reduce soil depth, and do not require fallow (letting fields lay dormant) but rather they increase soil depth year after year, create microclimates, protect and attract clean water and increase biodiversity while feeding humans.
-------------------------
I will quote some of your post below and address each thing you said point by point (my comment is too long so will have to be in two parts).
RE:
"we will witness the end of high-tech modernity pretty much everywhere — together with social mobility, democracy, accessible healthcare, cheap gadgets, job and food security"
Social mobility ? You mean that hierarchical ladder where people measure their own worth (and other people's worth via how much fiat they can horde? You mean the measure of how much people have sold their soul for "matrix steak" (for reference: https://substack.com/@gavinmounsey/note/c-107206663 ). That construct represents a sickness of the mind. Within intact cultures, the social status of an individual is determined by the degree of which that person enriches the lives of his fellow beings (human and non-human) through acts of reciprocity, courage and generosity (and not by how much he takes from them and the commons and hordes).
Democracy is a form of involuntary governance, and all forms of involuntary governance are not only inherently immoral, they are also intrinsically ecologically degenerative. (For more on why that is the case, read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-involuntary-governance-structures ).
Cheap gadgets (no thanks, you can keep them) job and food security (make your job increasing your community's food security and tie that food security into a model that increases biodiversity and you have that problem solved.
----------------------------
"Without fossil fuels, herbicides and pesticides, let alone gene modified crops with artificially boosted productivity, we can also expect a return to much lower crop yields — even with the use of regenerative agriculture."
People were creating and tending food forests without fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides, GMOs and without enslaving animals to plow soil for millennia all over the planet. The "boosted productivity" you reference is Big Ag propaganda as the "food" it produced is actually laced with poison and depleted of minerals and vitamins due to abusive soil practices. Your understanding of the potential of Regenerative food production systems is lacking, you are thinking one dimensionally, like a soy bean farmer, think like a forest, like your ancestors did, and you will see a new world of possibility open up.
For information that can expand your understanding of what is possible within the real of regenerative food systems see:
"In post fossil fuel, post industrial world, we would also need to reserve forested areas to harvest firewood, and fence off grazing land for draft animals (2). Heating and animal draft power would thus increase the per capita agricultural land needed to keep a person warm and well fed to 1.75 acres or 0.7 hectares at best — an almost tenfold increase from its current value of 0.086. (One hectare equals to 2.47 acres.) Yes, fossil fuels have not only made agricultural work more productive, but has freed up and made a lot of land accessible to grow even more crops and feed even more people. "
Nope, you are still thinking one dimensionally and like a colonizing conquistador, forests can provide multiple gifts simultaneously (while remaining intact ecosystems, increasing biodiversity, soil depth and beauty).
"Now, consider also that we would have to rotate land in and out of use to regenerate the soil"
Again, nope, that statement is based on archaic and ecologically illiterate colonial thinking. We can farm land while simultaneously enriching soil, biodiversity and carrying capacity. Look to the links above and think like your ancestors rather than a resource hungry capitalist and you will find that biomimicry withing farming resolves this dissonance and skewed perception you shared above.
---------------------------------
"There are very few, if any, truly self sufficient states around the world."
True, again, I will refer you to listen to/read "Why Involuntary Governance Structures are Not Compatible with The Permaculture Ethical Compass"
"Europe already imports a third of its energy — at an ever higher price — while renewables failed to provide the kind of power needed to maintain a high-end civilization."
This is what it costs to perpetuate your "high end civilization"
The "civilization" you seem to covet is in fact an expression of a spiritual sickness, some have called it "Wendigo". Clinging to its comforts and disposable pleasures rather than learning to forge alliances with the land where you live is a choice that will cost you dearly. We have all been raised to be brainwashed by this thing called "civilization" ( for more on why that is the case watch: https://youtu.be/fYVBjgHRmus?si=X2O54Y6TVftgHmug ).
For more on the spiritual sickness I refer to, watch: "Wendigo Thinking, The Path Of The Sacred Warrior and the Reclamation Of Our Indigeneity"
"Western societies have become completely atomized over the past half a century. Personal greed and individualism has gone on a rampage."
This view seems to portray that at one time "democracies" were just and functioned for the betterment of humanity. That is a fallacy. Even if you want to tell me that people living within colonial "democratic" statist regimes were "less atomized" 50 years ago, I would also like to remind you that the cohesion brought about by the statist regimes (and their systems of indoctrination, blackmail, coercion and profitable mass murder) was used to perpetuate the war racket. Thus, having a more cohesive group of brainwashed people willing to kill and be killed for war racketeers is not necessarily something you should hope can be revitalized.
"Diminishing returns are everywhere: the more we spend on science and technology the more complex and energy hungry things become with less and less benefit provided to society."
Diminishing returns if you think like a Wendigo yes, but that is not our only choice.
When we recognize the abundance around us, and take steps to steward and enrich it (rather than extract it for "science and technology") we can potentiate increasingly abundant "returns" (it is just they do not take the form of tesla cars, smart phones and skyscraper canyons filled with social media addicted ecologically illiterate people).
"The gap between the poor and rich has reached unsustainable levels (especially in the West). Former democracies have turned into a rule of the rich, by the rich and for the rich, aka oligarchies."
Colonial statist regimes have always been oligarch dominated, it is just in recent decades the oligarchs have become more brazen and audacious in flouting their ability to bend politicians to their will than was the case in prior centuries/decades.
"An ageing population and a lack of births. Is this any wonder? Falling living standards, a lack of vision for the future, constant anxiety, industrial pollution disrupting our endocrine system, do I need to continue?"
Yes you do, you left out accounting for these realities:
- “FOI reveals Pfizer and Medicine Regulators hid the dangers of Covid-19 Vaccination during Pregnancy because Study found it increases risk of Birth Defects & Infertility”
In reality, it is not just the EDCs and stress, there is also a concerted effort to cripple human fertility being perpetrated by a range of psychopaths.
"The great unraveling of this high tech civilization will arrive everywhere, but not according to a predictable plan and not from one day to the next. No one can tell where the safest place will be. In fact you are far better off at a place you already know and where you are known. If you move, there is no guarantee others will open their doors for you, or won’t look at you suspiciously once the turd hits the fan there. The best thing we can do at the moment is to educate ourselves and prepare to weather the storm when it arrives. "
On this we can agree, community, symbiotic connections within community (to not just humans but also non-human beings we depend on) is true resilience that no "bug out bag" or "bug out off grid destination" can provide.
I elaborate on some the dynamics regarding how Gift Thinking ("gift economies") of non statist and non fiat currency based cultures enhance that community resilience in this post:
I will be assessing whether or not you are indeed an "honest sorcerer" based on your response (or lack thereof) to this comment and making choices accordingly going forward.
I hope you will take the time to read what I have linked and respond to each point when you have time. Thank you for evoking these truths to be expressed through your post.
What is the maximum global carrying capacity (i.e. how many humans) of a) "regenerative agriculture" c/w our b) current fossil fuelled agriculture carrying capacity of more than 8 billion people?
If a) is less than b) then how do we migrate from b) to a)?
There is a problem with your question. It is formulated based on black and white reductionist thinking that looks at humans like soul-less machines lacking free will.
The global carrying capacity of the living Earth for devout statists and proponents of bright green environmentalism is zero (as all involuntary governance structures are inherently ecologically degenerative, immoral and they attract as well as breed psychopaths. For more info on why that is the case read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-involuntary-governance-structures )
Bright green environmentalists and techno-optimists (people that prioritize the perpetuation of industrial civilization over the integrity of the biosphere and they like to use greenwashing terms like "sustainable" a lot to describe their ground water poisoning lithium mines and clearcut forest replacing solar farms) are similarly inherently on a path to turn the living biodiverse Earth into more cities, gadgets and digital disposable pleasures). For more info, read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-anthropocentrism-bright
The carrying capacity of the living Earth for ecologically literate, ancestrally aware, place based wisdom grounded, humble, determined and courageous humans willing to see nature as their teacher however, is yet to be reached. Many cultures in the past used their growing population as a benefit to the ecosystems they lived within. These indigenous people called many corners of the Earth home. You have indigenous ancestors too (though you may have never taken the time to learn about them). Their wisdom can empower you to become a force for regeneration and a steward within the ecosystem that supports you. Within that pathway of knowledge and action, the presence of humans in an ecosystem actually increases the carrying capacity of that ecosystem to support myriad non-human beings.
For proven examples of what I am talking about, read these:
So, the answer is, within the context of a culture that is aware of it's sacred responsibility to the living Earth and a culture that is cultivating the gifts of the humans within it to initiate Trophic Cascade effects in the ecosystem, a is more than b.
For info on my efforts to nudge cultures in that direction and co-create entirely new ones, read:
My question was simply designed to discover how many humans you believe your "culture nudges" could support if they were ever fully realised.
There is a problem with your answer if you think more than 35 to 100 million, let alone the current ~8billion humans could be supported by creating "sacred responsibility" once fossil fuel supplies are exhausted.
You are obviously involved with some sort of dogmatic religious belief system and not interested in looking at the real world examples that show what you just stated with regards to numbers is nonsense.
I wish you all the best with your faith in the "sustainable development" religion.
So, without industrial fossil fueled agriculture the Earth can sustainably and indefinitely provide food for 10+ billion humans and even more so?
Infinite growth on a finite planet is nonsense and a fallacy.
We do have real world examples to draw from.
Monoculture agriculture began in earnest roughly 8,000 years ago.
The sustainable number of humans is pre monoculture.
The study of sustainability is not a religion.
"Within that pathway of knowledge and action, the presence of humans in an ecosystem actually increases the carrying capacity of that ecosystem to support myriad non-human beings."
Up to a point.
Nothing can grow indefinitely, including carrying capacity.
Our indigenous ancestors exploited their niches to the maximum and pushed their populations to what their particular biome could sustainably support.
They also employed the take over method where you increase your own population by taking over the food stocks of another.
Such as pushing out wolves or taking over grasslands from ruminants.
You're posts sound like a dogmatic religion advocating for ever more population growth.
Gavin, Please look in the mirror since your insults directed at me personally apply only to your position, because you are clearly without any engineering experience since you think humans can sustain 8billion or more of us without fossil fuels. Good day.
Thank you as always for another detailed and thoughtful post!
Regarding Australia and climate change, here is a comment from an Australian on the Climate & Economy blog recently:
"I’m living in a better sheltered spot in the southern mountains, but years of warm “wet” is driving me nuts.. my whole life has been 5-10 years drought, followed by a year or two of wet…but this current “wet” is now 5 years and counting...the QLD floods are so bad because that huge northern aquifer basin is full, (I can remember not so long ago, that huge artesian groundwater aquifer was at “emergency low”) and has been for a few years now.. nowhere in the groundwater basins for the rainfall to go..
I can see all those desert salt lakes where land speed records are made and broken, like Lake Eyre, being permanently filled.. the hypothetical “inland sea” of the early explorers is becoming a reality..."
As for me, I live in a climate "safe haven" in the mountains of western North Carolina US. We were devastated last fall by the climate intensified Tropical Storm Helene. So much for climate haven!
As I follow Panopticon's posts, I get a much better idea of all the climate disruption going on around the world [I am a fan only]:
What about the idea that as times get rough, the most vicious will be the best able to hoard resources. The USA is still pretty militarily capable and its intelligence services are deadly. Its coercive abilities are to be feared. It’s location on north America away from the giant landmass of the old world and its ability to tower over its Canadian and South American neighbors and dominate them makes me think that it would be able to take what it wants more easily to sustain itself on the way down
Thanks for addressing a hotly debated subject in the survivalist community...I totally disagree with the priorities set forth in the set of criteria you are analyzing...
No.1 priority should be,,who lives there already, and will likely be around during the decline?New Zealand is a horrible choice because the Maori live there, and will survive...When the Maori invaded NZ 800 years ago, they slaughtered and ate the existing tribes...And they will eat you if there are shortages, cannibalism is in their DNA...Likewise most of Africa...
The No.2 issue anywhere is fresh water...Southern California will be a desert when it can't pipe in water from the north and east...Drought is a perpetual issue there, and the Colorado river water will not be available when the grid collapses...Most of the western US will be uninhabitable, or inhabitable by only small groups who control lake or river access...
As to the climate change contentions, no one knows what the climate will be in 50 or 100 years from now, and one major volcanic eruption could change everything...But living on any small island doesn't give you many options when things go south....it's to be avoided...
Living in a cold environment, with water, has the major advantage of lesser competition for resources and hunting...and if you are fully prepared, with food, firearms, and appropriate clothing, it's a very reasonable option...
Living in a wet southern climate has the disadvantages of more people, and more disease, which will be a problem when pharmaceuticals dry up...
In any survival community, you need a lot of serious people, because you will be attacked if you're prosperous...Prepare accordingly...
A civil war in a state like America or the UK I think would look like this: whoever controls the most military hardware wins almost instantly, and whoever this happens to be institutes total authoritarianism.
America is a very large country, and despite the mono-culture I think it would have the most 'diversity' in terms of groups that take power, with that power concentrating itself in certain regions. A civil war lead by grass-roots civilians I think is impossible: people are woefully dependent upon the state - even if they hate it - to provide the means and space for their material advancement, and obviously looking to your rag-tag neighbors to be able to save, build, or sustain even a zero-calorie version of that is a non-starter. Likely, I see people rallying around Generals who obtain control of military assets and pinning all of their hopes on them to save civilization.
Maybe on the border areas you will have more citizen lead groups with power, but they will be hopelessly poor and violent and also dependent upon what can be provided by the empowered elite around them. People who hoard and hope on survivalist modalities like underground shelters or small communities of like-minded survivors will be completely ran over almost instantly. Look more to Russia's civil war for what I think it will end up looking like - maybe 5-10 years of fighting, then whoever controls the biggest stick completely wins, but we will return to serfdom and slavery instead, since the energy needed to sustain the kind of society people live in now and expect will be impossible.
Immigration qualifications to enter New Zealand are very steep the last time I looked. You must have a needed skill or profession, relative youth, or lots of money; all three are best. Plug in your info at this page: https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-zealand-visas/explore-visa-options
That's well done by NZ, but when governments start to collapse, it won't matter much..You always need to have some bribe money available...
Well, New Zealand, which has two main islands folks, will let anyone with enough money instantly become a citizen, as Peter Thiel did. Our Western orientated government is creating "Gold" visas that allow non residents with money key residend rights.
Sorry for the above residend ,resident typo. More on Gold visas here. https://www.goldenvisas.com/new-zealand
We traveled the world with bikes, backpacks and 4 teenagers in 2005-2006, and I interviewed for a job in New Zealand. We bike toured the perimeter of the South Island, a long ride.
It was already "discovered", overpriced, and truly dependent upon imports, and with relatively low pay scales. We sadly concluded that Texas remained clearly better, even though we were very concerned under the Bush-II admin, and the Global War on Terror, with talk of a renewed draft.
Now we must also consider bad space weather with our planetary magnetic fields collapsing as magnetic poles shift:
Physicist Josh Mitteldorf: Magnetic Pole Shift is Happening (part 1) Some existential threats get more media attention than others https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/magnetic-pole-shift-is-happening-84d
Magnetic Pole Shift is Happening (part 2) Magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and climate https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/magnetic-pole-shift-is-happening
Under 4 minutes: The Sun Can Super Flare (Confirmed) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRcP8JI8rq4
I compiled some data on "the best places on Earth to live" for this poll that lends additional pertinent data to this post here:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/poll-of-the-month-if-you-were-given
A tropical climate near the ocean so it doesn't get too hot or cold. Where you can manage without heating and cooling. Where you can grow food year around. Where people traditionally work together instead of extrem individualism. Where you are part of a community that will look after all and share resources when needed.
Not tropical, but Mediterranean. Which is where we grew up.
But those areas are already well populated, and in a collapse, they will only want you if you have valuable skills they need....
I know an island which for most of the time is not very densely populated. Without ferries and aeroplanes it has plenty of room. Obviously, I’m not going to tell you where it is cause you might take my place ha ha.
And by Mediterranean I did not mean simply the shores of the Mediterranean just anywhere in the world which is warm, seasonal, temperate and reasonably easy to survive in. I think homo sapiens really got going, among other places, on the shores of what is now South Africa . Access to seafood moderate climate et cetera.
Compared to tempered areas, tropical ones tend to get extreme weather events : drought, floods, cyclones and so on. And have often poorer soil. Hence lower carrying capacity and population density.
So on the long term, it might be a good option. The problem is how the population density will be adjusted before that...
Re: "Compared to tempered areas, tropical ones tend to get extreme weather events : drought, floods, cyclones and so on. And have often poorer soil. Hence lower carrying capacity and population density."
True within the context of wilderness, but not necessarily true when you factor in humans serving the role of a keystone species (enriching tropical soils and increasing biodiversity while feeding themselves).
Ae you familiar with the term Terra Preta?
https://web.archive.org/web/20180816141812/https://returntonow.net/2018/08/01/the-amazon-is-a-man-made-food-forest-researchers-discover/
Yes, I've heard about this theory. It might be true to some extend. And there might be something to learn here regarding equatorial forest soil improvement.
But weather events will still take their toll every now and then while getting more violent with global warming.
Terra Preta is not a theory, it is a lived reality for many.
Also, what created it (coordinated multi-generational anthropogenic activity) is a replicable process using simple, widely accessible and free materials (that is a game changer).
Anthropologist William Balée argues that at least 12% of the Amazon was directly or indirectly created by humans using “Dark Earth.” Terra Preta (literally “black earth”) is a manmade soil of prehistoric origin that is higher in nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and calcium than adjacent soils. It controls water and reduces leaching of nutrients from the rhizosphere. Rich in humus, pieces of pre-Columbian unfired clay pottery, and black carbon, it’s like a “microbial reef” that promotes and sustains the growth of mycorrhizae and other beneficial microbes, and it has been shown to retain its fertility for thousands of years. In university trials, terra preta has increased crop yields by as much as 800 percent. It regrows itself when excavated.
William Devan, a geologist from the University of Wisconsin who is prominent in terra preta research, offers these comments: “The black terra preta is associated with long-enduring Indian village sites, and is filled with ceramics, animal and fish bones, and other cultural debris. The brown terra mulata, on the other hand, is much more extensive, generally surrounds the black midden soils, contains few artifacts, and apparently is the result of semi-intensive cultivation over long periods. Both forms are much more fertile than the surrounding highly weathered reddish soil, mostly oxisol, and they have generally sustained this fertility to the present despite the tropical climate and despite frequent or periodic cultivation. This is probably because of high carbon content and an associated high microbial activity which is self perpetuating.”
William I. Woods, a soil geographer at Southern Illinois University says terra preta covers a surface area in the Amazon equivalent to the size of France.
As Charles C. Mann wrote, in a piece that drastically changed the perception about native populations in the New World before contact, contrary to the popular isolated hunter-gatherer notions of natives, the New World was a highly advanced civilization that manipulated their environment on a large scale. He believed that humans were a keystone species—that is an animal that plays a crucial role in the functioning of an eco-system.
Charles C. Mann writes about terra preta, “Faced with an ecological problem, the Indians fixed it. The indians were in the process of terraforming the Amazon when Columbus showed up and ruined everything.”
For more info:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20210622043615/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0205-y?WT.feed_name=subjects_evolution
- https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1805259115
Food forests mitigate the damage of extreme weather events, stabilize rain patterns, protect the soil and build the soil.
For more information on the techniques used to create and measure permanently enriched anthropogenic soils (both in the tropics and in temperate zones) read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/june-and-julys-book-club-review-of
Interesting.
But as I said, soil quality is only one part of the problem. After all, tropical areas with rice cultivation were among the most densely populated even before industrial time. So it's not only about forested area.
And still climate models show that these areas will be particularly hard hit by the consequences of climate change.
For example, Tonga, with its warm climate and rich volcanic soil.
The social dynamics you describe have occurred in indigenous cultures globally (yes that includes Europe and Asia).
For an example of pre-colonial indigenous culture in Europe read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/decolonizing-st-patricks-day
Also, growing food year round is not required to eat healthily, many cultures in cool to cold climates have created food forests that fed (and can feed) them well despite longer winters.
https://www.science.org/content/article/pacific-northwest-s-forest-gardens-were-deliberately-planted-indigenous-people
We can plant the seeds for "a community that will look after all and share resources when needed" regardless of where we live on Earth, that is what this project is about:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/designing-bio-cultural-refugia
Thanks, B, for another excellent post. I boil it down to the basics: too many humans using too many nonrenewable natural resources and producing too much pollution, including GHG's, global heating, plastics from fossil fuel distillates, depleted agriculture, wars, etc. Michael Moore needs to produce a new feature: "Where To Run To Next?" It'll be a boxoffice hit! Have a blessed day/evening/life.
RE: "too many humans"
I address that misanthropic propaganda here in this post:
https://open.substack.com/pub/gavinmounsey/p/fertility-and-reproductive-health?r=q2yay&selection=f82e7aaf-3b01-44bc-89a9-22e1df6608ca&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web
Quantity of humans is not the problem, ecological illiteracy within any quantity of humans is the issue here.
Its not "misanthropic propaganda".
The human species is in absolute ecological overshoot.
http://paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328719303507
Quantity of humans is very much one of the key issues we are facing today.
The earth has never needed humans and it will be perfectly fine when the species that has absolutely trashed this planet for the last 8,000 years goes extinct.
I have elaborated extensively in my free online e-book PDF, “Stress R Us”, on the medical consequences of overpopulation/crowding/overconsumption leading to “overshoot”. You might wish to take a look before offering up your unscientific “opinion” piece.
I`ll address the fallacies you are promoting when I have more time. I have food forests to plant and that is more important than typing on computers to self-hating humans that lack the conviction to stand behind their beliefs.
I suppose you`ll tell me we should depopulate humans "humanely"? Is that like how they "humanely" depopulate cows in a factory farm? Or perhaps it involves vague programs that "educate" women?
I will actively subvert all anti-human agendas, and I am actively doing so with posts like this:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/fertility-and-reproductive-health
We are in a predicament not a problem with a solution. Any species that goes into absolute overshoot will crash back down to sustainable levels.
"Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change"
Is a seminal work.
Greeley Miklashek is not stating fallacies. Do not stipulate your opinions as fact.
I have studied ecology and overshoot.
I am just stating a fact.
Humans are in population overshoot. Whenever anyone responds by stating
"Well just kill yourself than" is admitting that they themselves have nothing of value to say.
It is also an act of violence.
The solution is to allow people to die of old age while not using expensive and modern technologies to extend lifespans longer than necessary and to keep births at no more than replacement levels.
Wes Jackson talks about this.
"An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the fate of humanity"
The article I referenced by John Gowdy discusses how the Holocene made agriculture possible which allowed for the explosion in the human population possible. The Pleistocene is our future. The Holocene was itself a blip.
It is not an "anti-human" agenda to point out facts nor is it a fallacy. Your unfounded opinions do not discount extensive research.
The hunter gather future is also a best case scenario. The extensive damage that humans have done to the planet during the Holocene may make even a modest hunter gather/forager lifestyle impossible.
You can not feed a population of 10 plus billion people on sustainable food practices. We are in absolute population overshoot. This is a fact. The only factor up for debate is by how much.
William Reese puts the sustainable population number at 1.7 to 2 billion.
He himself admits that this is an overly optimistic estimate.
I am not a white supremacist nor eugenicist. Race is itself nothing more than a social construct.
I have done my homework.
You are thinking like a Doctrine Of Discovery wielding imperialist in monoculture monotones. I do not advocate for "sustainable food practices" I live, design, install and empower people to replicate scalable regenerative food and medicine production systems.
Whining about violence while espousing and supporting it in your anti-human propaganda is nonsense.
You have not done your homework as you vaguely demonize humans as a whole without acknowledging that humans are capable of enriching biodiversity.
The limited reductionist thinking you have adopted that sees nature as separate from humans is what got us to where we are today.
While you moan about "overshoot" and look on humans as a disease, I will be creating bio-cultural refugia and helping families to increase the human population. I invite you to let go of your self-loathing and become part of the solution by using your gifts to create refugia in your own neck of the woods.
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/designing-bio-cultural-refugia
I have done my home work and I am not whining. You have not disproved or engaged with any of the subject material anyone here has provided. I am simply stating the fact that humans are in ecological overshoot. I have not engaged in any anti-human propaganda.
Again stating facts is not anti-human propaganda.
Humans are in overshoot. Any species that goes into overshoot crashes back down to sustainable levels.
The longer a species stays in overshoot. The greater the damage that is done and the sustainable population level is lowered.
I spoke of the Holocene and Pleistocene.
These are not anti-human propaganda.
"You have not done your homework as you vaguely demonize humans as a whole without acknowledging that humans are capable of enriching biodiversity."
I never did that. I am fully aware of the past 300,000 years of human history. Humans are capable of and lived as keystone species yes. Humans have also caused extinction events. Humans are capable of enriching biomes and causing extinctions. I do not see humans as separate from nature. Most of us on this sub stack acknowledge that the only truly form of sustainable living is that of the hunter gather/forager lifestyle.
The lifestyle that was lived for roughly 300,000 years.
You have constantly engaged in acts of defamation and espousing falsehoods while intentionally ignoring what I am saying.
Yes, the mindset that humans are separate from Nature is what got us into this mess.
A population reduction is a matter of ecological necessity to bring humans back in line with living sustainably with nature.
Overshoot is not propaganda nor a fallacy.
It is a fact that applies to all species.
Humans are in overshoot and Nature will correct this.
I am an anti-imperialist and opposed to monoculture farming, which is what gave rise to civilizations in the first place and started humans on the path to unsustainable living.
I am aware that there are indigenous peoples living throughout all regions of the world who are fighting to preserve their way of life.
I am aware of Wendigo. The mind virus.
B dedicated a whole article to it.
This whole sub stack is dedicated to the study of overshoot and that ties into ecology.
However, due to the polycrisis. See "The Great Simplification" that possible best case scenario might not even be possible.
You make false assumptions about the people here and whine when you get push back.
I do not advocate for the continuation of an unsustainable way of life that is destroying the planet.
Nor, however will I let the lie that humans are not in population overshoot go unchallenged.
Humans are not separate from Nature, and living with Nature also means adhering to the carrying capacity of the particular biome one finds oneself living in.
Some biomes are capable of supporting more than others.
"Go forth and multiply" is a key tenet of what got us into this mess.
Carrying capacity is ecology. It is not "anti-human" propaganda.
Probably the best piece of advice you gave in this article is the one about staying where you are because you are known.
When I first started thinking about this, over the past decade or so, I came to that same conclusion. I know this community, this community knows me, and we know what skills and resources we can contribute to the whole.
Ergo; collapse in place.
Annette
"staying where you are"
It depends.
I think it would be easier to make a list of the *worst* places to be in the coming collapse than to list the *best* places!
Given that everything is changing, it seems unlikely that whatever drew you to where you are is not going to be true after the fossil sunlight curve reverses direction.
For example, most people currently live in cities. I can't imagine being in a major metropolitan area to be advantageous, post-collapse. All the metrics cited in this article as being an advantage look really bad for big cities. But perhaps I simply lack imagination.
Also, I don't think being in any particular "country" can be an advantage, in an age of growing political dissent and polarization. It might be fair to say that few large countries that exist today will remain single entities into the future. Saying "the US" or "Russia" could be more or less advantageous won't make sense if the US or Russia fail to continue.
I think islands may be a good place to be.
They often harbour an ethic — perhaps facetious — of self-reliance. Such an ethic may be useful even after the ships and planes stop arriving. Island inhabitants have a greater sense of mutual reliance and sharing. That could mean that they're more willing to work within limits that the greater world is. So I support having New Zealand, Tasmania, and perhaps even Ireland on the list.
This could include "virtual islands" that are fairly isolated, such as anywhere in the US that is a significant distance from an Interstate Highway, or coastal areas anywhere that only have water access, and a decent growing climate into the future.
In short, it seem that the more isolated a population is, the more they value mutual reliance, which is going to be worth more than the "rugged individualism" meme that dominates human life today.
F
Mostly I like Greer but cannot see his future for us. Our downfall is moving much more rapidly than he envisions.
First thing first, depending on one's culture/religion and ethnic origins, some places might be much better than other. It might be sad to say, but in times of trouble, people tend to stick with and trust people who look and think like them. This is called social cohesion. Or what's left of it. So this list is definitely Western-oriented (not to say White).
But regardless of this, I will rather bet on places where access to some fossil fuel (or alternatively lot of wood) will still be possible. Even in much smaller volume than today. Of course, it doesn't mean that life will be nice for everyone but that some kind of organized society, that is at the bare minimum some kind of basic food security, might still exists. Some places by the Persian Gulf area or in China might not be so bad. At least during a while.
But actually, for someone of European ascent and for a second half of the century (of which I probably wouldn't see much) and onward, my bet would also be on Russia (1). Interestingly enough, it's indeed not on the list. Probably for some political correctness. But on the long term, it is definitely one of reason why it was so stupid for the Europeans to antagonize its population.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the USA are too big a place to say anything. The South and South West are quite probably doomed by either drought or flooding. But the Great Lakes area has probably some potential (2).
Also, in time of trouble, coastal areas are to be avoided. Notwithstanding sea level rise, as history demonstrated time and again, they are much to easily plundered by marauding sea-people. But isolated, hight latitudes and mountainous islands like New Zealand or Iceland might reverse to Maori or Viking life-style after all (with the necessary and probably painful adjustment of population density of course).
-
(1) See for exemple, Bruce Johnstone's novel "A Change in the Wind" to understand what I mean.
(2) BTW, JM Greer wrote about it in several of his novels and essays.
Sorry, that YouTube clip is a bunch of MAGA fascist nonsense.
Yes the UK is well into collapse and clearly has zero resilience to what's coming. But all that stuff about neighbourhoods where the police are scared to go and civil war is bonkers. You lose all credibility like this.
Was Genghis Khan able to conquer so much land due to the training and skills of his archer/horseman warriors, or simply because his empire consisted of flat plains and was easy to traverse? Europe, in contrast, with its relatively flat areas (aside from the Alps ) and accessible waterways, made it easy for armies to traverse, resulting in thousands of years of invasions back and forth by armies. Even the Vikings were able to reach far inland on their boats.
Contrast this to the isolation enjoyed by Switzerland or the durability of Afghanistan (able to fend off the USSR and the US). What about American Indians? Lots of warring and raiding between tribes on the plains and eastern forests, but fewer in the mountains? Lower population density as well.
Something about the mountains affords relative protection from raiding gangs and armies and therefore may be the best places to survive the long haul. Your stuff will be looted if things get really bad. I think Fast Eddy on his substack made a very good point about the futility of trying to prep too deeply. It will boil down to what you can defend.
It can even come down to what one knows how to do. What's in one's head, he can carry everywhere and trade it.
RE: "Your stuff will be looted if things get really bad. I think Fast Eddy on his substack made a very good point about the futility of trying to prep too deeply. It will boil down to what you can defend."
I disagree, that is anthropocentric, ecologically illiterate and Doctrine Of Discovery thinking (for reference: https://archive.org/details/doctrineofdiscovery ).
What survives collapse? What survives crisis? Community. What ever you give and contribute into your community and you generate that goodwill, and you generate those structures of taking care of each other and reciprocal (gift) relationships… that is an investment. That is a savings account that fires cannot burn and thieves cannot steal.
The best investment you can make is generosity, for only thing that cannot be taken from you is that which you give.
The thing about growing a garden and saving seed is that heirloom seeds are living beings and you always have more than enough for your own needs. Thus, the act of saving seed compels you to share your seeds and excess harvests with neighbors, developing symbiotic relationships and good will within that community which you live.
Now I could get into the reasons why even if we are talking about a hypothetical situation with mobs of callous, raging, thieving and pilfering neighbors, the choice to garden is still worth it purely due to number 23 on my list ( https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/25-reasons-you-should-start-a-garden ), but that would not address any people in the crowd that have more pragmatic (and perhaps self interested) atheistic concerns and priorities, so instead I will elaborate on how there are practical/pragmatic reasons why knowledge and skills related to food cultivation is more valuable than food stores, cryptocurrency, silver or cash (as they are accessible and applicable in and and all situations and cannot be taken from you.
So, here we are visualizing a post apocalyptic mad max type situation in which everyone has decided to behave like rabid selfish primates and they are stealing and thieving from their neighbor’s gardens (as silly as this is, some people think that is what human nature is when people get desperate as they have been watching lots of Hollywood psyops, so lets explore that hypothetical).
Even if the mobs of ravenous garden raiders stole all my crops from the garden, broke into my home and held me at gun point while they stole my pickled and freeze dried food stores I still have heirloom seeds which, after they leave, I could use both as emergency food and/or plant for a fast harvest microgreens garden.
Lets say they are super industrious and relatively intellectually well educated garden raiding and burglarizing thieves, and they steal all my heirloom seeds from in my house as well.
What then?
Well, first of all, people who are stealing from others, rather than cultivating and foraging for food in the first place are unlikely to be capable of recognizing the value of heirloom seeds, nor would they be likely to want to cultivate them, but lets say we are talking about some really unusually viscous and selfish thieves (that also have a green thumb). Okay, they took my seeds from in the house, but that still leaves the seeds I have outside in my living Soil Seed Bank.
That is the thing about permaculture design and regenerative gardening, along with saving seed inside, I also encourage the natural self-seeding processes that are part of the life cycle of my favorite and most nutritious crops (which means if you remove something from my garden, the sunlight will shine down on the mulch and compost layer, awakening an array of dormant seeds that always exist there). In a number of days I would have abundant microgreens to eat without any work. In a few weeks, I could have significant harvests to eat (also without any work).
Beyond the food security of my living soil seed bank (which is immune to thievery, well, unless the thieves arrived with an excavator to also steal my soil ) as stated above, I retain the knowledge and skills I have acquired through my choice to garden (knowledge and skills which are accessible and applicable in any and all situations, whether for planting another garden, or for plant identification and foraging outside the garden).
Now this brings me to something I brought up in reason # 𝟏𝟎 from my 25 reasons to start a garden in 2025 relating to the ubiquitous lack of plant identification skills and knowledge in most people in modern day urban industrialized western society.
We live in a time where most children in Canada and the US are capable of identifying over 1000 corporate logos, yet they can only identify less then 10 plant species.
I suspect that same lack of basic botanical awareness and plant literacy is equally reflected in the urbanized adult populations.
Part of my comment above was pertaining to food forest design.
If one was blessed to have enough space where they could begin to create a food forest one would essentially be creating a food production system that is camouflaged to most every day people in the western world. In a society where people can identify more corporate logos than they can plant species, a forest filled with a multi-layered food production system that seamlessly emulates a mature forest would be unrecognizable and essentially invisible to the mobs of lazy/desperate thieves and pilferers (that have a poverty of plant knowledge).
Thus, beyond all the factors that I mentioned above that make the choice to grow a regenerative garden in one’s yard a wise choice (regardless of outside circumstances) food forests, in and of themselves are resistant to thievery, due to the widespread poverty of eco-literacy in the modern western world.
This might be one of the most amazing things I've read in quite awhile. I'm one of the illiterate, but at least now you have me paying attention. True intelligence here, thanks for taking the time to post it.
Read https://open.substack.com/pub/dsimpson/p/metanoia-243?r=3ezew&utm_medium=ios for one version of what the UK might be facing. It’s just a story.
And FWIW I think Naxos ticks all the boxes.
There is quite a bit of inculcated Doctrine Of Discovery thinking ( https://archive.org/details/doctrineofdiscovery ) in this one.
Also, a lot of anthropocentrism, some coveting of modernity ( or "high end civilization" as you call it) and a fair bit of Stockholm syndrome flavored statist dogma.
You talk about "carrying capacity" of the land and minimum land required for producing food (and firewood/fibers etc) for one human but you are embracing the limited and ecologically illiterate thinking of a forest pillaging monoculture promoting Rockefeller when you vaguely reference "regenerative agriculture" (but then talk about it like a monoculture operation that requires tractors or draft animals to till the soil in a big open field). You seem to not know very much about regenerative agriculture (which is a relatively new term, invented by colonial people to describe something with much more ancient roots than their relatively young statist regimes).
What about the ancient food forests that exist on multiple continents? These food, medicine, firewood and fiber producing systems produce more food than any industrial agriculture system per hectare, and unlike open field monocultures, they do not reduce soil depth, and do not require fallow (letting fields lay dormant) but rather they increase soil depth year after year, create microclimates, protect and attract clean water and increase biodiversity while feeding humans.
-------------------------
I will quote some of your post below and address each thing you said point by point (my comment is too long so will have to be in two parts).
RE:
"we will witness the end of high-tech modernity pretty much everywhere — together with social mobility, democracy, accessible healthcare, cheap gadgets, job and food security"
For some thoughts on the nature of "modernity" listen to this https://youtu.be/qJ27uKrJLEs?si=us5ZEcxPv2nlr6kA (and read the book it is quoted from)
Social mobility ? You mean that hierarchical ladder where people measure their own worth (and other people's worth via how much fiat they can horde? You mean the measure of how much people have sold their soul for "matrix steak" (for reference: https://substack.com/@gavinmounsey/note/c-107206663 ). That construct represents a sickness of the mind. Within intact cultures, the social status of an individual is determined by the degree of which that person enriches the lives of his fellow beings (human and non-human) through acts of reciprocity, courage and generosity (and not by how much he takes from them and the commons and hordes).
Democracy is a form of involuntary governance, and all forms of involuntary governance are not only inherently immoral, they are also intrinsically ecologically degenerative. (For more on why that is the case, read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-involuntary-governance-structures ).
Accessible healthcare? You mean extorted tax payer funded Big Pharma racketeering operations? (for more info: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/exploring-the-true-nature-of-big ). Good riddance.
Cheap gadgets (no thanks, you can keep them) job and food security (make your job increasing your community's food security and tie that food security into a model that increases biodiversity and you have that problem solved.
----------------------------
"Without fossil fuels, herbicides and pesticides, let alone gene modified crops with artificially boosted productivity, we can also expect a return to much lower crop yields — even with the use of regenerative agriculture."
People were creating and tending food forests without fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides, GMOs and without enslaving animals to plow soil for millennia all over the planet. The "boosted productivity" you reference is Big Ag propaganda as the "food" it produced is actually laced with poison and depleted of minerals and vitamins due to abusive soil practices. Your understanding of the potential of Regenerative food production systems is lacking, you are thinking one dimensionally, like a soy bean farmer, think like a forest, like your ancestors did, and you will see a new world of possibility open up.
For information that can expand your understanding of what is possible within the real of regenerative food systems see:
- https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/regenerative-agriculture-solutionswatch
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/oak-nurturers-protectors-and-sovereign
- https://recipesforreciprocity.com/hickorytrees
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/paw-paw-asimina-triloba
– https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ancient-indigenous-forest-gardens-still-yield-bounty-150-years-later-study
– https://www.science.org/content/article/pacific-northwest-s-forest-gardens-were-deliberately-planted-indigenous-people
– https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2025047118
– https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.2806
– https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/132/4/835/7277223
– https://web.archive.org/web/20120408154238/http://www.daviesand.com/Papers/Tree_Crops/Indian_Agroforestry/index.html
– https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/what-is-permaculture-food-forests?
– https://web.archive.org/web/20180816141812/https://returntonow.net/2018/08/01/the-amazon-is-a-man-made-food-forest-researchers-discover/
– https://www.sdvforest.com/agroforestry/the-fascinating-story-of-human-made-forests?fbclid=IwAR3OVHhCywwzOiCSBMWyk6_Bdy_q-GRRN2N7-525iqdnYmc_BqtKeyu6Wz4
– https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art6/
– https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26395916.2022.2160823
– https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.1601282
– https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440322000693
– https://www.sdvforest.com/agroforestry/the-fascinating-story-of-human-made-forests
-----------------------------------
"In post fossil fuel, post industrial world, we would also need to reserve forested areas to harvest firewood, and fence off grazing land for draft animals (2). Heating and animal draft power would thus increase the per capita agricultural land needed to keep a person warm and well fed to 1.75 acres or 0.7 hectares at best — an almost tenfold increase from its current value of 0.086. (One hectare equals to 2.47 acres.) Yes, fossil fuels have not only made agricultural work more productive, but has freed up and made a lot of land accessible to grow even more crops and feed even more people. "
Nope, you are still thinking one dimensionally and like a colonizing conquistador, forests can provide multiple gifts simultaneously (while remaining intact ecosystems, increasing biodiversity, soil depth and beauty).
I offer info on one model used by the Maya people in this post: https://open.substack.com/pub/gavinmounsey/p/sopa-de-lima-yucatan-style-lime-tortilla?r=q2yay&selection=204e881c-fa76-4822-abf3-bc1da731eab7&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web
(there are many models for regenerative agroforestry, the Mipla is only one).
(continued in another comment below..)
(..Continued from comment above)
"Now, consider also that we would have to rotate land in and out of use to regenerate the soil"
Again, nope, that statement is based on archaic and ecologically illiterate colonial thinking. We can farm land while simultaneously enriching soil, biodiversity and carrying capacity. Look to the links above and think like your ancestors rather than a resource hungry capitalist and you will find that biomimicry withing farming resolves this dissonance and skewed perception you shared above.
---------------------------------
"There are very few, if any, truly self sufficient states around the world."
True, again, I will refer you to listen to/read "Why Involuntary Governance Structures are Not Compatible with The Permaculture Ethical Compass"
https://youtu.be/AVa0OGkgd8E?si=Z3UJ3H51ME4nYYac
----------------------------------
"Europe already imports a third of its energy — at an ever higher price — while renewables failed to provide the kind of power needed to maintain a high-end civilization."
This is what it costs to perpetuate your "high end civilization"
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/indigenous-european-land-defenders
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/death-by-a-thousand-clearcuts
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/an-introduction-to-a-new-series-befriending
It is actually a very adolescent squandering of humanity's gifts, and not advanced in any meaningful way, for more info on why read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-spiritual-poverty-of-statism )
The "civilization" you seem to covet is in fact an expression of a spiritual sickness, some have called it "Wendigo". Clinging to its comforts and disposable pleasures rather than learning to forge alliances with the land where you live is a choice that will cost you dearly. We have all been raised to be brainwashed by this thing called "civilization" ( for more on why that is the case watch: https://youtu.be/fYVBjgHRmus?si=X2O54Y6TVftgHmug ).
For more on the spiritual sickness I refer to, watch: "Wendigo Thinking, The Path Of The Sacred Warrior and the Reclamation Of Our Indigeneity"
https://youtu.be/oT1j3WVfBKQ?si=8cfO-chmL4maJsN-
-----------------------------------
"Western societies have become completely atomized over the past half a century. Personal greed and individualism has gone on a rampage."
This view seems to portray that at one time "democracies" were just and functioned for the betterment of humanity. That is a fallacy. Even if you want to tell me that people living within colonial "democratic" statist regimes were "less atomized" 50 years ago, I would also like to remind you that the cohesion brought about by the statist regimes (and their systems of indoctrination, blackmail, coercion and profitable mass murder) was used to perpetuate the war racket. Thus, having a more cohesive group of brainwashed people willing to kill and be killed for war racketeers is not necessarily something you should hope can be revitalized.
For more info read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/lest-we-forget-war-is-still-a-racket
----------------------------
"Diminishing returns are everywhere: the more we spend on science and technology the more complex and energy hungry things become with less and less benefit provided to society."
Diminishing returns if you think like a Wendigo yes, but that is not our only choice.
When we recognize the abundance around us, and take steps to steward and enrich it (rather than extract it for "science and technology") we can potentiate increasingly abundant "returns" (it is just they do not take the form of tesla cars, smart phones and skyscraper canyons filled with social media addicted ecologically illiterate people).
For more on that read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-anthropocentrism-bright
-----------------------------
"The gap between the poor and rich has reached unsustainable levels (especially in the West). Former democracies have turned into a rule of the rich, by the rich and for the rich, aka oligarchies."
Colonial statist regimes have always been oligarch dominated, it is just in recent decades the oligarchs have become more brazen and audacious in flouting their ability to bend politicians to their will than was the case in prior centuries/decades.
For more info: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/in-pursuit-of-an-antidote-for-parasites
-----------------
"An ageing population and a lack of births. Is this any wonder? Falling living standards, a lack of vision for the future, constant anxiety, industrial pollution disrupting our endocrine system, do I need to continue?"
Yes you do, you left out accounting for these realities:
- “Sowing the GMO Seeds of Depopulation”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/sowing-the-gmo-seeds-of-depopulation-2/5450801
- “The Forced Sterilisation of Indigenous Women in Canada: A Long History of State Violence”
https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/the-forced-sterilisation-of-indigenous-women-in-canada-a-long-history-of-state-violence
- “Genealogy of a Controversy: Development of an Anti-Fertility Vaccine”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4408968
- “Development of immunological methods of fertility regulation” (by the WHO)
https://infertilitymovie.org/wp-content/uploads/development-of-immunological-methods-of-fertility-regulation.pdf
- “Structured Vaccines for Control of Fertility”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-2723-3_9
- “A vaccine that prevents pregnancy in women”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.91.18.8532
- “Catholic Doctors Claim UN Aid Groups Sterilized 1 Million Kenyan Women With Anti-Fertility-Laced Tetanus Vaccinations”
https://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-doctors-claim-un-aid-groups-sterilized-1-million-kenyan-women-with-anti-fertility-laced-tetanus-vaccinations-129819/
- “FOI reveals Pfizer and Medicine Regulators hid the dangers of Covid-19 Vaccination during Pregnancy because Study found it increases risk of Birth Defects & Infertility”
https://expose-news.com/2022/05/05/pfizer-hid-dangers-covid-vaccination-pregnancy/
- "The Complete History of Depopulation Vaccines"
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-complete-history-of-depopulation
- "Japan is Committing Harakiri (But So Is Everybody Else)"
https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/japan-is-committing-harakiri-but
In reality, it is not just the EDCs and stress, there is also a concerted effort to cripple human fertility being perpetrated by a range of psychopaths.
I provide viable solutions to that problem here:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/fertility-and-reproductive-health
------------------------------
"The great unraveling of this high tech civilization will arrive everywhere, but not according to a predictable plan and not from one day to the next. No one can tell where the safest place will be. In fact you are far better off at a place you already know and where you are known. If you move, there is no guarantee others will open their doors for you, or won’t look at you suspiciously once the turd hits the fan there. The best thing we can do at the moment is to educate ourselves and prepare to weather the storm when it arrives. "
On this we can agree, community, symbiotic connections within community (to not just humans but also non-human beings we depend on) is true resilience that no "bug out bag" or "bug out off grid destination" can provide.
I elaborate on some the dynamics regarding how Gift Thinking ("gift economies") of non statist and non fiat currency based cultures enhance that community resilience in this post:
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/embracing-the-gift-economy-as-an
I discuss and address black pilled worst case scenario fears regarding staying in one place and tending the earth in this interview:
- https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/the-revolution-will-involve-fermented
-------------------
I will be assessing whether or not you are indeed an "honest sorcerer" based on your response (or lack thereof) to this comment and making choices accordingly going forward.
I hope you will take the time to read what I have linked and respond to each point when you have time. Thank you for evoking these truths to be expressed through your post.
What is the maximum global carrying capacity (i.e. how many humans) of a) "regenerative agriculture" c/w our b) current fossil fuelled agriculture carrying capacity of more than 8 billion people?
If a) is less than b) then how do we migrate from b) to a)?
Hi Natasha,
There is a problem with your question. It is formulated based on black and white reductionist thinking that looks at humans like soul-less machines lacking free will.
The global carrying capacity of the living Earth for devout statists and proponents of bright green environmentalism is zero (as all involuntary governance structures are inherently ecologically degenerative, immoral and they attract as well as breed psychopaths. For more info on why that is the case read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-involuntary-governance-structures )
Bright green environmentalists and techno-optimists (people that prioritize the perpetuation of industrial civilization over the integrity of the biosphere and they like to use greenwashing terms like "sustainable" a lot to describe their ground water poisoning lithium mines and clearcut forest replacing solar farms) are similarly inherently on a path to turn the living biodiverse Earth into more cities, gadgets and digital disposable pleasures). For more info, read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-anthropocentrism-bright
The carrying capacity of the living Earth for ecologically literate, ancestrally aware, place based wisdom grounded, humble, determined and courageous humans willing to see nature as their teacher however, is yet to be reached. Many cultures in the past used their growing population as a benefit to the ecosystems they lived within. These indigenous people called many corners of the Earth home. You have indigenous ancestors too (though you may have never taken the time to learn about them). Their wisdom can empower you to become a force for regeneration and a steward within the ecosystem that supports you. Within that pathway of knowledge and action, the presence of humans in an ecosystem actually increases the carrying capacity of that ecosystem to support myriad non-human beings.
For proven examples of what I am talking about, read these:
– https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ancient-indigenous-forest-gardens-still-yield-bounty-150-years-later-study
– https://www.science.org/content/article/pacific-northwest-s-forest-gardens-were-deliberately-planted-indigenous-people
– https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2025047118
– https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.2806
– https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/132/4/835/7277223
– https://web.archive.org/web/20120408154238/http://www.daviesand.com/Papers/Tree_Crops/Indian_Agroforestry/index.html
– https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/what-is-permaculture-food-forests?
– https://web.archive.org/web/20180816141812/https://returntonow.net/2018/08/01/the-amazon-is-a-man-made-food-forest-researchers-discover/
– https://www.sdvforest.com/agroforestry/the-fascinating-story-of-human-made-forests?fbclid=IwAR3OVHhCywwzOiCSBMWyk6_Bdy_q-GRRN2N7-525iqdnYmc_BqtKeyu6Wz4
– https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art6/
– https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26395916.2022.2160823
– https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.1601282
– https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440322000693
– https://www.sdvforest.com/agroforestry/the-fascinating-story-of-human-made-forests
---------------
So, the answer is, within the context of a culture that is aware of it's sacred responsibility to the living Earth and a culture that is cultivating the gifts of the humans within it to initiate Trophic Cascade effects in the ecosystem, a is more than b.
For info on my efforts to nudge cultures in that direction and co-create entirely new ones, read:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/designing-bio-cultural-refugia
Hi Gavin,
My question was simply designed to discover how many humans you believe your "culture nudges" could support if they were ever fully realised.
There is a problem with your answer if you think more than 35 to 100 million, let alone the current ~8billion humans could be supported by creating "sacred responsibility" once fossil fuel supplies are exhausted.
http://paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html
You are obviously involved with some sort of dogmatic religious belief system and not interested in looking at the real world examples that show what you just stated with regards to numbers is nonsense.
I wish you all the best with your faith in the "sustainable development" religion.
https://open.substack.com/pub/gavinmounsey/p/the-revolution-will-involve-fermented?r=q2yay&selection=62c5debc-1d5a-49d8-897a-276290b3cccd&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web
I will not be joining any death cults myself, rather, I am interested in being in service to life and getting to work helping it to thrive.
So, without industrial fossil fueled agriculture the Earth can sustainably and indefinitely provide food for 10+ billion humans and even more so?
Infinite growth on a finite planet is nonsense and a fallacy.
We do have real world examples to draw from.
Monoculture agriculture began in earnest roughly 8,000 years ago.
The sustainable number of humans is pre monoculture.
The study of sustainability is not a religion.
"Within that pathway of knowledge and action, the presence of humans in an ecosystem actually increases the carrying capacity of that ecosystem to support myriad non-human beings."
Up to a point.
Nothing can grow indefinitely, including carrying capacity.
Our indigenous ancestors exploited their niches to the maximum and pushed their populations to what their particular biome could sustainably support.
They also employed the take over method where you increase your own population by taking over the food stocks of another.
Such as pushing out wolves or taking over grasslands from ruminants.
You're posts sound like a dogmatic religion advocating for ever more population growth.
Gavin, Please look in the mirror since your insults directed at me personally apply only to your position, because you are clearly without any engineering experience since you think humans can sustain 8billion or more of us without fossil fuels. Good day.
Thank you as always for another detailed and thoughtful post!
Regarding Australia and climate change, here is a comment from an Australian on the Climate & Economy blog recently:
"I’m living in a better sheltered spot in the southern mountains, but years of warm “wet” is driving me nuts.. my whole life has been 5-10 years drought, followed by a year or two of wet…but this current “wet” is now 5 years and counting...the QLD floods are so bad because that huge northern aquifer basin is full, (I can remember not so long ago, that huge artesian groundwater aquifer was at “emergency low”) and has been for a few years now.. nowhere in the groundwater basins for the rainfall to go..
I can see all those desert salt lakes where land speed records are made and broken, like Lake Eyre, being permanently filled.. the hypothetical “inland sea” of the early explorers is becoming a reality..."
As for me, I live in a climate "safe haven" in the mountains of western North Carolina US. We were devastated last fall by the climate intensified Tropical Storm Helene. So much for climate haven!
As I follow Panopticon's posts, I get a much better idea of all the climate disruption going on around the world [I am a fan only]:
"https://climateandeconomy.com/2025/04/12/12th-april-2025-todays-round-up-of-climate-news/
What about the idea that as times get rough, the most vicious will be the best able to hoard resources. The USA is still pretty militarily capable and its intelligence services are deadly. Its coercive abilities are to be feared. It’s location on north America away from the giant landmass of the old world and its ability to tower over its Canadian and South American neighbors and dominate them makes me think that it would be able to take what it wants more easily to sustain itself on the way down
Here in Kanada, WE are quite literally replaced by our own "Establishment" aka Government !!!!
Thanks for addressing a hotly debated subject in the survivalist community...I totally disagree with the priorities set forth in the set of criteria you are analyzing...
No.1 priority should be,,who lives there already, and will likely be around during the decline?New Zealand is a horrible choice because the Maori live there, and will survive...When the Maori invaded NZ 800 years ago, they slaughtered and ate the existing tribes...And they will eat you if there are shortages, cannibalism is in their DNA...Likewise most of Africa...
The No.2 issue anywhere is fresh water...Southern California will be a desert when it can't pipe in water from the north and east...Drought is a perpetual issue there, and the Colorado river water will not be available when the grid collapses...Most of the western US will be uninhabitable, or inhabitable by only small groups who control lake or river access...
As to the climate change contentions, no one knows what the climate will be in 50 or 100 years from now, and one major volcanic eruption could change everything...But living on any small island doesn't give you many options when things go south....it's to be avoided...
Living in a cold environment, with water, has the major advantage of lesser competition for resources and hunting...and if you are fully prepared, with food, firearms, and appropriate clothing, it's a very reasonable option...
Living in a wet southern climate has the disadvantages of more people, and more disease, which will be a problem when pharmaceuticals dry up...
In any survival community, you need a lot of serious people, because you will be attacked if you're prosperous...Prepare accordingly...
A civil war in a state like America or the UK I think would look like this: whoever controls the most military hardware wins almost instantly, and whoever this happens to be institutes total authoritarianism.
America is a very large country, and despite the mono-culture I think it would have the most 'diversity' in terms of groups that take power, with that power concentrating itself in certain regions. A civil war lead by grass-roots civilians I think is impossible: people are woefully dependent upon the state - even if they hate it - to provide the means and space for their material advancement, and obviously looking to your rag-tag neighbors to be able to save, build, or sustain even a zero-calorie version of that is a non-starter. Likely, I see people rallying around Generals who obtain control of military assets and pinning all of their hopes on them to save civilization.
Maybe on the border areas you will have more citizen lead groups with power, but they will be hopelessly poor and violent and also dependent upon what can be provided by the empowered elite around them. People who hoard and hope on survivalist modalities like underground shelters or small communities of like-minded survivors will be completely ran over almost instantly. Look more to Russia's civil war for what I think it will end up looking like - maybe 5-10 years of fighting, then whoever controls the biggest stick completely wins, but we will return to serfdom and slavery instead, since the energy needed to sustain the kind of society people live in now and expect will be impossible.