I’m not sure if any of that was directed at me or not. I’m not trying to strike fear into hearts or heighten emotions unnecessarily. These are just “issues” that I foresee having relevance to what we are supposedly preparing for (accurately or no), and I wanted to know if anyone out there could provide me with perspective. Or maybe there are others who have the same questions that I have. I thought maybe collectively we could come up with a description of our environment in a post-crash scenario. (It won’t ever look the same, hence “irreversible effects”.) Is this not an appropriate topic of discussion in this section? ???
as opposed to yelling for yourself? ???
The Story of B is what I have found to be largest reason why internet people are moving towards a thing, for lack of a better word, that is a belief structure that everything is alive. (animism). The spreading of that message was the only thing people could do for a long time. Still, with one foot in and one foot out of the Northern Dream, that is all we are doing here, dreaming of a new Dream.
Having an international dream for so long makes one lose perspective as to how one can even go about creating a personal dream.
I thought maybe collectively we could come up with a description of our environment in a post-crash scenario.
Unless you have a scrying master, don’t attempt such things. You cannot know the difference between the truth and lies in the spirit world without a proper teacher and ally. Even those who attempt to see the future know that they are seeing a projection of yesterday and today, a straight line from two points. And life, is anything but, a straight line…
You are more than proper to ask and speak in any manner you choose (as long as you play nice?), but you cannot be so easily defeated. Your words sound like a beaten child who feels as if their master is disappointed. Speak as if both of your feet are on the ground and you are standing tall. If you cannot bring yourself to speak in this manner, then listen until you learn to speak from your throat.
I thought maybe collectively we could come up with a description of our environment in a post-crash scenario
I tend to do this a lot in my locale. While, of course, you can never know exactly what will happen, I think that giving consideration to various possibilities makes a lot of sense.
I look around at the various farms and factories (some fall into both categories) and wonder things like:
What will happen to those cows when the rancher dies? Will they break the fences and go feral? Will hungry hunters shoot them? Or will the rancher survive and guard them mercilessly with booby traps?What will happen with that factory? What kind of toxins do they leach into the ground and water right now, and how will that intensify when nobody runs the place anymore?
I also sit not too far from the Russellville nuclear reactor. I don’t even know how to begin to think about that place.
[quote=“WildeRix, post:14, topic:454”]I look around at the various farms and factories (some fall into both categories) and wonder things like:
[quote]What will happen to those cows when the rancher dies? Will they break the fences and go feral? Will hungry hunters shoot them? Or will the rancher survive and guard them mercilessly with booby traps?
[/quote][/quote]
hmm, i spend more time wondering:
What will that farmer do when all his cows have died from famine/drought? Will he be more open to encouraging his fields to support more wild game? Will he stubbornly stick out the lifestyle he's always known?
good point, jhereg.
What will that farmer do when all his cows have died from famine/drought? Will he be more open to encouraging his fields to support more wild game? Will he stubbornly stick out the lifestyle he's always known?
In my experience, it depends on the farmer.
I know some who are willing to adapt to change, and some who aren’t.
In the past 10 years, the ones who have changed are better off. I know a lady near my parents’ place who raises totally organic, free range chickens and turkeys (she just could not compete in the same market as factory farms any more), and she’s doing very well for herself. She can barely keep the birds on the shelf … I mean … in the coop … I mean, out on the lawn. 
Then there are the stubborn ones. The ones who put somber, black and white ads on TV like:
“Please don’t support the environmental law being considered in the state senate. It hurts us little guys. It will make it more costly to run our family farm, and we have a hard enough time putting food on the table as it is… blah blah blah” with a visual attempt at heartstring-tugging: the farmer’s family, stoic and forlorn. Paid for by the Association of blah blah blah.
I want to say, ‘wake up! You are being edged out by corporate farms and suburban sprawl, not environmental laws. Switch to a niche market; switch to organic; don’t try to be a player in the nearly fully-corporatized market. Look at what your neighbors are doing.’
{/rant}
yeah, exactly. it’s a real question, and there’s no forgone conclusion.
the power of tradition in the area is pretty strong, but i’ve noticed that permaculture interest has picked up quite a bit in the last year. i remain optimistic, but, it’s a very real question as to which way the farmers in my area are going to go…
Damn, Tonyz. It’s a good point that we should remember that rewilding isn’t about collapse, and that we’d want to rewild even if civilization never collapsed, but sharing that point and trying to kill speculation about a post-crash world are 2 different things. Yes, all talk about the future is speculation, but it’s useful speculation, and it doesn’t have to “come true” to serve a purpose. One of science fiction’s best writers once said that science fiction isn’t about predicting the future but preventing it.
bullets and metal aren’t going away. I have friends who reload their own brass in their basement. People will probably be hunting with rifles for a very, very long time. The fear that hunters will overhunt game is valid, but the idea that it is government regulation would prevent them from doing so (or does) is civ thinking. Think of all the wildlife that keeps wandering into the cities and suburbs. People talk about them as being lost, of needing to go back to their habitat, but they are really trying to return to their homes. Nowadays they are driven off, captured or killed, but in the future, maybe not?
Anyway, those bullets are likely to be used on people as much as deer during civ’s death throes. I imagine “conservationists” getting laws passed that make poaching punishable by death, and forest rangers being armed with assault rifles. After all, it’s the king’s dear.
At present, a great many people respect the DNR’s rules (or at least abide by them). So, at present, I think government does prevent ppl from overkilling. It’s not civ thinking, it’s an observation of others following a government’s rules.
But if it ever comes down to it, then of course the DNR would effectively disappear, even as it tries to maintain its authority. And then … who knows. I’m just saying that a sufficient lot of people know how to kill deer with rifles.
Anyway, those bullets are likely to be used on people as much as deer during civ's death throes.
Reminds me of this (from my favorite comic artist (and I do mean artist)): http://catandgirl.com/view.php?loc=411
Ha! 
(I’m so morbid sometimes…)
You think THAT’s Morbid?
It seems equally likely it could go either way, but I hope that the deer in the really out of the way places, the “open” areas of the map, will be able to repopulate when unregulated, and thus fill in for the deer closer to civ who get hunted. It’s just a hope, though, not a prediction.
Although this weekend I learned that bear are becoming more common in Missouri, so much so that bearbag rules are beginning to be required. If my home state can suddenly become bear country, I think the deer can find safe lands.
One of science fiction's best writers once said that science fiction isn't about predicting the future but preventing it.
This is a great clincher to a point of view, because it shows at the same time three things. The validity of both pessimism and optimism, the validity of speculation, and the very need for both things. However, I suggest to you that there has to be a better model to ‘prevent the future’ that collapse fantasy.
I’m waking up from a long sleep(figuratively) and I have so much to say right now, I’m sorry I’m not cohesive, yet.
But I ask you, how do we constructively build models in our mind to play with, so that they are more like science fiction, and seem less, for a lack of a better word ‘inevitable’. Or, maybe a better way to ask, how do you help people and avoid playing the role of chicken little?
Just as people are willing to take the command and control out of the english language, how do we learn to speak with less certainty but with more clarity?
perhaps;
I imagine "conservationists" getting laws passed that make poaching punishable by death, and forest rangers being armed with assault rifles.
One could say hey, it’s just MY point of view. It seems to get us off the hook from trying to be future dogmatists, but I have spent a lot of time doing that, and I feel worse off by it.
I think one of the ‘irreversible effects of civilization’ is horticulture and zooculture. I think we need to find it in our wild hearts how those two things come from a wild, hunting and gathering existence. And how it’s okay that some people are choosing that. In fact, it’s the only choice, as people have so keenly discerned. Most will not learn to fire a weapon or kill a deer; specialization in many ways, I’m afraid to say(but will, anyway) is here to stay. With zooculture, a few can provide the protein needs for many. The few cannot provide for the many with hunting; it’s impractical and energy intensive for a small group of hunters to come back with enough food to sustain large groups.
I would love to see cultured animals become more wild as the gates of their pens are opened up, but I do not believe that humans will simply switch from beef to venison. I believe cowboys will make a comeback. Herding isn’t particularly Native American, but it is human.
Right now in Indiana, we have too many deer, and not enough hunters. The licensing isn’t prohibitive, and each county has their own bag limit, where some counties allow a few anterless deer; some counties allow as many as eight! HUnting s cheaper and easier than it has ever been.
I am more afraid of being ‘judged’ by the enormous amount of city-dwelling vegetarians than the deer running out.
Out of many things and people E-Prime rings in my ears as one for me. 
I can tell that this is one of your fundamental qualms about this thread. I’ve explained that I’m not scaremongering, not intentionally, nor, I believe, in effect (for the most part). I’m just trying to size up the present situation and how it will impact the future, with the help of others who want to do the same (after all, aren’t we here to help each other, whether it’s sharing thoughts, lending validation and support, or offering information about wilderness survival skills?).
Look, there are some who believe civ will collapse, just as there are others who don’t believe it and others yet (myself among them) who are pretty sure we can’t know what will happen.
I think that we can state some facts (without getting into epistemological or metaphysical nuances, please…). It’s a fact that people have built nuclear power plants. It’s a fact that without regular maintenance, those plants can be deadly. (Har har, Little Shop of Horrors… Feed me, Stanley! … moving on…) And it’s true that in a hypothetical post-crash rewilded world, (which is, I believe, the kind of world that many people on this board try to imagine from time to time), those power plants will still be here, and they will be dangerous. THAT is “inevitable”: that we have this legacy (among many), no matter how our lives and societies are structured in the future.
Yes, I am concerned about civ’s legacy (whether it crashes or not)–because I think we could do much better. Not panicking, but concerned, in a way that prompts me to speculate, to reach for kernels of truth, preferably with the help of others who are also so inclined. I believe the results of such (collective) speculation could be (collectively) useful, so I am quite serious about this and I’m not merely doing this as an exercise or for entertainment.
Lastly, “concern” doesn’t translate to “Oh god, it’s hopeless, we’re screwed, the sky is falling.” Am I chicken-little hasty for stating a feeling? That feeling has meaning to me, and only until you can accept that a person is justified in feeling this way and expressing it honestly, I’m afraid there is a wall between us. You are in no postion to authoritatively ascribe your own meanings to what I say and why I say it. I say precisely what I mean.
And precisely, you end up saying nothing.
My rewilding efforts ground themselves in the spiritual truths I experience on a regular basis. My experience is validated through the consistency and constancy of my vision, my allies, and the infinite-oneness. My feelings mean nothing to the technicolor reality.
Rewilding to me is western repackaging of Taoism, and I’m willing to play along because it forges a connection between my background in my outdoors training and philosophical truth.
Rewilding is Capital T Capital W “The Way”. How does it resonate with fantasies and feelings and misappropriations? People have been protesting civilization since the first lock and key were forged. Back then, there were places to ‘walk away to’. You don’t know about any protestors until the Cynics because most people who reconnected with ‘The Way’ simply dropped out.
What I advocate is nothing short of a spiritual awakening for all humans and sentient life. Because even many ‘wild’ animals have begun to ‘look up to us’ to try and understand what is going on around them. The squirrel and the cow and the chicken are in is bad of a need for ‘rewilding’ as we humans.
I’m sorry if make you or anyone else uncomfortable. I make myself uncomfortable, all the time. But I’m willing to do that, to share with people what I know they have already experienced, even if they aren’t willing to talk about it, yet.
I probably sound like a crazy at worst and pompous and self-important at best to the spiritually bereft. It not that we lack capacity, we lack clarity. Our minds are clouded with sugar and time.
As meaningless as all feelings are, they are still completely valid, but if you are willing to expand your understanding of history, you’ll notice people have been praying for collapse at the very beginning. Those willing to teach civilization something new have endured. Thank you, Martin Luther. Thank you Martin Luther King. Those unwilling to engage the cultural cloud positively and result to force of the body or mind have, obviously, failed and perished.
No one person has the power to pull the plug, but each of us have the power to shape the future. You lose that power when you give it away to your oppressor. You regain the power when you swim sideways to the shore, not when you swim upstream to the source at the top of the mountain. We already see what happens to those who ‘go with the flow’.
Even nuclear plants can’t keep life down:
In Wormwood Forest: A Natural History of Chernobyl (October 2005, Joseph Henry Press), journalist Mary Mycio vividly describes an extraordinary¿and at times unearthly¿new ecosystem that is flourishing in this no-man's land, with radiation too intense for people to live there safely.Ten years after the Chernobyl disaster, journalist Mary Mycio made her first trip to the Chernobyl region. Equipped with dosimeter [describe what this is used for] and protective gear, Mycio set out to explore the world’s only radioactive wilderness environment and the defiant local residents who remained behind to survive and make their lives in the Zone."
She discovered a wilderness teeming with large animals, more than before the nuclear disaster and many of them members of rare and endangered species. Like the forests, fields, and swamps of this unexpectedly inviting habitat, both the people and animals are radioactive. Cesium-137 is packed in their muscles and strontium-90 in their bones. But, quite astonishingly, they are also thriving.
If anything, it appears to me that nuclear facilities will be one of the last remaining areas where wildlife are safe; and are likely to be strong vectors creating leaps and bounds in the evolution that christian ‘lion laying with lamb’ theology tries to suppress.
Look, let’s not get into a squabble about our feelings, because we’re both going to lose. If all we only communicate how we’ve been slighted, we’ll only back ourselves against an indefensible wall of things we we need to let go in order to survive as we pursue The Way.
I want to love you, and it’s going to take a while for all of us to get to know each other. Let’s be full-frontal, let’s explore new ways of being and communicating for ourselves and with each other. My goal is to find greater strength and clarity of vision. Do you think there is a way that you can help me? How can I help you?
mostly, i just remind myself that everyone i know is fated to die and that “Life on Earth” will go on with us. not saying there isn’t a lot that can do here & now (there is), but it’s one way to “take the edge” off the sometimes overwhelming panic.
then, too, there’s:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
granted, i’m generally over my anger at christianity (and very much over my anger at christ), so, this may be more useful for me than others here…
ha! if only i knew how to do this. seems like a real stumbling block for us.
yeah, deer populations are way out of whack in ohio, too. and, again, too few hunters. i went down to kentucky this past weekend to see some family, and on this one particular stretch along i-75, we saw 10 deer (all alive), all young-ish (i would say 2 born this year, the rest born last year) and at least half borderline underfed.
OTOH, if everyone started eating deer, that would change in a hurry, but, still, we’ve got to find a better balance with deer.
Tony:
I’ve gotten in trouble for saying this on other boards all the time, but if you don’t think the discussion is valuable, don’t bother with it. Some of us do find value in it, and I’d rather talk about our speculations than talk about the validity of speculation. I thank you for your insight, but maybe let us do our thing?
The one thing you see in most survivalist fantasies is the mobs of city folk rampaging through the countryside looking for food. The fear is that they’ll descend violently down on folks in their survival cabins and steal their years of hoarded supplies, or that they’ll eat every edible thing, scouring the landscape.
Historically, it seems far more likely that city people, when the food stops comiang in, will start by demanding the government do something. When the government doesn’t, they’ll start violently protesting. They’ll smash property, they’ll loot stores and other public places. Then when there’s nothing left, some of them will start eating the weeds and the animals and maybe each other. But they won’t leave the city, not in large numbers. They’ll keep thinking “it’ll get better.”, few will make a paradign shift, and even those who do, few will even consider leaving for the countryside. It simply won’t occur to them that the countryside will be any better. After all, it’s farther away from civilization, how much longer will it take for help to get out there? Few modern people have the stomach for directly taking responsibility for their own survival. Most probably don’t even consider it possible.
Not to mention food taboos and a lack of education.
If food becomes an issue, for the most part, people seem to quietly starve rather than become unruly mobs.
I have to agree with Andrew here. I enjoy reading some of what you have to share, Tony, but comments like the above don’t indicate an actual dialogue, if I interpret its spirit correctly. If I didn’t, please clarify, and do your best to have an actual conversation with Silver Arrow rather than whatever you call this. Or find a topic that actual feeds your spirit, rather than one you want to shoot down.
I’ve gotten more prickly about this kind of issue on rewild.info of late. I think before I would’ve let it go, later I might again not comment, but for now, c’mon. Pull it together, man.
p.s. peace and love and all that.
oh jesus, that would have been one for PM, Willem. You’re right, it’s simply poor editing. At first, Iresponded really shitty, then I went back, after a moment of cool, and realized just how I had gotten sucked in too. I won’t erase that first line, because it’s been responded to, but I will say, I am so sorry. It’s a taste of Tony when he’s pissed and how I act when feeling cornered, and I didn’t realize that line was still there. Can’t always stop clever and crass from trying to come out
Can’t take it back now, ya dick 
But really, I’m the asshole here. Again I’m sorry. ([size=4pt]not really an excuse, but did anyone notice the timestamp?[/size] Thanks for NOT being afraid to be moderator.
As for deer being ‘overpopulated’ truly, that’s simply a baseline that’s shifting back to ‘normal’ or should we say ‘carrying capacity’. Without agriculture pushing back, there could be EXPLOSIONS in animal populations, if we can manage to find a balance between shifting baselines and extinction by hunting.
hmm, i thought deer populations were generally kept ~10 per sq mi in most of the Longhouse region prior to extirpation (or at least reduction) of most predators (ie, wolf, cougar, bear), and i’ve often seen population levels of ~20 per sq mi suggested as ecologically healthy, but a number of counties in ohio have deer populations ~ 45+ per sq mi, leading to stress on not only the deer (in finding proper nutrition) but also the ecologies they inhabit. i have a friend in tenn who i’ve discussed this with, and they seem to be having similar issues there. in fact, tenn’s been having issues restoring their oak forests as a direct result of high deer populations.
from what jason has mentioned re: deer in penn, i gather it’s similar there as well.
granted, i’ve seen some people (generally farmers and/or orchardists) propose populations of 5 per sq mi as “ideal”, which strikes me as the minimum bound of healthy (in terms of both the deer herd & the ecology), and the evidence i’ve seen indicates 10-20 would prolly be a better “ideal” and a good balance, imo.
Not having studied population ecology, I’m afraid I can’t contribute. :-\ But keep going; it’s fascinating.