View Full Version : Food prices, black swans, and human reactions
So, how's that for a title?
First, a definition: a "black swan" is a rare event that is hard to predict and well outside expectations.
Anyway, I came across the following in one of the newsletters I read:
Donald Coxe, chief strategist of Harris Investment Management and one of my favorite analysts, spoke at my recent Strategic Investment Conference. He shared a statistic that has given me pause for concern as I watch food prices shoot up all over the world.
North America has experienced great weather for the last 18 consecutive years, which, combined with other improvements in agriculture, has resulted in abundant crops. According to Don, you have to go back 800 years to find a period of such favorable weather for so long a time.
Yet food stocks in corn, wheat, rice, etc. are dangerously low. We are just one bad weather season from a potential worldwide food disaster. And Dennis Gartman has been pointing out almost daily how far behind US farmers are in getting their corn crops planted, due to bad weather:
“… the corn crop really is behind schedule. Corn is not like wheat. Wheat can survive drought; it can survive cold; wheat, as we were taught by our mentor, Mr. Melvin Ford, many years ago, is a weed. It is an amazing, resilient plant. But corn is temperamental; it needs rain when it needs rain; it needs dry conditions when it needs dry conditions. It needs to not be hit by early season frost, or it will suffer, and it needs a rather archly set number of days to grow. Each day lost at the front end of the planting/growing season puts pressure upon the corn plant to finish its job before the autumn frosts, and puts increased soybean acreage and decreased corn acreage before us."
“The maps of the Midwest this morning have it raining once again, with more rain likely over the weekend. There will be some field work done in some areas, of course, but the several straight days of corn planting that everyone had hoped for simply are not going to take place. The ethanol mandates may be in jeopardy in the long run, but in the short run, this year's corn crop is swiftly becoming problematic ... and short.”
I had a note from a reader relating the experience of a member of his family. The gentleman runs a rather large feed lot in West Texas. He is running half the cattle he normally does, as he is losing money on every head he sells. Ranchers are reducing their herds, as they cannot afford to feed them due to high grain prices.
The same thing is happening with chickens. Producers are losing money on every chicken they sell, and they have to reduce inventories; thus meat of all types has not risen as much as the cost of producing it.
This means sometime this fall supplies of meat of all types are going to be reduced, but demand will not. And that means that meat prices have the potential to rise substantially during an election season. Maybe someone will point out that using corn to produce ethanol has the unwanted and unintended consequence of driving up food prices all over the world. It is not the sole source, but it is significant.
And when we finally experience a year of bad weather (whether too much rain or too little, too cold or too hot, it will be blamed on global warming), food supplies and prices are going to skyrocket. And a developing world will not look kindly on the US and Europe's use of food for fuel when so many are starving. Don says that this is not a matter of if, but when.
You can enter his website at LINK (http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/gateway.asp).
So, let us suppose that the information above is true. For a moment, let us suppose that food shortages hit to such an extent that we would be justified in labeling it a famine. In the U.S., food has been cheap for the past half-century or so; the general expectation seems to be that food will always be available in abundance and at a low price. Famine is the "black swan".
It seems likely that the first world (us, for example) would buy enough to get by. However, the third world - say, those getting by on less than $2 per day - might find that more problematic.
My question, then, is what do populations do in such a situation? Do they riot, as in Haiti? Do they attempt mass migrations, as in the novel "Camp of the Saints"? Or do they stay where they are, hoping for aid until they are too weak to act, and hence they perish quietly?
I know this has been talked about on other threads, so I need to look at them. But the concern lingering at the back of my head is that now I've become a hoarder of food of epic proportions (I was a hoarder before - but now it's become a little ridiculous) I'm wondering how to defend my stash against those who aren't so prepared. And I'm not just talking about the second or third world, I'm talking about my neighbors.
To answer your question directly, I think there will be a couple of those things from your list going on. But I'm mostly concerned about what'll happen right here in the US since as I understand it we're the ones who are dumb enough to have a single crop standard and total dependence on imports for wheat, rice, etc. I think there will be rioting, waiting for aid and I'll (thats anyone who thought ahead) will end up footing the bill like always.
I read an interesting book that talks about this whole corn issue (among other things), I really liked it and continue to mull over some of the ideas the author espouses on US food production. It's called The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan.
3SoldierDad
05-03-2008, 12:03
My question, then, is what do populations do in such a situation? Do they riot, as in Haiti? Do they attempt mass migrations, as in the novel "Camp of the Saints"? Or do they stay where they are, hoping for aid until they are too weak to act, and hence they perish quietly?
All of the above...And, then some.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Are things really that bad? It just always seems like people worry about the sky falling in areas that are fine, when the areas where the sky really will fall go completely un-noticed it seems.
From my only partially educated view on this, it's more a total lack of good planning on the part of the US farming economy. Much like our total dependence on foreign oil - we have a total dependence on imports for a great amount of our food because we are so completely overrun by exclusive corn production here in the US due to a number of factors not the least of which being farm subsidies. Man cannot live on corn alone - especially when the bulk of what is being produced isn't edible by humans in its raw form and it is basically sugar in the refined form.
Have you tried getting good rice lately? (Not Minute Rice or Rice o' Roni or something that's fully refined.) Its no joke that you can't get it in the stores. Wheat isn't far behind. Try buying bulk red wheat right now - it's getting super pricey and will probably be like rice real soon.
It's just poor planning. If we'd decided to rely less on imports we wouldn't be in this position. Hey... just like oil!! :D
The Reaper
05-03-2008, 13:35
From my only partially educated view on this, it's more a total lack of good planning on the part of the US farming economy. Much like our total dependence on foreign oil - we have a total dependence on imports for a great amount of our food because we are so completely overrun by exclusive corn production here in the US due to a number of factors not the least of which being farm subsidies. Man cannot live on corn alone - especially when the bulk of what is being produced isn't edible by humans in its raw form and it is basically sugar in the refined form.
Have you tried getting good rice lately? (Not Minute Rice or Rice o' Roni or something that's fully refined.) Its no joke that you can't get it in the stores. Wheat isn't far behind. Try buying bulk red wheat right now - it's getting super pricey and will probably be like rice real soon.
It's just poor planning. If we'd decided to rely less on imports we wouldn't be in this position. Hey... just like oil!! :D
The biggest difference here is that we are a huge food exporter, and a major oil importer.
Their prices will rise faster and higher than ours.
TR
From my only partially educated view on this, it's more a total lack of good planning on the part of the US farming economy. Much like our total dependence on foreign oil - we have a total dependence on imports for a great amount of our food because we are so completely overrun by exclusive corn production here in the US due to a number of factors not the least of which being farm subsidies. Man cannot live on corn alone - especially when the bulk of what is being produced isn't edible by humans in its raw form and it is basically sugar in the refined form.
Have you tried getting good rice lately? (Not Minute Rice or Rice o' Roni or something that's fully refined.) Its no joke that you can't get it in the stores. Wheat isn't far behind. Try buying bulk red wheat right now - it's getting super pricey and will probably be like rice real soon.
It's just poor planning. If we'd decided to rely less on imports we wouldn't be in this position. Hey... just like oil!! :DEnvironmental whackos don't help any!
From the Wall Street Journal...
"When you look at the globe, California is a little spot on that globe," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently at Yale University's Climate Change Conference. "But when it comes to our power of influence, it is the equivalent of a whole continent."
Perhaps. As an exercise of this influence, Mr. Schwarzenegger has attempted to push climate-change policy forward, signing the Global Warming Solutions Act. It commits the state to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels – roughly 25% below today's – and all but eliminating them by 2050.
Corbis
The Rancho Seco nuclear power plant could generate 900 megwatts of electricity. It was shut down and converted to solar power, and today generates four megawatts.
"California has the ideas of Athens and the power of Sparta," he said in his state of the state address last year. "Not only can we lead California into the future; we can show the nation and the world how to get there."
His words are in keeping with the state's self-perception. Politicians, business titans, academics and environmental activists proudly point to four decades of environmentally conscious public policy – while maintaining a dynamic economy, arguably the eighth-largest on the planet, with a gross state product of more than $1.6 trillion.
In truth, the state's energy leadership is a mirage. Decades of environmental policies have made it heavily dependent on other states for power; generated crippling costs; and left the state vulnerable to periodic electricity shortages. Its economic growth has occurred not because of, but despite, those policies.
Since the early 1970s, California has instituted new efficiency standards for appliances and the construction of new buildings. It mandated aggressive conservation programs and required a certain percentage of the state's electricity to come from renewable sources like wind and solar, which it has subsidized. It implemented far-reaching regulations on emissions from car tailpipes and from stationary sources like factories. And it has moved to shut down the state's nuclear facilities.
For a time, it worked. Since the mid-1970s, California's economy has grown while per-capita energy consumption stayed flat – an astounding fact, considering that such consumption has increased by roughly 50% elsewhere in the country over the same period.
But consider the story of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. Opened in 1975, it was capable of generating over 900 megawatts (MW) of electricity, enough to power upward of 900,000 homes. Fourteen years after powering up, the nuclear reactor shut down, thanks to fierce antinuclear opposition. Eventually, the facility was converted to solar power, and today generates a measly four MW of electricity. After millions of dollars in subsidies and other support, the entire state has less than 250 MW of solar capacity.
Rancho Seco helps explain California's energy crisis in 2000 and 2001, when numerous rolling blackouts and power outages caused billions of dollars in damages. The degree to which rapacious power-company executives and traders were responsible for the shortages remains open to debate. Not open to debate is that California had insufficient power to meet demand, with a frayed and overloaded infrastructure for moving electrons.
California's flat per-capita energy consumption has not saved it from blackouts, either, since its population had been soaring. From 1979 to 1999, the number of residents jumped from about 23 million people to 33 million. Today, the figure is closer to 38 million, and it could top 45 million by 2020.
The blunt secret is this: California now imports lots of energy from neighboring states to make up for having too few power plants. Up to 20% of the state's power comes from coal-burning plants in Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Montana. Another significant portion comes from large-scale hydropower in Oregon, Washington State and the Hoover Dam near Las Vegas.
"California practices a sort of energy colonialism," says James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners, a Washington, D.C.-area investment group. "They leave those states to deal with the resulting pollution."
California's proud claim to have kept per-capita energy consumption flat while growing its economy is less impressive than it seems. The state has some of the highest energy prices in the country – nearly twice the national average – largely because of regulations and government mandates to use expensive renewable sources of power. As a result, heavy manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries have been fleeing the Golden State in droves.
The unreliable power grid is starting to rattle some Silicon Valley heavyweights. Intel CEO Craig Barrett, for instance, vowed in 2001 not to build a chip-making facility in California until power supplies became more reliable. This October, Intel opened a $3 billion factory near Phoenix for mass production of its new 45-nanometer microprocessors. Google has chosen to build the massive server farms that will fuel its expansion anywhere but in California.
And yet, despite a desperate need for more power, opposition to energy projects remains prevalent. State law prohibits the construction of new nuclear plants, and legislative efforts last summer to repeal it went nowhere. Last spring state regulators vetoed a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas terminal 14 miles off the Malibu coast.
Even renewable-energy projects meet resistance. Texas, of all places, is the nation's leader in wind-power generation. High costs, excessive regulation and environmentalist litigation have hampered California's efforts. Texas has just built lots of turbines.
None of this has stopped leaders from setting wildly unrealistic goals for safeguarding the environment, from electric cars to wind-energy production. The latest goal is to drastically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
The details of how the Global Warming Solutions Act is actually implemented don't have to be revealed until next January. Even the California Energy Commission hints that the targets might be unreachable. But they'll certainly cost a lot to find out. Analysis from the Electric Power Research Institute pegs the Act's cost to the California economy at anywhere from $100 billion to $511 billion.
Californians may feel good about their environmental consciousness. But someone needs to build power plants and oil refineries to fuel their economy. Someone needs to manufacture the cars they drive, the airplanes they fly, the chemicals and resins and paints and plastics that make their lives comfortable.
Those things require energy, and lots of it. All the wisdom of Athens and all the power of Sparta won't change that fact.
Mr. Schulz is director of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment. This op-ed is adapted from the Spring 2008 issue of City Journal.
Stay safe.
I believe the US would have no problem feding all "our" people. Might see some increases in prices, limited choice (Sweet Potato recipies Penn) and a few items missing, but we would have plenty.
Watch the Ds in Washington. "Its not fair we have so much." A goverment mandated food sharing with the 3rd World.
Pete
Thinking of putting in a few hills of Potatos just in case.
GratefulCitizen
05-03-2008, 17:35
I believe the US would have no problem feding all "our" people. Might see some increases in prices, limited choice (Sweet Potato recipies Penn) and a few items missing, but we would have plenty.
Watch the Ds in Washington. "Its not fair we have so much." A goverment mandated food sharing with the 3rd World.
Pete
Thinking of putting in a few hills of Potatos just in case.
+1
Conversion of golf courses into "victory gardens" wouldn't be too difficult.
Reductions in caloric intake would probably improve the general health in this nation.
+1
Conversion of golf courses into "victory gardens" wouldn't be too difficult.
Reductions in caloric intake would probably improve the general health in this nation.
The difference is in if it is forced or not.
I'm wondering how to defend my stash against those who aren't so prepared. And I'm not just talking about the second or third world, I'm talking about my neighbors.
I think it's a legitimate concern. The first step is to avoid letting them know, I think. The second step is to keep one's stash well concealed and dispersed. The third step is something we all know, but would probably best be addressed in other times and places.
To answer your question directly, I think there will be a couple of those things from your list going on. But I'm mostly concerned about what'll happen right here in the US since as I understand it we're the ones who are dumb enough to have a single crop standard and total dependence on imports for wheat, rice, etc. I think there will be rioting, waiting for aid and I'll (thats anyone who thought ahead) will end up footing the bill like always.
Well, U.S. issues are possible. Back in 1980 (as I recall...it's been awhile), San Antonio had a snow storm. All of 8 inches. By the end of the first day, supermarket shelves had been stripped; obviously, needlessly. On the next day, the snow had melted, and all was well again.
But this suggests that shortages cause people to buy more of any commodity, which worsens an existing shortage. Would panic set in? The events surrounding hurricane Katrina are suggestive. With reference to your first point (the neighbors), this presents a bit of a dilemma. The neighbors are a potential threat, but they might make useful allies should outsiders decide to migrate from some other locale.
Are things really that bad? It just always seems like people worry about the sky falling in areas that are fine, when the areas where the sky really will fall go completely un-noticed it seems.
(snip)
Is food similar, something that everyone will worry about but it will be fine, when the things we really should worry about at the moment only look fine but are an actual problem...?
You make some excellent points. The problems people focus on tend to get solved, one way or another. So that could certainly happen here.
My suspicion is that this is different (but people always say that about their pet crises, don't they?). I think we have a situation where multi-year trends of population and food supplies will cause long term (as in decades) challenges. It won't be so much of a global crises as an extended period when things just become more expensive and less available - along with the occasional spot shortage.
The collapse of the salmon fisheries on the west coast, the collapse of bee colonies for no discernible reason, along with increased costs for both potassium and nitrogen fertilizers seem like interesting factors. Global population increased from about 2 billion, circa 1950, to the present 6.5 billion - in large part due to the U.S. Agriculture department's "green revolution". The green revolution depended on artificial fertilizers and mechanization, among other things, to generate greatly expanded crop yields. Should the underlying assumptions of the green revolution be invalidated, interesting results might occur. I realize that's a very large if.
But none of my views can be proved.
I believe the US would have no problem feding all "our" people. Might see some increases in prices, limited choice (Sweet Potato recipies Penn) and a few items missing, but we would have plenty.
Watch the Ds in Washington. "Its not fair we have so much." A goverment mandated food sharing with the 3rd World.
Pete
Thinking of putting in a few hills of Potatos just in case.
Sir, I agree completely on all points.
Even if DC does nothing more than provide monetary aid, we in the U.S. will experience higher prices. Private citizens will compete with foreign nations funded by U.S. taxpayers.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-04-2008, 05:38
I think many of us have been places all over this globe where people exist on subsistence farming and harvesting from MUTHA nature. Much of what people call food shortages in this country depends on your definition of food which has been modified by preferences and culture. Food, for many, is no longer fuel for the body, it is not just sustinance but it has become the focal point for events, ceremonies, gatherings, and holidays. Hell, I have seen folks leave BBQs with enough stains on their shirts to feed a family in the Sudan for a week. We throw more food away in this country than some countries consume. Beer, and I know you all will not believe this, is not a food group(maybe with the exception of Guiness that is often defined as a porkchop in a bottle) and while the industry supports a lot of folks it is a consumer of energy and potential foodstuffs. Think about all the things folks go ballistic over when they cannot find them at the store or in their favorite watering and eating halls. Food, like any other commodity, is a supply and demand issue based on a variety of factors and when the demand results in non-diversified crops then you are always going to have a problem. It happens everywhere man interfers with what the environment will support. The potato famine in Ireland is an interesting event and many folks do not realize that the potato was introduced from South America-of course there were other factors but if you are going to screw around with mother nature then you need to accommodate her by ameliorating the environment into which you are introducing crops and critters. I think "modern man" has become so set in his ways and specialized in what he does that he can no longer fend for himself. He has clustered into areas like cities where the only abundant fresh meat readily available is the rat and while other folks eat rats it does not go good with a Latte. I know I am being a little facetious but the point is, in this country, food is a matter of choice and "taste". Check out folks in line in front of you the next time and see what they are buying with food stamps-chips, beer, sodas, snacks? Now I am not saying that weather and war do not play a role, they do. But so does stupidity, greed, laziness, and politics.
I believe the US would have no problem feding all "our" people. Might see some increases in prices, limited choice (Sweet Potato recipies Penn) and a few items missing, but we would have plenty.
Watch the Ds in Washington. "Its not fair we have so much." A goverment mandated food sharing with the 3rd World.
Pete
Thinking of putting in a few hills of Potatos just in case.
Pete,
Agreed Sir!
The "Its not fair we have so much,"mentality reminds me of Atlas Shrugged, and what Our soceity could degenerate into if not kept in check. JMHO. :munchin
Holly
I think many of us have been places all over this globe where people exist on subsistence farming and harvesting from MUTHA nature.
...
The potato famine in Ireland is an interesting event and many folks do not realize that the potato was introduced from South America-of course there were other factors but if you are going to screw around with mother nature then you need to accommodate her by ameliorating the environment into which you are introducing crops and critters.
Thank you, Sir. I always appreciate your insights.
The potato famine is a perfect example. It resulted in a mass migration and a great many people dying in place.
Since you, and other Quiet Professionals, have seen places that live close to the bone, I wonder what you think the local population in third world countries would do if they were struck with a severe famine. Would they riot, perhaps driving their own country into collapse - but with no discernible affect here in the U.S.? Would they start walking to some place that might have food, creating a human tidal wave that would overwhelm existing borders? Or would they sit and die in place? Perhaps there are other options I have not considered. Any and all thoughts would be appreciated.
Peregrino
05-04-2008, 13:17
I wonder what you think the local population in third world countries would do if they were struck with a severe famine. Would they riot, perhaps driving their own country into collapse - but with no discernible affect here in the U.S.? Would they start walking to some place that might have food, creating a human tidal wave that would overwhelm existing borders? Or would they sit and die in place? Perhaps there are other options I have not considered. Any and all thoughts would be appreciated.
Read Al "Bore" Gore's Nobel Peace Prize citation and change the words "global warming" to "global famine". Actually, you don't even have to do that - just because the science is/was junk and politics, doesn't mean the issues addressed weren't legitimate concerns. If you really want to contribute a discussion, re-open the "Be Prepared" thread and make a contribution there. I seem to recall Mugwump's Pandemic Flu thread also has some quality COAs. Lots of resources here.
3SoldierDad
05-05-2008, 08:10
My question, then, is what do populations do in such a situation? Do they riot, as in Haiti? Do they attempt mass migrations, as in the novel "Camp of the Saints"? Or do they stay where they are, hoping for aid until they are too weak to act, and hence they perish quietly?
One more point and perhaps this trumps my previous post....Indeed, people will riot, migrate, and many will simply suffer until someone sends them help.
Nevertheless, some might figure out the relationship between work and having food and get busy to make sure that they and their family avoid the next food "crisis"...
Pain hurts, but it does have it's benefits.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Team Sergeant
05-05-2008, 09:37
Since you, and other Quiet Professionals, have seen places that live close to the bone, I wonder what you think the local population in third world countries would do if they were struck with a severe famine. Would they riot, perhaps driving their own country into collapse - but with no discernible affect here in the U.S.? Would they start walking to some place that might have food, creating a human tidal wave that would overwhelm existing borders? Or would they sit and die in place? Perhaps there are other options I have not considered. Any and all thoughts would be appreciated.
Third (forth and fifth) world countries abound worldwide as do food shortages. I know of only one place that such shortages continually kill, and that is Africa. Too many people, an environment that is not conducive to agriculture and tribal fighting leads to starvation. And when they do migrate in time of war they die by the tens of thousands. I don’t see an end in sight to their situation anytime soon.
Look at Central and South America, Asia etc the people usually don’t starve en mass because of their environments, good fertile soil, lots of water and limited tribal conflicts. No mass migrations, no lack of water, & good fertile soil = little starvation.
A recipe for success, pick a place with lots of water and fertile soil, little conflict and low population and you will do fine.
Also many of the places (third world countries) I've been to the people know how to "gather" food such as hunting, fishing or foraging. Here in America some have a hard time lighting their propane grill.:rolleyes:
TS
JustinW20
05-05-2008, 09:49
nmap:
Thanks for posting this. I love John Mauldin's stuff! I don't always agree 100% with his conclusions, but he's always thought provoking.
The Reaper
05-05-2008, 10:21
Third (forth and fifth) world countries abound worldwide as do food shortages. I know of only one place that such shortages continually kill, and that is Africa. Too many people, an environment that is not conducive to agriculture and tribal fighting leads to starvation. And when they do migrate in time of war they die by the tens of thousands. I don’t see an end in sight to their situation anytime soon.
Look at Central and South America, Asia etc the people usually don’t starve en mass because of their environments, good fertile soil, lots of water and limited tribal conflicts. No mass migrations, no lack of water, & good fertile soil = little starvation.
A recipe for success, pick a place with lots of water and fertile soil, little conflict and low population and you will do fine.
Also many of the places (third world countries) I've been to the people know how to "gather" food such as hunting, fishing or foraging. Here in America some have a hard time lighting their propane grill.:rolleyes:
TS
What about North Korea, and the Chinese famines under Mao?
TR
Team Sergeant
05-05-2008, 10:54
What about North Korea, and the Chinese famines under Mao?
TR
Good points but both were caused by idiot communist dictators.
While the drought played a part Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” caused the famine and he alone is to blame for the killing (starving) of millions.
Same goes for the moron that rules North Korea, man made, dictator caused famine.
TS
Look at Central and South America, Asia etc the people usually don’t starve en mass because of their environments, good fertile soil, lots of water and limited tribal conflicts. No mass migrations, no lack of water, & good fertile soil = little starvation.
Thank you, Sir! That is exactly the information I was hoping for; and the further insights about Africa help too.
takeumnow
05-25-2008, 16:11
Convinced the planet's oil supply is dwindling and the world's economies are heading for a crash, some people around the country are moving onto homesteads, learning to live off their land, conserving fuel and, in some cases, stocking up on guns they expect to use to defend themselves and their supplies from desperate crowds of people who didn't prepare. Full story.
http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080524/ap_on_re_us/environmental_survivalists.html
By SAMANTHA GROSS, Associated Press Writer Posted Sat May 24, 2008 11:12am PDT
3SoldierDad
05-25-2008, 16:19
Convinced the planet's oil supply is dwindling and the world's economies are heading for a crash, some people around the country are moving onto homesteads, learning to live off their land, conserving fuel and, in some cases, stocking up on guns they expect to use to defend themselves and their supplies from desperate crowds of people who didn't prepare. Full story.
http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080524/ap_on_re_us/environmental_survivalists.html
By SAMANTHA GROSS, Associated Press Writer Posted Sat May 24, 2008 11:12am PDT
Nothing new there...
Since the beginning, folks have been preparing for the end. Living a modest life, taking care of one's own needs, homesteading - It's not just good for a severe emergency. It's a good way to live. Period.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Team Sergeant
05-25-2008, 17:24
Nothing new there...
Since the beginning, folks have been preparing for the end. Living a modest life, taking care of one's own needs, homesteading - It's not just good for a severe emergency. It's a good way to live. Period.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
With SIX Billion + I really doubt we're looking at the end of Homo sapiens sapiens, not in our life time anyway.
It might be a good way to live for some, if we all lived like that we'd be speaking Japanese, German or arabic right now.;)
TS
Convinced the planet's oil supply is dwindling and the world's economies are heading for a crash, some people around the country are moving onto homesteads, learning to live off their land, conserving fuel and, in some cases, stocking up on guns they expect to use to defend themselves and their supplies from desperate crowds of people who didn't prepare.
As you say, some people are doing such things; their efforts make for interesting reading on occasion. I suspect they're overreacting badly, at least with regard to first world nations. The third world - those with incomes below $2 per day - face a more difficult situation. My perspective is that the geopolitical and military implications of their plight might be worth considering. The reactions of people in such an environment constitute (in my opinion) an essential component of the implications I mentioned.
A lot of survivalist ideas seem flawed. For example, energy conservation won't help; one can do a search on the term "Jevons paradox" to see more. An isolated farm with a horde of supplies makes me think of a one-family Dien Bien Phu. More likely than the breakdown of our society is a flow of desperate refugees into more affluent countries; but that is the realm of political policy and diplomacy. Haiti and the Dominican Republic seem like a possible situation to study, especially if the situation in Haiti becomes more challenging to the inhabitants.
An example of the impact in the U.S. might be the present rice situation, which has resulted in Japan exporting rice; but that rice comes from the U.S. - which suggests we may see a move up in U.S. rice prices...in turn, hinting that an ETF with the symbol DBA may appreciate. That would make me happy. :)
I've attached the article as a PDF.
With SIX Billion + I really doubt we're looking at the end of Homo sapiens sapiens, not in our life time anyway.
Team Sergeant, humans have shown remarkable tenacity over time, just as you suggest.
I have found Jared Diamond's book, Collapse, to be an interesting read. It examines several societies that have failed over the years; one particularly fascinating account was the Norse Greenland colonies. He also looks at Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Catton wrote a book titled "Overshoot" in 1980; it's still in print, and considers the possibility that total population can exceed resources needed.
The two books consider the possibility that there can be too many people, with an ultimate consequence of the demise of a substantial majority. Some see these ideas as applying globally; I have doubts that will be the case. But they might apply to areas, or even regions; that could have some interesting consequences. For example, the U.S. still exports food. In a hungrier world, food might provide political leverage every bit as powerful as Middle Eastern oil does at present.
Given Africa's rich natural resources, endemic hunger, and the diplomatic presence of both China and the U.S. in the area, food prices might create some interesting ripples. Of course, such effects would not be limited to Africa. For example, Saudi wheat production is down substantially. ( LINK (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-barrel/2008/5/21/forget-saudi-peak-oil--worry-about-peak-grain.html) )
Since I don't know the areas or the people - and many Quiet Professionals do - it is my hope that I can learn more (where appropriate, and without compromising anything) from those who have "been there, done that." I greatly appreciated your thoughts earlier in the thread.
I think it is a error to underestimate human ingenuity. There has always been "chicken littles" running around yelling, "we are all going to die." We are still here doing doing better than ever.
I can imagine worse times when it might appear that the end was near, maybe more for me than human kind.
Also this is a election year, Doom is always predicted if you don't vote for my candidate.
I think it is a error to underestimate human ingenuity. There has always been "chicken littles" running around yelling, "we are all going to die." We are still here doing doing better than ever.
True, true. Still, local and regional problems occur, and those can have broad implications.
For example - China had an earthquake. It hasn't had any direct on me; and, quite probably, none on you. On the other hand, notice how they are (for the first time) sending out news and video? Perhaps this indicates some sort of change in China's policy? And they will have to spend money to rebuild. Will they buy fewer dollars? Perhaps this will increase downward pressure on the dollar. Maybe it will create upward pressure on domestic interest rates. Since the earthquake - from a global perspective - is a small event, the effects are likely to be small too.
But the implications of significantly higher food prices - those can be interesting. Maybe even profitable. :D