<Does Less Energy Mean More Farmers ?The Oil DrumDrumBeat: December 22, 2007>

160 comments on POLL: Theoildrum.com readers and food growing...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

robert2734 on December 21, 2007 - 8:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

7) Absolutely zero. What are all you doomers going to do when the oil runs out and the world doesn't come to an end?
My wife has a vegetable garden where she runs up our water bill drowning cucumbers, lettuce, and tomato plants.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on December 22, 2007 - 8:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

What are all you doomers going to do when the oil runs out and the world doesn't come to an end?

The world will still be here, though under the scenario you imply, civilization assuredly wouldn't be.

We have a medium-sized garden (20'x80' in raised beds with companion plantings and cold frames) from which we obtain about 10% of our nourishment, though we also raise and sell lambs (about 2 dozen/year), hence our total output would be equivalent to the 25-50%. Sheep 'fertilizer' makes the garden flourish to an extraordinary degree. Over the last two years we've completely redone the landscaping, planting 45 disease-resistant fruit and nut trees following permaculture (edible landscaping) principles. Collected rainwater provides a large portion of the needed water through a drip irrigation system. When these trees begin producing, our own level of self sufficiency will reach an equivalence of around 75% (as we will continue to 'export' much of our produce).

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
b3NDZ3La on December 22, 2007 - 11:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The world will still be here, though under the scenario you imply, civilization assuredly wouldn't be.

Thanks for knocking the stuffing out of the "anti-doomer" straw man.

Unfortunately, the acronym TEOTWAWKI leads to misconceptions. People conveniently forget the AWKI.

So when people snidely say, "The world won't end," I reply:

"You got that right. We should be so lucky. The world's going to still be here, and we're going to have to deal with it."

Now that's doomerism.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Richard on December 24, 2007 - 10:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Growing your own food is the same argument as the food-miles concept.

I guess it all comes down to the following question:

The world is currently producing about 85m bpd and at peak oil. How much oil will the world produce when the US/Europe/Japan/Australia/etc see their first real famine, if ever?

a) 85 m bpd
b) 60 m bpd
c) 40 m bpd
d) 20 m bpd
e) 10 m bpd
f) 5 m bpd
g) Not in a hundred years

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on December 25, 2007 - 1:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, I would like to hear at what world million bpd do large numbers of people start dying of calorie malnutrition in the United States or Britain or Italy?

I don't expect that to happen to substantial numbers in Western countries.

I also do not expect financial panics to prevent investments in substitutes for oil.

What I want to know: how many nuclear reactors would we need to build for fertilizer manufacture to replace the fertilizer we now make from natural gas?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jewishfarmer on December 25, 2007 - 10:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That's not really the issue is it? People suffer from hunger and malnutrition in the US right now and there are plenty of calories. The real question is this - how many of us trust that the *economy* as we know it will be there, and that we will remain among the rich and priveleged people who always have enough money to buy food and medicine, shoes and dinner? The reality is that most ordinary people in the world are comparatively poor, and sometimes run into those hard choices - that the rich world mostly hasn't (and that mostly is an important note) is a product - of cheap energy. So if we choose not to have gardens, we are betting our lives that we're always going to be rich, that our pensions and kids will be there for us in old age, that we'll never experience an impoverishing medical crisis, and that we'll always have security. That seems like a risky bet to me personally.

Sharon

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.