<DrumBeat: April 17, 2008 The Oil Drum Policies to Develop a Low Emissions Transport Sector in Australia>

201 comments on Can We Stay in the Suburbs?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

MikeMorin on April 17, 2008 - 5:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Good "article".

Two problems that stand our are:

1.) The agriculturalization of suburbia will not generate enough revenues for those who don't already own outright, and for other necessities (e.g. heating, cooking, electricity, recreation, etc.).

2.) True enough, a desuburbanization is not likely other than many, many more becoming homeless. There is not enough walkable, urbanist environments to absorb such a migration, the lack of effective demand for the suburban properties and the premium price that walkable urban properties already command will also be prohibitive.

I think the answer may be to retrofit the drivable suburban environments to walkable urbanist ones (where necessities including food are available within walking distance to all), including the very active promotion of tele-commuting (including neighborhood facilities with fax machines, copiers, and tele-video equipment).

My considered opinion is that this can not and will not happen within the dictates of the so-called "free market". In other words, we need a planned economy.

Good luck.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on April 17, 2008 - 10:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

1.) The agriculturalization of suburbia will not generate enough revenues for those who don't already own outright, and for other necessities (e.g. heating, cooking, electricity, recreation, etc.).

Revenues? This idea is not a business idea, it is a survival technique. The point is self-reliance/sustainability. If everyone is growing the food they need, who would they be selling to?

My considered opinion is that this can not and will not happen within the dictates of the so-called "free market". In other words, we need a planned economy.

Because they have worked so well thus far? No, what will work to distribute resources better and create a more democratic ideal is a gold standard, trade-based economy with no central banks and zero usury. When growth is not the end, then free trade can be the means to a sustainable system. As long as money/wealth is created by the charging of interest, you will have an unsustainable economy.

As this applies to food, let people grow and trade what they need. Organizing beyond the community level would be a huge error leading us back to where we are now, or where China and the USSR spent most of the last century.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeMorin on April 17, 2008 - 11:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi CCPO,

My point was that without sufficient revenues/income, many if not most suburbanites will not be able to stay in their properties, and those who are working full-time will not be able to be food self-sufficient because of their career pre-occupations. Also, there is more to survival than growing food and I sincerely doubt that many can be self-sufficient (especially in urban and suburban environments)even in this one sphere (food).

Secondly, your knee jerk reaction to the previous failures of socialism does not preclude the idea that we would be better off if we had goals and plans for cooperative endeavors locally, regionally, and inter-regionally. The reason that America has been so successful (thus far) is more related to the rape of a virgin landscape rather than the merits of Capitalism.

Peace.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on April 17, 2008 - 11:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Ah, we are using different assumptions, Mike. I am always thinking in terms of where we end up, while you were speaking in terms of the transition period.

I still would think the "Victory Garden" would be used for supplementing the diet while moving to providing the entire diet as collapse gets further along. (I use collapse here not in terms of the end of civilization, but in the sense of breaking down and ending up something very different than it is now - almost certainly more localized, less regulated and possibly with federal governments that are but a shell of what they are now.)

There are people producing enough food in 4-5,000 sq ft. to keep one person fed for a year. Some homes have that much sq. footage! Turing lawns, parks, greenways and parking lots into gardens might provide enough to sustain small communities. I am doubtful this would work in large American cities. LArge cities will have o crate new ways to feed their people, depopulate, or find a way to provide value to the rural areas such that they are willing to provide food for them.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

201 comments on Can We Stay in the Suburbs?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version