Found on another board, this bears some serious contemplation:
In 1998 the US produced over 6.6 billion dozen eggs! …
Number of chickens slaughtered every minute in the US: 14,000
Number of cows and calves slaughtered every 24 hours in the US: 90,000
Food animals (not counting fish and other aquatic creatures) slaughtered per year in the US: 10 billion
How could we possibly unleash figures such as those, on the wild?
Wild ducks, geese, turkeys, … all extinct.
Deer, elk, goats, rabbits … all extinct.
Billions of people world wide, scavaging for anything edible.
You throw in domesticated animals and agriculture into a primitive, over-populated environment
You will need wire.
Someone will need to fire up a tractor.
Food and animal feed will need to be transported by the mega-tons.
To bring “primitive sustainability” to the modern world, we have to look at the other side of the equation.
How to eliminate x billion people, first.
Turning the world loose on a primitive lifestyle would accomplish this.
Within days the slaughtering would start.
Lakes and seashores would become territorial battlegrounds.
The race would become one of eliminating enough people before everything that is edible in the wild became extinct.
Sustainability would be a hard thing to achieve, should the entire population try it.
“We” would become the problem. Eliminating the vast majority of “us”, the solution.
We need to look for a way to balance the population with the resources, but I don’t see how it would work by going primitive.
Not with the number of people that we have, anyway.
Not said (yet), is where is the wire, fuel and feed going to come from in an energy starved world? Or how to protect the meager herds of domesticated animals from the starving millions?
This post puts the difficulty of survival post-crash into a perspective that is not often considered.
But on the other side, pre-crash domestication of animals (and agriculture) is a gigantic industry that (presently and stupidly) affords stupendously large human and animal populations. All which requires available (affordable) energy, adequate rainfall and growing seasons, a huge (functioning) distribution network, and a vast array of processing plants, factories and personnel to make it all happen.
None of which will be available indefinitely, or even much longer.
Sustainability simply isn’t possible for the world’s 7 billion. Especially in today’s highly industrialized and mechanized First World nations that are heavily reliant upon petroleum (imported or otherwise). They, having lost their distributed farming base, will be hit the hardest as their civilizations crash to the level of available energy in a declining environment.
Primitive living may be the only truly sustainable way of living mankind has ever found, but there was a valid reason that 500 hundred million (or less) were able to do this globally, which 7 billion cannot possibly hope to attain.
I expect a total collapse of global populations to reach less then 500 hundred million – in my lifetime. But the quest for real sustainability will only be found by those who are willing to engage in it’s actual practice.
Most efforts fail to be sustainable. And there is absolutely no way 7 billion, particularly in the First World, industrialized nations can even achieve sustainable. This is proving to be yet another mythological pipe dream that directly contradicts the existing cultural expectations.
When the energy collapses, or the environment heats up enough, or the plankton collapse, or the Amazon burns up, or desertification becomes even worse, or any number of things, populations will start to decline precipitiously. As they must.
So it’s not a question of existing populations finding sustainability and never really was. The human and animal slaughter he speaks of will happen anyway.