Am I The Only One Who Agrees With The Georgia Guide Stones?

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by liquidsmoke206

 

Read this and eat your words

In the period immediately after the Second World War, the average woman gave birth to four children during her child-bearing years. By 1970, that number had fallen to two. Today, the average is 1.4, and the pattern continues downward.

But a birth rate of two children per family is needed just to replace losses from illness, accidents and death through old age. That means we are already well below the fertility level considered to be self-sustaining

www.timescolonist.com...
Read more: www.timescolonist.com...

Seems the world does not need your guidance

edit on 6-3-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

Actually, the world fertility rate is around 2+.

en.wikipedia.org...

But there are countries where the fertility rate is sky-high.

And you completely fail to mention CONSUMPTION RATES. That is- consumption of resources, both renewable and non-renewable. And THAT is unsustainable at our current population levels... not even to mention the environmental destruction caused by our various actions as a species/civilization.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by liquidsmoke206

 

Read this and eat your words

In the period immediately after the Second World War, the average woman gave birth to four children during her child-bearing years. By 1970, that number had fallen to two. Today, the average is 1.4, and the pattern continues downward.

But a birth rate of two children per family is needed just to replace losses from illness, accidents and death through old age. That means we are already well below the fertility level considered to be self-sustaining

www.timescolonist.com...
Read more: www.timescolonist.com...

Seems the world does not need your guidance

edit on 6-3-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

Actually, the world fertility rate is around 2+.

en.wikipedia.org...

But there are countries where the fertility rate is sky-high.

And you completely fail to mention CONSUMPTION RATES. That is- consumption of resources, both renewable and non-renewable. And THAT is unsustainable at our current population levels... not even to mention the environmental destruction caused by our various actions as a species/civilization.

The world fertility rate is 2 plus you say according to Wiki - I am not sure what the world fertility rate is in reality it actually does not worry me because Nature always finds a balance one way or another.
I agree Greed and ignorance of our natural world puts us all in jeopardy - yet the global elites care only for their own skins and see the rest of Humanity as some lower species - rather than use their power to help put things right. Fear is the enemy - There is not enough respect for Human life - answer is respect Human life.
The Earth is being decimated by greed - answer - respect the Earth and all life on it - We pay such ideas lip service only - We have not even begun to be the change we wish to see - Start with you instead of blaming others.

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by artistpoet

 

Sure is so No 1 the stones is redundant

I'm not normally a stickler for grammar, but some punctuation would have been helpful with this sentence. But yeah I guess what your saying is given the decline in birth rates that the first part of the stone dealing with a pop of 500mil is redundant because populations are dropping anyway. I disagree, the part of the stone is saying to keep your population at 500 mil. Thats not what the article is saying. The article is about dropping birth rates, specifically on Vancouver Island. And it's true birth rates are dropping in industrialized countries, but the fact of the matter is populations are still increasing, just not as fast. Much of this has to do with people living longer, but most places still do have positive birth rates. Often excessively so.

No never said anything about what number the population should be that was you and your stone buddies

well if you don't have a number in mind then I assume you think it can run away for ever. I have already stated WAY back that I'm not even sure that 500 million would be the ideal number. I think it's more of a reference point. I'd imagine it would be more like a billion, but I have no real way of knowing without A LOT of research.

Yes I saw my ill formed sentence but did not edit it as I was sure you would understand my meaning.

I do agree that education/information is required so people have a clearer choice regarding numbers of children - My Father was one of a family of 9 -
I have one grown up daughter -
Roman Catholics had large family's taking their direction from the Vatican who were against birth control through condoms etc - I say were - are they still against condoms?

As for running away from the problem - no I am not - Like I posted before - I have helped build and have lived a completely self reliant lifestyle with a large group of friends - This I did many years ago.
We lived a sustainable life which was very comfortable and enjoyable and the rest of the world and its problems seemed to merely float away - Yet something inside nagged me - gnawed at me. Yes I was OK - life was great for us - Yet what about all the other people I had known - what about family and old friends.
I had to return - I wanted them to know the peace of mind I had found by being in accord with the natural environment - I wanted to share the things I had found - I wanted to give others a choice rather than thembe stuck in a system they felt they could not escape - I came back and believe me it was a shock to my system -
People seemed like they were sleep walking - I found very few like minds yet my heart feels for people and their problems. Please do not accuse me of running away - you do not know me.
Yes the figure on the guide stones is what gets me - If the people who wrote the stones were wise they would have worded the whole thing quite differently but if you dont see that that is your choice.

PS I know by your previous post you do question the stones number

Originally posted by Sly1one

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by Sly1one

 

Balance personal rights with social duties.
As far as I'm concerned the only social duty I have is to "live and let live" and my personal rights granted by ME, allow me to tell you or whoever to take your social structure and shove it...

That is just selfish. Humans by our very nature are social animals. Personal right and social duty (should) go hand in hand with what it means to be Human.

ALS

Who are you to tell me I'm "selfish"? Who is anybody? This is the point I'm trying to get accross...

I owe NOTHING to humanity...
I don't owe anyone a conversation...
I don't owe anyone my participation in an "social games" they decide to play...
I don't owe anyone anything...period...
I don't owe anyone my labor...
I don't owr anyone my time...

I have a personal RIGHT to CHOSE to participate at my discression as should everyone...
Everything done socially should be done voluntarily...

The first right everyone should have is to be left the hell alone...

The only thing I owe others is to NOT be a burden on them and to take care of myself and my family WITHOUT exploiting others...

In other words...Live and let live...

Agreed. So long as one's actions do not seriously infringe upon the rights of another to do so the same.

Originally posted by ILikeStars
reply to post by artistpoet

 

You do realize English is the only language we can use on ATS, right?

By becoming a member of the Websites,
you agree to the following additional terms and conditions:

15i.) Language: The dominant language of our users and moderation staff is English. In order to promote a smooth-running environment and fair enforcement of the Terms and Conditions of Use (and the Terms and Conditions of Membership), you agree not to Post or chat in any language other than English.
ATS Terms and Conditions

Ha ha (laughs at self) err only when you mentioned it did I realize it thank you.
Muchas gracias
Spasibo
Merci beaucoup
Wado

Originally posted by cloaked4u
We as a society might make it if we just do two things. Get rid of the MONEY SYSTEM and Do onto others as you would do on to yourself. That in itself would help society as a whole.

Do i think this will happen in my lifetime? NO WAY.

EXACTLY!!!!

Our problems living sustainably have NOTHING to do with the size of population. There is PLENTY of room for a whole lot more than 7 billion people.

ALL of the problems we face today are the result of a SINGLE puzzle that we still have not figured out. Namely, "How do organize a civilization in a reasonable, sane, and sustainable manner in a sedentary existence?"

Our human and bi-pedal hominid ancestors lived for over 1 MILLION YEARS without posing ANY significant strain on planetary resources. Sure, a few species MIGHT have been hunted into extinction...but the prevailing theory of the day is that human predatory activity was more likely a contributing factor along with other things such as climate change, disease in an animal population, etc.

Humans and hominids have always FOUGHT. However, there was no such thing as WARFARE as we know it today, (i.e. highly organized slaughter bent on total destruction, complete disempowerment, and cultural erasure) when we were nomadic hunters and gatherers. The best parallel can be found in wolves...no surprise since many an anthropologist has described our earliest upright hominid ancestor (homo ergaster) as being "wolves with stone knives".

Wolves will fight one another in the pack and a wolf gets injured or dies. Two competing packs of wolves will sometimes fight over a given chunk of hunting territory. Again...sometimes wolves die in these disputes. However, there is no such thing as a wolf-general and wolves have not ever gone on to eradicate another pack of wolves because they came from the other side of the river or had a bit longer tails.

The reason for this is simple and has NOTHING to do with the benevolence of wolves. It's simply that a "total warfare/destruction" approach isn't a survival advantage even to the wolf pack who "wins" because the price of the casualties are too great. If in the process of "winning" the wolf pack suffers too great of casualties the entire pack might starve to death next winter.

Same with humans and hominids. A nomadic hunting and gathering existence is HARD. Historically groups would offset the difficulty in getting big game by just having lots of hunters. Lose too many hunters and you might be unsuccessful in bringing down the big stuff like mammoth, auroch, elk, buffalo, caribou, etc. A lack of these animals isn't ONLY a reduction in protein. It's a reduction in housing, clothing, blankets, boots, and a whole lot more. Fail too many times in a winter and EVERYBODY DIES.

For this reason TRADITIONAL tribal warfare (in societies NOT influenced by guns, heavy agriculture, etc) was typically a highly ceremonial version of a "street fight". A stone age "Jets vs. Sharks" if you will. People got hurt...sometimes killed. However...when casualties started getting significant everyone quit. Seriously...even if it's a really "primo" chunk of hunting territory...what's the sense in "defending it to the last man" in a world without countries, borders, etc. Especially when you KNOW that you will be packing up and wandering away ANYWAYS because you have to follow the seasonal migrations of large herd animals.

ENTER THE PRACTICE OF AGRICULTURE and it all changes. All of a sudden the land produces far more calories than the band of hominids needs. With this comes permanent houses to tie people to a given chunk of mud permanently. It also means that there is a lot of "free time". The "unemployed" hunter now has time to turn into a soldier in between planting and harvest.

Because people aren't endlessly on the move they start accumulating more crap. Some of that crap other people decide they want badly enough to steal. Thus, we have the birth of taxation, religion, and prof. thieving.
From there it just goes downhill. The wars get bigger, the weapons more deadly, the religions more powerful, the politicians more tax-hungry, and thieves evolve into the Federal Reserve.

In short...all of our "sustainability" problems are nothing more than a by-product of repeated failures to develop a workable social structure when living in an agricultural, industrial, or information based society.

The implications of this mean that ALL OF OUR "IDEAS" ABOUT POLITICAL, GOVERNMENTAL, AND ECONOMIC STRUCTURES ARE DEAD WRONG. Capitalism failed just like communism. Democracy doesn't work any better than monarchy, etc. This tells us that instead of justifying PAST systems of social organization, we need to develop ENTIRELY NEW ways of thinking.

Meanwhile...the most powerful nation on earth continues to elect it's leaders based upon their decades-long fetish with what we are doing with our genitals and semen.

I would like to live in a world where money and laws were not required
A world where each was open minded and caring of the environment and each other
Where all were free to do as they wished without harming others or the Earth
Potentially this is achievable - we all have that potential within us
Yet is starts with each individual making the change they wish to see in the world
It all comes down to choice - personal choice -
The mess we see the world in is the choices we have made

As for the guide stones - The authors of them should have the courage to reveal themselves and explain who they represent and answer the questions that many quite rightly ask as to the intention veiled within them.
After all they are addressing the world and the world has the right to know who they are and what they are.
Until that time they are worthless slabs of granite
Add - In my opinion

reply to post by artistpoet

Please do not accuse me of running away - you do not know me.

I know enough about you to know that you can't read a simple sentence. You've been completely misinterpreting what I have been saying the entire time. I'd even say that you completely misinterpret the stones as well.
Here's what I wrote....

well if you don't have a number in mind then I assume you think it can run away for ever.

"it" being the population, not you. duh.

As for the guide stones - The authors of them should have the courage to reveal themselves and explain who they represent and answer the questions that many quite rightly ask as to the intention veiled within them.
After all they are addressing the world and the world has the right to know who they are and what they are.

reveal themselves? look how many people on this thread alone are accusing the makers of being part of some evil NWO agenda. They have every reason to stay anonymous!

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by artistpoet

 

Please do not accuse me of running away - you do not know me.

I know enough about you to know that you can't read a simple sentence. You've been completely misinterpreting what I have been saying the entire time. I'd even say that you completely misinterpret the stones as well.
Here's what I wrote....

well if you don't have a number in mind then I assume you think it can run away for ever.

"it" being the population, not you. duh.

As for the guide stones - The authors of them should have the courage to reveal themselves and explain who they represent and answer the questions that many quite rightly ask as to the intention veiled within them.
After all they are addressing the world and the world has the right to know who they are and what they are.

reveal themselves? look how many people on this thread alone are accusing the makers of being part of some evil NWO agenda. They have every reason to stay anonymous!

Yes I realize I had misread the running away part of your post without you pointing it out but it had passed the 4 hour limit to edit - that is the truth
By the way good day to you.
If you take the guide stones at face value that is up to you but I have many reservations and questions regarding them. - that is the truth
Apologies if I offend you but lets be civil from here on in

reply to post by milominderbinder


While I agree that getting rid of money and following the golden rule is key(although I have no idea as to how to achieve this), I disagree with a few parts of your post.

Our problems living sustainably have NOTHING to do with the size of population. There is PLENTY of room for a whole lot more than 7 billion people.

This is the usual short sighted view of the population issue that most people have. Yes, there is enough land mass to handle many more people, but logistically....impossible. We can't even achieve a desired quality of life for the people we do have here.

ALL of the problems we face today are the result of a SINGLE puzzle that we still have not figured out. Namely, "How do organize a civilization in a reasonable, sane, and sustainable manner in a sedentary existence?"

Yeah and it would seem the guide stones have laid some pretty decent groundwork for how to do this, you certainly won't achieve it by adding more and more humans. That's just logic.

Our human and bi-pedal hominid ancestors lived for over 1 MILLION YEARS without posing ANY significant strain on planetary resources. Sure, a few species MIGHT have been hunted into extinction...but the prevailing theory of the day is that human predatory activity was more likely a contributing factor along with other things such as climate change, disease in an animal population, etc.

forget species going into extinction, are you suggesting a better way to live would be to go back to living like the native americans? Better in some terms true, but that's gonna be a tough sell to modern man.

Humans and hominids have always FOUGHT. However, there was no such thing as WARFARE as we know it today, (i.e. highly organized slaughter bent on total destruction, complete disempowerment, and cultural erasure) when we were nomadic hunters and gatherers.

um, actually I think that's what war has always been about(among other things), unless you WANT to be on the losing end.

However, there is no such thing as a wolf-general and wolves have not ever gone on to eradicate another pack of wolves because they came from the other side of the river or had a bit longer tails.

Wolves do have pack leaders although that largely has to do with breeding rights. Territory is the most common reason for fights among wolves so coming from the other side of the river could mean war.

Territorial fights are among the principal causes of wolf mortality: one study on wolf mortality in Minnesota and the Denali National Park and Preserve concluded that 14–65% of wolf deaths were due to predation by other wolves.[92] In fact, 91% of wolf fatalities occur within 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of the borders between neighboring territories.[93] Because the consequences of trespassing can be fatal, such incursions are thought to be largely due to desperation or deliberate aggressiveness.[90]

wikipedia

reply to post by artistpoet


we're cool buddy. I knew what you were talking about. I was just being a dork when I shared that. no worries.

Originally posted by ILikeStars
reply to post by artistpoet

 

we're cool buddy. I knew what you were talking about. I was just being a dork when I shared that. no worries.

I did find your comment amusing

Originally posted by artistpoet

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by liquidsmoke206

 

Read this and eat your words

In the period immediately after the Second World War, the average woman gave birth to four children during her child-bearing years. By 1970, that number had fallen to two. Today, the average is 1.4, and the pattern continues downward.

But a birth rate of two children per family is needed just to replace losses from illness, accidents and death through old age. That means we are already well below the fertility level considered to be self-sustaining

www.timescolonist.com...
Read more: www.timescolonist.com...

Seems the world does not need your guidance

edit on 6-3-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

Actually, the world fertility rate is around 2+.

en.wikipedia.org...

But there are countries where the fertility rate is sky-high.

And you completely fail to mention CONSUMPTION RATES. That is- consumption of resources, both renewable and non-renewable. And THAT is unsustainable at our current population levels... not even to mention the environmental destruction caused by our various actions as a species/civilization.

The world fertility rate is 2 plus you say according to Wiki - I am not sure what the world fertility rate is in reality it actually does not worry me because Nature always finds a balance one way or another.
I agree Greed and ignorance of our natural world puts us all in jeopardy - yet the global elites care only for their own skins and see the rest of Humanity as some lower species - rather than use their power to help put things right. Fear is the enemy - There is not enough respect for Human life - answer is respect Human life.
The Earth is being decimated by greed - answer - respect the Earth and all life on it - We pay such ideas lip service only - We have not even begun to be the change we wish to see - Start with you instead of blaming others.

It's not about blame though... it's about taking responsibility for our collective actions/effects as a species/civilization. It's about acknowledging the very very real/serious problems that have been caused, are being caused, and will be caused by our extremely high population, consumption rates, and subsequent destruction of the biosphere.

You say the Earth will balance itself out somehow... and I suppose that's true... but it certainly won't just bounce back from what we've done to it. Humans have caused PERMANENT changes to ecosystems, and there is no law of nature that states that we cannot wipe out most of the lifeforms currently living on this planet. The whole idea of PEACEFUL/VOLUNTARY de-population is to gradually/intelligently reduce population and consumption so that WHEN there are ecological crashes, they aren't nearly as harmful/unforseen for humans and other species. It's about damage control and mitigating future damage with holistic intelligence.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


You wrote
It's not about blame though... it's about taking responsibility for our collective actions/effects as a species/civilization. It's about acknowledging the very very real/serious problems that have been caused, are being caused, and will be caused by our extremely high population, consumption rates, and subsequent destruction of the biosphere.

You say the Earth will balance itself out somehow... and I suppose that's true... but it certainly won't just bounce back from what we've done to it. Humans have caused PERMANENT changes to ecosystems, and there is no law of nature that states that we cannot wipe out most of the lifeforms currently living on this planet. The whole idea of PEACEFUL/VOLUNTARY de-population is to gradually/intelligently reduce population and consumption so that WHEN there are ecological crashes, they aren't nearly as harmful/unforseen for humans and other species. It's about damage control and mitigating future damage with holistic intelligence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

First - to say it is about taking responsibility for our collective actions.
If you believe that then stop purchasing products from Global Corporations who trash the Earth in their greed for profit and power.
If you think there are too many people in the world then don't have children
It starts with the individual not socialism
I am doing my best, playing my part - expressing my thoughts
People need to walk their talk
This world is about choice - the choices we make reflect in the world we see

reply to post by ALOSTSOUL


Nope looks good to me. Make it so!

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

You wrote
It's not about blame though... it's about taking responsibility for our collective actions/effects as a species/civilization. It's about acknowledging the very very real/serious problems that have been caused, are being caused, and will be caused by our extremely high population, consumption rates, and subsequent destruction of the biosphere.

You say the Earth will balance itself out somehow... and I suppose that's true... but it certainly won't just bounce back from what we've done to it. Humans have caused PERMANENT changes to ecosystems, and there is no law of nature that states that we cannot wipe out most of the lifeforms currently living on this planet. The whole idea of PEACEFUL/VOLUNTARY de-population is to gradually/intelligently reduce population and consumption so that WHEN there are ecological crashes, they aren't nearly as harmful/unforseen for humans and other species. It's about damage control and mitigating future damage with holistic intelligence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

First - to say it is about taking responsibility for our collective actions.
If you believe that then stop purchasing products from Global Corporations who trash the Earth in their greed for profit and power.
If you think there are too many people in the world then don't have children
It starts with the individual not socialism
I am doing my best, playing my part - expressing my thoughts
People need to walk their talk
This world is about choice - the choices we make reflect in the world we see

edit on 8-3-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

Never did I say that individual choice is not a factor.

HOWEVER, we live in a MASS SOCIETY and mass change can be enacted in MANY ways. However, it must be enacted EN-MASSE. By choosing not to shop at Walmart or Mobil (which I dont), that doesn't address the roots of our problems. The roots of our problems are far larger and require far more drastic/concentrated action than something like where I choose to buy products. The entire system which ENCOURAGES the over-consumption of consumer goods is inherently unsustainable... you MUST think in terms of SYSTEMS and not a bunch of individuals accidentally creating our current world. Do not blind yourself to the very real systems that exist and control the individuals beneath it... whether it's directly or indirectly.

reply to post by NoHierarchy
[more

Hi you wrote

Never did I say that individual choice is not a factor.

HOWEVER, we live in a MASS SOCIETY and mass change can be enacted in MANY ways. However, it must be enacted EN-MASSE. By choosing not to shop at Walmart or Mobil (which I dont), that doesn't address the roots of our problems. The roots of our problems are far larger and require far more drastic/concentrated action than something like where I choose to buy products. The entire system which ENCOURAGES the over-consumption of consumer goods is inherently unsustainable... you MUST think in terms of SYSTEMS and not a bunch of individuals accidentally creating our current world. Do not blind yourself to the very real systems that exist and control the individuals beneath it... whether it's directly or indirectly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not blind to the system in place. I understand a mass boycott of the type of corporations we speak of would have a great effect.
Yet an alternative source for our needs - Food, clean water, warmth and shelter you could add companionship is required.
I do not advocate a return to some imagined stone age.
Life should be comfortable and fulfilling
A mass exodus from our normal (not natural) way of society is highly unlikely save in the face of some biblical catastrophe.
Empires and civilizations fall historically.
What would happen if all the stores shelves were empty
If there was no power grid functioning
Money became worthless
No water on tap

Would you be prepared, could you survive.
Everyone is so reliant on Governments and Huge Corporations to fulfill their needs.
I believe in fostering true independence and self reliance with less dependence on damaging technology.
Respecting the Earth and all life on it - Being tolerant of differences
Yet we can have it all
I have done it IE total self sufficiency with a large group of friends from many different country's
Life was comfortable after the initial hard work.
Everyone has skills or a gift to offer and those unable are looked after in a caring way.
I do not look to any government now to sort out the mess
It starts with individual action - setting an example and allowing others choice to stay with things they way they are or to follow.
Just a few of my thoughts - not an agenda for the world.
This is by no means an attack on your thoughts - I agree with the spirit of your ideas - I think we both want a better world for all - If I see any value in the stones it is that it raises such discussions and sharing of ideas.
Individually we are small it is true together with the will we can overcome what ails our world - Agreed

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by NoHierarchy
[more

Hi you wrote

Never did I say that individual choice is not a factor.

HOWEVER, we live in a MASS SOCIETY and mass change can be enacted in MANY ways. However, it must be enacted EN-MASSE. By choosing not to shop at Walmart or Mobil (which I dont), that doesn't address the roots of our problems. The roots of our problems are far larger and require far more drastic/concentrated action than something like where I choose to buy products. The entire system which ENCOURAGES the over-consumption of consumer goods is inherently unsustainable... you MUST think in terms of SYSTEMS and not a bunch of individuals accidentally creating our current world. Do not blind yourself to the very real systems that exist and control the individuals beneath it... whether it's directly or indirectly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not blind to the system in place. I understand a mass boycott of the type of corporations we speak of would have a great effect.
Yet an alternative source for our needs - Food, clean water, warmth and shelter you could add companionship is required.
I do not advocate a return to some imagined stone age.
Life should be comfortable and fulfilling
A mass exodus from our normal (not natural) way of society is highly unlikely save in the face of some biblical catastrophe.
Empires and civilizations fall historically.
What would happen if all the stores shelves were empty
If there was no power grid functioning
Money became worthless
No water on tap

Would you be prepared, could you survive.
Everyone is so reliant on Governments and Huge Corporations to fulfill their needs.
I believe in fostering true independence and self reliance with less dependence on damaging technology.
Respecting the Earth and all life on it - Being tolerant of differences
Yet we can have it all
I have done it IE total self sufficiency with a large group of friends from many different country's
Life was comfortable after the initial hard work.
Everyone has skills or a gift to offer and those unable are looked after in a caring way.
I do not look to any government now to sort out the mess
It starts with individual action - setting an example and allowing others choice to stay with things they way they are or to follow.
Just a few of my thoughts - not an agenda for the world.
This is by no means an attack on your thoughts - I agree with the spirit of your ideas - I think we both want a better world for all - If I see any value in the stones it is that it raises such discussions and sharing of ideas.
Individually we are small it is true together with the will we can overcome what ails our world - Agreed

edit on 9-3-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2012 by artistpoet because: typo

edit on 9-3-2012 by artistpoet because: typo

Hmm...
I think we're on the same page at this point.


So tell me about your ventures into self-sufficiency? I'm very interested in self-sufficient/egalitarian communities, and in fact, I believe them to be the only rational lifestyle/alternative for humanity going forward. I haven't had the pleasure of being involved with any intentional communities yet, but I absolutely plan on it.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


mm...
I think we're on the same page at this point.


So tell me about your ventures into self-sufficiency? I'm very interested in self-sufficient/egalitarian communities, and in fact, I believe them to be the only rational lifestyle/alternative for humanity going forward. I haven't had the pleasure of being involved with any intentional communities yet, but I absolutely plan on it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

Yes I see common ground too
Where does one start regarding my venture into self sufficiency.
Better if I make simple points to discuss rather than tell you part of my life story.
By the way I am no longer with my self sufficient friends - I am starting again with another friend in a small way to begin with.

Self sufficiency seems a daunting prospect yet in reality it is not so.
Given you have land access to water and a means of fuel/warmth it is all about commitment the rest is about learning as you go along But the the most important thing is people - and resolving differences of opinion etc
Discussion is key as is tolerance - you can not expect to just have your own way
You need to have a common goal or objective which serves as a prime reason for why you do what you do.
35 years ago I and my friends foresaw or wanted a different lifestyle than the norm.
We had jobs though some did not. Some were well of with successful businesses some had very little in that way. All ages too. Quite amazes me even now. Everyone gave up their private lifes and put in what they had - some had money some had skills some were just good people to be around.

Like I said I am starting from scratch with a friend and bring with me experience he has a wealth of skills - Our resources are very limited so we do what we can do with what we have and already have achieved much and other friends and family are impressed - If it comes to the worst then I would like to be in a position to help others in a practical way ie food water - That is my motivation as well as personal survival - Like I said I have already done it somewhere else and now I am setting out in another part of the country to do whatever I can.

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

mm...
I think we're on the same page at this point.


So tell me about your ventures into self-sufficiency? I'm very interested in self-sufficient/egalitarian communities, and in fact, I believe them to be the only rational lifestyle/alternative for humanity going forward. I haven't had the pleasure of being involved with any intentional communities yet, but I absolutely plan on it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

Yes I see common ground too
Where does one start regarding my venture into self sufficiency.
Better if I make simple points to discuss rather than tell you part of my life story.
By the way I am no longer with my self sufficient friends - I am starting again with another friend in a small way to begin with.

Self sufficiency seems a daunting prospect yet in reality it is not so.
Given you have land access to water and a means of fuel/warmth it is all about commitment the rest is about learning as you go along But the the most important thing is people - and resolving differences of opinion etc
Discussion is key as is tolerance - you can not expect to just have your own way
You need to have a common goal or objective which serves as a prime reason for why you do what you do.
35 years ago I and my friends foresaw or wanted a different lifestyle than the norm.
We had jobs though some did not. Some were well of with successful businesses some had very little in that way. All ages too. Quite amazes me even now. Everyone gave up their private lifes and put in what they had - some had money some had skills some were just good people to be around.

Like I said I am starting from scratch with a friend and bring with me experience he has a wealth of skills - Our resources are very limited so we do what we can do with what we have and already have achieved much and other friends and family are impressed - If it comes to the worst then I would like to be in a position to help others in a practical way ie food water - That is my motivation as well as personal survival - Like I said I have already done it somewhere else and now I am setting out in another part of the country to do whatever I can.

edit on 10-3-2012 by artistpoet because: edit

Not sure if you're aware of it, I assume you're at least somewhat aware, but DEFINITELY look into Permaculture and intentional communities:

www.permies.com...

and

www.ic.org...


And for long-term/sustainable shelter, check out Earthships:

earthship.com...