Toward a Better Understanding of a Feasible Living Situation

For Future Humanity

See these posts for background:
What is a feasible living situation for future humans?,
A feasible living situation continued.,
What should we fight to save?,
More on aesthetics and humanity
[A small side comment: I have been listening to Brandi Carlile's album (see the third link above), "Give up the ghost", the track "Oh Dear" and I am still just stunned by her talent!!! Brandi, may you always produce such beautiful music! (Also kudos to the Twins for their backup! Absolutely fantastic.)]

A central question that I raised in this series is what kind of living situation would be needed in order for future humans (those living after the population bottleneck event) to survive in a manner that would allow those humans to pursue activities that led to self-actualization. Clearly, a mere subsistence lifestyle is not going to cut it if future humans are going to be happy and continue the tradition of developing culture, even if it isn't going to be a high technology, high powered one. If future humans, evolving toward a new and more sapient species, cannot live in a world in which they can achieve something more than mere subsistence then I'm not sure its even worth the effort for humans to survive into that future (c.f. Homo sapiens, I'm glad I knew ye).

But lets continue to think about what might produce a feasible living condition for those future humans. I must admit that there are a number of things that I am assuming that may or may not be reality. For example, I assume that colonies can be established in climatologically stable (relatively speaking) areas that are also protected from the climate refugee hoards that will likely sweep northward as the impacts of climate start to really have an impact. I assume that the decline of energy available to those hoards will limit their capabilities to invade the kinds of areas I have in mind. I hope you will forgive me for not revealing more detail at this time, but I have been researching the potentials of various geographical areas and, naturally I hope to discover areas that will be immune from these hoards. If my assumptions prove false then kiss the potential goodbye!

I have been studying the energetics of hunter-gatherer and early agricultural communities (c.f. Pimentel & Pimentel, 2008) to get a better handle on what it might take in the way of a feasible support system. I would like to share a few interesting facts.

Several people have 'complained' to me that my ideas about a village of 500 (only an approximate number) being a utopian dream. They feel that if a bottleneck event takes place future humans will face the most brutal environment which will select for the most brutal individuals and a general devolution of humanity. This view has been bolstered by a few science fiction writers addressing the idea of a Mad Max-like dystopian future. Such a view, of course, dismisses the combination of cleverness and wisdom for its potential to overcome the challenges that a future world might produce. I choose not to be dismissive and so cynical about the future. I would like to further explore the potentials for a community to survive the future challenges and actually prosper in the sense that the members of that society might achieve self-actualization.

The Energetics of Hunter-Gatherer and Primitive Agricultural Societies

It will probably come as a surprise to many people to learn that modern hunter-gatherer societies exist that are not living hand-to-mouth existences today. The !Kung bushmen of Botswana in Africa are a case in point. In spite of living in what we would consider a marginal land (rain, soil fertility, etc.) these people have adapted to a lifestyle in which they only have to use 2.2 days per week gathering food adequate to supply their nutritional needs (see Pimentel & Pimentel, Chapter 6), leaving the rest of their time to other activities of living, including recreation. Admittedly they are lucky to have an indigenous food source, the mongongo nut tree, that can supply an incredible source of protein and calories. But the point is that there are environments, even if marginal in such things as rainfall, that can supply the necessary nutrients to allow an indigenous population to more than survive. Anthropological studies of the lifestyle of the !Kung indicate that they are quite happy, thank you.

Studies of the mountainous New Guinea farmer populations demonstrate that even primitive agriculture can produce situations in which people produce adequate nourishment and still have time to pursue other interests. From several studies (including a swidden-style agricultural system in Mexico — where the farmers exploit a piece of land and then move on to another, see slash and burn agriculture) it is clear that a primitive agriculture system is sustainable for the long term, but sustainability requires a stable population size, one that is not growing over time (see: The hardest moral dilemma of all).

Pimentel & Pimentel report that for even so-called marginal hunter-gatherer societies the EROI of lifestyle is 3.3 to 1 and for swidden agriculture the EROI is between 12:1 and 15:1. This ratio is significant since new oil and gas EROIs are running in the less than 10:1 range. Our modern technological society was built with fossil fuels at EROIs in excess of 30:1. It was much higher in the early 20^th century and has been declining as the easiest to obtain fossil fuels have been depleting. It is difficult to get accurate numbers on what a minimum average EROI that would be needed to maintain our current society but one might conclude from the evidence that it is in excess of 10:1 (Hall, et al, 2009). However, it is also the case that such a low average EROI for all possible energy sources would not allow us to grow or even adequately maintain the society that we have now. It is unlikely too that any substantial development of underdeveloped countries could be accomplished. A future society that can establish an agricultural society with EROI greater than 5 or 10 to one can have a very viable existence. With some additional assistance from water and wind power (with EROI at perhaps 10:1 given the nature of that future very low-tech technology) life could be good.

A future society, living in a temperate climate, might require between 10 and 50 hectares (one hectare is 10,000 square meters: equivalent to 2.471 acres) of mixed-use land per person to produce adequate calories (esp. protein sources) for a year. One hectare of agricultural land could support up to five people, but if draft animals are used then more land would be needed for that, and other sustainable resources, like wood, need to be accounted for as well. The land will need to be a mixture of forest, fields, and planting areas, supporting a rich biota. It will need to be within a reliable watershed and have a year round stream. I have found areas that far exceed this amount of land within zones that appear to provide climate stability for the next several hundred years (forgive me if I do not say where or how for obvious reasons!). As a consequence I envision communities being established that could flourish in the sense of growing enough food to supply basic needs, but also having adequate extra time to pursue activities that contribute to self-actualization.

There are no guarantees, of course. But, by the calculations provided by the Pimentels it appears well within the realm of feasibility that future humans might not just survive, but thrive in terms of having extra energy to apply to pursuing self-actualizing activities. Thus the idea of a sapient society with education as the core activity is not so unreasonable after all.

There is hope for future humanity. There is reason to believe that a wiser race of humanity might succeed in living a worthwhile life in spite of the seeming hardships of an energy constrained world. The energetics of a likely environment appear favorable.

What Should Our Species Do?

If this potential is viable, what should we, the extant species of humanity be doing to bring about this future? Unfortunately we cannot know with certainty that this future is realistic. Thus, we might easily revert to cynicism and reject any actions today that might ensure some kind of future for the genus Homo (some commentators on this blog have said as much!). That would be a huge mistake. Despite the lack of certainty we must act as if there were a viable future for humanity. The worst that can happen is that our species will go into extinction with only a whimper. But, if I am right in the idea that there is still potential in our species, then it behooves us to take action on behalf of that future species of humanity. We have a responsibility.

It behooves us to bequeath some protection to a population of potential eusapients.

References

• Pimentel, D. & Pimentel, M. (2008). Food, Energy, and Society, CRC Press, New York.
• Hall, C.A.S., Balogh, S., & Murphy, D.J.R. (2009). What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have?, Energies, 2009, 2, 25-47. (on-line pdf http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/1/25/pdf )

Comments

[Georgi Marinov]

What could make the curve steeper would be any number of radical social upheavals causing rioting and a government crackdown. Real bullets were shot at Kent State U. Just imagine what they'll use to quell the crowds in our cities.

George
Posted by: George Mobus May 24, 2010 at 04:26 PM

This is my greatest fear about how the whole thing will unfold - while historically the ultimate reason for civilizational collapse has most often been resource depletion, the proximal reason has typically been the people of that very civilization rioting due to worsening conditions and rapidly bringing down their own society. This is especially true in our case, with many factors combining to make the situation a lot worse than it has ever been. We are incredibly spoiled and with a sense of entitlement to comfortable lifestyles, the distrust of government is probably at an all-time high in the history of humanity, more people have more powerful guns than in any other point in history, etc.

Regarding your original post: people tend to assume that the climate will just shift north and we will be able to grow the same kind of crops we are growing in temperate areas now in what is currently taiga and tundra . Historically, when large climatic transitions have occurred, this has been the case (although obviously nobody was growing any crops at the time), but those transitions took a lot more time than the current change will give us. Right now the soil in the arctic and subarctic areas is just too poor to support agriculture of the kind we are used to, and this is not going to change just by shifting the climate zones north. It will take centuries and millenia for natural processes to build the kind of fertile soil that humans have enjoyed in temperate climates.

So the question of what kind of communities will be able to survive the bottleneck in the north when the temperate areas become uninhabitable deserts is highly problematic.

Areas with high tropical mountains surrounded by seas like New Guinea may have better chance, but they also mean that the people who survive there will be unlikely to develop/maintain any sophisticated technology and science, due to other environmental factors characterizing these regions.

[Manoel]

First of all thank you George for all your great work! We are keeping a close eye on many of your articles which are indeed very useful for the discussions we have in our peak-oil awareness association in Galicia (NW Spain).

I'd just read this one and, as a person in transition to a rural settlement, I am also making calculations about land extension needed to provide maximum self-sufficiency.

So, I'm wondering which are the basis for these data you mention: A future society, living in a temperate climate, might require between 10 and 50 hectares (...) of mixed-use land per person to produce adequate calories (esp. protein sources) for a year.

I think it's pretty much! I can't imagine where do you take those numbers from. Can you give us some clue? Thank in advance.

[Manoel]

While I was reading these posts from the feasible living thread I was recognizing my own country's villages depicted in your descriptions of a future sustainable settlement!

Let me briefly introduce my country to you and your readers: Galicia is traditionally divided in parishes of about the same size you suggest, an placed in similar sites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Spain)

Our country has a strong identity though it is now a part of Spain, and it was the first Kingdom which arose in Western Europe after the Fall of Rome.

It is considered one of the most under-developed parts of Spain, and in fact it mantained since the decade of 1960 a traditional agrarian structure very similar to the one you resemble.

Now we'd like to preserve all those agrarian sustainable heritage, mix it with a little permaculture techniques and help by this way to achieve maximum resilience to our country's villages and hamlets. We count with a great living treasure: many old people who know how to use a loom, make a basket from local plants, guide oxen and so on. They still do all those things in some places!

Our association is called Véspera de Nada after a local proverb which stands something like this: "Day of all, eve of nothing": http://vesperadenada.org

Well, I hope this notes can help you understand how useful and meaningful your posts are to us here in this green little Atlantic country.

[George Mobus]

Manoel,

Thanks for the thoughts.

RE: land requirements:

I think it's pretty much! I can't imagine where do you take those numbers from. Can you give us some clue?

I derived my estimates from the values provided in the Pimentel & Pimentel book. But have additional estimates from various Permaculture/manual agriculture sources. The reason my numbers are larger than you might see elsewhere is that I am considering complete self-sufficiency at above subsistence levels. Notice that I require mixed use lands, which includes forests and pastures (grain production). Also this number assumes some form of crop rotation in the agricultural land to maintain soil health. The total land area per capita has to be large enough to provide excess solar energy flows. I am also considering the need for a high degree of biodiversity to support a hunter-gatherer lifestyle should there be, for example, a bad crop year.

From the Wikipedia article, with the exception of the oil spill problems, your country sounds and looks delightful. Its heritage, if revived, should stand you well.

So here is a little test (thought experiment at this stage). Imagine drawing a boundary around one of your most promising villages, a boundary through which noting gets in and nothing gets out. Make it as large as you can without impinging on the lands of nearby villages. Then ask: Can this village be sustained into the indefinite future given the internal resources alone? That is the test of feasibility that needs to be made. It isn't easy to answer, but asking the question will help you think about many resource issues that might have slipped by in the past.

There are likely not to be any perfect solutions in the future. The land needed to support a village (of 500 or thereabouts) will depend entirely on the climate and native resources along with whatever agricultural technology (e.g. plows and horses!) can be brought to bear. Every region will have its own set of needed responses. You might want to take a look at the climate wizard tool I mentioned to Georgi above. You can use it to see what your region might have in store for the next hundred years.

I wish the best in your planing for a challenging future.

George

[George Mobus]

Georgi,

Human reactions. What a conundrum.

RE: climate change. I have been using this tool to assess possible areas where the climate changes in temp and precipitation will have the least shift from current averages for the next 100 years.

http://www.climatewizard.org/

The regional models don't predict uniform conditions along the latitudes in the temperate regions. There will be pockets of less affected among them. Think of this as a planning tool ;^)

George

[Georgi Marinov]

There will be pockets of relatively stable climate, but in general if you are on a large continental mass, unless there is some sort of very big natural barrier, say you are in a remote valley in Tibet, you aren't going to last long, as those are the places where the millions of hungry people will be.

Ideally, you would set up refuges on Svalbard and Kerguelen, as those places are both remote and the vast majority of people today don't even know that they exist, the problem is that as I said above, they will not be really habitable for a good few hundred to few thousand years, even if the temperate climate zone shift to cover them. Unless you are willing to live on a fish diet, but then, there is the question of what the state of the ocean will be at the time...

[Manoel]

Thanks for your answer, George. I've seen a lot of references to that book by Pimentel et al. since I become interested in these subjects.

I'm doing my own investigations, gathering numbers from different sources and right now I consider that 1 ha per family is a bare minimum for sufficiency, though my sources vary a lot.

About your mental test of village enclosure it's quite a common ground for me because we're trying to help first Galician town which officialy recognized peak-oil problem, to make something like an energy descent plan. Of course resilience is all about that experiment you suggest, though I guess some inter-village commerce will remain for non-vital items and it should be taken into account.

Best wishes for your plans, too. And all of your readers'

[George Mobus]

Georgi,

All suggestions welcomed. The objective though is to find a place and life style that will be above subsistence so that people can strive toward self-actualization as much as possible. This may not work out for the bottleneck survivors directly or immediately, but over the long run that is what I hope we can strive for.

Manoel,

The 1 ha per family might provide basic subsistence, but, as I just commented to Georgi, the goal is to live more comfortably than hand-to-mouth. To be human means to also enjoy and appreciate. Ask your folks what kind of life they hope to live feasibly. I bet it will include some time to sing and dance as well as plow and harvest.

Regards

George