NEW AGRI EMPIRE
China, through rise and fall of empire after empire ( or perhaps it is dynasty after dynasty ) always faces the same foe. The nomads from over the mountains ( or, in some spots, over the wall ). The herders from the plains constantly try to pillage the farmland and its riches, and the Chinese resist whichever flavor of the year is trying to steal from them. There is a reason the players always change but the fight is always the same. The two systems are incompatible due to the climate and geography. Climate determines how your livelihood is secured. This might seem obvious to anyone throughout history, but our Oil Age has allowed us to confuse this issue. There is no way that half of the US is ever going to stay welded to the other half. One part is good only for nomads and grazing and the other half will support farming. The only reason the two coexist now is cheap energy to pump water and cheap transportation to send the goods of both to one another. Come the collapse, the Great Basin desert and southern desert ( either extending into Old Mexico or extending up from that country, it is hard to say where the new boundaries will be in the wasteland ) will be the new Mongolia and the East will be the new China.
*
There is a perfectly good reason that the two different systems don't merge. The Chinese invaders can't grow anything, and the nomad invaders are absorbed into the farming society. The cultures are different, because culture grows up around the climate to help secure survival. This is something we've covered before. You can't expect different economic/survival systems to work in another environment. In time, I expect that the Yankees will drift back towards agriculture. They might have the small local hydro sites, but they have little to no coal or iron ore deposits left that are suitable for primitive mining. There should be small industries using that power, perhaps recycling metal. But the locals should be pretty much growing most of their own food. The East is well suited for water transport and industrial areas can be supported from some distance away, but first you must assume a lack of warfare and a stable society. The eastern US will not go from peaceful information/oil economy to peaceful agriculture/small scale industry. There will be war and conflict in between. Before a new agri empire emerges, there must be conflict for the spoils. One assumes transforming the plains into the bread basket has allowed a lot of coastal area soils to rest and refurbish themselves ( otherwise all bets are off about the areas survivability ).
*
The overseas importation of cotton growing should also have given the Souths soils a time to recover. That, and the eventual tearing down of suburbia will allow a lot of farmland to go into production. Not soon enough to prevent famine as the oil runs out, but in time the east will again regain some of their population with most soil in production. I think that the long periods of time after the collapse when the area is fought over should establish a tradition of local agricultural self reliance, despite the ability of crops to be cheaply transported in by water. The ore and coal factor is a big question mark in the north's ability to engage in anything other than farming. On the other hand, it will be vital if the east will rise as a empire. You need a arms manufacturing ability to conquer and stay in power. But even manufacturing areas will grow their own food by new tradition. The water transport will enable manufactured goods to be shipped out, rather than crops to be brought in. The area is too rich is rainfall to be neglected for food. Granted, some areas have poor soil, such as New England which had turned to fishing to compensate. But, the oceans having been depleted, it seems more likely that with new French Intensive methods that the area could produce. Perhaps there will need to be soil building materials imported in, but the manufacturing income could pay for that ( plus leave a tidy profit-without coal, hydro power is going to be it and be a valuable resource ).
*
From the Sierra mountains to the Rockies, a vast stretch of land is pretty much useless for anything but grazing once oil inputs cease. Even then, vast stretches won't even be useful for that. The few sources of water will be where all life clusters. Depending on how Gore Warming unfolds, the plains areas might also be closed to farming. If the natural rainfall isn't enough for dry farming the whole area will perhaps revert to a buffer zone between the farmers and the herders. Southern California is naturally a desert, and the irrigation is petroleum power dependant. That will revert to wasteland. Up close to Sacramento farming is possible, and then north up along the coast. Perhaps up in Canada and then down into Idaho. It is easy to map the new countries, according to rainfall. The only question is how far the buffer zones extend. And, no, I don't see just two countries, or empires. It will be several waring factions in each zone. Even after villages and towns fight each other during the collapse and powerful warlords emerge to control vast holdings, I'm sure the borders will always fluctuate. More like several states in Europe instead of one holding like China.
*
To see in what general direction your area will lean, just trace the water source. The Mississippi delta, for instance, can become one large empire because of the single water source. Mountain chains will be natural borders. Cultures will closely follow climate. You need to strip away what oil makes possible to see where your future is. Perhaps not ours. Our future is war, famine and death. But perhaps your grandchildren will have that future. The best stockpiled hoarder will eventually run out of supplies, and the two choices will be farming or nomadism. And don't think you can maintain an island of one surrounded by the other. You will be assimilated into your areas Borg.
END
Monday, July 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
That's probably an accurate concept. Even if we did manage to stay together as a country; which I'm not too sure that we could without cheap oil and just in time logistics. A person could look back about 125 years to see our future. Hopefully a slow collapse [if at all] and a reasonably peaceful transition to self-sustaining regions.
Hum! the big corporations are just going to give up their monopolies ?
Walmart is going to close their door so small shops and artisans can compete ?
That's what the "economic stimulus" ripoff is all about: save the big rats on the USS Titanic.
DO YOU LOVE BIG BROTHER YET ?
Hmmm.
Excellent point about natural barriers and water sources.
It makes me glad I picked the spot I did.
As long as we don't get bartered to China for debt, and North Korea doesn't nuke us, I should be sitting pretty.
Still some shallow coal around here, and lots of timber.
Good post.
You seem to have taken electrical power out of the equation. Assuming for a moment that oil goes away, you don't think nuke power will make a comeback?
Might there be a hit if Nanny doesn't act quickly enough and the oil suddenly dries up? Sure. But other sources will be developed (or redeveloped) to take their place.
I don't think power for the masses will be the major issue. I think it will be the inability of the feds to pay our debts. How THAT shakes out - war, no war - will be the biggest issue.
Jim, there is actually quite a large supply of iron ore remaining in northern MN- still in the ground and in stockpiles miles and miles in size. Veritable mountains. Also, taconite is the current cash crop- a low grade iron ore used in most the world today. In effect, I don't see so much a lack of ore as the methods once used to work it. There are people working that area still, in small home shops, though few and far between.
Ditto with coal. There are large deposits still underground. Again, the lack of ability to get it.
So it's really just semantics (and I'm throwing some antics) about the kind of shortage in both.
It's possible as well that small amounts of oil will be produced ala-19th Century technology, or earlier. Again, getting large amounts and getting it to markets will be the key and we can rest assured some enterprising individuals are more than likely working those methods now. Still, it's going to be mostly catch-as-catch-can for use, irrespective of where one lives.
I like your concept of various nations arising- very similar to the Russian scientist/theorist view. I don't want it to happen, but it's highly probable, IMO, such as it is.
Shy III
Good post - don't forget overpopulation. Even if significant non-renewable resources such as iron ore, coal and oil remain, it will never be enough for the current global or even national population. Thus, there will be a die-off that accompanies wars and conflicts over the remaining resources. The survivors will have some useful resources remaining. The big danger is nuclear power: the reactors need to be mothballed now, before collapse, or they will eventually leak or go critical, and poison the areas around them for hundreds of miles...
According to one article, petroleum is scarcely used to generate electric power in the U.S. I believe, however, that agriculture and food distribution are entirely dependent on diesel fuel, and that petrochemicals play an important role in growing our food.
It's hard to imagine that foreigners will continue to take our Monopoly money forever. Eventually we'll lose access to the imported oil that provides about two thirds of our needs. The speed and severity of the collapse will depend upon how soon and how quickly the value of the dollar declines. If it's a slow process, our society might be able to find substitutes and sustain itself.
One thing that is certain is "social unrest." When an ever-increasing population of welfare dependents runs headlong into an ever-decreasing supply of goods and services, something's gotta give. Sooner or later, our cities will burn.
Speaking of burning, Dragon over at Circle of the Oroboros has a way cool post on a petrol free system (wood gasification) that could be used to power irrigation pumps, generators, or even cars!
Check it out at
http://circleoftheoroborous-dragon.blogspot.com/2009/07/shtf-fuel.html
Good Post, Jim.
Another History Lesson is in order. Look how Rome went down:
Read:
http://dieoff.org/page134.htm
"COMPLEXITY, PROBLEM SOLVING,
AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIETIES",
by Joseph A. Tainter, 1996
One quote from this worthy artcle and ask yourselves if this sounds familiar: Look at the section of the site that has the title:
"The Collapse of The Roman Empire"
"One outcome of diminishing returns to complexity is illustrated by the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. As a solar-energy based society which taxed heavily, the empire had little fiscal reserve. When confronted with military crises, Roman Emperors often had to respond by debasing the silver currency (Figure 4.2) and trying to raise new funds. In the third century A.D. constant crises forced the emperors to double the size of the army and increase both the size and complexity of the government. To pay for this, masses of worthless coins were produced, supplies were commandeered from peasants, and the level of taxation was made even more oppressive (up to two-thirds of the net yield after payment of rent). Inflation devastated the economy. Lands and population were surveyed across the empire and assessed for taxes. Communities were held corporately liable for any unpaid amounts. While peasants went hungry or sold their children into slavery, massive fortifications were built, the size of the bureaucracy doubled, provincial administration was made more complex, large subsidies in gold were paid to Germanic tribes, and new imperial cities and courts were established. With rising taxes, marginal lands were abandoned and population declined. Peasants could no longer support large families. To avoid oppressive civic obligations, the wealthy fled from cities to establish self-sufficient rural estates. Ultimately, to escape taxation, peasants voluntarily entered into feudal relationships with these land holders. A few wealthy families came to own much of the land in the western empire, and were able to defy the imperial government. The empire came to sustain itself by consuming its capital resources; producing lands and peasant population (Jones 1964, 1974; Wickham 1984; Tainter 1988, 1994b). The Roman Empire provides history's best-documented example of how increasing complexity to resolve problems leads to higher costs, diminishing returns, alienation of a support population, economic weakness, and collapse. In the end it could no longer afford to solve the problems of its own existence."
"A society based on consumption will consume itself"
-From a bumper sticker I want.
The move to imported cotton did not preserve the South's soils, rather if anything extensive fossil fuel dependent cash crop monocropping continued and even expanded in the 20th century. More cotton is grown in the Deep South today than was in 1861, with soybeans, corn, and peanuts taking up most of the remaining arable farmland currently in use (while traditional and more diverse crops have withered away, and the small and self-sustainable farm did as well). GMO crops are also heavily emphasized, and farmland is badly depleted and highly dependent on powered irrigation for maintain yields.
I worked for the USDA for 4 years.
Post a Comment