From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Aug 23 2003 - 11:26:43 MDT
During a discussion, I believe between Spike and Randy,
comments being made included:
> >More than 1000/acre generally. You need about 40 acres to live on,
> >that's 40,000. I happen to have it, but then I make good money.
> >"MOST" people are negative in the cash arena.
>
> Yep. THat is one thing I have noticed about some of the people on this
> list--either they are all rich (Natasha seems to think many are), and
> think everyone is like them, or else they have totally bought
> into--and never emerged from-- the dotcom-stock market bubblethink of
> the late 90s. Or both....
I believe the 40 acres number may be using "typical" agricultural
practices. You might want to consider reading "Square Foot Gardening"
by Mel Bartholomew (1981) (seems to also be a PBS series on the topic).
I would like to see someone cite some Google references on the actual
land area required to produce 2500 calories per day. (There seems
to be a lot of hand waving going on here).
I also do not believe that Natasha thinks most list members are "rich".
However there are some list members who can at least "afford" to spend
a couple of hours a day online -- but this may not be too different
from spending a couple of hours a day watching television (which seems
to be feasible for many people in the U.S.).
I think one thing missing in the discussion is what happens in various
regional areas as we concentrate the houses in ever-expanding (cheaper?)
suburbs while concentrating the jobs in core centers. An ever increasing
fraction of time and money must go into transporting oneself from the
far flung suburbs to the core centers. I knew people that would spend
one or two hours (each way) commuting from the North Bay to the South
Bay. Seattle is rapidly becoming similar.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 23 2003 - 11:37:53 MDT