I'm an advocate for decentralizing just about everything: energy, food, power. It just makes sense. At least, it makes sense for normal citizens, not the business conglomerates and governments who use centralization to keep their power.

Think about it, though. I'm reading Eat Here, by Brian Halweil, which is a book advocating local food. Decentralization is the main idea behind the local food and slow food movements, but not just because it not only means that the community has more control over and knowledge of their food supplies. It also means the food will be more fresh and therefore more tasty. It will be cheaper, because it won't have to travel as far or go through customs. Oh, and of course, less oil will be used to get it to your plate, which means that if oil prices spike, the cost of the food won't explode so badly. Also, less travel means less pollution.

Of course, there's even another good, albeit paranoid reason to support decentralization: terrorism. As mentioned in Eat Here and other publications, a terrorist attack on our food infrastructure, energy distribution, or political structure would seriously harm us. Just think if someone were to disrupt the routes that your food takes (1,500 miles average) from its source to your plate. Just think if, all of a sudden, someone nuked the oil wells in Saudi Arabia. Just think what would happen if, god forbid, someone destroyed D.C. We'd be in big trouble, no?

Well, if power is decentralized, that's not an issue. No one can disrupt the entire energy infrastructure if it consists of neighborhood power plants running on solar or wind energy. No one can disrupt the national food infrastructure if most of our food comes from less than 50 or 100 miles away. Sure, some parts of the country would still need to import their food or energy (Las Vegas isn't exactly a great place to farm, I'm sure), but for the most part, the U.S. has alot of great farmland. Right now, much of it is being used for corn (not the edible kind, the pig feed and corn syrup kind) and soybeans.

8/29/2005 12:06:08 PM

fuck, why don't i just go hunt my own food while i let the womenfolk gather the berries

8/29/2005 12:11:35 PM

a.) you're retarded
b.) that's not sustainable when the planet has 6 billion people

8/29/2005 12:12:43 PM

but it's the ULTIMATE DECENTRALIZATION

8/29/2005 12:14:02 PM

just as centralization should have its limits, so should decentralization.

please stop posting if you have nothing to contribute.

8/29/2005 12:18:22 PM

While I think you make some good points, I think you are neglecting the difference in land value between different areas. While there are plenty of fertile areas in the country, agriculture isn't always the best/most valuable use of the land. We do have massive amounts of land for many types of agriculture, and I do believe it could be safer/more efficient if we look towards more domestic production-->consumption where feasible.

In other words, large scale "local" farming may not be practical or efficient, but domestic farming often can be.

8/29/2005 12:19:52 PM

I advocate making State's slightly more self-sufficient.

8/29/2005 12:25:59 PM

Yeah Mark, as I said,

Quote :

"Sure, some parts of the country would still need to import their food or energy (Las Vegas isn't exactly a great place to farm, I'm sure)"

Some parts of the country would still have to ship items in from hundreds of miles away. I just think that wehre it's possible, locally produced food, energy, etc should be used.

8/29/2005 12:28:44 PM

i agree with eventual decentralization

i just hope people don't confuse it with never starting worthwile projects that require voluminous resources

8/29/2005 12:28:45 PM

On another note, decentralization of food supply would not happen since spices, fruits, and veges from foreign countries is imbedded in the taste pallete of Americans. We cant stop the trade of cocoa, tea, and other micellaneous spices and fruits cause others want us to be more self sufficient. In that regard your preposition is unfeasable, although, I still agree with a lot of what your saying.


What about bugs, they're protein. Lets round up some grubs and eat till our stomachs are full

8/29/2005 12:36:01 PM

All the things you say are great, but it would dramatically reduce our economies of scale. Ultimately, it would devastate both our labor efficiency (how many man-hours per goods produced) as well as energy efficiency (BTUs per goods produced). As a recent statistician pointed out, the US may be an energy monster, consumer 25% of earth's energy, but per dollar of goods and services produced we are still seven times more efficient than China, and 10 times more efficient than the average Zimbabwean. Not to mention, we are 10 times more labor efficient than the average Chinese, and over 100 times more labor efficient than the average North Korean.

I like fresh food, and I'll pay more for it. I'll even pay more for reliability against terrorist attack. But do you seriously expect me to give a damn where my dry goods (flour) or durable goods (cars/televisions) are produced?

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2005 12:36:29 PM

One key aspect to the way I do things is that I try (and yes, sometimes fail) to not be a fundamentalist. No, we can't get coffee from the U.S. in almost any case. No, that doesn't mean that I'm saying we should stop buying and shipping it.

What I'm saying, again, is that we SHOULD produce locally ANYTHING that we possibly can, in as much quantity as we can, up to the point where it stops us from having enough to export and trade in order to get that coffee and wine and whatnot. Hey, I like a fine italian wine as much as the next guy, and some coffee is a great thing to have once in a while. Oh, and don't get me started on belgian beer and italian goat cheese. However, these aren't everyday items, they're luxuries. They're things that are good "once in a while," not at every meal.

Yes, those items would become more expensive as this settles in (directly, that is), but we'd lose the cost of having to defend foreign oil sources, ship things across the world, subsidize foreign farmers, etc etc etc.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2005 12:46:19 PM

Quote :

"What I'm saying, again, is that we SHOULD produce locally ANYTHING that we possibly can,"

You think producing coffee locally is silly, yet this sentence says otherwise. It is not that difficult to produce coffee in America. Throught the use of greenhouses and computer controlled atrospheric conditioning we can grow everything we need within the confines of the United States. We don't do this because it is wasteful of resources to do so. The same goes for everything else we don't do here. We grow things overseas because it is more efficient to do so and therefore cheaper.

Quote :

"but we'd lose the cost of having to defend foreign oil sources, ship things across the world, subsidize foreign farmers, etc etc etc."

We can simply stop defending foreign oil sources. Do this, and the price will rise, everyone will adjust. The government isn't shipping anything anywhere, it is simply not preventing others from doing so (few merchant ships are US flagged anyway). As for foreign farmers, I didn't know we were subsidizing them.

8/29/2005 12:54:45 PM

Quote :

"Throught the use of greenhouses and computer controlled atrospheric conditioning we can grow everything we need within the confines of the United States. We don't do this because it is wasteful of resources to do so."

we CAN, but that doesn't mean we should. Growing coffee isn't silly, it's just unsustainable.

I'm talking about natural growing. Not applying hundreds of pounds of pesticides and using greenhouses and massive amounts of energy to grow something that isn't supposed to grow here. That shit would taste bad anyway.

Did you know that alot of your produce that's from other coutnries is barely growing when it's picked, then sprayed with a ripening agent to get it from unripe to ripe in a very short time? That's why tomatoes from the grocery store will bounce, and cucumbers feel like they're coated in rubber.

8/29/2005 12:57:38 PM

If it bothers you, I suggest you don't purchase rubber produce. But I fail to grasp why you feel you should be granted the political might to prevent me from doing so. My favorite recipees are dependent upon the availability of the very goods you are in favor of banning.

8/29/2005 1:09:05 PM

i think most people wouldn't want to give up most of the food that they are used to eating if they did go to this plan. if we only ate food local farmers grew, we would not be eating bananas, kiwi, coconuts and any other tropical fruit.

8/29/2005 1:22:36 PM

^^ I DID NTO SAY I WANTED TO BAN ANYTHING. I mean, do you not see how hypocritical it would be of me to say to decentralize power by having a central authority "ban" things? That's insane

Please stop either misreading or purposely twisting my words, whichever you're doing.

Quote :

"One key aspect to the way I do things is that I try (and yes, sometimes fail) to not be a fundamentalist. No, we can't get coffee from the U.S. in almost any case. No, that doesn't mean that I'm saying we should stop buying and shipping it. "

Quote :

"Hey, I like a fine italian wine as much as the next guy, and some coffee is a great thing to have once in a while. Oh, and don't get me started on belgian beer and italian goat cheese. However, these aren't everyday items, they're luxuries. They're things that are good "once in a while," not at every meal. "

again, not fundamentalism. Just realism. You NEED to not think of those items as everyday items if you want civilization to be sustainable. We WILL NOT be able to just eat whatever we want from wherever we want forever, no matter what. It just won't last forever. I'm sorry.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2005 2:16:51 PM

Ok, so, let me get this straight. You are here to tell us that YOU are going to change your habbits, and you would like us to change ours. However, you have no interest in forcing your ideals on anyone else?

Excellent! So, even if you were in power, you wouldn't change a thing? No new bans, tarrifs, sin taxes, etc?

Thank you for coming. But your lame ass argument hasn't swayed anyone, therefore your ideals are doomed to failure because you refuse to back them up with violence.

8/29/2005 6:20:41 PM

Quote :

"therefore your ideals are doomed to failure because you refuse to back them up with violence."

He wont have to. Like he said before, we cant keep up all our luxuries. AND he's right. Just look at the rate the world's population is expanding.

This quote from his first post

Quote :

"a terrorist attack on our food infrastructure, energy distribution, or political structure would seriously harm us"

covers the reasons why we should change our ways. Why is it when anyone makes an opinion you get offended and assume they wish to change laws and what not. He's giving good advice and thats all. Damn.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 7:16 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2005 7:16:09 PM

Quote :

"Like he said before, we cant keep up all our luxuries. AND he's right. Just look at the rate the world's population is expanding."

You realize people in India can be starving while people in North America drive around in Hummers, right?

People only have what they can make. And Americans are very good at making stuff, hence we can have lots of stuff. What he is suggesting is that althought we can have lots of stuff, we should be all puritan about it and stop making so much stuff. Personally, I like my stuff and he has provided no mechanism beyond guilting everyone to achieve his goals.

In effect, he is attempting to found a new religion founded on decentralized infrastructure. This will fail because by his own admission it will result in lower living standards. And, I would argue, would result in greater environmental degradation and resource scarcity, but only for the fools that try it. Only, his follows will still be able to see how everyone else lives, and will eagerly give up his moralist crusade.

8/29/2005 7:25:09 PM

Dude, you are the only one sounding like a crusader. lol. Anyone thats intelligent understands that our economy can not just give up luxuries and technologies and become like an amish state. You're twisting his argument. He's not proposing anything close to a theocracy. The principle of his idea is more self-sufficiency. I've already stated that his idea is unfeasable in today's society. His main worries are legitamate. Give him a fucking break.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 7:46 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 7:49 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2005 7:45:24 PM

why not just go to the farmer's market?

8/29/2005 8:05:47 PM

It's ok, LoneSnark also thinks oil is renewable

8/29/2005 10:23:54 PM

Quote :

"Fossil fuels consist mainly of dead plants -- coal from trees -- and natural gas and oil from algae, a kind of water plant. Your car engine doesn't burn dead dinosaurs -- it burns dead algae."

http://www.earthsky.com/scienceqs/lqshows.php?t=20021108

See...oil is renewable.

8/29/2005 10:31:18 PM

supercalo, I'll give him a break. I was merely pointing out my views on the subject. I enjoy living in a society eager for change and diversity. Dirty is attempting to argue in favor of a society more self-sufficient and local, code words for stagnant and unchanging. If he can come on here and make arguments in favor of localism, I can make arguments in favor of globalism.

Note: neither of you bothered to counter my claim that localism breeds both societal and technological inefficiencies, including both the labor and energy sectors.

BTW, oil is a product just like any other and can easily be synthesized. As any WW2 German citizen will tell you, oil comes from a factory.

[Edited on August 30, 2005 at 12:00 AM. Reason : .]

8/29/2005 11:57:28 PM

Quote :

"Dirty is attempting to argue in favor of a society more self-sufficient and local, code words for stagnant and unchanging"

please, please, please prove to me how self-sufficient and local means stagnant and unchanging?

Also, you seem not to be continually avoiding the fact that I have consistently said that I don't advocate banning the ability to import and export goods, travel, or anything else. And I"m not. I'm simply advocating localism where it's feasible and doesn't make the world, as you put it, "stagnant and unchanging"

8/30/2005 7:07:25 AM

I know, and as I said the only way you are going to build your rational distopia is by force.

Quote :

"I don't advocate banning the ability to import and export goods, travel, or anything else...I'm simply advocating localism where it's feasible"

You said above that you believed it was feasible to make french wine a luxery instead of the necessity some people treat it. How? I cannot attack your arguments without knowing what they are. At one instant it sounds as if you are going to be standing outside the local food store chanting "don't buy imported unless you have to!" Hence my assertion that you are going to act, and be treated, as a moralist zealot.

So far, all you have said you are going to do is advocate localism, and I have said all I am going to do is advocate globalism; we cancel each other out!


[Edited on August 30, 2005 at 10:11 AM. Reason : simplify]

8/30/2005 9:45:55 AM

Quote :

"I'm simply advocating localism where it's feasible"

this is the norm.

When i go to the grocery store chains i can get local produce.

When i worked at Denny's we had local suppliers for vegitables,bread,milk, etcetc...

Even mcdonalds uses potatos grown in state to make their frenchfries.

Other stuff either can't be grown in maine or can't be produced here due to government restrictions.



also it seems like your advocating localism instead of decentralization.

Localism would be a powerplant that only provide power to local towns.

Decentralization would be an interconnected powergrid spanning the entire country. Power suppliers would put enegy onto the grid which would then be bought at local locations. If all the local plants get nuked, its ok b/c the rest of the us is supply power to the grid. That is decentralization. And its a simple explination of the current power grid and how the internet works. So if you're agruing for decentralization, you're arguing for the norm.


I dont understand what you're trying to argue here.


Good example:

Localism leads to an $80 phone bill via local phone companies.

Golobalism leads to a $25 phone bill via Vonage.

[Edited on August 30, 2005 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

8/30/2005 10:07:52 AM

What I'm talking about is people doing this on their own through personal responsibiliity or incentives. Do I think it will happen? No, not without someone forcing them or a disaster of some kind forcing them (oil crisis, terrorism). I hope it doesn't come to that, and I certainly hope no one forces us. I'm against government control, and in fact, I think that without government control, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in in the first place.

8/30/2005 10:58:38 AM

8/30/2005 1:15:47 PM

GO BACK TO AFRICA GEORGE

[Edited on August 30, 2005 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2005 1:17:12 PM

I actually drill and refine all of my own petroleum.

Now if I could just get my tomatoes to grow in.

8/30/2005 1:17:19 PM

Quote :

"It will be cheaper, because it won't have to travel as far or go through customs. "

holy fuck did you really just say that???? what a moron

8/30/2005 2:35:26 PM

Quote :

"No one can disrupt the entire energy infrastructure if it consists of neighborhood power plants running on solar or wind energy. "

I'm not reading through half that crap, but do you realize how much this portion along of your "decentralization" theory would cost? There is a reason we don't use solar or wind energy, or any "local" energy source presently. You're talking about increasing the cost of energy an order of magnitude.

8/30/2005 3:47:40 PM

but.... it will be cheaper because it won't have to travel so far!!111 omfg!

8/30/2005 6:40:50 PM

So,

Louisiana contains the only place we can unload supertankers, and we now have to tap our oil reserves. Why? Because our oil infrastructure is centralized.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

9/1/2005 8:11:04 AM

YES IT COMPLETELY MAKES YOUR ENTIRE POINT VALID AND PROVES IT WOULD WORK. BRINGS THEORY TO FACT IMMEDIATELY

9/1/2005 8:13:27 AM

no, it doesn't, but it sure works as a great example, doesn't it?

9/1/2005 8:14:53 AM

indeed it does

9/1/2005 8:16:55 AM

we now return to your regularly scheduled gloating

9/1/2005 8:20:10 AM

Wait, let me check this. In your system of decentralization and infrastructure, where do I get my gasoline from? Take me down the supply chain, because I don't see any oil wells near my house.

The current one you probably know, oil is shipped from production sites to refineries spread across the south, north, and west of the nation as well as Canada, then loaded into pipelines for distribution to the various consumers.

9/1/2005 9:39:35 AM

double-post

[Edited on September 1, 2005 at 9:57 AM. Reason : ]

9/1/2005 9:57:12 AM

Quote :

"Well, if power is decentralized, that's not an issue. No one can disrupt the entire energy infrastructure if it consists of neighborhood power plants running on solar or wind energy. "

in my scenario, we don't use gasoline.

9/2/2005 8:22:46 AM

^ yes, and in your scenario we don't have energy, either...

Quote :

"Because our oil infrastructure is centralized."

i dunno about it being "centralized..." We simply put a shit ton of infrastructure in the place that it made the most logical sense to put it.

This sounds like an argument that is easily refuted by the economic principle of specialization... Just because I can make 6 bags of bread per hour while also making 5 bags of shirts per hour doesn't mean I should, especially if someone else can make more shirts than I can while I can make more bread. In the end, we both end up better off because we've made more shit.

9/2/2005 8:33:51 AM

Quote :

"We simply put a shit ton of infrastructure in the place that it made the most logical sense to put it."

IN an area below sea level?

wtf are you talking about?

it doesn't make sense to put most of our infrastructure in one place in the first place, much less where it's so vulnerable to natural disasters

9/2/2005 8:35:46 AM

well, it does make sense to put it in a place close to the coast where the ships will be bringing it... In some respects, though, I am with you on the oil infrastructure. It wouldn't have hurt to put maybe ten percent each of NO's oil offloading capabilities in several other major ports as well, just to prepare against this kind of catatrophe.

9/2/2005 8:42:43 AM

that's all I'm saying as far as oil goes. Of course, decentralizing to the point where every city or hell, lots of spots in a city had its own energy creation system depending on its own resources: wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc

but yeah, I mean we put a mjority of our energy infrastructure in one place, and not only is it all in one place, but it's in one place that should technically be covered in water, if nature has anything ot say about it

it's stupid, but I doubt we will learn our lesson, just like new orleans won't learn its lesson and will rebuild right in the same spot.

There was this spider who would, every night, spin a web that attached to my screen door. Every day, when I opened my door, his web would be destroyed, but the next morning, there was his web again.

[Edited on September 2, 2005 at 8:45 AM. Reason : .,]

9/2/2005 8:45:06 AM

9/2/2005 8:55:37 AM

^ see? back in the day, that's what it was all about

now it's "keep shopping!":

9/2/2005 9:09:30 AM

I agree with the garden part, but some of us live in apartments. As for wholesale decentralization I couldn't see how individual state control can be a good thing. Before regualtion of the railroads there were varying track widths which greatly slowed down shipping of goods. Also what about quality control and envronmental control standards? This is all opinion of course so I am not trying to discredit what you are saying by any means. I just think of it like this:
Ancient Greece: Decentalized between the city-states. Self sustaining yet constantly in turmoil due to varying wealth differential and governing ideals.
Rome: Centralized and was able to combine the wealth of its acquisitions to perpetuate itself to capacity.

9/2/2005 9:36:05 AM