.
I venture some food growers who use organic or 'chemical free' polyculture methods are beyond subsistence. That is, they might be selling what they and their families don't eat. But I got to check that out. Perhaps other users of this forum can support or detract from that claim.

Getting our hands (and clothes) dirty by growing food, instead of/in addition to, for example, working in a cubicle might be one of many ways to revitalize our economy. Why allow ourselves as a society to be stuck in a rut, unimaginatively and complacently, given how some of us have faced increased risks of losing our corporate jobs ?

But, since you mentioned it, let's consider subsistence farming--that is, growing just enough to live off of. As a last resort, it might be better than starvation, which is what the majority of people in this country--including myself---MIGHT face without petroleum.

I say that because (relatively eco-benign) substitutes such as geothermal, wind, and solar seem more applicable to electricity generation, transportation, and heating than they do to agriculture.

The claims of food and chemical companies such as Monsanto, Dow, or ADM about feeding the world might make sense if we overlook the uncertain future for petroleum and natural gas. Also, to those big companies that say thru their high-price PR firms "We feed the world", we might want consider whether it's better if the world is instead able to feed itself, as opposed to relying on big companies that literally wield the power of life or death.

But as for peak oil (and climate change for that matter), even if concerns about them are overblown or just plain false, our current systems are problematic for other reasons. For the sake of brevity (if it's not too late for that) let's just consider our food system for the time being.

Industrialized agriculture involves many challenges, irrespective of peak oil and climate change :

(1) eutrophication of waterways;

(2) salinization of soil;

(3) draw-down of aquifers;

(4) loss of topsoil;

(5) loss of micro-nutrients;

(6) loss of biodiversity;

(7) loss of nutrient density in food;

(8) public health problems such as obesity, BSE, MRSA, H1N1, and lowered resistance to antibiotics;

(9) concentrated control over seeds;

(10) monopolies in the dairy and livestock industries;

(11)abuse and neglect of farmed animals;

(12)exploitation of migrant and other workers at the bottom of our food supply chain.

But let's again pan our conceptional lens wider, not limiting our focus to our food system. Brevity be damned! Whether it pertains to food (petroleum, natural gas); transport (petroleum, coal-fired electricity); electricity generation (coal and nuclear); or heating and cooling (coal, natural gas, and nuclear); I suggest a more accurate accounting of the 'costs.'

Apply to your understanding of 'cost' the same degree of systemic thinking you applied in order to challenge the way people use the word 'renewable' when we talk about energy sources. http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/eliminate-tax-subsidies-for-big-oil-companies#post-404439

The key term is 'throughput,' so as to account for NET usage of energy and materials, and NET gains vs. cost to human well-being. (I used an anthropocentric framework for the sake of a possibly more constructive discourse with you.)

So, I suggest we consider the net costs and benefits of pursuing alternatives to our current systems for agriculture, transportation, and power generation versus the net costs and benefits of sticking with (or trying to stick with) things as they are.

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


As for the US being a net fuel exporter, (1) does this necessarily negate the value of reducing absolute demand ?

As for the DoD's innovations with alternative fuels and energy sources, I'm not sure if you mentioned this to bate Pilsner, given his anti-war posts. But it calls to mind the conservative stance that government should spend money and resources on 'national defense' and little else.

Having said all of that, I would add the broad commercial and noncommercial applications of technological innovation that resulted from the Cold War space race to your example of the internet resulting from a DARPA program. This raises a possibly useful line of inquiry:

(2) to what extent has government-sponsored R&D focused on military applications
resulted in benefits to society and the world in general;

(3) to what extent has non-military government-sponsored R&D benefited society and the world in general;

(4) what do our answers---in comparing (2) and (3)--- mean regarding citizens right now pushing our political leaders to invest in government-sponsored R&D;

(5) and will the money for this come from keeping taxes low for the super rich and big corporations that send jobs and manufacturing know-how overseas ?