Living ethically by canttakesky

I love this quotation:

http://www.justfortheloveofit.org/blog-3854~in-your-name?

Quote:
Trying to endlessly buy our way to sustainability is as ridiculous as trying to shag our way to virginity.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:15 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

First, I'd like to mention things that strike me as contrary to the stated philosophy of this gentleman.

The man survives largely on the waste products of a socio-economic system he abhors.
The man uses equipment created by that system.
The man uses services created by that system. (His mobile service and, presumably, internet service require participation in the system he abhors.)

This means the practice of removing himself from that system is illusory. He has simply moved to a different place within the system, not removed himself from the system.

Having proceeded to read these articles:

http://www.justfortheloveofit.org/blog-3854~in-your-name

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/oct/28/li
ve-without-money

I have gathered that change is needed and wanted, but I have not been able to tell what change is specifically being proposed.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 8:44 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I think we could analyze economies the same way we analyze energy in thermodynamics, and robustness in ecologies.

Robustness first - it comes from many partial redundancies. Environments with only one top producer (algae), one top consumer (krill), and one top predator (penguins) tend to be unstable to significant changes in any one of the categories. Many partial redundancies aren't what we might think of as 'efficient', but they can alter relative balance to keep the system running after significant change.

The problem as I see it with our current system is that by its nature*, it concentrates resources into a few large entities that exercise disproportionate power to amass even more resources. While it may be a favored outcome under the current structure, it isn't, by its nature - a few large entities - stable to perturbation.

* As I see it, there is a well established mechanism for resources to accumulate into a few hands, called profit. Each turn of the cycle skims some of those resources into a small pool. However, there is not an EQUALLY well established mechanism to release these resources back into circulation. Therefore, by its nature, the system accretes resources into fewer and fewer hands over time.

The second analysis is entropy. Entropy is the inevitable loss of usable energy. Nothing is 100% efficient.

Family calls - perhaps I'll be back later.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This means the practice of removing himself from that system is illusory. He has simply moved to a different place within the system, not removed himself from the system.

Very good point.

I sort of see him like a guy on a hunger strike. His abstinence highlights a very serious problem. But by itself, it isn't a solution.

The rest of the site offers a philosophy for a lifestyle change. The main thesis is to produce and consume locally--have not more than one degree of separation between production and consumption. It is not a very useful solution for a highly specialized society. As you said, his use of a computer, which no doubt, contains parts made in China by people he doesn't know, shows the limitations of this approach.

But is it a step in the right direction?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Therefore, by its nature, the system accretes resources into fewer and fewer hands over time.

I can't argue with this.

But I would argue that there IS a mechanism to release resources back into circulation: technology. Every new technology that makes the old one obsolete starts the cycle all over again.

Personally, I think this release mechanism is as equally well established as the accumulation mechanism. The difference is, accumulation is continuous, while the release is periodic. You can see accumulation at any point in time, but you can only find economic/technological revolutions here and there.

In the last century especially, these natural release mechanisms have been corrupted. New technology isn't equally accessible by everyone. Laws purchased by big business have seen to it that the small garage inventor can never get off the ground without big business participation. This is a BIG problem, in my view, that has made these two processes very unequal.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 9:53 AM

QUESTIONABLEQUESTIONALITY

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"But is it a step in the right direction?"

Hello,

The only mechanism I can think of to accomplish this is to create trade tariffs. Not only between nations, but between states. This would encourage local creation and consumption of local goods. Essentially, a return to a type of confederate economy. Under such a system, you may still be more than 1 step away from production, but you could rest assured that you would not be very many steps away. If you wanted imported materials from far away, it would become very costly.

I think such a system might be better for the world, but not as good for the individual. Access to goods and services would become much more limited and much more expensive than it is now.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This means the practice of removing himself from that system is illusory. He has simply moved to a different place within the system, not removed himself from the system.
Very good point.

I sort of see him like a guy on a hunger strike. His abstinence highlights a very serious problem. But by itself, it isn't a solution.

The rest of the site offers a philosophy for a lifestyle change. The main thesis is to produce and consume locally--have not more than one degree of separation between production and consumption. It is not a very useful solution for a highly specialized society. As you said, his use of a computer, which no doubt, contains parts made in China by people he doesn't know, shows the limitations of this approach.

But is it a step in the right direction?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

Yeah, I think Kiki is off a bit. Last I checked there are more and more people on earth and they are using resources, so how can it be going into fewer hands? Seems a tad dumb. Sounds good though

And CTS has a huge point about technology.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:03 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Oh, I get to be back briefly ... new technology creates new areas of accretion, it doesn't release old resources back into the system. But, for the sake of argument, if it did, it would have to be EQUAL in its redistribution over time to negate concentration. Otherwise, while you would slow accretion down, it would still progress.

Anyway, the other thing I've been thinking about is the entropy angle. (To be completely accurate, except for the nuclear fuel generating heat at the earth's center and the chemotrophs living on black smokers and H2S seeps - that I can think of) all the energy we depend on to make up for inefficiency comes in one way or another from the sun (even oxygen, food and fossil fuels). Thank god for the sun, eh? Shining on the planet for free.

We can use some of that energy to make up for our inefficiencies. What percentage of that energy can we use indefinitely? I have no idea, but I think it sets the absolute upper limit to how much resource can we extract and sustain ourselves.

The problem with capitalism that I see is that it depends on MORE free resources being sucked in to operate. Expansion is its life, equilibrium is its death. By itself, I see the system as intrinsically highly inefficient and therefore ultimately flawed and prone to collapse.

I see that different people come to topics from different perspectives. HKCav is uniquely nuanced and insightful into motivation and internal wordless transactions. AnthonyT seeks what he hopes is the truly equitable approach. SignyM has a unique ability to ferret out impersonal processes that take place outside of consciousness. Mine is I think rather crude, I wish I had more time and ABILITY to parse these things out.

Also, these ideas of accretion and expansion are not new with me btw, they were formulated in whole or part by capitalist economists as far back as Adam Smith and Thorstein Veblen.

Anyway, I hope to be back later.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 10:49 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I will look forward to the description of a system where accretion does not occur or is adequately offset. If such a system preserves the rights of each individual, then I am likely to think highly of it.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
...new technology creates new areas of accretion, it doesn't release old resources back into the system.

I think it would if the old technology becomes obsolete. Keyword here would be "obsolete."

Example. If Bob invented a new energy source that replaces petroleum, accretion for oil would stop. Oil would eventually spend its assets, releasing them back into the system. Bob would start his accretion cycle. This would go on until Chuck invents something that makes Bob's technology obsolete.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 5:38 PM

I would concur with Anthony's analysis that a number of poverty ideologues are basically parasitic, but I also would agree that the wealthy are often a misdirected target. Those with money are often more trapped in the system because they are more rewarded for being a part of it.

Poverty, for me, has actually been a goal, that is, to be divested of the system I abhor. I call myself "Independently destitute." Sign no contracts, make no loans, take no handouts, and carry no debt. If you are free from money, you are free. If you are dependent on money, than how much money is dependent on how you play it.

Some of the rich are relatively free because they choose to spend their wealth by squandering it at a life calculated rate.

Define yourself by you net worth, and you have signed up to a lifetime of servitude to JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.

Sorry, just my 2c.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 1:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sign no contracts, make no loans, take no handouts, and carry no debt.

We're the same way. Except we did buy an old decrepit house with a little bit of land with cash, and the adjacent property with a small loan, which we paid off in 3 months. Other than that, we've been debt free for a long time.

Still, this is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

What can we do to live ethically in this messed up world?

Any ideas?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 2:37 AM

CTS

It's not a small thing. It's really a major thing. Sure, no one has to abide by my religious principles, but people should understand this:

Carry no debt.

Here's why:

Debt is a form of control. What do you do when you have debt?
You get a job, right?
Okay. Who do you get a job with?
Well, there are two major options: Govt. or a Corporation.
All right, so now you are devoting 40 (be honest and call it 50, you need to commute, job prep in the morning, etc.) hours a week to support a Govt. or a Corporation.

But wait. I thought we were opposing this dominance of our lives by govt. and corporations. Why am I suddenly spending half of my time supporting one?

Oh right. Because you carry debt.

So... How to live ethically? Get rid of your debt. Your debt is a note of fealty to the powers that be. It's a contract of indentured servitude, which you fulfill in spades by working to pay it off. That work consumes your time and may help your opponent. The time certainly makes you less effective at being independent.

I'm not saying quit your job, I don't know where everyone works or what they do and it's not really important.

I'm saying get rid of your debt, or don't accumulate it to begin with.

Our society encourages us to live beyond our means. They do so so that they can put us and keep us in debt. They do that to control us. When we are controlled, we are less free. When we are not free we will not live ethically.

I've had several jobs, most of them computer programming or teaching computer programming, a subject I've never studied, but there is always work available because there's always something new where I could be employed. It's not work I did for the govt. or the healthcare, finance or plastics industries that disabled my opposition to destructive policy and behavior: It was the loss of my free time, my freedom. My efforts went to help those groups rather than to help solve the problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 6:37 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It will be a long time before I am debt free.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:16 AM

CATPIRATE

Hey Cant, listen I think we have to have balance in the world we live. We our in an age where we can have a high standard of life. It is expected today to have alot. But we have some that enough is never in enough. I don't have a problem with using natural resources as long as we keep the enviroment healthy for the future. We also should really improve the safety of nuke power. And go nuke.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 8:36 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Without carrying the discussion forward - just brief replies:

"If such a system preserves the rights of each individual, then I am likely to think highly of it."

Given your family history, I have a feeling for where this statement is coming from.

However - I see individual rights differently.

For example: if you can't say too ALL employers (rather than this one employer, or that one) 'naff off - I refuse to play in your casino by your rules with your odds and your cards b/c the house ALWAYS wins' - then you have no economic rights. Not really. You may try to bargain for a slightly better position relative to where you were before (though there is ALWAYS an excess of labor and your 'winning' bargaining position is to work harder than the next person for less money) - BUT, in the end they are dictating the terms.

Similar arguments for social freedom - as long as you are part of society and benefiting from its arrangements you will never have perfect individual freedom.

Etc.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 8:50 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I think it would if the old technology becomes obsolete. Keyword here would be "obsolete.""

Well, once you have accumulated enough wealth, your accumulation of even more wealth becomes independent of actually providing a product or service: through buyouts, market manipulation, speculation, investment, connections, and corruption. You may lose relative standing to a newcomer, but I have never seen a very wealthy person (who is the ultimate beneficiary of accumulation) recycle their entire wealth back into the economy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 9:00 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I have never seen a very wealthy person (who is the ultimate beneficiary of accumulation) recycle their entire wealth back into the economy."

Hello,

I think wealthy people go bust periodically, but that's probably not what you meant.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 9:05 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Our society encourages us to live beyond our means. They do so so that they can put us and keep us in debt."

A profit based economy by definition means we are living beyond our means. It's a fatal flaw built into the system, not simply an accidental or cosmetic non-issue. The founding fathers recognized it way back when. They understood the frontier to be the check on a permanent overclass. As long as any person could say - to hell with your low-wage job, I'm going to get my gun, my plow and my ax and get my living myself out there with resources freely available to me - then no one class of people such as owners/ employers could have a lock on the populace. The FF actually worried about what would happen when the frontier ran out, but then, never got to an answer.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 9:10 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I think wealthy people go bust periodically, but that's probably not what you meant."

Donald Trump comes to mind. But even when he is supposedly bust - do you think he's living on the street, worried about getting medical treatment for diabetes, and friendless in a work-or-die society? Aside from assets that never go away, he has his connections, name and influence. He is always invited to those parties where the ultra-wealthy jet to banquettes and drink out of ruby goblets - and always manages to jet there to attend. Going bust is a relative state.

For the sake of argument - let's say DT does end up penniless, sick and unknown on the street. Who buys the cars? The mansions? Apartments? Jewels? People who work? Or OTHER accumulators? Does that wealth really get recycled down, or simply change position at the top?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 9:57 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

BTW, when I think about it, the frontier and the Revolutionary War seems why most Americans have the attitudes they have. In Europe there was no frontier. Even the great forests belonged to some upper-up. It was forbidden to so much as gather firewood or collect herbs and simples without permission. And for most of its history, except for a few 'freemen', people were considered real estate - they came with the land as serfs. Europeans had to come to their social adjustments recognizing they were stuck with each other.
In the US though, even as the frontier has long since vanished, we still assume the frontier mentality and all it implies. We think we ARE independent of the system. We think it really IS about individual effort and reward. This attitude blinds us to our current reality.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 11:30 AM

Interesting thoughts, Kiki. Keep 'em coming.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 2:13 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I think wealthy people go bust periodically, but that's probably not what you meant."

Donald Trump comes to mind. But even when he is supposedly bust - do you think he's living on the street, worried about getting medical treatment for diabetes, and friendless in a work-or-die society? Aside from assets that never go away, he has his connections, name and influence. He is always invited to those parties where the ultra-wealthy jet to banquettes and drink out of ruby goblets - and always manages to jet there to attend. Going bust is a relative state.

For the sake of argument - let's say DT does end up penniless, sick and unknown on the street. Who buys the cars? The mansions? Apartments? Jewels? People who work? Or OTHER accumulators? Does that wealth really get recycled down, or simply change position at the top?

Hello,

Given the odd propensity of rich people to carry enormous debt, the assets are probably mostly reclaimed by banks. These banks will probably resell the items to other wealthy people. However, the proceeds of doing so will be used by the banks as reinvestment capital. A portion of that capital is used to lend money to ordinary people for things like houses, cars, etc.

Some things, once owned, will lose some of their value. And so you'll see middle-class people in possession of items that are considered distinctly upper-crust, just because they are no longer new. Estate sales and warehouse sales and such things are the means by which the ordinary person might acquire some of these items. But again, these sales are probably arranged by creditors, to their benefit.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 6:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT: There is more to being free than carrying no debt. I carry no debt, and yet I'm constrained.

I would say: Have no children. Once you have a child you've given a hostage to society.

Aside from that, you will still depend on society is other ways. You can never be COMPLETELY independent. Unless you can make your own iron and steel, your own cloth and paper, your own medicines, your own power (electric or other), water and food; sooner or later you will have to interact with the larger society for some kind of necessity. Society (the economy) will have you by the balls at SOME point. Less so than most, but still a problem.

Learning to live "off the grid" as much as possible is, I believe, a realistic response to the coming breakdown - provided that you have a community around you willing to do the same. After all, if things happen as I believe they will, you may have to survive for ten years or more fairly independently.

But I don't believe it's the answer to living ethically. Living ethically means taking the power structure by the throat and throttling it until it either dies or turns into something useful. The problems we're facing are huge, the solutions need to be huge. I personally don't believe we'll get to the point of actually solving our problems. I think that we'll keep using up precious resources squabbling, and ecocide ourselves to death like the Easter Islanders. But IMHO living ethically means leaving the world a better place than we found it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But IMHO living ethically means leaving the world a better place than we found it.

I like that definition.

Though, of course, "better" is all manner of subjective. What's "better" for you may not be "better" enough for me.

Or should we just go with our own definitions of "better" and not judge anyone else?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 7:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So if I understand Kiki properly, the "frontier" understanding of/ response to our economic enslavement, while appropriate 150 years ago, is no longer viable. If that's the statement, then I agree.

We face serious worldwide problems which will leave our children in bad shape if we don't solve them. Refusing to participate/ withdrawing from the grid isn't really a solution IMHO. I believe it is far preferable to change the current system into a more useful tool. It's the evolution vs. revolution question. Either way, what we are doing now will change because our current paradigm isn't sustainable environmentally OR economically.

I told Tony I would put my thoughts here. The problem is, they are random thoughts and there are some choices where I don't really know which way works better. For better or worse, here they are:

Anyone who works should be an owner in the enterprise, and there should be no owners who don't work for the business. In other words, an economy based on cooperatives. No stock market. Raising capital should be done by loans or bonds.

There should be no banks. No making money on money. The commoditization of money is at the heart of what's wrong with our economy. Money should be used to facilitate exchange, not as a resource in an of itself.

There should be no patents and copyrights. The idea of "owning" ideas is complete anathema to intellectual and technological development.

All income should be taxed to take care of issues and development that go beyond the ability of any one cooperative to take care of: for example, clean air, clean waterways, bridges, roads, water mains, sewage, retirement etc.

Decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. Still, there are prolly many decisions that need intercontinental cooperation: fishing limits, how much of the carbon cycle any group can consume per capita, water rights etc. In a world of limited resources, we can either individually grab all that we can and strip the world bare, or we can agree to nurture our resources and make the world an abundant place.

Alas, I fear our economies and responses are of the "stripping bare" mode.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 3:29 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

"There should be no banks. No making money on money. The commoditization of money is at the heart of what's wrong with our economy. Money should be used to facilitate exchange, not as a resource in an of itself."
Interesting how usury used to be banned or limited throughout much of European history. How it's come to be so accepted is kind of astonishing, seeing as how hated money lenders have always beem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 3:39 PM

Do no harm. I'm not sure it's possible for a human to leave the earth better, but not worse would be a good start.

I'm actually in complete agreement with Magon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 5:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh and one more thing: If I'm going to create a world, I would introduce redundancies. When a system is at maximum efficiency... each item produced in max quantities at only one or two places, just-in-time deliveries, etc... it is extremely vulnerable to any kind of disruption- storms, solar flares, political upheaval, etc.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2010 5:42 PM

Sig

Not to mention manipulation and control.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:17 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

So in this ideal society, no one would ever buy anything that they couldn't afford in cash.

Interesting concept. I like the idea of a frugal society.

I do worry, though, with all the constraints on environmental impact, combined with all the constraints on lending... what would a house cost?

Would there be apartments and rent and resultant high population concentrations?

Is rent itself possible under the system, or would it be considered one of the types of 'low work' ownership to be avoided?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Indeed.

One has to give thought as to how finely you can support a system, at what level, and for how long. For example, it may be possible for a city to survive a week after an earthquake or hurricane, but not a month. Smaller units could only exist on stored resources for so long, then they have to drop back into a lower level as soon as critical resources drop out.

The most catastrophic kind of disruptions are of electricity, communication and especially transportation, bc the health and well being of so many people depend on transportation of goods. A massive solar flare... the kind that melted telegraph wires in N America... would take out all three over a continent's-worth of land mass for a long time. All of the wires and transformer and stator windings would act as antenna. The large electric pumps which pump water and sewage would fail. And it's not a case of just tossing in backup generators because the generator and pump windings themselves would be destroyed. And those massive transformers that are part of our power grid take a year to build and replace. So unless you have some replacements in EMP-protected storage, you can forget widespread power for at least that long.

Anyway, logic says that small communities need to drop back to a lower level of technology in case of massive disaster, and should be prepared for that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:39 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Speaking of EMP protected storage... how fine does a wire cage need to be to get the job done?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:08 PM

FREMDFIRMA

You would be best off asking Canttakesky that one, Anthony as she has a bit more practical experience with area shielding than I do - there's also supposed to be a mathmatical formula but damned if I can ever remember it....

Faraday Cage Shielding, is the technical term, but once again, tech is generally dependant on each other, too, so if you manage to preserve your laptop, for example - and the hard drive takes a dump, you're still outta luck, see ?

I already have lowtech backup plans for much of my local community, but as anyone knows, the best way to trash a really good plan is try to actually use it - I'll get by, it's everyone ELSE I worry about.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:47 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It occurred to me that perhaps when building a structure- be it a house or even a single room addition to a house- it might be possible to set up such shielding in the walls and ceiling. Thus everything inside would be protected.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Speaking of EMP protected storage... how fine does a wire cage need to be to get the job done?

We have built a walk-in closet sized Faraday Shield. I keep telling Hub to start collecting electrical spare parts and throwing them in the Shield in event of the Solar Flare they are predicting for 2012-14.

We got our copper in a roll from this place:
http://www.twpinc.com/twp/jsp/product.jsp?type=3

I think we got 16 mesh per inch, mostly because we wanted some transparency. It cost about $1000 for the roll. The higher the mesh, the more frequencies it can block, the more "opaque" it looks. For the purposes of surviving the solar flare, get as high a mesh as you can afford.

And then it is a matter of building a wooden frame for the mesh. You cover the door with mesh, and latch it with brass hooks and eyes. The end result looks like a kid's clubhouse with copper "mosquito netting."

Very important, get a nice thick grounding rod and nice thick copper wiring to ground the Faraday Shield.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It occurred to me that perhaps when building a structure- be it a house or even a single room addition to a house- it might be possible to set up such shielding in the walls and ceiling. Thus everything inside would be protected.

That's our next project. Hub is working on building a shielded workshop and apartment inside the workshop, probably in spring 2011. It would be very expensive, though, to shield a building. We'd probably only put copper mesh in the windows. I don't remember what Hub wanted to use for shielding the rest of the house. I'll ask him.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:33 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

If mesh works, would solid metal surfaces work?

For instance, a number of places sell prefab steel buildings (probably for storage.)

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If mesh works, would solid metal surfaces work?

Yes, but you want metal that is as conductive as possible. Solid metal buildings are a "poor man's" Faraday shield. Cars provide some shielding effect too.

The keys to shielding are: 1) completing the 3D circuit (floor, ceiling, and all sides) and 2) grounding the shield.

Here's an entertaining video of a Faraday shield in action.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:05 AM

Anthony,

I asked Hub about the metal. He says, shielding works best if the metal is NOT paramagnetic, if the metal will not emit its own magnetic field in the presence of other fields. Gold, silver, platinum, and copper would all work. So would nickel.

He says that stainless steel has a high enough nickel content that stainless steel sheeting should work. It is apparently slightly cheaper than copper.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

What about aluminum?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA

bitingmytonguebitingmytonguebitingmytonguebitingmytonguebitingmytongue

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 13, 2010 1:26 AM

Frem,

No need to bite your tongue, not on RWED! :)

If I am wrong, please feel to correct me. Always.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 13, 2010 1:30 AM