Best Place to Live in the Event of Collapse

This morning I stumbled across another debate about where it will be best to live in the event of a Peak Oil-induced collapse or depression. This time it's over at Anthropik. The debate is always between the big city and your own small farm out in the boondocks.

I responded to the Anthropik debate with this:

I find these debates over where it will be better to live during a collapse fascinating. They can be found on several of the top Peak Oil sites. Most people agree that the city will be a better place for survival due to the increased probability of finding work.

This is where the logic falls apart for me. My mind immediately asks, "What city-type work will be left in a bona fide collapse?" Think about that for a minute. Most of the work performed in cities consists of little more than shuffling paper--both actual and virtual. In a state of collapse, where people must refocus on the basics of survival: shelter, food, water, and safety, most of those big city job skills will become worthless over-night.

So what if you were a "master of the universe" Wall Street banker before the crash? If I control access to food, you may not have much to barter with after you have sold off all your furnishings and art at firesale prices in the initial stages of collapse.

The people who will survive will most likely be the ones with basic skills such as knowing how to grow/hunt food, repair generators, and salvage photovoltiac systems and other necessities.

A major currency in an energy-induced collpase will be your energy. If you need food but lack money to pay for it, then hop aboard that stationery bike connected to a generator and peddle for an hour to keep the merchant's refrigeration systems running.

One more point: this debate always makes it sound as if the choice in residences is between Brooklyn and some isolated farm 30 miles outside of Hootersville.

Why not something in between these two extremes? Last summer I chose a small city of 165K people near prime agriculture country. This city is about 100 miles north of Seattle and 60 miles south of Vancouver. It's an affluent hippie place so the people are to my liking.

If things get really bad, one of these farms may want to hire an extra hand with my business experience. If things become truly desperate, I'd happily work for food and a bunk-bed in lieu of a paycheck.

A year ago I watched Ron Howard's Cinderella Man. From what I have read people who lived in the Depression say that the film offers a very accurate portrayal of life in a large city during the early 1930s. If you haven't seen it, that life was harsh consisting of lack of work, constant hunger, and regular shut-off of your utilities for falling behind on payments.

Finally, during the depression people first migrated to the cities from the farms after being foreclosed by the banks. But as the depression deepened, there was a second migration back out into the country from the cities as people realized that access to food was the top priority.

Since, a Peak Oil induced depression will most likely be a permanent one (followed by a collapse of society, as some predict), why not just go straight to where your personal chances for survival will be greatest?

Comments

[Al]

Where would those chances be the greatest really? Out in the middle of nowhere with no gas, no horses, and few neighbors?

[Peter]

Well, I think the correct answer will vary not only with the country but with the region as well. In my region, the Pacific Northwest of the USA, I believe that the best place is the city of 165K mentioned above. Of course this decision includes a number of purely subjective criteria on my part.

The questions to ask, if things get really bad as predicted by some, including the Tribe Anthropik, where can you maximise your chances of having regular access to food and being with like-minded people?

I'd be nervous about living in an isolated farm away from any sort of community. At the same time, I wouldn't want to be in a large city where no one knows anything agriculture beyond how to water their Chia-Pets(TM).

[Al]

Bellingham may well, indeed, be the answer. (Unnamed cities don't work very well when your commenter is a native of Seattle...). :-)

John Michael Greer, a popular peak oil (and druid) nutter that I went to college with, moved to Ashland, Oregon for similar reasons (and chose it over Bellingham, where he used to live for college).

I had this debate with my wife and I agree that a small city is probably the best. The next best after that is a large city, in many ways. If things go to shit, who do you think the powers that be are going to make sure to resupply and help out, even if it is only to survive: A small city or San Francisco?

I definitely think that moving to a farmstead is a recipe for starving to death on your own if things go badly unless you really know what you are doing. The resources of a community will be necessary. There is a reason that settled peoples gathered into villages.

[Peter]

Damn it man, I'm trying to keep my location a secret. The last thing we need is more people moving up here.

[Dan]

Is Peter saying that he chose the semisecret, 165k-citizen-city becuase he thought it was the best place to survive a breakdown?

Before moving there, did you do an analysis of multiple choices and then settle upon your present city?

I would be interested to see you elaborate further on why you think your city is a good location.

[Peter]

Well, here's a quickie answer re my criteria.

Familiarity: I jave spent most of my life in the PNW, so I know the region well. That's a big factor. I'm too old to move into a strange region and start over.

Overall Environmental Attractiveness: Many people agree that PNW is going to be a great place to live if things get really bad. One reason is the moderate climate. Not too cold in winter and air conditioning is not required in the summer. (Do a search on "Cascadia".) BTW, Ruppert and Savinar have announced their intentions to move up here.

Culture: B-town's culture is more to my liking than Bellevue's or Redmonds. I don't fit into "plasticky" places. Plus bellinghamsters are into sustainable living and renewable energy.

Transportation: We have a major railroad track running through town which connects Vancouver to California. Railroads will probably become important again as oil prices rise.

In addition, B-town is on the water and could become a small port if needed. If oil prices go through the roof, we could see ships of sail replace modern merchant ships.

I think cities on the coasts and along major rivers will do better than others, as they have done throughout history.

Agricultural land: we are just a few miles from the farm rich Skagit valley.

Family: I have family in the area.

You can read more about this stuff on my new website www.karavans.com

For the record, I don't see civilization back in the Stone Age by 2030, but I am preparing for a possible depression by 2010.