“I’m one of the few people from this technology-obsessed, calorie-counting, greed-driven generation that has a “backwards” thinking when it comes to ideal living,” she said. “Perhaps this may rouse a new topic…the age difference between a self-sufficient mindset and city-dwelling “sheeple”, who rely on others, on society, and **gasp** on their governments to provide them with the basics of life.”

Yes indeed, this suggests a topic or two, although they might not be new.

Conventional wisdom says wrinkled, wizened, creaky old fogies (like me) from the Depression era are much more attuned to simple frugal living than younger folks. And we’re more adept at it. When your formative years were spent eating lard sandwiches, it’s much easier to make use of leftovers. When you remember peeling the new-fangled tinfoil off cigarette packages it’s a lot easier to recycle tin foil. And plastic bags, and all kinds of other things normal people simply toss.

And yet, in my 30 years of editing Countryside I was often impressed by letters, and even articles, I got from young people. One of these correspondents was a young fellow who made a big splash by becoming the first home-schooled student to be accepted by an Ivy League university. (Besides being home-schooled, the media loved the fact that he milked goats.)  I’m sorry I can’t recall his name, or even the school — I think it was Harvard — but it blows me away that now, when trying to trace that story back to its roots via the Internet, I learned that homeschooled kids are arriving at Ivy League colleges in droves, and it’s no longer a big deal.

Not all homeschoolers milk goats, gather eggs, and know how to make sauerkraut, I’m sure, nor do they all go to college. And the ratio of “backwards thinking” kids to the general population might not be very high, but then, how high is it among adults?

What I’m clumsily trying to say is that age is not the defining factor in a self-sufficient lifestyle. It’s easier for the elderly because of our life experience and because wants and needs generally decline with age and decreased activity anyway, but we have no monopoly on — I don’t like the concept of backwards thinking — let’s just call it common sense. Even the elderly aren’t all homesteaders, in any strict sense of the word. At the same time, not all young people shun what some of us call the Ideal Lifestyle: independent, self-sufficient, sustainable living, close to nature and First Causes.

Among many recent examples are the school kids getting involved in gardening — and using the produce to learn how to cook from scratch. This is happening all across the country. It can be attributed to a number of factors, including concerns about factory farming, food safety, childhood nutrition and obesity, and the Great Recession. Many other homely crafts and skills — backwards thinking, if you will, but they’re only common sense activities — are seeing similar gains in popularity.

But adults are turning more and more to such activities too: gardening, sewing, raising poultry, commuting by bike, cooking and baking from scratch — things that only a few years ago were considered to be the domain of the homesteader (the broad way I define that in CIG to Self-Sufficient Living). And again, many factors are involved: it’s not just the economy.

I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t some kind of pendulum effect. Is it possible that the excesses of the past can go only so far, not because of all the physical, economic and environmental limitations I’ve been talking about for all these years, but because people just got sick and tired of it and crave a return to sanity? Or even — here’s a wild thought — because the “backwardness” becomes the new novelty!

And here’s another smirky thought: What would it take to convert the masses to a sane way of living? After all, if one tv show or one famous pop star, to say nothing of one adept blogger, can start a silly new trend overnight, why couldn’t somebody foment a sheeple stampede to more sensible, sustainable living the same way?

I like interacting with young people. Here I went from thinking the world was going to hell in a hand-basket and only utter environmental or economic devastation could turn the tide, to feeling that hey, there IS hope, with some of these sharp youngsters coming along!

I’d love to be here to help. I plan on living to be 100, and so far, it’s working out pretty good. Stay tuned. — Jd

The world is a much different place.

What used to be false is now known to be true,

While the old truth fell flat on its face.

What this country needs is a good revolution, and by golly, we just might be getting one.

You don’t have to read in-depth news stories to see why and how: just scan the headlines. To grab a few from the past few days: “New Jobless Claims Near Six-Month High” (more people are out of work now than during the 1930s Depression, with many running out of unemployment benefits and savings); “Bank Repossessions Drive Up July Foreclosures” (and bankruptcies are still high too);  “The Shrinking Second home: Affordable Housing for the Affluent” (ooh, those poor billionaires, having to rough it in a second home that only costs $1.25 million instead of $2.5 million, according to The Wall Street Journal); “Fed Sees Recovery Slowing.” Just yesterday it was “Markets Swoon on Fears” (and then they went down even further). More than a few financial experts see a double-dip recession, meaning we haven’t hit bottom yet… and some even expect deflation. As a matter of fact, almost 2/3 of Americans think we haven’t hit bottom yet. And for the first time in American history, most people do not think their children will be better off than they are.

On the brighter side, Americans are saving more than they have in years; “cocooning” and “staycation” have become common terms; and local, fresh, organic food sales are booming, leading to an increase in such activities as vegetable gardening, cooking from scratch, and raising backyard chickens.

Best of all, “Happiness is a side effect of the new frugality,” according to a New York Times headline. Imagine that: people are discovering that they don’t really need all that “stuff” to be happier. Acquiring goods keeps the economy going, but it doesn’t improve their lives all that much… so maybe they don’t need the economy as much as everyone thought?

Everyone but homesteaders, that is. We knew it all along. In fact, most serious homesteaders ache for major readjustments in the established social and economic structure, which would constitute a revolution in our society on a par with the revolution brought about by the Internet. A sea change in the way people think and live. After all, if you don’t mind what life has become in our times, why attempt to avoid any of it by becoming self-sufficient? Why not just join the crowd and enjoy the insanity?

[A word from our sponsor: I examined this in the very beginning of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Self-Sufficient Living, concluding on page 6 that “We’ve just expanded the definition of self-sufficient living from ‘providing for one’s own needs’, to ‘saving the world’.” And saving the world is exactly what the rest of the 379-page book is about, even if few readers seem to recognize it. Please read the book with this in mind. Thank you.]

Note that the good news does not concern a robust economy in any way. On the contrary, it concerns people finding comfort and satisfaction in a down economy, with reduced material goods and expectations. And this could very well indicate that we don’t need or even want the old robust economy to return because we’re better off without it.

Think about what this means. People have less money, so they spend less, meaning fewer goods are produced, which conserves energy and other natural resources. This in turn slows down the economy even more, and the downward spiral feeds on itself. If most people are okay with that, it would constitute an awesome revolution in the spendthrift consumer society.

On the other hand, the Establishment wants and needs everybody to spend more, not less, to keep the wheels turning, so its upward cycle can feed on itself. But that simply means faster depletion of all forms of nonrenewable natural resources and continued degradation of the planet.

The homestead thinking (as least so far as Countryside has been concerned for the past 40 years, and certainly as laid out in CIG to Self-Sufficient Living) is that we don’t need all the material goods the industrial world sells in order to be happy. We don’t need to waste the energy that goes into making and transporting all that stuff, we don’t need to waste the nonrenewable raw materials those goods are made of, and we don’t need the landfills and pollution they create when we toss them. This used to be as laughable as talking about organic gardening, but no more. The New Frugality is going mainstream.

Homesteaders know that everything has limits. A corn plant grows taller than a pepper plant, and a sequoia can be larger than a birch, but nothing grows forever. Not even an economy. But who is to say enough is enough, it’s time to stop and reassess the situation?

No group or individual is going to halt the madness. It has to die on its own, or, like the cancer it is, when it kills its host. In a worst-case scenario, that will happen when the planet runs out of recoverable oil and other forms of nonrenewable energy, or when burning those fuels makes the air unbreathable and the planet uninhabitable, or when water problems become dire enough to cause mass famine, or when a road or parking lot paves over the last acre of tillable farmland… in brief, when humans are no longer able to feed the monster.

It won’t have to go that far if enough people take enough small steps early enough to stave off that type of Armageddon. If they stop making and buying goods that, in reality, do little or nothing to enhance their lives and happiness anyway. Not many are willing to bell that cat, but when circumstances dictate, as they seem to be doing now, who knows?

Let the revolution begin! — Jd Belanger

That bureaucrat in Washington, sitting on his fanny.

He decides what’s good for you, and what to leave alone,

And tells us witless citizens (in a somber tone),

“Avoid raw milk and home-canned food and what your Grandpa ate.

You will live forever, with science on your plate!”

Raw milk can kill you. At least that’s the message I got when I read about federal, state and local officers raiding a health food store and confiscating raw milk products — with guns drawn.

In other words, dare to sell raw milk, and risk getting shot.

This happened at Rawesome Foods co-op in Venice, California, on June 30, although it wasn’t widely reported until last week. A month earlier, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle vetoed a bill — already passed by the legislature, mind you — that would have allowed raw milk sales in the dairy state.

The raw milk controversy has been going on for years, of course. I vividly recall giving a talk in New England when someone asked about raw milk. I spoke in favor of it. One of the following speakers was Dr. Sam Guss, the famous goat veterinarian. When asked the same question, he came down foursquare against it. He hadn’t heard my talk, but I was in his audience, and I’ll never forget the smirking (and amusing) glares I got after he made his statement. I waffled somewhat when I wrote Raising Milk Goats (now Storey’s Guide to Raising Dairy Goats) in 1975. That hasn’t changed in the fourth edition, coming out this fall, because I consider it a personal decision: Do some research, and make up your own mind.

So it’s nothing new. But we’re hearing a lot more about it. It used to be confined mostly to people who raised dairy goats or a family cow but didn’t have a farm background. I don’t know how many dairy farmers were selling raw milk for $9/cwt and buying it back pasteurized at $50/cwt, but I don’t recall ever hearing a farmer question using the raw milk from his own cows. Now more people are concerned about what they eat, most of these people have to buy their food (including dairy products), and therefore it registers higher on the food police radar.

I have nothing against pasteurized milk for those who have done their homework and have decided that’s what they want — or even mandated pasteurization for the unwashed masses who don’t know and don’t care, and probably need a nanny state to watch over them anyway. But if a cop with a gun tried to tell me what to eat or drink…

What makes it puzzling, and even more unpalatable, is that so many foods that are dangerous don’t generate the venom seen in the milk dispute.

Recalls of salmonella-laced lettuce and spinach seem to have become routine, as have recalls of ground beef. We’ve seen recalls of peppers and tomatoes — and peanuts, which were used in hundreds of products.

Last spring there was a recall of hydrolized vegetable protein (HVP), a flavor enhancer made from soybeans, due to salmonella. The kicker in that one was that the HVP made by just one company — the one with the salmonella problem — was used in an estimated 10,000 products! That’s what happens in a scientific, industrialized food production system.

As of this morning there are three dozen products listed on the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) “Current Recalls & Alerts” list, including canned meatballs, beef jerky, cheesey chicken and rice frozen meals, and imported prosciutto. Most people never even hear about all these recalls. In 2009, when the USDA was involved in 59 recalls where they knew how much was potentially tainted and how much was recovered, only three recovered the target amount. When 545,000 pounds of ground beef was contaminated with E. coli last October, only 795 pounds were recovered.

Which could be one reason the CDC recently reported that 76 million people a year in the U.S. get sick from foodborne illnesses, and 5,000 die. Statistically, you are most at risk eating food prepared by a caterer, slightly safer at a restaurant, and best off at home. (The most dangerous foods: guacamole and fresh salsa.)

The USDA has approved meat and dairy products from cloned, rBGH-injected, genetically modified irradiated livestock, constantly fed low doses of antibiotics — and they don’t even require consumer labeling for any of it. We recently mentioned the cancer-causing BP-A that’s ubiquitous in cans, and the USDA figures that indicate that today’s “scientifically-grown” fruits and vegetables don’t have as much nutrition as the old-fashioned (mostly organic) kind did just a few years ago. And on and on. You eat this stuff whether you want to or not, often without even realizing it.

And one Rawesome Food volunteer wryly noted that there’s a medical marijuana shop a short distance from where the yogurt was confiscated.

But consciously choose to drink raw milk, even after studying the issue and being aware of the potential dangers? Don’t even consider it.

BTW, of those 76 million a year who get sick, how many drank raw milk? For the first seven months of this year there were 11 “outbreaks”, with the worst involving 30 people in Colorado. — Jd Belanger

But how could a guy like me, who keeps saying most people don’t where their food comes from, resist commenting on something like this?

Supposedly, this appeared in a San Francisco newspaper. Because I try to look kindly on all of God’s creatures, my first reaction was that this was one more of those all-too-common internet spoofs: nobody could be that stupid. (On the other hand…)

Or maybe it was meant as satire. You know, a hunter makes this ridiculous statement to point out just how foolish some anti-hunting arguments can be. The trouble is, most people don’t get satire, and one like this, that could be serious, loses some punch because it leaves some doubt.

Whoever started this out took it at face value with the heading “Unkilled Hamburger” and the standard web put-down for such items: “Folks, remember as you read this, this person probably drives and votes AND may have already reproduced! God help us all…”

And then there was the news that the chemical BPA, which recently created such a stir for being in plastic baby bottles, is (and has been) present in almost all cans of food on the supermarket shelves (and in your pantry). Just about everything you eat that comes out of a can contains bisphenol A, which slowly leaches into the food and water. It’s a key compound in the epoxy linings that keeps the canned food fresher longer, and keeps it from interacting with the metal and changing the flavor of the food. But it has also been blamed for cancer, obesity, diabetes and heart disease. So far, no one has found a substitute. Think of the homestead implications I could write about on that one.

Or how about that report on the dwindling nutritional values of fruits and vegetables? Somebody compared USDA data on 43 fruits and vegetables over the years. For example, in 1950, broccoli had 150 mg of calcium: today it has 48 mg. There are reductions in vitamins, minerals and protein, across the board. The reason, some say, is technological industrial farming where selective breeding and synthetic fertilizers are used to increase size and to speed growth.  Another study showed that organic tomatoes can have as much as 30 percent more phytochemicals than the industrial kind.

Followers of J. I. Rodale — and I used to think that included most homesteaders, but now I’m not so sure — knew all of this many years ago, so what else is new?

None of this has much to do with homesteading, per se, but it does reflect on life on Spaceship Earth. In this vein we could also talk about the report that 3,100 firms (and roughly $40 billion a year — just for “intelligence”) are involved in the “war on terror.” Add in all the other expenses, along with the inconveniences and in some cases downright loss of freedoms, and it’s hard to tell who’s winning. One thing’s for certain: the terrorists got a lot of bang for their buck. The implications for self-sufficient living? Hmm.

A family in California made news by telling how they survived — in spite of turning off all of their telephones, computers, and televisions — for one whole day. And the people who think that’s really something special drive, vote and have reproduced. God help us all.

Then there’s the continuing flap over the global warming scientists, the news that China now uses more energy than the U.S., and that China’s population might actual decrease in the years ahead. That one tickles my imagination. Couple that with another recent population figure: The average Amish family has around seven children. The Chinese population dwindles, the Amish population doubles every 23 years — eventually there are more Amish than Chinese — just think of the implications for sustainable living! What a great speculative fiction story that could make!

But as I said, I have too much to do already, and even writing a blog isn’t on the list. At least I  have plenty to think about while I do those homestead chores, beyond the sidewalks. — Jd Belanger

The effort is tongue-in-cheek and its real purpose is immigration reform, but it made me think about something else.

If you’ve been following my scribblings you’re aware that I’ve been suggesting that many unemployed people could make productive use of their enforced idleness by doing what many employed people dream of, but are too busy to accomplish: homesteading. At the very least, they could grow some of their own food. And you’re also aware that I have been saying (for years) that most Americans have no idea where their food comes from — and that it’s highly subsidized, which is one of the reasons growing your own isn’t always cheaper than store-bought stuff. But this farm workers’ campaign combines all that and more in a neat package, and ties it with a bow.

The U.S. Dept. of Labor says three out of four farm workers were not born in this country, and more than half are here illegally. A small part of this complex issue involves the concern that illegal aliens are working, while American citizens are not. So the United Farm Workers are saying, “come on, take our jobs!” not because they expect very many takers, but because the lack of enthusiasm for that back-breaking kind of labor will spotlight the need for immigrant workers.

I have had some experience with this. The first time in my life I ever made more than $100 a week was as a migrant laborer. That was in 1953, when $100 was big money. The catch: the pay was 90¢ an hour. (Side note: That was a decent wage. I worked many jobs for 75¢ an hour, even years later.) That means an average 14-15 hour workday, although I vividly recall one sweltering June morning when we started at 6 a.m as usual, worked straight through to 2 a.m. the next day, and went back to work at 6 again.

And I was 15 years old. Even then, nobody wanted to work like that, so the 16-year age limit was lowered to help save the crop.

This was in a Wisconsin pea cannery, in the days before peas were combined in the field. Truckloads of pea vines were dumped and forked into the viner by hand. The shelled peas spilled into wooden boxes, while the vines piled up in huge stinking stacks. My job was to remove and stack each box as it was filled, replacing it with an empty. The guys forking the vines into the shelling machine worked a lot harder than I did.

A few years later, I found myself in California, nearly broke and with nothing to do. So I signed on to pick green beans, by hand. We were paid by the pound.

Little kids picked more than I did, and made more money. (They also spoke much better Spanish.) A buddy and I combined a day’s wages to buy a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter, which is all we had to live on. Shortly after that I enlisted in the Marine Corps, where the pay was $90 a month, but at least we got to eat. (A few years later I was back with the migrants, but that time to interview César Chávez, founder of the United Farm Workers, for a magazine article.)

Based on those experiences alone, I don’t foresee many average American citizens rushing to become farm laborers, even when their unemployment checks run out. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t really expect very many to become homesteaders, either. We as a nation have become too soft to do much actual physical labor, too dependent to scratch for ourselves, and too mentally lazy to figure it all out.

So the long spiraling vortex down the tube continues, with apparently nobody seeing the tangled webs and connections, much less able to deal with them. I certainly don’t have any answers — aside from homesteading, which is only slightly more popular than picking beans for The Man in triple digit temperatures.

When it all hits the bottom, that’s when things will change. Seems like that time is getting closer and closer.

Note: If you’re looking for work, fill out the online form under the banner “I want to be a farm worker” at www.takeourjobs.org