Why Do It Yourself?

[Tris Shirley]

I previously proposed making a thorough examination of our economic future.  I suggested starting out by estimating whether a farmer could provide all of his essentials on a do-it-yourself basis .  That means he would grow his own food and also obtain water, shelter, clothing, and energy for cooking and heating on his own.  This would be much as the pioneers did when living in near isolation.

Some may think it unrealistic or undesirable to start by examining a do-it-yourself economy.  Whatcom County will remain a populous community.  Why wouldn’t people specialize in the production of one necessity and then trade to get the other things they need?  This is a good question, so I’ll try to answer it.

This question is really two questions.  The first is “Why ignore specialization and exchange in a worst case scenario?”  The second : “When are these practices reasonable assumptions in any scenario?”. 

In an earlier post, I recognized the practices of specialization and exchange as generally advantageous. They are a means of enhancing community productivity;  a way to raise everybody’s standard of living.  But my proposal is to start with the worst case.  And since the do-it-yourself means of obtaining essentials is the least efficient and most challenging, it is an appropriate starting assumption for a worst case scenario.

Keep in mind that we are not trying to be realistic. We are not trying to predict what will happen. We merely want to establish a baseline: the simplest, low energy, most localized, most resilient, sustainable economy that we could depend on.  Therefore, we should start by examining whether or not a do-it-yourself economy is feasible.

So the answer to the first question, “Why ignore specialization and exchange in a worst case scenario?”, is that we don’t know whether it belongs in a worst case scenario or not.  And we won’t know until we’ve examined the viability of the more challenging do-it-yourself economy. 

Another reason for the do-it-yourself assumption is that we can’t be positive specialization and exchange will continue to be of practical value.  This is addressed in answering the second question.

The second question was : “When are specialization and exchange reasonable assumptions in any scenario?”.  Productivity is the key.

Suppose we examine the do-it-yourself economy and find that a farmer absolutely could not obtain all his necessities on his own.  We would then know a viable economy must include more efficient means of production.   Given that knowledge, perhaps Transition folks would try even harder to find ways of optimizing small scale, energy efficient production techniques for various necessities.

Suppose,  for example, we discover there are tools and techniques only available to a specialist in making clothing. These would enable the full-time specialist to be much more efficient than a part-time amateur.  If so, having tailors as clothing professionals in the economy might improve the farmer’s situation.

By exchanging food for clothing, the farmer might be more able to meet all of his needs.  On that basis, the farmer could be expected to patronize the tailor shop.  And on that basis, we would adjust our worst case scenario to include tailors along with specialization and exchange for clothing.

(We really need a numerical example here to make this clear.  But even making the example is complicated, so for now I’ll try to get by just explaining what I believe to be the principle.)

To continue with the farmer/tailor example, what matters is the farmer’s productivity at making food and the relative productivity of the farmer and tailor in making clothes. If the farmer is hugely effective in making food and has more than enough for himself and to exchange for other necessities, he would probably make exchanges wherever possible.  He would focus on food production, at which he is very skilled  - and which he possibly enjoys - and let others do the sewing.

But if the farmer is just squeaking by, he will be looking for the most efficient way to meet all his needs.  In this situation, it matters who is more efficient at making clothing.  If the tailor is very efficient and can turn out racks of clothing in a short time, he can exchange each article of clothing for only a little food and still get enough food in total.

If the farmer is very inefficient at making clothes, his alternative to exchange is to spend a lot of time and effort making clothes himself.  If that reduces the amount of food he can produce by more than the amount of food “charged” by the tailor, he would be nuts not to make the exchange.

But I think there are some serious questions about whether either of the above conditions supporting specialization and exchange will exist.  We don’t know whether farmers will be hugely effective and have “excess” food to toss around.  And we don’t know the future advantages of specialization.  Specialization and exchange may no longer be the silver bullets they once were.

In the past, (and also now, unfortunately) producers are trying to make as much as they can.  Then they try convince the public to buy it all.  Making large volumes of stuff is desirable for maximizing profits.  So energy intensive industrialized production techniques have become widespread.  You make a gazillion widgets in your factory, spend gazillions on advertising,  and then ship widgets all over the world.  What we have now is specialization and exchange extended somewhat beyond the logical extreme.

But in our worst case scenario, people will be limited in their consumption because stuff is just too hard to get.  Both the tailor and the farmer would be using low volume production techniques.  And in that case, perhaps a tailor could not be vastly more efficient at making clothes than a farmer.   

If the tailor were not much more efficient, the farmer would not necessarily be better off to exchange food for clothing.  He could just as well take some time away from farming, possibly grow a little less, but have time to make his own clothes.  Or,  if he has slack time in the off season, or in the evening, or any other time when he isn’t fully engaged in food production,  the farmer might decide to put that time to productive use by making his own clothes – at very little additional cost to himself.

My guess is that people will be motivated to be just as productive as they possibly can.  Each person will want to make the best and fullest use of their time.  So if doing-it-yourself is possible, then there might not be enough demand for professionally made clothing to support the trade of tailoring.  In short, exchange may not be as safe an assumption in the future as it is now.

So the second question,  “When are specialization and trade reasonable assumptions in any scenario?” can only be answered by saying  “It depends... “.    It depends on a lot of productivity information that we just don’t have yet. Walter Haugen has generously contributed excellent data on food production in one of his comments on this blog.  But we need similar data for the production of other necessities. 

When we have all the data, we can begin to answer some of these questions factually.  We must get beyond discussing principles, as I’ve been forced to do here.  

In case you hadn’t noticed, I find these questions about what will work and what won’t very interesting.  And I believe the answers are very important to all of us, as we try to understand what lies ahead.

[Tris Shirley]

Celt - Thanks for the comment.  I certainly agree that practical measures are the most constructive thing that most of us can do.  I could be wrong, but my impression is that there are not that many TW folks who are big on theory.  We have a lot of "doers" and not many planners.  I believe that both have their value, so I'm trying to stir up a little interest on the theory side.

[Tris Shirley]

Walter - What a great idea - the 5-10-15% thing.  I have no idea what percentage we produce in the back yard.  What would be the best way to make the calculation? Calories?

You wrote: Many people subscribe to the idea of "economies of scale," without ever realizing there are economies of "small-scale" too. 

I replied: Words of wisdom.  I think most of us will be surprised to see what we can do with a little help from our friends.

[Tris Shirley]

David – You are a veritable fountain of information on this stuff.  It is a pleasure to know you.

I certainly don’t disagree with anything in your quotation from David Holmgren.  And the TOD article about scenario planning seems to confirm DH’s concerns too.  It’s just that the problems they identify don’t seem that important to me.  But, since it isn’t my intention to cause anybody undue distress or to start any trouble, I’m happy to go with the flow and NOT begin with a worst case scenario.

I participated in the first (and only) couple of meetings Dave and Allison put on back in ’06.  It was quite interesting.  But I gather they were planning on a big budget project and the budget never materialized.  I wasn’t too shocked.   Those willing to invest time and effort in peak oil and climate change work are a small percentage of the public today, and were probably an even smaller percentage then.  I guess I still would question having the general public involved in what is inherently a pretty wonky undertaking.

But if you think there is value in a “community wide assessment of assets”, perhaps we should talk about it.  If there are others so inclined, let’s get in touch and see where this goes.

To preview this assessment discussion  a bit,  it seems to me that when finally armed with the results of such an assessment, one would then want to consider how productive those resources might be.  And in order to do that, you would have to make a lot of assumptions – and those assumptions will be fairly arbitrary.  Even if we all agree the assumptions are reasonable, I can guarantee you that others will not.  I believe we face this problem no matter where we start or how we do it. But I think the work is too important to be discouraged by that.

[David MacLeod]

Tris,

 

I think scenario planning can be very important, and I hope everyone working on the EDAP or ARC reads futurescenarios.org very carefully and thoroughly.

 

One of the points David Holmgren makes at Future Scenarios:

"I don’t want to underplay the possibility of a total and relatively fast global collapse of complex societies that we recognise as civilisation. I think this is a substantial risk but the total collapse scenario tends to lead to fatalistic acceptance or alternatively, naïve notions of individual or family survivalist preparations. Similarly, the Collapse scenario is so shocking that it reinforces the rejection by the majority of even thinking about the future, thus increasing the likelihood of very severe energy descent, if not total collapse. Perhaps a majority of people think civilisational collapse is inevitable but think or hope that it won’t happen in their lifetime. A more realistic assessment of the possibilities and adaptive responses to the Collapse long term scenario is only possible after a deep and nuanced understanding of the diverse possibilities and likelihoods of the Energy Descent long term scenario."

 

The above is one reason why I'm not convinced that starting with trying to solve the problems that arise from the worst case scenario is the best place to start.  Another danger is that when you put a lot of focus and attention on the worst case scenario, it becomes inevitable that people then interpret that as your prediction.  When this so-called "prediction" doesn't come true, then they try to use this to discredit you.  See for example, all that's been written about the 1972 book "Limits to Growth."  It was a scenario planning book, and many people think now that it was discredited. Not so.  There's an interesting article about this on The Oil Drum, titled "The Limits to Scenario Planning." 

 

I do think it would be an excellent idea to engage in a process similar to your suggestion to making a thorough examination of our economic future.  Rather than estimating whether a farmer could provide all of his essentials on a do-it-yourself basis, it seems to me that it would be quite a bit easier (though still not easy) to make a community wide assessment of assets that would be needed for a low energy relocalized economy.  This is what Dave and Alison Ewoldt were attempting to do back in 2006, via their non-profit "Attraction Retreat"  and a project they called a Community Assessment and Sustainability Inventory for Whatcom County - there is still a web-page about it here.

 

In regards to Specialization and Exchange vs. do it yourself:

My view of the future is that we are entering a time where norms go out the window.  Its a time of constant change, and there are no single answers to questions like these.  Self and community reliance in general will be key, as well as local and regional exchange.  We'll never be totally self-sufficient, but what will be available for shipping in from outside our area will be dramatically reduced.  I expect globalization trend to reverse In the near future. As I wrote in the Economics section of the ERSPO report, "Goods with a high value-to-weight ratio tend to have relatively low transport costs, but goods with a low value-to-weight ratio typically carry significant transport costs."  These low value-to-weight items will be among the first that we'll need to source closer to home. 

 

If I am correct that 'change' will be the thing that will be most constant, then the 'data' regarding specific situations becomes less important, and I would argue that the discussion of general principles becomes one of the important elements, rather than something that we must get beyond.
 

[Celt M. Schira]

Tris, Nobody is completely self-sufficient. Even hunter gatherers specialize. The strength of human societies is that we are both generalists and specialists. 

 

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in theory. If you haven't already done this already, pick some area that interests you and try it. If you experience is anything like mine, everything I try has quite the learning curve, everything requires investment in time, tools and materials, and it all operates within the constraints of the real world.

 

I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle about that last part. For example, I can start with a live chicken and have stewed chicken for dinner. Great, where did the feed for the chicken come from? It surely was harvested mechanically and arrived by truck. How about the gas for the stove? There's a whole industrial infrastructure there. I don't recommend getting wound up in the game of "is it sustainable yet?" A waste of time that could otherwise be productively used sleeping, or perhaps reading cookbooks. No, I didn't cut down firewood or grow my own feed, but cooking chicken from scratch is baby steps in the right direction.  

 

Baby steps, all baby steps, but they add up. Consider the number of people who haven't yet learned to make chicken soup without a can opener.