For many people, the ideal “survival retreat” is some sort of remote, isolated, off-the-grid location far removed from any center of civilization. Despite protests in recent years from various survivalist gurus, this is not an entirely unfounded idea, especially in the modern world with its interconnected dependencies. Interestingly though, as soon as the phrase “off-the-grid” is uttered, arguments and debates begin, as each individual has their own definition thereof. I believe, before we delve too quickly—or too far—into this series, it is important to define “off-the-grid” as I define it, with some important discussion of caveats that may apply to other people. The idea of “off-the-grid” and “subsistence” living are often seen as synonyms, corresponding to the urban and suburban myths of remote, rural locations being Edenic cornucopias of readily available food simply laying around for the gather. Much of this modern myth goes back to popular marketing during the westward expansion era of American history, when land speculators found it profitable to target impoverished European peasantry with visions of nearly free land so fertile that mere thought would create bumper crops of easily marketable foodstuffs that would not only compensate for the financial costs inherent in emigration, but would quickly elevate them to kinghood in their own fiefdoms if they would but come to the new Eden. In actuality, while there is actually food readily available in most rural and wilderness areas, growing, gathering, and processing such food—harvesting—requires much more effort than sitting in front of a keyboard and processing orders in a cubicle. It requires voluntary exposure to the elements, regardless of season, and sometimes heavy physical toil, especially on the subsistence farming level. The real value in the use of the terms “off-the-grid” and “subsistence living” are more valuable as political philosophical statements, rather than as states of literal self-sufficiency. Even in places like Interior Alaska, where subsistence hunting is a legally recognized concept, most Alaskans nutritional needs are fulfilled as much by Outside agriculture and transportation methods than by the moose, caribou, salmon, and bear that makes up the more famous part of their diet1. Even “self-sufficient” homesteaders in modern Alaska require an outside source of income, in order to purchase the groceries that they simply cannot produce themselves. For the rest of us, this is even more the case than in Alaska. Setting aside the rather stringent game and fish regulations in most states, there is also the very real fact that accessibility to most “game” animals is remarkably seasonal, even in large, remote wilderness areas like the Bob Marshall, the Frank Church/River of No Return, or the Targhee Wilderness areas. This means, for most of us, in the here and now, self-sufficiency is going to require raising meat ourselves, in the form of livestock, or continuing to purchase it, whether from nearby neighbors who raise it, or from the grocery store. Read the rest: https://www.patreon.com/posts/colla...paign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link Continue reading...
