Futureshock
There's a fine line between trying to be realistic about humanity's survival on this planet, or even just one's own survival, and just giving oneself over to a fear driven survival instincts. There's a fine line between hoping for the best and preparing for the worst in the best way possible that one can manage, contrasted to naivete of planning and accounting for nothing at all, contrasted to outright paranoid conspiracy dictating every waking moment. One could find they live too far sighted, or too short sighted.
In trying to account for so many possibilities, sometimes I wonder if it causes me to be in a stalemate? I'm well aware that no place will ever be 100% perfect, no place will ever be a guarantee of safety and security, or healthy, happy attitudes of people and community. I'm well aware that some things may have to be sacrificed and/or dealt with in the face of making decisions based on larger, more imminent or more pressing concerns. The question I guess is just what and how to prioritize it all. What is worth it in the end?
Prioritizing good fertile land with good growing seasons is important, and hand in hand with that goes water accessibility. But with the affects of climate change - (whether it is a "man made" problem or not, the pot of shit is being stirred and near boiling over!) - You don't want to pick an area now that may in a few short years become a desert fighting for growth and water. Nor a future flood plain, or disaster zone of super storms, or a disease infestation due to ever worse air quality and/or larger populations of disease spreading insects.
Then you consider your neighbors - You don't want to be too urbanized because its more polluted, more technology dependent, more crowded, more civil unrest. But I suppose you run the risk of being too isolated if you go too rural. Or you'd end up with some crazy yahoos for neighbors who maybe couldn't be trusted in a pinch, depending on the general political, educational and religious underpinnings influencing such locals.
I thought I was on to something with cheap land prices in Tennessee and easy water rights... I figured the belligerent and/or bigoted of the rednecks and bible-belters could be overlooked due to my knowledge and experience that the eastern mountains also have their fair share of hippies tucked in amongst them (plus hell, its not West Virginia at least!). With southern hospitality, making good with your neighbors, even with some differences in lifestyle or ideology, could still make it easier to ensure they'd have your back if you're in trouble. But then I learned more of just how stifling the state is to forward thinking, with it being a huge proponent of ag-gag and other very backwards laws. Some of the lowest IQ in the country. Some of the highest water fluoridation in the country. A regular through-fare for transportation of military and hazardous waste materials. Violent crime is on the rise and I believe it is even now surpassing Saint Louis on that scale, which is saying a lot because Saint Louis has been a top contender in the violent crimes ranking of this country for years now! ......Its starting to not look as rosy.
My good ol' home of NC has been the stubborn attempt at progressiveness in the south for some time now. But its recent major run on attempts at setting all of that back with stupid, petty laws regarding gay marriage, gay rights, religious affairs, etc... has made it less appealing too where its governing powers-that-be are concerned, influencing state law and setting the tone for the place. It also has a HUGE unemployment problem, isn't progressive yet enough to do a lot with many forward thinking entrepreneurs and the area of the state that is the nicest and safest (the mountains) has virtually no work, even for many people holding college degrees. Not to mention the fact that a good half of the state could end up under water with rising sea levels, or in the very least a big target (as any coastal state is) to tidal waves and hurricanes.
Colorado has drawbacks with water and growing seasons and pest bugs killing the trees, and its beginning to grapple now with more effects of heat leading to desertification and larger wildfires. I think the people there would be some of the better types of personalities to be surrounded by, over all. In the short term its a more appealing place, it has 4 seasons (at the moment, climate extremes aside). Its a great progressive state without being too overkill yet on the loonies like California. Encouragingly entrepreneurial. But what if we go there and just kind of got stuck there as the state goes down hill ecologically, outside of its own control? Plus there's the drawback of it being a likely big target for if there was future war/political unrest, due to the fact that Norad and other major military operations are right in the heart of the state.
The New England states have the benefit of being smaller and closer knit communities. More self sufficient types of people living there. A bit of "Canadian" influence even, since it so close the border, and there are logistical reasons being close to that border could be a good thing too. But the growing season is shorter due to their winters, and while the winters may get milder over-all, due to climate changes, its also makes the region subject to unpredictable, freak super storms (terrible nor'easters') like hurricane Sandy last year. The smallness of the states could mean they get more crowded if push came to shove and people even closer to the coast started pushing inland. Considering all angles of things, if their was increased flooding due to glacial melt and so forth, and the locs of the great lakes started to spill over and/or landmasses were shifting around there are even some theories that the new england states would be quite subject to ending up even more as peninsula or even islands as the water broke through to connect to the ocean. That might be a far more remote possibility to worry about though. But either way, its worth looking and and considering the altitudes above sea level, if it'd be worth living so close to the coast as new hampshire and vermont are really.
Maybe the Adirondacks area would be worth looking into as well? But you'd have a lot of pain in the ass, thugged out, disillusioned new yorkers to contend with if they fled the city due to rising sea levels. Not sure it'd be worth the headache! I'd almost rather deal with buck-toothed-Bubba down south, at least I grew up around folks like that and have a better sense of how to handle them.
I'm not going to even bother launching into the issues of the pacific rim states, the south west or the deep south. Those almost speak for themselves.
Looking at various maps of projections for earthquake activity, rising flood or drought risks, etc... the pockets that come up as literally being some of the most neutral on all fronts are Montana (primarily the eastern part of the state), a bit of North Dakota, pockets of Minnesota, and most of Canada - provided you avoid the coast lines. None of which exactly would have rung as first choices in my book per say. Although Canada, being generally cooler headed about a lot of things than the U.S. is, may be better equipped to deal with all sorts of upheaval and unrest more so than our city centers and populations are in the long run.
Maybe I should just say screw it all and commit myself to living a good life in the general flow of a western cultured society? Just go and take out a big loan and buy a more normal type of house just wherever I like as a town right now, work just whatever job, raise babies, watch TV news, go about my days dreaming that even though all might not be right with the world at least I'm doing "just fine", and hope like hell the status quo stays that way until the day I die? It used to be people could very easily do just that, as a matter of fact. But now I feel somewhat like an addict in denial if I try and pretend I could keep up with such a life and forgo all that I know about the unrest around the globe, ecologically, politically, religiously and so forth. I don't think I can make myself live so stupidly oblivious, even if it would make living day to day more "convenient" and easier seeming in its own contrite sort of way. Or, scarier to me is the fact that I think that I almost really could play that game, keeping up appearances, while all the while knowing inside that I was being horribly naive - hoping that if I just went along merrily and didnt have preparedness arrangements or thoughts of any kind, then the "problem" would just somehow magically cease to be looming and could never possibly come to pass. I could go about the idyllic life up until the moment, say, something major did happen that impacted my immediate way of life? Then I'd beat myself up horribly for never doing what I felt in my gut all along, which was to be more self sufficient so disaster, when/if it struck, wouldnt have to be as much of a blow. I've played this scenario out in my mind ad nauseam, and yet there's still the lingering part of me that is nearly envious of those who are ignorant enough to be in their own little world's bliss of sorts.
I don't know. I think I'd just feel a lot better about my role and place in everything if I could decide and know where I wanted to really call home, and then just go from there, taking it all one day at a time. But I'm getting to the point where I have so many factors that I'm not really sure where or how to pick and make that "home" I speak and dream of. I'm not completely sure of what all factors can be compromised on vs. which should not be compromised on. Beyond fertile soil and plenty of water, which are no brainers for non compromising of course... but even that is trickier these days, when you've got to project those concerns out and take a guess at not just if a place has good land and water now, but if it will a short 15, 20, 50 years from now even?
In trying to account for so many possibilities, sometimes I wonder if it causes me to be in a stalemate? I'm well aware that no place will ever be 100% perfect, no place will ever be a guarantee of safety and security, or healthy, happy attitudes of people and community. I'm well aware that some things may have to be sacrificed and/or dealt with in the face of making decisions based on larger, more imminent or more pressing concerns. The question I guess is just what and how to prioritize it all. What is worth it in the end?
Prioritizing good fertile land with good growing seasons is important, and hand in hand with that goes water accessibility. But with the affects of climate change - (whether it is a "man made" problem or not, the pot of shit is being stirred and near boiling over!) - You don't want to pick an area now that may in a few short years become a desert fighting for growth and water. Nor a future flood plain, or disaster zone of super storms, or a disease infestation due to ever worse air quality and/or larger populations of disease spreading insects.
Then you consider your neighbors - You don't want to be too urbanized because its more polluted, more technology dependent, more crowded, more civil unrest. But I suppose you run the risk of being too isolated if you go too rural. Or you'd end up with some crazy yahoos for neighbors who maybe couldn't be trusted in a pinch, depending on the general political, educational and religious underpinnings influencing such locals.
I thought I was on to something with cheap land prices in Tennessee and easy water rights... I figured the belligerent and/or bigoted of the rednecks and bible-belters could be overlooked due to my knowledge and experience that the eastern mountains also have their fair share of hippies tucked in amongst them (plus hell, its not West Virginia at least!). With southern hospitality, making good with your neighbors, even with some differences in lifestyle or ideology, could still make it easier to ensure they'd have your back if you're in trouble. But then I learned more of just how stifling the state is to forward thinking, with it being a huge proponent of ag-gag and other very backwards laws. Some of the lowest IQ in the country. Some of the highest water fluoridation in the country. A regular through-fare for transportation of military and hazardous waste materials. Violent crime is on the rise and I believe it is even now surpassing Saint Louis on that scale, which is saying a lot because Saint Louis has been a top contender in the violent crimes ranking of this country for years now! ......Its starting to not look as rosy.
My good ol' home of NC has been the stubborn attempt at progressiveness in the south for some time now. But its recent major run on attempts at setting all of that back with stupid, petty laws regarding gay marriage, gay rights, religious affairs, etc... has made it less appealing too where its governing powers-that-be are concerned, influencing state law and setting the tone for the place. It also has a HUGE unemployment problem, isn't progressive yet enough to do a lot with many forward thinking entrepreneurs and the area of the state that is the nicest and safest (the mountains) has virtually no work, even for many people holding college degrees. Not to mention the fact that a good half of the state could end up under water with rising sea levels, or in the very least a big target (as any coastal state is) to tidal waves and hurricanes.
Colorado has drawbacks with water and growing seasons and pest bugs killing the trees, and its beginning to grapple now with more effects of heat leading to desertification and larger wildfires. I think the people there would be some of the better types of personalities to be surrounded by, over all. In the short term its a more appealing place, it has 4 seasons (at the moment, climate extremes aside). Its a great progressive state without being too overkill yet on the loonies like California. Encouragingly entrepreneurial. But what if we go there and just kind of got stuck there as the state goes down hill ecologically, outside of its own control? Plus there's the drawback of it being a likely big target for if there was future war/political unrest, due to the fact that Norad and other major military operations are right in the heart of the state.
The New England states have the benefit of being smaller and closer knit communities. More self sufficient types of people living there. A bit of "Canadian" influence even, since it so close the border, and there are logistical reasons being close to that border could be a good thing too. But the growing season is shorter due to their winters, and while the winters may get milder over-all, due to climate changes, its also makes the region subject to unpredictable, freak super storms (terrible nor'easters') like hurricane Sandy last year. The smallness of the states could mean they get more crowded if push came to shove and people even closer to the coast started pushing inland. Considering all angles of things, if their was increased flooding due to glacial melt and so forth, and the locs of the great lakes started to spill over and/or landmasses were shifting around there are even some theories that the new england states would be quite subject to ending up even more as peninsula or even islands as the water broke through to connect to the ocean. That might be a far more remote possibility to worry about though. But either way, its worth looking and and considering the altitudes above sea level, if it'd be worth living so close to the coast as new hampshire and vermont are really.
Maybe the Adirondacks area would be worth looking into as well? But you'd have a lot of pain in the ass, thugged out, disillusioned new yorkers to contend with if they fled the city due to rising sea levels. Not sure it'd be worth the headache! I'd almost rather deal with buck-toothed-Bubba down south, at least I grew up around folks like that and have a better sense of how to handle them.
I'm not going to even bother launching into the issues of the pacific rim states, the south west or the deep south. Those almost speak for themselves.
Looking at various maps of projections for earthquake activity, rising flood or drought risks, etc... the pockets that come up as literally being some of the most neutral on all fronts are Montana (primarily the eastern part of the state), a bit of North Dakota, pockets of Minnesota, and most of Canada - provided you avoid the coast lines. None of which exactly would have rung as first choices in my book per say. Although Canada, being generally cooler headed about a lot of things than the U.S. is, may be better equipped to deal with all sorts of upheaval and unrest more so than our city centers and populations are in the long run.
Maybe I should just say screw it all and commit myself to living a good life in the general flow of a western cultured society? Just go and take out a big loan and buy a more normal type of house just wherever I like as a town right now, work just whatever job, raise babies, watch TV news, go about my days dreaming that even though all might not be right with the world at least I'm doing "just fine", and hope like hell the status quo stays that way until the day I die? It used to be people could very easily do just that, as a matter of fact. But now I feel somewhat like an addict in denial if I try and pretend I could keep up with such a life and forgo all that I know about the unrest around the globe, ecologically, politically, religiously and so forth. I don't think I can make myself live so stupidly oblivious, even if it would make living day to day more "convenient" and easier seeming in its own contrite sort of way. Or, scarier to me is the fact that I think that I almost really could play that game, keeping up appearances, while all the while knowing inside that I was being horribly naive - hoping that if I just went along merrily and didnt have preparedness arrangements or thoughts of any kind, then the "problem" would just somehow magically cease to be looming and could never possibly come to pass. I could go about the idyllic life up until the moment, say, something major did happen that impacted my immediate way of life? Then I'd beat myself up horribly for never doing what I felt in my gut all along, which was to be more self sufficient so disaster, when/if it struck, wouldnt have to be as much of a blow. I've played this scenario out in my mind ad nauseam, and yet there's still the lingering part of me that is nearly envious of those who are ignorant enough to be in their own little world's bliss of sorts.
I don't know. I think I'd just feel a lot better about my role and place in everything if I could decide and know where I wanted to really call home, and then just go from there, taking it all one day at a time. But I'm getting to the point where I have so many factors that I'm not really sure where or how to pick and make that "home" I speak and dream of. I'm not completely sure of what all factors can be compromised on vs. which should not be compromised on. Beyond fertile soil and plenty of water, which are no brainers for non compromising of course... but even that is trickier these days, when you've got to project those concerns out and take a guess at not just if a place has good land and water now, but if it will a short 15, 20, 50 years from now even?