Time to 'RFTH!' yet?

[pepsified thinker]

What's up with the 'run for the hills'/escape doom story-line?

Is this something that's always been there? (I can think of HG Wells' War of the Worlds as an early example--any earlier? Are there others from that time period [late 1800s/early 1900s?] up to the present or is that an outlyer?)

Are there non-sci fi examples? Does Thoreau count? Was the survivalist 'movement' of the '80s and '90s a non-sci-fi example? Are millennialist cults another example?

Is it just a perceptual bias of some sort that has me thinking there are more lately--the re-make of War of the Worlds was the first to come to mind, but The Happening seems ('haven't seen it yet) to be the same thing.

Many storylines at some point include a 'flee to safety' segment, but is doing so more on our minds nowadays?

If so, is it just a sign of the times (Jeff, your recent posts seem to be in this wavelength--'least they get me wondering about how to prep for something like a catastrophic event), or (Hugh?) is someone promoting that outlook?

The thread "Bank of Scotland issues global stock and credit crash alert" (http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=18645) started me pondering this--and gives an economic aspect to how/why we might need to RFTHs.

Of course, this is a question of how I'm responding to such news stories, but seems like a lot of 'run for the hills' vibes in the MSM, movies, etc.--

...I guess what I'm wondering is, is it 'just me'?

(seems like a good time to introdue a new signature tag:
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain." )

[chiggerbit]

Maybe just more of the same. Remember Y2K? And would LaHaye's(?) Left Behind series be the same sort of thing?

[ninakat]

There seems to be a convergence of bad news on many issues -- environmental, economic, geopolitical.

But I've been Running For The Hills, metaphorically speaking, for about 5 years now -- meaning, I've been making preparations for peak oil and economic downturn. The shit that's now developing seems to be happening faster than I expected -- colony collapse disorder (bees), weather extremes, food crises -- but I plan to stay where I am. Here's an article that might be of interest on that particular subject:

City, Country, Suburb? It isn’t Where You Live, But How You Live There.
by Sharon Astyk

[PeterofLoneTree]

The perhaps apocryphal story is told of a Private in the Rebel Army who approached Robert E. Lee before the meeting at Appomattox and said, "General, if we take to the hills, we can keep fighting these Yankees forever." And the General responded, "Yes, Private. And that is precisely why I do NOT want you to take to the hills."

[teamdaemon]

I think there are a lot of reasons to live in the country instead of a city or a suburb. I would say along with Thoreau you could include the entire Rastafarian movement as evidence that this idea has been around for a while. Fear of nuclear / terrorist attack make it more urgent. I personally believe that cities are inherently un-natural and unhealthy.

Bourgeois environmental elitism is encouraged by the powers that be in order to alienate potential socialist sympathizers from the working class. For a lot of people with the means "running for the hills" consists of moving out of the city so they don't have to watch the horrific decay and accompanying police state.

Kudos for including the litany against fear, it's one of my favorites.

[nathan28]

I think there are a lot of reasons to live in the country instead of a city or a suburb. I would say along with Thoreau you could include the entire Rastafarian movement as evidence that this idea has been around for a while. Fear of nuclear / terrorist attack make it more urgent. I personally believe that cities are inherently un-natural and unhealthy.

Bourgeois environmental elitism...

"Bourgeois environmental elitism" is exactly what living in the country entails. Where the hell are you going to put six billion people? Each one can live in the countryside? Why the hell do you think that we spend so much on oil in the states? It's the driving. Can't live in the country without driving. What is the mandatory set-back but a stupid zoning law attempting to de-urbanize housing and waste even more space?

Unless you are on a voluntary simplicity trip, and then it's just another form of Malthusianism. Voluntary simple yourself to starvation when you stop using tractors. It's simply not feasible.

[teamdaemon]

I think there are a lot of reasons to live in the country instead of a city or a suburb. I would say along with Thoreau you could include the entire Rastafarian movement as evidence that this idea has been around for a while. Fear of nuclear / terrorist attack make it more urgent. I personally believe that cities are inherently un-natural and unhealthy.

Bourgeois environmental elitism...

"Bourgeois environmental elitism" is exactly what living in the country entails. Where the hell are you going to put six billion people? Each one can live in the countryside? Why the hell do you think that we spend so much on oil in the states? It's the driving. Can't live in the country without driving. What is the mandatory set-back but a stupid zoning law attempting to de-urbanize housing and waste even more space?

Unless you are on a voluntary simplicity trip, and then it's just another form of Malthusianism. Voluntary simple yourself to starvation when you stop using tractors. It's simply not feasible.

What is the attitude for? I was just pointing out that if a person has the means, they are going to get the fuck away from cities if they know what's good for them. What do YOU want to do with 6 billion people? Pile them on top of each other in the smallest possible space that you can? Are you offended that I don't want to live in a shithole of pollution and human decay? Do you?

Also, you don't have to drive a gas powered car to live in the country. Tractors can run on biodiesel and people can use bicycles. What isn't feasible? People moving en mass out of cities into the country? What do you think is going to happen when they're under water? It's not like we have a choice.

[Joe Hillshoist]

At the moment most of the worlds population don't live in cities. But thy will soon.

I RttH about 15 years ago and it was the best decision I ever made.

Its not the safety side of it tho, its just as dangerous here, one of the deadliest snakes in the world often suns itself on my doorstep.

Cities suck IMO. There are too many people crowded together and the psychic space of cities is way too overcrowded. It causes people to shut down their chi in some ways, heavily on public transport, and not so heavily in traffic. So especially if you are a commuter.

But there is more to it than that, out here I am less dependant, for basics, such as food and water, and shelter, I am ok. There are other things I am dependant on, including cars and fuel, but thats no different to living in an urban area really.

I have less access to modern medicine and dental care, but thats about it. And in emergencies we are only a chopper ride from hospital.

I reckon part of the whole RttH thing is about control of your own life, and that people find cities to be grating places. The doom stories are part of the mythology but not necessarily vital. (Tho the mayans seemed to show that part of thr RttH thing is that cities themselves are entities that suck energy and resources and do so with little consideration for people.)

Cities are like black holes. And resources are like mass, the attraction is too strong and so resources (including people) are unable to escape... the cities suck the resources in like mad.

Perhaps that situation is inherantly unsustainable and the escape the city/run to the hills idea that gets some people is a recognition of that inherent unsustainability.

[JoseFreitas]

Although I'm not really sure we can compare things, in most other great crisis (ie. China's famine during the Great Leap Forwards, the Great Depression, etc...) people in the country generally starved before people in the city did. Cities have power: decision makers, money, politics, etc... and thus tend to attract other sorts of necessities, like food, fuel, etc...

Of course, if you make your own food AND are safely away from trouble, you may well be fine.

The point, though, that I think was trying to be made, although not as explicitly as I will make it, is something like this:

The shit is going to hit the fan. There are 6 billion people in the world. "Running to the hill" solutions is an admission that all else has, or will, fail. Therefore, "running for the hills" is the solution that either recognizes that most of those 6 billion people have died, or else admits that they will die. It is therefore the worst of all solutions (either by necessity, all other solutions having already failed, or by choice). Choosing it ahead of time, if you do not also plan how you will integrate your "running for the hills" solution with the rest of the solutions to try to save the 6 billion people, is probably a morally and ethically wrong choice, because it is the solution which will condemn the most people, if everyone else also took it.

I could be totally wrong, of course.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Nah, I think thats pretty accurate.

But most of those 6 billion don't live in cities, yet. More do every day tho.

Personally the cities I know aren't great places, they are designed for transport, ie, oil burning vehicles, not for people. Resources are scarce and competition is high.

They are also unstable impermanent things, even if the climate doesn't collapse and humans keep city building civilisations going for millenia, before those millenia end most current cities will be gone and others will be in their place. Because they are unsustainable - at least the way we know them.

Wanting to escape that seems like a sane response to me.

Running to the hills doesn't mean accepting all else has failed, IMO, but I grew up in hills outside a small city, then moved to a massive one. Living in the hills just feels better to me.

Cities could be more sustainable places, and even in cities you can find food, medicinal plants and shelter if you now where and how to look. But soon cities are going to have to address transport and food supply, and waste, cos resources will get scarcer, and competition fiercer.

One more thing with all this tho. I found that one thing I was looking for was a good community to live in, and i found that. No one's gonna survive nuthin without a good community to be part of.

[isachar]

Why run for the hillls when you can drive (in 40 mile increments) in one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_lSxhTatUU

Wonder where I can get documentation on his conversion kit/plans?

Personally, I'd put it in a '69 Karmann Ghia vert, or a VW van.

[lucky]

Slighlty o.t but neverther the less pertinent- I remember reading a paper on one of the reasons people in cities are useually more stressed, pyscotic, generally bonkers, it was quite simply that in a city your range of sight is often mesured in yards- you never see the horizon -compared to the country where you see for miles and where the sky meets the land.

[nathan28]

What is the attitude for? I was just pointing out that if a person has the means, they are going to get the fuck away from cities if they know what's good for them. What do YOU want to do with 6 billion people? Pile them on top of each other in the smallest possible space that you can? Are you offended that I don't want to live in a shithole of pollution and human decay? Do you?

The attitude is for the "run for the hills" and anti-urban mentalities.

"RFTH" is *exactly* what Americans who could did after the race riots in the late sixties. "Wow, those little mountain communities full of rednecks sure look worth gentrifying, don't they? And the lower class isn't even black!" The "shitholes" are only shitholes because the money and the middle-class left it. Do you really think Avenue A would have been the scariest street on earth for twenty years if the wealthy hadn't fled Manhattan? And now that they're back, it's surprisingly safe to walk there. If anything we made those "shitholes" by our nebulous nationwide preference for "green spaces", which so far as I can tell, is a code-word for middle-class flight.

"Black holes"--funny word choice there.

Cities ARE built for transportation (and, for that matter, human interaction). It's called walking. Guess what? In a real city, you can walk everywhere and get a subway or bus if it's too far to walk. Los Angelos and DC aren't cities, they're fucking highways and parking lots with houses and guns dropped between them. If you don't have to drive in the US, you easily save $7000/year on vehicle cost, maintainence, and fuel. The only vehicles you rely on are those that bring food in. Guess what? that's still more efficient than holing up in the countryside. And since you can't hole six billion people into the countryside, that efficiency is necessary if not sufficient for more equitable distribution.

It's just not viable. We should learn to build cities--and we did, look at Europe--but instead everyone just throws their hands up in the air and runs off to cute little mountain communities. Curiously enough, not one person I know who moved off into the rural countryside took up farming and few of them even garden, but they love to talk about how "nice" it is out there.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I don't live in America, so a lot of what you claim about america doesn't apply here. Especially the snide implications of racism.

ie Black holes. I'm black, apparantly, tho I think a more accurate term would be brown, and in Australia there are few "black" people compared to the uS, so whatever inner city baggage goes with the US doesn't apply here the same way.

Ok cities are built for transportation, ie combustion engine driven transport. They are not built for human benefit, if they were they would be different. They are built for the facilitation of commerce.

As a result resources within thousands of miles are sucked into cities.

Walking around ciies, and suburbs is ok tho. As is riding bikes, but in most cities the facilities for mass transport in this way are just not there. At least the major cities I know of. However parks (where kids can play footy, skateboard, root, sneak ciggies and bongs, fish for fish and yabbies, if there are creeks, ride motorbikes and the rest) in cities are always the first t go when bigger roads are planned through areas.

Thats my point, equitable distribution might need transport, so it comes first.

According to this article, and many others paraphrasing the same info, as of now over half the worlds population doesn't live in cities. It might by the end of the year, but now it doesn't. So 3.4 billion people approximately live outside cities, and they are struggling more than ever as prices rise for food - why? Cos of what happens in cities, be it food price speculation or an increase in the demand for "green fuel".

There you go, there's half of that 6 billion outside cities already.

Curiously enough, not one person I know who moved off into the rural countryside took up farming and few of them even garden, but they love to talk about how "nice" it is out there.

Perhaps that says more about the people you know than the majority of people living outside cities. Most of the people I know esp the ones outside of towns and cities farm and garden where they can, or work in some agricultural or horticultural job. Even many of the ones in towns and cities garden, and grow as much food as they can.

And if we transformed cities, so that most of the food consumed in them was produced in them, and they were as energy efficient as possible, and as habitable as possible for people, many of my objections to them would go. But I wouldn't move back to one. I need space around me or I lose it.

[MacCruiskeen]

Half of world population to live in cities by end of 2008: UN