GENIUS FORUMS

The TV shows me that the sports stadiums are still full. It also shows me the way election campaigns are run, not based on rational discourse, but how to manipulate the media & the message to appeal to the voters whether the policy, as outlined, is all that rational and relevant, or not. The financial pundits supply us with a promising future while they admit that they dont understand how that will be achieved.

Comptroller of the US, David M. Walker goes around to meetings of CPAs, showing how the numbers just do not add up, but whatever it adds up to does not affect government policy. i dont actually know if the global economy is in worse shape, or just that the net allows us to see more clearly how fucked up it is. But whatever, it is not up to us to get rational policy implemented.

I feel lucky to live in a sane asylum with a population of one. As such, I am outside the constraints of group think, and with net access, able to enjoy a wider view of the evolving zeitgeist. But if you know some other rational sentient beings, you mite ask what they think, and what plans they have to cope with the evolution.

I dont fear a collapse all the way back to the stone age, there's too much metal left laying around. And while I expect some significant decline in the standard of living, never has a culture had so many resources with which to prevent an apocalypse. Rome was not built in a day, and it didnt fall in a day either. By the time it fell, the smart money had long before left town, and what the barbarians at the gates found, was an empty shell.

Gibbon says that the apocalyptic vision of the Christians was pervasive in the 1st century. Like us, they knew the system was irretrievably corrupt, and its wonder it lasted as long as it did. But some of the smart money chose to endow monastic communities in obscure areas with a policy of asceticism. It seems unduly harsh now, but what that did was make them hard and unprofitable targets to the barbarians.

The Pilgrims & Shakers had the same idea in America. But now, if we free ourselves from Christian dogma, and just look at the monastic community dispassionately, and take advantage of what we know of psychology, sociology, anthroplogy, and medicine, a more secure and satisfying, albeit not idealistic, lifestyle could be worked out, with input from the net. Assuming you can find the rational people to staff the place with. I dont know that that is possible. How many rational people do you know?

Rational people have always been a minority.

And probably always will be, as long as "people" as we know them exist (ie before posthumanity ).

The only truly rational people, besides the dead ones, are a handful of people that post on this forum. I don't know any personally, except for Matt Gregory who I met through this forum.

That's kind of silly. This forum does not exhaust rationality in the world. Highly rational people are rare, but not that rare. And not all of them subscribe to views identical to those promoted here. Rationality is not a matter of religious doctrine.

So- since this rational minority has no significant effect on the power elite's irrational policy, have they then considered what to do about that?

Any ideas I've thought of are either unrealistic or would most likely just make matters worse. In our current circumstances majority rules with an iron fist, for better or worse.

Rational people are generally hesitant to come up with firm courses of action because they are well-aware of the variables and unknowns involved in everything. Yeats put it best:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

In a world which values "passionate intensity" over rational considerations, the leaders will tend to be those seen as "capable of acting decisively" - whether they are right or wrong.

Witness "The Decider." Everybody has finally realized he was an idiot, but he was elected twice based largely on this dynamic.

daybrown wrote:So - since this rational minority has no significant effect on the power elite's irrational policy, have they then considered what to do about that?

The best that one can do largely involves resignation from deluded activities.

It'd be nice if there could be some humans who realize absolute truth, resign from deluded behavior, but also manage to pick up a few useful talents and engage with society to transform it.

For example, consider:

Bill Lishman, Underground Architecture

The 'man of the future' in my view, will realize the absolute, but will also not hesitate to become a visionary/prodigy in one or more of many different arts, whether that is architecture, genetics, computer science, agriculture, metallurgy, various forms of engineering, etc.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Bill Lishman, Underground Architecture

The 'man of the future' in my view, will realize the absolute, but will also not hesitate to become a visionary/prodigy in one or more of many different arts, whether that is architecture, genetics, computer science, agriculture, metallurgy, various forms of engineering, etc.

When I consider that, I dont see the investment money to do it.

I've been preparing for the collapse since 1998. Yes, I know a few rational people. I would hardly select most of the people from this forum to join me in a survival endeavor, however.

"The collapse" doesn't sound too rational to me. Not does talk of "survival endeavors." Is the Michigan Militia a group of highly rational individuals?

Once I read that the bible is in fact a calender, (And it's deffinately true!) I was drawn to believe that so many people are brainwshed that we will never convince hardly anyone to break free, and become sane. I would like a community of sane people to get together. I don't really want to stay here anymore. I also need money, lots of money. I feel that I have a purpose in life that is major to the planet. I am not fulfilling my purpose.

What I would like to do is live in a way that is as self-reliant and sustainable as possible. Not to remove all contact with the rest of the world, but to not be dependant upon it. Not to panic and assume some sort of end-of-civilization scenario, but to prepare for things that actually have a significant probability of happening (economic decline of the U.S., political changes, pollution, natural disasters, interruptions in food, electricity, water supplies).

Currently, I am reading up on various skills that I do not have - farming, food storage, building techniques, that sort of thing. Also trying to figure out what kind of skills are most useful and worth learning (e.g., should I learn how to identify wild-growing edible plants? Native to what area? Keep chickens? Nuitrition?)

Meanwhile, I am gradually trying to move to a simpler lifestyle, less dependant on modern gadgetry. Also, I am saving up money, as I know that eventually I will need a fairly large piece of land to be self-supporting. I have not decided on a location. Texas and Mexico are possibilities. I'm also going to look into Arkansas, because of daybrown's comments on that area. Australia is also a possibility, but it seems like the water supply is already a major concern there. I also like it here in Pennsylvania, and there are some areas in the mountains (away from the major metropolitan areas) that I intend to research.

So currently, my main focus is research and mental preparation, figuring out what is reasonable, trying to bring together a plan; trying to figure out what sort of "unexpected" events are most likely. And also figuring out a sustainable lifestyle that is enjoyable. I suppose I will start out with some sort of "gentleman's farm" to get hands-on experience.

Cory wrote:The 'man of the future' in my view, will realize the absolute, but will also not hesitate to become a visionary/prodigy in one or more of many different arts, whether that is architecture, genetics, computer science, agriculture, metallurgy, various forms of engineering, etc.

Right now I'm not concerned with being visionary or inventive, but knowing the basics of a large number of fields, having generally useful skills. Making decisions about what (already existing) kinds of technology are appropriate and sustainable.

For instance, I can do basic car mechanics and repair. Does it make sense to go with older cars (or bikes or trucks) that are easily repairable, or does it make sense to go with "modern" cars that are more reliable, but less repairable (because of computer systems and such that they depend upon). Which makes you less dependant on outside resources?

DHodges:

Maybe things wont be that bad, there is always that chance that the reason might prevail and things will be ok, but fortune favors the prepared mind i guess.
Australia is a bad choice, we got disarmed few years ago, following the Port Arthur massacre, where mentally challenged guy shot and killed 35 people in cafe, 20 of them by headshots in about 2(?) minutes. Also the prime minister has been in charge for about as long as Bush has been in charge in America. Happened right after he got elected to think of it. Here is a interesting theory on that. Not sure if its true or not. ;-)

New Zealand is a nice place though I hear. *Shrug*

I have been saving up for the same reasons. Hoping that I am doing it without good cause.

Nothing wrong with becoming more capable of providing a good probability of having homeostasis for you and your loved ones when it hits the worldwide fan.

You would not be alone in shoring up that end of your life and one could argue that is one of the most usefull activities in life at this point in our species exisitence.


Even while so many others of our kind are ignoring that kind of pursuit in favor of unsustainably short sighted life goals. (Aside from the truly useful scientific/medical/military folks.)

The only thing that could spoil all yours and others attempts after you have achieved your peace of mind is a massive disaster that wipes most of us out despite our bunkers and survival technology.

If you want to check out what some people are doing to break away from the pack in terms of becoming better stewards of their environmental circumstances take a look at this site.

http://www.ic.org/


Obviously most won't want the whole community gig that comes with most of these lifestyles, however they are using skill sets that most people would prefer to forget in lieu of urban survival skills.

I just don't understand what is the basis of this idea that systems are all of a sudden going to 'collapse'. When such ideas are presented, the part of me that seems to react (as against reason) is psychological in feeling---this fear of events outside of my control, overwhelming, catastrophic, something just around the corner. It makes me think of all the dozens of movies I have seen, whose images are stored in my imagination, of fallen cities, and rat-like tribes who survive among the ruins.

My observations have led me to conclude...that this dusty old world just keeps trudging along. People have been suggesting otherwise for a long, long time, but it doesn't manifest.

Alex Jacob wrote:My observations have led me to conclude...that this dusty old world just keeps trudging along. People have been suggesting otherwise for a long, long time, but it doesn't manifest.

Yep, pretty much.

Alex Jacob wrote:I just don't understand what is the basis of this idea that systems are all of a sudden going to 'collapse'. When such ideas are presented, the part of me that seems to react (as against reason) is psychological in feeling---this fear of events outside of my control, overwhelming, catastrophic, something just around the corner. It makes me think of all the dozens of movies I have seen, whose images are stored in my imagination, of fallen cities, and rat-like tribes who survive among the ruins.

My observations have led me to conclude...that this dusty old world just keeps trudging along. People have been suggesting otherwise for a long, long time, but it doesn't manifest.

Yep, so far - so good.

DHodges wrote:

Cory wrote:The 'man of the future' in my view, will realize the absolute, but will also not hesitate to become a visionary/prodigy in one or more of many different arts, whether that is architecture, genetics, computer science, agriculture, metallurgy, various forms of engineering, etc.

Right now I'm not concerned with being visionary or inventive, but knowing the basics of a large number of fields, having generally useful skills. Making decisions about what (already existing) kinds of technology are appropriate and sustainable.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm doing as well. It's definitely a good way of spending time.

I don't have any hope in being a prodigious visionary or very inventive personally, but I do think it's important for future humans to be motivated to do more than just philosophize rational/logical truths. Humans should also engage with the empirical world through gaining practical skills, experimentation and possibly invention: particularly in regards to coming up with better ways of reusing and recycling plastics, metals, and batteries.

For instance, I can do basic car mechanics and repair. Does it make sense to go with older cars (or bikes or trucks) that are easily repairable, or does it make sense to go with "modern" cars that are more reliable, but less repairable (because of computer systems and such that they depend upon). Which makes you less dependant on outside resources?

Good question. Greater and greater specialization poses a serious problem. We have this small minority of individuals with the intelligence to produce very sophisticated gadgets, cars, etc. But it seems like for every leap a minority makes in greater technological sophistication, the more responsibility and 'know how' gets usurped from the average person. Also, the minority who devotes their life to producing such specialized technology engages in a trade off as well. They totally absorb themselves in their unique specialization, and thus become blind to a more broad outlook. And when you devote yourself to attaining a very broad outlook, you miss out on the chance for much specialization.

I've been getting the sense lately that the human brain, in the future, will be largely tailored for excellence in computer programing skills, and the programs/computers will be tailored to do the kind of physical labor responsible for producing the products that make survival more probable and comfortable. A polarization between action and thought will establish itself with increasing prominence, the two stretching further and further away from each other. Action being relegated to robots, and thought increasingly cultivated to unprecedented volumes in the human brain.

dhodges wrote: Currently, I am reading up on various skills that I do not have - farming, food storage, building techniques, that sort of thing. Also trying to figure out what kind of skills are most useful and worth learning (e.g., should I learn how to identify wild-growing edible plants? Native to what area? Keep chickens? Nuitrition?)

Wild growing edible perennial plants I believe are key. Maximize as much as you can in that regard. And chicken's can serve multiple functions, providing eggs, meat, and manure for your crops.

In my view, an edible forest garden is the wisest food production system, but it pretty much requires a certain religious passion to follow through with your plan to create one. This is because less than a quarter of your life span will be able to enjoy it, if you're lucky. By the time a forest garden really gets cooking, you're just about ready to bow out.

But there are plenty of edible perennials that don't require 20 years to get going. Here is a book that I've been wanting to check out for some time now.

Meanwhile, I am gradually trying to move to a simpler lifestyle, less dependant on modern gadgetry. Also, I am saving up money, as I know that eventually I will need a fairly large piece of land to be self-supporting. I have not decided on a location. Texas and Mexico are possibilities. I'm also going to look into Arkansas, because of daybrown's comments on that area. Australia is also a possibility, but it seems like the water supply is already a major concern there. I also like it here in Pennsylvania, and there are some areas in the mountains (away from the major metropolitan areas) that I intend to research.

So currently, my main focus is research and mental preparation, figuring out what is reasonable, trying to bring together a plan; trying to figure out what sort of "unexpected" events are most likely. And also figuring out a sustainable lifestyle that is enjoyable. I suppose I will start out with some sort of "gentleman's farm" to get hands-on experience.

Sounds like a good plan, good luck to you. It'll be interesting to hear how you are coming along.

The best I've done so far is plant some apple trees, high brush blueberries, strawberries, and established some potato and asparagus beds. Next year I'll put in a few more crops - grapes, black berries, raspberries, maybe some more fruit or nut trees.

It's nice to have a pickup truck, living not to far from the city, because in the fall you can drive around and fill your truck with all of the leaves everyone has raked up and bagged, using them to mulch your berry bushes. Saw dust is really good too, but only for plants that don't mind acidity (berry bushes in general).

Alex Jacob wrote:I just don't understand what is the basis of this idea that systems are all of a sudden going to 'collapse'. When such ideas are presented, the part of me that seems to react (as against reason) is psychological in feeling---this fear of events outside of my control, overwhelming, catastrophic, something just around the corner. It makes me think of all the dozens of movies I have seen, whose images are stored in my imagination, of fallen cities, and rat-like tribes who survive among the ruins.

My observations have led me to conclude...that this dusty old world just keeps trudging along. People have been suggesting otherwise for a long, long time, but it doesn't manifest.

That's reasonable if you just go by what you have experienced, but if you take a broader view of history, you will see that the collapse of civilizations, and various sorts of natural disasters, are things that do happen from time to time. They are infrequent enough that you have a good chance of going your lifetime without experiencing one, but then again you might. It's hard to even know what the odds are.

You might consider in particular the possibility of plague. There have been a number of plagues - the Black Death, flu epidemics, and so on. The possibility of something arising that is resistent to all known antibiotics is not that far fetched. In the modern world, there is also the possibility of such a thing happening deliberately (e.g., anthrax).

Besides a human plague, recall that the number of species of plants that underlie most of our diet is actually pretty small (wheat, rice, corn). A plague might not have to be directly among humans to have dire consequences.

There is always the possibility of a local disaster - hurricane, tidal wave, flood, volcano, tornado - in which you will need to be able to fend for yourself for a while. We saw with the New Orleans flooding that the government is not always as prepared for disaster relief as you might think. In such a case you should have at a minimum, a supply of food and water that will last at least three days. Most people don't.

Economic disasters are not unheard of. The Great Depression, for instance, wasn't all that long ago. Around the same time there was the Dust Bowl. There is the possibility of different types of bad problems arising at the same time, that make each other worse. One problem might make it difficult or impossible to respond to another.

Recall also events like World Wars I and II (and the Cold War). It's not impossible that some major confrontation will happen again. The U.S. is not dominating the world the way it used to be, and widespread terrorism seems to be more of a tactic of choice these days. Communism and Capitalism are not the enemies they once were, but Christianity and Islam seem to have unresolved and perhaps irreconcilable differences.

Of course, new problems that we have never seen before could arise, because the world population is higher than ever before, levels of pollution are very high in some areas (e.g., China), and there is the threat of unforeseen results of global warming (e.g., change in climates). It's fairly likely that there will be problems with the water supply in many places; it's already an issue in many parts of the globe.

There have been many instances of civilizations collapsing; see the book Collapse for some examples, and the variety of reasons it might happen. In the past, civilizations were more localized, but some were quite large. There is a tendancy to think that our civilization is not subject to that, for a variety of reasons (like globalization). But we don't know for certain.

So these things can and have happened, just not that often. It seems reasonable to be prepared for what you can, rather than just assume (or hope) that nothing bad will happen. It's like having insurance on your house, even though the likelihood of your house burning down might be small.

DHodges wrote:

Alex Jacob wrote:I just don't understand what is the basis of this idea that systems are all of a sudden going to 'collapse'. When such ideas are presented, the part of me that seems to react (as against reason) is psychological in feeling---this fear of events outside of my control, overwhelming, catastrophic, something just around the corner. It makes me think of all the dozens of movies I have seen, whose images are stored in my imagination, of fallen cities, and rat-like tribes who survive among the ruins.

My observations have led me to conclude...that this dusty old world just keeps trudging along. People have been suggesting otherwise for a long, long time, but it doesn't manifest.

That's reasonable if you just go by what you have experienced, but if you take a broader view of history, you will see that the collapse of civilizations, and various sorts of natural disasters, are things that do happen from time to time. They are infrequent enough that you have a good chance of going your lifetime without experiencing one, but then again you might. It's hard to even know what the odds are.

You might consider in particular the possibility of plague. There have been a number of plagues - the Black Death, flu epidemics, and so on. The possibility of something arising that is resistent to all known antibiotics is not that far fetched. In the modern world, there is also the possibility of such a thing happening deliberately (e.g., anthrax).

Besides a human plague, recall that the number of species of plants that underlie most of our diet is actually pretty small (wheat, rice, corn). A plague might not have to be directly among humans to have dire consequences.

There is always the possibility of a local disaster - hurricane, tidal wave, flood, volcano, tornado - in which you will need to be able to fend for yourself for a while. We saw with the New Orleans flooding that the government is not always as prepared for disaster relief as you might think. In such a case you should have at a minimum, a supply of food and water that will last at least three days. Most people don't.

Economic disasters are not unheard of. The Great Depression, for instance, wasn't all that long ago. Around the same time there was the Dust Bowl. There is the possibility of different types of bad problems arising at the same time, that make each other worse. One problem might make it difficult or impossible to respond to another.

Recall also events like World Wars I and II (and the Cold War). It's not impossible that some major confrontation will happen again. The U.S. is not dominating the world the way it used to be, and widespread terrorism seems to be more of a tactic of choice these days. Communism and Capitalism are not the enemies they once were, but Christianity and Islam seem to have unresolved and perhaps irreconcilable differences.

Of course, new problems that we have never seen before could arise, because the world population is higher than ever before, levels of pollution are very high in some areas (e.g., China), and there is the threat of unforeseen results of global warming (e.g., change in climates). It's fairly likely that there will be problems with the water supply in many places; it's already an issue in many parts of the globe.

There have been many instances of civilizations collapsing; see the book Collapse for some examples, and the variety of reasons it might happen. In the past, civilizations were more localized, but some were quite large. There is a tendancy to think that our civilization is not subject to that, for a variety of reasons (like globalization). But we don't know for certain.

So these things can and have happened, just not that often. It seems reasonable to be prepared for what you can, rather than just assume (or hope) that nothing bad will happen. It's like having insurance on your house, even though the likelihood of your house burning down might be small.

I really want to advise people, I am just getting a bad feeling from things that I have seen, and read. Not going to put myself on the firing line.. I just think that something bad is going to happen. What can I say.. I can't say anything. I might be imagining things.

Too much rationality is a bad thing. It seems to be naturally selected against, which is why total rationalists (essentially religious people with "faith in reason") are in the minority. It doesn't help that having kids is irrational. :-)

The polite discourse here is appreciated. None of us really know which way to bet. But the thread comes up often enuf, and there are lists like alt.survival, where posters go at it incessantly, and often in an inflammatory way, to provide cause for worry. They may be fools, but they may nonetheless know something.

It would not be rational for there to be a global economic crash. But the global economy is not being run in a rational fashion either. China and India will be putting millions of new cars on the road at the very time when oil production has hit Hubbard's peak. This is not rational. Nor was it rational for Americans to switch from small fuel efficient sedans to SUVs. I take it as an apocalyptic clue that the SUV ads show the vehicle out in the boonies- safely away from the chaos in the city.

Bill & Hillary have given global investors hope that the value of the dollar will be stabilized, and they will get back something on the 9 trillion of national debt. If the media falls in line and gives her a real mandate for change, without actually saying what that change is, then she may received the draconian power it will take to reduce the cost of entitlements to something the economy can afford, deal with the illegal issue effectively, and adjust the trade deals in line with the perceived value of the dollar. But a lot can go wrong to start a global panic.

Now, certainly, what we think should be done does not matter. And given the example of Katrina, it would make sense for urbanites to *always* have enuf gas stored in the garage to carry the car beyond the range where everyone else will run out and hog the few gas stations on the routes out of town. Those of us in Arkansas know how fast the motels filled up, so it'd be smart to have some location in mind if you have to leave town. And it'd make even more sense if some 'rational urbanites' (is that an oxymoron?) networked with each other to come up with a plan for joint action. Maybe somebody still has kin or friends that live in a remote or obscure location. Is it too much effort to send them an email to ask about what local housing options mite be?

In lots of urban areas, it is still legal to raise chickens. Which is a win/win. You can even do it in a back bedroom or cellar, but a back yard, or even a balcony wouldnt be so stinky. You can take a drive out to a small town, visit the feedmill, and buy 50lb sacks of whole corn, wheat, oats. The prices at http://www.cbot.com/ are by the bushel in wholesale tonnage lots, but even at the mill, not more than 25% higher- if you show up before panic. I get my dogfood there as well; lotsa rural folks have packs of hunting dogs, so the 50lb dogfood sacks are cheaper.

But take a look at http://www.dc-pc.org/farmath/farmath.html and crunch the numbers.( you may want to save a copy and try to run an OCR on it to convert it into ascii. If you succeed, let me know) 3.64$/bu this morning at the Chicago Board of trade works out to about a nickel a pound according to the Farmath table on pg 70. Check that against the cost of cornflakes. My mill has 50lb of Corn chops for 6.15$, for about 12.5cents /lb; Chickens cant really handle whole corn, but buy some of that anyway. If push comes to shove, you can always find a way to hammer it for them. But they can handle wheat and oats as is.

If you have to leave, you can take seed to plant with you rather than feeding it to the birds. You can also eat some of the birds. Note, they come already stuffed. But til then, you can get fresh, organic eggs. However, try to find Banties. These are commonly raised as fighting cocks, but they, and their hens, are fast enuf and smart enuf to get by outside without being fox food. You can also make *outrageous* amounts of money if you happen to get a champion bird. I've read of auctions in Mexico city for champions bringing over 10,000$.

The eggs are small, the hens aint very big either, but they will likewise get by on damn near anything if push comes to shove, Will eat lotsa bugs in a garden, but also will scratch up new seedbeds. They dont lay every day either, maybe 3 eggs/week. But their maternal instincts are superb, and they'll bring up the chicks of stupid larger birds, and fiercely defend them from cats, dogs, foxes, or whatever.

If you have a backyard to fence- like 8ft high, cause they can fly, you can develop a business selling free range organic birds that dont have as much fat, but do have more flavor. The eggs are also tastier. Something like this is not book learning. Butchering chickens is like changing diapers; disgusting to think about, but necessary, and easy to get over once you've done it few times. And if you haveta leave a comfortable urban lifestyle for the real rural world, there'll be other messes like this to deal with.

Mention was made of specialized skills, and the same goes with a sustainable post crash lifestyle. 50lb of corn will provide the carbs to do what is needed to get 1/4 acre of temperate zone decent ground up to the level where it'll feed the man who does it over the course of the couple months that task can take. 1/4 lb of oats every day will give a kid enuf high quality protein to empower his neurotransmitters with the essentials needed while laying down new neural pathways in the brain so he dont grow up to be a right wing neurotic moron. Whole wheat will provide muscle mass rather than fat.

If what you want are stupid fat kids, raise them on soulfood- lotsa fats, lotsa corn, lotsa sugar. If you dont, its a good time of year to order garden seed, which will keep in your freezer for years. Mite try to find some Jerusalem artichoke too. It'll keep in the crisper in a plastic bag til next spring's planting time, but you can eat all the big ones. It grows wild in the Ozarks, and prolly everywhere east its established. Prolly came here with the Cherokee. It looks like a weed that thieves would ignore.

But you can get 1/2lb/sq ft of good ground. Goats & Cattle will eat the tops, Chickens, hogs, & people, including diabetics, do well on the tubers. They are harder to clean than potatoes, so you dont ever see them in resturants or supermarkets. They can be left in the ground, far more resistant to freezing than spuds. then can be dug up anytime its necessary. Or simply left to come up by themselves next spring.

Many rural locations will have useful plants like this that only the locals know about. But wild foods, outside of the nut or berry season, are not worth the energy to go look for. If you are already out there, OK, watch for stuff, but most places you'll starve looking for edibles unless you've already seeded the area.

If you arrive with a group, or meet those who are already there, their pool of knowledge will be vastly more useful than what you can get reading books or surfing... if they are rational. If not, you end up doing case work rather than dirt work, and everybody starves.

One other obscure peice of equipment is a hand powered grain mill, like a Carona. I got mine from a farm auction, which is twice the size, 16" high, It'll crack corn for chickens, wheat for 'cream of wheat' for breakfast, or ground all the way down to whole wheat flour. Grinding a couple pounds for a loaf of bread will work out your arm muscles for 15 minutes, driving the heart rate up, but you need the exercise anyway. And the *freshly* ground grain makes better tasting bread as well as more high quality nutrition. Many folks will find that some of this bread satisfies so well that they eat less at the rest of the meal, and controlling obesity gets easy. Many of us descend from tribes that have been eating bread like this for 10,000 years, and our bodies *expect* it. Lacking what is in the real McCoy, makes us eat lotsa other crap.

Another monastic movement may certainly be appropriate, but I think it would be hard to convince hard-line secular folk of the need for it. The closest thing that many people have to religion is a deep-set belief in psychiatry; perhaps by pushing psychiatry to the limit of credibility, it would be possible to set up asylums ("hospitals") for perfectly sane people.

It shouldn't be hard to invent a few illnesses that don't require medication, but instead that require years of introspection and gardening in a communal setting. Turning spirituality into a mental disease? I know people who'd buy it.