Off-Grid Living for Agrarians, Part 10

To Read Part 1, Click Here
To Read Part 2, Click Here
To Read Part 3, Click Here
To Read Part 4, Click Here
To Read Part 5, Click Here
To Read Part 6, Click Here
To Read Part 7, Click Here
To Read Part 8, Click Here
To Read Part 9, Click Here

This part is going to eventually be a continuation of the discussion on food and crop preservation, etc., but I have some things to say first (are you surprised?). I have appreciated all the great comments and emails about this series. I think one of the most interesting things to me has been so many people who have identified that the philosophy of "off-grid" living we talk about in this series is so radically different than that which is portrayed in the off-grid magazines and books. As I've said, so many people think of "off-grid" living as merely a way to avoid paying utility bills, or as a way to insulate oneself against disasters or emergencies, or as an eco-friendly lifestyle choice. The philosophy we are espousing is so fundamentally different than most people expect, it makes it necessary that I constantly (and in each part) remind everyone of the differences. First, we believe that this life (particularly of Agrarian Separatism) is one that God commands; and second, we believe that this way of living is the only way to preserve and maintain our family and our Christianity in the face of a world bent on destroying it and us. Our focus on separation, simplicity, and sustainability - means that many of the biggest features of what the world considers "off-grid living" are not going to be part of our long-term plans. Every single thing has to be questioned to see if it actually fits into our model. Every single process needs to be measured against these measuring sticks (and note that they are all interwoven/interdependent):

1. Does it increase or maintain our separation? Does it require more and more syncretism with the world, or less and less? If it requires constant maintenance and expense, is that requirement going to increase my dependence on the world and the world's systems? Does any item, product, worldview, or practice require continued worldly input? Do I have to work away from my land in order to support it?

2. Is it simple? Is it less complicated and involved, less likely to break or break down and need worldly attention, less gaudy, ostentatious, prideful, showy?

3. Is it sustainable? How much continued cost, expense, outside material, money, etc. will it take to maintain or continue? Can I produce it here, or can I produce what it takes to produce it here? Can I continue to use it/do it/practice it if the world system around us collapses? And how dependent am I on the world for it?

Of course all three of these measuring sticks are founded on the over-riding principle "Is it moral and Biblical?", but we will expect that you already have accepted that one premise. Now, here I need to stop and deal with some objections.

(Note, I'm not going to even begin to deal with the "be in the world, but not of it" myth perpetuated by false "christianity" today. I've handled that objection handily in my 'separation' articles.)

If there is anything I am an expert on it is not so much off-grid agrarianism as it is rationalizations, excuses, and false arguments. I'm an expert because I've used them all, and I've examined them all very, very closely. Right now, some of you folks reading this are saying "Hey, we're always going to need to have some contact with the world! You yourself have said, Bunker, that you cannot make sponges, salt, or aluminum foil, so you are going to have to buy some things!". Alright, granted. But the point can be taken in two directions, one which is illegitimate and one which is legitimate. If the reader says, "We must always have contact with the world, so we might as well have more contact than less", or, "since we must always buy some things, why not buy as much as possible?", then he has become illogical and he might as well go back to the world and maintain his life as a cog in a machine. This type of argument is made all of the time. People read what I write and they'll say, "Well, if YOU aren't living this completely separated hermit life with absolutely no contact with the outside world, making all your own equipment, growing 100% of your own food - then who are YOU to preach to me? We're all dependent on the world.... etc., etc., etc." Let's look at all the folly that can be derived from this type of argument. I'll give some examples:

"Almost every toothbrush has some small, microscopic amount of fecal coliform bacteria on it - so.... we might as well eat feces".

"Since many things we eat have ingredients which would be poisonous in large amounts or if delivered in certain ways, and we eat them anyway, then eating and drinking poison is perfectly fine in any amount" (for example, many of the fruit and nuts we eat have small and healthy amounts of cyanide in them, therefore drinking a glass of cyanide would be perfectly fine).

"Since we must all have contact/business/discourse with the world, then any contact/business/discourse with the world is authorized and acceptable to God".

These fallacies generally collide in the person making rationalizations with another great error - that of making oneself the standard. This fallacy basically works out like this:

"Everyone to the right of me is too far to the right, and everyone to the left of me is too far to the left, therefore I am the standard", or in politics, "Everyone to the right of me is a fascist, and everyone to the left of me is a communist".

This fallacy works out in Separatism and Agrarianism like this, "I am the standard, therefore anyone more separated than me is anywhere from 'a bit extreme', to 'violating God's commandment to go out into the world and evangelize, create disciples, etc.'"

Most dangerously, these illogical fallacies can collide in the adherent to right Biblical doctrines like Predestination, etc. and can be twisted into un-Biblical errors like Fatalistic Determinism, which would say something like "Well, this is where God has us now, therefore this is where God wants us".

I plan on adding an "answering objections and logical fallacies" section towards the end of this series which will go over all of this again, but I need to point out this here because I know the way the mind works, and I know the rationalizations the mind makes against the loss of comfort, status, etc. Especially in women (sorry ladies) but in all people, there lies a vast army of self-defense and rationalization that constantly wars against the truth and in defense of the status quo. Women are by nature created to be security and safety driven. The God-given nurturing and protection devices built into a woman are used by the enemy to rationalize sin and disobedience, just as the God-given desire in men for control and dominion can be used to rationalize immobility, laziness, and the status quo. Now, some few of you may be saying "but I agree with what you have said and the need for agrarianism, separation, simplicity, and God-honoring sustainability". For those who are not actively arguing against the need for separation, simplicity, and sustainability, there can be a more subtle foe at work. A very distinct truth can be taken to a false conclusion. Arguments like "I'm alright for right now", "look how far we've come", "this is going to take generations", "It's a process, so my speed is as good as any" can just as easily be used to rationalize disobedience. I don't mean to pick on any particular group of people, but those who still have one foot in the world and one foot in this life are the most susceptible to the disease of sinful rationalization and immobility. We all have to be on our guard against the enemy who, I can assure you, does NOT want you to go down this path.

Now, the reason I went off on that little rant is to emphasize that our philosophy is fundamentally different than that of those who produce most of the materials for off-grid living. I read many homesteading, agrarian, back woods, country style magazines, periodicals, and blogs, and there is much value in them. Any number of abilities, skills, and secrets can be learned by perusing their pages. However, there is always the danger that we will forget our fundamental philosophy and that we will get off track if we are not constantly watching and on guard. Most of the magazines push "off-grid" sustainable living as just a very great alternative, and as a way to accomplish self-sufficiency or ecological protection - but they never explain just HOW they are accomplishing these things, and they rarely explain how you are going to get certain necessary items if the whole system that supports your system crashes. For example, if you put in a very humble, inexpensive, and easily maintained solar power system just for some lights, fans, etc., and that system utilizes batteries - then the question is self-evident... "What happens to my system if I cannot get batteries?". This leads to the question, "What happens to me and my family if I am dependent on this system?". Nothing is inherently wrong (at all) with a solar power system (I have one), unless we are at all dependent on it and if the loss of it will destroy our ability to continue in our work and lives. So simplicity and separation are equally balanced with sustainability, and vice versa. Refer back to the earlier argument on intermediate means for more detail.

Ok, so see how nice this is for me? I have a trapped audience. By now everyone is screaming - "enough of the philosophy, talk about canning!".

Canning

Canning gets its own subtitle, but don't think there won't be any agrarian separatist philosophy in it, because there will be. Because, as you know, this is not a series about HOW TO DO things. It is a series about HOW TO THINK. If we think correctly, we will usually do correctly. So here goes... Some people, when I have written about canning in the past, are a bit confused by what we mean by that. By canning we should say "jarring", since the term "can" has changed and now makes people think about tin or metal cans - when for most people who store food, "canning" means "to preserve food for long term storage by preparing it in cans or jars and utilizing heat and/or pressure"; and for most of us, "canning" means JARS and not actual metal cans. That is an interesting commentary on how language has changed. Because "jarring" came first. Storing in metal cans happened much later, and still is mainly done by industrial means and in corporate food preservation, not too much by individuals due to its prohibitive cost. Canning is a relatively new food preservation phenomenon which was basically unheard of until the French Revolution, so, as far as Agrarian skills go, canning is not an automatic default option. It is a relative new thing. Long-term storage of fresh food in jars, cans, pouches, or containers, came about because of military necessity, not because European agrarians needed or developed it. Large bodies of armies, moving across lands that had already been stripped for dozens of years by preceding armies and endless wars, needed food supplies that could be carted along with the army. In the dark and middle ages, an army provided for itself and foraged (or stole) what it needed along the way. By the 1700's, there wasn't a whole lot left to steal, and many rural, town, and village people had become experts in keeping their "stuff" from marauding armies. A large French newspaper, motivated by the French government, offered a huge monetary reward to anyone who could invent a way to store large quantities of food cheaply. In 1809 a French scientist noted that food stored in jars and kept airtight stored a lot longer than those that were not. No one knew why for another 50 years when Pasteur proved that microbes were what was causing spoilage. Soon it was learned that killing the microbes would make the food stay good for a very long time, and the process of "canning" was born. All of this is to say that a lot of times we off-gridders default to something thinking it is the only way to do it, since our grandparents and their parents did it. Hey, I'm all for canning - my family cans all the time, and we will continue to do so, but canning, if looked at logically and unemotionally, does not completely fit all of the criteria we talked about above. There is always a continuous need for canning jars, lids, and bands - and pressure canning, particularly, is subject to disruption if we are unable to replace the pressure canner or its parts. Canning, then, falls into the category of "intermediate means". We will continue to can foods, and to use that resource as long as we can, but if we are inordinately dependent on canning for our continued survival, then we put ourselves at risk. You may put up quite a few spare bands and lids (like we do), and even store a spare canner, but in reality if any disruption goes on long enough, you will have to abandon canning as a means of food preservation. Ok, so along with our canning functions, we need to learn some of the more primitive methods of food preservation, like using salt, oils, sugar, honey, lard, etc., along with root cellaring, smoking, curing, drying, and other means of keeping our food for long periods of time. We also ought to consider some of the other ideas in this series, like relying on foods that don't require as much preparation or storage. Root crops can often be kept in the ground through the winter, and with the addition of root cellars, many food staples can be kept without expensive and time-consuming preservation techniques. We need to consider how Agrarians in past centuries (before the advent of modern techniques) were able to survive and thrive without these newer means. There is nothing inherently wrong with technology or progress. Nothing is bad just because it is new (except doctrine). But if we constantly weigh every process or product against our scale of separation, simplification, and sustainability, we will learn to go past the easy and immediate answers and look for longer term answers. If you are able to can and store a year or two supply of food, great! Use that year or two to learn the older, more permanent storage techniques, and acquire the skill to use them. Then you can feel free to can all you like, since you will be able to NOT can if you need to.

I've already mentioned it but I've been surprised at how many people really had no idea you could can meat. Freezers have been a default option for so many for so long, that not using them seems strange and bizarre - even to some very separated agrarians. In our walk, we hope to be learning and perfecting the arts of smoking, curing, potting, etc. very soon, and to teach it diligently to our children.

See you in the next part!

Michael Bunker