The Californians forced to live in cars and RVs | Hacker News Reader

The Californians forced to live in cars and RVs

theguardian.com

24 pointsedward22 comments

I keep thinking about how subsistence farming was the de facto for most people for most of history.

I wonder how many people would choose that option over living on the streets if access to farmland were easier.

I feel like there are a lot of "buts" like this to modern life. Whenever the topic of quality of life comes up, people are quick to cite modern medicine, the internet, smart phones, etc. as proof that we're doing better than ever. But so many people are seemingly relegated to this life of urban-wasteland scrounging, rather than the subsistence farming life that people of their station might have had before. I think in the past, it may have been a little easier to "have nothing". At least in the case that you cite, you'd have relatively fresh healthy food, easy access to nature, and gainful employment. Now you've got urban sprawl, food deserts, and no parking signs. It may be true that you're going to die earlier, but at least you could eek some happiness out of life just living in nature. Despite all of our technology, we're just animals.

Most subsistence farmers, both historically and throughout the world today, had poor and limited diets. They typically depend on a single staple crop for most calories. It's effectively equivalent to living in a food desert even when growing their own food. Hunger and malnutrition are common, especially when the crop fails due to bad weather or pests.

Since the human race transitioned from hunter gatherers to farmers it has never been easy to have nothing.

Sure, and I didn't say that some weren't dying earlier due to things like malnutrition. Even so, if we're considering their diet in isolation, I'm not sure you could make a case that eating real food in smaller quantities rather than garbage in unlimited quantities leads to a lesser "happiness integral".

> fresh healthy food

I believe they were rarely eating fresh food. Root cellars and canning were both coming forms of food storage for subsistence farmers.

Plus the diet was primarily potatoes and other roots, and corn. Not many kale salads nor avocado on toast.

I didn't intend to overstate this point. People in areas like where I live (Socal) probably would have had it alright. But even those who had to rely on roots and grains were probably doing better than someone eating Twinkies and Pepsi, which unfortunately is all-too-common amongst the poorest of our society now.

Canning is a fairly recent invention, too; I believe it was Napoleon who sponsored its invention to support the needs of his armies.

I'd rather live in an RV than as a feudal serf, if that's what you are talking about.

I don't recall mentioning anything about lords and feudal duty

There's a passage where Frank Herbert compares the hierarchical structure of corporations to the hierarchical feudal structures.

That is exactly what was "de facto for most people for most of history"

There's a whole world outside of European history

What is hard in accessing farmland?

Most land is owned by someone or something, getting access to legally farm it is not cheap and the startup costs are high relative to what the groups we're talking about would have access to.

Legal access, not physical. If you don't buy or rent land, you cannot farm it. A small amount of capital would be required to get a subsistence farm up-and-going when historically it was community of family land without all of the modern legal ownership and tax concerns. I am merely trying to present a thought experiment of:

Would it be a better life as:

A) an impoverished person with land and the ability to grow food

B) an impoverished person living in a car or on the streets relying on low-wage jobs or begging.

I would go so far as to guess that gaining both legal and physical access to land that could be used for subsistence farming is not excessively difficult. There are a number of areas of the US where various government entities offer land on the condition that you do something productive with it.

You may find that the choice becomes one between:

A) an impoverished person with land and the ability to grow food, without knowledge or experience of doing such in a marginal, unpopulated, and isolated area

B) an impoverished person living in a car or on the streets relying on low-wage jobs or begging who values being in an urban area

Where specifically are those areas where the government will give free fertile land to farmers? In most of the country, farm land goes for at least $8000 per acre. If any was actually available for free, existing farmers would happily take it and use it productively.

There's a vast difference between land that is fertile for commercial purposes and land that can be used to eke out a subsistence farmer's living. The former needs, among other things, access to a fair amount of commercial infrastructure. The latter does not, and is useful to feed one person at crop densities well below what would be commerically viable.

Also, $8000 per person would be far less than government entities in the US spend supporting the homeless.

How much farming have you done? If there is arable land somewhere (other than a protected park) then the infrastructure will get built. In any case it's going to take a lot more than $8000 to get a small subsistence farm going.

I'm still waiting for your list of free farm land.

Given the context of living on the street, what is easy in accessing farmland?

Lack of experience and capital quickly come to mind as challenges. The more I think about it, the more I want to say that everything is hard in accessing farmland.

Coming up with the rent.

I grew up in San Diego and having lived in a few other places, I really wanted to stay there. But I work for a startup and there is very little money. I could not afford even a cheap apartment in San Diego anymore.

So I moved to Tijuana. Same great weather and Pacific Ocean, fraction of the cost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com