War Room Lounge v148: all tip and no shaft

[Islam Imamate]

How much land do you estimate would be required to sustain one person in a low-tech environment of reasonable resources (say, a temperate forest)? Say you had good basic tools and knowledge and a sufficient water source. You need an area large enough for edible plants, firewood, small game and insects, with occasional larger game, and for all of that to be sustainable. I bet it's larger than 10 acres on average. Maybe like 40.

All a man needs is three acres and a cow

 

[Fawlty]

All a man needs is three acres and a cow

Silly Brits. This is what happens when a bunch of bog dwellers luck out and have all the tin for copper-making.

 

[skysolo]

War Room goof knows where I'm from. Should I weirded out?

 

[Lead]

@JDragon @Prokofievian

Finally some headway after that 5lbs drop. I had maintained that weight for the past three weeks despite feeling like my cardio was going back up and some unused muscles were getting less sore each time I rolled. This week I finally have a 7lb average drop so it’s starting to move again. I think it should get easier from this point as it felt like those three weeks were my body trying to keep the weight on regardless of what I ate. Next weekend should be telling.

 

[Lead]

How much land do you estimate would be required to sustain one person in a low-tech environment of reasonable resources (say, a temperate forest)? Say you had good basic tools and knowledge and a sufficient water source. You need an area large enough for edible plants, firewood, small game and insects, with occasional larger game, and for all of that to be sustainable. I bet it's larger than 10 acres on average. Maybe like 40.

The larger game part makes it seem like 30-40 but without that, it could be far less. My family had about 30 and we probably used less than 10 of it for firewood and growing food. The part we didn’t use that was woods always would have trespassers who would hunt.

 

[Sara]

How much land do you estimate would be required to sustain one person in a low-tech environment of reasonable resources (say, a temperate forest)? Say you had good basic tools and knowledge and a sufficient water source. You need an area large enough for edible plants, firewood, small game and insects, with occasional larger game, and for all of that to be sustainable. I bet it's larger than 10 acres on average. Maybe like 40.

You’d need to be able to build a treehouse for the garden and edible plants, a barn for any animals you’d keep, and the water source would have to be enough for water everything, not just be for drinking.

how big are farms? Like how many acres?

 

[Fawlty]

The larger game part makes it seem like 30-40 but without that, it could be far less. My family had about 30 and we probably used less than 10 of it for firewood and growing food. The part we didn’t use that was woods always would have trespassers who would hunt.

I was thinking strictly hunting and foraging, but I think the agriculture thing is kind of the point anyway. Once you introduce agriculture, you become so much more efficient and only need to find protein. I don't know what you would need for acreage for small game. At least 10 I think. Eventually you'd domesticate a bird and a rabbit or something and cut that requirement down too.

 

[Prokofievian]

@JDragon @Prokofievian

Finally some headway after that 5lbs drop. I had maintained that weight for the past three weeks despite feeling like my cardio was going back up and some unused muscles were getting less sore each time I rolled. This week I finally have a 7lb average drop so it’s starting to move again. I think it should get easier from this point as it felt like those three weeks were my body trying to keep the weight on regardless of what I ate. Next weekend should be telling.

Good job, you deserve a donut to celebrate. Hell, eat a whole box, 7lbs is 7 lbs!

I was thinking strictly hunting and foraging, but I think the agriculture thing is kind of the point anyway. Once you introduce agriculture, you become so much more efficient and only need to find protein. I don't know what you would need for acreage for small game. At least 10 I think. Eventually you'd domesticate a bird and a rabbit or something and cut that requirement down too.

Really depends on the ecosystem. Some ecosystems are quite easy to forage and provide ample game, while others don't really have much to offer. A boreal forest ecosystem is a lot harder to forage than a tropical island. There was this show ''SurvivorMan'' and they basically tested this guy's ability to survive in different ecosystems for a full week. The tropical island episode was the only one where the guy said that he wouldn't mind staying out there for a little bit longer. Between palmhearts, coconuts, fish and shellfish he was basically set.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

War Room goof knows where I'm from. Should I weirded out?

Probably

 

[Fawlty]

Good job, you deserve a donut to celebrate. Hell, eat a whole box, 7lbs is 7 lbs!



Really depends on the ecosystem. Some ecosystems are quite easy to forage and provide ample game, while others don't really have much to offer. A boreal forest ecosystem is a lot harder to forage than a tropical island. There was this show ''SurvivorMan'' and they basically tested this guy's ability to survive in different ecosystems for a full week. The tropical island episode was the only one where the guy said that he wouldn't mind staying out there for a little bit longer. Between palmhearts, coconuts, fish and shellfish he was basically set.

Already watching Survivorman on another window. Les >>>> Bear

The ecosystem thing is why I suggested an average temperate forest. There's a lot of variation but still.

 

[Sara]

I don’t know if you could forge for enough plants though, but I’m probably thinking more of things I’d want to eat, not what I would eat in order to survive.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

How much land do you estimate would be required to sustain one person in a low-tech environment of reasonable resources (say, a temperate forest)? Say you had good basic tools and knowledge and a sufficient water source. You need an area large enough for edible plants, firewood, small game and insects, with occasional larger game, and for all of that to be sustainable. I bet it's larger than 10 acres on average. Maybe like 40.

The game part means you need alot more land , if you raised chickens and or had an aquaponics set up it comes way down , how much firewood you need depends on how efficient your dwelling is , if you have something like an earthship which is incredibly efficient , eliminate the game you could do it on a couple of acres no problem.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Really depends on the ecosystem. Some ecosystems are quite easy to forage and provide ample game, while others don't really have much to offer. A boreal forest ecosystem is a lot harder to forage than a tropical island. There was this show ''SurvivorMan'' and they basically tested this guy's ability to survive in different ecosystems for a full week. The tropical island episode was the only one where the guy said that he wouldn't mind staying out there for a little bit longer. Between palmhearts, coconuts, fish and shellfish he was basically set.

Is Survivor man that obscure that it has to be introduced this way? Who doesn't know about Survivor Man? Seems weird to me, like saying "there was this show called Fear Factor/American Idol/Jersey Shore".

Anyway yeah I remember that episode, basically a walk in the park for Les. Funny that when it comes to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle a tropical rainforest is actually ideal whereas for more sophisticated civilization its a bit of a detriment(need to clear dense jungle for agriculture, tropical disease, provides cover for insurgencies etc).

I was thinking strictly hunting and foraging, but I think the agriculture thing is kind of the point anyway. Once you introduce agriculture, you become so much more efficient and only need to find protein. I don't know what you would need for acreage for small game. At least 10 I think. Eventually you'd domesticate a bird and a rabbit or something and cut that requirement down too.

At that point you're talking about homesteading and for that I honestly don't think you need much more than three acres and a cow if you're efficient with the land(rabbits and quail for livestock, aquaponics garden, small ruminants like goats). To be fair you specified low tech earlier which would make it harder as that'd disqualify an aquaponics garden and make it harder to store food.

 

[all caps]

War Room goof knows where I'm from. Should I weirded out?

Yes.

D.T.A

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

So you are a man in your teens to early 30s?

Mine went away in my mid forties , cut out dairy and almost all meat and they're back with a vengeance .

It's all about vascular health .

 

[Jack V Savage]

Weird take. Obviously, the topic requires individual analysis, and the fact that some quarterbacks exceed the average drop in rating while others play below it should in fact support the existence of clutch traits.

It wouldn't. Performance variation would be expected. If your rating is 93.0, it wouldn't be expected to be 93.0 exactly in every subset. What you'd want is evidence that the variation is not random.

And I wasn't using Favre as proof of a clutch vs. non-clutch trait across all quarterbacks but rather as proof that, whatever the moniker seeks to describe, he's a great example.

Let's take three of the quarterbacks most considered "clutch" in the past few decades:

Joe Flacco (career passer rating 3.7 points higher in playoffs than regular season)
Eli Manning (career passer rating 3.3 points higher in playoffs than regular season)
Joe Montana (career passer rating 3.3 points higher in playoffs than regular season).

Brett Favre during the seasons in question: playoff passer rating (77.8) is 16.4 points below regular season (94.2). During his entire career, his playoff passer rating is approximately 7.8 points lower (86.0) than regular season in corresponding playoff years (93.8).

I'm seeing this for Favre: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FavrBr00.htm. 86.0 for his career and 86.3 in the playoffs. And remember, "variation is random" /= "no variation exists." Is it hard to believe that a guy with an 86.0 rating for his career would put up 86.3 in any randomly selected 24-game period? Would predicting that people who outperform in the playoffs one year (or one group of years) will continue to outperform expectations lead to more-accurate results than predicting that the overall numbers (adjusted for QoO) will be a better guide? Those are the kinds of questions you want to answer, and the evidence is not on the side of the effect you're describing "definitely existing." At best, you can say, "the evidence isn't there yet, but there's a chance that it might turn up, though it can't be a very large effect."

Goddamn Bleacher Report embedding.

bleacherreport.com/articles/1649603-comparing-lebron-james-playoff-buzzer-beating-shots-to-michael-jordans-best

Not a fan of this. First, the criteria are so narrow that there's no decent sample. Second, it's a very restricted look. And this kind of thing: "In fact, Jordan was the only player who attempted at least 13 shots and managed to even hit on 42 percent or more of them." should send up screaming red flags that the thing is bullshit. And then let's take a moment to admire this one: "Per ESPN.com, since LeBron entered the league in 2003, he has hit on the highest number of clutch field goals in the NBA. Thus far, he is 7-of-16 on those shots, good for a 43.8 percent clip, significantly lower than Jordan's [50%]."

Hughes was one of my favorites getting into the sport but yeah everything I've heard of him makes him out to be an asshole and a bully. I think it was Sean McCorkle who went through his autobiography and summarized it in a thread on here and he basically brags about being a massive cunt. Hates attention from fans(says he regrets giving one guy a photo), shit on other fighters(trashed Chuck for giving attention to fans, shit on Tim Sylvia and Lesnar), treated his wife like trash(took her out to a shitty diner for their "honeymoon", boned her right her after her boob job when she was still on the effects of the sedatives and reopened her scars). If you wrote a character that shitty people wouldn't believe it.

Something I personally witnessed at UFC 201: Early in the show, a guy asks Hughes for an autograph or photo. He's like, "I'm busy, but I'll get you back later." At the time, the area was pretty much empty, and I was thinking, "that guy's never going to see Hughes again." Seems like I'm right as the crowd fills up, and guys aren't just walking around anymore. But, sure enough, he comes back, politely pushes through people, like he has something to do. Gets to the guy and signs and autograph and takes a picture with him. Not a big deal, but a nice thing he did that goes against his reputation.

 

[Gandhi]

How much land do you estimate would be required to sustain one person in a low-tech environment of reasonable resources (say, a temperate forest)? Say you had good basic tools and knowledge and a sufficient water source. You need an area large enough for edible plants, firewood, small game and insects, with occasional larger game, and for all of that to be sustainable. I bet it's larger than 10 acres on average. Maybe like 40.

I was thinking strictly hunting and foraging, but I think the agriculture thing is kind of the point anyway. Once you introduce agriculture, you become so much more efficient and only need to find protein. I don't know what you would need for acreage for small game. At least 10 I think. Eventually you'd domesticate a bird and a rabbit or something and cut that requirement down too.

That’s what I thought you meant.

The second you add farming and livsestock it changes.

Without that I thought 40 sounded low, found this

The land needed ranges from 40 ha/person in an ideal ecosystem, to 150-250 ha/person for a moderately favorable ecosystem. In unfavorable ecosystems, the number can go very high, to over 1,000 ha/person. Let’s assume an overly-optimistic 100 ha/person for hunting and gathering.

So in the moderately ideal system it’s like 200 HA or 500 acres.

https://hungermath.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/hunter-gatherers-no-more/

No idea if that’s right or not.

 

[Prokofievian]

Already watching Survivorman on another window. Les >>>> Bear

The ecosystem thing is why I suggested an average temperate forest. There's a lot of variation but still.

Defoes.

The average temperate forest is tougher than it should be. You have lots of shelter, and you can easily make a fire, lots of fresh water. The big challenge is that you don't have any calorie dense plants. You'd need to find a way to regularly make pretty decent sized kills and preserve them or you'd starve to death. A stream with lots of fish in it would go a long way.

 

[Fawlty]

That’s what I thought you meant.

The second you add farming and livsestock it changes.

Without that I thought 40 sounded low, found this



So in the moderately ideal system it’s like 200 HA or 500 acres.

https://hungermath.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/hunter-gatherers-no-more/

No idea if that’s right or not.

Thanks, bookmarked will read this later. But it sounds like I way underestimated.

 

[Sycho Sid]

Mine went away in my mid forties , cut out dairy and almost all meat and they're back with a vengeance .

It's all about vascular health .