Grandma thinks Nathanael not very happy Nathanael pronounless, but Grandma thinks Nathanael should study linguistics, for sure. Under the stars, on Nathanael’s cot, at night in Nathanael’s yard. Grandma very happy then.

Love your new video. G.Pa
P.S. To be or not to be - should that BE a question? How do you find all of these crazies???? That is a question,

Aht, what did I say about the copula? It’s a copula whether there’s a word there or not. Just deleting all the forms of “to be” isn’t E-Primitive. Rather, you have to rewrite the sentence so that it doesn’t require that verb. So, you could write, “Grandma thinks Nathanael won’t feel very happy if Nathanael has no pronouns …”. And “Grandma would feel very happy then.” It does make sentences a bit nicer in moderation, which is why Professor Savarese recommends cutting down on “to be”. It’s the idea that you should ban it entirely that I think is pretty misguided.

And, if I recall, Grandpa, one proponent has already written something on E-Primitive and called it “To Be or Not”. As to your question about the crazies, they just seem to come with the territory in this pursuit. I guess when you have a small group of people all dedicated to a cause radically different from civilization’s aims, you’re bound to find some who think any change from the status quo will improve things. All it takes is a catalyst to make them all rally; in this case, it was Jason’s article, which apparently was derived from a few other prime champions of the cause who came up with the idea. The Urban Scout Jason mentions is the founder of the forum I mentioned in the blog post. Willem is on the forum too.

P.S. I can’t take it anymore; I have to put the pronouns back in. “I think you won’t feel very happy if you have no pronouns, but I think you should study linguistics, for sure. Under the stars, on your cot, at night in your yard. That would make me happy.”

As I read further, it looks like Jason didn’t actually write it at all. That’s a credit to him; it enhances his credibility immensely in my eyes. He still feels “proud to present” it, but at least he didn’t actually write the bull that I found in that article.

Well, one thing would be easier if the verb to be were banned. Spanish teachers would no longer pull their hair out over ser and estar and French teachers would no longer have to try to pound the verb etre into the kids’ heads. And you could say goodbye to the passive voice. Would cut two months off the school curriculum. Ha. Just kidding. Grandma

All right, I’m coming in late to all this stuff, except by indirect communication, but I’ll put in my own two cents all the same.

Having just been in Alaska where the worldview is a lot different, I can offer another perspective on the survival stuff. Alaskans are still in that ‘not-so-many-people-but-a-lot-of wilderness’ stage of civilization. They are laid back and far away from the problems in the main part of the USA. They are friendly and generous and they help each other out because that’s what survival is all about.

We also learned a lot about the goldrushers, who survived incredible conditions in their search for riches, and they did it by hanging together and helping each other out.

Okay, that said, I’m thinking about this wilderness stuff and realizing that it’s not very likely that anybody will end up alone in the wilderness to survive by themselves. More likely survivors will band together to provide their common needs.

Now, the electrical infrastructure may collapse, but the principle of electricity will remain. The laws of supply and demand will remain. And I can confidently predict that somebody will be out there in the ‘wilderness’ making electricity to trade for somebody else’s sewing skills who’ll trade those skills for somebody else’s brewing ability, who’ll chop firewood for the old lady who cooks and sells hot meals, who’ll start to run an inn for the refreshment of weary wilderness dwellers, who’ll happily come and enjoy the hot showers and baked beans right out of the oven with the fresh bread, and somebody will start to make butter, and so on and so on and so on… remember, the people who really got rich in the gold rush were the ones who could supply the needs of the would-be miners. Dawson City grew to provide all the amenities of civilization for all those starved folk who worked so hard and so cold trying to dig wealth out of the permafrost.

So the skills you need to learn are the ones needed for basic living in a society. Survival in the wilderness is something you do if you have to, before you can get to a settlement where other people do some of the hard work and share with you. Dan and Dave have got it right. Learn farming, butchering, mechanics, electrical engineering, plumbing, sewing, cooking, printing, bookmaking! etc. etc. You’ll survive.

Irene

And in one feld swoop, she crushes Mr. Primitive’s idea of living alone in the wilderness gnawing on some nasty killing for sustenance.

The word primitive in the sense that you use it implies that you are going to disregard modern conveniences in the event that they will someday cease to exist. As Irene so rightly points out, civilization when toppled, will always rebuild from the ground-up. More importantly modern technology will still exist and the evolution of such a civilization will move at a fervent pace to replace what was lost.

I’m sorry, but Mr. Primitive’s whole idea is merely a science experiment to see if he can do it, albeit completely unnecessary. If civilization gets so bad that no modern technology exists, you had better be a cockroach because you’ll need to survive the fallout and to my knowledge, no primitive skills have mastered the art of fending off radiation.

Now, on the other hand, being Mr. Primitive might be fun and why not try it now? It won’t hurt you so go for it!

Dan

I agree with Dan. Maybe we can go to wilds of Alaska together. You bring your knowledge and all the food and I will bring the matches and the Deet. G.Pa

I know full well that primitive people lived in groups. Some of them lived at settlements; others were nomadic. That’s the reason that, in my previous post, I was enthusiastic about the possibility of some people joining me in my second year of GO if I do it for two years (or at all).

Now, the thing is, if everyone’s living in these groups, they’ll also be fairly well dispersed without much dependable contact between them. So, it’d be difficult for the sort of barter economy you’re thinking of to completely fledge. Of course, there would be specialists and trading, but I don’t think it could make a brand new civilization.

Also, the reason civilization wouldn’t just restart is that we’ve exhausted easily obtainable supplies of metals and fossil fuels. If we want to get at these things, we need the tools that civilization allows. To mine more metal these days, you need fossil fuels to get down deep enough. To mine fossil fuels, you need at least an initial investment of more fossil fuel to get to it. Metal is salvageable, but at high cost, and not in huge quantities. If we’ve got no oil and no metal, civilization can’t really rekindle.

I think you underestimate the inventiveness of the human mind. No fossil fuel left? Then how about solar power? As Ellen once reminded me when I was groaning that we were using up all our sources of power, there is a sun out there, at least for a while yet. And there are still a lot of trees in Alaska for fuel. Or even grasses can be burnt. I don’t think we’re quite at the end of the world just yet.

And I don’t think an economic correction would be such a bad thing, especially a nice slow one, though it might be difficult for us to accept that we would be a lot richer if we were a little poorer. Right now we are spinning wheels at the top of the heap and we are so glutted with goods that we have lost all our perspective. I’d like to see us lose our reputation as the world’s First Class A-One Glutton. Let somebody else have that title while we figure out what’s really important on this earth, and it ain’t the almighty dollar.

Watch out, I have a lot of two-cent pieces to spend speaking my mind!

Love, Irene

I don’t think that the anti-gloom and doomers,(if there is such a thing) are reading this right. Do I think 1929 is right around the corner, or at least could be? Yes, I believe our entitlement economy built on american comfort and the promise of a perfect all the way to the grave life, will eventually cease to exist. Energy will take a long time to run through and WE will not see the true effects of the fossil fuel endgame. But, it is coming, and in geological terms, it will be but a nanosecond.

Learning survival skills would always be a good thing. In 1929 and shortly thereafter, people did whatever they could to get by including some of our relatives.

Is it really such a stretch of the imagination that things could get really bad for a period of one to ten years or more?

Nothing is forever including any brief fall of civilization. Fossil fuels will run out though and I for one am not convinced that our american ingenuity will “invent” our way out of this.

I won’t be around to see what happens but anyone has my Kudos for reassesing and not reassuming………

Dave

We already have the technology to say goodbye to fossil fuels. The problem is way more political that substance. The transition to solar energy is already happening and is picking up pace. This might be a “shock” to some of you but we can build cars that run on electricity! How ‘bout that pun? The central problem with it (or any other alternative fuel) is infrastructure. No one wants to spearhead an infrastructure overhaul to make less money than the existing oil infrastructure! My point is that when things really get tough enough, things will change. It’s basic economics, supply and demand. Doomsday averted. Asteroids are a more likely cause for alarm, really.

Need a new perspective? Read TBOONEPICKENS.COM He has some good ideas.

G.Pa.

Alright, we need something to chew on around here. Throw the dog a bone Nate.