Thai man releases video about living off the grid in America’s snowy mountains

[JLCrab]

Thai man releases video about Thai man (2011): Life is easy

Edited June 1, 2016 by JLCrab

[jerico2017]

Nobody brings up why he does not need to show U.S. immigration a map to his house, go travel to some office with the land owner with stacks of papers? Where is the online map showing his gps coordinates? The "trust me I am Thai" works in Colorado?

Did he do his 90 day report? Why not? Is he tourist or green card? Does he have skills?

I want to see pictures of his bedroom.

Nobodyelse's blood is boiling? If I am the only one to comment on this, then that says allot.

If you don't know what to say to your leader in your home country just copy and past this reply to your official. Demand Answers.

Demand reciprocal treatment.

Maybe he has a retirement visa under review.

Edited June 8, 2016 by jerico2017

[VincentRJ]

Once everything is built, how do you support yourself? For those who haven't tried it, farming is hard on good land in friendlier climates, I'm not sure it would be possible at all on this high, barren land. Ranching is also difficult and requires considerable expertise, especially if you have cattle that can't graze seven months of the year and that will need shelter during the frequent winter storms.

Of course one could always do some kind of work on the internet. Wait, this is off the grid, isn't it?

"The point is, if a person has only $200,000, say, which is not sufficient buy a block of land in the suburbs and have a large house built on it by a professional builder, without borrowing money which might be impossible if one is unemployed, then Jon Jandai's approach, as shown in the video, is a realistic option for anyone who might like that sort of lifestyle and who refuses to get into debt."

Your argument is that this is lifestyle that an unemployed person with $200,000 could live. I don't know any unemployed people with $200,000 to spare, but assuming such people exist, this is a lifestyle that such people could begin, not finish. Once the money runs out the lifestyle, house, investment, etc. would have to be abandoned unless the individual has some other source of income.

The figure of $200,000 was a very rough estimate based upon my impression from the video that the house looked huge and the block of land was large, perhaps 100 acres.

If one doesn't have $200,000 then one would scale the project down. Perhaps one could buy a 10 acre block in a remote area off the grid, for only US$20,000, or even less. One could in Australia. Since a major expense for the house is the solar panels and battery storage, a smaller house might cost $50,000, which means the total project cost would be only $70,000.

It's pretty obvious that this is the sort of lifestyle which would only appeal to someone with a 'hippie' mentality who wants to escape from the hustle and bustle of city life and a 9am to 5pm job.

Sacrifices would no doubt be made, according to the amount of cash one had and according to the circumstances one had chosen.

I personally would not choose to live in such a cold place at such a high altitude, especially if I intended to become self-sufficient, growing all of my own food and selling the surplus. However, some people do actually get pleasure from growing various plants and food, and enjoy the challenges of becoming self-sufficient.

The food grown on ten acres during the short growing season of high altitude Colorado would not come close to feeding a person for one year.

I think only two kinds of people would attempt this kind of life--rich eccentrics that want to live like hermits, and retirees with secure pensions that don't mind being far from medical care and other people.

I think you're confusing conventional agriculture with self-sufficiency, organic-style, permaculture methods.

Conventional agriculture, with its highly mechanised approach, which gradually reduces the fertility and carbon content of the soil, resulting in total reliance upon artificial fertilizers and regular watering, is designed to produce food at the lowest cost, rather than produce the maximum amount of food from a given area of land.

If one removes the economic concerns, that is, earning a living from selling food at wholesale market prices, and instead one uses the land to maximize food production, because one has the time and one enjoys gardening, then I would say, approximately and on average, 1/4th of an acre would be sufficient to provide all the food requirements for one person.

However, land at high altitudes in the Rocky Mountains, presents difficult challenges. Because of the prolonged winters, I'd estimate one would have to double that area to at least half an acre. Also, perhaps because of a less than ideal climate in the summer, I would advise doubling it again to one acre, to be on the safe side.

So a 10 acre property, in the Rocky Mountains, should be sufficient to support 10 people, if the people know what they are doing and have the time to organize their circumstances for maximum production of food.

Edited June 8, 2016 by VincentRJ

[heybruce]

Once everything is built, how do you support yourself? For those who haven't tried it, farming is hard on good land in friendlier climates, I'm not sure it would be possible at all on this high, barren land. Ranching is also difficult and requires considerable expertise, especially if you have cattle that can't graze seven months of the year and that will need shelter during the frequent winter storms.

Of course one could always do some kind of work on the internet. Wait, this is off the grid, isn't it?

"The point is, if a person has only $200,000, say, which is not sufficient buy a block of land in the suburbs and have a large house built on it by a professional builder, without borrowing money which might be impossible if one is unemployed, then Jon Jandai's approach, as shown in the video, is a realistic option for anyone who might like that sort of lifestyle and who refuses to get into debt."

Your argument is that this is lifestyle that an unemployed person with $200,000 could live. I don't know any unemployed people with $200,000 to spare, but assuming such people exist, this is a lifestyle that such people could begin, not finish. Once the money runs out the lifestyle, house, investment, etc. would have to be abandoned unless the individual has some other source of income.

The figure of $200,000 was a very rough estimate based upon my impression from the video that the house looked huge and the block of land was large, perhaps 100 acres.

If one doesn't have $200,000 then one would scale the project down. Perhaps one could buy a 10 acre block in a remote area off the grid, for only US$20,000, or even less. One could in Australia. Since a major expense for the house is the solar panels and battery storage, a smaller house might cost $50,000, which means the total project cost would be only $70,000.

It's pretty obvious that this is the sort of lifestyle which would only appeal to someone with a 'hippie' mentality who wants to escape from the hustle and bustle of city life and a 9am to 5pm job.

Sacrifices would no doubt be made, according to the amount of cash one had and according to the circumstances one had chosen.

I personally would not choose to live in such a cold place at such a high altitude, especially if I intended to become self-sufficient, growing all of my own food and selling the surplus. However, some people do actually get pleasure from growing various plants and food, and enjoy the challenges of becoming self-sufficient.

The food grown on ten acres during the short growing season of high altitude Colorado would not come close to feeding a person for one year.

I think only two kinds of people would attempt this kind of life--rich eccentrics that want to live like hermits, and retirees with secure pensions that don't mind being far from medical care and other people.

I think you're confusing conventional agriculture with self-sufficiency, organic-style, permaculture methods.

Conventional agriculture, with its highly mechanised approach, which gradually reduces the fertility and carbon content of the soil, resulting in total reliance upon artificial fertilizers and regular watering, is designed to produce food at the lowest cost, rather than produce the maximum amount of food from a given area of land.

If one removes the economic concerns, that is, earning a living from selling food at wholesale market prices, and instead one uses the land to maximize food production, because one has the time and one enjoys gardening, then I would say, approximately and on average, 1/4th of an acre would be sufficient to provide all the food requirements for one person.

However, land at high altitudes in the Rocky Mountains, presents difficult challenges. Because of the prolonged winters, I'd estimate one would have to double that area to at least half an acre. Also, perhaps because of a less than ideal climate in the summer, I would advise doubling it again to one acre, to be on the safe side.

So a 10 acre property, in the Rocky Mountains, should be sufficient to support 10 people, if the people know what they are doing and have the time to organize their circumstances for maximum production of food.

"then I would say, approximately and on average, 1/4th of an acre would be sufficient to provide all the food requirements for one person."

Seriously? Have you tried it? Do you know anyone who has successfully fed himself entirely from a quarter acre garden, or even a ten acre garden with one growing season a year? Do you have any references supporting your claim?

In other words, are your "estimates" actually based on knowledge of agriculture, or wild guesses?

Regarding "economic concerns", how long do you think your clothes and shoes will last while you are doing manual farming? Are you going to dedicate some of the farm land to cotton, or will you raise sheep for wool? Have you factored in the time to spin cotton or wool into threads, weave threads into cloth, and cut and sew cloth into clothes?

Oh yeah, you'll also have to allow time, and grow enough of a surplus, to brew that craft beer.

Enjoy your self-sufficient life. I'll stay in the decadent real world.

[VincentRJ]

Seriously? Have you tried it? Do you know anyone who has successfully fed himself entirely from a quarter acre garden, or even a ten acre garden with one growing season a year? Do you have any references supporting your claim?

In other words, are your "estimates" actually based on knowledge of agriculture, or wild guesses?

I haven't tried it personally, but I've investigated the matter and I understand how it can be done. If you do a search on the internet, you should find dozens of sites explaining how it can be done and/or providing links to books on the subject. Estimates on the minimum acreage needed to support one person tend to vary from 0.05 acres to 0.5 acres, depending on climate and soil fertility. However, such small acreages would exclude the raising of cattle. Your diet would have to be mainly fruit, vegetables, herbs, chicken and eggs and possibly goats, which is a very healthy diet. On a 0.5 acres property you might have enough room for a small pond to raise fish.

Here's a youtube video that might inspire you. A family of four is supporting itself on just 1/10th of an acre. I imagine that area excludes the area taken up by the house.

Regarding "economic concerns", how long do you think your clothes and shoes will last while you are doing manual farming?

Jeans can be very durable. After 20 years or so, when they begin to fray and get holes, you can sell them as fashion items.

[heybruce]

Seriously? Have you tried it? Do you know anyone who has successfully fed himself entirely from a quarter acre garden, or even a ten acre garden with one growing season a year? Do you have any references supporting your claim?

In other words, are your "estimates" actually based on knowledge of agriculture, or wild guesses?

I haven't tried it personally, but I've investigated the matter and I understand how it can be done. If you do a search on the internet, you should find dozens of sites explaining how it can be done and/or providing links to books on the subject. Estimates on the minimum acreage needed to support one person tend to vary from 0.05 acres to 0.5 acres, depending on climate and soil fertility. However, such small acreages would exclude the raising of cattle. Your diet would have to be mainly fruit, vegetables, herbs, chicken and eggs and possibly goats, which is a very healthy diet. On a 0.5 acres property you might have enough room for a small pond to raise fish.

Here's a youtube video that might inspire you. A family of four is supporting itself on just 1/10th of an acre. I imagine that area excludes the area taken up by the house.

Regarding "economic concerns", how long do you think your clothes and shoes will last while you are doing manual farming?

Jeans can be very durable. After 20 years or so, when they begin to fray and get holes, you can sell them as fashion items.

You don't have a lot of experience with physical labor, do you? If you're pushing a shovel or in other ways working the dirt, you're lucky to get a year out of a pair of jeans. For the last few months you'll be wearing them as cut-offs.

[MissAndry]

No sustainable farming is possible at this altitude.

Not to mention, there isn't any top soil.

The story is a complete fantasy.

[Wanderer555]

Congratulations to Jon on his project, and adapting to a very different environment than his native Thailand.

As others have noted, this looks to be in South Park, (made famous by the South Park cartoon), and yes the valley floor is above 10,000 ft, with the mountains to the West & North reaching over 14,000 ft.

I used to live close there, deeper in the mountains to the west maybe 30-40 miles and can attest long cold winters such as ice climbing 10 minutes by snowshoes from my house in early June. Though the temperatures can drop to -30F or less and be subzero F for weeks on end, the skies are generally sunny so it makes things bearable. Also, while it can snow almost any day of the year, South Park does not get a lot of snowfall, and the low moisture content makes it very easy to deal with.

The Earthships are a really good concept, and I have stayed in a couple around the Taos New Mexico area, but have concerns with the use of the rubber tires and long term effects from the rubber outgassing.

Cheers!

[VincentRJ]

No sustainable farming is possible at this altitude.

Not to mention, there isn't any top soil.

The story is a complete fantasy.

So very negative! How come?

Here's a link to some advice on how to do it, and here's the summary from the author, a lady, after 5 pages of good advice: "The real challenge of Rocky Mountain gardening, you will find, is not so much that of outfoxing nature and the difficult conditions she imposes. Mostly, it lies in harmonizing your efforts with hers for a healthy, abundant, deeply satisfying harvest."

http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/high-altitude-gardening-rocky-mountains-zmaz75mjzgoe.aspx?PageId=1

[VincentRJ]

Seriously? Have you tried it? Do you know anyone who has successfully fed himself entirely from a quarter acre garden, or even a ten acre garden with one growing season a year? Do you have any references supporting your claim?

In other words, are your "estimates" actually based on knowledge of agriculture, or wild guesses?

I haven't tried it personally, but I've investigated the matter and I understand how it can be done. If you do a search on the internet, you should find dozens of sites explaining how it can be done and/or providing links to books on the subject. Estimates on the minimum acreage needed to support one person tend to vary from 0.05 acres to 0.5 acres, depending on climate and soil fertility. However, such small acreages would exclude the raising of cattle. Your diet would have to be mainly fruit, vegetables, herbs, chicken and eggs and possibly goats, which is a very healthy diet. On a 0.5 acres property you might have enough room for a small pond to raise fish.

Here's a youtube video that might inspire you. A family of four is supporting itself on just 1/10th of an acre. I imagine that area excludes the area taken up by the house.

Regarding "economic concerns", how long do you think your clothes and shoes will last while you are doing manual farming?

Jeans can be very durable. After 20 years or so, when they begin to fray and get holes, you can sell them as fashion items.

You don't have a lot of experience with physical labor, do you? If you're pushing a shovel or in other ways working the dirt, you're lucky to get a year out of a pair of jeans. For the last few months you'll be wearing them as cut-offs.

I have a fair amount of experience. I live on a 5 acre property and do quite a bit of work felling trees and cutting up the branches for Hugelkulture mounds to improve my soil.

However, my advice would be, if you are unable to meet the challenges of organizing a supply of durable work clothes, then I don't think the lifestyle of self-sufficiency is for you because there would be far greater challenges to meet.

[heybruce]

I haven't tried it personally, but I've investigated the matter and I understand how it can be done. If you do a search on the internet, you should find dozens of sites explaining how it can be done and/or providing links to books on the subject. Estimates on the minimum acreage needed to support one person tend to vary from 0.05 acres to 0.5 acres, depending on climate and soil fertility. However, such small acreages would exclude the raising of cattle. Your diet would have to be mainly fruit, vegetables, herbs, chicken and eggs and possibly goats, which is a very healthy diet. On a 0.5 acres property you might have enough room for a small pond to raise fish.

Here's a youtube video that might inspire you. A family of four is supporting itself on just 1/10th of an acre. I imagine that area excludes the area taken up by the house.

Regarding "economic concerns", how long do you think your clothes and shoes will last while you are doing manual farming?

Jeans can be very durable. After 20 years or so, when they begin to fray and get holes, you can sell them as fashion items.

You don't have a lot of experience with physical labor, do you? If you're pushing a shovel or in other ways working the dirt, you're lucky to get a year out of a pair of jeans. For the last few months you'll be wearing them as cut-offs.

I have a fair amount of experience. I live on a 5 acre property and do quite a bit of work felling trees and cutting up the branches for Hugelkulture mounds to improve my soil.

However, my advice would be, if you are unable to meet the challenges of organizing a supply of durable work clothes, then I don't think the lifestyle of self-sufficiency is for you because there would be far greater challenges to meet.

Sorry, not buying it. If you got more than a year out of a pair of jeans you weren't working very hard. I base this on growing up doing field labor and working in a pulp wood mill doing the dirty stuff--hauling garbage, building scaffolding, shoveling dirt, etc. Denim lasted longer than other affordable and wearable materials, but a few months of serious labor would do in a pair.

BTW: I'm skeptical of the claims that the Dervaes family grow 6000 pounds of produce a year on 4000 square feet, even in Pasadena where they could grow year round. I'd like to see an independent audit of that claim.

[VincentRJ]

Sorry, not buying it. If you got more than a year out of a pair of jeans you weren't working very hard. I base this on growing up doing field labor and working in a pulp wood mill doing the dirty stuff--hauling garbage, building scaffolding, shoveling dirt, etc. Denim lasted longer than other affordable and wearable materials, but a few months of serious labor would do in a pair.

Didn't you notice the smiley after my comment about selling the worn-out jeans as a fashion item?

One needs to be debt-free and have a certain amount of money before embarking on a project like this. If you are worried about spending all your money and being unable to replace your worn-out jeans at some point in the future because you think you might never have any surplus food to sell, then either make sure you have some surplus money in the bank to meet such future requirements, instead of spending it all on the project, or buy a big bundle of durable work clothes which are on sale, or second-hand, or from a charity shop, and of course buy some needles and thread and a roll of patch material, before you begin the project.

BTW: I'm skeptical of the claims that the Dervaes family grow 6000 pounds of produce a year on 4000 square feet, even in Pasadena where they could grow year round. I'd like to see an independent audit of that claim.

There might well be a degree of exaggeration for the sake of the video. People like to be amazed. However, if you need an independent audit on such matters, you probably also need a professional builder to build your house.

Generally, people who are attracted to such a lifestyles have already had some experience of growing their own food, even if it's only in boxes or pots on the verandah, and have had some experience of building activities, even if it was only the task of building a retaining wall in the back yard, or a garden shed. It is the enjoyment and satisfaction of such activities that probably attract certain people towards the self-sufficient lifestyle.

[MissAndry]

No sustainable farming is possible at this altitude.

Not to mention, there isn't any top soil.

The story is a complete fantasy.

So very negative! How come?

Here's a link to some advice on how to do it, and here's the summary from the author, a lady, after 5 pages of good advice: "The real challenge of Rocky Mountain gardening, you will find, is not so much that of outfoxing nature and the difficult conditions she imposes. Mostly, it lies in harmonizing your efforts with hers for a healthy, abundant, deeply satisfying harvest."

http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/high-altitude-gardening-rocky-mountains-zmaz75mjzgoe.aspx?PageId=1

It's simple biology, edible plants grow at sea level, as you go higher people live by hunting rather than farming.

That has been the way of the world for all of time, no matter how much you fantasize it being different.

Now if you have limitless money to buy greenhouses, fertilizer, soil additives and import top soil, you might be able to farm at 10,000ft, but that is hardly living off grid.

[VincentRJ]

No sustainable farming is possible at this altitude.

Not to mention, there isn't any top soil.

The story is a complete fantasy.

So very negative! How come?

Here's a link to some advice on how to do it, and here's the summary from the author, a lady, after 5 pages of good advice: "The real challenge of Rocky Mountain gardening, you will find, is not so much that of outfoxing nature and the difficult conditions she imposes. Mostly, it lies in harmonizing your efforts with hers for a healthy, abundant, deeply satisfying harvest."

http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/high-altitude-gardening-rocky-mountains-zmaz75mjzgoe.aspx?PageId=1

It's simple biology, edible plants grow at sea level, as you go higher people live by hunting rather than farming.

That has been the way of the world for all of time, no matter how much you fantasize it being different.

Now if you have limitless money to buy greenhouses, fertilizer, soil additives and import top soil, you might be able to farm at 10,000ft, but that is hardly living off grid.

You obviously haven't been trekking in Nepal, have you! If you are certain that what you claim is true, you'd better amend the following Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Nepal

Here's an extract:

"The Temperate climate zone from 2,000 to 3,000 meters (6,600 to 9,800 ft) occupies 12% of Nepal's land area and has up to 153 annual days of frost. It is encountered in higher parts of the Middle Hills and throughout much of the Mountain region. Crops include cold-tolerant rice, maize, wheat, barley, potato, apple, walnut, peach, various cole, amaranthus and buckwheat.

The Subalpine zone from 3,000 to 4,000 meters (9,800 to 13,100 ft) occupies 9% of Nepal's land area, mainly in the Mountain and Himalayan regions. It has permanent settlements in the Himalaya, but further south it is only seasonally occupied as pasture for sheep, goats, yak and hybrids in warmer months. There are up to 229 annual days of frost here. Crops include barley, potato, cabbage, cauliflower, amaranthus, buckwheat and apple. Medicinal plants are gathered.

The Alpine zone from 4,000 to 5,000 meters (13,100 to 16,400 ft) occupies 8% of the country's land area. There are a few permanent settlements above 4,000 meters. There is virtually no plant cultivation although medicinal herbs are gathered. Sheep, goats, yaks and hybrids are pastured in warmer months.

Above 5,000 meters the climate becomes Nival and there is no human habitation or even seasonal use."

[heybruce]

Sorry, not buying it. If you got more than a year out of a pair of jeans you weren't working very hard. I base this on growing up doing field labor and working in a pulp wood mill doing the dirty stuff--hauling garbage, building scaffolding, shoveling dirt, etc. Denim lasted longer than other affordable and wearable materials, but a few months of serious labor would do in a pair.

Didn't you notice the smiley after my comment about selling the worn-out jeans as a fashion item?

One needs to be debt-free and have a certain amount of money before embarking on a project like this. If you are worried about spending all your money and being unable to replace your worn-out jeans at some point in the future because you think you might never have any surplus food to sell, then either make sure you have some surplus money in the bank to meet such future requirements, instead of spending it all on the project, or buy a big bundle of durable work clothes which are on sale, or second-hand, or from a charity shop, and of course buy some needles and thread and a roll of patch material, before you begin the project.

BTW: I'm skeptical of the claims that the Dervaes family grow 6000 pounds of produce a year on 4000 square feet, even in Pasadena where they could grow year round. I'd like to see an independent audit of that claim.

There might well be a degree of exaggeration for the sake of the video. People like to be amazed. However, if you need an independent audit on such matters, you probably also need a professional builder to build your house.

Generally, people who are attracted to such a lifestyles have already had some experience of growing their own food, even if it's only in boxes or pots on the verandah, and have had some experience of building activities, even if it was only the task of building a retaining wall in the back yard, or a garden shed. It is the enjoyment and satisfaction of such activities that probably attract certain people towards the self-sufficient lifestyle.

As I've been posting from the beginning, you need an outside source of income for this "sufficiency" lifestyle.

[VincentRJ]

Sorry, not buying it. If you got more than a year out of a pair of jeans you weren't working very hard. I base this on growing up doing field labor and working in a pulp wood mill doing the dirty stuff--hauling garbage, building scaffolding, shoveling dirt, etc. Denim lasted longer than other affordable and wearable materials, but a few months of serious labor would do in a pair.

Didn't you notice the smiley after my comment about selling the worn-out jeans as a fashion item?

One needs to be debt-free and have a certain amount of money before embarking on a project like this. If you are worried about spending all your money and being unable to replace your worn-out jeans at some point in the future because you think you might never have any surplus food to sell, then either make sure you have some surplus money in the bank to meet such future requirements, instead of spending it all on the project, or buy a big bundle of durable work clothes which are on sale, or second-hand, or from a charity shop, and of course buy some needles and thread and a roll of patch material, before you begin the project.

BTW: I'm skeptical of the claims that the Dervaes family grow 6000 pounds of produce a year on 4000 square feet, even in Pasadena where they could grow year round. I'd like to see an independent audit of that claim.

There might well be a degree of exaggeration for the sake of the video. People like to be amazed. However, if you need an independent audit on such matters, you probably also need a professional builder to build your house.

Generally, people who are attracted to such a lifestyles have already had some experience of growing their own food, even if it's only in boxes or pots on the verandah, and have had some experience of building activities, even if it was only the task of building a retaining wall in the back yard, or a garden shed. It is the enjoyment and satisfaction of such activities that probably attract certain people towards the self-sufficient lifestyle.

As I've been posting from the beginning, you need an outside source of income for this "sufficiency" lifestyle.

A self-sufficiency lifestyle, by definition, does not need an outside source of income. If it does, it's not self-sufficiency.

However, if one does have an outside source of income, then that takes the pressure off the need to be fully self-sufficient..

I would not consider that being fully self-sufficient would require that every type of food eaten must be produced on one's own property. It might be possible to sell certain types of surplus fruit or vegetables to a nearby market, in order to buy milk or cheese, or even a new pair of jeans. These are the sorts of considerations that one should investigate when planning a self-sufficiency project.

I personally would have no desire to keep a cow on my small property for the sake of its milk. I'd prefer to sell the occasional papaya or two for a carton of milk.

[heybruce]

Didn't you notice the smiley after my comment about selling the worn-out jeans as a fashion item?

One needs to be debt-free and have a certain amount of money before embarking on a project like this. If you are worried about spending all your money and being unable to replace your worn-out jeans at some point in the future because you think you might never have any surplus food to sell, then either make sure you have some surplus money in the bank to meet such future requirements, instead of spending it all on the project, or buy a big bundle of durable work clothes which are on sale, or second-hand, or from a charity shop, and of course buy some needles and thread and a roll of patch material, before you begin the project.

BTW: I'm skeptical of the claims that the Dervaes family grow 6000 pounds of produce a year on 4000 square feet, even in Pasadena where they could grow year round. I'd like to see an independent audit of that claim.

There might well be a degree of exaggeration for the sake of the video. People like to be amazed. However, if you need an independent audit on such matters, you probably also need a professional builder to build your house.

Generally, people who are attracted to such a lifestyles have already had some experience of growing their own food, even if it's only in boxes or pots on the verandah, and have had some experience of building activities, even if it was only the task of building a retaining wall in the back yard, or a garden shed. It is the enjoyment and satisfaction of such activities that probably attract certain people towards the self-sufficient lifestyle.

As I've been posting from the beginning, you need an outside source of income for this "sufficiency" lifestyle.

A self-sufficiency lifestyle, by definition, does not need an outside source of income. If it does, it's not self-sufficiency.

However, if one does have an outside source of income, then that takes the pressure off the need to be fully self-sufficient..

I would not consider that being fully self-sufficient would require that every type of food eaten must be produced on one's own property. It might be possible to sell certain types of surplus fruit or vegetables to a nearby market, in order to buy milk or cheese, or even a new pair of jeans. These are the sorts of considerations that one should investigate when planning a self-sufficiency project.

I personally would have no desire to keep a cow on my small property for the sake of its milk. I'd prefer to sell the occasional papaya or two for a carton of milk.

"I would not consider that being fully self-sufficient would require that every type of food eaten must be produced on one's own property. It might be possible to sell certain types of surplus fruit or vegetables to a nearby market, in order to buy milk or cheese, or even a new pair of jeans."

You are describing subsistence farming. All over the world people who "enjoy" this lifestyle are trying to get out, or trying to give their children a chance at something better.

[VincentRJ]

"I would not consider that being fully self-sufficient would require that every type of food eaten must be produced on one's own property. It might be possible to sell certain types of surplus fruit or vegetables to a nearby market, in order to buy milk or cheese, or even a new pair of jeans."

You are describing subsistence farming. All over the world people who "enjoy" this lifestyle are trying to get out, or trying to give their children a chance at something better.

That's an interesting point which helps me to understand the great negativity on this subject. Some people in this thread seem to be confusing two issues; is it possible to be self-sufficient at high altitudes up to 10,000 feet, and, is it desirable to put oneself in such a situation.

Words always have associations and connotations according to context. Subsistence farming is associated with poverty in undeveloped countries, a lack of education and a lack of social services. Such people might feel trapped in their circumstances, dissatisfied with their lifestyle and hope for something better.

The self-sufficiency lifestyle in relatively well-developed nations, that we're discussing in this thread, is in a different category in the sense that people who are already educated are making a voluntary choice to 'get back to nature', probably because they find the hustle and bustle of modern life in the cities unsatisfying, and because they really enjoy the activity of growing plants in a natural way, improving the soil in the process, being creative with their techniques and practices, such as the use of Permaculture methods, and generally enjoying the peace and quiet of a natural environment.

An important aspect of such a lifestyle is the capacity to be creative. The traditional subsistence farmer tends to follow traditional methods of farming, doesn't experiment with new plants and foods which are not a part of the tradition, probably doesn't have a deep bore in the ground to tap into underground water supplies, and probably doesn't have access to electricity through the use of solar panels. Can you see the distinction?

Of course, it almost goes without saying, that a certain degree of sensible planning is required for such a lifestyle, according to one's circumstances. If one doesn't have the money in the first instance, to buy the property and build the house as an owner-builder, it might be very foolish to borrow money and rely upon the sale of small amounts of organic produce to repay the loan, for example.

[heybruce]

"I would not consider that being fully self-sufficient would require that every type of food eaten must be produced on one's own property. It might be possible to sell certain types of surplus fruit or vegetables to a nearby market, in order to buy milk or cheese, or even a new pair of jeans."

You are describing subsistence farming. All over the world people who "enjoy" this lifestyle are trying to get out, or trying to give their children a chance at something better.

That's an interesting point which helps me to understand the great negativity on this subject. Some people in this thread seem to be confusing two issues; is it possible to be self-sufficient at high altitudes up to 10,000 feet, and, is it desirable to put oneself in such a situation.

Words always have associations and connotations according to context. Subsistence farming is associated with poverty in undeveloped countries, a lack of education and a lack of social services. Such people might feel trapped in their circumstances, dissatisfied with their lifestyle and hope for something better.

The self-sufficiency lifestyle in relatively well-developed nations, that we're discussing in this thread, is in a different category in the sense that people who are already educated are making a voluntary choice to 'get back to nature', probably because they find the hustle and bustle of modern life in the cities unsatisfying, and because they really enjoy the activity of growing plants in a natural way, improving the soil in the process, being creative with their techniques and practices, such as the use of Permaculture methods, and generally enjoying the peace and quiet of a natural environment.

An important aspect of such a lifestyle is the capacity to be creative. The traditional subsistence farmer tends to follow traditional methods of farming, doesn't experiment with new plants and foods which are not a part of the tradition, probably doesn't have a deep bore in the ground to tap into underground water supplies, and probably doesn't have access to electricity through the use of solar panels. Can you see the distinction?

Of course, it almost goes without saying, that a certain degree of sensible planning is required for such a lifestyle, according to one's circumstances. If one doesn't have the money in the first instance, to buy the property and build the house as an owner-builder, it might be very foolish to borrow money and rely upon the sale of small amounts of organic produce to repay the loan, for example.

I'm still waiting for a credible example of someone living this self-sufficient lifestyle. The OP suggests Jon Jandai is doing so, but then we learned he was only in Colorado three months a year.

[MaxYakov]

i would like to live off the grid too.

If you lived off the grid you wouldn't be able to read stories about living off the grid on the internet.

It depends on what one's definition of "grid" is.

In my view, "off-grid" <> "off-net".

[VincentRJ]

"I would not consider that being fully self-sufficient would require that every type of food eaten must be produced on one's own property. It might be possible to sell certain types of surplus fruit or vegetables to a nearby market, in order to buy milk or cheese, or even a new pair of jeans."

You are describing subsistence farming. All over the world people who "enjoy" this lifestyle are trying to get out, or trying to give their children a chance at something better.

That's an interesting point which helps me to understand the great negativity on this subject. Some people in this thread seem to be confusing two issues; is it possible to be self-sufficient at high altitudes up to 10,000 feet, and, is it desirable to put oneself in such a situation.

Words always have associations and connotations according to context. Subsistence farming is associated with poverty in undeveloped countries, a lack of education and a lack of social services. Such people might feel trapped in their circumstances, dissatisfied with their lifestyle and hope for something better.

The self-sufficiency lifestyle in relatively well-developed nations, that we're discussing in this thread, is in a different category in the sense that people who are already educated are making a voluntary choice to 'get back to nature', probably because they find the hustle and bustle of modern life in the cities unsatisfying, and because they really enjoy the activity of growing plants in a natural way, improving the soil in the process, being creative with their techniques and practices, such as the use of Permaculture methods, and generally enjoying the peace and quiet of a natural environment.

An important aspect of such a lifestyle is the capacity to be creative. The traditional subsistence farmer tends to follow traditional methods of farming, doesn't experiment with new plants and foods which are not a part of the tradition, probably doesn't have a deep bore in the ground to tap into underground water supplies, and probably doesn't have access to electricity through the use of solar panels. Can you see the distinction?

Of course, it almost goes without saying, that a certain degree of sensible planning is required for such a lifestyle, according to one's circumstances. If one doesn't have the money in the first instance, to buy the property and build the house as an owner-builder, it might be very foolish to borrow money and rely upon the sale of small amounts of organic produce to repay the loan, for example.

I'm still waiting for a credible example of someone living this self-sufficient lifestyle. The OP suggests Jon Jandai is doing so, but then we learned he was only in Colorado three months a year.

Did you miss the following link to an article written by Elizabeth Caile, that I provided in post #99? Here it is again.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/high-altitude-gardening-rocky-mountains-zmaz75mjzgoe.aspx?PageId=1

This how she introduces herself.

"I live in a small cabin on a mining claim in a national forest in Colorado, high on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains. And I find that my greatest pleasure in living here is learning the glories and subtleties of nature . . . and the ways of plants. I am surrounded by a wildness still intact enough to be an overwhelming force in my life, a wildness that makes me, as a gardener, want to learn what vegetables grow here best and most naturally, with the least amount of care and manipulation of the environment."

[heybruce]

"I would not consider that being fully self-sufficient would require that every type of food eaten must be produced on one's own property. It might be possible to sell certain types of surplus fruit or vegetables to a nearby market, in order to buy milk or cheese, or even a new pair of jeans."

You are describing subsistence farming. All over the world people who "enjoy" this lifestyle are trying to get out, or trying to give their children a chance at something better.

That's an interesting point which helps me to understand the great negativity on this subject. Some people in this thread seem to be confusing two issues; is it possible to be self-sufficient at high altitudes up to 10,000 feet, and, is it desirable to put oneself in such a situation.

Words always have associations and connotations according to context. Subsistence farming is associated with poverty in undeveloped countries, a lack of education and a lack of social services. Such people might feel trapped in their circumstances, dissatisfied with their lifestyle and hope for something better.

The self-sufficiency lifestyle in relatively well-developed nations, that we're discussing in this thread, is in a different category in the sense that people who are already educated are making a voluntary choice to 'get back to nature', probably because they find the hustle and bustle of modern life in the cities unsatisfying, and because they really enjoy the activity of growing plants in a natural way, improving the soil in the process, being creative with their techniques and practices, such as the use of Permaculture methods, and generally enjoying the peace and quiet of a natural environment.

An important aspect of such a lifestyle is the capacity to be creative. The traditional subsistence farmer tends to follow traditional methods of farming, doesn't experiment with new plants and foods which are not a part of the tradition, probably doesn't have a deep bore in the ground to tap into underground water supplies, and probably doesn't have access to electricity through the use of solar panels. Can you see the distinction?

Of course, it almost goes without saying, that a certain degree of sensible planning is required for such a lifestyle, according to one's circumstances. If one doesn't have the money in the first instance, to buy the property and build the house as an owner-builder, it might be very foolish to borrow money and rely upon the sale of small amounts of organic produce to repay the loan, for example.

I'm still waiting for a credible example of someone living this self-sufficient lifestyle. The OP suggests Jon Jandai is doing so, but then we learned he was only in Colorado three months a year.

Did you miss the following link to an article written by Elizabeth Caile, that I provided in post #99? Here it is again.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/high-altitude-gardening-rocky-mountains-zmaz75mjzgoe.aspx?PageId=1

This how she introduces herself.

"I live in a small cabin on a mining claim in a national forest in Colorado, high on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains. And I find that my greatest pleasure in living here is learning the glories and subtleties of nature . . . and the ways of plants. I am surrounded by a wildness still intact enough to be an overwhelming force in my life, a wildness that makes me, as a gardener, want to learn what vegetables grow here best and most naturally, with the least amount of care and manipulation of the environment."

She likes gardening. She says she's good at it and "bumper crops of splendid turnips, potatoes, cabbages, onions, garlic, and herbs can be yours". I didn't find the part where she said she survives exclusively on turnips, potatoes, cabbages, onions, garlic and herbs. I suppose it's possible, but I think the diet would get boring after a while. It might be short on both proteins and fats as well.

[VincentRJ]

She likes gardening. She says she's good at it and "bumper crops of splendid turnips, potatoes, cabbages, onions, garlic, and herbs can be yours". I didn't find the part where she said she survives exclusively on turnips, potatoes, cabbages, onions, garlic and herbs. I suppose it's possible, but I think the diet would get boring after a while. It might be short on both proteins and fats as well.

The circumstances in respect of climate and water supply can vary at each location, as well as the circumstances and interests of each individual who is trying to lead a self-sufficiency lifestyle. Some people will be strict vegans, some moderate vegetarians, some meat-eaters.

Those who are meat-eaters will be faced with the choice of either breeding their own animals or selling surplus vegetables to buy meat, milk and cheese from the nearest market. An easy compromise might be to to breed chickens for the meat and the eggs, and/or create a fish pond, especially if there is a stream crossing the property.

Those who have a reasonable amount of money or a regular income, as Jon Jandai probably has, might decide to travel during the less-productive months of the year, or spend the winter months on a second property in a warmer location.

[neverdie]

However, once a Thai, always a Thai (nose-picking segment at 2:37)

Once a Thai basher, always a Thai basher? Takes one with a negative attitude to pick up that small bit and comment on it, has no relevance at all to the topic.

Agreed but it also shows a non-professional approach when those portions of the video are not edited out.

Are you real?

They were left in for humor...I particularly liked him on his skis on that small patch os snow...

I thought it was an outstanding video...and house.

Great job.

Some people just can't 'pick' (pun intended) humour, even if it were to smack them on the end of the nose.

Funny video & well done !

[neverdie]

Another description of some the posts on this and many other threads on TV, other than ignorance, appears to be rudness. I just equate the latter to people mixing up their medication and took a nasty pill instead of the happy to be alive dosage.

It's amazing isn't it Slapout, here you have a guy whose gone out and had a go in life, achieved things that so many of the brain dead morons in this forum could never achieve so instead of admiring his efforts and giving credit where credit is due they shoot him down and ridicule him.

What a sad sad sad sack of human excrement some of these low life bar hoping stool warming nobodies are.

[JLCrab]

The house aside, the guy has done nothing to improve the surroundings of his house with any of the means that others referenced in this topic have done to make life sustainable at such a high altitude in the Rockies. I have spent time on a cattle ranch on the Rockies western slope and can only guess that the locals who have been there for generations consider the guy to be a total joke.

When I mentioned that in the winter months with sustained temperatures below 0 degrees F that passive solar might not cut it, one guy said: Didn't you see the 2 wood stoves?

Sure -- I just didn't see any firewood pile along the lines of this:

Edited June 10, 2016 by JLCrab

[MissAndry]

^^

I remember a survival challenge on UK TV, where groups of people had to survive in the USA west for a year as a pioneer.

They all failed, couldn't grow enough food and preserve it for the winter. Didn't cut enough wood to survive the snows.

And the amount of wood they needed to cut was massive. Probably more than JP has shown in his photo.

Not to mention, where would the guy in the OP find his wood?

[heybruce]

She likes gardening. She says she's good at it and "bumper crops of splendid turnips, potatoes, cabbages, onions, garlic, and herbs can be yours". I didn't find the part where she said she survives exclusively on turnips, potatoes, cabbages, onions, garlic and herbs. I suppose it's possible, but I think the diet would get boring after a while. It might be short on both proteins and fats as well.

The circumstances in respect of climate and water supply can vary at each location, as well as the circumstances and interests of each individual who is trying to lead a self-sufficiency lifestyle. Some people will be strict vegans, some moderate vegetarians, some meat-eaters.

Those who are meat-eaters will be faced with the choice of either breeding their own animals or selling surplus vegetables to buy meat, milk and cheese from the nearest market. An easy compromise might be to to breed chickens for the meat and the eggs, and/or create a fish pond, especially if there is a stream crossing the property.

Those who have a reasonable amount of money or a regular income, as Jon Jandai probably has, might decide to travel during the less-productive months of the year, or spend the winter months on a second property in a warmer location.

Once again, we are back to this being a non-sufficiency holiday or retirement option for people with outside income, or a hard and impoverished life of subsistence farming for those who are really fully sufficient.

No on has identified any credible "life is good" examples of true, self-sufficient living off the land. The OP suggests this is how Jon Jandai is living, but a little research by others proved that this is not the case.

[dick dasterdly]

Another description of some the posts on this and many other threads on TV, other than ignorance, appears to be rudness. I just equate the latter to people mixing up their medication and took a nasty pill instead of the happy to be alive dosage.

It's amazing isn't it Slapout, here you have a guy whose gone out and had a go in life, achieved things that so many of the brain dead morons in this forum could never achieve so instead of admiring his efforts and giving credit where credit is due they shoot him down and ridicule him.

What a sad sad sad sack of human excrement some of these low life bar hoping stool warming nobodies are.

Probably because the article is claiming that he is living a sustainable life in more than difficult conditions. As it turns out, he's doing nothing of the sort....

[neverdie]

Another description of some the posts on this and many other threads on TV, other than ignorance, appears to be rudness. I just equate the latter to people mixing up their medication and took a nasty pill instead of the happy to be alive dosage.

It's amazing isn't it Slapout, here you have a guy whose gone out and had a go in life, achieved things that so many of the brain dead morons in this forum could never achieve so instead of admiring his efforts and giving credit where credit is due they shoot him down and ridicule him.

What a sad sad sad sack of human excrement some of these low life bar hoping stool warming nobodies are.

Probably because the article is claiming that he is living a sustainable life in more than difficult conditions. As it turns out, he's doing nothing of the sort....

Mate, he built the house with his hands, what do you want him to do, lift the bricks with his pecker.

I bet half his naysayers here can't do half of what he did