Bob Carr has been described as ‘the reluctant leader’; according to his own diary he thought leading the NSW state Labor party would be the end of his career. Apparently minister for foreign affairs has been his life long ambition.

It seems power is an addiction to political players. The ‘faceless men’ will do anything to get it, and anything to keep it. It’s becoming more and more apparent that the Labor power brokers are desperate for a Messiah, and -for various reasons- neither Gillard or Rudd fill the bill.

Bob Carr has been nominated to fill a Senate vacancy. As the Prime Minister must be a member of the Lower House, Gillard must feel extra safe, on top of Carr’s famous ‘reluctance’.

Will it be enough to save Gillard, if she continues to stumble and fail to capture the hearts of the voters?

Companies ‘too big to fail’ rushed out and got bigger. Governments trying to borrow their way out of debt, without spending money on infrastructure, or money making ventures which would pay back the debt.

How long before they ‘allow’ us to “eat cake”?

Here’s another very important article from ECB.

The people out there that believe
that the U.S. economy is experiencing a permanent recovery and that
very bright days are ahead for us should have their heads
examined.  Unfortunately, what we are going through right now is
simply just a period of “hopetimism” between two financial
crashes.  Things may seem relatively stable right now, but it
won’t last long.  The truth is that the financial crisis of 2008
was just a warm up act for the economic horror show that is
coming.  Nothing really got fixed after the crash of 2008.
We are living in the biggest debt bubble in the history of the world,
and it has gotten even bigger since then.  The “too big to fail”
banks are larger now than they have ever been.  Americans continue
to run up credit card balances like there is no tomorrow.  Tens of
thousands of manufacturing facilities and millions of jobs continue to
leave the country.  We continue to consume far more than we
produce and we continue to become poorer as a nation.  None of the
problems that caused the crisis of 2008 have been solved and we are
even weaker financially than we were back then.  So why in the
world are so many people so optimistic about the economy right now?

Just take a look at the chart posted below.  It shows the
growth of total debt in the United States.  During the financial
crisis of 2008 there was a little “hiccup”, but the truth is that not
much deleveraging really took place at all.  And since the
recession “ended”, total credit market debt has gone on to even greater
heights….

So what does this mean for the future?

Well, if a small “hiccup” in the debt bubble caused so much chaos
back in 2008, what is going to happen when this debt bubble finally
bursts?

Read the rest of this article at the Economic Collapse Blog

James Cameron, the Hollywood producer responsible for blockbuster films like Terminator, Titanic and Avatar, is reportedly preparing to exit stage left. While the move for the Canadian born Cameron may initially be perceived as a rejection or denouncement of American policies and ideals, Cameron, who has made campaign donations to the Democrat Party in the past, most notably during the 2004 Presidential election where he supported democrat John Kerry, may have ulterior motivations, as evidenced by where he’s planning on moving and what he’s planning on doing once he gets there.

From time to time we get a glimpse into the goings on of the well connected. This may be one of those moments:

Cameron has successfully applied to buy 1,067 hectares (2,636 acres) of farmland in New Zealand. In an application filed with the New Zealand Overseas Investment Office, Cameron says he and his family “intend to reside indefinitely in New Zealand and are acquiring the property to reside on and operate as a working farm.”

Source: Associated Press, via Matt Drudge

As we’ve outlined before, farmland is one of the only reasonable physical assets to hold in the event of a major crisis, as you’ll be outside of highly populated metropolitan areas, you’ll have the ability to produce your own food, generate your own energy, and, more so than your urbanite and suburbanite counterparts, stay away from the chaos that will ensue during a major upheaval.

Read the rest of Mac Slavo’s article here:

By Mac Slavo, www.SHTFplan.co

Well known economist, trend forecaster and Gloom, Boom
and Doom Report publisher Dr. Marc Faber
joined some of the world’s leading investment minds at the Barron’s
2012 Roundtable to discuss what’s in store for 2012 and beyond with
respect to the economy, inflation, political stability and a host of
other issues.

As is generally the case, Dr. Faber doesn’t mince words and warns
that, despite what happens in the near term, the end game is global
conflict.

Excerpted from Barron’s
2012 Roundtable via SGT Report

Marc Faber: On another optimistic note, World War
III will occur in the next five years. That means the Middle East will
blow up. New regimes there will be less Western-friendly. The West has
also figured out it can’t contain China, which is rising rapidly and
will have more military and naval power in Southeast Asia. The only way
for the West to contain China is to control the oil tap in the Middle
East.

Bill Gross (Founder, Pimco): How does your World
War III hypothesis affect the financial markets? Is it positive for
stocks?

Marc Faber: It is very positive for stocks and
negative for bonds, because debt will grow dramatically. There will be
massive monetization of debt. When the U.S. entered World War II total
credit equaled 140% of GDP, and there were no unfunded liabilities. Now
total credit-market debt is 380% of GDP, and unfunded liabilities make
that 800%.

Brian Rogers (Chairman, T. Rowe Price): How is
World War III good for stocks?

Felix Zulauf (Zulauf Asset Management): Unused
capacity in an economy can be directed to the defense and war industry.
That will be paid for by new government debt, and that keeps the
economy growing.

Scott Black (President, Delphi): Marc, if Israel
strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities, they will use air power. They aren’t
going to commit ground troops. It won’t be the kind of conflagration
you’re thinking.

Bill Gross: War takes place today in cyberspace
and in terrorist space. Whether or not there will be a land war isn’t
the question.

Dr. Faber has also expressed his views on prior occasions,
suggesting that World War III is an inevitable outcome when nations
begin to default on trillions of dollars worth of debt (whether by
refusing to pay or simply easing their monetary supply).

In August
of 2010 Faber urged his subscribers to begin making preparations
for worst case scenarios:

In his latest GBD Report, Faber again advises those with the means
to do it, to leave urban areas and seek safety in rural, country areas,
preferably farms, and to be prepared to defend that land in the event
the worst happens:

Faber has an interesting suggestion for investors if the
plunge comes to pass.

With tongue apparently in cheek, he says buy a farm you can
tend to yourself way out in the boondocks. And protect it with high
voltage fences, barbed wire, booby traps, military weapons and
Dobermans.

While several members of the Roundtable disagree with the idea that
a conventional global war is out of the question, suggesting instead
that conflicts will be dealt with through air superiority and in
cyberspace (in itself a potentially catastrophic battlefield for modern
civilization), they are ignoring the real possibility that an attack on
Iran, or even a rogue attack against Europe or the United States, could
escalate to such a level that China
or Russia
would have no choice but to get involved.

While hard to believe, we’ve seen it before. Twice just in the last
century.

Not many people would have believed it prior to 1914 either. But
within just a few short months of the assassination of Archduke
Ferdinand in late June of that year, millions were dead and the Western
front had extended hundreds of miles across Europe to the North Sea.

Events played out with similar velocity in World War II when Adolf
Hitler’s aptly named Blitzkrieg (Lightning War) overtook entire nations
in a matter of days.

It only takes one country, one sociopathic leader with his finger on
the button, to get the ball rolling. Then there is no stopping it.

Author: Mac Slavo

Date: January 17th, 2012
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

In recent days, the fact that Mitt Romney has millions of dollars parked down in the Cayman Islands has made headlines all over the world. But when it comes to offshore banking, what Mitt Romney is doing is small potatoes.

The truth is that the global elite are hiding an almost unbelievable amount of money in offshore banks. According to shocking research done by the IMF, the global elite are holding a total of 18 trillion dollars in offshore banks. And that figure does not even count any money being held in Switzerland. That is a staggering amount of money.

Keep in mind that U.S. GDP in 2010 was only 14.58 trillion dollars. So why do the global elite go to such trouble to hide their money in offshore banks? Well, there are two main reasons. One is privacy and the other is low taxation. Privacy is a big issue for those that are involved in illegal enterprises such as drug running, but the biggest reason why people move money into offshore banks is in order to avoid taxes. Some set up bank accounts in foreign nations because they want to legally minimize their taxes and others set up bank accounts in foreign nations because they want to illegally avoid taxes. You would be absolutely amazed at what some large corporations and wealthy individuals do to get out of paying taxes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the rest of us don’t have the resources or the knowledge to play these games, so we get taxed into oblivion.

So why do they call it “offshore banking”?

Continue reading this article at: the Economic Collapse Blog.

Since it is a basic, stripped down system, I’ve called it “Naked” hydroponics.

The reason I believe such a system is important is because current and recent events have convinced me that the world is on the brink of not just another major financial crisis, but also a major social upheaval, which will make household and local community self sufficiency -at least in water and basic food staples- a matter of utmost importance.

In a world where the vast majority live in or are moving to an urban environment, hydroponics is the only possible way these people can achieve any measure of food security.

In short, because I have kids, and I care about them. I want to survive, and I want them to survive. I’d like them to have kids of their own and I’d like those kids to have a life at least as good as mine, if not better.

Can’t see the problem?

Farming has always been a battle. Floods, drought, pests, diseases, the list is almost endless. Even in a year of good average rainfall, farmers can have a really bad time just because the rain fell at the wrong time.

But now, farmers face an even greater, and far more insidious threat.

Credit.

Because farming is so unpredictable, just about every traditional or terrestrial farmer accepts that most years won’t be good ones. Old farmers talked about “1 in 7”; one bumper year to pay for six bad years. For this reason, farmers really need some form of banking system. They need a reliable line of credit to carry them through the bad seasons. After all, isn’t storing food in silos a very basic form of banking? ‘Saving for a rainy day’…

Today, without credit, they stop farming.

And we stop eating.

The world’s debt based monetary system of allowing banks to control the money supply is looking increasingly fragile. Not just the bank bailouts and shonky deals on the stock market -although how anyone could believe that it’s possible to borrow one’s way out of a massive debt crisis is mystifying- but also physically fragile; as the internet becomes more pervasive and the world’s finance is nothing more than numbers in a computer, we’re faced with threats from hackers, computer viruses, solar flares, an electromagnetic pulse with or without a nuclear detonation, and probably threats we haven’t even dreamed of; any of which could stop people from just eating.

Currently in ‘advanced’ countries, the all important task of supplying food for the whole population is left in the hands of less than 5% of the total population, and the percentage is still falling. On top of that -or maybe in part because of it- the food we eat has to travel enormous distances, incurring further costs and requiring ever more expensive -and vulnerable- infrastructure.

Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than a farmer with good land, reliable rainfall, all the stock and equipment he needs, not being able to farm because he can’t pay his fuel bill? Or his fuel supplier can’t pay his bill?

Or because some banker half a world away went nuts and jumped out of a window, after deleting every file on the banks’ computers?

It could happen.

Such a crash would not only affect farmers of course. A financial collapse would affect water and electricity utilities, transport networks, Police, firemen, doctors, nurses, teachers… In the push to create a Global Economy, we have ignored one of the fundamental rules any study of nature should have taught us: “Never put all your eggs in one basket”. Most sensible, educated people have come to accept the need for biological diversity. Is it really such a jump to accept that the need for economic diversity is just as vital to the human condition?

Not to me.

And we haven’t even touched on the other looming crises, like Peak Oil, Peak Phosphorus, Global Warming, Rising Sea Levels, rapid depletion of ancient artesian water basins…

Of course, there’s much more to it than just nutty survivalism, or caring about the environment, or cutting down on the enormous amounts of packaging that just ends up in landfill, or saving fuel and transport costs, or having chemical and pesticide free food to eat, or saving money…

Growing our own food is also interesting and fun.

And growing food hydroponically will always be the only viable option for urban or suburban dwellers.

Learn how to create your own food security, using “the simplest, easiest, most convenient and cheapest hydroponic system”, by clicking here

Remember the GST? It was first suggested by Paul Keating, who was far too wily (and at that time, too vulnerable) a politician to try and implement it himself. He was content just to put the concept out there. John Hewson very obligingly picked up the ball and tripped over both feet trying to run with it; successfully managing to lose what many pundits considered an unloseable election.

The fact that Howard was able to make the GST a part of his platform during his second term a few years later simply demonstrates: a) It was no longer ‘an entirely new concept’; b) just how on the nose the memory of the Keating Government by that stage was; c) the fractured nature of the then Labor Party.

Hewson’s campaign was an act which I suggest is worthy of a new word in his honour.

Hewsonasia, nn: The politically suicidal act of attempting to introduce a new tax that no one (outside government) understands and no one (outside government) wants.

It appears Julia Gillard has just hewsonised herself.

Before it became a hip pocket thing, the majority of Aussies were prepared to follow the lead of the majority of climate scientists, and believe in Human Affected Climate Change (HACC). Many (like myself, and I would hope most scientists) might be a little sceptical of -with our current level of knowledge and understanding- anyone’s ability to make accurate predictions, but let’s face facts here.

World wide, we are currently using around 17 million tonnes of coal every single day.

About 84 million barrels of oil every single day

About 3,000 billion cubic metres of natural gas every single day.

Despite the fact that arguably the most ubiquitous material in our society today is plastic made from hydrocarbons, by far the greatest portion of these valuable, non renewable hydrocarbons is simply burnt, to produce heat and atmospheric pollution.

In the light of current knowledge that volcanoes, major fires and even the absence of contrails in the upper atmosphere can produce measurable changes in local weather and temperature, how can burning all those fossil fuels possibly not have an affect on our planet’s biosphere?

One of the cutest arguments to bob up recently from so called ‘climate sceptics’ (denialists) is that CO2 is not a pollutant. I strongly suggest the advocates of this argument spend 3 minutes trying to breath the stuff. “But it helps plants grow!” They exclaim. In a world where we cut down one and a half acres of rainforest every second, this argument makes exactly as much sense as telling a farmer all he has to do to get a good crop is fertilise, even while he applies Roundup.

Bottom line: not only is pollution not a good thing, but burning valuable hydrocarbons is really stupid. Not only are these materials necessary to produce plastics and a host of other products, but the much vaunted ‘Green Revolution’, which has done so much to feed so many, is entirely reliant on hydrocarbon inputs.

To put it bluntly, we eat fossil fuels.

Surely anyone who spares a thought for their children and grandchildren should be concerned about these matters, even if they don’t buy into the ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ argument.

Perhaps of even more concern should be the statistics on just how much of these valuable non renewable resources are left. According to good old Wikipedia,

Years of production left in the ground with the current proved reserves and flows above (daily production through 2006)

Coal: 148 years

Oil: 43 years

Natural gas: 61 years

Equally stupid is the suggestion that the laissez faire marketplace, which is almost entirely reactive rather than proactive, could possibly counter this impending disaster.

The marketplace will simply react by increasing the prices of these products, until the food riots we are seeing now in just a few places around the planet, will be almost universal.

Between 2006 and 2008 average world prices for rice rose by 217%, wheat by 136%, corn by 125% and soybeans by 107%.

How will you fair when your grocery bill more than doubles in the space of just 2 years? (And again, every 2 years after that.)

How much will your children be paying for food?

A tax on burning non renewable resources is as inevitable as death and, well, taxes. The only real question is how to best use that tax. Please note, I would like something a little more imaginative than taking away with one hand, and giving back with the other.

There are already viable alternatives to using non renewables. As I have suggested elsewhere, my favourite is wavepower, but for those terrestrially committed there are also thorium reactors, solar, wind, geothermal and maybe in the not too distant future, hydrogen fuel cells.

Domestically, some of these alternatives offer possibilities to individuals and families now. Unfortunately, only those with significant levels of disposable income can take advantage of these alternatives -and save money long term by doing so; eg. the cheapest hot water systems cost the most to run.

Installing solar panels will cut down on burning coal, and save you money, -if you have a spare $10k or so.

Converting your car to LPG will reduce pollution and save you money, -if you have a spare $3-$5k.

And so on.

Perhaps instead of hewsonising herself, Ms Gillard would have been better served offering Australians carrots instead of sticks, in the form of making all those desirable changes more affordable to the forgotten 50% of Australians who make less than $40k a year, so they can start saving money too.

You remember them, Ms Gillard?

They used to be called ‘Traditional Labor Voters.’

Here’s a simple one. Instead of ‘Cash for Clunkers’, how about ‘Cash for Conversions’? Currently LPG retails for roughly half the price of unleaded. Offer gas conversions for $0.00 up front and offer the opportunity to pay off the conversion cost by paying a 25 cent per litre levy on every purchase of LPG.

It would still be cheaper than using petrol; people could save money and reduce pollution.

And what about air ships? Lighter than air craft would be almost silent, not require long runways and use about a thousand times less fuel (or perhaps, no fuel at all). Yes they are much slower, but the trade off could be in being roomier and more luxurious; even including train style sleeping berths.

I would imagine starting up an airship manufacturing industry would not only offer large employment opportunities, but would possibly cost considerably less to start up than the NBN, and quite conceivably lead to export profits.

All it takes is imagination.

In the short term, obviously not; so called ‘Western Society’ is only enjoyed by a minority of Humanity, even though that minority affects the majority in very serious ways; but then, what is ‘short term’ when talking of extinction?

David Raup, in his very short, very readable book: “Extinction, bad Genes or Bad Luck?” suggests that 5 million years is a good average expectancy for a species, before disappearing. As a group (comparable to mammals) dinosaurs survived for around 160 million years, and as a distinct species, surviving virtually unchanged, the current record holder appears to be Triops cancriformis, or Horseshoe Shrimp, which has survived virtually unchanged for about 200 million years.

It is currently on the endangered species list. Go figgur.

In our current form, so called “Anatomically Modern Man” (Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or ‘wise wise man’ – I wonder how that self imposed moniker will sit with historians in a million years time?) has existed for about 200,000 years.

Human = 200,000 years

Horseshoe Shrimp = 200,000,000 years

Even if we were only to survive the average timespan for a species, we are only 1/25 of the way there. Can ‘wise wise’ people aspire to beat a brainless shrimp in the survival stakes? Or is our only talent causing extinction, rather than escaping it?

On the face of it, Human survival appears so miraculous that it perhaps shouldn’t be any wonder that so many ascribe to the interference of supernatural deities. No natural defences like long teeth or claws, slow runners, bad climbers, without even fur or feathers to protect us from heat or cold, and the most defenceless, utterly dependent offspring in the animal world, our survival is perilous indeed.

Our greatest survival tool is our much vaunted intelligence, and subsequent ability to work together to achieve common goals; although this ability is far from unique in the animal world. What is fairly unusual is our ability to disseminate knowledge, and learn from members of our species that we not only have never met or are genetically related to, but lived thousands of years in the past.

In short, we have become very highly specialised. We rely entirely on just one Human ability for our species’ survival.

And therein lies the seeds of our destruction.

This specialisation is ongoing and relentless. Consider the differences in diet, between primitive people and those in our most advanced societies. In the primitive state, people would eat just about anything that didn’t eat them first. That could mean a vast variety of birdlife.

We eat chicken, occasionally duck, and maybe turkey once a year.

Primitive people would eat countless varieties of mammals and reptiles. We eat about three.

John Seymour’s most excellent “Complete Book of Self-Sufficiency” lists around 40 different vegetables available to grow for the modern gardener; many of which would have been considered common fare a few decades ago in typical Western cuisine. Even with our vaunted ‘multicultural’ society, I suspect most of today’s Australian children could list the vegetables they commonly eat on their fingers.

We really don’t have to dig too far back in history to see how dangerous such specialisation can be.

In 1846, two million Irishmen died when their staple crop of potatoes was destroyed by blight (and their absentee landlords did nothing to help).

This specialisation has had some truly extraordinary consequences. Compared to such survivors as the humble Horseshoe Shrimp, Humans have deliberately made themselves more dependent on the utilisation (and destruction) of non renewable energy resources than any of the 99.99% of all the species that have ever lived, that are now extinct. Despite knowing full well that oil is a strictly finite resource, used to make thousands of products modern society finds indispensable, we have found yet another use for it.

What would be the absolute stupidest thing we could do with this valuable resource?

Well, I guess we could always just burn it…

Currently, we westerners entrust the production of food to just 3% of the total population. Where once it took teams of men to work a few acres, now one man can grow and harvest grains on thousands of acres.

That is, one man and a lot of machines…

Machines that burn that incredibly useful resource, oil. Not only does the machinery require oil to run, and for lubrication, but since the Green Revolution, the fertilisers used in modern agriculture require massive amounts of oil. According to this article, published on the website FromTheWilderness.com, “In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American…” The article goes on with a breakdown: 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertiliser, compared to 19% for the operation of field machinery. 400 gallons annually, before they turn an ignition key.

The article was described by author Dale Allen Pfeiffer as the most important and frightening article he had ever written, and is definitely worth reading; particularly by all the anti-Malthusians who have such faith that technological breakthroughs can overcome simple arithmetic.

The so called ‘Green Revolution” was basically a cheat; a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. By taking resources and nutrients in the form of artificial fertiliser from one place and using it to nourish crops in other places, enormous increases in output have been achieved; but the practice is self-evidently unsustainable. Vital resources like Phosphorus are already starting to run out, while we continue to allow nutrient rich waste products to flow out to the sea. Due largely to “economic necessity”, farmers have reverted to monocultural farming practices, proven to be dangerously unsustainable over a century ago. They have been able to do this only by the application of ever increasing amounts of not only artificial fertilisers, but also ever increasing amounts of toxic pesticides; both of which can only be created through the use of a resource we currently burn.

Of course, the tiny portion of people directly responsible for food production can do so only with the support of many other ‘off farm’ specialists, from machinery manufacturers to fencing material suppliers, fertiliser and pesticide creators… All these many and varied businesses have to be joined together by a common means of exchange, which we call money.

In the most bizarre twist of all, money has evolved from being merely a means of exchange to a commodity in it’s own right; an end, rather than a means. Where once the best and brightest looked for a career in science and engineering, now more and more are turning to banking, accountancy, business management and/or law.

We have a system and society which relies for it’s success entirely on personal greed; the idea that only one’s own offspring matter, and to hell with the rest. When Humans lived in small tribes amidst seemingly inexhaustible resources, this was arguably excusable, in purely animalistic terms; but today? When we know what we do can affect everyone on the planet?

Just as amphibians pioneered the colonisation of dry land, Humans have already proven we can take EarthLife where it has never been before. We can spread our seed across the solar system and the galaxy, ensuring no single event can wipe out all of Humanity. As flawed and inequitable as our current society is, it is difficult to conceive of any other, less specialised, system which can achieve the technological stature necessary to realise Humankind’s obvious destiny: being the only organism which can take EarthLife beyond the planet.

Jerry Pournelle, author of “A Step Farther Out” suggests we have a relatively small window of opportunity, to get Humanity (or a small seed population thereof) off this rock. As Robert Heinlein pointed out, the greatest obstacle to space colonisation is Earth’s gravity well (specifically, he said: “Get to low-Earth orbit and you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system.”). The undertaking will take unprecedented cooperation as well as massive resources.

If our society fails, or we deplete our resources past the level of what’s necessary just for our survival, we may never have another chance.

In such a scenario, our extinction may not be eminent, but it could be inevitable.

Of course, there are always two sides to every coin.

There is no denying the simple common sense of Darwin’s proposition, yet when we talk of ‘evolution’ we invariably think of change; of a species changing or evolving into something slightly different. And there’s the rub.

Survivors don’t need to change.

Sharks and stingrays could be used as an excellent example of of this hypothesis. While evolution within the order has undeniably occurred over the last hundred or so million years, the essential morphology of many species has changed very little, very possibly because their oceanic environment has also changed very little, and the ocean through sheer volume changes very slowly, which in the classical argument, allows time for the stronger (or less specialised) species to adapt.

This may be true for the species, but what about on an individual basis? Within the species, the very strongest will continue to do as they have always done, and fight off any peers who try to stop them.

Their offspring will be raised to follow their parents eating and social habits closely. No change.

It will be the weaker members of the species that will be forced to change and adapt.

It seems when we look at history, when placed under stress members of a species or community will often find it easier to compete with even a hostile environment, than with members of their own race or species.

Does anyone really believe the Inuit moved into the icy wastes because they favoured a more invigorating climate? Or that the desert tribes of Australia thought the dry heat would be good for their sinuses? The history of pioneers throughout the world has been of the (economically or numerically) weaker members being pushed out by the strong: convicts to Australia, religious refugees to America… Even today, the process can still be witnessed. Even as the young and fit move to the cities, the older ones are moving to a ‘sea’ or ‘tree’ change; selling their properties within highly developed infrastructure areas, to move to lower infrastructure areas for cash discounts.

So my contention is, it isn’t the strong who evolve, but the weak; in fact, evolution is a weakness.

Far from being a “progress, from the most base to the most Noble”, evolutionary change is more often from general to specific; and in becoming more specialised the new specie becomes more vulnerable to extinction.

Anyone who has ever sat in a park and fed scraps to the birds would be familiar with the eating habits of sparrows. In the course of a week or more, I could eat anything from fish ‘n chips, hamburgers, chinese, thai, mexican, french, italian; I don’t believe I have ever seen a sparrow reject anything (although I have seen seagulls turn up their bills at the fish, which I found a little disturbing). Compare this to a more ‘highly evolved’ humming bird, for instance. Which do you believe is in more danger of extinction?

I mentioned Herbert Spencer in the opening paragraph very deliberately. Spencer could be described as a very early member of a rapidly evolving species which would come to be called ‘economists’. His greatest contribution to history appears to be the immortal phrase “Survival of the Fittest”. He was of course noting the similarity between Darwin’s theory of natural selection to the laissez faire marketplace. He appeared to feel that because this system was ‘natural’ it had to be ‘right’. Of course, some would argue that at least some Humans aspire to a slightly higher ethical code than that of a flock of chooks, squabbling over scraps.

Nevertheless, the comparison is apt.

The undeniable fact is, Humans have never lived in a more specialised society. Less than 3% of our population is tasked with the duty of feeding the rest of us. Even these humble few can’t do their very necessary jobs without a host of very specialised supporters, from diesel mechanics to industrial and bio-chemists, and now genetic engineers. Most frightening is our total reliance on electronic infrastructure, most particularly in the area of finance.

We have actually become so specialised, so reliant on this infrastructure, that if a financial commodity -which only really exists in cyberspace as a convention based largely on faith- were to suffer a malfunction, people would (are and continue to) literally starve to death.

History tends to indicate that evolution (specialisation) almost inevitably leads to extinction. Our society has reached a pinnacle of evolution never before seen or dreamt of.

The only question remaining is, will the extinction of our society result in the extinction of Humanity?

Everyone knows hydroponics is highly technical. You need a lot of knowledge, read a lot of books…

You need a lot of equipment, like pumps and lights and aerators and testing equipment…

What if I told you that’s all bull?

There’s no doubt, by spending lots of money and having lots of equipment you can get great results; but do you actually need it? We have spent several years proving that the answer to that question is a resounding

NO!

Leave all that crap to the commercial growers who can get their money back. As a home gardener, you can’t afford it, and -for salad veggies*- you don’t need it.

Naked Hydroponics is hydroponics stripped back to the bare essentials, starting with NO growing medium. It’s the roots of the plants that are naked, not -necessarily- the gardener. Because there is no medium, there is no need for aeration. You just have to replace fresh nutrient every fortnight or so, and top up with fresh water in between times.

No medium, no pumps, no expensive overheads, no electricity costs…

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Just look at the photographs. We know it works, because we’ve done it; and believe me, we are remarkably ordinary people, and even more ordinary gardeners. If we can do it, anyone can.

In fact, this system is so simple, and requires so little in basic components, any handy man with a reasonable workshop and basic tools would have no trouble in making his/her own, and we’ll even help you do it! There’s no need to make mistakes we’ve already made. You can download a PDF file here

Read on and view our photo collection. Nothing is faked -for a start when it comes to computers I’m not that clever, and besides, why would I? I want you to succeed so you come back for more!

It really is that easy.

*This system is not recommended for root vegetables.

Yet.