I was a bit flippant with the "feelgood" reference, but not completely. I'm aware that petroleum products are necessary for a reasonable standard of living, including the development of pharmaceuticals, the delivery of health care, and all manner of stuff from toilet paper to foodstuffs.

And I believe in the US we are quite wasteful and could cut the material, not spiritual, but material standard of living quite a ways without affecting either happiness or longevity. If one looks at purpose, uses rather than ego one can live quite comfortably on a simple, economical level.

The belief that if one can afford something they should be allowed to do it, build it, use it or consume it is ingrained in American religious and cultural life. And I don't believe that is a good thing.

Material goods take resources to create, and people only need so much. Anything more is a "feelgood", wasted. I realize this is anathema to poorer Conservatives, yet the wealthy Conservatives I count as friends live quite frugally.

As far as living off the land, it really can't be done anymore. The western forests were called the "green desert" as they wouldn't support life well for larger groups. When I backpack I'm very dependent upon civilization, as I have only a week or so of supplies.

I don't hunt, or eat the fish I catch. However, if I were stuck somewhere I'd eat voles, moles, rats, mice, bugs, anything. I am thinking of killing an elk on the farm. The bachelors form their own herds and it doesn't seem a real waste to harvest one of them. And then I think about cleaning it, and put the whole thing off until next year.

So, the "feelgood" reference wasn't entirely fair, but is a little bit.

Arf