Taking the Global Local

Thus spake Howard Neil <hneil.DeleteThis@REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk>
>Jim Webster wrote:
>
>> Given that the Thames will probably flood London in the next twenty
>>five years, (the Thames Barrier is getting less and less useful
>>against a new predicted extreme event) and at some point they are
>>going to find the London Underground filled with river water, why are
>>government still investing in London, rather than starting the long
>>slow process of quietly moving everyone out?
>
>No, please leave them there. :-)
>
In fact, tell them that in case of flood warnings, hide in the
underground, as with the blitz.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:14:37 -0000, "Jim Webster"
<jim.TakeThisOut@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote:

> So they would be doing the ditching, hedging, walling etc,
>probably all the orchard work, weeding and similar, harvest would almost
>certainly be done with machinery still. They could have a small plot to grow
>their own veg etc and might keep their own fowl but I would suggest they
>would need a break from work and should be on a better ration than normally
>found in an urban setting.
>
>Jim Webster
>

So you really think that these workers would be prepared to watch the upper
echelons of society via their freeview boxes, living an extravagant lifestyle,
while they get on with the ditching ? I don't think so, unless of course they
were being paid £100/hour. ;-) Trying to force the low paid back into
peasantry will only escalate crime beyond control.

Admittedly, we're already heading in that direction.

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Andy Cap" <Andy_Cap RemoveThis @nosuch.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3s0bs2p74cfrubc17ccqhuapadt444s52f@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:14:37 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> <jim RemoveThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So they would be doing the ditching, hedging, walling etc,
>>probably all the orchard work, weeding and similar, harvest would almost
>>certainly be done with machinery still. They could have a small plot to
>>grow
>>their own veg etc and might keep their own fowl but I would suggest they
>>would need a break from work and should be on a better ration than
>>normally
>>found in an urban setting.
>>
>>Jim Webster
>>
>
> So you really think that these workers would be prepared to watch the
> upper
> echelons of society via their freeview boxes, living an extravagant
> lifestyle,
> while they get on with the ditching ? I don't think so, unless of course
> they
> were being paid £100/hour. ;-) Trying to force the low paid back into
> peasantry will only escalate crime beyond control.
>
> Admittedly, we're already heading in that direction.

hey who says they are getting freeview boxes?
A bread ration, and perhaps access to mear if they snare their own rabbits.

it worked for the soviets, party apparatchiks get one level of lifestyle,
the proles get something different.
As you say we are heading in that direction already
You talk about crime, but what is there to steal within walking distance?
Except from other peasants who are on the same standard as themselves?

It is merely one picture of a future, not one I advocate, but one that is
every bit as possible as some of the golden utopias that you see advocated
by others.

Jim Webster

>
> Andy
>
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oz" <Oz.RemoveThis@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:vTc0s0B9wQxFFwiV@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Jim Webster <jim.RemoveThis@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Oz" <Oz.RemoveThis@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
>>news:qNOVLIA1qOxFFwDN@farmeroz.port995.com...
>>> Jim Webster <jim.RemoveThis@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>>>Given that the Thames will probably flood London in the next twenty five
>>>>years, (the Thames Barrier is getting less and less useful against a new
>>>>predicted extreme event) and at some point they are going to find the
>>>>London
>>>>Underground filled with river water, why are government still investing
>>>>in
>>>>London, rather than starting the long slow process of quietly moving
>>>>everyone out?
>>>
>>> discussed this with her, herself over lunch today.
>>>
>>> We both cam to the conclusion that if holland can afford to keep the
>>> north sea out of a bunch of low-value polders then London can afford to
>>> keep it out of london.
>>>
>>> If a few windmills is all it takes ....
>>
>>but the Dutch may be more competent than our lot, at least they admit
>>there
>>is an issue!
>
> After <hic< flood #1 there will be an issue....
>

and how many londoners will want to move back to London after the survivors
have been evacuated? Think New Orleans

Jim Webster
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

Andy Cap <Andy_Cap DeleteThis @nosuch.co.uk> writes

>So you really think that these workers would be prepared to watch the upper
>echelons of society via their freeview boxes, living an extravagant lifestyle,
>while they get on with the ditching ?

Consider much of the third world ....

>I don't think so, unless of course they
>were being paid £100/hour. ;-) Trying to force the low paid back into
>peasantry will only escalate crime beyond control.

Depends how hungry people are and how violent the (relatively well-paid)
police are.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

Jim Webster <jim.TakeThisOut@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>and how many londoners will want to move back to London after the survivors
>have been evacuated? Think New Orleans

Depends how much money is in it.
Think new york after twin towers.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

Thus spake 'Mike' <3d&6d.RemoveThis@woolies.com>
>"Robert Seago" <rjseago.RemoveThis@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4eaf81734crjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>>
>> Are you a scintist who has some other reasons to believe the assertions
>> you make Mike?
>>
>> --
>
>No I am not a scientist, but I have been around long enough to see other
>'scare' stories time and time again.
>
>This one will go with a 'Well things do change in nature and we have been
>spared' and then another one will come along :-((

This one is not a newspaper scare story. If you were a scientist you
could look at the evidence, and you could study the physical processes
involved. You would not need to rely on newspapers. Then you would
realise that the reality is potentially a lot more catastrophic than the
newspapers portray. Sure, nature will keep balance, quite possibly by
destroying agriculture through much of the world and wiping out 90% of
population. Never mind. Like you say, those who are left will be able to
say "we have been spared".
>
>Sorry, I have been involved in newspaper stories and know how the headlines
>are written. Keep an eye on your local newspaper and see what I mean if my
>article gets printed ;-)) Yes I use their tactics as well :-))
>
You mean that what you write can be ignored as fabricated nonsense.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

Thus spake Andy Cap <Andy_Cap.RemoveThis@nosuch.co.uk>
>On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:05:11 +0000, Oz <Oz.RemoveThis@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Make hay whilst the sun shines ! ;-)
>>
>>No, no, please don't, we need a population REDUCTION!!
>
>ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. That is the ONLY thing that will save the planet and
>make life
>bearable, so why aren't the politicians talking about it instead of pratting
>about over carrier bags?
>

They are talking about it. They are going to divert food production into
biofuels. That should sort out world population pretty quickly.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oz" <Oz DeleteThis @farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:ILv9aIDw4YxFFwmq@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Jim Webster <jim DeleteThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>and how many londoners will want to move back to London after the
>>survivors
>>have been evacuated? Think New Orleans
>
> Depends how much money is in it.
> Think new york after twin towers.
>

Twin Towers was very localised, there were people in the offices across who
were still working, still had electric and could still get home.

Get flooding that filled the underground and large areas of London would no
longer have electricity, sewage or fresh water and the people needed to
re-establish these services probably commute into work. Depending when the
flooding happened you could lose hundreds of thousands when the tube
flooded. Certainly you would have a major communications breakdown and
probably would have to get people out of the city if only to be able to feed
them.

Jim Webster
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oz" <Oz.DeleteThis@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:Yri5CnCGzYxFFwGH@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Andy Cap <Andy_Cap.DeleteThis@nosuch.co.uk> writes
>
>>So you really think that these workers would be prepared to watch the
>>upper
>>echelons of society via their freeview boxes, living an extravagant
>>lifestyle,
>>while they get on with the ditching ?
>
> Consider much of the third world ....
>
>>I don't think so, unless of course they
>>were being paid £100/hour. ;-) Trying to force the low paid back into
>>peasantry will only escalate crime beyond control.
>
> Depends how hungry people are and how violent the (relatively well-paid)
> police are.
>

it isn't going to be a policy discussed in advance but will just happen.
Over the next ten years food will get more expensive. George W has locked
the price of Maize to oil, and neither are going to become cheaper over the
medium term.
So people are going to have less spending power. Add to that greater
indebtedness as more and more people come onto the job market burdened with
Student loans and facing enormous mortgages if they want a house.
The next ten years is going to see some sort of economic slowdown anyway.
Then let us assume we have a major disaster, with global warming these will
be more likely anyway. Just for example assume London floods, the tube is
full of water and large parts of the centre standing water.
Large areas not actually flooded will have no sewage (except for that
floating in the streets down hill of them), no water as the pumps have
stopped and no electric. How long will people have food for? Especially with
no freezer?
So you are going to have to evacuate people, some might get away in their
own cars, but if the Thames has flooded the rest of the SE is going to be in
a state anyway, so you might not get that far by road, indeed the roads may
have to be closed to allow emergency vehicles to get through.
So a bus turns up at each street, you have six hours to pack, no more than
20kg per adult 10kg per child, and then you are taken to emergency
accomodation. We might have to find accomodation for over 10 million
people.Make a fuss? These are policemen who have done a shift helping the
divers pull corpses out of the underground. They are policemen who aren't
sure whether their own families are safe. Do you think they are going to
take you seriously?
So six weeks later you are still in a hastily refurbished army camp, you
have no access to a computer (except perhaps in the camp office which will
of course be supervised) you might have a mobile and the network might still
work, and your news comes from the radio and TV in the camp community areas.
Money? well how much cash do you have in the house? Anyway there isn't going
to be much to buy at the camp, you'll just collect a ration at meal times.
Travel? well you can walk out of the camp if you want, but it could be
somewhere north of Gateshead.
Make a fuss? Cause trouble? Well they'll just log this onto your ID card so
any other official who deals with you knows you are a trouble maker. Make a
lot of trouble? No problem, there are doubtless special camps for people
like that. Your children will go into care while the charges against you are
assessed.

Jim Webster
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oz" <Oz.DeleteThis@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:oTi1MrBFwQxFFwjB@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Andy Cap <Andy_Cap.DeleteThis@nosuch.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:05:11 +0000, Oz <Oz.DeleteThis@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Make hay whilst the sun shines ! ;-)
>>>
>>>No, no, please don't, we need a population REDUCTION!!
>>
>>ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. That is the ONLY thing that will save the planet and
>>make life
>>bearable, so why aren't the politicians talking about it instead of
>>pratting
>>about over carrier bags?
>
> Not needed. Population in first world is reducing (excepting immigrants
> /immigration).
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>

And, what the fuck has this to do with fishing?
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oz" <Oz.RemoveThis@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:6DBx4fBIvQxFFwBT@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Jim Webster <jim.RemoveThis@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Assuming that we can currently support 60 million people using current
>>agricultural technology, going organic should be more sustainable, but at
>>probably 75% of the yield. We'd be properly organic, and recycle sewage
>>sludge, perhaps after methane generation, so I think 75% is not a bad
>>guess.
>>So we have a population of 45 million, but of course we need to produce
>>energy as well.
>
> That's probably a tad optimistic.
> 30m maybe.
>
>>So if we move, say, 15million out of the major cities, especially the low
>>lying ones, and make them peasant small holders (obviously not on the
>>arable
>>land because that will be needed to provide the bulk of the food and
>>energy
>>crops for those who are still working full time, medical staff and energy
>>distribution technicans etc.) These smallholders could get plots on the
>>edges of the national parks, but also in those areas that would otherwise
>>be
>>abandoned. You could hand over a suburban street to one family, they could
>>cultivate the gardens, and the houses they could quarry for building
>>materials and salvage that they could sell. This you could do for those
>>urban areas on the flood plain, in that the few remaining people could
>>live
>>upstairs.
>
> Oh, neat, I like it!
>
>>So you would have a population of 15-20 million subsistance peasantry, who
>>wouldn't be connected to any sewage system (as they would be recycling it
>>anyway) and they would be discouraged from travelling, and their energy
>>useage would probably be limited to a bit of electricity, perhaps their
>>own
>>solar and windpower. heating they could grow their own fuel, and also
>>salvage some.
>
> Great!
>
>>You'd have an urban population of perhaps 15-20 million providing
>>essential
>>services, medical, technical etc. They would probably have a live style
>>similar to now,
>
> Well, less heating and entertainment and longer hours and less comfort
> but, but ....
>
>>but with strict rules about waste collection and what you
>>could and couldn't dispose into the sewer. Some areas might go back to
>>septic tanks or even earth closets. Again travel would be discouraged and
>>you'd move industry and employment back in amongst the houses.
>
> Yes...
>
>>You'd probably have a further 10-15million who would be back to being farm
>>labourers, doing manual labour to replace the machinery except where it is
>>really needed. So they would be doing the ditching, hedging, walling etc,
>>probably all the orchard work, weeding and similar, harvest would almost
>>certainly be done with machinery still.
>
> You are spot on!
>
> Note they still provide the luxury items.
> An apple, say ...
>
>>They could have a small plot to grow
>>their own veg etc and might keep their own fowl but I would suggest they
>>would need a break from work and should be on a better ration than
>>normally
>>found in an urban setting.
>
> Not really, but healthier.
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>

And, what the fuck has this to do with fishing?
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oz" <Oz RemoveThis @farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:vTc0s0B9wQxFFwiV@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Jim Webster <jim RemoveThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Oz" <Oz RemoveThis @farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
>>news:qNOVLIA1qOxFFwDN@farmeroz.port995.com...
>>> Jim Webster <jim RemoveThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> writes
>>>>Given that the Thames will probably flood London in the next twenty five
>>>>years, (the Thames Barrier is getting less and less useful against a new
>>>>predicted extreme event) and at some point they are going to find the
>>>>London
>>>>Underground filled with river water, why are government still investing
>>>>in
>>>>London, rather than starting the long slow process of quietly moving
>>>>everyone out?
>>>
>>> discussed this with her, herself over lunch today.
>>>
>>> We both cam to the conclusion that if holland can afford to keep the
>>> north sea out of a bunch of low-value polders then London can afford to
>>> keep it out of london.
>>>
>>> If a few windmills is all it takes ....
>>
>>but the Dutch may be more competent than our lot, at least they admit
>>there
>>is an issue!
>
> After <hic< flood #1 there will be an issue....
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>


And, what the fuck has this to do with fishing?
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local