Taking the Global Local

"Oz" <Oz.TakeThisOut@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:Yri5CnCGzYxFFwGH@farmeroz.port995.com...
> Andy Cap <Andy_Cap.TakeThisOut@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.
>
>
>

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

"Oh No" <NotI.DeleteThis@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c+FL0lCPBaxFFwmv@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
>
> This one is not a newspaper scare story.

Of course it isn't, but you can carry on worrying for me :-))

There's a good chap :-))


>>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.
>

No. I use their 'headline' technique for attention :-))
Used it times to great advantage :-))

Mike


--
...........................................................
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Jim Webster" <jim.RemoveThis@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote in message news:52kcb5F1p5gonU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Oz" <Oz.RemoveThis@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
> news:sthUzXALrOxFFwg$@farmeroz.port995.com...
> > Howard Neil <hneil.RemoveThis@REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> writes
> >>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. :-)
> >
> > Quite!

Nice. Rather, it is time to admit the truth and do something about it.

> Actually it would be interesting to work backwards to see what sort of
> population we could have.
>
> 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.

Producing food on arable land currently used for livestock feed
would more than make up for any alleged lower organic yield, not
forgetting fruits and nuts, etc. on ex so-called 'permanent pasture'.

> 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,

Eh? Oh I see.. 15 million were wiped out by starvation.

> but of course we need to produce energy as well.

'In order to reach the Government's target of 5% of liquid fuels
from biofuels, nearly 1 million hectares of oil seed rape will need
to be planted. Yes, that's right, just 5%. The map (see left, click
on it to enlarge) will inevitably cause palpitations among those
who oppose windfarms, but for me it raised much more serious
questions about the delusional thinking at the heart of this study.
http://tinyurl.com/2mh6cl

> So if we

Who is this "we" you are referring to?

> 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.)

And to livestock of course in your quite dismal scenario.

Arable land is needed to provide food for *all* people.

> These smallholders could get plots on the edges of the national parks,

Wherever they choose so long as it doesn't encroach upon others.

> 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,

There you go.

> 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.
>
> 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.
> 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, 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.
> 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. 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.

'Regarding food, man is most adept at gardening and being
a caretaker of plants and orchards.
....'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

From an essay included in the classic book "Small is Beautiful:
Economics as if People Mattered." by E. F. Schumacher:

"Right Livelihood" is one of the requirements of the Buddha's
Noble Eightfold Path. It is clear, therefore, that there must be
such a thing as Buddhist economics.
....
There is universal agreement that a fundamental source of wealth
is human labour. Now, the modern economist has been brought
up to consider "labour" or work as little more than a necessary
evil. From the point of view of the employer, it is in any case
simply an item of cost, to be reduced to a minimum if it can not
be eliminated altogether, say, by automation. From the point of
view of the workman, it is a "disutility"; to work is to make a
sacrifice of one's leisure and comfort, and wages are a kind of
compensation for the sacrifice. Hence the ideal from the point of
view of the employer is to have output without employees, and
the ideal from the point of view of the employee is to have income
without employment.
....
The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at
least threefold: to give man a chance to utilise and develop his
faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by
joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth
the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. Again,
the consequences that flow from this view are endless. To
organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless,
boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be
little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with
goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-
destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of
this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an
alternative to work would be considered a complete
misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence,
namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the
same living process and cannot be separated without destroying
the joy of work and the bliss of leisure.
...
It is clear, therefore, that Buddhist economics must be very
different from the economics of modern materialism, since the
Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication
of wants but in the purification of human character. Character,
at the same time, is formed primarily by a man's work. And
work, properly conducted in conditions of human dignity and
freedom, blesses those who do it and equally their products.
The Indian philosopher and economist J. C. Kumarappa sums
the matter up as follows:

If the nature of the work is properly appreciated and applied, it
will stand in the same relation to the higher faculties as food is
to the physical body. It nourishes and enlivens the higher man
and urges him to produce the best he is capable of. It directs
his free will along the proper course and disciplines the animal
in him into progressive channels. It furnishes an excellent
background for man to display his scale of values and develop
his personality. 6
....
While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is
mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is "The Middle Way"
and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well-being. It is
not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to
wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for
them. The keynote of Buddhist economics, therefore, is simplicity
and non-violence. From an economist's point of view, the marvel
of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern -
amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfactory
results.

For the modern economist this is very difficult to understand.
He is used to measuring the "standard of living" by the amount
of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who
consumes more is "better off" than a man who consumes less.
A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively
irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-
being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being
with the minimum of consumption.
.....
Simplicity and non-violence are obviously closely related.
The optimal pattern of consumption, producing a high degree
of human satisfaction by means of a relatively low rate of
consumption, allows people to live without great pressure and
strain and to fulfill the primary injunction of Buddhist teaching:
"Cease to do evil; try to do good."
.....'
http://www.schumachersociety.org/buddhist_economics/english.html
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"pearl" <tea DeleteThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:eq4vtp$sqj$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Jim Webster" <jim DeleteThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote in message

where did you say your food came from pearl?

what are your clothes made out of?

But put that to one side
Show us the figures, not pages and pages of copy pasted stuff, but show us
your simple calculations showing how many people this country can support.

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

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:05:02 -0000, "pearl" <tea DeleteThis @signguestbook.ie>
wrote:

>"Jim Webster" <jim DeleteThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote in message news:52kcb5F1p5gonU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Oz" <Oz DeleteThis @farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
>> news:sthUzXALrOxFFwg$@farmeroz.port995.com...
>> > Howard Neil <hneil DeleteThis @REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> writes
>> >>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. :-)
>> >
>> > Quite!
>
>Nice. Rather, it is time to admit the truth and do something about it.
>
>> Actually it would be interesting to work backwards to see what sort of
>> population we could have.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Producing food on arable land currently used for livestock feed
>would more than make up for any alleged lower organic yield, not
>forgetting fruits and nuts, etc. on ex so-called 'permanent pasture'.
>
>> 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,
>
>Eh? Oh I see.. 15 million were wiped out by starvation.
>
>> but of course we need to produce energy as well.
>
>'In order to reach the Government's target of 5% of liquid fuels
>from biofuels, nearly 1 million hectares of oil seed rape will need
>to be planted. Yes, that's right, just 5%. The map (see left, click
>on it to enlarge) will inevitably cause palpitations among those
>who oppose windfarms, but for me it raised much more serious
>questions about the delusional thinking at the heart of this study.
>http://tinyurl.com/2mh6cl
>
>> So if we
>
>Who is this "we" you are referring to?
>
>> 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.)
>
>And to livestock of course in your quite dismal scenario.
>
>Arable land is needed to provide food for *all* people.
>
>> These smallholders could get plots on the edges of the national parks,
>
>Wherever they choose so long as it doesn't encroach upon others.
>
>> 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,
>
>There you go.
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>> 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, 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.
>> 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. 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.
>
>'Regarding food, man is most adept at gardening and being
> a caretaker of plants and orchards.
>...'
>http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
>
>From an essay included in the classic book "Small is Beautiful:
>Economics as if People Mattered." by E. F. Schumacher:
>
>"Right Livelihood" is one of the requirements of the Buddha's
>Noble Eightfold Path. It is clear, therefore, that there must be
>such a thing as Buddhist economics.
>...
>There is universal agreement that a fundamental source of wealth
>is human labour. Now, the modern economist has been brought
>up to consider "labour" or work as little more than a necessary
>evil. From the point of view of the employer, it is in any case
>simply an item of cost, to be reduced to a minimum if it can not
>be eliminated altogether, say, by automation. From the point of
>view of the workman, it is a "disutility"; to work is to make a
>sacrifice of one's leisure and comfort, and wages are a kind of
>compensation for the sacrifice. Hence the ideal from the point of
>view of the employer is to have output without employees, and
>the ideal from the point of view of the employee is to have income
>without employment.
>...
> The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at
>least threefold: to give man a chance to utilise and develop his
>faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by
>joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth
>the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. Again,
>the consequences that flow from this view are endless. To
>organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless,
>boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be
>little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with
>goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-
>destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of
>this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an
>alternative to work would be considered a complete
>misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence,
>namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the
>same living process and cannot be separated without destroying
>the joy of work and the bliss of leisure.
>..
>It is clear, therefore, that Buddhist economics must be very
>different from the economics of modern materialism, since the
>Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication
>of wants but in the purification of human character. Character,
>at the same time, is formed primarily by a man's work. And
>work, properly conducted in conditions of human dignity and
>freedom, blesses those who do it and equally their products.
>The Indian philosopher and economist J. C. Kumarappa sums
>the matter up as follows:
>
>If the nature of the work is properly appreciated and applied, it
>will stand in the same relation to the higher faculties as food is
>to the physical body. It nourishes and enlivens the higher man
>and urges him to produce the best he is capable of. It directs
>his free will along the proper course and disciplines the animal
>in him into progressive channels. It furnishes an excellent
>background for man to display his scale of values and develop
>his personality. 6
>...
>While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is
>mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is "The Middle Way"
>and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well-being. It is
>not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to
>wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for
>them. The keynote of Buddhist economics, therefore, is simplicity
>and non-violence. From an economist's point of view, the marvel
>of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern -
>amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfactory
>results.
>
>For the modern economist this is very difficult to understand.
>He is used to measuring the "standard of living" by the amount
>of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who
>consumes more is "better off" than a man who consumes less.
>A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively
>irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-
>being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being
>with the minimum of consumption.
>....
>Simplicity and non-violence are obviously closely related.
>The optimal pattern of consumption, producing a high degree
>of human satisfaction by means of a relatively low rate of
>consumption, allows people to live without great pressure and
>strain and to fulfill the primary injunction of Buddhist teaching:
>"Cease to do evil; try to do good."
>....'
>http://www.schumachersociety.org/buddhist_economics/english.html
>
>
>

Cool ;-)


--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:35:51 -0000, "Jim Webster"
<jim DeleteThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"pearl" <tea DeleteThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>news:eq4vtp$sqj$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> "Jim Webster" <jim DeleteThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>where did you say your food came from pearl?
>
>what are your clothes made out of?
>
>But put that to one side
>Show us the figures, not pages and pages of copy pasted stuff, but show us
>your simple calculations showing how many people this country can support.

Some farmer! Do you actually realize you can survive out in the big
bad world without subsidies and handouts?

Try it sometime, you'll love it.


--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

Jim Webster wrote:
> "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.

Nah, with that amount of damage the data base servers will be bu**ered.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oh No" <NotI.RemoveThis@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g1gtiYHaFRxFFwQ0@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> Thus spake Howard Neil <hneil.RemoveThis@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
>

But us fishermen couldn't care less!
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oh No" <NotI.DeleteThis@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c+FL0lCPBaxFFwmv@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> Thus spake 'Mike' <3d&6d.DeleteThis@woolies.com>
>>"Robert Seago" <rjseago.DeleteThis@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
>

And the relationship to fishing is?
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Oh No" <NotI DeleteThis @charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JOQOokDYEaxFFwHs@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> Thus spake Andy Cap <Andy_Cap DeleteThis @nosuch.co.uk>
>>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?
>>
>
> 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
>

Why the fuck don't you idiots read the headers BEFORE posting, so these
stupid comments go to newsgroups which are relevant?
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"Jim Webster" <jim DeleteThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote in message news:52mgukF1p71s3U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "pearl" <tea DeleteThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:eq4vtp$sqj$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Jim Webster" <jim DeleteThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> where did you say your food came from pearl?

Why?

From Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment.
1997. Pp. 56-73. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
"How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature?"...

'By eating different species of crops and a more or less vegetarian
diet people can change the number that a plot can feed. And large
numbers of people do change their diets. The calories and protein
available from present cropland could provide a vegetarian diet to
ten billion people. A diet requiring food and feed totaling 6,000
calories daily for ten billion people, however, would overwhelm
the capability of present agriculture on present cropland. The
global totals of sun, CO2, fertilizer, and even water could produce
far more food than what ten billion people need.
...'
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4767&page=56

> what are your clothes made out of?

Ideally, hemp. See:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1881460,00.html

> But put that to one side
> Show us the figures, not pages and pages of copy pasted stuff, but show us
> your simple calculations showing how many people this country can support.

'.. the last study done into whether or not the UK could feed itself,
Mellanby's imaginatively titled Can Britain Feed Itself?, was done in
1975 and concluded that if all the productive land in the UK were
utilised, the UK could feed itself on a diet similar to that of World
War Two and if we ate a largely vegetarian diet. No mention there
of using land to grow biofuels (or of permaculture, agroforestry,
biointensive growing, urban agriculture, nut crops, aquaculture or
raw food for that matter).
...'
http://tinyurl.com/2mh6cl
(- instead of "aquaculture", make that DHA-rich algae culture.)

'.. organic production outperforms conventional in crop yield,
soil fertility, pest reduction and economic return.
...
During the four-year period, corn yield in the organic system
averaged 91.8% of conventional corn yield and soybean yield
in the organic system averaged 99.6% of conventional soybean
yield. By year three, there was no significant difference between
organic and conventional yields; and both organic corn and
soybeans exceeded conventional yields in the fourth year (the
first year after certification).
...'
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/organicproductionworks.php
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

"pearl" <tea DeleteThis @signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:eq4vtp$sqj$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Jim Webster" <jim DeleteThis @websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:52kcb5F1p5gonU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Oz" <Oz DeleteThis @farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
>> news:sthUzXALrOxFFwg$@farmeroz.port995.com...
>> > Howard Neil <hneil DeleteThis @REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> writes
>> >>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. :-)
>> >
>> > Quite!
>
> Nice. Rather, it is time to admit the truth and do something about it.
>
>> Actually it would be interesting to work backwards to see what sort of
>> population we could have.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Producing food on arable land currently used for livestock feed
> would more than make up for any alleged lower organic yield, not
> forgetting fruits and nuts, etc. on ex so-called 'permanent pasture'.
>
>> 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,
>
> Eh? Oh I see.. 15 million were wiped out by starvation.
>
>> but of course we need to produce energy as well.
>
> 'In order to reach the Government's target of 5% of liquid fuels
> from biofuels, nearly 1 million hectares of oil seed rape will need
> to be planted. Yes, that's right, just 5%. The map (see left, click
> on it to enlarge) will inevitably cause palpitations among those
> who oppose windfarms, but for me it raised much more serious
> questions about the delusional thinking at the heart of this study.
> http://tinyurl.com/2mh6cl
>
>> So if we
>
> Who is this "we" you are referring to?
>
>> 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.)
>
> And to livestock of course in your quite dismal scenario.
>
> Arable land is needed to provide food for *all* people.
>
>> These smallholders could get plots on the edges of the national parks,
>
> Wherever they choose so long as it doesn't encroach upon others.
>
>> 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,
>
> There you go.
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>> 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, 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.
>> 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. 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.
>
> 'Regarding food, man is most adept at gardening and being
> a caretaker of plants and orchards.
> ...'
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
>
> From an essay included in the classic book "Small is Beautiful:
> Economics as if People Mattered." by E. F. Schumacher:
>
> "Right Livelihood" is one of the requirements of the Buddha's
> Noble Eightfold Path. It is clear, therefore, that there must be
> such a thing as Buddhist economics.
> ...
> There is universal agreement that a fundamental source of wealth
> is human labour. Now, the modern economist has been brought
> up to consider "labour" or work as little more than a necessary
> evil. From the point of view of the employer, it is in any case
> simply an item of cost, to be reduced to a minimum if it can not
> be eliminated altogether, say, by automation. From the point of
> view of the workman, it is a "disutility"; to work is to make a
> sacrifice of one's leisure and comfort, and wages are a kind of
> compensation for the sacrifice. Hence the ideal from the point of
> view of the employer is to have output without employees, and
> the ideal from the point of view of the employee is to have income
> without employment.
> ...
> The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at
> least threefold: to give man a chance to utilise and develop his
> faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by
> joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth
> the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. Again,
> the consequences that flow from this view are endless. To
> organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless,
> boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be
> little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with
> goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-
> destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of
> this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an
> alternative to work would be considered a complete
> misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence,
> namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the
> same living process and cannot be separated without destroying
> the joy of work and the bliss of leisure.
> ..
> It is clear, therefore, that Buddhist economics must be very
> different from the economics of modern materialism, since the
> Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication
> of wants but in the purification of human character. Character,
> at the same time, is formed primarily by a man's work. And
> work, properly conducted in conditions of human dignity and
> freedom, blesses those who do it and equally their products.
> The Indian philosopher and economist J. C. Kumarappa sums
> the matter up as follows:
>
> If the nature of the work is properly appreciated and applied, it
> will stand in the same relation to the higher faculties as food is
> to the physical body. It nourishes and enlivens the higher man
> and urges him to produce the best he is capable of. It directs
> his free will along the proper course and disciplines the animal
> in him into progressive channels. It furnishes an excellent
> background for man to display his scale of values and develop
> his personality. 6
> ...
> While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is
> mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is "The Middle Way"
> and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well-being. It is
> not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to
> wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for
> them. The keynote of Buddhist economics, therefore, is simplicity
> and non-violence. From an economist's point of view, the marvel
> of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern -
> amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfactory
> results.
>
> For the modern economist this is very difficult to understand.
> He is used to measuring the "standard of living" by the amount
> of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who
> consumes more is "better off" than a man who consumes less.
> A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively
> irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-
> being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being
> with the minimum of consumption.
> ....
> Simplicity and non-violence are obviously closely related.
> The optimal pattern of consumption, producing a high degree
> of human satisfaction by means of a relatively low rate of
> consumption, allows people to live without great pressure and
> strain and to fulfill the primary injunction of Buddhist teaching:
> "Cease to do evil; try to do good."
> ....'
> http://www.schumachersociety.org/buddhist_economics/english.html
>
>
>
>

Why the bloody hell don't you just post to the groups you read this rubbish
in, so the rest of world are not subjected to your crap?
 >> Stay informed about: Taking the Global Local 

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 20:02:56 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
<alan.holmes RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Oh No" <NotI RemoveThis @charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:JOQOokDYEaxFFwHs@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
>> 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