Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
The state of nature
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Author 
 Message
OtleyLad



Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2737
Location: Otley, West Yorkshire
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 15 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Mistress Rose wrote:
We have the problem of people coming out from the town, and most people living in the 'villages' being townspeople. They think the countryside is a playground for them and not a working environment.

Otley Lad, there are a lot of births, but over the next 20 years there will probably be a lot of deaths too. The post war baby boomers are getting into their 70s now, so they will be disappearing over the next 20 years or so. Although I can't see that decreasing the population, it is going to make a big difference. A birth rate of 1.84 is also going to long term result in fewer people too. As long as the birth rate plus immigration ends up with a population rise of less than 2 per couple, we should see fewer people.


Until there is some sort of consensus on the number of people these islands can sustainably accommodate (population/birth control call it whatever you will) and until governments stop peddling the mantra of more growth/choice/consumption, 'nature' will continue to be squeezed out to make way for us all-consuming humans. And I say again that politicians are chicken over this issue.

So we'll continue to squabble over who can live where and what type/size/price house they can have whilst doing little or nothing to address the real challenges.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 15 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

dpack wrote:
in places with space there is little need of wage slaves so small homes with big gardens makes sense ,that might need more area but it is more sustainable than broilers for unwanted flesh .


Only if the gardens are utilized, if they're just filled with junk it could easily be a waste.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 15 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

OtleyLad wrote:
Mistress Rose wrote:
We have the problem of people coming out from the town, and most people living in the 'villages' being townspeople. They think the countryside is a playground for them and not a working environment.

Otley Lad, there are a lot of births, but over the next 20 years there will probably be a lot of deaths too. The post war baby boomers are getting into their 70s now, so they will be disappearing over the next 20 years or so. Although I can't see that decreasing the population, it is going to make a big difference. A birth rate of 1.84 is also going to long term result in fewer people too. As long as the birth rate plus immigration ends up with a population rise of less than 2 per couple, we should see fewer people.


Until there is some sort of consensus on the number of people these islands can sustainably accommodate (population/birth control call it whatever you will) and until governments stop peddling the mantra of more growth/choice/consumption, 'nature' will continue to be squeezed out to make way for us all-consuming humans. And I say again that politicians are chicken over this issue.

So we'll continue to squabble over who can live where and what type/size/price house they can have whilst doing little or nothing to address the real challenges.


The problem is that there are so many conflicting interest groups lobbying for different things but using population as their reasoning. The consensus is that increasing (average) affluence, access to education and birth control reduces birth rates.

You've got a green(ish) lobby that says we could feed more people(!) more sustainably if they reduced their meat consumption. On the other side we could feed more with home produced food if we ate more of it (as opposed to under utilisation of land and relying upon exports).

On this latter point it isn't even as simple as keeping 'foreigners' out as, despite being a smaller proportion of the population, they seem to eat more sustainably than us Brits.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15542

PostPosted: Thu May 28, 15 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

I think it makes sense to grow as much food for ourselves as we can. Possibly because rationing was still going on when I was very small, although I wasn't aware of it, and the effect it had on my parents thinking, I have always felt that if individuals and nations can rely as little as possible on other people (while being willing to help others), we would be far less vulnerable. It only needs another nation to stop trading with us and we could end up in trouble.

If we can keep the birth rate down, and balance the number of people in the country, or even reduce it slightly it would be a definate advantage. Looking at sensible farming practise and helping farmers utilise the land to the best sustainable advantage would also help.

Taking housing out of the political agenda and perhaps just building some sort of decent place that people can afford would also help, and having them available for rent or part own. All these new houses aren't going to be affordable for the very people than need them.

NorthernMonkeyGirl



Joined: 10 Apr 2011
Posts: 4584
Location: Peeping over your shoulder
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 15 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Thinking of low input / permaculture type farming (and actually farming in general) - it requires a lot more labour on the land, delicate harvesting... so there would be jobs for more people and a healthier food production system

Ty Gwyn



Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4562
Location: Lampeter
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 15 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

NorthernMonkeyGirl wrote:
Thinking of low input / permaculture type farming (and actually farming in general) - it requires a lot more labour on the land, delicate harvesting... so there would be jobs for more people and a healthier food production system



If the public Were prepared to pay the extra to cover the extra wages for this kind of production.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 15 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Ty Gwyn wrote:
NorthernMonkeyGirl wrote:
Thinking of low input / permaculture type farming (and actually farming in general) - it requires a lot more labour on the land, delicate harvesting... so there would be jobs for more people and a healthier food production system



If the public Were prepared to pay the extra to cover the extra wages for this kind of production.


Plenty of people bang on about 'cheap meat', and the effect that has on the planet, but the massive increase we've seen in the consumption of cheap veg goes unmentioned becasue, allegedly, we don't eat enough of it;


Ty Gwyn



Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4562
Location: Lampeter
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 15 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Where is the location of that photo?

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 45385
Location: yes
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 15 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

almeria,spain at an vaguely informed guess

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 15 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

dpack wrote:
almeria,spain at an vaguely informed guess


yup

OtleyLad



Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2737
Location: Otley, West Yorkshire
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 15 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

I find it very hard to imagine an ideal world where:

1. Everyone eats enough (but not too much) to maintain their health.
2. The production of all that food is sustainable in the long term – i.e. it protects the soil and doesn’t pollute the environment nor use unsustainable amounts of energy.
3. Everyone has access to/use of reasonable housing, services (health, education, etc) and infrastructure.
4. There is enough land area set aside to sustain a rich biodiversity (fauna/flora) aka Nature.

If such an optimum state were to be achieved it would surely involve curbs on the total human population and their activities (i.e. a person can only have access to/use of a limited amount of resources) – without such constraints the optimum balance could not be maintained.

Can you imagine any of these things being achieved anytime soon? I doubt if a single item could even be agreed upon. And of course you can’t have a partial solution as it needs all the components to be in place to maintain the optimum balance.
In our current ad hoc madness item 4 (‘Nature’) only happens by accident.

If I didn’t suffer from irationable optimism I’d be depressed…

Cathryn



Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 19856
Location: Ceredigion
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 15 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Is that photo supposed to show a problem? I cannot tell what it is exactly but isn't it some kind of covering to keep the water in and reduce the need?

OtleyLad



Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2737
Location: Otley, West Yorkshire
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 15 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Cathryn wrote:
Is that photo supposed to show a problem? I cannot tell what it is exactly but isn't it some kind of covering to keep the water in and reduce the need?


Its probably acres and acres of polytunnels.You see these all over spain for growing cut flowers as well as veg.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 15 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Cathryn wrote:
Is that photo supposed to show a problem? I cannot tell what it is exactly but isn't it some kind of covering to keep the water in and reduce the need?


Glasshouses, and yes, but then you could say the same for keeping cattle and sheep indoors year round. There are advantages, bit it's not very biodiverse.

There are other issues, too, but it's not PC to criticise veg production at the moment.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 15 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

OtleyLad wrote:
I find it very hard to imagine an ideal world where:

1. Everyone eats enough (but not too much) to maintain their health.
2. The production of all that food is sustainable in the long term – i.e. it protects the soil and doesn’t pollute the environment nor use unsustainable amounts of energy.
3. Everyone has access to/use of reasonable housing, services (health, education, etc) and infrastructure.
4. There is enough land area set aside to sustain a rich biodiversity (fauna/flora) aka Nature.

If such an optimum state were to be achieved it would surely involve curbs on the total human population and their activities (i.e. a person can only have access to/use of a limited amount of resources) – without such constraints the optimum balance could not be maintained.

Can you imagine any of these things being achieved anytime soon? I doubt if a single item could even be agreed upon. And of course you can’t have a partial solution as it needs all the components to be in place to maintain the optimum balance.
In our current ad hoc madness item 4 (‘Nature’) only happens by accident.

If I didn’t suffer from irationable optimism I’d be depressed…


I've made it my life's work to achieve that so yes, I share your optimism. But we do have great obstacles to overcome, not least people's attitudes towards food and what we should eat.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com