The good life tv comedy programme could this be done today

rhiwfield

CTC, you asked what the amount of money the Goodes would need. Given that we all will have our own view of what is important, here's my own budget expenditure headings (but no figures )

• Cars: tax, insurance, petrol, service, repairs
• House: Insurance, maintenance, minor capital items, oil, wood, electricity, Water, Council Tax, Soft Furnishings, chimney sweep, boiler clean/repair
• Lifestyle: Grocery and consumables, TV licence, plants/compost, holidays, vets bills, presents, landline, broadband, mobile, haircuts, meals out, window clean, clothes, general treats, dental/optical, general treats
• Tax
• Sinking funds: Car, electrical, house, furniture
• Contingencies

The aim is never to exceed the total budget and usually to be well within.

cootambear

rhiwfield wrote: »

As with the debate on climate change, posters will often quote this or that website or study which supports their own belief system. There often appears little effort to open ones mind to alternative viewpoints.

Its notable that virtually all posters have agreed that it is not feasible to be self sufficient like Tom and Barbara. The real disagreement has come where

Cootambear has made various posts in favour of GM and oil dependency.

GM, yes. `Oil dependency`, no. Oil is a natural resource we can and are using for our benefit. Talking about `dependency`, (a hairsbreath from addiction) is as warped as saying that we are addicted to food. I have argued against those who are in favour of stopping the use of oil derived fertilisers.

My own belief system is that large corporate interests have manipulated crop production to maximise dependency on their products and reduce the capability of indigenous peoples to be self supporting. Genetically engineered crops have not been subject to the testing that new drugs requires, yet it is at best a highly imperfect process with unknown side effects.

And if all seed varieties are subject to corporate patents what option do the individualists have?


Only a fraction are subject to patents

I also believe that what can go wrong will go wrong (e.g. Chernobyl, Deepwater Horizon)

The most striking thing about those incidents - horrible as they are - is their infrequence. You cannot base policy on worst case risk assesments - nothing would get done. All nuclear plants would close - well we`d have to burn more oil and coal. Children would have to be educated at home due to the faint possibility that a crazed gunman might enter the school. Trains would not run in case they came off the rails, etc etc. We saw this with the panic over the Iceland volcano - based on `worst case` europes air transport ground to a halt.


and that increasing dependency on "big science" can be foolhardy. That is not to say that properly tested and peer reviewed science cannot bring material benefits that we all enjoy.

`Dependence` again. Actually we now live in a society that is retreating from the scientific method andthe gains of the Enlightenment. Rational thought is in retreat, under attack. Belief in crystals, `gaia` (sp?) `nutritionists` who make claims about the miraculous powers of some foods, rebirthing, spirits, astral planes and a whole kitbag of other nonsense is onthe rise. For more on this, and incidentally an expose of how the drugs companies often massage medical studies, I recommend the excellent `Bad Science` by Ben Goldacre.


I am much happier when I see plant breeding using non GE methods and when crops are produced without resort to excessive fertilisers and pesticides. I do see that reliance on big science and vested corporate interests reduces our ability to be self supporting and makes us highly vulnerable to unforseen or disregarded events.

With regard to population it seems clear that you cannot keep adding billions without hugely impacting on the planets ability to sustain life.


This myth has cropped up time and time again in this debate, and has also been argued for many hundreds of years and has always been proved wrong. A couple of hundred years ago it was an attack on `overbreeding` by the poor. today the subtext is too many black and yellow babies in the third world (I am not accusing you personally of hating black people). In the countries where economic growth has been the greatest - the West, birthrates are falling. There is no reason to suspect that this will not be the case in underdeveloped countries if they have sustained growth in their economies. Ironically the greens are anti growth.

Evidence abounds that biodiversity is declining and resource depletion is accelerating. It is foolhardy in the extreme not to attempt alternatives to a system which is clearly adversely impacting on the planet.

At a very local level protagonists of limited self sufficiency using methods which have little adverse enviromental impact should be encouraged.

I think it is a matter of personal choice, and I don`t like the propoganda that is being pumped into kids at school, encourageing them to lambast their parents.

And all of us should be seeking to reduce oil dependency. A dependency that is leading to global economic strains and increasing costs and risks in extraction. I dont buy the argument thats its not possible, that sounds like a junkie afraid to face withdrawal symptoms.

10 character word limit etc etc - ignore this bit.

COOLTRIKERCHICK

cootambear. i bet they love you on the green and ethical board:rotfl:

the long and short of it is..... reardless of what mumbo-jumbo you come up with... at the end of the day... the world WILL run out of oil....so if we can slow down the rate that its happening by growing without oil based fertilizers, and use less throw-away packaging, buy local, and grow our own...this will cut down on oil used for transportation... big agricultrial machinery...electric for those huge greenhouses in holland that supply tomatoes and cucumbers all year round etc.... plus we will actually be supporting local people... get to know our neighbours when we exchange surplus produce.... and basically have a better quality of life...

wether it will be 50 years or 250 years....... the world Will run out of oil......


there is a lot of people would love to have, or be able to afford to have the life style Tom and Barbara had in the tv series... hence the high prices of any property with land... plus in the recession and the house price slump, havent been effected....

cootambear

COOLTRIKERCHICK wrote: »

rhiwfield.... an excellent post.....:T

Tom and Barbara... would have been totally against Gm crops etc...

Tom and Barbara would have starved = GM or organic

Last night i was trying to work out some figures... if someone was going to try and do what the Goode's done, exactly what would be the min amount of money they would need have each year...purely to pay the compulsary bills etc...and how much money they would need for the store cupboard essentials, flour, salt, etc..

I baffled myself then and went to bed with my head spinning:rotfl:

might have another go today:eek::rotfl:

.....................................................

cootambear

I coudnt find the post but I believe someone asked me what was my attitude to GM companies breeding to stop 2nd year germination?

First off, no one is forced to buy GM seeds. Why would they if local non GM strains are more productive?

Like it or not, GM comes under patent law, like novel drugs, music etc. GM food companies, like all companies in capitalist society, are driven to make profits for their shareholders. If they just made it public domain, there would be no profits.
Making money out of GM is no different to making profits out of any capitalist enterprise. If you want to overthrow capitalism I`ll be on the barricades with you because I believe its an outdated system.

In my garden I have a strawberry called `mara de bois`. Its patented, and you buy it under licence whereby you are not allowed to propogate it (not that that will stop me planting out the runners).

It is a cross breed of two existing non GM strawberries.

COOLTRIKERCHICK

cootambear....

i think you just want to pick holes in everything, first of all it was the oil, now gm crops....

give it break will you, as this was suposed to be a light hearted thread... and generally see where the stumbling blocks could be etc..


flip by the sounds of it.... if we all said white was white, you would come up with something that said it wasnt...

rhiwfield.....

we couldnt do what the goode's done, as we still have a mortgage. and i run my own business with 6 staff, but if i and oh could stop work tomorrow.

our finacial commitments would be

mortgage... water rates..... coucil tax.... electric..... fuel.... transport insurance... car/bike tax...... phone/internet.... dentist...animal feed

where we could aim to cut down.....or cut out completely... would be food...... coal/wood .....money for kids...school etc..... christmas..... and emergancy money...

furniture we normally get other people's cast offs:rotfl: because they are so last year...lol.... flip as long as they are still fit for purpose...... we will use them... our leather sofa and chairs have seen better days.... so we are having someone elses in a few weeks... ( uncle passed away a fw months ago, and hadnt long bought a new sofa and chairs....)

cootambear

I coudnt find the post but I believe someone asked me what was my attitude to GM companies breeding to stop 2nd year germination?

First off, no one is forced to buy GM seeds. Why would they if local non GM strains are more productive?

Like it or not, GM comes under patent law, like novel drugs, music etc. GM food companies, like all companies in capitalist society, are driven to make profits for their shareholders. If they just made it public domain, there would be no profits.
Making money out of GM is no different to making profits out of any capitalist enterprise. If you want to overthrow capitalism I`ll be on the barricades with you because I believe its an outdated system.

In my garden I have a strawberry called `mara de bois`. Its patented, and you buy it under licence whereby you are not allowed to propogate it (not that that will stop me planting out the runners).

It is a cross breed of two existing non GM strawberries.

rhiwfield

Cootambear, I sincerely hope it isnt your children doing the lambasting, whyever would they do that?

CTC, cant remember the last time we bought new furniture, nearly all ours has come from ebay, only with the financial crisis second hand furniture has become more in demand.

If we had to cut down to avoid going back to work (and being told what to do which I hate!) then the first thing to go would be one of the cars, as having two is a luxury.

olly300

cootambear wrote: »

I coudnt find the post but I believe someone asked me what was my attitude to GM companies breeding to stop 2nd year germination?

First off, no one is forced to buy GM seeds. Why would they if local non GM strains are more productive?

I have you watched and read about the tactics tobacco companies and powder baby milk companies employ/employed in the developing world? If you had then you know saying selling seeds of GM strains to subsistence farmers in the developing world isn't as simple as it seems.

It's very easy to lie to and mislead those without even a primary school education.

cootambear wrote: »

Like it or not, GM comes under patent law, like novel drugs, music etc. GM food companies, like all companies in capitalist society, are driven to make profits for their shareholders. If they just made it public domain, there would be no profits.
Making money out of GM is no different to making profits out of any capitalist enterprise. If you want to overthrow capitalism I`ll be on the barricades with you because I believe its an outdated system.

Oddly I don't actually care too much if us in the West are ripped off with GM as we are quite capable of taking care of ourselves. Shown by farmers fields being attacked when GM crops are planted.

cootambear wrote: »

In my garden I have a strawberry called `mara de bois`. Its patented, and you buy it under licence whereby you are not allowed to propogate it (not that that will stop me planting out the runners).

It is a cross breed of two existing non GM strawberries.

The plant is still fertile and can produce babies i.e. runners. You can't propagate them at the moment but the license won't last for ever and in addition as you are a private individual who is likely to tell on you?

BTW I've had flowers with licenses which said I wasn't allowed to propagate them and sell them on. There was nothing stopping me from propagating them and giving them away.

cootambear

rhiwfield wrote: »

Cootambear, I sincerely hope it isnt your children doing the lambasting, whyever would they do that?

CTC, cant remember the last time we bought new furniture, nearly all ours has come from ebay, only with the financial crisis second hand furniture has become more in demand.

If we had to cut down to avoid going back to work (and being told what to do which I hate!) then the first thing to go would be one of the cars, as having two is a luxury.

sorry, its a cut n paste

In the US, environmental education in schools has, for more than a decade, been systematically providing children with authority over certain adults. The New York Times reports that ‘eco-kids’ devoted to green values ‘try to hold their parents accountable at home’, and notes that adults become defensive under the ‘watchful eye of the pint-sized eco-police’ (6). School districts across the US have sought to capitalise on the idealism of ‘eco-kids’ by integrating environmental values into almost every school subject.

The book How To Turn Your Parents Green by James Russell incites children to ‘nag, pester, bug, torment and punish people who are merrily wrecking our world’. Russell calls on children to ‘channel their pester power and issue fines against their parents and other transgressors’

In previous times, it was only totalitarian societies that mobilised children to police their parents’ behaviour. It was Orwellian, Big Brother-style states that tried to harness youngsters’ simplistic views of good and evil to reshape the outlook of adults. But who needs Big Brother when the former prime minister of Britain, Tony Blair, can openly assert that ‘on climate change, it is parents who should listen to their children’