The good life tv comedy programme could this be done today

cootambear

ceridwen wrote: »

Errr.....actually - i do have to interject there and point out that we will be going back to organic farming soon (whether we like it or not - and I gather it WILL produce as much food as chemically-grown food) - but many of the new jobs it is necessary for our Society to come up with will be "back on the land". The thing is to see if we can work out ways to go back to a much more labour-intensive type of farming than we have had in recent years - with what we can "hang on to" of adapting methods because "traditional style" farm work IS hard physical labour out in all weathers.

I am still trying to "square that circle" in my own mind of knowing that a lot of people will HAVE to go back to that hard physical labour because that is what their own economic necessity/Britain's need for food will dictate - whilst being aware that I will be retired from work myself - and wondering as to what ways I should be voluntarily helping to ease that particular transition.

Hence - all the learning to cook from scratch (and I do mean "scratch"....) and how to preserve foods that I am currently doing...as I see that as being one role that older people can fulfil - to ensure we are contributing (should we either choose to do so - [as in my case]- or need to do so from our own POV) to help "back up" the younger people working out on the fields.

EDIT: I'm hoping that anyone with stray bits of Council-owned land - eg road verges - is now "eyeing them up" ready for when Councils stop spending money maintaining them - and will be using them for growing food for the local community. Having read recently that Councils are likely to be looking to abandon care of bits of land like grass verges in order to save money - and the threat that they might try to concrete them over as a way to save on maintenance costs for them without the area "looking like a tip". Would hate to see land that is currently in the form of all those little bits of grass just being concreted over - so a mini-opportunity in the making for some people to do that community foodgrowing there...(some of those strips of land are small enough that even a reasonably fit older person could manage to cultivate them....and I think could be turned over into mini permaculture-style Forest Gardens..so wouldnt take that much "labour" after the initial set-up work)

Why will we have to? Will this be part of the continual micromanagement of our lives by the elite as per, smoking, drinking, `junk food` etc etc?
Organic food will only produce 50% of current yields. Think about it. If it produced the same, wouldnt all farmers grow it as they could then slap a premium `organic` sticker on it with a price to match?

ceridwen

cootambear wrote: »

I`ve heard this throw away comment used many times, but just why isnt our way of life sustainable? see this article for the folly of the myth of limits. (add www to the front) .spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7723/

Lets look why you have had to work so hard to pay off your mortgage.

1. House prices are effected by supply and demand. Since councils had to flog off their housing stock under thatchers dictat, the stock of social houses has collapsed, and few are being built, pressuring prices on the lower end of the market.
2. Wishing to improve their lives from renting decrepit slums, at the turn of the last century working people began to club together to form friendly societies to build their own houses. They are now known as building societies. Alarmed at the prospect of these sweaty dirtyhanded labourers becoming their neighbours, the ruling class enacted a number of `Green Belt` laws designed to keep them in their place. House building and therefore the readly supply side of the equation are diminished.

The above is over simplified of course, as there are many other contributors to the ridiculosely large price we have to pay for of houses - notably credit tightening and laxaty.

But serious commentators agree that there are simply far too few houses.

So, lets relax building restrictions in the `Green Belt`. Let more enjoy a bit of fresh air. And what else would benefit? Flora and Fauna.

Farmers do not grow 20 different crops on their farms giving space for wildlife, they grow 1. Birds and insects to them are pests. Despite only 15% of the land being urban, our gardens are home to 50% of our wildlife. So we can have a better life, reduced mortgages, more diverse flora and fauna, who could argue with that?

Hmm lets see, the tories, labour, the libs, the greens etc.

The one point I might agree with there - is there could possibly have been an effect on houseprices at the lower end of the housing market because of the increased sale of social housing. Maybe....dont know...possibly.

As I understand the purpose of the Green Belt - its to prevent urban sprawl and stop developers grasping for all the land they can get their hands on to develop. Not some sort of "class war" scenario....

As I understand the amount of housing stock in Britain - there is rather a lot of housing (and buildings that could be converted to housing) sitting there empty. Thats without getting into any "should we/shouldnt we allow second homes?" discussion.

As for other species benefitting from even more of our precious green land being built on - because each house will have its minute patch of garden. Errr....have you been round counting recently just how many homeowners have been concreting over their front gardens for what they deem to be their second most precious possession - ie providing parking space for their car?:eek:

....goes off reminding self to flag up the next suitable thing I see pointing out just what Britain's population SHOULD be. From memory - I believe the highest estimate of that figure is around 30 million...

ceridwen

cootambear wrote: »

Why will we have to? Will this be part of the continual micromanagement of our lives by the elite as per, smoking, drinking, `junk food` etc etc?
Organic food will only produce 50% of current yields. Think about it. If it produced the same, wouldnt all farmers grow it as they could then slap a premium `organic` sticker on it with a price to match?

Well...first off...there is the small matter of the transition period over to organic farming....I think its three years? before the farmer could get official "organic" status. As organic food DOES produce at least as much as chemically-grown food and helps to maintain the fertility of the soil (so that it can keep on producing in subsequent years) - I would be interested to see links to authoritative websites that "prove" otherwise:)

Soubrette

ceridwen wrote: »

Well...first off...there is the small matter of the transition period over to organic farming....I think its three years? before the farmer could get official "organic" status. As organic food DOES produce at least as much as chemically-grown food and helps to maintain the fertility of the soil (so that it can keep on producing in subsequent years) - I would be interested to see links to authoritative websites that "prove" otherwise:)

You haven't really addressed the logical problem that you are presenting though - organic food is more expensive to buy therefore there should be a premium to the grower. If a farmer can produce the same amount organically or non organically then they might as well go organic (even if they don't get the premium in the three years transition then they still wouldn't be losing out).

Unless it is more expensive to produce organic crops?

Sou

cootambear

ceridwen wrote: »

Well...first off...there is the small matter of the transition period over to organic farming....I think its three years? before the farmer could get official "organic" status. As organic food DOES produce at least as much as chemically-grown food and helps to maintain the fertility of the soil (so that it can keep on producing in subsequent years) - I would be interested to see links to authoritative websites that "prove" otherwise:)

Grants are readily available...........

ixwood

Organic does produce less. There was an organic farmer on Country File and he said he produces half the amount, but the price he gets is double and he doesn't have to spend loads on chemicals.

ixwood

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1272838/Organic-farms-produce-HALF-food-conventional-ones.html

If organic produced as much for less, why wouldn't everyone do it?

ixwood

ceridwen wrote: »

Errr.....actually - i do have to interject there and point out that we will be going back to organic farming soon (whether we like it or not - and I gather it WILL produce as much food as chemically-grown food) - but many of the new jobs it is necessary for our Society to come up with will be "back on the land". The thing is to see if we can work out ways to go back to a much more labour-intensive type of farming than we have had in recent years - with what we can "hang on to" of adapting methods because "traditional style" farm work IS hard physical labour out in all weathers.

I am still trying to "square that circle" in my own mind of knowing that a lot of people will HAVE to go back to that hard physical labour because that is what their own economic necessity/Britain's need for food will dictate - whilst being aware that I will be retired from work myself - and wondering as to what ways I should be voluntarily helping to ease that particular transition.

Hence - all the learning to cook from scratch (and I do mean "scratch"....) and how to preserve foods that I am currently doing...as I see that as being one role that older people can fulfil - to ensure we are contributing (should we either choose to do so - [as in my case]- or need to do so from our own POV) to help "back up" the younger people working out on the fields.

In the sort of oil based society breakdown that you envisage, do you really think you'll be able to sit quietly at home and collect your pension every month? If the government's still around, it won't have any money, and if it does it'll be worthless.

You'll be out in the fields working the land too. Unless you've got a hefty stash of gold sovereigns buried somewhere.

zarazara

This is why I am enlarging my veg patch. Yes its hard physical work and in all weathers, but I enjoy it a lot. And i'm going to grow more fruit too. Just wish I could grow melons,tomatoes and opineapples outdoors too.

cootambear

ceridwen wrote: »

The one point I might agree with there - is there could possibly have been an effect on houseprices at the lower end of the housing market because of the increased sale of social housing. Maybe....dont know...possibly.

As I understand the purpose of the Green Belt - its to prevent urban sprawl and stop developers grasping for all the land they can get their hands on to develop. Not some sort of "class war" scenario....

Conservative Party housing minister Duncan Sandys set up the Green Belts in 1955, to check the growth of large built-up areas, prevent neighbouring settlements from merging into one another, and preserve the special character of historic towns. In brief, the principles of the Green Belt are to keep the masses living inside or well away from the typical English city, not on its edges, where they might do mischief. That’s why the new Green Paper says there will be ‘no fundamental changes’ to the Belts.

Full article here (((www))).spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/3711/

As I understand the amount of housing stock in Britain - there is rather a lot of housing (and buildings that could be converted to housing) sitting there empty. Thats without getting into any "should we/shouldnt we allow second homes?" discussion.

There are many houses, but not enough of the type of houses people need. For example, due to planning restrictions, the number of houses built during the recent `housing boom` (actually a rise in paper assets) fell. Two bed houses suitable for families were not built, instead there was a surge in buy to let flats suitable for single students. Moreover, the few areas where it might be descibed as being `enough` houses are in areas that are short of work (that is indeed why their is `enough` there, because people have moved for work). Short of convincing those people to stay and turn their houses into small holdings like tom and barbara, the answer is to build more houses in the areas people want to work.

As for other species benefitting from even more of our precious green land being built on - because each house will have its minute patch of garden. Errr....have you been round counting recently just how many homeowners have been concreting over their front gardens for what they deem to be their second most precious possession - ie providing parking space for their car?:eek:

Yes, but I`ve also noticed a boom in gardening which benefits these species. And even if new houses were all driveway, I think they would have a back garden.

....goes off reminding self to flag up the next suitable thing I see pointing out just what Britain's population SHOULD be. From memory - I believe the highest estimate of that figure is around 30 million...

Who set this limit on population? Sorry I cant provide a reference, but I believe 1 commentator in 1,000 ad said that the world would collapse if population reached 5 million globally. Anyway, we have gone past 30 million to over 65 million, and the sky hasnt fallen in.