if we all stayed dotted about

[safronsue]

i think some do just like being in a crowd. people of my adopted country will usually go about in a group and converge on a group if having to choose a new spot. really they do, and i don't understand it. sitting on a beach, big open sandy place, no one in view to little me on my towel, enter family who sit down practically on my towel so they can see what i'm reading. silly example i know, but generally some peoples just like to be close to their own. i don't, but there again, i'm not after a dessert island.

the reason i was pondering this dotted about thing was from reading about compost and humanure and the waste that is caused by dense populations. how far do i want to go with this i do not yet know???! city living, far away from land, would not be an option for me is all i know.

oohhh boboff, that's far too much. argumentative? no, but prone to ponder, yes. that's good surely! give me the fields any day!! ps don't get mad, these are the ponderings of someone with too much green around her for sense!

[oldfella]

To each his own, I have my own preference and live the life I want. How you live your life, is your decision. However, what ever decision you make has an impact on others. The important thing for me is that my life- style, is not to be at the expense of nature, or to the detriment of others.

[dustydave]

I live right in the centre of a busy town and also have a small holding that is a 10 minute drive away in the middle of nowhere.

I enjoy both.

The town offers easy living and a freedom through anonymity but lacks a physical space. The small holding gives me the freedom of space, but if I spend too long there then I start to feel trapped by the commitment that the land demands, and the countryside-politics that the neighbouring landowners seem to thrive on.

[boboff]

Yes Dave that Trapped by the commitment thing is very real!

[gregorach]

I object - vehememently - though to the assertion by Duncan that human beings are a social species and the contextual implication that not wanting to live in a tiny amount of space makes one in some way "sub human".

That's an utterly absurd interpretation of what I've said. I now remember exactly why I got sick of arguing with you over on BCUK.

Is what you are saying that most people would be happier, healthier, and more fulfilled by living in a block of flats and working in an office or factory than living in the country, with a few acres, gadening and raising their own food?

No, what I'm saying is that such an ideal is simply impractical. There isn't the space, and most of us simply couldn't afford it even if there was. Where are we all supposed to find work in the country? I see you commute - how long do you think that's going to be a viable option once peak oil really starts to bite? What would be the ecological impact if everybody in the entire country was commuting by private car? Does that somehow not count in your calculations? I get to work by bus (although I could cycle if there was less traffic) and I walk to my allotment. I have never owned a car. Frankly, I'm not really interested in arguing sustainability with someone whose lifestyle is entirely dependent on a private motor vehicle.

[trinder]

WELL I DISAGREE WITH SAFFRON SUE
( I only put that in capital letters cos Dunc said it's like shouting)

oohhh boboff, that's far too much. argumentative?

We all need to be reminded when we have been (unintentionally too direct or personal) all I can say is I have deleted at least twice as many words as I have ever written on this forum, cos just like a proper bird a couple of gins and I get Feisty. So as our mods would say "play nice"
and we'd reply buggar off we are enjoying it.
p.s Rd squirrel what is your chosen poison Mike is the man if you need to check the actual alcohol content of anything .xx

[gregorach]

I'm intrigued by the notion of cities that can "produce significant proportions of their own resources" (even though that means that they are all net importers). Can you give me an example of a city that produces - shall we say 75%? - of its food, water and fuel from within its city limits?

Precise numbers for individual cities are more-or-less impossible to come by (largely because it mainly happens in places with very poor statistics generally, and is mostly within the informal economy), but I have seen estimates that urban food production currently accounts for between 15 and 20% of total global food production.

[safronsue]

i seem to have started 2 flaming threads and i really had no intention of doing that. honest. discussion is good but lets be friends. dustydave, you are very lucky to have the best of both worlds

[British Red]

No, what I'm saying is that such an ideal is simply impractical. There isn't the space, and most of us simply couldn't afford it even if there was. Where are we all supposed to find work in the country? I see you commute - how long do you think that's going to be a viable option once peak oil really starts to bite? What would be the ecological impact if everybody in the entire country was commuting by private car? Does that somehow not count in your calculations? I get to work by bus (although I could cycle if there was less traffic) and I walk to my allotment. I have never owned a car. Frankly, I'm not really interested in arguing sustainability with someone whose lifestyle is entirely dependent on a private motor vehicle.

As I said, I commute for long periods (staying in a hotel for days or weeks at a time) This I do in the Winter when there is less to do on our place. I choose to do this as it in fact means I use the car far less than someone who lives fifteen or twenty miles from work and commutes each day. I also only do this for a small period each year. It means my annual mileages is under 7,000 miles - far lower than average. Living rurally, a private vehicle is virtually essential - there is no public transport near where I live. I don't see that as less sustainable than using public transport. Its worth looking at the average pollution figures per person, per mile of bus transport - its not very good - particularly in rural areas. I suspect my CO2 pollutiom is far lower than people who need all their food and water and waste transporting to them.

As for my lifestyle being "entirely dependent" on a private motor vehicle (the sort of people you will not argue sustainability with), it isn't. I could choose not to work. Would it make me greener not to work? We own our place outright. Of course I would then not contribute to the Health service or all the other things our taxes pay for - but I find that morally objectionable Since though you don'y argue sustainability with anyone who depends on private motor vehicles, I suspect you won't discuss such matters with any farmers, small holders, or most rural dwellers since almost without exception they have private vehicles.

As for can more people live like this - yes. they could. Can everyone? As you say, we are over populated - but that is surely an argument for controlling population in this over crowded country rather than not dispersing the population.

[MKG]

Red, living in an issolated community makes you argumentative and prone to ponder points simply to get mental stimulation.

Says the bloke from Gunnislake, cut off from the world by deep and dark woods

Sorry, boboff - it was too good a target to miss

Mike

[gregorach]

I could choose not to work. Would it make me greener not to work? We own our place outright.

Well, I'm sure that's absolutely marvellous for you, but it doesn't apply to the vast majority of the rest of us who aren't fortunate enough to be so wealthy. I have to work whether I like it or not, because I can't even afford to buy my tiny flat outright, never mind a spread in the country big enough to be self-sufficient on. Nor are many of us in the incredibly luxurious position of being able to choose the work pattern you have... And I'm kind of suspecting that you didn't get into this wonderful position of wealth and luxury through low-carbon means - have you just written off the impact of whatever your previous lifestyle was, that enabled you to buy your way into your current position?

Oh, and you stay in hotels for weeks at a time, whilst also maintaining a house? Do you have any idea of what the carbon footprint of that is, or is that another item you're conveniently leaving out of your calculations? Hotels are very energy intensive, typically falling into bands F to G on the standard non-domestic building emissions benchmarks, with emissions of between 160 and 200 kg C02 / m2 / year. (For comparison, the typical benchmark for suburban medium-density housing is 30.5 kg CO2 / m2 / year, and for town centre flats it's 28.9 kg CO2 / m2 / year.) So your commuting pattern may well be a good deal less environmentally friendly than you think...

[MKG]

But seriously ...

Safronsue's original point is ideologically nice (at least to my own mindset) but is simply not a possibility - not unless we reduce our population drastically. There simply isn't enough useable land to go around in a world in which survival depends less upon the amount of food we produce ourselves and more upon building technologies which help fewer people to do that for us.

Urbanisation, by the way, is a lot older than some of you think. Certainly in England, it began with the concept of burhs (fortified and centralised settlements) which is, reputedly, down to Alfred the Great.

But my main point ... this is selfsufficientish.com, and the infamous twins, I know, did not have a retreat to the wild woodlands in their minds when they created the forum. I paraphrase ... they liked the idea of growing their own food, foraging for stuff, but they also liked the availability of the pub, the shops and the cinema (to name but a few). This entire site is built upon the premise of urbanisation.

Right - that's my six-penn'orth.

Mike

[gregorach]

Urbanisation, by the way, is a lot older than some of you think. Certainly in England, it began with the concept of burhs (fortified and centralised settlements) which is, reputedly, down to Alfred the Great.

I'd argue that it's a lot older than that - many of those Late Bronze / Iron Age "hill forts" were quite dense settlements.

[MKG]

Can't argue with that, Dunc. My point was that humans appear to have spent thousands of years "getting together" for one or more of hundreds of reasons, which indicates to me that this "centralisation", "hugging together", "many hands make light work", "it's f***ing lonely and cold out here" idea is somewhat central to the human psyche. What you've been saying, in fact.

Of course humans are social animals - it really goes without saying. I suspect that even if there was enough land to go around to enable people to live apart, they'd still clump. How the hell could you have evenings of music and ale and a big, roaring fire without clumping? And, before anyone argues with that, it's always happened, even before the great industrial Clumping with a capital C. It's part of being human.

It's the part I like, anyway.

Mike

[British Red]

I could choose not to work. Would it make me greener not to work? We own our place outright.

Well, I'm sure that's absolutely marvellous for you, but it doesn't apply to the vast majority of the rest of us who aren't fortunate enough to be so wealthy. I have to work whether I like it or not, because I can't even afford to buy my tiny flat outright, never mind a spread in the country big enough to be self-sufficient on. Nor are many of us in the incredibly luxurious position of being able to choose the work pattern you have... And I'm kind of suspecting that you didn't get into this wonderful position of wealth and luxury through low-carbon means - have you just written off the impact of whatever your previous lifestyle was, that enabled you to buy your way into your current position?

Wealth and luxury? I couldn't afford to live in a city or buy a place outright either! By choosing not to live in a city and moving to a rural area in a county with very low property prices, I can. The same as many people move to Europe, or other areas where population density is lower.

There is nothing "luxurious" about my work pattern - I worked for it and earned it. I have no degree or A-levels. I was homeless at 17. My qualifications are professional ones that I studied for in my own time and paid for myself. My "luxurious work pattern" that you describe has meant moving around the country for over thirty years, renting places, saving every penny, taking no holidays so that I could work more hours, staying away from my family for months at a time. Low carbon? I work in offices - so roughly the same as every other home renting office worker I suspect. I don't "write that off" but I don't think its anything to feel guilty about either.

Nor are many of us in the incredibly luxurious position of being able to choose the work pattern you have...

Actually most people are. I have no silver spoon - everything I have I have saved up for, made do, or built myself. I chose to buy a wreck in the cheapest county in England and work 16 hours a day to do it up. There are properties still here with patches of land that get auctioned off for a few tens of thousands. Sure they are wrecks - so was ours. There are plenty of other countries that offer this too. Sure people have to save for a few decades, compromise, move around, sacrifice a lot - but homesteaders have been doing that for generations - why are we any different?