An interesting and thought provoking conversation.

[Hillbilly]

I had an interesting discussion with a french family while away. Basically we were talking about being self sufficient (or 'ish) and they came up with some interesting points that I would be interested to hear your thoughts on.

If we were all to go SSF (or ish) - there would be no (or a lesser )requirement for us to buy from local farmers. Therefore we are damaging the local farmers livelihood more by growing this stuff ourselves. So on one hand we fly the flag for local farmers whilst simultaneously kicking them in the shins! Even if it is on a small scale..

Also by buying 'green' magazines we are contributing to pollution not easing it (printing process, paper etc)

Internet forums are a waste of electricity (literally). How can we purport to be 'green' when we are wasting electricity on a non essential activity. It may be that someone lives miles out of town with no regular contact and yes, its a good way of learning and keeping contact for those folk but it is still non essential.

I have to admit the second two I agreed with. The first one I'm not sure about but it does make a warped sort of sense..

What do you all think?

[Muddypause]

If we were all to go SS-ish, the farmers would be less dependent upon selling their stuff to us. Are they suggesting that they are not being damaged by a globalised economy of supermarkets which fly produce from half way around the world, where they can get it cheaper?

But, in fact, I reckon what would happen is that we'd form small communities, where the local farmer, and trades people would be at the core of it.

As for the magazines and internet - the trouble with these sorts of arguments, that home in on one particular aspect of what people do as an example of hypocrisy, is that we would all have to end up doing nothing in order to avoid it. As soon as we move, or communicate, or learn, or make something, we have to be doing something that is 'bad' for the environment - we can't avoid it if we are going to stay alive. Surely the key to it is sustainability. It's that 'global footprint' thing that Boots has got us all licked at.

[Chickpea]

I'm with MP. You can say that by not buying Chilean raspberries I am depriving a Chilean raspberry farmer of his livelihood, not to mention the poor airline pilot whose living depends on flying the raspberries all those airmiles. You can justify any behaviour in this way - I eat at McDonald's because they're the main employer of school leavers in my area and otherwise they'd all be unemployed, I drive a big car because most of the cost of fuel is tax anyway so I am supporting the NHS by buying lots of petrol, I have to wear GAP clothing because otherwise the sweatshop labourers wouldn't have any income and would starve.

If everyone in the whole world stopped buying GAP overnight, the sweatshop labourers would find it hard. But that's not going to happen so it's not something to worry about. And we're not all going to go SSish, certainly not overnight. Me and my allotment are not the major threat to local farmers, T***o (primarily) is, and I boycott them so I'm part of the solution, not the problem.

[Martin]

"damaging farmer's livelihoods" sounds very French! - this sort of deification of the farmer..........
As to magazines, I agree - they're a frightful expense, dreadfully polluting, and usually very canted (most are made viable by their advertising content - big advertisers tend to get their wishes editorially!)
So that leaves us with dear old aunty internet - if you look at it as a replacement for other means of communications, it is a very positive force - we can send emails instead of all the paper and transport of letters - many people can work from home, saving gobbets of power in travelling.......and loads of etceteras. Using a small laptop is not particularly energy hungry - somewhat less than a small lightbulb - and already tiny parts of the net are running on green power - if I wind generate a battery full of power, I don't reckon that's TOO bad a crime against humanity to expend it on a night's postings! - as Muddypause says, just by living, we're using! - we just all have to get together to consume less of virtually everything - to try to divorce ourselves from consumerism....... 8)

[Hillbilly]

Chickpea - don't think they meant that - think they were talking about local farmers - got the impression they were against 'foreign' imports.

MP and Martin - might be deification of the farmer yes ?

I think their point was that being SSF (or 'ish) in todays society is basically an ideal and that you have to mix hypocrisy and ideals with a dash of compromise and hope for the best - which isn't really a long term plan. I invited them onto the site to discuss their views (they weren't reactinonary at all, really nice lovely people who grow veg and keep chooks, animals etc cos they like doing it not because they had any particular aim) but of course, they don't 'do' internet :lol:

The last thing they said which I forgot in OP - and that I also partly agree with was that the planet is dying anyway. In a few million years we are all toast anyway - all we are doing by being 'green' is prolonging a natural death. He likened it to a person trying to eat organically, exercising and avoiding chemicals etc. You are still going to die one day no matter what you do.

I had to jump in and say that some of us are doing it out of a respect for the planet as a mother (trying to tread lightly - not really talking about SSF here because sometimes that does contradict being 'green' ) but it did get me thinking though.

[Martin]

conjures up picture of John Laurie "We're all doomed!" - well, perhaps we are - on a personal level we all are, as for mankind as well, perhaps it is actually better to travel hopefully than to arrive!

[Hillbilly]

conjures of picture of John Laurie "We're all doomed!"

I like the last bit too - travel hopefully...thats a good way of putting it.

[Andy Hamilton]

As far as the internet goes, well I can speak for this site anyway. We do plan to look at our stats work out how much carbon will have been produced by each user and the time our sever has been on and the time spent producing it. Then offset this by planting a bunch of trees. We also have every intention of getting our own server eventually and our own turbine and making the site at least this end as green as possible. - I am not sure if I totally agree with planting trees to offset carbon as is it not like giving a smoker a smoothy full of good stuff to offset the last fag? Does some good but you can't escape the fact that the damage is done.

On this same point we talk a lot on ways to reuse this, use less of this and that in short how to be greener so for every pan that boils dry whilst tapping away on here is there not a solar oven being built? We get 1000's of people looking at this site every single day- so I am sure that we must make up for some of the energy wasted by coming here.

The ssish aspect and famers - what selfsufficientish has become as a term is not so much being totally self sufficient, but relying very little on multinationals and more so on what is around you. If everyone suddenly became ssish overnight then I do not think the farmer would loose out quite the opposite. Certainly people would offer a fair price for fair food, rather than the crap wrapped in plastic and sold in T***o or wherever.

Also by offering our friends food that we have grown ourselves organically then we might be introducing them to new tastes. Often my mates can't be arsed to grow but will go to the farmers market instead. The more people who grow their own the more that people will find out that food does not have to be tastless crap. So for the people who will never be gardeners there is the farmers market. - in short it must ultimetely be good news for the farmer.

[Chickpea]

I got the bit about local farmers. Sorry I seemed to digress a bit, but my point was it's no good saying:

You can't do (x) because it'll hurt (y)

for example:

You can't (grow your own food) because it'll hurt (local farmers)

The reason why this sensible-sounding argument is in fact nonsensical is that you might as well say:

You can't (stop buying sweatshop goods) because it'll hurt (sweatshop labourers)

And in particular the argument:

If everyone did (x) it'd be (the end of civilisation as we know it)

for example:

If everyone (kept chickens) (all the chicken farmers would be out of a job)

Is not a good argument against keeping chickens, because everyone isn't going to start keeping chickens overnight.

Those two arguments are just a logical trick to justify carrying on just as you are right now and never changing anything. Anytime you hear those arguments, you can dismiss them out of hand.

[den_the_cat]

its even more nonesensical because not only will it not happen overnight but not everyone will ever want or be able to keep chickens [or insert subject under discussion here]. During the war everyone was as self sufficientish as possible and that didn't put too many farmers out of business!

A lot of farmers are looking at moving to 'ethical' business which will reduce their cropping and outlets, meaning they have to charge a higher price for the produce, but if we're saving money by growing our own luttuces or keeping a few chickens we'll be more inclined to pay extra for decent local milk or organic veg. I think that on balance the farmers who embrace the whole idea are going to end up making as good a living and we won't end up pouring thousands of gallons of subsidised milk own the drain every day.