Re. living organically, wouldn't it be more viable with rising oil prices for farmers to stop using fertilisers at some stage?
Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy
- Thread starter tomtom
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
I'd have to question whether it's possible for the UK to "live organically" with regard to food.... Population rapidly approaching 60 Million in an area somewhat less than 250,000 Sq. Miles total.
Not sure I understand how the two are linked... Or what would bring you to that conclusion
Not sure I understand how the two are linked... Or what would bring you to that conclusion
I can see your point Great Pebble, I still think that we won't ever get totally organic because the food wouldn't look 'right' to most people... thats why we've just got an allotment.
An interesting fact I came across the other day is every kiwi fruit you eat has released 7 times its weight in carbon dioxide and other contributing gas whilst in transit.
An interesting fact I came across the other day is every kiwi fruit you eat has released 7 times its weight in carbon dioxide and other contributing gas whilst in transit.
well if we are going to starve, without fertiliers or the ability to produce enough organic food, then surely famine would provide a natural population growth limit, or at least reduce lifespan? this area i am very hazy on.
Great Pebble, as i said i am hazy here, but i'm sure someone somewhere said that oil is needed to produce some/most/all fertilisers...?? i don't know.
Yeah,
But try telling people not to eat them... Or only to eat fruit in season.
This is why we're doomed to pollute and destroy.
We all want jam today, jam tomorrow, jam the next day and the assurance that there's going to be extra jam around for our offspring.
But try telling people not to eat them... Or only to eat fruit in season.
This is why we're doomed to pollute and destroy.
We all want jam today, jam tomorrow, jam the next day and the assurance that there's going to be extra jam around for our offspring.
no that's not what i meant, i was supposing we didn't have so much jam to eat when we want etc, because it may not be so available anyway.
Was responding to Lithril with the "jam" comment.
I'm not 100% sure what's in fertilizer myself but assuming it is petrochemicals... If the local farmers don't use the fertizer... The product will be imported which burns...????
I'm not 100% sure what's in fertilizer myself but assuming it is petrochemicals... If the local farmers don't use the fertizer... The product will be imported which burns...????
Lifthasir wrote:
Apparently, a Gallup poll found only 17% of of the Meteorological Society
and the American Geophysical Society believed that the warming which has
taken place during the 20thC has been as a result of 'greenhouse gas' emissions.
In other words 83% don't believe it! Yes, there are probably other
polls, differently worded questions etc.. but the consensus is anything but in
agreement.
You can find this poll result quoted widely across the internet - it refers to a 1991 Gallup poll. I have read that this poll actually indicates a clear majority of the surveyed scientists believe that human induced global warming is already occurring. The misleading 17% figure was first mentioned in a 1992 newspaper article by George Will, and then it appeared in a book by Rush Limbaugh. And since then it has been frequently quoted to support the argument against global warming. Rather like Bellamy's erroneous (and later retracted) statements on glaciers, these bits of 'evidence' keep getting repeated again and again, without anyone checking the original source
I attempted to source the original document but Gallup's online archives don't seem to go back that far.
To me, the global warming debate is a bit like the MMR 'debate'. The media like to present a 'balanced' view, so interview a pro MMR doctor and then an anti MMR doctor. The public then assume the profession is evenly divided over the matter. In reality, the overwhelming majority of doctors support the use of MMR, and a very vocal but small minority oppose it.
Apparently, a Gallup poll found only 17% of of the Meteorological Society
and the American Geophysical Society believed that the warming which has
taken place during the 20thC has been as a result of 'greenhouse gas' emissions.
In other words 83% don't believe it! Yes, there are probably other
polls, differently worded questions etc.. but the consensus is anything but in
agreement.
You can find this poll result quoted widely across the internet - it refers to a 1991 Gallup poll. I have read that this poll actually indicates a clear majority of the surveyed scientists believe that human induced global warming is already occurring. The misleading 17% figure was first mentioned in a 1992 newspaper article by George Will, and then it appeared in a book by Rush Limbaugh. And since then it has been frequently quoted to support the argument against global warming. Rather like Bellamy's erroneous (and later retracted) statements on glaciers, these bits of 'evidence' keep getting repeated again and again, without anyone checking the original source
I attempted to source the original document but Gallup's online archives don't seem to go back that far.
To me, the global warming debate is a bit like the MMR 'debate'. The media like to present a 'balanced' view, so interview a pro MMR doctor and then an anti MMR doctor. The public then assume the profession is evenly divided over the matter. In reality, the overwhelming majority of doctors support the use of MMR, and a very vocal but small minority oppose it.
I'm afraid it's impossible to give up fertilizers - there would be mass starvation.
There are stats on the web relating to yields with and without fertilizers and it's
pretty grim reading. Not only that but oil is essential for farming e.g. tractors,
combines etc..To go back to horse/ox drawn would require large amounts of
land to be used to grow food for the animals - thus reducing that devoted to
cereals. We are grossly over-populated to even consider beginning to start
thinking of making a start. One only has to look at Africa to understand what
misery over-population without oil based mechanised farming means.
The organic movement is a way of experimenting with a different approach.
Perhaps see how supply chains can be established and maintained.
There is little evidence to suggest that organic is more nutritional just because it's organic.
Much of the organic produce sold and consumed in the UK is 'flown'
in from around the world. Transportation and refridgeration decimate nutrients.
Locally produced and freshly picked produce (grown with chemicals) is on
balance more nutritious than imported organic. Locally produced and freshly
picked organic is however the best.
For those interested in depressing themselves with the food economy should
read 'Not On the Label' by Felicity Lawrence. OK, she has a bit of an angle but
it still makes you think.
I remember reading or watching some years ago that an old Saxon era crop of oats - though tiny and sparse in comparison with modern varieties - was 2 or
3 times more nutritious.
A well balanced diet isn't certain percentages of certain food types. It is a diet
that gives you all the nutrients and calories you need to be healthy. Hunger tells
you when to eat - appetite tells you what to eat. Eskimos live off a diet which is
more than half fat. Masai live off red meat and blood. Neither of these peoples
have any history of heart disease. Or they didn't until they started to mix their
traditional diets with processed foods!!
There are stats on the web relating to yields with and without fertilizers and it's
pretty grim reading. Not only that but oil is essential for farming e.g. tractors,
combines etc..To go back to horse/ox drawn would require large amounts of
land to be used to grow food for the animals - thus reducing that devoted to
cereals. We are grossly over-populated to even consider beginning to start
thinking of making a start. One only has to look at Africa to understand what
misery over-population without oil based mechanised farming means.
The organic movement is a way of experimenting with a different approach.
Perhaps see how supply chains can be established and maintained.
There is little evidence to suggest that organic is more nutritional just because it's organic.
Much of the organic produce sold and consumed in the UK is 'flown'
in from around the world. Transportation and refridgeration decimate nutrients.
Locally produced and freshly picked produce (grown with chemicals) is on
balance more nutritious than imported organic. Locally produced and freshly
picked organic is however the best.
For those interested in depressing themselves with the food economy should
read 'Not On the Label' by Felicity Lawrence. OK, she has a bit of an angle but
it still makes you think.
I remember reading or watching some years ago that an old Saxon era crop of oats - though tiny and sparse in comparison with modern varieties - was 2 or
3 times more nutritious.
A well balanced diet isn't certain percentages of certain food types. It is a diet
that gives you all the nutrients and calories you need to be healthy. Hunger tells
you when to eat - appetite tells you what to eat. Eskimos live off a diet which is
more than half fat. Masai live off red meat and blood. Neither of these peoples
have any history of heart disease. Or they didn't until they started to mix their
traditional diets with processed foods!!
Actually the facts surrounding MMR are not as clear as one would believe.
It is fact that MMR causes more problems than previous vaccinations. However,
the extra problems still account for a tiny percentage.
It comes down to (again) how stats are produced and manipulated.
If, for example, 10 babies per year develop serious complications with old
vaccines and MMR increased that number to 100 per year...the overall increase
is ten-fold...but compared to the overall number of babies vaccinated it still represents a 0.0xx% (tiny tiny percentage).
Also, many doctors who do believe that MMR is a step backwards balance this
with the potential epidemics if no babies are vaccinated and thus come out 'on
balance' in favour of MMR. This doesn't mean to say that MMR is as safe or
safer than previous vaccination methods. It means the risks remain tiny and
are much more preferrable than outbreaks of measles. However, to the (e.g.)
90 extra sets of parents whose children are affected, it is no consolation.
It is fact that MMR causes more problems than previous vaccinations. However,
the extra problems still account for a tiny percentage.
It comes down to (again) how stats are produced and manipulated.
If, for example, 10 babies per year develop serious complications with old
vaccines and MMR increased that number to 100 per year...the overall increase
is ten-fold...but compared to the overall number of babies vaccinated it still represents a 0.0xx% (tiny tiny percentage).
Also, many doctors who do believe that MMR is a step backwards balance this
with the potential epidemics if no babies are vaccinated and thus come out 'on
balance' in favour of MMR. This doesn't mean to say that MMR is as safe or
safer than previous vaccination methods. It means the risks remain tiny and
are much more preferrable than outbreaks of measles. However, to the (e.g.)
90 extra sets of parents whose children are affected, it is no consolation.
You have pointed out the difference between absolute risk and relative risk. This is a very important concept that is not well understood by the man in the street.
Don't want to drift the thread off into MMR though!
Don't want to drift the thread off into MMR though!
Only used MMR as it had been given as an example...not the place to discuss
it further.
It is an important concept and applies to Global Warming as well as MMR.
I saw on the telly tonight that British scientist have announced a 11.8m rise
in sea levels by 3000AD along with associated 'climate change' yarn yarn.
Weather men can't predict next year's weather let alone the weather in a
1000 years. What they do is project a model with predetermined variables and extrapolate a result based on the what ifs and buts. They come up with - if such
and such happens and such and such doesn't happen, then the result will be
thus (if we ignore the billion and one other variable that we are deliberately
ignoring so it doesn't alter the outcome we wish to arrive at).
It's the glass half empty half full.
More worrying is what to do if the magnetic field changes, as has happened in
the past. What to do if the sun goes through a 10,000 year cycle of massively
increased sun spot activity. 10,000 years for the sun is like 5 minutes in today's money. Or the sun spot is massively decreased for 500 years - be gald of a bit of
global warming then - in fact our goverments will be falling over themselves
to burn as much coal as possible!!
it further.
It is an important concept and applies to Global Warming as well as MMR.
I saw on the telly tonight that British scientist have announced a 11.8m rise
in sea levels by 3000AD along with associated 'climate change' yarn yarn.
Weather men can't predict next year's weather let alone the weather in a
1000 years. What they do is project a model with predetermined variables and extrapolate a result based on the what ifs and buts. They come up with - if such
and such happens and such and such doesn't happen, then the result will be
thus (if we ignore the billion and one other variable that we are deliberately
ignoring so it doesn't alter the outcome we wish to arrive at).
It's the glass half empty half full.
More worrying is what to do if the magnetic field changes, as has happened in
the past. What to do if the sun goes through a 10,000 year cycle of massively
increased sun spot activity. 10,000 years for the sun is like 5 minutes in today's money. Or the sun spot is massively decreased for 500 years - be gald of a bit of
global warming then - in fact our goverments will be falling over themselves
to burn as much coal as possible!!
Lifthasir said:
THIS, is a very good point, it is much more important to buy local than buy organic.
Lifthasir said:
I think I saw an episode of time team ages ago, or some such program, which found this crop (or one like it) in northern Scotland the Outer Hebrides maybe? Could be worth growing then.
Doc said:
This is what I was referring to earlier in the thread, these arguments circulate the media until someone with the patience makes the effort to swat them down, but they persist on the whole.
Doc said:
This is an interesting comment, it is something I have heard before, it is a way for the media to keep a story going, when they could quite easily represent the arguments proportionally and have done with it, but that would just be biased wouldnt it?
Lifthasir said:
But do you accept that if we were forced to give them up that would impose a natural growth limit on the population? And if fertilizers are not made from petrochemicals then might not the same go for tractor fuel anyway? Just a thought.
If you ever come across wild carrot or parsnip on your travels (as opposed to the domesticated variety which have 'hopped' the hedge) you should get an idea of what Saxon crops were like.
If we gave up fertilizers, there would be MASS starvation - starting with Africa and
other 3rd world countries. 'Organic' fertilizers simply won't do the trick. It's not
just the fertilizers - it's the weed killers and bug/parasite/fungal killers as well.
Mass starvation may (to some) not seem that bad. However, it would be.
There would be the have's and the have not's. Law and order would break down
and society would breakdown if it were allowed to happen. Once anarchy takes
hold, the only guarantee is unpredictablity.
I mentioned before that I looked into short crop rotation coppicing(willow). The
'chemical' side of things frightened me. The so called 'bio' fuels require tons
of chemicals to keep the weeds down for there to be any profit - and they
require oil based tractors for harvesting. Even if 'bio' fuel were to be used by
tractors, it means more crop to be set aside for the harvesting machines.
No, I'm afraid the 'Global Warming' con appears to be our best hope. It may be
a complete load of rubbish but, as I said before, if it gets individuals,
businesses etc. to behave more environmentally conscious -it is a good thing.
Doesn't mean it's Just like if you're naughty - Father Christmas
won't come!!!
Wind turbines are nothing more than giant 'symbols' of mankind's battle
with a cause. If we can see these giant symbols everyday, it reminds us to keep thinking about the enviroment. Didn't Chruchill collect scrap metal
during the war, not because it was needed or could be used, but to give the
whole British nation something to do to contribute - unite them in a common
cause. We live in a marketing world - wind turbines are the new icon. The 21st
Century cathedrals to awe us into believing.
If we carry on the way we are, the oil will be gone in no time - then we'll be in for
it.
other 3rd world countries. 'Organic' fertilizers simply won't do the trick. It's not
just the fertilizers - it's the weed killers and bug/parasite/fungal killers as well.
Mass starvation may (to some) not seem that bad. However, it would be.
There would be the have's and the have not's. Law and order would break down
and society would breakdown if it were allowed to happen. Once anarchy takes
hold, the only guarantee is unpredictablity.
I mentioned before that I looked into short crop rotation coppicing(willow). The
'chemical' side of things frightened me. The so called 'bio' fuels require tons
of chemicals to keep the weeds down for there to be any profit - and they
require oil based tractors for harvesting. Even if 'bio' fuel were to be used by
tractors, it means more crop to be set aside for the harvesting machines.
No, I'm afraid the 'Global Warming' con appears to be our best hope. It may be
a complete load of rubbish but, as I said before, if it gets individuals,
businesses etc. to behave more environmentally conscious -it is a good thing.
Doesn't mean it's Just like if you're naughty - Father Christmas
won't come!!!
Wind turbines are nothing more than giant 'symbols' of mankind's battle
with a cause. If we can see these giant symbols everyday, it reminds us to keep thinking about the enviroment. Didn't Chruchill collect scrap metal
during the war, not because it was needed or could be used, but to give the
whole British nation something to do to contribute - unite them in a common
cause. We live in a marketing world - wind turbines are the new icon. The 21st
Century cathedrals to awe us into believing.
If we carry on the way we are, the oil will be gone in no time - then we'll be in for
it.
I mentioned the idea because there would be time for a steady transition, if it were to rely on rising oil prices, so i am not so sure anarchy would break out so rapidly as you infer.
Lifthasir said:
That simply isn't true. Organic fertilisers are as effective as non-organic fertilisers. Use of pesticides creates the need for pesticides by killing off the 'good bugs'. Generally, 'fungal killers' are used because they provide a means for plants to be grown in unsuitable conditions; good managment deals with them.
I think it's time I bowed out of this thread gracefully while I still can.
Pappa
- Status
Similar threads
