Comments on: Can Britain Feed Itself? http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/ An Evolving Exploration into the Head, Heart and Hands of Energy Descent Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:24:53 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Bob http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-61304 Bob Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:03:19 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-61304 Tbh Britain has plenty of pizzas and burgers Tbh Britain has plenty of pizzas and burgers

]]> By: corneilius http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-59654 corneilius Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:27:16 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-59654 <p>The fundamental is thus : we are of nature, and looking at nature we can see that nature provides all living entities with what is required for each to grow, to thrive and to flower.</p> <p>In the process of that thriving, all provide resources to be shared. Many are eaten, but not all are. Hunters never hunt beyond their direct and natural needs. The 'waste' or excess is always returned to be recycled down to the billionth part, to the molecular level.</p> <p>we human beings, and in particular, we 'civilised' human beings must redesign our processes to mimic that basic fundamental. It can be done, and so it must. William NcDonough is one architect who is espousing this approach effectively. He calls it cradle to cradle.</p> <p>And this must be done not just for survival, yet for natural justice and for expressing a true appreciation of the great gift of life.</p> <p>This is not something the elites, be they political, economic or religious will accept, for it means the end of their power OVER others, a power they are addicited to, psychologically.</p> <p>This is something we have to build up from grass roots so that those who exercise power over others have no-one and no creatures to exercise that power over....</p> The fundamental is thus : we are of nature, and looking at nature we can see that nature provides all living entities with what is required for each to grow, to thrive and to flower.

In the process of that thriving, all provide resources to be shared. Many are eaten, but not all are. Hunters never hunt beyond their direct and natural needs. The ‘waste’ or excess is always returned to be recycled down to the billionth part, to the molecular level.

we human beings, and in particular, we ‘civilised’ human beings must redesign our processes to mimic that basic fundamental. It can be done, and so it must. William NcDonough is one architect who is espousing this approach effectively. He calls it cradle to cradle.

And this must be done not just for survival, yet for natural justice and for expressing a true appreciation of the great gift of life.

This is not something the elites, be they political, economic or religious will accept, for it means the end of their power OVER others, a power they are addicited to, psychologically.

This is something we have to build up from grass roots so that those who exercise power over others have no-one and no creatures to exercise that power over….

]]> By: Chris Marsh http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-59646 Chris Marsh Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:17:31 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-59646 <p>I hadn’t met before “one hectare of arable and one hectare of pasture feeds 10 people”, but doesn't everyone know about the Elizabethan Poor Law ruling that every cottager family with no land of their own should be provided with three acres? (Googling got the hit below.) If a family is 4-6 people that's about 2 to the acre, and the other rule-of-thumb gives the same, thus supporting the idea that, given creative permie methods for producing food on traditionally unsuitable terrain, we certainly should be able to feed Britain's population on our one acre each, and leave room for wild nature.</p> <p>http://www.localhistorylink.com/books.html THREE ACRES AND A COW is about the life and works of one of the greatest rural philosophers of the nineteenth century. He was a true successor to William Cobbett, being the seventh son of an agricultural labourer born into poverty in the village of Ewhurst on the Surrey/Sussex border. Self educated, he wrote to all the leading politicians of the day such as Bright, Gladstone and Chamberlain about his radical ideas for land redistribution. He felt that if every family had 'three acres and a cow' then poverty would be eradicated.</p> I hadn’t met before “one hectare of arable and one hectare of pasture feeds 10 people”, but doesn’t everyone know about the Elizabethan Poor Law ruling that every cottager family with no land of their own should be provided with three acres? (Googling got the hit below.) If a family is 4-6 people that’s about 2 to the acre, and the other rule-of-thumb gives the same, thus supporting the idea that, given creative permie methods for producing food on traditionally unsuitable terrain, we certainly should be able to feed Britain’s population on our one acre each, and leave room for wild nature.

http://www.localhistorylink.com/books.html
THREE ACRES AND A COW is about the life and works of one of the greatest rural philosophers of the nineteenth century. He was a true successor to William Cobbett, being the seventh son of an agricultural labourer born into poverty in the village of Ewhurst on the Surrey/Sussex border.
Self educated, he wrote to all the leading politicians of the day such as Bright, Gladstone and Chamberlain about his radical ideas for land redistribution. He felt that if every family had ‘three acres and a cow’ then poverty would be eradicated.

]]> By: Trimnut2 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-59627 Trimnut2 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:45:32 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-59627 <p>A concern: If one examines European farm production up to the beginning of the 1900's is there any evidence for the assertion that "one hectare of arable and one hectare of pasture feeds 10 people"? I can find no evidence to support that view. Or putting the question in another way: without factoring in a factor for the production component produced from crude oil aren't these considerations relatively meaningless. I have reservations about the methodology used in this report.</p> A concern:
If one examines European farm production up to the beginning of the 1900’s is there any evidence for the assertion that “one hectare of arable and one hectare of pasture feeds 10 people”? I can find no evidence to support that view. Or putting the question in another way: without factoring in a factor for the production component produced from crude oil aren’t these considerations relatively meaningless.
I have reservations about the methodology used in this report.

]]> By: Chris Marsh http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-56171 Chris Marsh Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:45:26 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-56171 <p>Simon’s article is useful theory, and thought provoking, but theory is often a long way from practice. I came across Mellanby’s book recently when embarking on an overdue indexing of my library. Next to it was Andrew O’Hagan’s The End of British Farming (London: Profile, 2001), describing the author’s travels around Britain to witness ‘the death of farming’. Put that with solutions being put forward by food technologists, such as cloned cows (Observer, 2/3/08, pp.16-17), and public apathy: the same article says that ‘More than 30 per cent of people claim to care about companies’ environmental and social records, ... but only 3 per cent reflect these beliefs in their purchases.’ The latter provides an interesting rule-of-thumb for any descent from ideas, theories or intentions to doing anything about it. My own back-of-the-envelope examination of how permaculture could engage with feeding Britain was to start with our one million or so acres of gardens (private-house-and-garden-owning being really big in Britain), and apply one of the very few measures of yield in edible biomass per unit area: Michael Guerra’s tiny urban garden (on 80 square metres 250 kilos per annum can be grown, [over five times the yield typical of Standard Farm Practice] using methods such as intercropping and stacking), suggests – astonishingly! – that we could grow all the food we need, ten times our body weight p.a., on tiny amounts of intensively cultivated land, and if permies had aimed at educating the garden or allotment owning people in this country twenty years ago, instead of … [won’t go into that], who knows, we might have all Britain’s gardens crammed with food by now. And, remember, Bill Mollison originally said the aim was hugely to increase the yield of food per unit area in order to release most of the land back to the wild and other species (Permaculture [the big book], p.7) – and also help the land regenerate because it’s been so buggered it can’t do that on its own. People like Ken Fern and Chris Dixon have shown how, with a bit of help, ecological diversity, biomass and soil depth regenerates to natural abundance in less than 20 years.</p> Simon’s article is useful theory, and thought provoking, but theory is often a long way from practice. I came across Mellanby’s book recently when embarking on an overdue indexing of my library. Next to it was Andrew O’Hagan’s The End of British Farming (London: Profile, 2001), describing the author’s travels around Britain to witness ‘the death of farming’. Put that with solutions being put forward by food technologists, such as cloned cows (Observer, 2/3/08, pp.16-17), and public apathy: the same article says that ‘More than 30 per cent of people claim to care about companies’ environmental and social records, … but only 3 per cent reflect these beliefs in their purchases.’ The latter provides an interesting rule-of-thumb for any descent from ideas, theories or intentions to doing anything about it. My own back-of-the-envelope examination of how permaculture could engage with feeding Britain was to start with our one million or so acres of gardens (private-house-and-garden-owning being really big in Britain), and apply one of the very few measures of yield in edible biomass per unit area: Michael Guerra’s tiny urban garden (on 80 square metres 250 kilos per annum can be grown, [over five times the yield typical of Standard Farm Practice] using methods such as intercropping and stacking), suggests – astonishingly! – that we could grow all the food we need, ten times our body weight p.a., on tiny amounts of intensively cultivated land, and if permies had aimed at educating the garden or allotment owning people in this country twenty years ago, instead of … [won’t go into that], who knows, we might have all Britain’s gardens crammed with food by now. And, remember, Bill Mollison originally said the aim was hugely to increase the yield of food per unit area in order to release most of the land back to the wild and other species (Permaculture [the big book], p.7) – and also help the land regenerate because it’s been so buggered it can’t do that on its own. People like Ken Fern and Chris Dixon have shown how, with a bit of help, ecological diversity, biomass and soil depth regenerates to natural abundance in less than 20 years.

]]> By: Mark Fisher http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-56085 Mark Fisher Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:44:14 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-56085 <p>If I understand Tony correctly, his is a utilitarian view. E.O Wilson, who coined the term biophilia, was mindful that his innate love of wild nature was influenced by his membership of the human species, and so he sought to view the natural world through the eyes and motivation of another species.</p> <p>The example that he gave of the termite showed that all species have a basic motivation that does not necessarily reflect benevolence to other species. He thus argued that for humans our respect for the species around us was thus best described as an enlightened self interest.</p> <p>That enlightenment has to be more than an understanding of interconnectedness since it is what we do with that understanding, and the limits we put on ourselves, that is important for us and the species around us.</p> If I understand Tony correctly, his is a utilitarian view. E.O Wilson, who coined the term biophilia, was mindful that his innate love of wild nature was influenced by his membership of the human species, and so he sought to view the natural world through the eyes and motivation of another species.

The example that he gave of the termite showed that all species have a basic motivation that does not necessarily reflect benevolence to other species. He thus argued that for humans our respect for the species around us was thus best described as an enlightened self interest.

That enlightenment has to be more than an understanding of interconnectedness since it is what we do with that understanding, and the limits we put on ourselves, that is important for us and the species around us.

]]> By: Tony Weddle http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-56059 Tony Weddle Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:25:29 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-56059 <p>Secular science doesn't hold that humans are the supreme beings. It is scientific endeavour that has shown us that we most certainly are not the supreme beings (for example, ongoing evolution or the vastness of the universe) and has given us the tools to understand how biodiversity is essential. It doesn't need respect for the existence of all creatures (after all, all species go extinct and there is an "background" rate of extinction - even if we weren't contributing to it), but it does need an understanding of the interconnectedness of the elements of the biosphere.</p> Secular science doesn’t hold that humans are the supreme beings. It is scientific endeavour that has shown us that we most certainly are not the supreme beings (for example, ongoing evolution or the vastness of the universe) and has given us the tools to understand how biodiversity is essential. It doesn’t need respect for the existence of all creatures (after all, all species go extinct and there is an “background” rate of extinction – even if we weren’t contributing to it), but it does need an understanding of the interconnectedness of the elements of the biosphere.

]]> By: corneilius http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-56035 corneilius Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:02:30 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-56035 <p>Mark, you're spot on! We must change our value system from one that says we are to dominate and exloit nature (becuase we are the most intelligent, etc etc blah blah blah) to one that says we must live in nature, work with nature and respect the existence of all creatures that make up the bio-diversity of our land.</p> <p>There's a movement that describes a disease state, calling it Nature Deficit Syndrome, which holds that we humans have evolved to grow up in nature and that as such children have a basic right to do so. Growing up in nature, developing a sensing of nature is essential to becoming fully matured as an Earthling.</p> <p>The trouble I have with all the religions and with the established secular science is that all pretend, for th emost part, that we are the supreme beings on Earth.</p> <p>We are not, we are one part of a huge plethora of interconnected, interdependent living entities and any aboriginal, indigenous knows this and lives accordingly.</p> <p>I hold that once we have food, and decent shelter, our only true needs are the spiritual, psychological and emotional joys of living in community, of watching the youngsters grow in beauty and joy.</p> <p>There is nothing that mankind has ever manufactured that is more beautiful than the beauty of healthy community. That ought to be our aim, as parents, as peoples.</p> Mark, you’re spot on! We must change our value system from one that says we are to dominate and exloit nature (becuase we are the most intelligent, etc etc blah blah blah) to one that says we must live in nature, work with nature and respect the existence of all creatures that make up the bio-diversity of our land.

There’s a movement that describes a disease state, calling it Nature Deficit Syndrome, which holds that we humans have evolved to grow up in nature and that as such children have a basic right to do so. Growing up in nature, developing a sensing of nature is essential to becoming fully matured as an Earthling.

The trouble I have with all the religions and with the established secular science is that all pretend, for th emost part, that we are the supreme beings on Earth.

We are not, we are one part of a huge plethora of interconnected, interdependent living entities and any aboriginal, indigenous knows this and lives accordingly.

I hold that once we have food, and decent shelter, our only true needs are the spiritual, psychological and emotional joys of living in community, of watching the youngsters grow in beauty and joy.

There is nothing that mankind has ever manufactured that is more beautiful than the beauty of healthy community. That ought to be our aim, as parents, as peoples.

]]> By: Mark Fisher http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-55995 Mark Fisher Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:13:44 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-55995 <p>I was stunned when I read Simon's article since he had attempted something that although I felt needed doing, I couldn't begin to think how to do it. I was also gratified to see my website (www.self-willed-land.org.uk) given as a source in the references to the article.</p> <p>What surprises me though is that the discussion in these comments has only picked up on the vegan thread in the article and not one of the key issues for me in the article of a significant difference in the landscape cover in the Permaculture options. Simon was able to include a massive increase in woodland in the landscape getting us away from the oppressive hegemony of grasslands in the UK, and in the vegan Permculture option, he was able to allocate IN ADDITION a whopping area of land back to wild nature albeit that Simon envisaged it being a largescale savannah/rangeland with free-living herbivores in amongst open canopy woodland, scrub etc.</p> <p>This is the vital recasting of our landscape that we desparately need - it is about having a three dimensional vegetation cover with vastly increased range of yield, but as importantly it will go some way to reintegrating humans into the community of the land along with all the other species of land users.</p> <p>Energy descent is one aspect, our transition is to break out of failed concepts of land management and use and our domination of wild nature.</p> I was stunned when I read Simon’s article since he had attempted something that although I felt needed doing, I couldn’t begin to think how to do it. I was also gratified to see my website (www.self-willed-land.org.uk) given as a source in the references to the article.

What surprises me though is that the discussion in these comments has only picked up on the vegan thread in the article and not one of the key issues for me in the article of a significant difference in the landscape cover in the Permaculture options. Simon was able to include a massive increase in woodland in the landscape getting us away from the oppressive hegemony of grasslands in the UK, and in the vegan Permculture option, he was able to allocate IN ADDITION a whopping area of land back to wild nature albeit that Simon envisaged it being a largescale savannah/rangeland with free-living herbivores in amongst open canopy woodland, scrub etc.

This is the vital recasting of our landscape that we desparately need – it is about having a three dimensional vegetation cover with vastly increased range of yield, but as importantly it will go some way to reintegrating humans into the community of the land along with all the other species of land users.

Energy descent is one aspect, our transition is to break out of failed concepts of land management and use and our domination of wild nature.

]]> By: corneilius http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-55430 corneilius Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:13:39 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-55430 <p>Thanks Rowena. I am really glad to have found that the idea is actually manifest....when my time comes nothing would be finer!</p> <p>And having eaten organic for most of my life, I imagine I'd make good compost! lol!</p> <p>The way they present the idea on the site is tactful and has genuine humane warmth to it.</p> <p>Nice!</p> Thanks Rowena. I am really glad to have found that the idea is actually manifest….when my time comes nothing would be finer!

And having eaten organic for most of my life, I imagine I’d make good compost! lol!

The way they present the idea on the site is tactful and has genuine humane warmth to it.

Nice!

]]> By: Rowena Moore http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-55220 Rowena Moore Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:16:37 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-55220 <p>Your idea for a natural cemetry is spot on - there is a small inspirational family owned such cemetry near Bristol call 'Memorial Woodlands'- google it. Looks good to me.</p> Your idea for a natural cemetry is spot on – there is a small inspirational family owned such cemetry near Bristol call ‘Memorial Woodlands’- google it. Looks good to me.

]]> By: corneilius http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-55215 corneilius Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:23:28 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-55215 <p>A friend of mine had the idea of creating a cemetery forest, whereby one was planeted standing up, with a tree sapling above ones head......as cemetery it would be protected, and ones future descendants coulds stroll in your woods, grateful for your final gift.</p> <p>There would be a choice of trees so as to mimic a proper range of trees to recreate an ancestral forest...</p> <p>That would be a good way of composting the bodies, leave a fitting memorial for future generations and re tree our lands...</p> <p>Great idea!</p> <p>As for fish requirements, the omega3s would also have come fom fish, as you alluded above, from game, and from various seeds... all in moderation.</p> A friend of mine had the idea of creating a cemetery forest, whereby one was planeted standing up, with a tree sapling above ones head……as cemetery it would be protected, and ones future descendants coulds stroll in your woods, grateful for your final gift.

There would be a choice of trees so as to mimic a proper range of trees to recreate an ancestral forest…

That would be a good way of composting the bodies, leave a fitting memorial for future generations and re tree our lands…

Great idea!

As for fish requirements, the omega3s would also have come fom fish, as you alluded above, from game, and from various seeds… all in moderation.

]]> By: vera http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-55205 vera Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:08:30 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-55205 <p>Simon, I have been thinking of writing an article called "Compost me please!" -- the mortuary habits of our society are absolutely insane. Now Sweden is pioneering a process whereby human remains are rendered into some white dust that can be applied to fields, of course at a sizable cost and via chemicals. Nuts. Composting has worked for gazillion years and is free (or, practically speaking, the cost of a truckload of woodchips).</p> <p><The ‘work’ ethic is a myth of empire..< Go Corneilius!</p> <p>Keep in mind, re paleodiets, these ancestors ate a lot of fish, they needed that to develop the brain and keep it in operating shape... :-) -- I figure most other meat was mostly scavenged until fairly recently. Although I am betting an apple against a turnip that they ate a fair number of bugs. Cheers!</p> Simon, I have been thinking of writing an article called “Compost me please!” — the mortuary habits of our society are absolutely insane. Now Sweden is pioneering a process whereby human remains are rendered into some white dust that can be applied to fields, of course at a sizable cost and via chemicals. Nuts. Composting has worked for gazillion years and is free (or, practically speaking, the cost of a truckload of woodchips).

<The ‘work’ ethic is a myth of empire..<
Go Corneilius!

Keep in mind, re paleodiets, these ancestors ate a lot of fish, they needed that to develop the brain and keep it in operating shape… :-) — I figure most other meat was mostly scavenged until fairly recently. Although I am betting an apple against a turnip that they ate a fair number of bugs. Cheers!

]]> By: corneilius http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-55115 corneilius Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:18:32 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-55115 <p>As for the meat/vegan diet, for many hundreds of thousands of years we have lived and thrived as hunter/gatherers and the gathering was definitely the largest part of the diet.... by a long shot.</p> As for the meat/vegan diet, for many hundreds of thousands of years we have lived and thrived as hunter/gatherers and the gathering was definitely the largest part of the diet…. by a long shot.

]]> By: corneilius http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/comment-page-1/#comment-55114 corneilius Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:16:47 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/20/can-britain-feed-itself/#comment-55114 <p>I have always maintained that if we changed our values so that quality and quantity of joyful time spent with our families, our community and walking in our environment were our main aims, we could do it if we were to mostly grow our own food, and more people could live on the land and away from the cities...</p> <p>Cuba has shown what can be done. The only losers would be the banks and corporations and the ridiculously rich. Which would be fine, as they cause far more trouble than they are worth.</p> <p>We do not need Premier Leagues, SKY TV, MOBILE PHONES, private transport that destroys the environment more than we need loving relationships, clean food and time to enjoy being who we are.</p> <p>The 'work' ethic is a myth of empire..</p> <p>People will make the change, because it is in our natural interests, and it will benefit our children, if the change is explained in meaningful ways - "if the truth be told in ways that it can be understood, it will be believed."</p> <p>The hard work will be breaking down the 'conditioning' and the sloppy thinking that our education 'gifts' everyone with.</p> I have always maintained that if we changed our values so that quality and quantity of joyful time spent with our families, our community and walking in our environment were our main aims, we could do it if we were to mostly grow our own food, and more people could live on the land and away from the cities…

Cuba has shown what can be done. The only losers would be the banks and corporations and the ridiculously rich. Which would be fine, as they cause far more trouble than they are worth.

We do not need Premier Leagues, SKY TV, MOBILE PHONES, private transport that destroys the environment more than we need loving relationships, clean food and time to enjoy being who we are.

The ‘work’ ethic is a myth of empire..

People will make the change, because it is in our natural interests, and it will benefit our children, if the change is explained in meaningful ways – “if the truth be told in ways that it can be understood, it will be believed.”

The hard work will be breaking down the ‘conditioning’ and the sloppy thinking that our education ‘gifts’ everyone with.

]]>