tom, on 06 May 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:
I for one am not going to agree to being thrust back 50 years into the past just so I make less impact on the environment. There has to be a better way.
My concern is governments just do not get it right. I could imagine them taxing fishing licences to teh point they are so expensive no one fishes etc and yet when I go to the shop and buy a fish which has had more of an impact on teh environment? The trawler with teh waste along the distribution chain or me pulling out exactly what I need?
This is the fascinating aspect of this issue.
We want a world like it was 50 years ago, but we don't want to go back to the lifestyle of that era.
Imagine catching the horses to go into town for the day shopping!!
I can agree with your argument about fishing to a point.
You see, currently not everyone goes fishing. Imagine that every person in Australia was fishing.
I imagine also you might grow your own potatoes and vegies. But have you ever tried to grow enough to be totally self-sufficient. It exceeds the back-yard plot.
And don't get me started on growing your own beef, pork and lamb. You would need at least 7 - 10 hectares of land to provide for a small family.
Also are you going to grow your own sugar cane, and all the external requirements needed to manufacture sugar.
There are economies of scale that simply wouldn't add up. What about salt? Or coffee? etc, etc.
We cannot go back any longer.
Not unless there is a major reduction in population, or a complete and utterly total change in land ownership and controls.
I should also add, that most people have lost the skills necessary to live totally self-sufficiently or even semi-sufficiently.
We've lost all those skills that enabled our ancestors to virtually live off the land.
What is the answer? I seriously do not know.
I seriously wonder about the economies of scale, and what that will mean going forward.
Thanks for your post.
This post has been edited by Solomon: 06 May 2012 - 08:03 AM