(26 January 2012, 14:00)bigpaul Wrote: [ -> ]i like your thinking Scythe, i just missed the second world war-by 3 years, too young for Vietnam,
Thanks mate.
I've learned a lot about human history, and I've only ever thought about the financial terms of it. All wars and trade routes and the alike are things I've looked into. My passion is business and finance, and that's what I've read into more than anything. I say this sat at my desk suited and booted. I've always thought in terms of peoples understanding of money and of how finances transfer around the world.
It's been simple to transfer the lessons from people's understanding of finance to their understanding of agriculture.
The UK is an island community that if it had adopted the population and residency limits many other island nations adopted would be a paradise, but instead you have 63 million people rising to 70 million people with a large percentage utterly hostile to the majority and another large percentage incompatable with the majority trying to live on an island with finite space and resources that can only sustain 55 to 57 million people
(26 January 2012, 14:32)NorthernRaider Wrote: [ -> ]the majority trying to live on an island with finite space and resources that can only sustain 55 to 57 million people
yes, and thats in the good times! WTSHTF you can reduce that by at least a half!
If there is a third World War (not sure whether I should have said "If" or "When") The population will reduce quite dramatically.
(26 January 2012, 15:42)Scythe13 Wrote: [ -> ]If there is a third World War (not sure whether I should have said "If" or "When") The population will reduce quite dramatically.
that really depends on if it is a conventional war or a nuclear war, in a conventional war you can loose millions of people but we would have to loose many millions for it to have a real impact, in a nuclear war we could ALL be wiped out like the dinosaurs!!
(26 January 2012, 15:52)bigpaul Wrote: [ -> ]in a nuclear war we could ALL be wiped out like the dinosaurs!!
WHAT!?!? The dinosaurs were wiped out by nuclear bombs?!?!? haha, I'm kidding.
I get what you're saying. The thing is, a nuclear bomb couldn't be fired. The destruction would be huge....but the reprecussion would be even larger!!! That's the real danger. The global retaliation.
(26 January 2012, 16:02)Scythe13 Wrote: [ -> ]The thing is, a nuclear bomb couldn't be fired. The destruction would be huge....but the reprecussion would be even larger!!! That's the real danger. The global retaliation.
i would NEVER say a Nbomb could never be fired, it will only take some "rogue" state like Iran,or North Korea to set it off and thats it, game over!!
(26 January 2012, 16:06)bigpaul Wrote: [ -> ]i would NEVER say a Nbomb could never be fired, it will only take some "rogue" state like Iran,or North Korea to set it off and thats it, game over!!
That's kind of my point. It's why the Cold War threats came to nothing. Because of assured mutual destruction, nobody dared to shoot first.
(25 January 2012, 18:16)uks Wrote: [ -> ]BP try going to farm and country auctions you can pick up some amazing pieces of kit
Mind like a sieve. We are looking for a bit of land to turn into a smallholding or get a smallholding only a couple of acres. To become self sufficent in food and firewood etc, but my plan is to get a shire horse to work the land.
Having worked with heavy horses, in a smallholding situation I would go for a couple of native Ponies to work as a pair. The two will eat less than one Shire, and they would be company for each other too. Just my 2p's worth.
(26 January 2012, 17:05)TOF Wrote: [ -> ][quote='uks' pid='6020' dateline='1327511776']
BP try going to farm and country auctions you can pick up some amazing pieces of kit
Having worked with heavy horses, in a smallholding situation I would go for a couple of native Ponies to work as a pair. The two will eat less than one Shire, and they would be company for each other too. Just my 2p's worth.
thats my thinking with the donkeys-easier to handle-dont eat as much, or maybe mules if i can get them, trouble with horses or ponies is they are highly strung and tend to leap about if they just see as much as a plastic bag in the hedge, donkeys are more placid.
(26 January 2012, 17:05)TOF Wrote: [ -> ][quote='uks' pid='6020' dateline='1327511776']
BP try going to farm and country auctions you can pick up some amazing pieces of kit
Having worked with heavy horses, in a smallholding situation I would go for a couple of native Ponies to work as a pair. The two will eat less than one Shire, and they would be company for each other too. Just my 2p's worth.
thats my thinking with the donkeys-easier to handle-dont eat as much, or maybe mules if i can get them, trouble with horses or ponies is they are highly strung and tend to leap about if they just see as much as a plastic bag in the hedge, donkeys are more placid.
(26 January 2012, 17:05)TOF Wrote: [ -> ]Having worked with heavy horses, in a smallholding situation I would go for a couple of native Ponies to work as a pair. The two will eat less than one Shire, and they would be company for each other too. Just my 2p's worth.
(I'LL TRY AGAIN!! this bloody thing dosent want to work sometimes
) thats my thinking with the donkeys or mules if i can get them, easier to handle and dont eat so much, horses are very highly strung and take flight if the even see a plastic bag in the hedge.
(26 January 2012, 17:05)TOF Wrote: [ -> ]Having worked with heavy horses, in a smallholding situation I would go for a couple of native Ponies to work as a pair. The two will eat less than one Shire, and they would be company for each other too. Just my 2p's worth.
thats why i'm always banging on about donkeys, much more placid and dont eat so much, horses are very highly strung and tend to flight if they see as much as a plastic bag in the hedge.