Robin grove-white argues there is plenty of spare land in the brutish countryside because less land is needed to produce food.

Grove-white suggests a range of new uses for the countryside, "Conservation and (some) recreation activities have emerged as significant land uses in their own right." He suggests .. "there are now a growing variety as to what it (the countryside) is for. This transcends the issue of the right to roam. It can be seen in the range of non-work uses to which urban-dwellers now wish to put the countryside - not simply day visits, walks and family picnics on the fringes of farmed areas but

Grove-white protests that urbanizing the countryside would not jeopardize the environment, "The social and economic upheavals of the past 15 years (in the countryside) have created a chance for new human possibilities for the countryside without jeopardizing environmental gains already made." [2]

It may be as well to mention some of the most blatant geophysiological consequences of the activities that grove-white proposes for the countryside:-

It is incredible that grove-white could argue that because an increasing amount of land is becoming superfluous for food production then basically oomans can do anything they want with it - as if no Reforestation needs to be carried out to restore the Earth's life support system.

Grove-white suggests that alternative activities could take place in the countryside without jeopardizing the environmental gains already made. But, it has to be asked, what are these environmental gains? This country's geophysiological debts have got bigger and bigger over the last 15 years. Grove-white's argument is just a means of dismissing those who have concerns about the geophysiological impacts of his proposals. In other words, he's talking a complete load of green crap.

"Officially enviros want a lower human population so that humankind will 'tread lightly on the Earth'. The subconscious motive is the desire to be alone with nature: to have entire vistas of the natural world to yourself. But in the end the desire to control human numbers so that areas of the Earth might remain bereft of people is not a modest urge, but a self-centred one. This is best seen in nature preserves that have been established in the past decade or so in several developing nations, often in conjunction with western environmental groups. In most respects such preserves are excellent ideas. The exception is their effect on human beings. To establish the royal chitwan (national park) the nepali government expelled some 20,000 indigenous peoples from the territory they had occupied for centuries. Soldiers of the nepali army patrol royal chitwan, authorized to shoot on sight any peasants suspected of poaching. That means that in royal chitwan, as in several third world wilderness preserves, people may be hunted but not animals. Nepal is hardly the place where the desire to be alone with nature blinds environmental orthodoxy to the condition of the indigenous poor. At kruger national park in south africa, an important elephant preserve, wardens are authorized to shoot on sight natives gathering fuelwood. When kenya established amboseli wilderness preserve it first drove out the indigenous masai, promising compensation that was never delivered. Today the masai, a cattle grazing tribe that for centuries lived in reasonable harmony with amboseli wildlife, dwell in poverty on the park's outskirts. When ethiopia founded bale mountain national park as a preserve for the endangered simien jackal, local peoples were barred from using the area as grazing grounds, as they had done for centuries. When the hated government of mengistu mariam fell in 1991, locals entered the park and began shooting the jackals, exacting revenge on animals that had been treated better than them." [3]

According to easterbrook, the indian army protects Tigers in the sundarban Forest preserve in west bengal, "Not protected are the impoverished peasants who enter the sundarban to collect honey from its thousands of natural beehives. The soldier-guarded bengal tigers spring on and kill at least 50 honey-seekers per year; poor, unarmed people risking their lives to gather something they can sell to feed their children. Orthodox environmentalism considers the preservation of bengal tigers a priority, the deaths of peasants a distraction better left unmentioned." [4]

"In the ongoing debate about saving the african Elephant from ivory poachers, proponents .. of hunting bans are under attack by third wavers who believe as the 'economist' (sic) wrote, that conservationists would be wiser to "set up a toughly controlled trading system to market a limited quantity of sustainably harvested ivory" than they would be to attempt to prohibit its use altogether. Third wavers have a point. The ivory ban campaign does not even begin to address the social conditions that engender Elephant poaching in the first place." [5]; "Today, in the south, 'reforestation' often means the eviction of local people from Forests slated to be clear-cut and sold, and then converted to monoculture tree plantations." [6]

"If we want to arrive at ectopia we must not work towards renovating Frankfurt but rather towards clearing and dismantling it." [7]

These authors want the rural people who have left the countryside for urban areas to move back to the countryside. They believe that local people are the best at looking after local ecologies, "It should also be remembered that these forests (in the South) were preserved and protected for centuries by the same local villagers, and were decimated (within decades) only when villagers lost control of the forests to urban and commercial interests." [8] It has to be suggested, however, that the pressure on Forests has increased because of the increasing birth rates of local people.

Colchester also wants rural people in urban areas to move back to the countryside. He questions how much economic and financial support they might need for this return, "Land reformers also face the dilemma of how much assistance to provide without creating dependency and undermining peasant initiative. Newly resettled farmers may require the provision of considerable agricultural extension facilities and infrastructure investments( roads, housing, schools, dispensaries) before they become familiar with their new surroundings and able to work the land well." [9] He too supports the fantasy that Forests have been inhabited by oomans ever since oomans appeared on Earth, "For, despite the prevalence of myths about .. 'virgin forests', the forests have been inhabited for thousands of years. Few areas of forest are unused or unclaimed by local communities." [10] According to this anthropocentric logic even when there were only two oomans on Earth they still owned all the Earth's Forests.

Calls for the, "The repopulation of rural areas in ecologically sustainable ways." [11]

"Most manifestations of the Green movement argue for a repopulation of the countryside." [12]

Flavin believes that solar power will be the main means of enabling people to invade the countryside whether this might be the poor in third world or the rich in the over-industrialized world.

Edward goldsmith is another major supporter of the mass invasion of the countryside. What is so surprising about his position is that although he's one of the founders of the green movement and highly indebted to the ideas of james lovelock, his rationale for encouraging people back into the countryside has nothing to do with geophysiology but with ecological factors. He believes that moving back to the land would solve a range of urban problems, "In fact, if you were to restore your small farms, bring people back to the land, you'd be solving all sorts of urban problems .. from crime and delinquency, of unemployment, to the massive problems of putting up safe housing everywhere; all these problems would be solved, you see, if you were to return more people to the lands and re-establish the small farm." [15]

"City life is marked by consumption and waste. Cities, however small, have always been parasitic on the countryside around them, not least because the majority of their inhabitants must rely on farmers in the countryside to provide them with food. Where cities are small, and the demands of their citizens limited, the degradation caused need not undermine their viability. But the demands being made by city-dwellers today, particularly in the industrialized countries are global in their reach, and global in their implications. Meeting even the demands of present day cities is placing an intolerable burden on the environment and society as more and more resources are sucked into urban conglomerations." [17]

"Greens believe that more people should have access to the land and would end the current stranglehold of large landowners by means of grants and a system of community ground rent designed to split land holdings of many thousands of acres. Greens would like to see more people living in rural areas." [18]

"If current forecasts are to be believed, almost half of humanity will be living in cities by the year 2000. This trend should be halted or at least slowed, and incentives provided to persuade people to live in rural areas or in smaller towns." [19]

"The moneyed classes' enthusiasm for Deer stalking is keeping vast tracts of scotland as an artificial, empty environment and preventing its productive use by ordinary people. Hayden lorimer, from loughborough university said, "Crofters had been cleared off by enclosures, and were replaced by huge Sheep farms. Deer stalking was only introduced in the 19thc after the Sheep farms went bankrupt. Landowners argued that the estates preserved scotland's natural heritage. Mr lorimer said that to prevent criticism of their occupation of large estates kept empty just for Deer, the "lairdocracy" managed to propagate a myth of their history and legitimacy." [20]

"We must now enlarge the debate, from "combating deforestation" to "the conservation and sustainable development of all types of forest worldwide. This crucial change provides a more cohesive and comprehensive framework with which to address a wide range of issues and opportunities associated with Forests. The world's Forests first and foremost represent a renewable economic resource of immense importance for any country's economic development." [21]

Monbiot condemned the ousting of masai from a safari park. However, it is becoming increasingly common for safari parks to be run in conjunction with local/tribal people. Meldrum paints a very rosy picture of the campfire programme in some third world countries which enables local people to benefit from the slaughter of Animals in safari parks. Whereas in the past local people used to slaughter Wildlife in order to survive, they now fly in rich hunters to do the killing for them and make a good living from blood sport tourism. Whereas in the past the area would never have been able to sustain anything more than tribal lifestyles, the money from tourism is enabling Wilderness areas to become semi-urbanized. If los vegas was built in the middle of nowhere by criminal activities, campfire villages are springing up as a result of the criminal destruction of Wildlife, "The (zimbabwe) government has set aside 10,700 square kilometres in northern zimbabwe to form the zambezi valley wilderness complex, an area which boasts the 2,196 square kilometre mana pools national park. .. the dande safari area - the 520 square kilometres set aside for hunting. "Hunting is the only hope for game to survive in africa," says harry. "Wildlife must pay its way or humans will take over. We hunt a sustainable quota of 3% per year. And that earns a great deal of money used to preserve the Wilderness needed by the Animals." Zimbabwe attracts about one million tourists a year and hunting brings in about 2,000 clients, who spend atotal of $20 million. The Dande area is part of zimbabwe's Campfire programme, which channels a significant proportion of the money earned from hunting to the rural people who live among the wildlife. (The meat from hunted Wildlife is shared amongst) 210 families registered with the local Campfire programme .. Far more significant to the masoka community is the money earned from hunting. "We have earned Z$500,000 (£31,250) each year for the past three years," says joseph chisunga, masoka's wildlife committee treasurer. "We have used that money to develop our community. We have built a new school block and a health clinic, we have purchased a tractor for tillage. We erected a solar-powered electric fence to protect our agricultural land from the Wildlife. Gift Zirota, the wildlife chairperson, explains how the programme has changed the community's attitude towards wildlife. "Ten years ago, the animals destroyed our crops and attacked us. Now with Campfire, we get meat plus money from hunting. The wildlife is now an asset and we look after them. We do not allow poachers. We welcome hunters because they help us to improve our community. Campfire's pioneering concept, to balance the needs of africa's rural people with wildlife, has already spread to zambia, namibia, and south afriuca. Throughout zimbabwe, Campfire schemes last year earned more than Z$13 million (£812,000) for rural communities. The number of communities participating has grown from 15 in 1989 to more than 100 in 1996." [22]

Norberg-hodge defends the urbanization of the countryside, "An equally common myth that clouds thinking about more human scale rural economies is that "there are too many people to go back to the land". It is noteworthy that a similar scepticism does not accompany the notion of urbanizing the world's population. It is considered 'utopian' to suggest a ruralization of america's or europe's population; but china's plans to move 440 million people into the cities during the next few decades hardly raises eyebrows." [23]

"Let the purists rage: some of the rainforest may even be more useful as reservoirs for dams." [24]

Botswana's government and scientists oppose .. "the traditional cattle herders and hunter-gatherer bushmen operating within the central kalahari game reserve. The arid reserve, which is about the size of switzerland, was set up in 1961, five years before botswana's independence. In the mid-1980s, a system of zoning was created under which two central areas will be kept "pristine" - that is devoid of people." [25] What this seems to suggest is that fred pearce finds it revolting that oomans are not in occupation of every single acre of the Earth. [26]

"In the 1970s 'community forestry' was the watchword for development agencies. But all too often the phrase was used as a cover for industrial wood production projects which did little good for local people, especially the rural poor. In the 1980s, a new phrase is being heard more and more 'social forestry' i.e. forestry projects which benefit the local community .. ." [27]

In his early days, porritt was a revolutionary who demanded that people be allowed to invade the countryside because, "The present system denies people their natural birthright of access to the land." [28] He was so radical he opposed the expropriation of land because .. "it should not be possible to own land." [29] He called for ... "a massive programme of rural resettlement." [30]

These authors protest about the decline of village life. They have written a manifesto calling for the mass movement of people back to the countryside, "Our message is a simple one: let us create a many jobs as we can in the countryside .. The prospects for some further creation of jobs in manufacturing industries in rural areas are reasonable .. The service sector offers better prospects for economic growth in the countryside. It is already the largest source of employment in most rural areas .." [31]; "The Countryside we want' is a practical programme of reforms for revitalizing rural britain and halting the many destructive processes which yearly make it a less attractive place to live in and visit. We want a diverse countryside in which a multiplicity of activities can take place." [32]

"Eventually the proportion of farm to city population will have to reverse itself if human life is to survive. Labour intensive organic farming cannot support the concentrated urban population centres that have built up during the high energy fossil, fuel age. An agricultural way of life will dominate the coming Solar age as it has in every other period of history before our own." [43]

Roszak believes that, "Land reform is the undiscovered revolution in American politics." [44] He condemns urban life, "Urban dwellers .. constitute the oldest imperial interest in the world. The empire of cities, incessantly forcing itself upon the traditional, the rural, the wilderness at large. Today, all the decisions that are being made about the future of our planet are being made in the cities by city brains." [45]; "By the very fact that they are locked away from the Earth in an artificial environment, urbanites lose sight of the planet as a living entity with whom they must maintain an organic reciprocity." [46] "The modern city represents our most daring attempt to live 'beyond' nature as its detached observer and master." [47]; Roszak believes people do not want to live in cities but have been forced to move there by circumstance. Thus, given the chance they would go back to the countryside, "There would be little chance of deurbanizing the modern world if the millions that now flock to the cities wanted to be there. Deurbanization is not something that need be made to happen; it need only be allowed to happen, as if by natural gravity." [48]; "The city has never been a way of life that appealed to more than a strict minority." [49]

"Northern environmentalists were primarily concerned about the fate of the Forest and were slow to realize that people lived in the amazon who were also an integral part of the eco-system. Around 86% of the protected areas in the region are inhabited. Traditionally it had been up to groups such as Survival International .. to champion the cause of the Forest dweller in the northern hemisphere. Thankfully, some environmentalists have started adopting a more realistic, holistic approach. Rubber tappers, on the other hand, were initially interested in land reform and social justice, and only later recognized the importance of the forest ecology. This said, some of the policies that northern environmentalists have advocated have been totally ignorant of forest dwellers and have done more harm than good. There are, for example, still problems where northern environmentalists have advocated the setting up of northern parks where the traditional forest dwellers have been excluded and expelled from their land. .. the policies have also actually increased deforestation as ranchers and industry have invaded areas previously protected by the evicted inhabitants." [50]

"In a bioregional society, the division between urban and rural, industrial and agricultural, population and resources, would be replaced by an equilibrium, a symbiosis. The city need not be of immense size - indeed, no larger than 50,000 or 100,000 people - so that instead of a single metropolis there would be a multiplicity of cities of modest sizes scattered throughout the region." [51]

"I think one of the things that is becoming so clear is that the development pattern that has assumed that agriculture should be free of people and loaded with machines and chemicals and that people's only habitation should be the city is at the root of the unsustainability of the city as well as agriculture." [52]

"Charles called for the development of new towns with young, old, rich and poor living side by side." [53]