In the same issue of 'do or die' the article 'eternal threat' gives some philosophical support for oomans' exploitation of Animals. As has been pointed out earlier, the proposition that oomans should live in harmony with nature is a euphemism for the exploitation and slaughter of Animals. It is based on an integrationist ethic - 'let us live side by side until the time comes for me to slit your throat'. It is not surprising then that Animal murderers like those in do or die are opposed to the "false separation between humanity and all other life". The last thing that Animal murderers want is for Wildlife to be beyond the reach of the cut-throat army of oomans, "Conservation by segregation is the Noah's ark solution, a belief that wildlife should be consigned to tiny land parcels for its own good and because it has no place in our world." These are objections are irrelevant to the idea of ooman free Wilderness areas but their purpose is to disparage the idea without examining it. Wildlife need not be confined to small parcels of land. On the contrary, they should be able to enjoy massive Wilderness areas. And, secondly, if people want Lions and Tigers wandering through their villages then that is up to them but such a system of integration would be in addition to, and not a substitute for, ooman free Wildlife areas. The idea of ooman-free wilderness areas is designed to protect both Wildlife from oomans and oomans from Wildlife. Finally, the author supports the idea of "humanity as part of nature inextricably linked" not merely to oppose the creation of ooman free Wilderness areas but, even worse, to open up Wilderness areas for ooman development.

Not surprisingly for an organization which supports an integrationist ethic, Earth First! uk insists on segregating species at its meetings, "Mass trespass in commemoration of the diggers. Meeting saturday, 12 midday for mass trespass to mystery site (no Dogs)." [4] Could you trust people who don't even want Dogs on their protests to live in harmony with nature?

This image is a recent construction. In the past, prior to the development of pesticides, all farming was organic. Since the start of agriculture thousands of years ago, organic farmers have caused a colossal scale of ecological devastation. This .. "has resulted in drastic forest clearance, habitat destruction, ecological disruption and loss of species and genetic diversity for thousands of years world-wide; a one-off ecological cost of huge proportions hardly made up for by the sustainability of the pharming practices carried out on the cleared land." [8] In the over-industrialized world this damage has long been forgotten and the public sees only the remnants of organic farming in which the positive aspects are glaring against the black backdrop of industrialized pharming. Paradoxically, industrialized pharming, which has taken over the much of the land once used for organic farming, is now blamed for the ecological devastation that has been carried out in the past by organic pharmers. Of course, industrialized pharming causes a considerable amount of ecological damage but it also inherited vast areas of land where a great deal of ecological damage had already been carried out by organic farmers. To a significant extent then, industrialized pharming is blamed for something it did not do. It is a public relations' victim of the appalling practices carried out in the past by organic pharming. It is possible that the scale of Forests which were chopped down over the millennia by organic farmers is greater than the scale of Forest chopped down over the last half century by industrialized pharming - which of course is not to praise industrialized pharming since the devastation it has brought about has happened over fifty years in comparison to the damage caused over three thousand years by organic farming. At this rate of devastation, industrialized pharming will rapidly consume what is left of the Earth's natural Forests.

Despite the positive image of organic farmers as people who inflict no damage on the Earth's life support system there are examples to the contrary. Two advocates of organic pharming, charlie pye-smith and chris hall, suggest that in order to prevent chalk Grasslands from reverting back to Forests .. "from a conservation point of view .. we must either burn it regularly, as happens on many nature reserves, or it must be grazed. We favour the latter course." [9] It is as if these authors have never heard of global burning or are so ignorant of geophysiological issues they believe Forests have no role in regulating the climate.

Whilst it can been accepted that the growing of organic crops could be more productive than industrialized crop pharming and thus, in the future, less damaging to the environment, it is inevitable that a resurgence of organic livestock pharming would be far more destructive than industrialized livestock pharming. In the intensive system of livestock pharming, Animals are kept permanently in huge wharehouses where they are fed and fattened before being taken to the abattoir. Assuming that the same number of livestock Animals are involved, the amount of land required for organic livestock pharming would be far more extensive than that required for intensive livestock pharming. This would mean that even more Forests would have to be razed to the ground to create organic pastureland. Pastureland is far less Photosynthetically productive than Forests and would thus boost global burning.

To give one small example of what happens where there are global commons/common lands. In one of jeremy clarkson's programmes on cars he featured an article about the popular sport of 4-wheel driving in iceland. Because 80% of iceland is common land people have the right to drive all over land acting like overgrown yobs smashing up ice sheets with monstrous 4x4s. [12]

However, of all the groups who want to open up the countryside, the ramblers are the least destructive. Firstly, they tend to be nature lovers rather than people who want to destroy nature like Egg collectors, hunters, etc. Secondly, they vehemently oppose the use of motorized transport in the countryside. Thirdly, they also oppose wind power, "Delegates at the annual conference of the Ramblers association on 6 april voted decisively to launch a concerted campaign against major wind turbine developments." [14]

This land reform could pose a significant threat to Wildlife areas. The higher the level of the tax the greater the pressure on the country's landowners to exploit the land more thoroughly (or, as has just been noted, sell it off - perhaps to developers). What is more, if cgr was used to break up large estates there is no reason to suppose the land would be acquired by the less well off intent on building their own homes and growing their own food. It could be bought by developers who would endeavour to cram as many houses as possible onto the site, or provide luxury/holiday homes for the middle classes. It is bad enough that farmers might be forced to exploit their land even more ruthlessly than they do at the moment but it would be even worse if they ended up selling their property to developers who would cover it in concrete.

This proposal for the invasion of the highlands contains all the major themes of the green land invaders. They show all to clearly what will happen when greens start invading the countryside. Firstly, the scheme can be built, like all rural schemes, only if it finds a subsidy to buy the necessary land. Secondly, it promises to double the ooman population. Thirdly, its prosperity depends primarily on the rearing and execution of livestock Animals. Fourthly, the inevitable promise to lure unemployed urban youths into a life time of back-breaking labour. It has to be asked: what has any of this got to do with stabilizing the Earth's climate?