PART TWO: THE WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT’S TACTICS FOR PROTECTING TRIBALISTS.

There are anti-environmentalists who dismiss the threat posed by global burning and thus regard policies to combat a non-existent danger as a waste of precious resources. But there are also greens who believe it is more important to support tribalists than to take action to combat global burning. Instead of seeing global burning as an issue which could be used to help tribalists, they end up supporting anti-environmentalists’ opposition to global burning.

2.1: The World Rainforest Movement’s Opposition to Global Burning for the sake of Tribalism.

2.1.1: The Wrm’s Exploitation of Global Burning.

The world Rainforest movement (wrm) highlights the plight of tribal peoples living in tropical Rainforests. It focuses primarily upon oomans and ooman rights - not Wildlife, Rainforests, global burning nor the Earth. It wants to protect the Rainforests not for their own sake, nor for Wildlife, nor for the Earth, but for tribal peoples.[1] It was set up many years before global burning became a scientific and political issue in the 1990s. Whilst the wrm uses arguments about the dangers of global burning where these reinforce its support for tribalism it has not carried out a wholesale re-examination of its tactics for defending tribal peoples as a result of the global burning’s emergence as a scientific issue.[2] As a consequence the wrm has no position on global burning nor has it determined its priorities for combating global burning - on the contrary, it is highly concerned about the way in which Reforestation policies aimed at combating global burning could impinge on the interests of tribal peoples.

2.1.2: The Wrm’s gives Priority to Land Redistribution rather than Global Warming.

The wrm raises two tactical issues related to the implementation of policies to combat global burning. Firstly, the wrm argues it is not possible to implement Reforestation schemes in isolation from wider social or political changes. Secondly, the wrm gives priority to the redistribution of land and the extension of ooman rights rather than combating global burning. This raises a dilemma; should priority be given to land redistribution/ooman rights or to global burning? Is it possible that policies for combating global burning could help to bring about land redistribution/ooman rights? Conversely, would campaigns for land redistribution/ooman rights help to combat or exacerbate global burning?

2.1.3: The Need for Social and Political Changes to prevent Rainforest Destruction.

The wrm believes the main agents of tropical deforestation are not multinational corporations but landless settlers. However, the wrm does not blame settlers for destroying the Forests. It believes land inequalities are responsible for pushing huge numbers of people into the Rainforests. The poor invade the Forests in the hope of obtaining their own land, “Deforestation is an expression of social injustice.”[3] The wrm blames a variety of institutions for refusing to confront land inequalities which, it believes, would prevent deforestation. Firstly, the tFap, “Although it is well known that the invasion of Forest areas by landless settlers is the single largest cause of Forest destruction, the national plans (formulated through the TFAP) have fatally avoided confronting this politically delicate issue.”[4] Secondly, the Rainforest governments which protect gross inequalities in land ownership. The wrm also criticizes Rainforest governments for implementing transmigration policies to prevent social unrest arising out of these inequalities. The only policy for redistributing land which some Rainforest governments seem to countenance is encouraging landless people to move into the Rainforests.

2.1.4: The Need for Land Reform.

The wrm believes the best way of preventing deforestation is through land reforms to unused land outside the Rainforests, “The scale of the present Forest crisis demands that we confront the root causes of deforestation”, says colchester, “and that means resolving conflicts of interest between rich and poor. If landlessness is the main cause of Forest loss in Amazonia, we need to check that by promoting land reform outside the Forests.”[5] The wrm points out that in some countries there are huge areas of redundant agricultural land which could be taken over by settlers, “At least 170 million hectares of farmland lie idle. In brazil 0.8% of the landowners possess 43% of the land, while the 53% of landowners classed as small farmers own between them just 2.7%. While 3.3 million farmers work 19.7 million hectares of land, the 20 largest landlords own 20 million hectares, an area the size of syria. Multinational companies own 36 million hectares of brazilian territory.”[6] It should be noted that whilst many socially minded commentators argue there is plenty of land for the landless, they also argue there is no land available for Reforestation to combat global burning.

2.1.5: Land Reforms to be achieved through Ooman Rights.

Land inequalities in the disintegrating/industrializing countries could be abolished either through land reforms, political reforms, pressures from the international community or revolution. Land reforms are unlikely when most politicians in Rainforest governments are members of the landowning elite. The wrm supports political rights for tribal peoples and landless settlers so that they could win political power and implement land redistribution. However, constitutional reforms seem no more likely than land reforms. Thirdly, the governments of the over-industrialized world are unlikely to force third world countries to carry out land redistribution primarily because this would expose their own land inequalities e.g. in brutland. This leaves revolution.

2.1.6: The WRM’s Doubts about Reforestation to Combat Global Warming.

The wrm views with considerable suspicion the proposals for Reforestation in tropical Rainforest countries to combat global burning, “In the interests of pragmatic negotiability, such a process looks likely to leave out crucial and controversial issues, such as community participation, land ownership, forest dwellers’ rights, and the relations with agrarian structure, debt, and trade and aid policy. Consequently, we risk ending up with a “Tree planting, logging and Forest parks convention” which will further marginalize the rural poor and powerless that make up the world’s population.”[7] The wrm is yet another left-leaning group which is just as petrified about local Reforestation projects as it is global Reforestation. This puts it in the strange position of trying to save the Rainforests occupied by tribal peoples whilst doing nothing to stop the destruction of the rest of the world’s Forests.

2.2: Criticisms of the WRM’s Views.

2.2.1: Criticisms of the WRM’s Fears about Reforestation.

The wrm's worries about Reforestation are irrelevant since most of it will have to take place in the over-industrialized world rather than in the disintegrating/industrializing countries.

2.2.2: The Need to give Priority to Combating Global Burning.

The danger of giving priority to land redistribution rather than to combating global burning is that it could lead to an increase in ecological destruction which could exacerbate global burning and help to trigger a climatic disaster. Although agrarian reforms might prevent the continued destruction of the Rainforests by redistributing redundant agricultural land, if they went beyond this to include the expropriation of the Rainforests there might be even greater ecological damage than before. If political reforms were carried out to give tribal peoples sovereignty over the Rainforests this too might lead to an increase in ecological devastation.

The question of who owns the land is secondary to the question of how much land around the Earth is devoted to oomans and how much is devoted to the Earth and Wildlife. What is more, no matter how important the question of who owns the land might be it will always be secondary to what happens to the land under ooman occupation.

2.2.3: Comprehensive Land Reforms for Oomans, Wildlife and the Climate.

If land reforms involved a substantial expropriation of Rainforests then gradually the settlers would make more and more money, tempting them to chop down more and more Trees, until eventually large parts of the Forests were replaced with roads, petrol stations, housing estates, shopping malls, etc., “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.”[8] This is not, of course, an argument against land redistribution. It is an argument against piecemeal and unrestrained land redistribution which does not take into account geophysiological factors. Land redistribution in both the over-industrialized countries and the disintegrating/industrializing countries must be carried out within the framework of global action on global warming and the creation of a sustainable Planet or else the Earth’s life support system for humans will eventually collapse. This means there must be a comprehensive redistribution of land not only for the landless but for Wildlife (in the form of ooman free Wilderness areas) and for the Forests needed to combat global burning.[9] Land redistribution for the Earth is just as vital as land redistribution for oomans.

2.2.4: The Landless should Fight for the Earth.

Giving priority to combating global burning does not conflict with the need for agrarian reforms nor is it detrimental to this fight. On the contrary, land reform for the stabilization of the Earth’s climate is the best rationale for agrarian reforms. In the past, conventional economic and oomanistic arguments have failed to bring about land redistribution and it is all too likely that, in a gatt ruled world where multi-nationals dominate, such arguments will never lead to any fundamental redistribution of land - if anything the gap between ‘the haves’ and ‘the have nots’ will widen more and more. However, climatically, there MUST be land redistribution for the Earth (which includes oomans and Wildlife) or else oomans will not be able to avert the destabilization of the climate and the collapse of the Earth’s life support system for oomans. There is no choice about land redistribution for the Earth - oomans either regulate the climate or they will perish. It would thus be better for the landless to campaign for land redistribution on the grounds of geophysiological justice rather than conventional, nationally oriented, social and political, justice. The landless should fight for the Planet rather than being seen as yet another group of oomans promoting their own interests (no matter how deserving) at the expense of the Earth.

2.2.5: The Poor Nations should Fight for the Earth.

This argument is just as applicable on the world stage. Just as, on the national stage, it would be more productive for the poor and dispossessed to demand geophysiological justice rather than economic or political justice so the same is true for the disintegrating/industrializing nations on the global stage. The days are over when oomans could demand justice to redress grievances without any reference to the Earth’s capacity to sustain these demands because if oomans do not show more concern for the Planet's health and vitality they will not survive. There should be no support for agrarian reforms unless they are part of a global agreement about combating global burning i.e. in which each country around the world agrees to balance its historical Carbon budget and sets aside land for regional Wood economies, climate Forests and Wilderness. The wrm believes that land reforms are possible only when there are domestic political reforms and international reforms concerning debts. The argument here is that if agrarian land reforms are not carried out in the context of a global agreement about global burning then such reforms are at best irrelevant and, at worst, a boost to the destabilization of the climate.

2.2.6: The Big Bang Solution.

The wrm promotes policies for the redistribution of land but not policies to combat global burning. And yet campaigning about global burning would, if successful, have beneficial consequences for issues such as landlessness, global inequalities between rich and poor countries, third world debts and global poverty. This is because the policies to counter global burning necessitate the abolition of landlessness, global inequalities, third world debts and global poverty. It is a waste of valuable time and effort for political campaigners to try to solve each of these issues separately, one by one, when action against global burning would require a solution to all of them at the same time. The danger of pursuing each issue separately is that campaigners may make demands which would overstep the Earth’s geophysiological limits thereby boosting global burning whereas this would not be possible if global burning was the primary policy. Only a global burning campaign is capable of solving both land redistribution and global justice whilst protecting the Earth.

ADDENDA

3.1: The Scale of the Protected Areas on Earth.

Peter H Raven; Linda R Berg; George B Johnson.

"Many nations are beginning to appreciate the need to protect their biological heritage and have set aside areas for wildlife habitats. There are currently more than 3,000 national parks, sanctuaries, refuges, forests and other protected areas throughout the world. Today the National Wildlife Refuge System of the united states has land set aside in more than 400 refuges .. Hunting is allowed in more than half of the wildlife refuges in the United States, and military exercises are conducted in several of them."[10]

Environmental Education Dossiers Centre Unesco de Catalunya.

“Iucn - the world conservation union, works with the world conservation monitoring centre to record all such areas over 100 hectares. At the latest count, there were nearly 10,000, covering about 930 million hectares or 5% of the Earth’s land surface. On the face of it, that is an impressive figure. But there are many where the pressures have partially or even completely overwhelmed the protected area managers.”[11]

Jules Pretty and Michael Pimbert.

“From 2,000 protected areas 20 years ago, there are now 8,600. They are to be found in 169 countries, covering 792 million hectares - nearly 6% of the world’s land mass.”[12]

3.2: Jules Pretty and Michael Pimbert.

3.2.1: The Invasion of the World’s Nature Reserves.

Monbiot supports the invasion of the countryside in brutland and the invasion of Wildlife sanctuaries in third world countries. He protests about the treatment of masai tribalists who, allegedly, have been pushed off “their” land to make way for a commercial safari park. Jules pretty and michael pimbert argue this is just one of many examples around the world. Just like monbiot, they too want to protect the interests of tribal people. They demand that tribalists should not only be allowed to invade safari parks but the world’s Wildlife sanctuaries, the minuscule scraps of land reserved for Wildlife. The following quotation highlights the basic assumptions of their anthropogenic ideology. These assumptions will then be evaluated.

“From 2,000 protected areas 20 years ago, there are now 8,600. They are to be found in 169 countries, covering 792 million hectares - nearly 6% of the world’s land mass. But the global expansion of national parks has been accompanied by a powerful ideology that people are bad for nature, and so the wider public good is best served by keeping them out. As a result, millions of people have been resettled or prevented from using what were once their resources. In africa, two thirds of all protected areas (equal to five times the size of great brutland) exclude people, allowing no use of wild Plants or Animals. In india, where the number of sanctuaries and national parks has grown from 65 in 1960 to 530 today, some 600,000 tribal people have been forcibly removed and resettled elsewhere. In laos, some 900,000 people will be removed from upland Forests by the end of the century, mostly in the name of conservation. What is often forgotten is that these people also value the flora and fauna. In ghana .. a farmer selling bushmeat can make more in a day than a civil servant. It is often forgotten or not appreciated that the very ecosystems deemed worthy of protection from people have been shaped as much by human action as by any other factor. Some “pristine rainforests” assumed to be untouched by human hands, are now found to have once supported thriving agricultural communities. This concept of the Wilderness is an urban myth that exists only in our imagination. Open protest and rallies against protected areas, attacks on guards, poisoning of Animals and deliberate burning of Forests have now become common. When namibia became independent in 1990, ovambo tribesmen living on the boundary of etosha national park celebrated their freedom by cutting the game fence and driving into the park to hunt game for their families to eat. In madhya pradesh and assam in india, local resentment against the Tiger and Buffalo reserves has been readily harnessed by insurgency movements. In south india, some 20 square kilometres of the nagarhole national park were recently burned as a protest. As a result, the cost of enforcing park regulations has spiralled. In many countries, the bulk of the budget for protected areas is spent on aircraft, radios, machine guns, vehicles, armed guards and anti-poaching equipment. Emerging slowly from this mess, however, is a strengthening alternative vision that is putting people at the centre of conservation; it recognizes that humans and Animals can live in symbiotic relationships. When people are fully involved in conservation, the change can be remarkable. etc etc.”[13]

3.2.2: The Assumptions Underlying the Invasion of the Countryside.

3.2.2.1: Oomans are Good for Nature; Oomans Live in Harmony with Wildlife; Oomans boost Biodiversity.

‘Land grabbers’ like pretty and pimbert believe that oomans are good for nature .. “humans and Animals can live in symbiotic relationships”. They argue that because people can live in harmony with Wildlife they should be allowed to live in and exploit Wilderness areas. In fact oomans are so good at living in harmony with Wildlife they actually bring about an increase in biodiversity which would not have been possible if nature had been left entirely to itself.

3.2.2.2: The Belief that All Humans are Good for Nature - Whether Tribalists, Shifting or shifted slash/burn Cultivators, Bounty hunters, Gold diggers, exotic Animal exporters.

The authors talk about the way that tribal peoples around the world look after Forests. The intellectual trick adopted by pretty and pimbert, as well as others in the back to the land movement, is to start off by talking about the acknowledged consideration of tribal peoples for their local ecologies and then pretend other groups of people do the same whether peasants, shifting/shifted slash/burn cultivators, various types of bounty hunters such as gold diggers, exotic Animal exporters, etc.

3.2.2.3: Oomans are generous to give Wildlife so much Land.

The authors highlight the vast areas of land around the world that have been put aside for Animals. This helps to confirm their belief in oomans’ magnanimity in saving Wildlife.

3.2.2.4: No Such Thing as Wilderness - Ooman Made Forests.

Pretty and pimbert argue that the Earth’s Forests have been created by agriculturalists, “Some “pristine rainforests” assumed to be untouched by human hands, are now found to have once supported thriving agricultural communities”. As a consequence they argue, “This concept of the wilderness is an urban myth that exists only in our imagination”. They believe there are no virgin Wilderness areas on Earth which thus gives oomans rights over the Forests, “It is often forgotten or not appreciated that the very ecosystems deemed worthy of protection from people have been shaped as much by human action as by any other factor.”

3.2.2.5: Oomans Have the Right to Exploit Animals.

The authors support two anthropocentric rights: oomans’ right to kill any Animal on Earth and to settle on any part of the Earth they might so desire.

3.2.2.6: The Exploitation of Animals is Sustainable

The oomans’ first and ‘the land is ours’ brigade support local people’s exploitation of Wildlife because it provides them with an income and protects the environment.

3.2.2.7: The Injustice of Ejecting People from their Land.

The authors argue it is wrong to eject people from their own land, “As a result, millions of people have been resettled or prevented from using what were once their resources.”

3.2.2.8: The Cost of Ejecting People from their Land.

The authors object to the huge financial costs of defending Wilderness areas from incursions by local people, “As a result, the cost of enforcing park regulations has spiralled. In many countries, the bulk of the budget for protected areas is spent on aircraft, radios, machine guns, vehicles, armed guards and anti-poaching equipment.”

3.2.2.9: Ooman First Conservation.

Another of the authors’ basic assumptions is that conservation needs to be ooman first, “Emerging slowly from this mess, however, is a strengthening alternative vision that is putting people at the centre of conservation; it recognizes that humans and Animals can live in symbiotic relationships. When people are fully involved in conservation, the change can be remarkable. etc etc.”

3.2.3: Criticisms.

3.2.3.1: Oomans are Bad for Nature.

The authors can argue that oomans are good for Wildlife primarily by ignoring the fact that throughout history oomans have been killing more and more Animals. The argument that oomans are good for Wildlife is a far bigger lie than the proposition that the nazis were good at protecting jews. More Animals are being killed today than have ever been killed in the past. The scale of this slaughter is so gigantic that it is probably in the region of hundreds of billions of Animals killed each year. Oomans are not merely killing more and more Animals they are driving more and more Wildlife species into extinction and threatening to bring about the collapse of local ecologies across vast areas of the Earth. To these caring, considerate, compassionate, lefties such basic facts of ooman history have to be dismissed because to take them seriously requires oomans to face up to their murderousness and leads to the conclusion that oomans must also be kept out of Wilderness zones. In order to promote oomans’ invasion of Wilderness areas they invent an unreal ideology that people are good for Wildlife and biodiversity. It is almost as if they know nothing about what has happened on this Planet over the last ten thousand years. However, it is not so much that these authors have spent most of their lives drifting in outer space but that they are such extreme oomano-imperialist bigots they automatically repress any facts showing oomans’ annihilation of Wildlife or the destruction of the Earth’s life support system. The only reason they promote this eco-nazis ideology that oomans are good for Animals is because they want oomans to go on ransacking the Earth’s nature reserves.

Pretty and pimbert are supposed to be greens but they sound more like long-serving members of the american wise use movement, “The groups supporting Wise Use organizations include Exxon USA, the national Cattleman’s Association, the motorcycle industry Council, Chevron USA, Kawasaki, Yamaha ...”[14] The wise use movement is currently seeking to devastate america’s ‘Wilderness areas’ - sorry, according to these two authors, there are no Wildernesses left so perhaps a more appropriate phrase is ‘the less ecologically damaged parts of turtle island’. The views of these authors also have similarities with some of the positions taken by the world rainforest movement.

The belief that oomans are good for nature completely undermines the basis of green politics - if oomans are good for nature then what is the need for green politics? As far as the vast majority of oomans are concerned as soon as they see an Animal they are all too likely to kill it and all green policy should be based upon this premise rather than the absurd fantasy that oomans are Animal lovers. If oomans were such Wildlife loving creatures why are the numbers of Wildlife disappearing so rapidly all over the Earth? Surely, if oomans were such Animal loving creatures we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

3.2.3.2: Oomans Can’t Live in Harmony with Wildlife.

There are two basic errors concerning the proposition that oomans live harmoniously with Animals. Firstly, living harmoniously with Animals doesn’t entail killing them. People do not say “i’m living harmoniously with my neighbours so i’m now going to go and kill them.”

Secondly, oomans cannot live symbiotically with dangerous Animals. It is pure do-lallyism to believe that oomans can live in harmony with Lions, Leopards and Elephants, etc. Even if oomans don’t like killing Animal they will do so out of fear for their children’s safety. They will never allow Wolves/Bears/Tigers/Snakes/Spiders/Rats/Mice to live in their vicinity in case such Animals attack/upset/infect their children. Throughout their history, oomans have slaughtered all species posing any threat to their children. The only symbiotic relationships that oomans allow are those with small Animals which pose no physical threat. All that this pair of twits need to do to discover the stupidity of their argument is to ask any parent with young children whether they want to live in proximity to Lions and Wolves. The answer will obviously be no. Thus, as soon as oomans are allowed to live in proximity with Wildlife, they will exterminate all those Animals which pose a threat to their children's survival.

What is paradoxical about these authors’ views, like many other supporters of the oomans first!; ‘back to the land’; ‘let’s live in harmony with nature’ brigade, is that if they ever organized a green event they would doubtlessly insist the people attending should not, under any circumstances, bring along their Dogs. If they can’t cope with being in the same company as Dogs for a few hours then how is it possible for them to expect people to live continuously with Wildlife? If these greens can’t live in harmony with domesticated Animals such as Dogs, how can it be expected that they would live in harmony with Wildlife in general?

The belief that oomans can live in harmony with Wildlife might be acceptable as a fantasy or as a vision of an ideal society but to think it has anything to do with reality is bizarre. Whilst it might be marvellous to believe that a Cat should live in harmony with a budgerigar, the poor budgie isn’t going to thank an ooman for forcing it to test out oomans’ bizarre fantasies about Animals’ good naturedness.

The inevitable consequence of allowing oomans back into Wilderness areas is the destruction of Wildlife. The inevitable consequence of allowing people to exploit Wildlife is the destruction of Wildlife. The integrationist ethic of living in harmony with Wildlife is based on murder not reciprocity.

3.2.3.3: The Belief that All Humans are Good for Nature - Shifting or shifted slash/burn Cultivators, Bounty hunters, Gold diggers, exotic Animal exporters.

The authors believe that tribal peoples look after Forests. There is a great deal of truth in this even if it is becoming less and less true as more and more tribalists are integrated into global capitalism. The problem with tribal peoples is that as they come into contact with oomano-imperialists they lose their respect for nature.

However, whilst tribalists might look after Forests, this is not the case with peasants, shifting/shifted slash/burn cultivators and the various types of bounty hunters such as gold diggers, exotic Animal exporters, etc. These groups do not care about nature and they don’t look after the environment as much as tribal peoples. It is an intellectual fraud to conflate all of these various categories of people and pretend they are exactly the same as tribalists.

The argument that the world’s peasants care about the land is about as bizarre as saying that farmers are good at protecting local Wildlife habitats; or that fishermen are good at protecting Fish; or that Whale hunters are good at protecting Whales; or that fur hunters are good at protecting Seals; or, more generally, that hunting is good for Wildlife. It is an indisputable fact that the world’s pharmers have decimated a huge proportion of the Earth’s habitats; it is an indisputable fact that fresh water fishermen are distorting aquatic habitats by stocking rivers with prize winning Fish species whilst destroying other predators of these species such as Fish and Birds; it is an indisputable fact that sea water fishing is so destructive that it is on the verge of decimating the ecologies of whole oceans. For anyone to argue that pharmers, fishermen and hunters are good for protecting Wildlife when Wildlife is on the verge of total extinction is a monstrous lie on a par with anything invented by hitler or goebbels.

3.2.3.4: Oomans are not Generous in giving Land to Wildlife.

The authors contend that a substantial area of the Earth’s land surface has been designated as protected areas. Considering these author’s ignorance about the scale of the slaughter which oomans are inflicting on Animals they seem to know a lot about protected areas. They argue that in 169 countries there are 8,600 protected areas, covering 792 million hectares, composing 6% of the world’s land mass. This seems a lot but it’s just an illusion.

* Firstly, the reason that many nature reserves have been set up is because the destruction of the environment has been so intense that if some land wasn’t put aside for Wildlife there wouldn’t be Animals left;

* Secondly, what the authors do not say is whether these ‘protected’ lands are ooman-free Wilderness areas, Wildlife sanctuaries, nature reserves, parks, or as is far more likely to be the case, hunting or safari areas.

* Thirdly, the quality of these areas for Wildlife leaves a lot to be desired - especially with prats like pretty and pimbert encouraging people to invade such areas. Oomans continue to invade these areas which, as a consequence, are in the process of being destroyed. In many cases these places are Animal sanctuaries only in name, “Iucn - the world conservation union, works with the world conservation monitoring centre to record all such areas over 100 hectares. At the latest count, there were nearly 10,000, covering about 930 million hectares or 5% of the Earth’s land surface. On the face of it, that is an impressive figure. But there are many where the pressures have partially or even completely overwhelmed the protected area managers.”[15]

The authors stress that huge areas of land have been put aside for Animals but when looked at from an historical perspective, a few millennia ago Wildlife dominated virtually the whole Earth and now they are left with a piddling 6%. It shouldn’t be difficult to understand that at this rate of decline it won’t be long before Wildlife has been extinguished. Animals used to be killed by hunters, exploiters or sadists but increasingly they are being killed by those destroying Wildlife habitats. If these two authors are anything to go by and greens get into power, then Wildlife are also likely to be stabbed in the back by greens pretending to protect Wildlife.

It needs to be remembered that Animals created oomans (and therefore god) and that Wildlife are responsible for helping to stabilize the Earth’s climate. Giving creatures who are stabilizing the climate only 6% of the Earth’s landmass doesn’t say very much about oomans’ belief in the need to combat global burning. Surely, because Animals protect the Earth’s life support system then they should be given sovereignty over the overwhelming majority of the land on Earth whilst bipeds who persist in acting as Planet wreckers should be confined to as small an area as possible - preferably either robbin island or some small islands in the middle of the Pacific.

Below are a number of examples which indicate that the land that has supposedly been put aside for the protection of Wildlife is just not doing the job.

The United States of America.

“The stillwater mining company has applied for a patent to 1.714 areas of national forest land in Montana, where it is mining platinum. The fee for the patent will be less than $8,600 but the value of the ore in the ground is estimated to be in excess of $30 billion.”[16]; “The (United Sates) General Accounting Office .. reported that in 1987, 265 patent requests (mining claims) were pending on 80,000 acres lying in national forests and the public domain.”[17]; “Oil and gas exploration .. was considered harmful to nearly half of the 64 (National Wildlife) Refuges on which it occurred.”[18]

Russia.

"The simple truth is that nature reserves and sanctuaries in the soviet union are used as communist party-members' hunting grounds, and as a source of black-market meat and furs in a widespread network of corruption. Indeed, high ranking government and military commanders were legendary in russia for their hunts on nature reserves."[19]

3.2.3.5: The Nonsense of No Such Thing as Wilderness.

The authors argue that oomans have created the Earth’s Forests and that Wilderness is an urban concept. Once again the authors are slipping into do-lallyism if they believe the Earth’s Forests are, in one way or another, man made. There is undoubtedly evidence that a small fraction of the Earth’s Forests are now growing on what used to be cultivated land, especially in central america, but this doesn't mean to say that cultivators have any responsibility for creating the Forest that grew up on the abandoned land.

Whilst it is true that there might have been “thriving agricultural communities” in some parts of the Earth’s Forests it seems logical to conclude that because these communities no longer exist they must have stopped thriving for one reason or another. The most likely explanation is that these communities collapsed because they didn’t live in harmony with their surroundings. They probably cut down too much of the Forests and didn’t know how to look after the land. In other words, the Forests returned in such abundance not because of oomans but in spite of oomans.

It is true that substantial parts of the Earth’s Forests may have be burnt down at one point or another by slash and burn farmers. But once again this doesn’t mean to say they have any responsibility for the regeneration of the Forest. Forest fires are a natural phenomena. It is undoubtedly true that, before the second world war, fires resulting from lightning strikes may have burnt down larger areas of Forest than ooman made fires.

It is quite likely that some of the seeds planted by settled farmers or slash/burn farmers would have survived after people moved away. Some of the Plants may have grown during the regeneration of the Forests. This still does not justify the claim that oomans are responsible for making the Forests flourish. The reason the world’s old growth Forests are highly complex habitats containing huge numbers of different Plant and Animal species is because they have been ooman-free for long periods of time. This incredible biodiversity has nothing to do with oomans. On the contrary, as soon as oomans get anywhere near Forests the number of Plant and Animal species goes into decline.

Just because Forests grow on land which was once used agriculturally, or has Plants left there by slash and burn farmers, doesn’t mean to say they aren’t Wildernesses and thus not worth saving. What counts is a Forests’ biodiversity. The greater the biodiversity, the less interference it has suffered at ooman hands, and the more it can be regarded as Wilderness.

The imprecision of the authors’ statement about the artificiality of Forests indicates they are indulging in fantasies. They argue, “Some “pristine rainforests” are now found to have once supported thriving agricultural communities”. This implies that not all Forests are man made so why are touting the idea that Wilderness is an urban concept and that there are no virgin Wilderness areas on Earth? “This concept of the wilderness is an urban myth that exists only in our imagination”. Just how much do they mean by “some”.

What is even worse about their ideology is the implication that if oomans have made something then this entitles them to destroy it i.e. if oomans have created Forests then they can do what they want to these Forests.

3.2.3.6: Oomans do not have the Right to Exploit Animals.

When these authors talk about tribal peoples living in harmony with nature what they actually mean is that tribalists have the right to murder Animals. They doubtlessly also accept that tribalists have the right to murder Animals not merely to obtain the resources needed to survive but to sell so that they can obtain consumer indurables .. “a farmer selling bushmeat can make more in a day than a civil servant.” Whilst there is some legitimacy in tribal peoples killing in order to survive as tribalists there is no legitimacy in their killing Animals commercially for the sake of a consumer lifestyle. As soon as tribalists start the commercial exploitation of Animals they are no longer tribal peoples and no longer deserve support.

These authors support the right of all oomans, not merely tribalists, to exploit and murder Animals. There is, however, no justification for killing Animals. Wildlife have helped to create a habitable Planet and stabilized the climate but oomans, in what must be the greatest act of ingratitude ever witnessed on Earth, have decided to ignore these contributions and have insisted that if Animals don’t pay their way and earn a living, just like all the other jobbies in consumer societies, then they’ll be exterminated. The survival of a significant number of Wildlife areas now depends on Wildlife having a price on their head, not a use value or an exchange value but an execution value, the price that wealthy sadists with extremely powerful weaponry will pay to shoot defenceless Animals, "The Elephant populations in three southern african countries are indisputably growing - in zimbabwe, botswana and south africa. The southern African countries do not oppose the (ivory) ban simply so that they can continue a lucrative trade. They argue that the success of their programmes of Elephant management depends on the Animal having a financial value. South africa and zimbabwe need to cull their Elephants annually. Every bit of the carcass is used; the meat goes to local people and skin and ivory to international trade, the proceeds of which are ploughed back into conservation."[20]

The authors, as well as the land is ours, supports safari parks which have been set up in co-operation with local people so that local people share the benefits of this commercial enterprise. They support the conversion of Wilderness areas into safari parks to enable local people to share in the profits from the exploitation of Animals. In so doing these authors, like the land is ours, not merely justify the culling of Animals such as Elephants but the slaughter of Animals around the world whether through Bull-fighting, Fox hunting, or Whaling.

3.2.3.7: The Exploitation of Animals is Unsustainable

The authors argue that the slaughter of Animals around the world is sustainable. But whilst the slaughter of Wildlife by tribal people may be less unsustainable, it is not sustainable by commercialized tribalists or any other commercial hunters.

The mechanics by which Animal exploiters destroy the environment are relatively simple. Local people benefiting from their local safari park see the wealth enjoyed by visiting tourists. They too want to obtain consumer products. The only way they can do this is by increasing the number of Animals being killed in the safari park. In addition, tribal/local people are no different from another other group of people around the world, they want the best for their children. This further increases the pressure to kill more Wildlife. There is also the danger that an economic downturn will mean a loss of income which can be made up only by even more intensive exploitation. Eventually there will be nothing left and the land might as well have been destroyed by burning it to the ground. All that the commercialization of Wildlife will do is to delay the destruction of the environment and the extermination of the Animals living there by a few decades. It is not a long term solution.

It is difficult not to agree with the following criticisms of pretty and pimbert’s article, “The article asserts that excluding people from conservation areas is a mistake. Because, it is argued, such land is crucial to the survival of the people who live on it, “they look after it.” Man as the noble savage. Unfortunately, a hungry man, like all the other organisms on the Planet, exists by exploiting the environment with no thought for the future. Thus, if the maintenance of biodiversity can serve to provide people with a good living through ecotourism or sustainable harvesting, then humans and a wide range of Plant and animal species can exist together. However, such a situation is a delicate balance. World economic depression may keep the ecotourists at home and intensive farming is always likely to be more productive and predictable than harvesting a natural resource. Under these circumstances exclusion of people from well managed reserves is, I think, more likely to allow effective conservation over the short term.”[21]

3.2.3.8: The Injustice of Ejecting People from their Land.

To a large extent these authors have used ecological arguments to defend peoples’ right to invade Wilderness areas i.e. people are good for nature. This ecological defence is not valid. But the authors have also tried to defend local people through the straightforward criteria of justice - that it is unjust to eject people from their own land, “As a result, millions of people have been resettled or prevented from using what were once their resources.”

The authors are right to berate those authorities who have created Wildlife sanctuaries without adequate compensation for those who used to use the land. Some people have been shabbily treated. But in many cases, tribalists have not been moved off the land, as if they were rooted to a particular piece of land. Tribalists wander over large areas and, in many cases, they have just been prevented from using the entirety of their tribal lands. But this loss of land was going to happen anyway given the continuing rise in ooman numbers. It is no longer possible to allow tribalists the right to lay claim to vast tracts of land most of which they would visit only once every decade. The fact is that the Earth is over-populated. The days when tribalists could claim possession over vast tracts of land is over.

The stabilization of the Earth’s climate and the creation of a sustainable Planet will undoubtedly require evacuations from certain areas in every country around the world. The stabilization of the climate requires the threefold division of the Earth’s landmass - regional Forests in which oomans would create Wood economies; climate Forests to stabilize the climate and Wilderness areas for Wildlife. Oomans around the world would have to move out of the areas designated as climate Forests and Wilderness areas. The sole compensation of the stabilization of the climate for those living in third world countries is that given the role of third world countries in stabilizing the climate over the last few centuries, far less Forests would need to be set aside in these countries than in the over-industrialized nations.

The forcible evacuation of people from areas which have been bought up as safari parks does seem hideously racist - a group of ecologists (usually white) extolling a thatcherite, free market ideology which hypocritically aims to protect Animals whilst impoverishing black people. And yet this is exactly what happens when multinational corporations buy up land for the planting of cash crops and most lefties are all too willing to consume the products produced from these lands. However, the evacuations required to combat global burning would not be racist since all countries around the world would be adopting the same policies.

3.2.3.9: The Earth comes First.

The authors promote the oxymoron of ooman centred conservation, “Emerging slowly from this mess is a strengthening alternative vision that is putting people at the centre of conservation ..” Quite how it is possible to have a conservation movement which puts oomans, rather than the Earth, at the centre is not only a contradiction in terms but an absurdity. It is simply not possible to keep trying to fulfil all of the wishes and desires of an ooman population which is growing exponential - it has increased by 50% from 4 billion to 6 billion in a mere twenty years from the first Earth day in 1970 to the third in 1990. If oomans are going to survive on Earth then they have got to put the Earth first. Oomans are not going to be able to make the Earth fit their wishes and fantasies; oomans have got to fit themselves onto the Earth or else they will disappear.

Putting the Earth first requires a global agreement between all nations around the world as to the concentration of atmospheric Carbon and the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover i.e. the sale of Wilderness areas and climate Forests. It is only this global agreement which provides the limits on economic growth and thus the number of cars, the number of industries and the number of people on Earth.

3.2.3.10: The Cost of Ejecting People from their Land.

The authors object to the huge costs of defending safari parks from incursions by local people, “As a result, the cost of enforcing park regulations has spiralled. In many countries, the bulk of the budget for protected areas is spent on aircraft, radios, machine guns, vehicles, armed guards and anti-poaching equipment.” It is truly revolting when a company buys up land and ejects those who have been living there for generations. However, this is not the case when the land put aside for Wildlife is rarely used by tribal people who still have hundreds of thousands of acres at their disposal. But it also has to be acknowledged that if richard leakey hadn't created a green army in kenya then most of the Wildlife in that country would no longer exist. Under these circumstances helicopter gun ships and electrified fencing is money well spent.

The prospects for the peaceful creation of a sustainable Planet are not good. It may well be that oomans have become so accustomed to slaughtering Animals and fighting for an ever increasing number of resources that they cannot settle down to a more stabilized existence in conformity with the needs of the Earth. The fact is that factory pharm oomans are waging a war against the Earth and that at some point or other they have got to be stopped. It may then be necessary to start defending Wilderness areas and climate Forests until oomans can settle into their regional Wood economies. Ultimately, if oomans refuse to respect the Earth then they will have to go and find another Planet to live on.