PART FOUR: THE CASE FOR URBANIZING THE COUNTRYSIDE.

Part four looks at the green movement's demand that people should be allowed to live and work in the countryside. Some greens go much further and demand the abolition of cities. This chapter criticizes both proposals.

4.1: Greens' Critique of the Cities.

4.1.1: Resource Extravagance of Cities in Comparison to Rural Areas.

Virtually all rural greens[1] believe that urbanites inflict ecological damage not only on the urban areas they cement over but on the hinterland from which they draw resources. Cities are criticized as centres of consumption, "Urban centres around the world are extremely resource-intensive. The large scale, centralized systems they require are almost without exception more stressful to the environment than small-scale, diversified, locally adapted production. Food and water, building materials, and energy must all be transported great distances via energy consuming infrastructures; their concentrated wastes must be hauled away in trucks and barges or incinerated at great cost to the environment."[2]

4.1.2: Urbanites Divorced from the Soil.

Rural greens accept the basic tenet of rural ideology: the reason urbanites cause so much ecological devastation is because living in cities encourages people to keep demanding more and more commodities without appreciating the impacts of these demands on nature. Urbanites insist on cheap, flawless agricultural products and this exerts considerable pressure on pharmers to use monocultural methods of agricultural production. Greens condemn urbanites for losing contact with the land, "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."[3] Greens believe the destruction of nature will increase in scale as cities become even more extensive. They argue ecological problems are caused by urban consumers not pharmers.

4.2: Greens' Case for Urbanizing the Countryside.

Greens give a number of reasons for urbanizing the countryside.[4]

4.2.1: Solving Unemployment, Vehicle Congestion and Urban Pollution.

Many greens believe a large number of current social problems such as structural unemployment, vehicle congestion in city centres, urban pollution, pollution of food and land by agribusiness, etc could all be solved by the simple expedient of allowing deprived city folk to colonise surplus farmland and grow their own, chemical free, crops in small-scale allotments. Tony wrench is highly critical of the ecological damage caused by modern prairie pharming and finds it objectionable that whilst millions of people living in brutish cities are unemployed, large stretches of the countryside lie idle. For wrench the answer to these problems is to allow the unemployed to move into the countryside to grow their own food. This will lead to the abolition of prairie pharming, create jobs for the unemployed (and thus solve all the social problems caused by unemployment) and green the land.

4.2.2: Producing more Food through Labour, rather than Capital, Intensive Agriculture.

One of the main arguments used to support the colonization of the countryside is that, contrary to conventional assumptions, capital intensive pharming is less efficient than labour intensive production, "To begin with, the bigger farm does increase yield per unit of labour, but not yields per unit of land used. .. even m.s. fuminuthan, the father of the green revolution in india, admits that the right size farm for india is 2.5 acres. It's small farms that maximize food production not big farms."[5] This of course would help to produce more food and prevent starvation.

4.2.3: Local People Look after Local Ecologies Better than Outsiders.

A substantial part of the green movement believes it is necessary to get people back to the land where they can learn how to grow crops. This will enable them to be closer to nature, and encourage them to care for nature. Greens believe this is the only way to avert a global ecological disaster. If people are closer to the land they would look after it better than absentee, multi-national, corporate landowners. It is only when pharming is controlled by corporate institutions, far removed from the land they own, that ecological disasters start to occur, "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."[6]

4.2.4: Meeting Ooman Needs.

In a considerable coincidence of interests, greens believe that colonizing the countryside would not merely meet the objective needs of the urban poor, it would also meet their subjective needs. They assert that huge numbers of urbanites are straining at the leash to be allowed back the countryside and the only reason that they haven't done so yet is because they are prevented from doing so by governments refusing to designate land for small scale agricultural production. According to theodore roszak, "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."[7] Given the chance most people would move into the countryside andwork on the land, "The city has never been a way of life that appealed to more than a strict minority."[8] He concludes, "Land reform is the undiscovered revolution in American politics."[9] This assumption is reminiscent of the view held by extreme left wing groups that the working classes of the world are desperate for a global socialist revolution.

4.2.5: The Aesthetic Desire to Abolish the Town and Country Divide.

Greens also have an aesthetic reason for urbanizing the countryside. They hark back to marx's distaste for the dichotomy between town and country - a distaste derived not from any understanding whatsoever of the nature of the Earth's life support system but solely from his hegelian desire to reconcile opposites. Greens counter fears about the destruction of the countryside by implying that a more even spread of population would lead to the dismantling of cities so there would be no urban to sprawl anywhere.

4.2.6: Land Reform and Egalitarianism.

Another major reason for greens' support for the urbanization of the countryside derives from their desire for a more egalitarian society. They demand the large scale redistribution of land, "The present system denies people their natural birthright of access to the land."[10]

4.2.7: The Need for Countryside Playgrounds.

Some greens demand the opening up of the countryside not only to create a renaissance of small-scale gardening but to give free reign to all those who have some way of exploiting the countryside.

The Right to Roam - the 'Land is Ours'.

The 'land is ours' group demands the right to roam, "A right to roam is not just a convenience for the 18 million people who visit the countryside every summer weekend. Our exclusion from rural britain is the most manifest of class barriers. When it comes to the disposal of power in britain, little has changed in 900 years."[11]

'A playground for Trail Bikers, Ravers, Hikers and Climbers' - George Monbiot and John Vidal.

For george monbiot and john vidal this leads to demands that .. "the 1995 DoE/Ministry of Agriculture paper must reflect post-industrial reality - where a true rural economy based on land itself has ceased to exist, where cultural relationships are now rooted in escape or informed by television. And as space becomes precious - a playground as much for trail bikers and ravers as hikers and climbers .. "[12]

'Dirt Bikers, Hang Gliders, Water Skiers' - Charlie Pye-Smith and Chris Hall.

"One of the most divisive conflicts has been between ramblers and motor-cyclists. Ramblers are fierce advocates of access on foot; but they are equally fierce opponents of activities such as scrambling and riding trail-bikes on green lanes. The motor cyclists have every right to demand that their needs are satisfied too. After all, there is nothing morally wrong with noise. We must accept that all pursuits have a place, and we must insist that the visitors, whether on foot or horseback or machine, develop a greater tolerance towards one-another. At the moment, ramblers and riders don't consider it any part of their business to find room for hang-gliders and water skiers. It is time they did."[13]

4.3: Greens' Case for Demolishing Cities.

4.3.1: The Pol Pot Solution.

Moderate greens support the gradual colonization of the countryside. They want to give everyone the legal right to live and work in the countryside but allow individuals to decide whether they want to take advantage of this opportunity. The more extremist greens like green anarchist, primitivists, tribalists, and george monbiot, want to push everyone into the countryside and then abolish the cities.

4.3.2: The Extreme Pressure Placed on the Environment by Urbanites.

The extreme greens believe that urbanites exert so much pressure on the countryside it is not enough to allow some people to move back into the countryside, it is also imperative to abolish the cities.

4.3.3: The Shortage of Fossil Fuels will lead to the Decline of the City.

There is third set of rural greens who look at this issue in a more pragmatic way. They speculate that, over the long term, deurbanization is inevitable because as fossil fuels become scarcer, industrialized agriculture will not be able to feed the increasing numbers of urbanites, "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."[14] This belief in destiny is heavily tinged with satisfaction that history is at long last moving in greens' direction - although no thought is given to the impact that cementing more areas of the countryside will have on the Earth's life support system.

4.4: Geophysiological Criticisms of the Urbanization of the Countryside.

A number of criticisms can be made of greens' support for urbanizing the countryside and demolishing the cities.

4.4.1: No Geophysiological Analysis of the Damage Caused by Urbanizing the Countryside.

As far as is known, no greens have carried out an analysis of the geophysiological destruction caused by rural life. There are a small number of works on the ecological damage caused by agriculture and the Animal exploitation industry but none about rural life. Perhaps even more surprisingly given greens' incessant pleas to be allowed to return to the land, there are no geophysiological analyses of the scale of the damage that would be caused by the urbanization of the countryside. But, then again, perhaps not so surprising. Since greens are the only people interested in carrying out green analyzes why should they carry out such an analysis of their own policies? After all, since they regard themselves as greens then anything they do must, by definition, be green. Why then should they need to justify their own proposals? Goldsmith demands the decentralization of society but he hasn't carried out a geophysiological assessment of these policies to determine whether they would ruin or rejuvenate the Earth's life support system.

4.4.2: The Geophysiological Damage caused by Urbanizing the Countryside.

There are a vast number of ways in which the urbanization of the countryside will damage the Earth's life sustaining processes. Whilst it is undoubtedly true as greens argue that on an 'area for area' basis labour intensive pharming would be more agriculturally productive than prairie pharming and would also absorb more Carbon from the atmosphere, this comparison is an abstraction. In reality, those invading the countryside would not simply grow crops; they would also want to live in houses and enjoy a wide range of services to ensure a decent lifestyle. If urbanites move into the countryside they will immediately try to reproduce all the facilities they enjoyed in urban areas. These non-farming elements could be met only through a wide range of construction projects:-

more houses;

more local shops;

more post offices;

more community centres/village halls;

more pubs, clubs;

more leisure/sporting/entertainment facilities - sports centres, cinema multiplexes;

more doctors' surgeries;

more tea rooms, restaurants, burger bars;

more schools;

more roads;

more garages;

more car parks;

more petrol filing stations;

more factories/workplaces,

local outposts of the emergency services, fire, ambulance, and police;

a bigger service infrastructure:

gas,

electricity power stations, sub-stations, pylons, and underground cables,

telephones,

water supply,

sewage treatment and disposal,

waste disposal;

postal delivery,

public transport.

The urbanization of the countryside would cause a huge amount of geophsiological damage. The more people who moved back into the countryside the greater the range of construction projects required. Some of the more realistic back to the landers admit there would be a signifcant range of construction projects needed for urban people to survive in the countryside, "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."[15]

4.4.3: The Three Rules of Devastation Entailed by Urbanizing the Countryside.

There are three rules applicable to the urbanization of the countryside:-

* Firstly, the less schools, shops, factories, sporting/entertainment facilities there are in a new urban village, the greater the demand for motorized transport to get to such facilities, the greater the number of cars and car parks.

* Secondly, as urban children grow up in their new rural surroundings they would eventually want a home of their own and, quite possibly, one within the same village as their parents. In a matter of a few generations hamlets would turn into villages, and villages would turn into towns, and towns into cities, etc. One day the founding fathers of rural colonization would wake up and ask where the countryside had gone. Gradually they'd find themselves in the midst of an urban sprawl. There are no 'back to the landers' who have outlined a sensible set of policies for stabilizing the population of new rural villages.

* Thirdly, the more villages there are, the more roads that will have to be built between them. If there are two villages then one road would suffice; if there were three villages then three roads would be required; if there were four villages then six roads would be required, and so on. The arithmetical increase in rural villages would lead to an exponential increase in roads.

4.4.4: The Extensification entailed by Organic Pharming.

At the present time, organic farming has a superficially positive public image. To the extent that the public considers this issue they admire small scale organic farmers who care for their crops and Animals without the use of chemicals. Organic farming is regarded as being far less brutal than the violent practices carried out by modern industrialized pharming. Monbiot adds a romantic gloss to this image by suggesting organic farmers are the 'davids' in comparison to the goliaths of industrialized pharming, "For no one has suffered more from the depradations of maximized agribusiness than the conscientious farmer."[16]

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."[17] 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 millenia 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."[18] It is as if these authors have never heard of global burning or are so ignorant of geophysiological issues that 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, as regards the rearing of livestock it is inevitable that a resurgence of organic livestock pharming will 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.

4.4.5: The Pivotal Role played by Solar Energy in the Invasion of the Countryside.

4.4.5.1: Reducing Ecological Damage by using Solar Energy.

Greens supporting the invasion of the countryside argue they could avoid many of the damaging construction projects highlighted above by relying on alternative energy such a solar/wind power rather than fossil fuels. They point out that solar electricity would make it unnecessary to build power stations, electricity sub-stations, pylons, and underground cables.

4.4.5.2: Increasing Geophysiological Damage by using Solar Energy.

Solar electricity causes geophysiological damage in a number of ways. Firstly, there would be the damage caused by the manufacture of solar cells and the mining for the raw materials need for the manufacturing process - although it is likely this would be less than that caused by similar requirements for conventional electricity supply. By far the biggest problem, however, is that solar electricity would enable vast numbers of people to move back into the countryside and settle virtually anywhere they wanted. In comparison, the geophysiological damage caused by conventional electricity is much smaller given that electricity supplied through a national grid can reach only a limited number of people living in rural areas. The financial costs of providing a national grid covering remote parts of the countryside are too high to make it profitable. A huge amount of damage would already have been caused by solar energy if it wasn't for the fact that many third world governments subsidize conventional electricity supply through a national grid .. "solar electrification projects start with a large disadvantage, since most developing country governments heavily subsidize the extension of grid electricity to rural areas, as well as the installation of diesel water pumps."[19] The money spent on supply a national grid has prevented people from moving even deeper into the countryside with the aid of solar power. Solar power can produce electricity almost anywhere thereby allowing huge numbers of people to live in the remotest parts of the countryside far beyond the national grid.

It is not necessarily only the rural poor in third world countries who could take advantage of solar power. It is far more likely to benefit the rich who want second/third homes in secluded areas. This could lead to huge developments in remote Forests and Wilderness areas causing a substantial amount of damage to the Earth's life support system. Throughout the 20thc the car has helped to open up Wilderness areas for hunters and recreational drivers whose respect for Wilderness and Wildlife is non-existent. In the 21stc solar power is the means by which oomans could destroy the last remnants of Wilderness areas, "The use of solar electric systems in rural homes is growing in industrial countries as well, spurred by the popularity of vacation cabins and the cost of reaching them with power lines, which in the united states runs between $13,500 and $33,000 per kilometre for even small local distribution lines. In contrast a 500-watt pv system - enough to power an efficient home's lights, radio, television, and computer - would cost less than $15,000 including batteries for storage. Norway already has 50,000 pv powered country homes, and an additional 8,000 are being "solarized" each year. Among the other leaders in pv home installations are spain, switzerland and the united states. All four nations have extensive forests or mountains and a middle class with the money and leisure time to enjoy them."[20] Greens' demands to open up the countryside will benefit the rich far more than the poor.

4.4.6: Urbanization of the Countryside will Lead to Overpopulation.

It has been pointed out above that rural families are far larger than their urban counterparts. If there is a huge influx of people back into the countryside it is possible they too would adopt this rural vice.

In addition, the increase in food production which could be brought about by labour intensive crop pharming would also boost overpopulation thereby increasing geophysiological damage. Abernethy gives a practical example of this, "In the 1950s land redistribution in Turkey led formerly landless peasants to increase significantly the size of their families."[21] It is commonly held that increasing affluence and security lead to a fall in birth-rates but abernethy argues that birth-rates rise because of the perception of good times to come, "During the 1950s and 1960s the African fertility rate rose to almost seven children per woman - at the same time that infant mortality was dramatically reduced, health-care availability grew, and literacy levels increased. An air of economic optimism pervaded more and more sectors of society. The mantras of democracy, redistribution, and economic development raise expectations and fertility rates, fostering population growth and thereby steepening a downward environmental and economic spiral."[22]

4.4.7: Cities can help to Dampen Expectations.

One of the reasons greens give for advocating rural colonization, and in some extreme cases the abolition of cities, is that urban life encourages urbanites to make incessant demands for commodities which damage the countryside. It is true that urbanites want more resources and that cities are centres of consumption but it is not true that these demands can't be curbed by cities. After all, urbanites support environmental protection - unlike ruralites who favour the abolition of environmental regulations.

4.4.8: Local People Look after their Local Ecologies but not the Earth.

The argument that local people who grow their own crops look after local ecologies better than absentee corporate landowners is true but this does not mean they don't damage the Earth's life support system. Just because they damage local ecologies less than industrialized pharming shouldn't legitimize a wholesale change in which the entire Earth is urbanized and controlled by local people. This would be a geophysiological disaster. Local people know how to look after their local ecologies but this doesn't mean they understand the Earth's geophysiological condition let alone care about ensuring the protection of the Earth's life support system.

4.4.9: The Numbers Heading Back to the Countryside.

The greens supporting a voluntary return to the countryside rarely give an estimate of the numbers this would entail. It might range from a few thousand in the over-industrialized countries to tens of millions in third world countries. Other greens insist that all people should be pushed back into the countryside. In either case, quite how a large scale movement of people could be handled without chaos or conflict is not explained. The equation is quite simple. The more people who move into the countryside, the greater the social and political chaos, the greater the geophysiological destruction, the greater the destabilization of the Earth's climate.

Some greens suggest the movement of people back into the countryside would cause few geophysiological problems because if towns can absorb millions of people it shouldn't be difficult for the countryside to do the same, "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] Carrying out a vast invasion of the countryside without any idea of the impact this will have on the Earth's geophysiological condition is gross irresponsibility - the kind that greens have been accusing industry of for the last few decades.

4.4.10: No Interest in Growing Vegetables.

Thankfully the number of people in the over-industrialized world who want to move back into the countryside, or could be coaxed to do so, is likely to be small, if not negligible. There are those who might move to the countryside if they were offered a job but most wouldn't want to move if it meant having to grow their own food, create their own jobs and create informal bartering arrangements. The fact is that most people are deeply rooted in the formal economy and seem to have lost the ability to enjoy doing anything for which they don't get paid. Some of those in the labour and trade union movement even refuse on principle to do anything unless they're paid. Greens have to face the fact that if huge numbers of people wanted to be closer to nature in order to grow their own crops, then they would currently be cultivating their own back gardens or clamouring to get onto a spare allotment. But this is not happening. There are large numbers of unused allotments in virtually every city in the country. The situation is so bad that some councils have even started selling off allotment sites. If people really wanted to move back into the countryside there would be riots when councils tried to do this. Few people have shown much interest in growing their own food and this includes many on state benefits who, it might be thought, would be desperate to reduce their food bill. What is so characteristic of council estates where there is widescale unemployment is the absence of self help, the absence of voluntary work, the absence of communal life, the absence of any interest in growing their own food. Most urban people are geared to the fast tempo of urban life not the personal satisfactions and slow toil of agriculture.

4.4.11: The Damage caused by Turning the Countryside into a Playground.

The return to the countryside will lead to the creation of playgrounds in the countryside which will add to the damage to the Earth's life support system. There are many greens who support not merely the right to roam, but the right to use dirt bikes, the right to drive four wheel vehicles, the right to water ski, the right to rave, etc in the countryside. The amount of damage these activities will cause will be a significant proportion of the damage that will be caused by the invasion of the countryside.

It is nigh on impossible to understand what the creation of urban playgrounds in the countryside have got to do with the stabilization of the Earth's climate but since this is a demand made by greens then presumably they must know what they're tallking about. To think that greens, many of whom oppose the construction of new motorways, are now fighting for the rights of motorcyclists and four wheel drivers to tear through the countryside is bizarre.

To those who protest about the damage caused by roaming, raving, and racing, monbiot's response is that public access to the countryside is necessary in order to check on the damage that conventional pharmers are doing to natural areas, "On the contrary, only when we can enter the countryside can we monitor and report the landlords' daily pillage of sites special scientific interest .."[24]. It has to be suggested that the number of Earth rapists who will benefit from increasing access to the countryside will be far geater than the pathetic handful of radicals who will trudge around the countryside checking up on pharmers - as if such an activity was currently impossible.

4.4.12: Conclusions.

If huge numbers of people move into the countryside they would be able to produce more Phytomass than high-tech, prairie pharming but they would also cause a considerable increase in geophysiological damage through the provision of basic amenities and services, overpopulation, livestock extensification, the creation of rural playgrounds, and the invasion of Wilderness areas. The fact is that basic amenities and services can be provided with far less geophysiological damage in urban areas than they can in rural areas. It can be concluded that a high concentration of people living in urban areas causes less geophysiological damage than a similar number of people dispersed through a large area in the countryside. It should also not be forgotten that if prairie pharming was replaced solely with labour intensive farming although this would reduce the damage to the Earth's life support system it wouldn't make as big a contribution to stabilizing the Earth's climate as would happen if prairie pharmland was allowed to revert back to Wilderness .

4.4.12.1: Agrarian Reform should be carried out in conjunction with the Creation of a Sustainable Planet.

There is no possibility of creating a sustainable Planet without fundamental agrarian reforms in every country around the world. But, correspondingly, carrying out agraian reforms without also creating a sustainable planet i.e. the creation of regional wood economies, climate Forests and Wilderness areas, would cause widescale geophysiological damage that would make the planet even less sustainable. If agrarian reforms are carried out in isolation from geophysiological reforms they would, for example, give peasants not merely the right to live in, but to cut down, the world's Forests for their own private benefit. This would encourage them to chop down more and more Trees until eventually the Forests were covered in roads, petrol stations, housing estates and shopping malls. It is imperative to support agrarian reforms only alongside geophysiological reforms.

4.4.12.2: The Dangers of Supporting Non-Geophysiological Reasons for Urbanization.

The political, economic, and humanitarian, rationales for invading the countryside i.e. solving unemployment, reducing inner city traffic congestion, reducing inner city social problems, etc have nothing to do with protecting and rejuvenating the Earth's life support system. Indeed, greens refuse to assess the geophysiological impact of these humanitarian policies for fearing of discovering the scale of the damage they would inflict on the Earth's life support system.

4.4.12.3: The Destruction of the Land needed for Reforestation.

If huge numbers of people move back into the countryside and start covering the land in sement this will reduce the amount of land available for Reforesting the Earth and creating Wilderness areas both of which are necessary for restoring the Earth's life support system and for stabilizing the Earth's climate. Conversely, however, if the land deserted by rural people leaving for the cities is allowed to revert back to its original nature this would make a considerable contribution to stabilizing the Earth's life support system.

4.4.12.4: The Parallels with the Past.

Greens' calls for huge numbers of people to move out of dirty, polluted, and cramped, urban areas for the fresh air, scenic beauty and vegetable plots of the countryside have many parallels with similar calls made by left wing politicians, local government architects, and planners in brutland in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Left wingers wanted huge numbers of people to move from inner city slums to open plan, council housing estates on greenfield sites on the periphery of the country's major cities within easy reach of the countryside. These outer estates have turned out to be social and economic disasters.[25] Outer estates have not simply buried huge areas of land under cement they have also caused further geophysiological damage by giving yobs easy access to nearby farms which have had to sell up because of the constant vandalism. Is it possible that one day greens could find themselves decanting i.e. evicting, families from urban areas to boring villages just as their predecessors did? Is it possible that in uprooting people and breaking up fragile communities they would be committing the same mistakes as those made by people they have criticized so severely in the past?

What most urban people want is a decent life in their current location although, if they were offered a house and a job on a new fangled and, doubtlessly, award winning, designer rural village, they might be tempted away. But, even if this turned out to be the case, the trickle of people to rural areas would demoralize all those 'left behind' which would make the solution to the multiple problems found on outer estates/inner cities that much more insoluble. It seems strange that greens' proposals for cementing the countryside haven't been dismissed given these earlier social disasters.

4.5: The Urbanization of the Countryside will Lead to the Slaughter of Livestock and Wildlife.

Having looked at the implications of the urbanization of the countryside for the Earth's life support system this section looks at its implications for the slaughter of Livestock and Wildlife.

4.5.1: The Slaughter of Livestock Animals.

The urbanization of the countryside promises the continued slaughter of Animals demeaned as 'livestock'.

4.5.1.1: Back to the Landers Exploiting Livestock Animals.

This section outlines the oomano-imperialist views of a few leading 'back to the landers' on Animals.

Simon Fairlie.

Fairlie supports 'the land belongs to oomans' group. He insists that people should be allowed to move back into the countryside to promote organic, free range farming. He's a carnivore who protests on behalf of another Animal slaughterer, "When Jill Delaney applied for permission to put up a shed for her free range chickens three years ago, she was rudely rebuffed. The right to put up any agricultural building is a question of wealth: it is unconditionally available only to those who own 12 acres or more, a sizeable holding by the standards of most European countries. .. a national planning policy which could hardly have been better designed to prevent peasant farming from working efficiently in Britain. The policy of zoning, which divides rural land into two distinct zones, agricultural and develpment .. Agricultural land is worth about £1,500 per acre while the price of development land is 50-100 times as much .. As the policy of zoning comes under scrutiny in the next few years, so there will be questions raised about the pessimistic assumptions which lie behind it: is all human development intrinsically harmful to the environment? Is it utterly impossible to establish standards whereby people can live work and build in the countryside without degrading it. Do we really need to shepherd all but an elite into suburban estates and sunrise industries so that they may amble round a spotlessly managed country park on Sundays. The answer to these questions is, of course, "no". Recently, permission was given for a group of underground houses to be built on greenbelt land in Nottinghamshire. The project involves the planting of over 3,000 trees and the establishment of a fish-farming pond and small scale food production - and, one may imagine, a chicken-house."[26]

Oliver Tickell.

Oliver tickell was incensed that simon fairlie and his crew weren't allowed to slaughter Animals. The secretary of state for the environment, john gummer, overruled an earlier decision by the planning inspector to give the occupation of a 40 acre permacultural site in somerset three years' trial planning permission, "Thanks to your personal intervention in the planning process, a unique experiment in the sustainable development of the English countryside is to be brought to a premature end. I am writing of Tinkers Bubble, a 40 acre landholding on Ham Hill (sick) in Somerset, where eight adults and four children have made their home for 18 months. The land is ideal for human habitation. Three quarters of the area is wooded providing timber, fuel and shelter; and after decades of neglect the woodland is crying for sympathetic management (clearly woods can't look after themselves without oomans, ed). A start has been made on the pruning of 1,000 apple trees under which graze sheep and a Dexter cow. Higher up, rare-breed pigs live in the open air, fattening up on damaged fruit and kitchen scraps."[27] John gummer's activities during the bse crisis can only be deplored but as far as this decision is concerned he's acted with judicious concern for the environment.

Bernard Planterose.

Planterose is a back to the lander who supports the vast urbanization of the scottish highlands. Unfortunately, he also supports the exploitation of Animals. He demands a vast increase in the exploitation and slaughter of livestock Animals, "Domestic stock might include Cattle .. there would be Sheep .. with breeds producing good wools for local spinning and clothes manufacture. It would include free range Pigs, Ducks, geese and other Fowl suitably combined on some small Forest-farm units."[28] On the positive side he wants to reintroduce many of the Wildlife species which once used to roam the highlands, "Other large herbivores (besides Reindeer) might be introduced and managed as wild resources too. The once native Elk would seem to be a good candidate."[29] But he advocates this reintroduction not because he believes in Biodiversity or Animal freedom but primarily because he wants to extend the range of meat products available to the modern consumer, "In contrast to the extreme paucity of wild game taken from the land today, the great Wood would yield up a much increased range, quantity and quality of Animal products managed by local communities to supply food, in the first place, to themselves."[30] This is clearly a conventional oomanistic attitude towards Animals and Wildlife. It's a pity that Animal murderers like planterose can't be hunted as a game ooman.

Helen Browning.

"Helen browning's 1,300 acre dairy, pig and grain farm near swindon, on the oxfordshire-wiltshire border, is a flagship of the organic movement with a £1 million turnover on the farm and another £1 million on its meat business. Only 800 of brutland's 100,000 farmers are organic, farming only 0.3% of the farming area. Organic farming, now defined under e.u. law, bans chemical fertilisers and pesticides and uses rotations, mixed cropping and fertility building by using leguminous crops rather than artificial nitrogen. Animals raised organically, without systematic use of antibiotics .."[31]

Charlie Pye-Smith and Chris Hall.

Charlie pye-smith and chris hall oppose the intensive rearing of livestock Animals but widsh to replace it with free range Animal exploitation; "On welfare grounds alone, the intensive rearing of farm animals must be abolished. In the long term, the mixed farm, where 'corn and horn' complement one another, is the most efficient system, and the least damaging to the ecology of the soil. The mixed farmers will return all manure to the land, they will rotate their crops, they will use straw, and they will grow some of the feed required for their stock."[32] They want .. "a countryside in which both human and wildlife will prosper. Where more people work on the land. Where everyone can wander freely. Where the animals which end up on our plates are decently kept and decently killed."[33]

Robin Page.

Page condemns the european union for preventing diseased meat from being exported across the world .. "successive british governments, tory and labour, kowtowed to the brussels eurocrats imposing ridiculous bans and restrictions on British meat."[34]

Conclusions.

Many of those who protest about factory pharming aren't Animal rightists who want the total end to the exploitation of Animals but rural greens who want to take over responsibility for exploiting Animals. There isn't going to be any relief from Animal slaughter if organic farmers come marching in - they're just going to institute a new form of caring slaughter.

4.5.1.2: The Violence of Organic Farming.

A resurgence of organic livestock pharming could see a return to the barbaric practices outlined in an earlier section where it was common practice for some Animals to have their feet chopped off and to be locked away in cupboards to ensure their meat remained tender. This is the sort of thing that is going to happen if greens succeed in encouraging people to go back into the countryside and grow their on food. This is just the start of the treatment that Animals could expect - there are plenty of even more barbaric practices that would go on these days if local people had control over Animal slaughter. Slaughterhouses are vile but allowing individuals to slaughter Animals will enormously boost the pain and suffering that Animals will endure before they die.

Organic farming is by necessity dependent on Animal exploitation. It is an agricultural system based on the conversion of food scraps and crop wastes into manure and the use of manure on the land. It is also a system which is highly reliant on the use of Animal power. In many parts of the world it is possible to plant crops only with the aid of draught Animals, "Livestock is an important source of manure and energy, not just dairy and meat products. India's Cattle breeds are evolved for draught power, not just for milk production. India has 83 million draught Animal, 72 million of them bullocks. These contribute the energy equivalent of 30,000 mw, almost half the installed electricity of the country. They plough 100 million hectares, almost two-thirds of india's cultivated area, doing the work of perhaps 15 million bullock carts, which saves 6 million tonnes of oil consumption."[35] Rural greens are so committed to Animal exploitation they would do all they can to block the use of tractors in order to force third world people to use draught Animals, "I've actually heard western enviros who themselves take meals in air-conditioned restaurants going on about how third world farmers should not be given tractors because ox-drawn plows are more ecologically transparent."[36]

4.5.2: The Destruction of Wildlife Caused by 'Back to the Landers', 'the Land is Ours' and Organic Farmers.

There are various ways in which the urbanization of the countryside would lead to the slaughter of Wildlife.

4.5.2.1: The Extensification of Livestock Farming would Destroy Wildlife Habitats.

If huge numbers of people moved back into the countryside there would be a correspondingly significant increase in the number of people rearing free range livestock to boost their incomes or vary their diets. The extensification of livestock farming would lead to a vast increase in the destruction of Wilderness habitats and thus Wildlife.

4.5.2.2: The Killing of Livestock Pests.

There would be a vast increase in the number of Wildlife killed by greens because they pose a threat to greens' livestock, "We believe that the presumption in law should be that all species of mammal and bird be protected, with certain exceptions. The exceptions should include three 'pests' which can cause economic damage and which are common: the brown rat, the house mouse and the rabbit. However, farmers and landowners should be able to apply for permission to kill other species .. There are some animals which, both for their own sake and that of others, must periodically be culled."[37] It is tempting to suggest the only creatures on this list should be oomans especially landowners, conventional pharmers, organic farmers, and rural greens.

Critically, organic farmers have to be far more ruthless in their destruction of Wildlife than those engaged in factory pharming. When Chickens are intensively reared in massive wharehouses there is little opportunity for Foxes to get into these places but when Chickens are allowed to wander around on free range farms they immediately become far more vulnerable to attack so organic farmers are forced to exterminate Foxes in all the surrounding areas.

4.5.2.3: Preventing land from Reverting back to Wilderness Areas.

Finally, it should not be forgotten that the extensification of livestock farming would prevent land from reverting back to Wilderness or being used as a climate Forest.

4.5.3: The Destruction of Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats caused by those Creating a Countryside Playground.

4.5.3.1: The Destruction of Wildlife Habitats.

It was pointed out above that 'rural greens' would cause a significant amount of damage by promoting countryside sports such as dirt biking, scrambling, four wheel tournaments, water skiers, raving, and the like. All of these activities will damage local habitats and thus kill Wildlife.

4.5.3.2: The Resurgence of Hunting.

Even worse than the destruction of local habitats is that by opening up the countryside, 'rural greens' will give a huge boost to hunting, shooting, fishing, hare coursing, Dog fighting, etc, "Indeed, many of those who want to use the countryside more are not ramblers (but people engaged in) ballooning, rock climbing, shooting and hunting, hang-gliding, mountain biking, model aircraft flying, bird watching, riding, caving golf .."[38]

If huge numbers of people return to the countryside there would almost certainly be a resurgence in hunting and shooting. Rural greens like charles windsor not only support the slaughter of livestock Animals and the pests that pose some sort of threat to their Animals, they also support game hunting. Increasing numbers of greens believe that if people are allowed to exploit livestock Animals then this also justifies the exploitation of Wildlife through hunting and shooting.

4.5.3.3: The Slaughter of Game Pests.

Hunting and shooting are only possible if gamekeepers kill off those Wildlife which predate on game Animals, "Peregrine, buzzard, golden eagle and other hawks and owls are still shot and poisoned on gaming estates, even though they are protected by law. .. other 'vermin' which are killed for the sake of the shoot: stoats, weasels, jays, magpies, crows, pigeons, rats, adders .."[39] This is exactly what would happen if large numbers of people and greens were allowed to move back into the countryside.

4.5.3.4: Slaughtering Wildlife for Fur.

The move back into the countryside will boost the fur industry. Porritt once tried to wind up the Animal rightists he believed were infiltrating the green party, by wearing a fake fur hat. Edward goldsmith is another tribalist green who sports fur hats.

4.5.3.5: Conclusions.

The Earth needs protecting - it doesn't need a huge influx of Earth rapists. Who in their right mind wants a bunch of travellers/gipsies taking over their land slaughtering the local Wildlife and, within a matter of days, turning it into something resembling a municipal rubbish tip. Who wants thousands of car driving, stroppy, puking, drugged up ravers holding impromptu rave parties on their doorsteps? Who wants noisy dirt bikers speeding over the land, disturbing the peace, and hurtling past young children? Who wants Hare coursers suddenly turning up on their land and then releasing Hares to be torn apart by Dogs? Any normal, decent person, not to mention, pharmers, have got a legitimate right to keep these scumbags off their property. The green movement seems to have gone barmy making demands which will benefit dross like this. It has to be wondered what radical greens are doing supporting a measure which will lead to an increase in Hare coursing, hunting and shooting, and dirt bike riding.

4.6: The Cultural Regression Caused by 'Back to the Landers', 'the Land is Ours' and Organic Farmers.

4.6.1: Increasing Numbers of People Involved in the Exploitation and Slaughter of Animals.

If huge numbers of urbanites move back into the countryside this would cause a profound cultural change in their attitudes towards Animals and Wildlife - assuming that currently they, like most other urbanites, are repulsed by the killing of Animals:-

* the inevitable consequence of people moving back into the countryside and creating the free range farming of Chickens is that they would quicky realize that Chickens are vulnerable to Foxes making it necessary to exterminate Foxes over a wide area. Doubtlessly many people who moved into the countryside might start off with pro-Animal attitudes but, as they began losing income from Chickens killed by Foxes, they would gradually change their opinions and come to see 'predator control' as an intrinsic part of their belief in 'working harmoniously with nature'.

* once the new ruralites had learnt to kill Foxes they would gradually begin to support bloodsports as a means of curbing/exterminating Foxes;

* there would be an increase in the number of people who go huntin', shootin' and fishin';

* as increasing numbers of people move back into the countryside with little facilities for them to enjoy, there would be increasing demands for the decriminalization of bloodsports such as Dog/Cock/Bear fighting;

* once oomans invade the countryside this would dramatically reduce the chance of creating ooman-free, Wilderness areas where Animals could live without the threat of being maimed, mutilated and murdered by oomans. It would also reduce the chances of Reforesting the Earth which is vital for stabilizing the Earth's climate and creating a sustainable Planet.

The tribalist/primitivist/land is ours/back to the land/organic farming movement will not only increase the destruction of Wildlife habitats it will also boost the exploitation of livestock Animals and the destruction of Wildlife. It is bizarre, therefore, to find Animal protectionists supporting 'back to the land' policies. Animal protectionists who promote such policies are cutting the throats of the Animals they are supposed to be protecting. Rarely in the history of protest movements could a group of people do so much to undermine their own beliefs as Animal protectionists supporting 'back to the land' policies. In addition, 'back to the landers' policies will make it impossible to create a sustainable Planet.

4.6.2: A Choice between Industrialized Pharming and Organic Farming?

The organic farming movement is trying to portray the 'back to the land' issue solely as if it were a choice for consumers between eating diseased Animals which have been locked up in sheds all their lives or eating healthy, free range Animals? Who, they ask, could possible want to eat doped up, genetically modified, toxic, meat when they could eat free range meat free of all additives, preservatives and chemicals? But beyond the issue of livestock rearing there are organic farmers like charles windsor who support fox hunting, the slaughter of Elephants to provide resources for local people, and the transformation of Wildlife sanctuaries into game parks so that Wildlife can be pushed into the market economy in order to pay their way. Anyone falling for the allure of organic farming will rapidly find themselves travelling down an ideological helter scelter in which they will end up legitimizing blood sports and the slaughter of Wildlife in the name of conservation.

Despite the efforts of the organic farming movement to portray the back to the land issue as a choice between clean meat or poisoned meat, the real choice is whether people eat meat or not. If people don't give up eating meat they will destroy the Earth's life support system for oomans. The choice isn't between industrialized farming and organic farming because they're both as geophysiologically destructive as each other.