The blues believe it is possible to create an environmentally friendly planet only if oomans go back to living on small scale, family, pharms. They believe it is when people live on the land that they protect the soil because, so they argue, it is in the best interests of those who pharm the soil to protect it. They thus regard pharmers as ‘custodians of the countryside’. Correspondingly, the blues tend to blame urban people and urban industries for wrecking the environment. Blues always blame urban people/industries for environmental damage whilst looking to pharmers and rural people to repair such damage - despite the fact that most environmentalists live in cities. Michael jacobs is one of the few commentators who has taken up the mc's insight into this contradiction within the so-called green movement, “It is one of the curiosities of the british environmental movement that although 80% of british citizens live in towns and cities, a disproportionate emphasis is given by environmental pressure groups to protecting various aspects of the countryside. This is one of the hidden issues of contemporary politics.”[31]

The blues' belief that an environmentally sound way of life is possible only in rural areas means they support the idea of sending millions of people back into the countryside to become small scale pharmers. The blues want to depopulate urban areas, “City life is marked by consumption and waste. Cities, however small, have always been parasitic on the countryside around them, not least because the majority of their inhabitants must rely on farmers in the countryside to provide them with food. Where cities are small, and the demands of their citizens limited, the degradation caused need not undermine their viability. But the demands being made by city-dwellers today, particularly in the industrialized countries are global in their reach, and global in their implications. Meeting even the demands of present day cities is placing an intolerable burden on the environment and society as more and more resources are sucked into urban conglomerations.”[32] Norberg-hodge defends the mass movement back into the countryside, “An equally common myth that clouds thinking about more human scale rural economies is that “there are too many people to go back to the land”. It is noteworthy that a similar scepticism does not accompany the notion of urbanizing the world’s population. It is considered ‘utopian’ to suggest a ruralization of america’s or europe’s population; but china’s plans to move 440 million people into the cities during the next few decades hardly raises eyebrows.”[33] Of course, once again, the blues have not ecologically costed their proposals.

Whilst gaians condemn the global pharming industry for devastating the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity and destabilizing the climate, the blues promote organic pharming as a sustainable form of agriculture. Unfortunately, it has to be suggested that if the blues succeed in replacing modern, highly-intensive, industrialized pharming with small scale, family-owned, organic pharming this would lead to an even greater decimation of the world’s remaining Forests in order to maintain the current scale of meat production. Whilst modern factory pharming is highly intensive, organic pharming is highly extensive requiring far more land in order to provide the same number of corpses. Once again, the blues have not ecologically costed such a policy.

Some blues suggest that even support for organic pharming may not be enough. They take the view that people should return to tribalism and graze on the Earth's resources. Wolfgang sachs believes tribalists' dependence on their local ecologies leads them to protect such habitats. They know everything about their local ecologies to ensure their survival and the survival of such habitats. Sachs believes that if all oomans were tribalists, living in harmony with their local ecologies, then the overall effect would be to create a healthy, climatically stable, planet.

In brutland, as is all too likely in other countries around the world, the blues have helped to protect pharmers’ interests and values - even when pharmers have been ecologically destructive:

The second fundamental difference between blues and greens is that blues support the Animal exploitation industry and the hunting of Wildlife whereas greens do not. The blues' support for organic pharming means the continued exploitation of livestock (slave) Animals and the slaughter of Wildlife i.e. Fox hunting, both of which contribute to environmental devastation. The slaughter of livestock and Wildlife legitimizes whaling, Elephant culling, bush meat, etc. It also means the perpetuation of anthropocentrism i.e. oomans’ belief that they are masters of the Earth. It could be argued that if the blues supported only the hunting of Wildlife rather than livestock grazing then there might be less of an incompatibility between Animal exploitation and Forests but the only blues who support such a line are tribalists.

The blues support the notion of oomans living in harmony with Wildlife whilst greens advocate that Wildlife ought to be allowed to live in ooman-free Wilderness areas where they will be free from ooman persecution. Blues promote an integrationist ethic whereas greens advocate segregation. Blue integrationists are opposed to what they laughably refer to as "the false separation between humanity and all other life". They are opposed to any barriers between oomans or Animals.

Not surprisingly for an organization which implacably supports an integrationist ethic, these anarcho-juveniles insist on segregating species at its meetings, “Mass trespass in commemoration of the diggers. Meeting saturday, 12 midday for mass trespass to mystery site (no Dogs).”[37] Could you trust integrationists who can’t even live in harmony with their Dogs?

A number of greens support the idea of the global commons i.e. that the air, sea, and land, should be free for anyone to use. This is the martini brand of blue politics: oomans can go wherever they want, whenever they want, and in whatever way they want. It’s promiscuous and irresponsible. This is a philosophy of perfection where everyone loves the Earth and its Wildlife. But, when people don’t, it’s a disaster because they soon exhaust the Earth’s resources. To give one small example of what happens where there are global commons/common lands. In a jeremy clarkson programme on cars there was an article about the popularity of 4-wheel drives in iceland. Because 80% of iceland is common land, people have the right to drive all over the ice sheets acting like overgrown yobs .[38]

The integrationist ethic is not merely a rationalization of hunting and carnivorism, it is being used to promote oomans' invasion and colonization of conservation areas and the remaining wild areas of the Earth. The blues believe that conservation, or ‘Wilderness', areas originally created to prevent oomans from decimating Wildlife, should be turned into game reserves so that local people can return to live in these areas and exploit both the Wildlife and the resources on which they depend. Such a policy puts Wildlife under a triple threat. Firstly, from hunting. Local people can hunt Wildlife to obtain resources for their own use or they can make large profits by inviting wealthy international hunters to shoot Animals for trophies. Secondly, the profits from trophy hunting are used to construct community facilities which gradually leads to a population explosion and further expropriation of land from Wildlife. Thirdly, local people graze their livestock in conservation areas thereby consuming the resources previously used by Wildlife. The consequence of these threats is invariably a considerable diminution in the number and variety of the Wildlife living in these former conservation areas. The blues believe this integrationist policy will provide permanent protection for Wildlife but since there is nothing to stop ooman expansionism it will invariably result in the eradication of Wildlife. The basic assumptions of blues' policy for colonizing Wildlife reserves are firstly, that all Animals on Earth have got to learn to pay their way, just like oomans. And, secondly, that hunting is necessary to control burgeoning populations of Wildlife species - although, strangely, they see no harm in oomans having as many sprogs as they want. Theoretically, there could be harmony between oomans and Wildlife if oomans agreed to limit their numbers and the area of land they can expropriate but this they refuse to do because their real intention is oomano-expansionism.

Another justification for blues' expropriation of conservation areas is that, at one time or another during ooman history, the entire Earth has been occupied by oomans and that today, this gives oomans the right to reclaim those areas not yet ruined by oomans' presence. As far as the blues are concerned, there is thus no such thing as Wilderness areas. By implication, what they are also suggesting is that there is no such thing as Wildlife.

“In the ongoing debate about saving the african Elephant from ivory poachers, proponents .. of hunting bans are under attack by third wavers who believe as the ‘economist’ (sic) wrote, that conservationists would be wiser to “set up a toughly controlled trading system to market a limited quantity of sustainably harvested ivory” than they would be to attempt to prohibit its use altogether. Third wavers have a point. The ivory ban campaign does not even begin to address the social conditions that engender Elephant poaching in the first place.”[39]

Quite unusually for blues, these authors stress the need for land to be put aside for Wildlife. However, they want to confine Wildlife to a mere 12% of the Earth's land surface even though it was Wildlife which created the Earth’s habitability. Quite what the authors mean by ‘putting land aside for Wildlife’ is not discussed. Presumably it means 12% of the land in each country around the world? It is not known whether their plan would mean that oomano-terrorists would be prevented from trespassing on this land.

“For, despite the prevalence of myths about .. ‘virgin forests’, the forests have been inhabited for thousands of years. Few areas of forest are unused or unclaimed by local communities.”[41] According to this anthropocentric logic, even when there were only two oomans on Earth they still owned all the Earth’s Forests.

“The decision eight years ago to ban the ivory trade has created a deep and lasting schism among the convention’s signatories. The split is manifested in two lobbying caucuses: the species survival network, under which conservationists and Animal rights groups have united, and the conservation action network, which represents the rights of people to exploit local wildlife. (One of the members of the can) is eugene lapointe, secretary-general of cites until he left in 1990 following allegations that ivory traders were funding his cites ivory unit. (There is a swing of opinion to the exploiters). The world conservation union, a swiss based body, the world’s largest grouping of environmental scientists, argues that where possible cites “should avoid blanket trade bans” because they create conflicts and, notwithstanding the recent successful crackdown on ivory trading, are unworkable in the long run. Indeed, most cites insiders and their scientific advisers favour co-operating with hunters and traders rather than outlawing them.”[42]

Easterbrook has argued, “Officially enviros want a lower human population so that humankind will ‘tread lightly on the Earth’. The subconscious motive is the desire to be alone with nature: to have entire vistas of the natural world to yourself. But in the end the desire to control human numbers so that areas of the Earth might remain bereft of people is not a modest urge, but a self-centred one. This is best seen in nature preserves that have been established in the past decade or so in several developing nations, often in conjunction with western environmental groups. In most respects such preserves are excellent ideas. The exception is their effect on human beings. To establish the royal chitwan (national park) the nepali government expelled some 20,000 indigenous peoples from the territory they had occupied for centuries. Soldiers of the nepali army patrol royal chitwan, authorized to shoot on sight any peasants suspected of poaching. That means that in royal chitwan, as in several third world wilderness preserves, people may be hunted but not animals. Nepal is hardly the place where the desire to be alone with nature blinds environmental orthodoxy to the condition of the indigenous poor. At kruger national park in south africa, an important elephant preserve, wardens are authorized to shoot on sight natives gathering fuelwood. When kenya established amboseli wilderness preserve it first drove out the indigenous masai, promising compensation that was never delivered. Today the masai, a cattle grazing tribe that for centuries lived in reasonable harmony with amboseli wildlife, dwell in poverty on the park’s outskirts. When ethiopia founded bale mountain national park as a preserve for the endangered simien jackal, local peoples were barred from using the area as grazing grounds, as they had done for centuries. When the hated government of mengistu mariam fell in 1991, locals entered the park and began shooting the jackals, exacting revenge on animals that had been treated better than them.”[43]

Meldrum paints a rosy picture of the campfire programme in some third world countries which enables local people to benefit from the slaughter of Animals in safari game parks. Whereas in the past local people used to slaughter Wildlife in order to survive, they now encourage rich hunters to fly around the world to do the killing for them and thus make substantial profits from blood sport tourism. Whereas in the past the area would never have been able to sustain anything more than tribal lifestyles, the money from tourism is allowing local people to urbanize Wilderness areas. If las vegas was built in the middle of a desert by criminal organizations, campfire villages are springing up as a result of the criminal destruction of Wildlife, “The (zimbabwe) government has set aside 10,700 square kilometres in northern zimbabwe to form the zambezi valley wilderness complex, an area which boasts the 2,196 square kilometre mana pools national park. .. the dande safari area - the 520 square kilometres set aside for hunting. “Hunting is the only hope for game to survive in africa,” says harry. “Wildlife must pay its way or humans will take over. We hunt a sustainable quota of 3% per year. And that earns a great deal of money used to preserve the Wilderness needed by the Animals.” Zimbabwe attracts about one million tourists a year and hunting brings in about 2,000 clients, who spend a total of $20 million. The Dande area is part of zimbabwe’s Campfire programme, which channels a significant proportion of the money earned from hunting to the rural people who live among the wildlife. (The meat from hunted Wildlife is shared amongst) 210 families registered with the local Campfire programme .. Far more significant to the masoka community is the money earned from hunting. “We have earned Z$500,000 (£31,250) each year for the past three years,” says joseph chisunga, masoka’s wildlife committee treasurer. “We have used that money to develop our community. We have built a new school block and a health clinic, we have purchased a tractor for tillage. We erected a solar-powered electric fence to protect our agricultural land from the Wildlife. Gift Zirota, the wildlife chairperson, explains how the programme has changed the community’s attitude towards wildlife. “Ten years ago, the animals destroyed our crops and attacked us. Now with Campfire, we get meat plus money from hunting. The wildlife is now an asset and we look after them. We do not allow poachers. We welcome hunters because they help us to improve our community. Campfire’s pioneering concept, to balance the needs of africa’s rural people with wildlife, has already spread to zambia, namibia, and south afriuca. Throughout zimbabwe, Campfire schemes last year earned more than Z$13 million (£812,000) for rural communities. The number of communities participating has grown from 15 in 1989 to more than 100 in 1996.”[45]

Monbiot, a member of the brutish landowning aristocracy, condemned the ousting of masai from a safari park.

“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.”[46]

“Northern environmentalists were primarily concerned about the fate of the Forest and were slow to realize that people lived in the amazon who were also an integral part of the eco-system. Around 86% of the protected areas in the region are inhabited. Traditionally it had been up to groups such as Survival International .. to champion the cause of the Forest dweller in the northern hemisphere. Thankfully, some environmentalists have started adopting a more realistic, holistic approach. Rubber tappers, on the other hand, were initially interested in land reform and social justice, and only later recognized the importance of the forest ecology. This said, some of the policies that northern environmentalists have advocated have been totally ignorant of forest dwellers and have done more harm than good. There are, for example, still problems where northern environmentalists have advocated the setting up of northern parks where the traditional forest dwellers have been excluded and expelled from their land. .. the policies have also actually increased deforestation as ranchers and industry have invaded areas previously protected by the evicted inhabitants.”[47]

“The wwf and the world conservation union, an alliance of ngos and government agencies, both agreed new policies on indigenous people last year. For the first time, the two organizations explicitly recognized the rights of indigenous people to control their land.”[48]

“The largest environmental group in the continent (africa), the world wide fund for nature, is pulling out of the region’s game reserves and national parks. Senior wwf officials have admitted the organization’s traditional role in wildlife preservation is no longer tenable. The wwf’s idea, shared by many other conservation groups, is to integrate wildlife management back into the community and stop it being seen as the sole preserve of white men. The new york based conservation society now lists its prime activity as supporting african-based field scientists and works to tear down the fences between people and animals. In zambia, for instance, it aims to “help communities make informed decisions about the sustainable use of wildlife.” It is a strategy that claude martin has pursued since taking over in 1994 as director general from the more traditionally minded south african charles de haes.”[49]

Another major difference between the greens and the blues is that, quite remarkably, for all their claims to care about the environment, the blues have no geophysiological analysis that:-

Blues believe that oomans are members of the master race on Earth who are entitled to go where they want and to colonize any habitat they want. Greens believes that oomans are terrorists whose oomano-imperialist excesses need to be curbed as much as possible not merely by drastically reducing their numbers but by forcing them to live in restricted areas of the Earth. In the film 'Planet of the Apes' the Apes were wise enough to set aside a large area of land which they called the forbidden zone. There need to be vast stretches of forbidden zones on Earth. Oomans are such virulent terrorists the only way of creating a sustainable planet is by curbing oomans’ imperialist pretensions. And this requires oomans to renounce anthropocentrism for a theory which puts the Earth first i.e. geocentrism.

Politically, many blues are little different from liberal democrats. They believe the best way of advancing blue politics is through winning local, regional, and national, elections. Unfortunately, once they enter electoral politics they are faced with the inevitable temptation of trying to win the votes of the Earth rapists they went into politics in order to oppose. Instead of criticizing, challenging, or condemning, Earth rapists, the blues seek to boost their interests by promoting Earth wrecking policies in the hope that one day they can persuade all voters to vote blue. But, of course, after implementing Earth wrecking policies in the hope of winning Earth-rapist votes, their chances of protecting what is left of the Earth’s life support system are negligible.

Life exists on Earth solely because of Photosynthesis. Without the ability of Micro-organisms, fungi, and Plants, to carry out Photosynthesis there would be no life on Earth, and the Earth itself would not be alive. Without Photosynthesis there would be no water left on Earth. Photosynthesizers are the foundation of the food chain on which all Animals, including oomans, depend. They also make the Earth habitable for Animals by providing habitats such as Coral reefs, Forests, Grasslands, etc. They provide environmental services which make it possible for life to flourish. But, most startlingly of all, Photosynthesizers help to stabilize the Earth's climate. Photosynthesis is the primary life-sustaining process on Earth and Photosynthesizers constitute the core of the Earth's life support system.[50]