– rebelling and reuniting:


…aka: open opposition to lawful authority and breaking down barriers.

It seems a long time since I felt Mr Grumpy enough to dash off a rant about something, but fear not, the absence does not signify a softening of attitude, merely another preoccupation, that of spiritual metamorphosis, one where hopefully I’m turning into a wiser more aware version of myself.  Manifested in a new perspective on life, out goes the micro, and in comes an attempt to synchronise more with the global.  Which means I’m currently re-evaluating everything.  An example of this is I previously spent at least half of every day working outside, usually feeling it wasn’t nearly enough time to get everything done in, while simultaneously suffering the deep envy of those who had the social skills to either be a WWOOF host, or part of an enclave that met regularly to help each other out, because at least they did manage to keep ahead (of the dreaded gorse), achieve big projects, all at relatively little cost, while progress for me has always (27 long years of it) been slow and painful.

However that will no longer be the case.  From now on, change (getting things done) is a not good thing, the opposite in fact, it is very bad for the environment.  Which I know sounds a little crazy, but hang in and I’ll try and explain.

My first inkling of this came after a long spell of doing nothing on the land, a result of too many other pressing commitments and only me to do them all, so the land lost.  Yet despite my dereliction of duty, everything managed to survive, nay thrive, and the overall state of the land (six acres), compared to when we first arrived, is now even better than anticipated, unbelievably lush and verdant.  No money spent out either.  So how is this?

Simple.  Nature knows best.  We like to think we do, but Nature really can do it all a lot better.

The problem is we think and rationalise.  There’s also self-interest, which means we do stuff without considering the consequences for anything else.  Even if that “else” is the one thing we cannot live without (aka: the infinitely complex ecology that provides us with air/ water/ food/ shelter/ warmth).  We have even gone as far as to create a religion out of justifying these suicidal inclinations.

Science, the self-proclaimed highest form of knowledge.  Rules/ truths/ and proofs that are based entirely on tests of infinitesimally small samples, or reliant on historical/ archaeological guesswork, then applied to the entire species and planet.

And they had us fooled for quite a while with their convincing arguments for economic exploitation, but their plausibility is no longer believable.  Because Nature is infinitely more complex and innovative than anything our tiny/ greedy minds could ever conceive.  In the real world nothing requires to be understood, and nothing in the past is relevant.  All that matters is the now, and constantly striving to evolve in order for the whole to survive.

What got me onto all this was hearing about a “rewilding” project in Sussex (UK), a whopping 3500 acres, that’s a lot of land (David*), certainly a lot more than your usual permaculture plot,so something worth knowing more about.  Or it would have been.  But now I have a different response to these things.  All I could think of is “what the hell is rewilding?  Swiftly followed by, if it needs a new word to describe (when surely an old one is perfectly adequate, one that everyone can understand), this is just yet another scam.  Especially when it claims to improve the environment and at the same time make money (in this case a lot of money).  Money and the environment are simply incompatible.

And this sums up the failings of most current eco-thinking.  We prefer to treat Nature (and the planet) as this huge patchwork of definable separate parcels of land/ sea/ or air (aka: continents/ countries, and allotments/ gardens/ estates/ forests/ wildlife reserves) that can be each individually improved by individuals.  Wrong, so very wrong.  Nature is a whole, the entire planet, all its individual atoms, working together.  It doesn’t have any parts.  And if it were possible to “rewild”, that would mean the removal of all forms of ownership, along with all the barriers we have erected which currently prevent the free passage and habitats of all species.

“Re-wilding”, like all other ecological isms before it, is nothing more than a form of zoo, for species we have selected, for our own benefit, while excluding all others.  There is zero ecological benefit in this kind of approach.

Hence my switch from the micro to widescreen.  If we want a future then we have to stop meddling and thinking small, that we have the answers with a few bee-friendly plants or degradable plastic bags, and instead do whatever is necessary to break down barriers and let all species roam free, find their own true balance.

Which ironically leads me ever so neatly onto BREXIT, where Teresa May is currently in the process of erecting even more barriers, when the EU, despite its failings, sought the total opposite, and creating ideal conditions for ethnic destroying yet more of what little is left of natural habitats in the UK, for short-term economic gain (by the few).  The view from here seems spookily similar to what happened to Germany in the 1930s.  How long before the ethnic cleansing begins?

And lastly, a word on fracking.  If the Queen owns the rights to all the subterranean land mass: a) how much does she get from fracking?  And b) how much has her family been earning for all the other mining that has been going on since they assumed this ridiculous claim?


*filmic reference from LOVE ACTUALLY

photo: the ARCTIC TERN, an example of the truly “free” nomad.  Each year flying up to 70,900 kms, crossing frontiers and residing without visas/ identification papers/ vaccinations/ microchip/ money.  We can only dream of such freedom.

  1. Alice Richardson said:

    I totally get it and you are soooo right in your observations! Nature does know best. And whyy do we need the fracking when solar is there for the taking?

  2. MikeH said:

    Yes, Nature does know best. And yes, we think and rationalise and are driven by self-interest. But there’s another very limiting and restrictive element in our behaviour toward Nature – control. We try to control what cannot, will not and should not be controlled.

    Additionally, we are a part of Nature not apart from Nature.

    Fukuoka’s take on Nature is explains it well. Since Nature is so complex, there is no way that we can possible comprehend it. Given that, what should we do? His answer? Intervene as little as possible. Once you surrender control, it gets much easier. You relax. You are more in tune with the rhythms of the land. You see the diversity and it shows you that one, two, three food crops is not a good idea. More is better when it comes to diversity.

Leave a Reply to Alice Richardson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s