The corporate and metropolitan assault on the British countryside | Adam James Pollock

Much of the mainstream contemporary mindset is characterised by the idea that everything new is inherently good, and that ‘progress’, as they would have it called, is an irrefutably positive notion. New ventures are forever describing themselves as enterprises whose aim is to ‘disrupt’ a certain industry, as if constancy were a bad thing. This concept of ‘progress’; of disruption and change, is most harmful in our current climate to rural existence, to those whose livelihoods have remained comparably unchanged in relation to the accelerated development of more urban centres. I have written previously about how passive ignorance to the countryside way of life is contributing to its erosion, however an arguably larger threat has emerged in recent years in the form of active attempts to alter the fabric of the nation’s rural areas.

One such endeavour which does not even attempt to be subtle in its disdain for rural communities is Impossible Foods; a company, naturally from California (as they always seem to be), which creates lab-grown plant-based meat substitutes. While a sensible degree of competition is healthy and integral in capitalist societies, malicious intent is not; the CEO of Impossible Foods, Patrick Brown, has recently stated that his sole aim is to “put the animal agriculture industry out of business”. As is characteristic of these Silicon Valley entrepreneurial types, Brown feels he can play his part in saving the world, stating that his goal in eradicating the farming industries is “not because I have any ill will towards the people who work in that industry, but because it is the most destructive industry on Earth”. The irony seems to be lost on Brown, whose desire to put animal agriculture out of business would see the loss of half a million jobs in the UK alone. 

This company has raised almost $1.3 billion since its creation a decade ago, with a recent round of fundraising garnering large investment from many celebrities, such as Jay-Z, Serena Williams, and Katy Perry, as well as the usual institutional investors. One can guarantee that these individuals have not thought once about the real human impact on lives and livelihoods that their support of such an organisation has had, and care only about the possibility of a positive financial return. With a declared focus of many global institutional investors in ‘sustainable investing’, this does not seem to fit the bill. 

Many of the proponents for such detrimental acts as eradicating the farming industry do so under the guise of ‘protecting wildlife’; in their future, with farms abandoned, rural areas of the country can be left to nature through rewilding, believing this will lead to increased biodiversity and, through ecological succession, the creation of a beautiful new landscape (which would inevitably be then torn up for HS2 as it would still not be completed even then). However, such ideas about a fully wild British countryside, as admirable and romantic as they seem, are almost entirely fallacious. 

There are nowadays many more non-native species of invasive plants, such as Japanese knotweed and rhododendrons, which, if left to their own devices, would run rampant and create an ecological landscape unrecognisable of the Britain of our ancestors. In addition, the domino effect caused by mass rewilding would be largely detrimental; for example, large amounts of fast-spreading plant species such as heather and bracken would, along with a lack of needing to protect farmland and crops, lead to increased numbers and movement of deer, subsequently increasing tick movement and the spread of Lyme disease.

Deer, it may not be forgiven of the reader that it is not known, require regular culling and can quickly overpopulate large regions of Britain’s wilderness- as is particularly the case in Scotland.

Scottish red deer.

In addition, it is untrue to assume that biodiversity would increase if human involvement ceased; the term is ‘protected species’ for a reason, as conditions must be controlled to protect their existence, not left for nature to handle. Many species of birds such as the Eurasian skylark depend on arable farming for their survival, while an even greater number depend on the hedgerows separating fields and farms for food and shelter. It has been estimated that hedgerows may be essential for the survival of 80% of woodland birds, 50% of wild mammals, and 30% of butterflies. With human involvement removed, it is difficult to imagine that such a thriving existence could be sustained.

This is not to mention the other various species of game birds whose large numbers depend on country sport, and who would surely lose out in such a world removed of proper habitat management. 

Fortunately, there are those who are truly passionate about rural conservation, rather than using it as a vizard behind which the opportunity for personal capital gain is hiding. For these people, one of the key steps one can take to help protect their countryside is informing those more urban-dwelling individuals that while they may view their ideas as helpful in creating a more sustainable world, in reality they are precipitating the exact opposite. 

–

If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating.