Re: Why we must return to the land

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:10:56 GMT, Stephen Glynn
<stephen.glynn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Lieutenant Gruber wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:43:14 GMT, Stephen Glynn
>> <stephen.glynn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lieutenant Gruber wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:23:57 +0100, "arealman"
>>>><arealman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lieutenant Gruber" <eins@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>news:buf7m15o7m0kup76q1gp851plja97cqef0@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>We must return to the land, to a less materialistic, more rural, way
>>>>>>of living, because only such a way of living with its close and
>>>>>>intimate contact with Nature and with its often hard manual work
>>>>>>enables us to live in an authentic and human way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>All very well but in England it pisses down with rain too much. You would
>>>>>soon tire of muddy boots, cold wet hands, freezing feet and premature
>>>>>burial.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You obviously have no experience of working the land since if you did
>>>>you'd know that such work keeps you warm, physically fit and healthy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>When, then, do you say it is that the story is always of people trying
>>>to move off the land and into the cities, just about throughout recorded
>>>history and in such different places as Europe, Africa, Latin America
>>>and India?
>>
>>
>> Because until recently, cities have offered the promise of riches to
>> the poor, now however they can offer nothing except increasingly
>> stressful lives in crime-ridden overcrowded surroundings breathing in
>> poisoned air.
>>
>> In the next few years, the world is going to change beyond all
>> recognition, & I'm thankful that people like you don't believe it &
>> therefore have made no preparations. Natural selection, they call it,
>> though I prefer to call it the 'big flush'.
>>
>> Nothing personal, by the way.
>>
>
>No offence taken, I assure you.
>
>Do you say, then, that -- for example -- Victorian London, with its
>slums, rookeries, high crime rate in the poorer areas and, of course,
>its pea-souper fogs was, in any real sense, comparatively a far more
>attractive destination for the C19th agricultural worker than is
>contemporary London for most people?

London, being the first city in the world to achieve a population of
over 1 million, was very much a 'one-off' back then. In fact, it could
be argued it was nearly 200 years 'ahead of it's time'
environmentally, whilst at the same time being a model of
backwardness. It's somewhat foolish of you to choose London, a single
city in a small European country, as a yardstick with which to guage
any perceived trends.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: been running a day camp all week...
    ... say, London, where I grew up? ... New York is worse for traffic, ... the roads and it's not a lot better round here at times. ... big cities are big cities and a different matter entirely. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: Alternative to the 3rd Runway Alternative
    ... It wouldn't exactly help north WCML overcrowding nor the Northern ... cities, would it, despite those having a far worse capacity problem ... I agree it's a London centric solution, but you don't explain why it's ... to cities in the North. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: European trip ?s
    ... >> hasn't been to London or Paris or Rome. ... This is just the way big cities are. ... I want to see some of the culture. ... The same is true of NYC. ...
    (rec.travel.europe)
  • Re: European trip ?s
    ... >U.S., cities like New York, Boston, Washington, Chicago and San Francisco ... >enjoy some of our more scenic areas. ... >>>houses (depending on the area of London), ...
    (rec.travel.europe)
  • Re: sql statement
    ... CREATE cursor Cities, ... 'Madrid') ... INSERT INTO Suppliers Values ... London beckham .NULL. ...
    (microsoft.public.fox.vfp.queries-sql)