Really enjoying your videos, randomly appeared on my feed recently. I'm a townie, love hiking and getting outside as much as possible. Nice reasoned points or view and clearly a lot of research coupled with lived experience, thanks!
Liking this vid, lf any young children that are living on the land in UK come to Australia, learn history n you will see we have same issues. Our small township of 300 still runs football/netball club, agriculture show highlighting cooking, craft, gardening produce, farm animals, horse riding events. Other rural communities will horse races, B N S balls young people dance n drinking event. This what brings city, town/country n farmers together its only way we survive especially rural fire service, CWA, Lions club, we need each other in the hardest times. Yes environmental issues has drawn different outlooks but this shouldnt break community n government needs to be reminded of that.
Your videos are outstanding. I am a cattle rancher in Oklahoma, and my area is dealing with the growth of the Dallas-Ft Worth urban area. I see a lot of parallels with the English countryside, and your insights help me to conceptualize my home’s future.
13:23 Contrasting the UK land use planning system with postwar land use planning over the pond or on the continent would be an interesting topic in itself. The UK planning permission system is really interesting in that it's uniquely discretionary. Delving into whether this is good or bad for farmers would be interesting, because as far as I've understood, it's a major source of grief for places like Clarkson's farm.
The notion of putting up solar panels, in England of all places, on prime farmland strikes me as nuts. Really, this is the best use of land? It seems the beauty issue is more of uniformity of policy. Let villages develop their own character, some with parks, some with haunts as the local populace decrees.
Some panels can be farmed under, with sheep but they are rarely used. But generally it would be better to have the panels on building's or just more in the areas that use the power.
16:36 Characterising the debate over cultivated vs. natural beauty purely in terms of class warfare feels a bit dishonest coming from a trained historian. There's an ancient tradition of regarding uncultivated land as waste, but it was challenged in the 19th century by a greater appreciation of natural beauty that grew out of a growing interest in the natural sciences and Chinese landscape painting. The channel @_magnify has a video about this titled "People used to think Scotland was ugly" where the host presents older sensibilities that sound strange to modern ears. I often get a feeling there's a similar disconnect between country and town regarding e.g. wetlands, where one side sees it primarily as a wasteland to be drained and put under cultivation like our ancestors would have and the other sees it as a diverse and interesting habitat for non-human life that has value in its own right. The divide certainly exists even over here, where the aristocracy was left in the 19th century.
@@Jatemylly I think his view of class warfare is interesting but I think he misunderstands where he fits within the class system. I believe(from what I've seen) he considers himself working class. Obviously he works but realistically he has more in common with "the aristocracy" than he does with someone living on a council estate with patents working in a supermarket. I enjoy listening to his point of view and it really highlighted to me how unaligned my interests are with tenant farmers (hobby farmer, mil owns a small farm), a "paid to own land" system would pretty much give me what I want but he's kind of persuaded me that perhaps my self-interest might be leading me to be a bit of a dick about things.
Farmers are a class with high assets, true, but on the other hand they tend to have low disposable incomes. That makes them different from both the urban poor, who have neither assets nor disposable income, and the upper class, who have both high assets and incomes. I really enjoy the sociopolitical analysis that's only possible from someone who has stepped outside to take a look at things from another angle, but a step outside the British might context might be necessary to gain a full understanding. Characterising all land use conflicts in terms of the British class system does nothing to explain why the same tension exists in much more egalitarian societies. I'm really looking forward to when the postwar history of farming gets to CAP, because you can't really discuss that just in terms of lords and yeomen.
@@dww6 Sheep in East Anglia made it rich years ago - but more sheep in the UK is hardly what we need now. The problems with this kind of 'Industrialised farming' is that it ruins people's lives. It is't just the look of that is rejected. Nationally it is again the landed few kicking off tenant farmers because the rent paid for solar panels is so much more that tenant farmers pay. This not just the odd field here and there. It's the scale of the plans that is so devastating.
Agreed. Pembrokeshire is destined to be full of wind farms, and the off shore behomeths stretching across the entire horizon. That's unimaginable ecological destruction on land and sea. Meanwhile our farmers on this treeless Atlantic storm scoured peninsula are being told to plant 10% land with trees or lose all support. Indeed they are also told what chemicals and spray to apply to these trees and when, no matter what.
@toddberkely6791 because we're rural (so urban folks don't have to see them) and at 900m altitude so wind is available. Our mains electricity supply is dodgy, so we put in a small wind turbine when we moved in; in a 'wind funnel' between two wooded areas. We had to get rid of it because we couldn't get the cattle up the lane past it, about 25m from a small domestic turbine. They just spooked at the sub-sonic humm and wouldn't go past to the stockyards. Our local ones are pretty big (180+m) so there's nowhere to look where you cant see them. At least they've taken the pointless red 'aircraft warning' lights off them🙄
I think the fact townies and farmers alike watch this channel shows how bridgeable the cultural divide might be. It's easy for governments to be parsimonious skinflints about those issues they don't care to understand (or which they don't view as vote-earners); but we all need to eat, and we all need access to nature for physical and mental health so the admirable thing about the reports from near World War Two is that they acknowledge rural interests as the national interests
You are defiantly correct about this and the major problem with such a swift it is, quite ironicly, incredibly unsustainable. All the rewilding projects require either a constant flow of money from the state to be maintained (taxes that could go to better things) or are reliant on tourism (a fickle industry at the best of times). Increasing reliance on imports, particularly for an industry such as food, also makes the nation as a whole more vulnerable to international incidents making the price less stable. For example, a single ship got wedged in the Suez canal and disrupted direct trade between Europe and Asia for months. Another would be the Russio-ukrainian war that tied up the two major grain exporters and embargos prevented the trade of Russian oil/raw resources, triggering a cost of living crisis. Reducing domestic production even further would simply make these events more common worsening quality of life for all but the importers. There is also the additional factor that once the money stops flowing to prop up these projects the landowners have no incentive to maintain them so they end up going to ruin. Along with all the infrastructure built to accommodate them.
Great video as always. There are syntropic agroforestry farms in Europe that are grossing 3500 euro's per hectare when their neighbours struggle to get 700 . The land can produce everything we need and enough profit for land owners/ guardians if we only look outside the box and get radical. If you look at the soil under an old broad leaf tree you will find perfect tilth. The kind of seedbed it takes ploughing and power harrowing and huge amounts of energy to create. Nature does it for us with established microbiology and without compaction.
@@johnfowler4820 I mean there's an immediate and obvious issue with such. That being food costs being at least 4 times standard. And even then like the over inflated compared to yield, compared to standard, due to the niche nature of production. It's as far as I can tell a worse version of organic agriculture, and is counter to the idea of actually feeding people. So I guess the question is, how many tonnes of wheat per hectare can such a system produce and at what price, compared to the UK average of 8MT/H?
To add, if it's sub 2 tonnes but 4 times the prices it's not going to be brought, it *will* be imported. Unless we effectively reintroduce the corn laws. In which you end up running into the very issue this channel discusses so much.
Syntropic ag. Does not produce wheat. It produces protein and carbs in the form of nuts and seeds. Fruit. Edible tree leaves and fungi. Everything we need to survive whilst also being sustainable which monocultures seemingly are not.
I'm expecting that they will insist that arable farms intensify under net 0 using organic techniques and heirloom varieties. Livestock farmers will be expected to use a rewild model combined with more regulation on animal registration, wild deer and boar will need to be tagged at birth. They'll also be increasing right to roam and introducing a scheme which should make it easier to build in rural locations but in reality is so strict and complex nobody will use it. They will also say something about improving broadband.
@@rhubarb2301 there will be winners and losers but farmers won't be the winners. It's probably just going to be a policy designed to win votes from people drifting left to the green party.
Agro voltaic is a much better option for combining solar and ag land, but this is a very interesting topic. I frequently think about how this era must had to face a real reckoning of their cultures. Basically rural life is traditional life and leaving it behind may mean leaving your own culture behind. Technology took such a ramp up that there's no way that it could easily integrate into traditional society and bring in modernity, a much more macro or even global society. Traditionalism really lives in the limited resources, material and knowledge, and the adaptations that come with those limitations.
Another great video, thank you.. Thought provoking and stimulating, which panders nicely to my slightly socialist farming ideas and thoughts.😉 I blame listening to Billy Bragg in the late 70s....
I heard "a communal village whore" and was REALLY confused for a second :DD In general, thx for your interesting and thought provoking channel. Lets hope we can have better relations between cities and countryside in future in the (post?)industrialized countries. As a nature loving "city green leftie" I think we need to be more pragmatical and open to considering views like yours. Not good to have a culture war between people who love nature and those who are humanity's largest interface with it. I also really dislike some citygreens disparaging hunters as "bad sadistic people who just want to kill innocent animals"...
I would appreciate a video looking deeper at the Rewilding brigade. I am a 'townie' who rarely goes out into the countryside but I find myself perturbed by the idea of having ferocious animals out in the countryside. I like that the most dangerous thing you can encounter when out near a field is a cow, which as a walker you voluntarily go onto the cow's field. My view is that the aristocrats and others hunted wolves to extinction for a reason, and the idea that they don't attack humans is just pure nonsense. Why do these people want to unleash packs of animals who see farmer's livestock as their prey? Depriving both the farmer of his sheep and livelihood and the townie of their lamb chops and chicken breasts?
This will come in the next few months - I think the obsession with wolves is because they are 'alphas' that mirror the aristocracy's social position (and make life difficult for normal people)
Would be very Interesting. I hope you don’t just bash wolves and make them the villain. There’s plenty of places in the world where humans and wolves coexist and live together. It’s not always perfect but also never as bad as people make out. Plenty of places in Europe that are similar size and population to England that have wolves roaming freely and coexisting with wolves. I watched a very interesting video of a French shepherd the other day who takes thousands of sheep into the hills every summer with his dogs and may only lose 3 sheep the whole summer. 3 sheep might sound a lot but compared to the thousands he still manages to get home it’s nothing. (Don’t come at me like oh but that sheep deserves to live. Well for one it’s only living to make it onto your plate and nature is nature, we are apart of that and if we are trying to manipulate it and make it work for us then when nature snaps back we have to get on with it) This isn’t without constant vigilance and have a good couple of guard dogs, plus other measure put in place to reduce risk (guns could be used, but farmers and people who live/work in the country) so you can’t tell me we can’t do stuff like that and we can’t live with these animals, would just take some adjusting and for these animals to also be kept in check and not allowed to run riot, it would not be good to just dump a load in the middle of Hampshire for example but if a few, tagged and monitored wolves were allowed to roam Scotland and were then studied (a bit like the beaver studies that have gone on over the years) then we could have a better understanding of whether we could make it work for our country, I believe it could work over here and we could have a population, if managed right and the right measures put in place, having an apex predator like the wolf or lynx back in the UK would be a good thing. Farmers can be compensated, and if they are willing to be vigilant (like the shepherds on the continent) then they could probably get by without losing any, not every farmer, everywhere, there will obviously still be farmers that lose a sheep no matter how vigilant they are and there will always be accidents and cases where some livestock will be harmed but it’s been proven wolves and humans can coexist if humans take precautions and measures to help protect themselves and reduce risks. My last point is don’t say “but there’s so much land on the continent” yes there is, but wolves and humans still live in the same areas, using the same woods and hills and moving around the same bits of land, where they still come into close and regular contact with wolves. So land size only matters if wolves aren’t kept in check, if there’s a sustainable, suitable size (for the area of the land) healthy pack that lives somewhere then people can coexist with that, what matters is whether humans can adapt and use these tried and tested methods of reducing risks to themselves and their livestock.
@@farmingexplained I think that you're missing a big part of the picture, which is the effect that re-introducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park in the US had on restoring its ecosystem. Before the reintroduction, overgrazing deer had decimated the ecosystem, and after the wolves were introduced, the ecology was put back into order. You should look into the Yellowstone case as I think that is the primary reason people talk about reintroducing wolves.
@@farmingexplained See, I don't agree with nationalising anything because it tends to be a disaster, but deliberately so (that is a opposing party gains power, runs it into the grounds and sells it for cheap principally to the wealthiest). What I tend to suggest is consumer ownership where possible. I tend to use Themes water as an example, but is broadly applicable. The Idea being, every household (not home owner) should have an inherent, transferable dividend share and voting rights. This allows Consumers to profit (in regards to themes water iirc would be like 10-12 pounds a year) OR give up their dividend to pay for improvements (or not). So If Themes water users didn't care about sewerage in rivers and didn't care about extreme losses of water due to leaks so be it. At least it would be their choice, it would also remove it from government control and fecklessness.
@tisFrancesfault yes I would agree, I wouldn't push for nationalisation now because I think regulation (set prices for producers / cap prices for consumers) would have the same effect without costing the government anything. And thanks for your support over these past months! Your engagement and musing are much appreciated
That amount of centralized planning of economy and culture always fails. Rich, disconnected urbanites preserving ag land for their feelings not for reality.
"The class war between the farmer and the aristocrat" You never mention the class war between the farm labourer and the farmer or the tension between the tenant farmer and the large owner occupier farmer. Are the barley barons the new aristocracy? Perhaps the rich urbanites buying agricultural land as a tax dodge are the new aristocrats.
You should see the literal forests of wind turbines in the US, as far as the eye can see, covering hills and fields, and the economic trade of power for economic cost is an overall loss. The power generated doesnt typically cover the cist if the windmill and the blades cant be recycled, they are tossed into a landfill. People were told that they save wildlife for birds and other animals, but the windmiles put roads and cabling and millions of tons of concrete through previously unaltered land that is used for freerange cattle running side bybside with native species. Now those 'safe' windmills kill millions of birds every year, from small up to eagles and owls. They are, in the US, decidedly not green, much like electric cars that get their minerals from giant strip mines, dont last as long as gasoline engines, and are powered by coal plants.
Electric cars are not green in the slightest. The rare earth minerals are strip mined (not that I think all mining is wrong) and then huge amounts of electricity is used to purify the metals and ship them all over the world, which uses more oil, then the batteries only last a handful of years before they have to be replaced. A gas engine can last for decades and use a fraction of the energy required. Then there is the green energy farce. The wind turbines are an economic and ecological loss, I already described them on land, but the large wind farm off the east coast of the US is drawing attention for potentially causing the death of hundreds of whales (this hasn't been proven but it is heavily suspected of causing lots of noise and driving the whales mad). Nuclear and hydro are apparently not considered 'green' despite being the most efficient. When the sun and gravity turn off, that is when hydro won't work.
I understand, I was just expanding to point out that electric cars are no where near as green a technology as flouted. The battery technology just isn't there yet and the power generation to be green isn't there. Using ethanol gas from corn or algae is greener than wind and solar.
will you ever look at the genuine, non-aristocratic arguments for rewilding? or will you continue to misrepresent rewilding which has been at best co-opted by the aristocracy as if it's only an aristocratic tendency.
@@farmingexplained sorry but this is just flatly untrue. rewilding did not originate with the aristocracy, it didn't even originate in the UK. and like any policy the details matter, but it needn't necessarily benefit the aristocracy any interaction i've had with rewilding advocates has given me the impression they're not the sort to have aristocratic sympathies. if they had their way i suspect the aristocrats wouldn't have heads, never mind land. you've drawn an analogous connection between two unrelated things and presented them as if they're inherently linked. frankly it's irresponsible and dishonest.
@@afgor1088 This is how I would put it in simple terms. The rewilding element in the UK was of Aristocratic origin, originally for sport hunting. In the mid to late 20th century the new wave of environmentalists came into being, however what they did was adopted the pre-existing concepts existent, those being that of the aristocratic class. From then on, the two factions melded, but the new left wing element of the idea are vassalized to the original concepts. And in this regard we see an irony. Left-wingers support wealthy landowners. As they support polices to support large land owners to be unproductive, where as we're seen greater pressure on productive small-holdings (like if a small holder of 100 acres put their whole land into rewilding they'd be destitute (and now would lose their land upon death) where as larger land owners can afford to buy up and leave land fallow). So the more Ignorant (typically townie) environmentalists end up (further ironically) supporting a policy of food importation from say Latin America or Canada as the green option, even though it requires up to 4 times as much land, has poorer environmental protection as has to be shipped thousands of miles. In short; The left wing townie republicans, support wealthy landowners, not by pro-active support, but by implicit support. They do not support the wealthy/aristocratic class They support nice sounding policies... created by the wealthy and ignorant.
It's criminal that you don't have more subscribers.
His channel is still new, give it time
Really enjoying your videos, randomly appeared on my feed recently.
I'm a townie, love hiking and getting outside as much as possible.
Nice reasoned points or view and clearly a lot of research coupled with lived experience, thanks!
Liking this vid, lf any young children that are living on the land in UK come to Australia, learn history n you will see we have same issues. Our small township of 300 still runs football/netball club, agriculture show highlighting cooking, craft, gardening produce, farm animals, horse riding events. Other rural communities will horse races, B N S balls young people dance n drinking event. This what brings city, town/country n farmers together its only way we survive especially rural fire service, CWA, Lions club, we need each other in the hardest times. Yes environmental issues has drawn different outlooks but this shouldnt break community n government needs to be reminded of that.
Your videos are outstanding. I am a cattle rancher in Oklahoma, and my area is dealing with the growth of the Dallas-Ft Worth urban area. I see a lot of parallels with the English countryside, and your insights help me to conceptualize my home’s future.
13:23 Contrasting the UK land use planning system with postwar land use planning over the pond or on the continent would be an interesting topic in itself. The UK planning permission system is really interesting in that it's uniquely discretionary. Delving into whether this is good or bad for farmers would be interesting, because as far as I've understood, it's a major source of grief for places like Clarkson's farm.
The notion of putting up solar panels, in England of all places, on prime farmland strikes me as nuts. Really, this is the best use of land?
It seems the beauty issue is more of uniformity of policy. Let villages develop their own character, some with parks, some with haunts as the local populace decrees.
Some panels can be farmed under, with sheep but they are rarely used. But generally it would be better to have the panels on building's or just more in the areas that use the power.
16:36 Characterising the debate over cultivated vs. natural beauty purely in terms of class warfare feels a bit dishonest coming from a trained historian.
There's an ancient tradition of regarding uncultivated land as waste, but it was challenged in the 19th century by a greater appreciation of natural beauty that grew out of a growing interest in the natural sciences and Chinese landscape painting.
The channel @_magnify has a video about this titled "People used to think Scotland was ugly" where the host presents older sensibilities that sound strange to modern ears.
I often get a feeling there's a similar disconnect between country and town regarding e.g. wetlands, where one side sees it primarily as a wasteland to be drained and put under cultivation like our ancestors would have and the other sees it as a diverse and interesting habitat for non-human life that has value in its own right. The divide certainly exists even over here, where the aristocracy was left in the 19th century.
@@Jatemylly I think his view of class warfare is interesting but I think he misunderstands where he fits within the class system.
I believe(from what I've seen) he considers himself working class. Obviously he works but realistically he has more in common with "the aristocracy" than he does with someone living on a council estate with patents working in a supermarket.
I enjoy listening to his point of view and it really highlighted to me how unaligned my interests are with tenant farmers (hobby farmer, mil owns a small farm), a "paid to own land" system would pretty much give me what I want but he's kind of persuaded me that perhaps my self-interest might be leading me to be a bit of a dick about things.
Farmers are a class with high assets, true, but on the other hand they tend to have low disposable incomes. That makes them different from both the urban poor, who have neither assets nor disposable income, and the upper class, who have both high assets and incomes.
I really enjoy the sociopolitical analysis that's only possible from someone who has stepped outside to take a look at things from another angle, but a step outside the British might context might be necessary to gain a full understanding. Characterising all land use conflicts in terms of the British class system does nothing to explain why the same tension exists in much more egalitarian societies.
I'm really looking forward to when the postwar history of farming gets to CAP, because you can't really discuss that just in terms of lords and yeomen.
The new debate here at the moment is about large solar farms covering what was farmland.
@@honeybeesforsale sheep should be able to graze under the panels which is kind of a win win (unless niby).
@@dww6 Sheep in East Anglia made it rich years ago - but more sheep in the UK is hardly what we need now. The problems with this kind of 'Industrialised farming' is that it ruins people's lives. It is't just the look of that is rejected.
Nationally it is again the landed few kicking off tenant farmers because the rent paid for solar panels is so much more that tenant farmers pay.
This not just the odd field here and there. It's the scale of the plans that is so devastating.
In deserts like Northwest China, agrivoltaics makes more sense than the UK
@@dww6 grass doesn't grow very well in the shade, nor can you get a tractor to maintain the land under SPs.
As someone whose farm is now crowded on 3 out of 4 sides by wind farms, they're horrible
Agreed. Pembrokeshire is destined to be full of wind farms, and the off shore behomeths stretching across the entire horizon. That's unimaginable ecological destruction on land and sea. Meanwhile our farmers on this treeless Atlantic storm scoured peninsula are being told to plant 10% land with trees or lose all support. Indeed they are also told what chemicals and spray to apply to these trees and when, no matter what.
why
Better than solar panels.
@BrettBaker-uk4te better none of these vanity projects
@toddberkely6791 because we're rural (so urban folks don't have to see them) and at 900m altitude so wind is available. Our mains electricity supply is dodgy, so we put in a small wind turbine when we moved in; in a 'wind funnel' between two wooded areas. We had to get rid of it because we couldn't get the cattle up the lane past it, about 25m from a small domestic turbine. They just spooked at the sub-sonic humm and wouldn't go past to the stockyards. Our local ones are pretty big (180+m) so there's nowhere to look where you cant see them. At least they've taken the pointless red 'aircraft warning' lights off them🙄
I'm with you on wind turbines. We have solar panels on my home farm at the moment, I'd love to have some turbines in the future.
I think the fact townies and farmers alike watch this channel shows how bridgeable the cultural divide might be. It's easy for governments to be parsimonious skinflints about those issues they don't care to understand (or which they don't view as vote-earners); but we all need to eat, and we all need access to nature for physical and mental health so the admirable thing about the reports from near World War Two is that they acknowledge rural interests as the national interests
You are defiantly correct about this and the major problem with such a swift it is, quite ironicly, incredibly unsustainable.
All the rewilding projects require either a constant flow of money from the state to be maintained (taxes that could go to better things) or are reliant on tourism (a fickle industry at the best of times).
Increasing reliance on imports, particularly for an industry such as food, also makes the nation as a whole more vulnerable to international incidents making the price less stable. For example, a single ship got wedged in the Suez canal and disrupted direct trade between Europe and Asia for months. Another would be the Russio-ukrainian war that tied up the two major grain exporters and embargos prevented the trade of Russian oil/raw resources, triggering a cost of living crisis. Reducing domestic production even further would simply make these events more common worsening quality of life for all but the importers.
There is also the additional factor that once the money stops flowing to prop up these projects the landowners have no incentive to maintain them so they end up going to ruin. Along with all the infrastructure built to accommodate them.
Great video as always. There are syntropic agroforestry farms in Europe that are grossing 3500 euro's per hectare when their neighbours struggle to get 700 . The land can produce everything we need and enough profit for land owners/ guardians if we only look outside the box and get radical. If you look at the soil under an old broad leaf tree you will find perfect tilth. The kind of seedbed it takes ploughing and power harrowing and huge amounts of energy to create. Nature does it for us with established microbiology and without compaction.
@@johnfowler4820 I mean there's an immediate and obvious issue with such. That being food costs being at least 4 times standard. And even then like the over inflated compared to yield, compared to standard, due to the niche nature of production.
It's as far as I can tell a worse version of organic agriculture, and is counter to the idea of actually feeding people.
So I guess the question is, how many tonnes of wheat per hectare can such a system produce and at what price, compared to the UK average of 8MT/H?
To add, if it's sub 2 tonnes but 4 times the prices it's not going to be brought, it *will* be imported. Unless we effectively reintroduce the corn laws.
In which you end up running into the very issue this channel discusses so much.
Syntropic ag. Does not produce wheat. It produces protein and carbs in the form of nuts and seeds. Fruit. Edible tree leaves and fungi. Everything we need to survive whilst also being sustainable which monocultures seemingly are not.
I'm expecting that they will insist that arable farms intensify under net 0 using organic techniques and heirloom varieties.
Livestock farmers will be expected to use a rewild model combined with more regulation on animal registration, wild deer and boar will need to be tagged at birth.
They'll also be increasing right to roam and introducing a scheme which should make it easier to build in rural locations but in reality is so strict and complex nobody will use it.
They will also say something about improving broadband.
i hope they don't cock it up becasue that could be quite good
@@rhubarb2301 there will be winners and losers but farmers won't be the winners. It's probably just going to be a policy designed to win votes from people drifting left to the green party.
Your videos are extremely interesting and clearly we'll informed. Keep it up!
Agro voltaic is a much better option for combining solar and ag land, but this is a very interesting topic. I frequently think about how this era must had to face a real reckoning of their cultures. Basically rural life is traditional life and leaving it behind may mean leaving your own culture behind. Technology took such a ramp up that there's no way that it could easily integrate into traditional society and bring in modernity, a much more macro or even global society. Traditionalism really lives in the limited resources, material and knowledge, and the adaptations that come with those limitations.
14:12 I think it’s pronounced Kasm - though I may be wrong 😅
Another great video, thank you.. Thought provoking and stimulating, which panders nicely to my slightly socialist farming ideas and thoughts.😉 I blame listening to Billy Bragg in the late 70s....
I heard "a communal village whore" and was REALLY confused for a second :DD
In general, thx for your interesting and thought provoking channel. Lets hope we can have better relations between cities and countryside in future in the (post?)industrialized countries.
As a nature loving "city green leftie" I think we need to be more pragmatical and open to considering views like yours. Not good to have a culture war between people who love nature and those who are humanity's largest interface with it. I also really dislike some citygreens disparaging hunters as "bad sadistic people who just want to kill innocent animals"...
I would appreciate a video looking deeper at the Rewilding brigade. I am a 'townie' who rarely goes out into the countryside but I find myself perturbed by the idea of having ferocious animals out in the countryside. I like that the most dangerous thing you can encounter when out near a field is a cow, which as a walker you voluntarily go onto the cow's field. My view is that the aristocrats and others hunted wolves to extinction for a reason, and the idea that they don't attack humans is just pure nonsense. Why do these people want to unleash packs of animals who see farmer's livestock as their prey? Depriving both the farmer of his sheep and livelihood and the townie of their lamb chops and chicken breasts?
This will come in the next few months - I think the obsession with wolves is because they are 'alphas' that mirror the aristocracy's social position (and make life difficult for normal people)
Would be very Interesting. I hope you don’t just bash wolves and make them the villain. There’s plenty of places in the world where humans and wolves coexist and live together. It’s not always perfect but also never as bad as people make out.
Plenty of places in Europe that are similar size and population to England that have wolves roaming freely and coexisting with wolves. I watched a very interesting video of a French shepherd the other day who takes thousands of sheep into the hills every summer with his dogs and may only lose 3 sheep the whole summer. 3 sheep might sound a lot but compared to the thousands he still manages to get home it’s nothing. (Don’t come at me like oh but that sheep deserves to live. Well for one it’s only living to make it onto your plate and nature is nature, we are apart of that and if we are trying to manipulate it and make it work for us then when nature snaps back we have to get on with it)
This isn’t without constant vigilance and have a good couple of guard dogs, plus other measure put in place to reduce risk (guns could be used, but farmers and people who live/work in the country) so you can’t tell me we can’t do stuff like that and we can’t live with these animals, would just take some adjusting and for these animals to also be kept in check and not allowed to run riot, it would not be good to just dump a load in the middle of Hampshire for example but if a few, tagged and monitored wolves were allowed to roam Scotland and were then studied (a bit like the beaver studies that have gone on over the years) then we could have a better understanding of whether we could make it work for our country, I believe it could work over here and we could have a population, if managed right and the right measures put in place, having an apex predator like the wolf or lynx back in the UK would be a good thing.
Farmers can be compensated, and if they are willing to be vigilant (like the shepherds on the continent) then they could probably get by without losing any, not every farmer, everywhere, there will obviously still be farmers that lose a sheep no matter how vigilant they are and there will always be accidents and cases where some livestock will be harmed but it’s been proven wolves and humans can coexist if humans take precautions and measures to help protect themselves and reduce risks.
My last point is don’t say “but there’s so much land on the continent” yes there is, but wolves and humans still live in the same areas, using the same woods and hills and moving around the same bits of land, where they still come into close and regular contact with wolves. So land size only matters if wolves aren’t kept in check, if there’s a sustainable, suitable size (for the area of the land) healthy pack that lives somewhere then people can coexist with that, what matters is whether humans can adapt and use these tried and tested methods of reducing risks to themselves and their livestock.
@@farmingexplained I think that you're missing a big part of the picture, which is the effect that re-introducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park in the US had on restoring its ecosystem. Before the reintroduction, overgrazing deer had decimated the ecosystem, and after the wolves were introduced, the ecology was put back into order. You should look into the Yellowstone case as I think that is the primary reason people talk about reintroducing wolves.
14:12 Ollie, you wouldn't happen to mean "chasm" (kasm), would you?
I try to mispronounce one word a week to drive engagement ;)
13:52 nice 😊
How much good, if any, would nationalising supermarkets do? Seems like if their profits went to farmers you would be better off.
I think the people of this time would have nationalised markets if they existed then - would benefit both producers and consumers which is most people
@@farmingexplained See, I don't agree with nationalising anything because it tends to be a disaster, but deliberately so (that is a opposing party gains power, runs it into the grounds and sells it for cheap principally to the wealthiest).
What I tend to suggest is consumer ownership where possible. I tend to use Themes water as an example, but is broadly applicable. The Idea being, every household (not home owner) should have an inherent, transferable dividend share and voting rights. This allows Consumers to profit (in regards to themes water iirc would be like 10-12 pounds a year) OR give up their dividend to pay for improvements (or not). So If Themes water users didn't care about sewerage in rivers and didn't care about extreme losses of water due to leaks so be it. At least it would be their choice, it would also remove it from government control and fecklessness.
@tisFrancesfault yes I would agree, I wouldn't push for nationalisation now because I think regulation (set prices for producers / cap prices for consumers) would have the same effect without costing the government anything. And thanks for your support over these past months! Your engagement and musing are much appreciated
That amount of centralized planning of economy and culture always fails. Rich, disconnected urbanites preserving ag land for their feelings not for reality.
"The class war between the farmer and the aristocrat"
You never mention the class war between the farm labourer and the farmer or the tension between the tenant farmer and the large owner occupier farmer.
Are the barley barons the new aristocracy?
Perhaps the rich urbanites buying agricultural land as a tax dodge are the new aristocrats.
farming fr fr
5:02 Exactly, their descendants, not immigrants.
You’re showing your confirmation bias windmills are ugly to everybody
You should see the literal forests of wind turbines in the US, as far as the eye can see, covering hills and fields, and the economic trade of power for economic cost is an overall loss. The power generated doesnt typically cover the cist if the windmill and the blades cant be recycled, they are tossed into a landfill. People were told that they save wildlife for birds and other animals, but the windmiles put roads and cabling and millions of tons of concrete through previously unaltered land that is used for freerange cattle running side bybside with native species. Now those 'safe' windmills kill millions of birds every year, from small up to eagles and owls.
They are, in the US, decidedly not green, much like electric cars that get their minerals from giant strip mines, dont last as long as gasoline engines, and are powered by coal plants.
Even electric cars are greener than wind turbines you describe
Electric cars are not green in the slightest. The rare earth minerals are strip mined (not that I think all mining is wrong) and then huge amounts of electricity is used to purify the metals and ship them all over the world, which uses more oil, then the batteries only last a handful of years before they have to be replaced. A gas engine can last for decades and use a fraction of the energy required.
Then there is the green energy farce. The wind turbines are an economic and ecological loss, I already described them on land, but the large wind farm off the east coast of the US is drawing attention for potentially causing the death of hundreds of whales (this hasn't been proven but it is heavily suspected of causing lots of noise and driving the whales mad).
Nuclear and hydro are apparently not considered 'green' despite being the most efficient. When the sun and gravity turn off, that is when hydro won't work.
@@chrisheitstuman6360
I didn't mean to praise EVs but to say that the wind turbines are horrible
I understand, I was just expanding to point out that electric cars are no where near as green a technology as flouted. The battery technology just isn't there yet and the power generation to be green isn't there.
Using ethanol gas from corn or algae is greener than wind and solar.
will you ever look at the genuine, non-aristocratic arguments for rewilding? or will you continue to misrepresent rewilding which has been at best co-opted by the aristocracy as if it's only an aristocratic tendency.
I will do this after we've looked at the history but it important to note where these ideas originate from (and who they benefit)
@@farmingexplained sorry but this is just flatly untrue.
rewilding did not originate with the aristocracy, it didn't even originate in the UK. and like any policy the details matter, but it needn't necessarily benefit the aristocracy
any interaction i've had with rewilding advocates has given me the impression they're not the sort to have aristocratic sympathies. if they had their way i suspect the aristocrats wouldn't have heads, never mind land.
you've drawn an analogous connection between two unrelated things and presented them as if they're inherently linked. frankly it's irresponsible and dishonest.
Give it a few months and I'll cover it in more detail
@@afgor1088 This is how I would put it in simple terms. The rewilding element in the UK was of Aristocratic origin, originally for sport hunting. In the mid to late 20th century the new wave of environmentalists came into being, however what they did was adopted the pre-existing concepts existent, those being that of the aristocratic class. From then on, the two factions melded, but the new left wing element of the idea are vassalized to the original concepts.
And in this regard we see an irony. Left-wingers support wealthy landowners. As they support polices to support large land owners to be unproductive, where as we're seen greater pressure on productive small-holdings (like if a small holder of 100 acres put their whole land into rewilding they'd be destitute (and now would lose their land upon death) where as larger land owners can afford to buy up and leave land fallow). So the more Ignorant (typically townie) environmentalists end up (further ironically) supporting a policy of food importation from say Latin America or Canada as the green option, even though it requires up to 4 times as much land, has poorer environmental protection as has to be shipped thousands of miles.
In short; The left wing townie republicans, support wealthy landowners, not by pro-active support, but by implicit support. They do not support the wealthy/aristocratic class They support nice sounding policies... created by the wealthy and ignorant.
🤔Would you put the National Trust in the same category as the aristocracy? a random thought but their policy and behaviour is remarkably similar