|

|
 |
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE U.S.A. IS GETTING WILDER,
AND MORE SO EVERY DAY
Nate Dickinson |
|
An
article entitled "The New Continental Divide" by Michael Lind
appeared in the January-February 2003 issue of the distinguished
Atlantic Monthly. The subject was the contrasting overcrowded
cities on the coasts and the dying rural communities in the
interior of the United States. Lind points out that today most
of the Great Plains, for one example, are undergoing a
catastrophic demographic collapse. Although this region accounts
for one-fifth of the nation's land area, it contains only four
percent of the human population; and the population of Los
Angeles and surrounding sprawl is higher than that of the
Plains, which has an area five times that of all of California.
He notes that many heartland communities face the prospect of
becoming ghosts towns.
These pronouncements are very refreshing to those who are
interested in the truth being known, especially in light of the
horrendous barrage of mistruths, deception, and play on emotions
of the more radical elements of the well-entrenched
environmental movement. Listening to their doomsday rantings,
one would think that there are few wildlands and wilderness
left. For instances, just what is intended by the Nature
Conservancy's rallying cry that their goal is to save the last
great places or the Wildlands Project's aim to rewild 50 percent
of North America?
Lind goes on to point out that the Atlantic and Pacific coasts
are rapidly filling up, with the involved counties constituting
only 17 percent of the U.S. area, while containing 53 percent of
the nation's people. It should be noted that such comparisons
would be even more striking if consideration was given to the
fact that populations are generally concentrated in a relatively
small percent of the area of the involved countries. In
addition, if one looks at their Rand McNally they will quickly
see that the vast majority of the coastal areas are not
plastered with cities or sprawl. A breakdown by towns and cities
would be more revealing. Continuation of existing trends would
portend an empty interior surrounded by a handful of densely
populated metropolitan areas.
It must be noted that Michael Lind did not appear to intend to
challenge the environmental establishment, nor to provide
ammunition to weaken their cause. The matter of the environment
and man's impact was not brought up. He did touch on the
political implications of the so-called continental divide and
the lack of true representation for the local constituents in
the dying rural communities and the disparities in economic
matters.
The intention appears to be to make a case for the social
engineering of the interior, stating that the heartland needs
people. Lind recommends the creation of federal programs that
would help poor and working-class people to move; not from
cities to suburbs, but from crowded states to those with low
population densities. This would appear to be a very liberal
approach that clashes with the very liberal agenda of the
radical environmentalists.
Further ammunition is provided by figures showing that only six
percent of the U.S. of A. is residential, being the urban,
suburban, and rural centers; with 20 percent farmland, 25
percent rangeland, and the rest wilderness and woodland.
Obviously the rest amounts to 49 percent, certainly a far cry
from the shrinking wilderness touted by the liberal
environmentalists.
The article identifies the role of agriculture in the current
complexion of the landscape, noting that since 1950 agricultural
production has increased by more than 100 percent, with land
taken out of production eight times as fast as it is consumed by
suburban development. Indeed, very interesting. And, much has
gone back to forest, particularly in the Northeast. It is
recognized that most of this idle land can, in the 21st Century;
be restored to wilderness - prairie, forest, or desert. One
would think that this would make the environmentalists very
happy, even though they can not take credit for it.
Lind points out that the rate of land abandonment would be even
faster if government did not subsidize agriculture and provide
irrigation subsidies. Obviously, he is not opposed to government
subsidies, since he suggests that the revenues be used for
promoting new high - tech infrastructures in the heartland. He
identifies the need build a transcontinental infrastructure,
subsidizing thousands of small regional airports to form an
interstate skyway system. It is noted that irrigation subsidies
presently total two bullion dollars annually, with half of that
used to produce surplus crops. Lind suggests driving agriculture
east to states like Illinois and Iowa where water is abundant
and renewable. All of this money could be better used to promote
a combination of service and manufacturing industries as part of
an ambitious economic development program.
All of the pronouncements in this article give pretty good clues
to the agenda of the New America Foundation, of which Michael
Lind is a senior fellow. Concern, of course, must be shown for
the impact of such social engineering on individual freedom,
public harassment, private property rights, and the traditional
and legitimate roles of the private and public sectors. Thanks
should be given to Lind for his accurate portrayal of the
American landscape. Resolution of conflicts between two
decidedly liberal agendas will certainly take some doing.
Nate Dickinson
|
Printer Friendly Version
More from Nate:
3/03 - ARE THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY SCAMS
CREEPING INTO CLASSROOMS?
2/03 -
A Call To Truth and Honesty in Environmental Deliberations
12/02 -
IF ONLY DEC HAD A LITTLE CHRISTMAS SPIRIT
12/02 -
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MENTALITY
4/02 - INTRIGUE OF EVERGLADES
TAINTED
11/02 - MAINE IS NOT ALONE IN EXPERIENCING RURAL CLEANSING |