Writing

Wide Open Spaces

Allow me to come directly to the point: there is entirely too much open space. There are even places where there is only one house for every hundred acres! One must wonder how this problem has been allowed to continue; indeed, what sort of social structure can these people have when they live this way? Imagine acres and acres of crops blithely allowed to proliferate, the farmers that sow them wantonly lining their own pockets at the expense of industrial progress. Imagine pollinating trees along every dirt roadway; rocks and bushes allowed to grow in no landscaped pattern; bodies of water left exactly the way they were centuries ago; cows, pigs, and other livestock permitted to roam beside human contrivances: these things and more stand in the way of our far superior suburban lifestyle. This problem is only exacerbated by weak-minded individuals and ill-informed groups who argue that we actually need nature to live.

One argument used by these tree-huggers is, as mentioned above, that we need nature. They say that we need it because the trees produce oxygen, and, as humans, we breathe oxygen, therefore, we need to have trees, but we have trees in landscaped gardens; because of that, we don't need wild forests of unkempt foliage. The same thing can be said for bushes, flowers, grasses, mosses, and fungi. Why on earth would we let this plant life grow wild when we can cultivate it in specially prepared areas and still allow societal progress to take place?

The next claim used by developmental naysayers is that we need farmers and their crops to survive. Sure, we all need to eat, and crops provide this, but we could construct farms on top of buildings; dilapidated buildings could be transformed into gigantic terrariums where food could be grown. Then we're supposed to believe more propaganda from this vein when we're told that livestock and wild animals need room to roam. Well, the truth of the matter is, who cares? We're what's important, right? Animals could be kept in zoos and cages where they can be looked at and enjoyed but where they would be out of the way of progress.

Next up is the argument that we already have enough civilization. Well, that's just nonsense. Think about this: what if you were living next to the world's noisiest neighbor and just wanted to move somewhere else, but that somewhere else you wanted to move to didn't have a place for you to stay? Can you imagine all the trouble you'd have to go through to get proper housing? If there were more condominiums, duplexes, apartment complexes, and penthouses in these areas that-because of farming, forest, or wildlife-have not been developed, then this problem wouldn't exist.

Then there's the contention that there are benefits to living in rural areas. That, I assure you, is absurd. There are absolutely no advantages to this lifestyle and the outrage and protesting of this line of reasoning will surely come. First, if you live in the country in your own house, guess who is responsible if something goes wrong? That's right: you are. There is no landlord to call if your plumbing breaks or your pilot light goes out. Secondly, in rural areas, there is rarely a paved road to be found. How on earth can anyone expect to survive with the dust that is raised from these roadways every time a car goes by? Huge clouds of powdery dirt fill the air, especially when delivery drivers go about their tasks, and this is to say nothing of the crater-like potholes that appear-seemingly overnight by magic-that destroy expensive SUVs that are absolutely necessary for every single person to own.

These roads are also detrimental year-round: in the summer they are, as mentioned, dusty; in the winter, they are rarely-if ever-plowed; in the fall, they are filled with potholes; in the spring, they turn to soupy mud and vehicles stay immobilized there until the dirt dries out. Further, living in the country exposes you to all sorts of undesirable insects, rodents, and pollens. The insects cannot be exterminated because you would never get them all. Rodents can only be gotten rid by the use of several mangy barn cats that will eat them but leave the carcasses all over the place. As I have mentioned, the only way to be rid of pollen is to carefully cultivate trees, grasses, et cetera, but this can only happen if subdivisions and other residential benefits are allowed to happen.

Finally, there is the issue of pollution. Proponents of country living often report that they moved into the rural localities because of rampant pollution in the big cities, and that may well be true. They also say that there is less pollution in the country than in the city because there are fewer cars and less industry to cause it. Well, I say they are liars. What do they call that huge gray cloud following behind the tractor? Fairy dust? Nope: that's exhaust, same as you'll find in the city, so that point is moot. What about the reports that more methane gas is released from bovine than any other source? Is that not pollution? It destroys our precious ozone layer, doesn't it? Speaking of livestock, what do farmers actually do with all the waste produced by said animals? Spread it on fields, all right, but that stuff is decomposing and turning into more dangerous gases.

This kind of life must stop. The only way to insure utopia for our future is to completely urbanize the remainder of the rural areas and build housing, strip malls, boutiques, and department stores. This kind of urban growth promotes healthy living where everything a person needs is within a few minutes' drive in the trusty SUV, where nature is as structured and organized as our own lives, and where little or no work is required. Bring on the bulldozers; we're ready for change.