Half of Britons think ‘countryside’ is boring
Three thousand Britons recently took time out from their favourite pastime of sodomy and took part in a survey on the countryside, carried out for a major budget hotel company. Apparently more than half of them think the countryside is ‘boring’ and when shown pictures, one in ten couldn’t even identify a sheep while 83% couldn’t name a bluebell. Ironically, 44% didn’t recognise an oak tree, though they probably spend most of their free time at their local The Royal Oak pub, discussing sport and makes of cars.
Professor of Tourism (yes, there really is a Professor of Tourism) at The University of Surrey awkwardly muttered some rubbish about people holidaying abroad more often nowadays and therefore forgetting what their own country might offer in terms of ENTERTAINMENT. And that’s what this boils down to, the need of the modern man to be constantly amused like a spoilt child.
We say: the countryside (where do you draw the line at where the ‘countryside’ begins and ends anyway?) does not exist for your entertainment. It’s not an amusement park for you and your retarded children. It’s not a tourist attraction like Disneyworld. Newsflash to the idiots of the world: outside of your TV, the real world just IS, without reason or meaning or need to justify itself.
What exactly IS this ‘countryside’ that people keep going on about anyway? The dismal remnants of the world not yet paved over? Yes, now we understand things more clearly. These fuckhead Professors of Tourism, these liberal environmentalists, these businessmen, these humanist morons all think this countryside is just a pleasant glorified parkland to play around in. Maybe they even think that we should preserve what’s left of it for the sake of our descendents, but not apparently for its own sake as something worth keeping in itself. No, its only apparent worth is in whether us humans can enjoy it or not. It’s a consumable commodity, apparently in dire need of a PR department. At the root of this is the same supreme arrogance and stupidity that leads the masses to believe that the entire world exists solely for their own selfish benefit and consumption.
If the natural world (as opposed to the grey urban hell of the man-made world) is to survive at all, it should be for the sake of the earth and its constituent parts as a living organism, not so that some glorified chimpanzee can have the freedom to tear around a forest in his shiny 4×4. Know your place in the world, you’re a mere floating particle of insignificance. Take pleasure in life and your surroundings (while you still can), just don’t forget: you’re not a god and your existence depends entirely upon the world of which you’re a single but far from unique component. Conversely however, the world does not need YOU.
Tags: britain, countryside, entertainment, Environment, survey, tourism, world
May 11th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I saw your post on the Countryside Alliance facebook and was pretty much with you until I actually read the article. Don’t get me wrong, it’s funny I guess but doesn’t really help matters at all.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 am
What a hippy rant. I think i am god. And i don`t need the world. Don`t see how that makes me a humanist. Humans are parasites. But yeah. Living in a countryside would be great.
Know your place in the world…Primates ranting at each others. Telling each others where to be and what to do.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:48 am
“I think i am god. And i don`t need the world. Don`t see how that makes me humanist.”
*sighs*
You don’t actually understand what humanism means do you?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I ment that i don`t see why anti-humanism should be all about saving the world for others to breed and consume. To be against humanism doesn`t necessary mean that you are all about saving the trees and bees. And i hate the usage of “natural”. Natural world. What the hell is that? So humans are unnatural? Everything we make is an abomination? Maybe. But how are you so sure? Do you think world will be a better place without people – less people? I think it will still be a dull planet.
No matter where people find their asses to be comfortable – Countryside or a city. I don`t see the straight attachment to anti-humanism and countrysides.
Yeah countrysides are awesome. And maybe you won`t be doing much damage to the great ecosystem of the world if you live on self grown potatos. Still cities can work under some changes – hopefully away from humanism
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
“the world will still be a dull planet”? The world would be more natural without modern day humans in it; therefore, modern day humans are unnatural. We’re overpopulated and we’re destroying our environment for no other reason than commerce and convenience. We need cities, I agree with you, but there should be well under 1 billion of us on this planet, and “free trade”, economic centralization, and trying to feed all those who are hungry in other regions of the world allow our species to perpetuate far above normal levels while the intelligent ones wait for the inevitable collapse.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:03 am
This makes little sense. So do you think that along with the reduction of overpopulating humans, all the birds nests should be destroyed? All the badger dens should be burned? All the dams built by the badgers should be blown up? Humans are animals. These animals have created homes, which they call cities. That IS natural.The human organism that has evolved into the dominant species on earth builds things. There is no differentiation between “natural” and “man-made”. If you believe there is, then you also believe that wasp nests are not natural, as they are things made by other animals, wasps.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:07 am
CelticWarrior: I think you’re making a very silly point, maybe intentionally I don’t know.
Fact is, wasps and birds etc manage to co-exist with their environment and form an ecosystem which equates to a perfectly functioning whole, a bit like a human society could do in theory, but so often doesn’t, like ours today.
In ant colonies, you never see hordes of lazy ants watching TV and living on welfare.
In wasp nests you never see useless retarded wasps trundling about in little wheelchairs.
As far as I know, birds don’t lay waste to miles of woodland to make their nests.
Unlike other species, we as humans tend to think of our surroundings as existing solely for our consumption, not as something we should adapt to and exist alongside. There’s the difference.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Links: Challenges For the Nanny State…
We begin this week with a handful of curious findings concerning the future of the Nanny State, e.g. the welfare system our precious leaders have decided should be the model for the entire West. Does it really work? You check these links out and decide…
July 6th, 2009 at 11:02 am
You know so many interesting infomation. You might be very wise. I like such people. Don’t top writing.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Yep well said Anti-humanism, the problem’s even worse in other countries eg AUSTRALIA where the ‘countryside’ is untouched outback wierdness and still no-one gives a rat’s ass unless they can churn it under their tyres!
December 20th, 2009 at 1:01 am
I have been trying to add your site to my feed reader, but it gives me an error. Any idea what I am doing wrong?
February 19th, 2010 at 6:52 am
Hi there! Great concept, but might this genuinely operate?