I’ve had this for a while and, at Bert’s urgings am posting it today (sorry it’s so long)

In searching for a solution to the poverty problem we are facing here in the valley, I was struck by an idea so daring and novel that it makes Pavlov’s discovery of salivating dogs seem like a mere flash in the pan. In an age when waste is seen as a vice given the number of people in the world who are forced to do without, it occurs to me that we are committing the gravest wrongdoing by placing a ban on all productive activities in our forest reserves.

In fact, if brought into the market, the forest represents the salvation of the poor, capable of providing them with shelter, food, and raw materials, freeing up what few assets they currently possess for the earning of wages and improvement of health. Moreover this proposal of mine, far from exerting negative pressures on the non-poor, will provide the whole of society with a number of peripheral benefits which, unlike poverty, cannot be measured on an economic scale. As such, I boldly propose that we give the land that is currently classified as forest reserve, entirely over to the poor for productive uses.

Effects of the proposal on the poor.

Current patterns of settlement have forced the poor into the bottom of the valley where land has been made worthless by the down flow of air weighted with pollutants. Such unhealthy conditions and poor air quality have driven the wealthy into the hills where the air is clear and the warm orange smog of the valley bottoms, when seen from above, provides a pleasant setting for evening aperitifs on broad porches.

Currently the houses of the rich are peppered sparingly amongst the forest on the East slope however the West slope remains heavily forested with what the government dubs, ‘a reserve’. This forest reserve takes up the space along the hills which could otherwise be used for building healthy houses and farms for the poor. With poverty so rampant the solution is evident, all of the trees should be cut to make way for new homes for the poor.

By clearing land along the hillside we can offer the poor a striking and healthy platform on which to begin building their homes and tending their newly acquired fields, thereby improving their health and opportunity and allowing them the leisure to develop a serene and spiritual countenance.

I caution, however, against developing the communities of the poor as mirrors of those of the rich since it is well known that the number of poor people far exceeds the number of rich people. The waste of space associated with rich communities is grave indeed however, it is a luxury of the rich to be surrounded by trees and I shall not begrudge the wealthy their luxuries. Maintaining any significant tree cover in the poor communities, however would mean that there is not sufficient space to feed and house all of the poor. Far be it from any of us to suppose to select those poor that we will raise up while damning the rest to a continued life of squalor.

In order to minimize the cost of cutting the forest down I suggest that a work for land program be initiated. In such a manner the poor who wish to have land need do no more than clear the forest on whatever plot will become their home. To avoid competition for the best spots and to ensure equity, which I hold dear, it would be best if the poor are blindfolded. Once blindfolded, the poor can be enticed to point to a spot on a map which, if not already claimed by a previous blind poke, would become their area if they are able to clear it. To create an atmosphere of excitement and entice the lethargic poor to participate, the blindfolded plot selection could even be the main attraction at a carnival. The carnival would also create a sense of participation and amity towards my proposal amongst the non-poor with rich philanthropists giving their time to operate apple bobbing stations, dunk tanks and other such stalls.

Once the wood has been cut through the above ‘carnival process’ it must be cleared from the land. The solution to this conundrum is obvious since the poor will also require construction material, of which the most common in this area is wood. Given this, it follows that the very wood which is cut to make room for the houses will provide the destitute with the material with which to drag themselves up from the depths of poverty and build whatever hovels they can muster. Using the wood to build houses eliminate any need to pay to have the wood carted away and disposed of.

While it is true that removing the entire forest now, so that there is sufficient space to house all of the poor, means that the children of the poor will not have quick and easy access to wood, with the elevated socio-economic status up of their parents, the children will become educated and wealthy in their own right. These salvaged children will then have the capacity to look elsewhere for their building material; to the quarries and the factories for example where concrete, steel beams and a host of other ‘new age’ materials are brought forth. Or if these children chose to construct their houses from wood, they will be able to afford to import wood from other areas thereby subsisting off the forests of other nations.

With regards to feeding themselves in their mountain abodes, those poor with whom I have had the occasion to converse have all seemed quite capable of adapting to new situations. Why I have met young men who have been beggars, robbers, laborers and caretakers all before the age of 14. If the poor hold such potential it seems clear that they could quickly acclimatize to being farmers.

There is some concern that in the absence of trees the lush soil which has sprung from hundreds of years of trees living and dying will be quickly washed away. However, once the poor are earning money they can begin to purchase food and will no longer need the soil. We need only get them over the hump from poverty to purchasing power and the markets will supply the rest; soil becomes insignificant.

Effects of the Proposal on the non-poor (aka, the rich).

Many a sound proposal has drowned in the quagmire that is the legislature under the pressure of mighty entities dubbed ’special interest groups’. Any good proposal should consider the advantages it can offer to all groups so as to remove the government from the awkward situation of making one group happy at the expense of another. For those of you of a more selfish nature who will argue against my solution on the grounds that it holds no advantage for you I offer you the following.

Once the forests have been converted to more productive uses the trees will no longer obstruct the view such that government employees will have no need to spend days driving around inspecting the territories. Rather government employees can be equipped with a large telescope mounted on their roof with which they can observe a great expanse of land. This will improve the humor of government employees who will be able to spend far more time in their bathrobes. With their spare time the officials of the government can increase their productivity further by thinking of solutions to the ever-present government problems such as finding money and spending money.

Finally, many a war has been fought over the control of resources. I do not wish to put any notions into the minds of the corruptible however, there will come a day when we all recognize the value of the forests. Rather than risking a situation in which different groups will fight amongst themselves it is prudent to preempt the conflict by using up the forests today. Just as no fool would build his house on a slope prone to landslides so to should no community sit complacently on a tinder box which, when sparked will burst into the flames of war. Unless we clear the tinder box by cutting down the trees we risk the curses of our children who will bellow at us, not from the classroom but rather from the battlefield.

For those of you who wish to venture criticism of this proposal I urge you to remember that humans are extremely logical creatures. When you compare the value of a shady place to walk (the only apparent value of the forest in its current state) with the value of space, building material, increased food supplies, improved health, future security and happy government employees (the value of the forest attributable to its destruction) the logical choice is clear. For the betterment of human society the government must live up to its responsibility and facilitate the clearing of the forest as I have so described.