Systematic Difference and Correlation in Urban and Rural …
573
ecological environment, the fast pace of work and the boredom with artificial nature
are strongly spurring the urbanites to embrace nature again. There are many ways
to do that, but the most common way is going to the countryside. Implementing this
initiative from the angle of ecological civilization can effect a change in the public
view on consumption, thus breaking the theoretical and ideological fetters imposed
by western economics. Second, the traditional approach to solving the “Sannong”
issue, namely high input, is the result of thinking in the confines of industrialized
agriculture. If we make a Gestalt switch in aesthetics, highlight the cultural values
of traditional countryside, we can realize a natural and clean countryside. The rural
system is relatively simple, where environmental governance is easier than in cities
as it depends on the input of manpower rather than capital. As long as ecological
progress can increase the income of rural residents, migrant workers will go back to
their hometown, bringing the new ideas and technologies they have obtained in cities.
The special land ownership in China decides that our “back-to-countryside” wave
will have a stronger momentum than the “anti-urbanization” movement in developed
countries. Third, currently rural areas mainly produce non-staple food and sundries to
achieve prosperity, but the large-scale expansion of breeding industry is detrimental
to landscape and health. Historically speaking, anthropoids were vegetarians. Eating
meat has improved human nutrition, urged them to increase the living space and
made them much stronger fighters, but vegetarian diet is bound to return in the long
term. Grain production has both material and spiritual significance, and both can be
achieved through ecological tourism. If one day the scene of “green field, growing
rice and chirping cuckoos in misty rain” is back, the charm of the countryside will
be irresistible. We must advance the construction of a beautiful countryside through
forming a rural community of ecological interests, otherwise we won’t be able to
stimulate the villagers’ enthusiasm in a sustained and effective way.
Social reproduction consists of three closely linked aspects—natural reproduction, demographic reproduction and economic reproduction, which are effectively
coordinated by the Beautiful Countryside initiative pillared by the rural community
of ecological interests. First of all, it creates a stable and reliable strategic rear base
for national economy, the significance of which is explained earlier. Second, from
a demographic point of view, the rapid development of intelligent technologies will
lead to a huge surplus of labor force and consequently greater employment pressure.
I have discussed this in the article Demographic Dividend or Brain Dividend? At
that time, the beautiful countryside will offer a space for the surplus labor force to
exert their strengths. At last, from an ecological point of view, building a beautiful
countryside will serve three purposes. The first is to demonstrate and spur environmental governance in cities. If we can succeed in building a beautiful countryside,
the city polluters would be too ashamed to play the “cat-catch-mouse game” with
environmental inspectors and authorities any more, and the society in general would
gradually be inclined toward a clean environment. The second purpose is to build
barriers against urban expansion and pollution transfer. Environmental violations
usually happen and get away with punishment because of the priority to cities, but
the construction of beautiful countryside will take the upper hand both morally and
573
ecological environment, the fast pace of work and the boredom with artificial nature
are strongly spurring the urbanites to embrace nature again. There are many ways
to do that, but the most common way is going to the countryside. Implementing this
initiative from the angle of ecological civilization can effect a change in the public
view on consumption, thus breaking the theoretical and ideological fetters imposed
by western economics. Second, the traditional approach to solving the “Sannong”
issue, namely high input, is the result of thinking in the confines of industrialized
agriculture. If we make a Gestalt switch in aesthetics, highlight the cultural values
of traditional countryside, we can realize a natural and clean countryside. The rural
system is relatively simple, where environmental governance is easier than in cities
as it depends on the input of manpower rather than capital. As long as ecological
progress can increase the income of rural residents, migrant workers will go back to
their hometown, bringing the new ideas and technologies they have obtained in cities.
The special land ownership in China decides that our “back-to-countryside” wave
will have a stronger momentum than the “anti-urbanization” movement in developed
countries. Third, currently rural areas mainly produce non-staple food and sundries to
achieve prosperity, but the large-scale expansion of breeding industry is detrimental
to landscape and health. Historically speaking, anthropoids were vegetarians. Eating
meat has improved human nutrition, urged them to increase the living space and
made them much stronger fighters, but vegetarian diet is bound to return in the long
term. Grain production has both material and spiritual significance, and both can be
achieved through ecological tourism. If one day the scene of “green field, growing
rice and chirping cuckoos in misty rain” is back, the charm of the countryside will
be irresistible. We must advance the construction of a beautiful countryside through
forming a rural community of ecological interests, otherwise we won’t be able to
stimulate the villagers’ enthusiasm in a sustained and effective way.
Social reproduction consists of three closely linked aspects—natural reproduction, demographic reproduction and economic reproduction, which are effectively
coordinated by the Beautiful Countryside initiative pillared by the rural community
of ecological interests. First of all, it creates a stable and reliable strategic rear base
for national economy, the significance of which is explained earlier. Second, from
a demographic point of view, the rapid development of intelligent technologies will
lead to a huge surplus of labor force and consequently greater employment pressure.
I have discussed this in the article Demographic Dividend or Brain Dividend? At
that time, the beautiful countryside will offer a space for the surplus labor force to
exert their strengths. At last, from an ecological point of view, building a beautiful
countryside will serve three purposes. The first is to demonstrate and spur environmental governance in cities. If we can succeed in building a beautiful countryside,
the city polluters would be too ashamed to play the “cat-catch-mouse game” with
environmental inspectors and authorities any more, and the society in general would
gradually be inclined toward a clean environment. The second purpose is to build
barriers against urban expansion and pollution transfer. Environmental violations
usually happen and get away with punishment because of the priority to cities, but
the construction of beautiful countryside will take the upper hand both morally and