The Gardener's War: A Cautionary Tale

An illustration of theory negating its original purpose

All theory is gray, my friend. But forever green is the tree of life.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust

In the wider context of the foaming chaos of social media content, you might think the gardening scene is a calming arcadia of green-fingered pastoral bliss, and it is, but not entirely. Something unpleasant lurks beneath the loamy soil like a slug on a lettuce leaf. There’s a blight on the crop; gardening has an ideological schism.

It is curious that in a year in which I’ve been writing and commentating on the hazards of ideological echo chambers and narratives more than usual, I have noticed a replication of the theme, even in my apolitical interests. As a rank amateur gardener, I, of course, am no stranger to hurriedly searching YouTube for an explanation of why this or that vegetable had wilted and dwindled, when I should plant a given seed, and so on.

Slowly but surely, I went down the gardening rabbit hole. Never before had I seen such ingenious uses of plastic bottles nor considered the magic of compost in such detail. Gradually, incrementally, I became conscious of two differing camps; orthodox gardening had been questioned, critiqued, and found wanting. It was old hat, stuffy, and stuck in the past. The future of gardening belonged to the “No-dig” technique. The activity formerly known as “gardening”. would have to include the epithet “Traditional” or “Orthodox” to designate its technique and to distinguish it from the newer “No-dig” innovation. The first principle of gardening is to cultivate a patch of soil to make plant life flourish; on this, there is universal agreement. The question is how.

What is No-dig gardening?

The traditional approach to gardening is to use a spade or a fork to break apart the structure of the soil to produce an airy, granulated substance that roots can easily push through and absorb nutrients from. Usually, the soil will be complemented with manure or some other fertilizer for additional nutrition and health. The No-dig approach to gardening was pioneered by Charles Dowding, an English horticulturist, and author. Dowding’s No-dig gardening means exactly what it says: no more aching backs from manual labour. Now, gardening would be free from strain, hernias, and blisters.

However, No-dig gardening is not just another route to convenience and indolence; there is also sound theory behind it. Dowding’s theory holds that the soil should remain completely intact, and germinating seedlings should be planted in a layer of compost over the ground, usually on biodegradable cardboard that mulches away over time. The delicate root systems will gradually expand downwards, pushing through the mulch and eventually into the earth itself. The plant will not have to strain pushing roots through the harsher topsoil, and the topsoil itself will remain healthier due to not being broken and maintaining its fertility. Charles Dowding himself runs a popular (and highly informative) YouTube channel and enjoys expounding on the benefits of his theory of gardening.

Of course, every good theory has its critics. No-dig critics point to the relatively high cost of covering an entire vegetable patch with compost, the resultant issues with drainage, and how quickly compost dries out. It is also claimed that the gradual hardening of topsoil often means roots cannot even manage to penetrate the earth properly and flounder weakly and forever in their compost bed.

I was vaguely aware of this discourse, but then I came across a video by another popular YouTube gardener called Huw Richards. Huw had previously been an ardent No-dig advocate, but, horror of all horrors, he was caught on camera using a spade and fork. The subsequent backlash led to a video confessional called The Danger of No Dig | A Personal Story. which is tantamount to a gardening version of Laura Southern doing the annual “okay guys, we have to talk!” monologue as she prepares to stick the knife into her simps again. Or perhaps the more left-coded “I didn’t leave No-dig, No-dig left me”.

In his video, the likable Richards admits that he felt guilty on the rare occasion that he had no choice but to use a spade and ponders whether using a garden fork constitutes “digging”. Moreover, rigidly adhering to the doctrine meant that Huw couldn’t plant an apple tree and was helpless when heavy rainfall compacted the soil into an airless, impenetrable concrete-like mass.

No-dig had transcended and severed its bonds as a handy set of tips and gardening insights and become an ideology or dogma - a dogma that, as Huw Richards quipped, would end up resulting in people canceling moles. The rapturous response to Huw’s video could be summed up by “Thank God somebody finally said it!” and the most popular comment was:

Well said, Huw. Personally, I'm an advocate of No Guilt gardening and feel no shame for not following any particular methodology. I’m a lazy gardener and look for the easiest and cheapest way to grow my food. Digging is too much like hard work and covering the ground with compost every year is too expensive. I do whatever feels right for me and my garden.

At last, somebody took a stand against the purity-spiralling spergs, shoving their doctrines down everyone’s throats and shit-testing the acolytes for ideological compliance! A new dawn has broken, and no guilt gardening is here.

I’m sure there will be readers knowingly nodding at the amusing little story of the No-dig debate. An insightful new concept was introduced into a sub-culture and quickly divided it into rival camps. The idea became a principle, and the principle became something to be defended and identified with, eventually graduating into a fully-fledged dogma with Lysokenist implications for veg patches across the West. Is it all merely another example of online echo chambers? Perhaps, though, I can easily imagine people gushing that they never used a garden spade for years in pubs and workplaces.

Perhaps the ubiquity of the cycle reveals its true nature by the repeated use of the word “dogma”. We live in an age of Woke dogma, trans dogma, politically correct dogma, climate change dogma, mass migration dogma, economic dogma, and a multitude of narrative dogmas.

There’s dogma everywhere, but no religion or God.

Instead, we have a plethora of supposedly earth-shattering truths that we may not question. We have grandiose theories to solve problems, yet they always result in worse outcomes precisely because of the unquestioning dogmatism with which they’re pursued. Yet, what I took from the No-dig story was that the search for theories and truths transcends the political realm and the machinations of the elites and emerges naturally in us all. Millions of individuals all vainly stumble around in search of the perfect theorem that can deliver the perfect outcome. Tragically, the more rigidly one adheres to the model, the more likely it is that perfection slips out of reach.

It is “systems-thinking” striving with every sinew and muscle to replicate the model of transcendental perfection. Yet, as Huw Richards points out, the desired outcome was never to perfect a system or theory but to put food on the table for our loved ones and live a good, healthy life. Systemic, utilitarian logic means you destroy the Vietnamese village to save it, smother the countryside in wind turbines to protect it, and never plant an apple tree because you can’t use a spade.

How pervasive is such thinking, not at the macro level, but in our private lives? How many of us are our own Agenda 2030s without realizing it? Perhaps, like Huw, we can spare ourselves a moment here and there to ask.

“Wait, let’s just get back to basics for a moment…”