8 ms·
No, and we absolutely can keep 95% of the open space for the next 200 years with much higher growth
by savingsPossible 3y ago
No, and we absolutely can keep 95% of the open space for the next 200 years with much higher growth
- AlexandrB 3y agoCitation needed. All that space would need to be turned into farmland.
- savingsPossible 3y agoopen space includes farmland? I mean, it is plausible op meant nature, but they asked about not high density housing I for one see a lot of value in yet another big congested city, and very little value in a forest (only instrumental value, to keep humans, dogs and a handful of other preferred species alive) -- I would prefer the big city not to be as congested, and I would keep some forest as a tourism destination for people who like that, and also enough forest to not cause harm to the "humans and dogs" populatin, but that is that -- instrumental forest, not as an end goal