top | item 39500910

(no title)

savingsPossible | 2 years ago

No, and we absolutely can keep 95% of the open space for the next 200 years with much higher growth

discuss

order

AlexandrB|2 years ago

Citation needed. All that space would need to be turned into farmland.

savingsPossible|2 years ago

open 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