5 ms·
What will be left of earth in 100 years? We can't seem to understand, or be disciplined with what we understand, that we're destroying what ultimately sustains
by spraak 9y ago
What will be left of earth in 100 years? We can't seem to understand, or be disciplined with what we understand, that we're destroying what ultimately sustains us.
These are beautifully sad pictures. If there were any pictures of the vast Icelandic forests before they were razed, I'd feel the same.
Nearly every space of earth is trending towards pavement and buildings. I'm asking myself, what can be done, where is there hope...
- epistasis 9y agoWhat can be done is to build up areas which are already built up, increase density, and bring people out of sprawl. Preserve areas and leave them untouched, and meanwhile make the most of the areas that we do use. This is good for humans (far higher economic activity) and good for the environment. We must fight height restrictions, and other sprawl inducing laws. We must have more protected areas. And we need to provide transit options that scale well in dense areas.
- avenoir 9y agoI'd wager that Agriculture has eliminated more natural habitats than any population sprawl. I'm reminded of this every time I drive out of Colorado and into Kansas.
- epistasis 9y agoYes, agriculture is a massive impact, but as we get better at farming we require less land (at least in the US, I'm not very familiar with other countries.) From the 1920s to the 1970s, forests on the Eastern seaboard had actually been rebounding due to less intense agricultural use: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-eastern-forests-resume-decline/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-eastern-forest... But then since the 1970s they have begun shrinking again as suburban sprawl took over.
- TheGrassyKnoll 9y agoSorry, but babies are public enemy number one. As long as population grows, pressure on the environment grows. The growth will end, but probably won't end well.
- spraak 9y agoI don't think it's babies, but rather how we handle population growth.
- aphextron 9y ago>These are beautifully sad pictures. If there were any pictures of the vast Icelandic forests before they were razed, I'd feel the same. >Nearly every space of earth is trending towards pavement and buildings. I'm asking myself, what can be done, where is there hope... Yes, we have a responsibility to maintain the ecosystems which sustain life. But there seems to be a total lack of understanding in modern environmental movements between the difference of preservation and conservation which borders on outright misanthropy. The former promotes a world view which defines all things "natural" as "good" things to be protected and untouched, the latter sees the natural world as a means to man's end, while simultaneously acknowledging our grave responsibility to ensure that means' survival. Give me stunning architecture, works of art, thriving industry, and world class educational institutions over a bunch of dirt and trees any day. Nature is beautiful, but the things that humans do are a thousand times more interesting and complex than a scenic view will ever be.
- WillPostForFood 9y agoThere is vastly more pavement, but also vastly more greenery and trees today in LA today than in those photos. I prefer modern LA to swamp LA.