3 ms·
> Environmentally speaking though, I'm not sure it would be great to have huge numbers of people moving to all of the most beautiful spots on earth I think you
by tjr225 7y ago
> Environmentally speaking though, I'm not sure it would be great to have huge numbers of people moving to all of the most beautiful spots on earth
I think you'd find the opposite to be true. People would live closer to their families while also tapping job markets that are only available far away.
Now that I live closer to family nobody needs to fly to visit each other. It has probably cut down on demand for over 6 cross country flights per year which I would think is very good for the planet.
- asdff 7y agoIt depends. If living closer to family means living in a development clear cut from the forest, that isn't sustainable. If it means adopting a life of spending 95% of your energy for transportation on moving the vehicle itself, and shipping 1 off goods from far away ports aboard diesel trucks from one side of the continent to where you live, that isn't sustainable either. You just have more options to live sustainably in the footprint of a large city than out in the countryside. For example, you can ride electrified mass transportation for your needs, or find everything you need in daily life on a bike ride or even a walk around the neighborhood, and take up less space on the surface of the earth by utilizing the vertical axis. Plus if everyone worked remote, your whole family can move to your building, as is the case of some of my neighbors in my apartment.
- tjr225 7y agoThere are tons of cities near my family. Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids. It's not a dichotomy.