3 ms·
If you disagree with the premise, then you are misplacing your argument. I was replying to a comment that argued this cannot be done nicely and mentioned forced
by strogonoff 6y ago
If you disagree with the premise, then you are misplacing your argument. I was replying to a comment that argued this cannot be done nicely and mentioned forced relocations of the past. I argue that there was no precedent for relocation of people done in the name of wilderness preservation, which can be voluntary and with downsides mitigated.
The premise itself, the idea put forward by OP, is not without downsides and fundamental hurdles that I listed and acknowledged, though it is an interesting idea.
- fogihujy 6y agoThe entire premise is a bit shaky and I am not convinced planned re-locations will result in a net positive for the environment. It's quite possible for a human to live in the wilderness alongside the aforementioned wolves (I saw a pack in the distance as late as yesterday). As you say, this sub-thread isn't about that, though. :) For what it's worth, large parts of the remote and sparsely populated areas are being slowly de-populated anyway. Things like coal mines and other obsolete resource extraction sites are shutting down, and most people move on over time. And then there's morons like me and my family, who moved out because we want to. There's more people like that, but it's not really enough to worry about. Long story short: If someone is staying behind when businesses, stores and schools close, and the ageing infrastructure crumbles, well, then you're not going to convince that person to move anyway.
- strogonoff 6y agoFair point.