> You mean before we count their high environmental cost? Are you saying those people in cities, spread out over the countryside instead would have a lower env

> You mean before we count their high environmental cost? Are you saying those people in cities, spread out over the countryside instead would have a lower environmental cost??? Absolutely not. > Across a century, US cities were heavily utilizing cheap coal power to sustain their elevated population density. Whereas the country side used what for power?? Magic?? > Low population rural areas can't destroy the planet with their resource demands, only large populations can do that. The problem is not cities then. The problem is people. Most of our current problems are due to too many people. And yes, more people spread over a larger area are would be worse.