4 ms·

We can better maintain mountains and forests by having dense living areas for most people. There should be good public transport links from these areas to natio

We can better maintain mountains and forests by having dense living areas for most people. There should be good public transport links from these areas to national parks. The enemy of wilderness is not urbanists, it’s suburban sprawl.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Suburbs aren't typically replacing forests, they're typically replacing farms, and we have far more agricultural land than we need (we produce a huge surplus of food) that we aren't managing well in the first place. We can and should protect existing nature, expand our national parks, and incentivize the naturalization and public access of existing private lands; however, we can do this without packing everyone into dense urban cores. According to a 1993 UN Food and Agriculture Organization report, it takes about 1.25 acres of agriculture land to feed one person. That value doesn't care about whether a person lives in a city or a suburb. The median suburban American lives in a 2.5 person household on 0.2 acres of land, which means about 0.08 acres per person. I'm not sure what the average urbanite lives on, but let's say it's a quarter of that: 0.02 acres per person. So we're talking about 1.33 vs 1.27--suburbanites require only about 4% more land than urbanites. Hardly a major threat to nature compared to excessive and unsustainable agricultural practices.
- pharmakom 4y ago
  There are a lot more factors to the equation than farming space. And what do you think was there before the farms?
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > There are a lot more factors to the equation than farming space Yes, but agricultural footprint is the dominating factor. > And what do you think was there before the farms? Nature, to my point. Recall that you're the one arguing that suburbs rather than agriculture is threatening nature: > The enemy of wilderness is not urbanists, it’s suburban sprawl.
    - pharmakom 4y ago
      > Yes, but agricultural footprint is the dominating factor. Perhaps, but you also need to consider: - transport to work / school / hospitals / entertainment - food distribution - sewage - electricity - emergency services coverage - etc… I don’t have any hard stats for you but my background reading has suggested these are significant. > Nature, to my point. Recall that you're the one arguing that suburbs rather than agriculture is threatening nature Yes, because we could be rewilding, creating new national parks etc. but instead are building suburbs. We can also replace existing suburbs on longer time-scales.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        We're talking about land usage, not infrastructure. Agriculture completely dominates a person's land usage footprint.

throwaway894345 4y ago

Suburbs aren't typically replacing forests, they're typically replacing farms, and we have far more agricultural land than we need (we produce a huge surplus of food) that we aren't managing well in the first place. We can and should protect existing nature, expand our national parks, and incentivize the naturalization and public access of existing private lands; however, we can do this without packing everyone into dense urban cores. According to a 1993 UN Food and Agriculture Organization report, it takes about 1.25 acres of agriculture land to feed one person. That value doesn't care about whether a person lives in a city or a suburb. The median suburban American lives in a 2.5 person household on 0.2 acres of land, which means about 0.08 acres per person. I'm not sure what the average urbanite lives on, but let's say it's a quarter of that: 0.02 acres per person. So we're talking about 1.33 vs 1.27--suburbanites require only about 4% more land than urbanites. Hardly a major threat to nature compared to excessive and unsustainable agricultural practices.

pharmakom 4y ago
There are a lot more factors to the equation than farming space. And what do you think was there before the farms?
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > There are a lot more factors to the equation than farming space Yes, but agricultural footprint is the dominating factor. > And what do you think was there before the farms? Nature, to my point. Recall that you're the one arguing that suburbs rather than agriculture is threatening nature: > The enemy of wilderness is not urbanists, it’s suburban sprawl.
  - pharmakom 4y ago
    > Yes, but agricultural footprint is the dominating factor. Perhaps, but you also need to consider: - transport to work / school / hospitals / entertainment - food distribution - sewage - electricity - emergency services coverage - etc… I don’t have any hard stats for you but my background reading has suggested these are significant. > Nature, to my point. Recall that you're the one arguing that suburbs rather than agriculture is threatening nature Yes, because we could be rewilding, creating new national parks etc. but instead are building suburbs. We can also replace existing suburbs on longer time-scales.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      We're talking about land usage, not infrastructure. Agriculture completely dominates a person's land usage footprint.