3 ms·
The extreme example shows that there is practically infinite land. And that having trees, grass, and nature between dwellings is far superior for the environmen
by trimethylpurine 3y ago
The extreme example shows that there is practically infinite land. And that having trees, grass, and nature between dwellings is far superior for the environment. Why you would want to destroy that unless you're an evil bank investor is not explained in your commentary. You don't seem to have a real point other than you poke fun at the example, as if you didn't understand it. But I know you did. You just don't want to admit it, obviously.
- throwaway290 3y agoIf it's infinite then why not give everyone 100 sq km mansion and fly to visit each other? It's not like we need to worry about sustainability or something right? You just don't want to admit it. Dense areas are better in every way. Better for economy, more profitable, more efficient, sustainable. The only reason to be opposed is if you are afraid that real estate you own will start going down in price because everyone suddenly needs less land for everything.
- trimethylpurine 3y agoThey aren't. You are lapping up marketing drivel from big builders. Delivery of goods is the prime transportation issue in carbon footprint. Delivery of goods is multiplied in high density areas. Multiple vacuum cleaners, one for each apartment, rather than 5 people sharing a house, they each live in separate one bedroom apartments with separate things. 5 times the deliveries, 5 times the manufacturing, 5 times the pollution, not just carbon.