3 ms·
Yes, and it's a good thing. Either way, you need to fit the needs of the same number of people. If they're in a dense city near everything they need, they use
by devnullbrain 11mo ago
Yes, and it's a good thing.
Either way, you need to fit the needs of the same number of people. If they're in a dense city near everything they need, they use less space.
Policies to limit urban sprawl just an expensive way to create more sprawl elsewhere - and roads to it.
- mc32 11mo agoGuess it depends on whether subsistence living is more resource intensive than urban living where on average urbanites own more possessions per capita.
- worik 11mo ago> Yes, and it's a good thing It is. I have seen the data But I live in a rural area of New Zealand and I also see how people moving onto farm land greatly increases tree cover (not forrest) and biodiversity, I assume because people plant gardens, and closely husband them In New Zealand farmers are grossly damaging to the environment. They clear everything and plant mono cultures and treat water as exhaustable and rivers as waste dumps So yes people in cities is a good thing, but people in rural areas are good, to