3 ms·
That is my understanding too, but many people equate rural life with „natural“. Unfortunately the rural environment is all but natural. The cultural landscape t
by adrianN 6mo ago
That is my understanding too, but many people equate rural life with „natural“. Unfortunately the rural environment is all but natural. The cultural landscape that has been engineered over centuries all but displaced true wilderness and is largely devoid of biodiversity. The better we become at industrial agriculture, the worse the situation is.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- mlrtime 6mo agoNot everywhere, you are looking at only suburbs vs cities.
- oblio 6mo agoThe amount of people that want truly rural environments is infinitesimal. Everyone wants a huge house with lots of land far from neighbors. But then they want the state of the art hospital to be close. They want to be able yo reach the closest airport in max 1 hour. They want their kids to play with other kids, ideally without being chauffeured around endlessly, etc, etc. What I've discovered is that humanity has mastered the ancestral art of "having the cake and eating it, too", also called delusion and/or hypocrisy :-)
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- satvikpendem 6mo agoTrue rural farming is still bad for nature because the land is cleared of biodiversity to make way for farm land. It is arguably worse than cities because a lot more land per person is cleared.
- vintermann 6mo agoThat depends on the rural environment. Especially grazing lands, like north European coastal heathlands, may have been managed with controlled burns in between grazing for a thousand years, to the point that they have their own biodiversity, that may get lost if they are disused.