3 ms·

I think that in the moment, it is very beneficial to have large chunks of rural, not overpopulated lands. And I don't think that it is in any way a problem. Cu

I think that in the moment, it is very beneficial to have large chunks of rural, not overpopulated lands. And I don't think that it is in any way a problem. Current approach of developing natural resources is an ecologist nightmare! Just consider growing fields of mono-cultured plants. And in developed/overpopulated countries, well, the land is 'developed' on the country-wide scale. Ecological nightmare on a country-wide scale! So. Until we learn how to build better-than-natural ecologies, I'd never consider any under-populated regions as a problem. I wouldn't even think of such region as poor, considering the richness of local ecosystem and natural resources.

guard-of-terra 13y ago
Beneficial to whom? Because residents of said chunks do not feel happy - no heat, no roads, no money, nearest hospital 50 km away. "richness of local ecosystem" doesn't do anything for people.
- dchichkov 13y ago
  Just look at the photos of these people. Doesn't look like they are too unhappy. As to the "richness of local ecosystem", it does do a lot for people. Consider this another article from the same newspaper, took me only a few seconds to find it, on the frontpage: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-simple-breath.html?ref=us http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-s... And compare the photo of that girl with photos of the children from the original commment article.