terminal_city

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by terminal_city 7y ago

   > On the contrary, dense populations allow for the efficient distribution of goods and services. There may be an aesthetic argument in favor of small town living but there isn’t an environmental one. I would suggest it is not as cut and
2. 2.▲
   by terminal_city 7y ago

   To point out the obvious, referencing a 15 year old article about Tasmania (and an irrelevant google search) that describes historic practices on that Island does not strengthen your position, or add to discussions about forestry practices
3. 3.▲
   by terminal_city 7y ago

   >even where standards exist and are enforced to require replanting - this has practically resulted in dense monoculture plantations not sustainable forest habitat. This comment is not accurate with current industry practices, or frankly
4. 4.▲
   by terminal_city 9y ago

   Nonsense. The kid works 4 days a week for good pay for the jobs performed. He admits to banking 650 a month, with only 250 in non-work related expenses. He works three months, he can quit, and have enough cash on hand to support at least