Answer this question for me then...
Where are the roughly 7 billion of us supposed to live WITHOUT disrupting the environment, if not in these densely populated areas with an average of 14% green space?
Answer this question for me then...
Where are the roughly 7 billion of us supposed to live WITHOUT disrupting the environment, if not in these densely populated areas with an average of 14% green space?
We are not supposed to live.
Or, if you want, I can show you this brilliant (pardon me for bragging, but this is actually an incredible piece of work in my opinion) drawing I created of a building to house a great number of people. I have this whole idea ready for when I am President involving a ski gondola style system linking house to house... so exciting!
lolwut? What about when I'm President?
Look, we're getting along fine. And what do you mean we're not supposed to live? That's crazy talk. We don't just die as soon as we reproduce, we aren't salmon. We are supposed to live.
As my buddy Trent Reznor says:
"Don't give a *hoot* about the temperature in Guatemala,
Don't really see what all the fuss is about.
Ain't gonna worry about no future generations,
And I'm sure somebody's gonna figure it out."
I think this pertains to a lot of situations, including this one.
We are not supposed to live.
Then you firmly believe that living is not an inalienable right, but a privilege granted only to those who are "strong enough" using some strange criteria that nobody can understand and nobody can agree upon.
<-- loves strawmen :biggrin:
Huh? No, I do not believe that. That has nothing to do with anything I said...
"We are not supposed to live". That is your statement. I am merely going from there. :biggrin:
I mean no offense! But I do plan on becoming President.
I'm not so sure we should've devolved. We destroy plagues - but are we the same? Each place we inhabit comes out worse than before. The Earth would be in a better shape if humanity had never existed. If humanity ends tomorrow, the Earth will still be able to recover. But if we go on destroying the land we stand on, we are in the end killing nature and ourselves.
So? We're the only creatures intelligent enough to make this tragic for? Humans are the most valuable and special organism on the Earth because we are self-aware. Humans do benefit from natural habitat though. Finding balance is key.
Are you sure we are intelligent? Is an animal that destroys itself and those around it for personal gain really "intelligent"?
I totally agree with baby mario. You need to do what is good for your survival.
I just really wish that Qwachansey would stop freaking out on people who don't agree with his opinions.
This isn't totally true, people still live in the cities ie NYC/ other cities.
People also replant trees and try to conserve (Central Park example again).
But the population does grow with medical advances, people living longer, infant mortalities being less than 400 years ago. This is why people migrate other places.
I totally agree with baby mario. You need to do what is good for your survival.
I just really wish that Qwachansey would stop freaking out on people who don't agree with his opinions.
I swear, if he ever becomes president, I'm moving as far away from here as possible...
Look kid, if you ever want to be president of anything, you can't argue that all the people who vote for you should all be living in mud huts or something as to "not disturb the environment". It's also not wise to say that we're not intelligent.
As I've said to other people who want to take that stance. Fine, YOU are not intelligent. Say that about you're self if you wish, I don't care. Just leave ME out of it. :/