You have two reasons here the way I see it.
One is that undisturbed nature is a gift and should be taken care of to great extremes. The beauty of nature can never be replaced once it has been destroyed.
The other thing is it's much harder for governments to exert influence and control over the masses when they are spread out over a larger area. This should also include the distribution of services and resources such as water and electricity become more expensive over larger areas as well.
I'm sure there are other reasons I could think of as well. Also, personally, I think the destruction of wide open spaces and nature beyond what the race of man has already done would be a shame, imho anyway.Getting rid of forests and wildlife for more population and better economy? Is this a bad thing?
I have two words for you: Soylent Green. It's a movie, get a copy and you won't ask that question again. That movie is more eloquent than any words anyone could write.
Trees do two things ... they provide building materials and they create oxygen from carbon dioxide.
You can grow more trees, if you don't cover all the land with buildings.
The people who make timber for a living do that they grow the trees and harvest the materials. Since it take years to grow a tree you need to have land.
Contractors do not CARE. They are out for PROFIT ...so they don't care if there are any trees 50 years from now because they will be DEAD.
I suggest MODERATION. DO NOT cut ALL the trees down AND DO NOT build houses on all the land.
This will provide quality of life and quality of the environment.
it would but then all the tree huggers would be up in arms about you destroying mother earth and such. they don't have jobs so they can complain about stuff like that.
Yeah....but what is the quality of people you are making room for. The only population growth in the US comes from immigration, more than half of it illegal immigration. Much of the immigration and almost all of the illegal immigrants are violent criminals. Most of the immigrants go on welfare or use other social services disproportionately.
Is this really who you want to be tearing down those things that make our neighborhoods nice for? Is it fair to tear down the wooded lots and country spaces to put up a bunch of slums?
For more information, check out the urban sprawl section:
http://www.numbersusa.com
well take japan for example, they have all those people on that island right . . . .now take away 40% of that island, but leave the people there, now you have all those people on half of the land they had before. there wont be enough food and stuff, not enough shelter, people will die. . . . .when you rip up forests thats what happens to the animals, its not liek they get uhals and move on over tot he next forest, they have to roam aroudn lookgin for shelter and food. even if you tear down say 1 acre of forest, youve probably made 100 birds homeless, maybe some deer . . .think about it
I don't know about you but I like breathing, no trees or forest no air to breathe.
because less forest area will lower oxygen level and increase global warming. It will also lost it's beauty. Soon the mot beautiful thing we'll have is city's and buildings
(they are beautiful too, but without difference in surroundings we wont be able to see the beauty anymore) and wild life will become extinct. i'm also an animal rights activist so i think killing any animal for profit, economy, or food (it's mainly unnessecairy nowadays) is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment