Science Returns

Post Reply New Topic

I think you are half right here. Back in the 60s the environmental movement led by the Erlich's predicted something called the "population time bomb". They of course couldn't predict that technology would compensate for pollution and food production which kept up as the earth's population ballooned to close to 8 billion people today.

However the early environmental movement are partially correct that demand for goods linked to fossil fuel and industrialisation is also linked to population growth and that has ultimately contributed to the environmental destruction we see today.

Mass immigration to western countries will lead to greater regional environmental pressure and in this specific area I do agree with the right wing nutjobs that maintaining our lifestyle and conserving the natural environment is (in the end) more important than becoming a sink for the poor from developing countries. What's the point in stressing the last pristine environments left on earth with more people?

I think the simplest solution is to drastically reduce the earth's population by employing China's one child policy globally but there would have to be some type of international agreement.

What about the zillions of miles of unpopulated areas. If you take a road trip across the united states, most of the time you're going to be "in the middle of nowhere". Vast stretches of virtually zero population for hours. You'll see a road sign saying 80 miles to the next gas station. Which is located in a speck on the map.

I remember when the size of a national park was reduced and all the hysteria over that. Like it was the last remaining natural area there. Then I look at it from satellite imagery and see that there are several hundred square miles of wilderness surrounding it.

I know of highways that go through vast stretches where I'll see a sign that says "natural area" or "natural habitat" and it doesn't seem to make much sense because there's "endless" miles of the same natural unpopulated typography along that stretch. And I can't help but notice these "natural areas" and "natural habitats" are conveniently located right off the highway.

What about those areas? Many of them are open to development for mining, oil and gas, forestry & other resource extraction. National parks and monuments are protected areas - from commercial activity, as well as for natural habitat for all of the creatures that live there.

They're "conveniently located right off the highway," likely because these areas were discovered due to people travelling through the area, building roads etc, and they noticed that protected species live there. Highways were likely also built intentionally to be able to visit parks and other protected areas because they're beautiful places. They often feature some sort of natural landmark that's considered attractive, whether a mountain, waterfall, forest, cliff formation, river, lake etc - something of natural beauty that's worth preserving for all to see. These lands also tend to hold spiritual significance to indigenous peoples, not that that's likely often a reason to declare them protected park spaces, but it still rings true.

There's plenty of barren "ugly," land across the nation that can be dug up and raped for minerals, oil, gas, lumber etc - why destroy the most beautiful tracts of land for no good reason? We all need MORE protected land areas (whether parks, or monuments, or indigenous reservations or w/e) not fewer. IMO.

Most of those areas aren't an oasis in a sea of industrialization the way they're described by some people. Most of them are in a sea of the same wilderness they're a part of. The "natural areas" and "nature preserves" see far more human activity than the vast areas around them that can't be reached easily. I'm wondering if these off highway higher human traffic spots are where species counts are being performed.

Maybe in the Northwest... definitely not here.

I think it's too late to be honest.

People say the same thing in the UK. A lot of space is farmland that gets sprayed regularly with chemicals. Enough damage is done by the big cities.

The Israelis managed to make the "desert bloom". The arable land in Israel around 1948 was actually pretty devoid of topsoil due to over farming. If they can do it I don't see why entrepreneurial communities can't set up similar kibbutz type settlements in deserts around the world (assuming access to underground water),

There are natural wetlands areas near Las Vegas. Lots of trees and reeds and other greenery. Lots of waterfowl.