should goverments give back nature?

[darkjam]

BY this I mean, should we just knock down a percentage of our cities and let nature just grow on it, after all deforestation seems to be a trend right now, with our need for resources who knows how long it will be until the worlds forest are gone. America is a good example of this (No offense). When the first colonies were there, plenty of forests were there, then the went further inland and chopped some down, but there were still lots, no big deal. Then in the industrial revolution began many trees and forests were cut down, take a look at a map between the present America and the past America, when it was founded, so what do you guys think, should the governments go natural, or destroy?

[KatMaestro]

I don't think this forum is suitable for tree hugging.

[Camarohusky]

There are numerous ways to protect nature, none of which everyone is happy with. The abandoning of cities is pretty low on that list.

Frankly, I think Manhattanization and infilling is the best method, but far too many (damn Whole Foods hippies and Redneck Yokels team up on this one) people are too attached to their current lifestyle.

[Ericho]

Giving back nature seems like a strange way to put it. We're not giving out a form to beavers for a dam (yes, we did do that once), but there's things like conserved parks and countries in Scandanavia that work to rebuild forests. I heard that in Denmark or something, any tree cut down has to be replaced with another one.

[darkjam]

At 3/10/13 11:41 AM, Ericho wrote:

:. I heard that in Denmark or something, any tree cut down has to be replaced with another one.
Yeah we have that in Britain, for each tree cut down, three are planted. But what I'm trying to say is that the damage is done and replanting three every now and then wont exactly get the forest back quickly now will it? We screwed them over!

[TheMason]

At 3/9/13 10:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Frankly, I think Manhattanization and infilling is the best method, but far too many (damn Whole Foods hippies and Redneck Yokels team up on this one) people are too attached to their current lifestyle.

Perhaps I'm missing something...but as a Redneck Yokel...I don't see where either of those would be something I'd be against. It would provide incentive for City Slickers to stay in their Urban Steel Towers. I don't mind if some looks down on me from up high and think they are better than me...just do it from a distance! :)

[Camarohusky]

At 3/10/13 01:01 PM, TheMason wrote: Perhaps I'm missing something...but as a Redneck Yokel...I don't see where either of those would be something I'd be against. It would provide incentive for City Slickers to stay in their Urban Steel Towers. I don't mind if some looks down on me from up high and think they are better than me...just do it from a distance! :)

That being true, but in order to tuly get the infilling and Manhattanization to truly hlp nature, the access to owning and/or using open land must also be restricted. That way you get more people on less land thus making the non-urban land much more natural.

[HeavenDuff]

At 3/9/13 10:16 PM, Elitistinen wrote: I don't think this forum is suitable for tree hugging.

Are you serious?

[Th-e]

Give back to nature if it is feasible to give back.

If you don't want a city to take up so much space, go vertical! Of course, it does cast a bigger shadow that way... How about planting on top of skyscrapers?

Or maybe we should convert areas that have been long abandoned into forests and such. Did I just suggest demolishing half of Detroit???

If we want to give back to nature, we'll find a way.

[Warforger]

Erm tree's aren't cut down because of urbanization, they're being cut down to expand agricultural production. When cities expand they take over prime agricultural land, they don't tear down forests to expand cities because they're usually already torn down for cultivation of crops (being close to market tends to make it ideal). The problem is that this causes a dilemma, countries want to develop and one way of doing that is to cultivate cash crops, since you can also sell the wood from deforestation it pays for itself. Plus when countries are developing their population is expanding tremendously, thus they need more food for those people and if they convert existing agricultural land for cash crops they'll become even more dependent on foreign nations, so expanding agricultural land is a more logical solution. On the other hand this causes alot of environmental damage, so it makes development less sustainable. One of the solutions had been to profit off of it through tourism but it's still probably not enough.

[leanlifter1]

At 3/9/13 10:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote: There are numerous ways to protect nature, none of which everyone is happy with. The abandoning of cities is pretty low on that list.

Frankly, I think Manhattanization and infilling is the best method, but far too many (damn Whole Foods hippies and Redneck Yokels team up on this one) people are too attached to their current lifestyle.

That was spoken like a true shill. Camarohusky your game is weak as natural law will always prevail as the one and only true Messiah here on this big rock we call Earth.

[Ceratisa]

He didn't really come off as a shill. I think he was just being nicer then he had to.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/10/13 06:31 PM, Th-e wrote: Did I just suggest demolishing half of Detroit???

Sorry, Detroit already beat you to it.

At 3/10/13 08:19 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That was spoken like a true shill. Camarohusky your game is weak as natural law will always prevail as the one and only true Messiah here on this big rock we call Earth.

I would respond, but as usual, I can't understand what the hell you're even talking about...