Cities are the greenest option for human civilization
Well they can be with appropriate urban planning, but it's not an inherent property of urbanization (in which I include suburbs). Also, do you realize the paradox in your last sentence?
But I guess you convinced me to continue watching.
Do you honestly think suburbs are worth having? For a slightly larger home and longer commuting that requires cars and the extenssive road infrastruckture and its absolutely not better for the environment in any way
I don't think that at all and don't understand how you came to think I was (downvotes not from me, I'm genuinely trying to get your point).
My take was more that "cities = good because if pollution in city, then pollution not in nature" is a very, very dumb argument (I know that was not exactly @Owl's argument though, just the way it's presented in the video)
The alternatives are suburbs (an environmental nightmare of pavement, lawns and cars) or a mass reduction in the world's population (fascist).
Cities are the greenest option for human civilization, because it leaves most of the world to not be a city.
Well they can be with appropriate urban planning, but it's not an inherent property of urbanization (in which I include suburbs). Also, do you realize the paradox in your last sentence?
But I guess you convinced me to continue watching.
i guess we just need to keep the population in check
deleted by creator
wtf does that mean?
Do you honestly think suburbs are worth having? For a slightly larger home and longer commuting that requires cars and the extenssive road infrastruckture and its absolutely not better for the environment in any way
I don't think that at all and don't understand how you came to think I was (downvotes not from me, I'm genuinely trying to get your point).
My take was more that "cities = good because if pollution in city, then pollution not in nature" is a very, very dumb argument (I know that was not exactly @Owl's argument though, just the way it's presented in the video)