Thread backfire!
Building up allows for more space for nature, not less.
Do you dispute the science? Do you dispute that the greater the density, the less exposure to the natural world happens there.
It is obvious that if you were to throw a bag of marbles on the floor there would be more bare floor if you swept them all in a corner but there would be less floor around each marble. If there is some advantage to a marble being surrounded by lots of floor, like a capacity to roll around, scattered marbles would have the advantage over ones in piled up in a corner. Having them all in a corner might be better for someone else using the floor, say to walk on and not break their neck. If you were in a position to determine what the future of civilization should look like would you not want to understand the psychic nature of people and their potential need for contact with nature for sound mental health?
As with everything else humans suggest to create a better future, someone's ox will be gored and some rationalizations will be inevitable. I remember hearing on the radio someone complaining we could not do away with MAD with regard to nuclear arms because the loss of jobs would be catastrophic. This is one of the reasons I often hold intellect in contempt. Who is going to care about job loss if we are all dead.
Density has tremendous economic value and other advantages as well, none of which will matter if we all go completely insane. People care about dangers they can see. There is no better blinders than certainty, in my opinion.
Facebook
Twitter