[ihyfhgyfhth]

The western united states maintained its wilderness areas through a culture of conservationism that isn't remotely respected by the new arrivals. I've spent the last two decades watching paradise be paved for a parking lot.

[lotsofpulp]

The wilderness areas were maintained by not having a lot of people. US added 100M people in the last 40 years, and a lot of them seem to like the Western states' scenery, terrain, and weather.

1980 census shows just over 40M in the west:

https://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1981-02.pdf

page 6

2019 figures show nearly 80M in the west:

https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=gr...

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...

[ihyfhgyfhth]

I suggest without proof that the west could accommodate more people without adverse effects on the environment if construction preferences were different.

The new construction methods, building types, and communal land management strategies that are preferred by implants have an outsized effect on the environment. Compare the new construction in Vail to the older buildings, which can still be seen in smaller towns.

I would prefer building preferences to become more harmonious with the natural environment instead of less.

[lotsofpulp]

I agree it's certainly possible. But I've seen a lot of housing developments since the 1980s in the Western cities' suburbs that are at odds with conservationism. I think it happened to not be felt until relatively recently because there was some "slack" available due to lower populations to allow those large lots to exist and not feel crowded or encroach on the environment.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is a politically tenable solution since everyone likes their own personal vehicles, and for that you need a driveway or garage, and for that you need space and roads, and that does not scale well with population increase.