|
|
|
|
|
|
by sojournerc
842 days ago
|
|
|
I live in the mountains of Colorado, on a dirt road. Living there does not mean paving everything. My home's presence does not "threaten the natural world" as evidenced by the moose, the birds, the bobcat, the ermine, and countless other wildlife that we share the environment with. I understand you might think everything humanity does is destructive, but it just doesn't comport with my experience. I would encourage you to find some wilderness, and see for yourself whether the "natural world is threatened". I'm not denying that it doesn't happen, it's just not as widespread or universal as you seem to suggest. Visit the US west and tell me "most of the natural world is threatened". In many parts it's wilderness as far as the eye can see. |
|
|
If your settlement isn't dense enough to disturb nature, then it's not dense enough to make a dent in the national supply. That said, I cannot find the research right now, but I did read that human presence on a hiking trail in a national park effects wolf behaviour for a month as they are weary of the scent, so I definitely bet you are having a bigger impact than you know.
I own a home on a 100 acre wood. It's the only one, and yeah, it probably doesn't disturb the natural world very much, at least much less than the local ATV trail. But I know what it took to get building 5 miles from the nearest logging road, and I know that it's not feasible to do that for a million immigrants a year looking for a home. Cheap and plentiful homes means easier easy sprawl or dense infill.
PS - Willing the home to a local youth organisation to use for retreats and the rest of land is being stipulated to have no more development on it.