[lithocarpus]

Didn't read the article, but regarding the title, this is kind of fundamental.

NIMBYs want to protect some aspects of a particular place usually because it is their home.

Capitalism largely lives on destroying particular places to benefit people who are [mostly] somewhere else.

This is the only thing happening in capitalism but it's a big part of it. The end game of this kind of capitalism is that every place is destroyed (ecologically) and it gradually grinds to a painful halt.

Maybe there's a way to have some elements of capitalism in a society that doesn't destroy places but I don't know.

[hashmap]

> NIMBYs want to protect some aspects of a particular place usually because it is their home.

this is the reflex, and it's a sensible one to have. but the perception of what is or isnt a threat can range from something legitimate across the board ("I dont want a giant thing taking all the power and pumping my head full out sound 100% of the time near my home") to the truly detrimental ("I should get to be the last one moving into this area. Me moving to a place is good and fine; other people moving to where I live constitutes destruction. No new housing.")

NIMBYs forget they moved to where they live from somewhere, and they are not more important than other people on a societal level.

[lithocarpus]

Totally agree - I don't mean to promote or defend all NIMBYism - and a lot of it is simply "I got mine and don't want to share".

And there's also something to be said for NIMBYs protecting the habitat they live in or near.

[hashmap]

There is. That is one of those cases that it truly is good to surface, because it provides a watermark to clear. Whatever you are doing, you should have to prove that it is worth the destruction you will cause to do it. People getting to live somewhere clears that line much of the time; excesses like golf courses and yet another datacenter become gross when put into relief.