Handsome Dan wrote:I meant expansion of the state's population, sorry.
That's what I meant also. Having children expands a state's population.
Handsome Dan wrote:It doesn't feel like you are "next to nature" if you are at the edge of a giant urban area. I've resided at the edge of Eugene and in Central Oregon, and although I was ostensibly "next to nature" both times, Central Oregon felt way more pristine and untouched than Eugene did.
Probably because there was more nature scattered in between the people in Central Oregon. In other words, people were more sprawled about the country rather than forced to live on top of each other with a tiny or no yard in a densely populated area.
Handsome Dan wrote:Also, you seem to subscribe to the philosophy that endless expansion of the human population is a positive thing. Why is it good if our cities keep constantly expanding. Our natural resources are finite, after all.
My philosophy is in consideration of the needs of all people. It's easy to stand against change if you already like your situation as it is. I'm thinking of the young family just starting out and wanting to have a yard for their children to play in or to have a job to provide with.
Also, it is an assumption for me that it isn't up to myself or any other individual whether or not people can decide to have children and expand the human population. The alternative to this assumption is pretty nasty as seen in places like China.
Most natural resources are not finite. Most of them restore over time. Even areas "touched by humans" will eventually over-grow again if left alone. That said, the amount of nature affected by human dwelling has been grossly exaggerated by anti-sprawl people. Saying that California, one of the most naturally beautiful and diverse states in the country has been ruined by sprawl is an example.