Wouldn’t living in small self sustaining communities like we used to be better for the environment?
- 1 month agoFavorite Answer
no, what will be better for the environment is by developing green technology and eco-friendly solutions that correlate with our modern society
- SocratesLv 71 month ago
Perhaps but how many of those communities create the amenities you take for granted today, like the computer you're using?
- Anonymous1 month ago
If we abandoned technology we would be invaded and taken over by the Chinese and they are far worse polluters
- RoLv 71 month ago
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Full Circle 33Lv 71 month ago
You’re free to go live with the Amish people
- EntropyLv 71 month ago
Actually, NO. Pretty much any serious environmentalist will tell you that living in dense cities is better for the environment. People in dense cities can take advantage of economies of scale. If we all left the city to live in small communities, we would have cut down ALOT of forest to make room for all the people leaving their high rises and dence urban areas.
- 1 month ago
No, it'd likely be worse since dispersed communities would be completely unregulated. One community could dump all its waste into the ocean as long as it flows far enough away that it only negatively impacts another community.
- ANDRE LLv 71 month ago
Not really, as we already have those we just called the extended suburbs, or exurbs.
We don't have a world human population of 100 million anymore. Things that could work, albeit poorly, at that scale won't work when the population demand is 70 times greater.
And, denser population centers than exurbs allow for better economies of scale in providing all sorts of services, from power and water, to making more around one's home accessible by walking, rather than by some form of motorized transport.
- W.T. DoorLv 71 month ago
You are very confused and misinformed.