Imbecile; a million people spread out across the countryside consume far more wilderness than a million people living in one city Live closer together = leave more for nature!https://twitter.com/YeetNationalist/status/1019693698534162433 …
-
-
this is as true in the developing world as the developed world--compare fertility rates for Indian villages vs Indian cities
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Japan is an obvious no, the whole country has terrible fertility and to be honest I've no idea about the specifics of San Fran, I know for sure that the city I live closest to (Boston) has a rapidly growing population while the nearby Burbs and towns maintain their pop
-
guess where Boston's rapidly growing population is coming from (hint: guess how the nearby burbs and town keep their pop level)
-
All of this is also neatly skirting around the farming practices required to maintain a city's population, which are much harsher on land than self sufficient families with an acre or two of fertile land
-
again, literally opposite of the truth--consider the effect of the 18th century agricultural revolution (spurred by high urban demand for food) on soil recovery (tremendously improved by fertilizer and new fodder crops) and # of people who could be fed by a single acre
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
the more URBAN you get--whether we're talking ancient Rome or modern Beijing
-
Tweet unavailable
-
yes, afaik
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.