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 …
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
The implication is that there will always be the same amount of people, in truth cities promote massive population growth whereas rural towns have much slower growth rates
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G0ngoozler
lmfao where do you think city population growth comes from? they're fertility sinks; even during London's rise in the 19th century it was *rural migration* which kept it growing, not urban fertility
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
In the 19th century and earlier migration was the main cause absolutely this is not the case today however
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G0ngoozler
this is absolutely still the case today, did you think San Francisco and Tokyo are just hotbeds of fertility?
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G0ngoozler
guess where Boston's rapidly growing population is coming from (hint: guess how the nearby burbs and town keep their pop level)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Foriegn immigration is fairly low all around; it's definitely not on par with the amount of population growth in Boston, birth rates are though
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
it's literally below the state averagepic.twitter.com/rEkm8bhPrs
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.