Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BostonPilot t1_izne2un wrote

Actually a lot of it was open fields being farmed by native Americans, at least according to one book I read. The names of towns reflected that... Mansfield, Marshfield, Springfield, etc. etc. was already open agricultural fields when the Europeans showed up. So you probably have to go back 5,000-10,000 years to find a time when it was all untouched aboreal landscape.

Also, my point wasn't that:

>I think it's sad to think of any wildlife habitat as dispensible just because the land had been altered before.

But that it's not a one way path... It's gone from wilderness to open field and back to wilderness before... And in a relatively short amount of time.

Also, if it was a new Walmart these people would probably be shrugging and saying "that's progress". I don't see any of them calling for a halt to all new construction. Just, you know, construction next to their house... Quite literally NIMBY.

While loss of habitat due to construction etc. is a real thing, it's nothing compared to the damage coming from global warming. Entire ecosystems across huge amounts of the country are going to be decimated over the next 100 years. If we can minimize that by converting a small percentage of previously farmed land into solar farms, it's arguably a worthwhile strategy, especially when it will quickly go back to wooded land once we no longer need the solar array.

2

person749 t1_j1i7sq1 wrote

Another great response. I'd still rather see windmills and nuclear take up the slack, but this makes a little more sense.

1