zlacker

People should not settle this dense in the first place. I hope more people are going to rural areas once StarLink an competitors deploy universal Internet connection coverage.

>>qwerty+(OP)
That will be acceptable if we price in carbon externalities into things so that people who live rurally pay the costs they impose on the world.

>>scarej+Od
There's more to it than just carbon. It's certainly possible to have a carbon neutral lifestyle in rural areas, however that doesn't account for the habitat destruction innate to low density rural development.

>>catalo+of
Low density rural development can easily fit into existing habitat; I live on 5 acres of forest with maybe 1/2 acre set aside for house, lawn and garden plots. Aside from gasoline for vehicles, my house is nearly self sufficient resource-wise. The biggest destruction of habitat is massive fields for farming.

Of course, when a "developer" comes along, buys up an entire field or three, and builds a mini-suburban style neighborhood in the middle of nowhere, the habitat was already lost, but it will do absolutely no favors to any wildlife that might try to come back... not to mention the absurdity of living on tiny half to 1 acre lots in a division miles from the nearest village.

>>zdragn+hn
In which case, I suppose pricing for restoration elsewhere will be low cost to you and high cost to the developer. As it should be. It's all just a matter of putting the externalities back in.