[[1. Are you advocating that we develop the land of the Adirondacks into cities with high density housing and such?]]
There is plenty of room in parks and private land to expand- no need for ‘tightly packed cities’ in these areas- Again, you are missing hte point- you are looking at relatively small city areas that are ‘packed’ and thinking hte whole US must be liek that- it isn’t
[[2. If you developed the Adirondacks, would you call that progress?]]
IF it became NEEDED to do so, I would call it common sense survival- there are already tiny towns spread all over the parks, and there is still plenty of room to expand while also reserving hte integrity of these parks- but in the end, IF it comes to our survival vs looking at pretty little landscapes that noone can touch- it would be assinine to value nature over our survival in my opinion- but like I mentioend earlier- there is absolutely no need to compromise the integrity of these parks as there are millions upon millions of acres that can be managed both for civilization and wilderness for a logn long time to come
[[4. Why are such large populations preferable to smaller ones. Europe isn’t growing because there is a sense that more people don’t add anything to the quality of life.]]
This is a secularist ideology and NOT a Christian one where God said go forth and multiply- and europe’s ideology again looks at the relatively small number of ‘packed areas’ and concludes ‘we must limit populations’- it’s a rediculous ideology and infact a form of ‘self-loathing’ that they are tryign to impose on others so that they’ll self-limit out of a warped sense of ‘duty to the earth’- it’s earth worship that attempts to lord it over others
[[3. What’s the ideal population of the US in your opinion? How about 400million? 500 million? 1 billion? 2 billion?]]
What does it matter? We’re at 300 million- big deal? What’s the problem? As mentioned there is still well more than enough room for many many more