What makes me laugh about the whole thing is thus:
When the Anglo-Americans came to California, at least in mass, they were looking for gold. If they had to tear up the wilderness to get it; so be it. And they did. San Francisco, a sleepy little village barely a few acres in size on the bay side expanded to a big city that pretty much gobbled up that wilderness, too. But the Earth, as it is wont to do, healed itself over time, and the dug hills and streams, the placers and mines collapsed and where filled in over time, and the forests regrew. But not San Francisco! Because later when the gold played out, men looked at the great valley and said, if we could just get water here, we could make this place bloom. so they dammed the rivers, built irrigation cannels, drained swamps and flooded deserts. And ALL was good. Millions came to California that would otherwise not.
Without the drive the first settlers had, there would be no San Francisco, no Leftist pouting over the “ruined” wilderness, no lettuce for millions of illegals to pick, no salad bowl for the rest of America, only a big expanse of swamp and desert, depending on which way the rivers flowed (or not) over their banks, and a whole continent of humans wouldn’t have the benefit of the Golden State itself.
When I hear Leftists complain about too much people, I just want to shout: “Then go kill yourself!!! If there is too many people, at LEAST have the decency to rid us of ONE! Otherwise, go look in the mirror and complain.”
But they really mean there’s too many of US, and they are the ones who should get to benefit from the reduced people and the quiet, primal wilderness, not others. Selfish babies, all of ‘em!
Brilliant example! Some members of my ancestor's family heard the call of the California Gold Rush and rushed out there in 1850. But their expertise was market gardening and orchards, so they bought land in Santa Clara county and grew the food that the people coming to CA needed.
Post of the day! Great job, AB!