Do you know people that moved to Florida?

[Anonymous]

We have some family friends who moved to a very wealthy retirement community. They pay $60k a year for home insurance right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

It’s not arbitrary, it’s this thing called science. There are observable changes in natural ecosystems depending on the amount of human impact. Florida has historically allowed the destruction of it’s natural resources for profit on an unimaginable scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up on Florida. It was a blue state when I was growing up. Yes, the rural areas are red, but the cities are blue. 99 percent of my friends in Florida are Dems. The exception is the people I went to high school with. It's sad, but most of them bought Trump's line of lies hook, line and sinker.

We plan to retire back to Florida, and will take our blue votes down there as well.

Florida is not conservative in the way Alabama is conservative.

Most of Florida is conservative just like Alabama. The entire center of the state around the lake is like stepping into the deep south.

Even the conservative parts of Florida are not as conservative as Alabama. Maybe Matt Gaetz’ district, but that’s mostly retirees and military personnel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!

Florida is a purple state.

The new congressional maps are making it look more like a red state

Nearly every state looks “red” if you’re looking at congressional district maps. For statewide elections, Florida is a purple state with a slight +2 partisan tilt toward the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Sometime around 2016, Democrats made a strategic decision to bail on Florida, apparently assuming that the Blue Wall was a better place to focus on. At the same time, the GOP prioritized Florida.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only one places I’d consider in FL are either the Naples or Miami areas. I’d need to be near the ocean breeze, otherwise it wouldn’t work for me.

Even the kids who go to school in FL know that Naples and Miami are actually two places.

Just for your info there are breezes off the Gulf too which as another PP pointed out is where Naples is. Along with many other towns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometime around 2016, Democrats made a strategic decision to bail on Florida, apparently assuming that the Blue Wall was a better place to focus on. At the same time, the GOP prioritized Florida.

That's one factor.

Another one is that Woke Dems are repellent to many FL Hispanics.

A centrist doer like Bill Clinton would win FL in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only one places I’d consider in FL are either the Naples or Miami areas. I’d need to be near the ocean breeze, otherwise it wouldn’t work for me.

I like St. Pete.

I live in St Pete - it's a really really nice place. A blue city in a purple district, too, FWIW. I recently put out my Crist and Demmings yard signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

It’s not arbitrary, it’s this thing called science. There are observable changes in natural ecosystems depending on the amount of human impact. Florida has historically allowed the destruction of it’s natural resources for profit on an unimaginable scale.

Are you saying there is no observable impact by humans living in urban environments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometime around 2016, Democrats made a strategic decision to bail on Florida, apparently assuming that the Blue Wall was a better place to focus on. At the same time, the GOP prioritized Florida.

That's one factor.

Another one is that Woke Dems are repellent to many FL Hispanics.

A centrist doer like Bill Clinton would win FL in a heartbeat.

LOL, Bill Clinton would be branded as a fascist by modern Democratic standards. He thinks abortion should be rare. Modern Democrats don't think you have lived a full life as a woman unless you've had an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

Care to explain why the rare natural ecosystems found in Florida have been decimated in less than 200 years if not for the extraction of profit by the wealthy political class? Is that wealthy political class in Florida widely known to be liberal or conservative? Is it regarded as corrupt, or mostly just?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I am glad all these blue staters moved to red states. Reduces polarization and will make the fall election interesting. I'm not gonna do it of course but good for everyone else!



I did this and I am constantly thrilled by it. You would not believe what 1.3-2M will buy down here.


We were house hunting in the suburbs of Orlando ("authentically") and saw a 4500sqft Spanish style house with a sizable courtyard, exterior staircase leading up to 2nd-floor balconies, rooms, and a small terrace. The garage opens into the courtyard and you drive into the courtyard through an arched gateway. You could totally shoot a short clip of an R&B video there. The whole thing was a dream and was $850k. Granted this was late 2020 and the house is a little further out from the center of town, but the home was shockingly beautiful for the price. We also saw some 1.5-2M homes closer in that were extremely impressive - sitting on large lakes, boating dock, 10k+ sqft, etc.


None of that sounds appealing. It sounds overpriced and gaudy and irresponsible towards the environment. Florida has been raping the beautiful natural landscape of the state in exchange for golf courses and man made lakes (aka drainage ditch for a housing development with a fountain) since the days of that bastard Flagler.


Yes, because the tract homes in Leesburg VA are honoring their natural surroundings so well and minding their environmental footprint.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Leesburg either.

The irony of your position is that the only place that would fit your description of retaining the "beautiful natural landscape" are solidly red and very rural areas.

No, actually it is urban living that allows for an unspoiled wilderness. The rednecks who live there take it for granted and want to exploit the landscape for their own personal gain, everyone else be damned.

Re: Florida, large scale human settlement is only possible due to massive environmental destruction like draining millions of acres of wetlands and converting the entire state into a series of artificial canals. Not really comparable to many other regions. BTW Florida is quite red in the center of the state and there is very little that looks anything like the unspoiled natural jewel that Florida once was.

Are you saying that your urban home always existed and that no "beautiful natural landscape" ever existed in its place? What makes your destruction of natural landscape better?

She's saying that concentrating people in small, dense areas, leaves room for nature not to be paved over elsewhere. Not that there was never nature in the small, dense places - but you can mitigate against more habitat loss by building up and increasing density instead of pushing people out further and further into areas that aren't very developed yet.

By that rationale, the difference between an okay level of nature destruction and not-okay level is completely subjective and arbitrary. It can then be argued that anyone who lives in more than a sleeping bag is not mitigating habitat loss.

Welcome to the real world, I guess? Every policy decision - and frankly every moral decision - is a matter of balancing tradeoffs to try to find something that both meets humans' needs and isn't excessively harmful. So yes, concentrating people in cities does lead to habitat destruction there, but it causes less harm than having humans spread into other places. In most cases, hopefully we have experts - wildlife experts, water experts, wetlands experts, all kinds of experts - helping guide the decisions so they are most effective and do the most good.

I guess I don't know what to tell you if you're an absolutist who thinks humans don't belong anywhere - or, a nihilist who thinks that because every choice involves some harm, there's no purpose to trying to mitigate that harm. You can't really live like that.

That's the type of absolutist argument that you are accusing others of. This is not clearly indicated by science. It's more logical that human population concentration vs environmental impact is on some non-linear "efficiency" curve. There is also a balance between local environmental quality vs global environmental quality. I am an engineer by training and by trade. That does not make me an expert on the environment, but it does provide me with a healthy dose of skepticism whenever a layperson attempts to use "science" to claim moral/ethical superiority and justify their own subjective preferences as objectively superior to the preferences of others.

I am the PP and not a scientist at all. I am not specifically advocating for this position, but trying to explain what another poster was saying, that was being misunderstood. And also trying to engage with the poster who seems to be taking the position that you must cause no harm, or not try to do anything at all, instead of weighing tradeoffs.

I believe in tradeoffs, mitigation, incremental change, and I value expertise. I am not a land use expert.