Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Said by someone living in the country which pollutes the most is quite ironic.
You are talking to a vegan who doesn't heat or cool their home, bikes to work, recycles, doesn't waste and doesn't consume much. The country I live in isn't too relevant. Even so, China pollutes more than the US.
I completely agree and that is why I wouldn't post pictures of those areas in a thread specifically about natural scenery.
California has an advantage as it has more unspoiled areas since it was settled much later, most of the villages in the pics date back to the Middle Ages and haven't changed much since then, i'd say they blend perfectly with the surrounding landscape, they are almost part of the natural scenery.
This is the difference between someone who truly cares about natural environments and ecosystems and one who doesn't. I think this is one thing that Americans do much better than Europeans.
When houses are put up, trees are cut down, animals are killed, soil is ruined, ecosystems are desturbed, movement pathes of animals are altered, water from rivers and streams are diverted... etc.
I don't think you can compare a continent where humans have lived for thousands of years and with a very large population and a big country which has been populated for much less longer and with a population density that's much smaller.
The current european population has no responsability for what has been done for centuries, we were just born here and generally a lot of people respect nature. They're just less of it because...
it's like saying people in New York have no respect for nature compared to someone from Wyoming.
I don't think you can compare a continent where humans have lived for thousands of years and with a very large population and a big country which has been populated for much less longer and with a population density that's much smaller.
The current european population has no responsability for what has been done for centuries, we were just born here and generally a lot of people respect nature. They're just less of it because...
it's like saying people in New York have no respect for nature compared to someone from Wyoming.
Doesn't that just mean that California has better nature then? If this was a discussion about cities and someone said "what has better cities, France or Montana", nobody would say that you have to be simpathetic to Montana because it hasn't been inhabited for as long.
Doesn't that just mean that California has better nature then? If this was a discussion about cities and someone said "what has better cities, France or Montana", nobody would say that you have to be simpathetic to Montana because it hasn't been inhabited for as long.
Doesn't that just mean that California has better nature then? If this was a discussion about cities and someone said "what has better cities, France or Montana", nobody would say that you have to be simpathetic to Montana because it hasn't been inhabited for as long.
Perhaps, but that's not the same as having better natural scenery.
Also, how unnatural an area is depends on the land use — just because there are villages and buildings doesn't necessarily mean nature is in that bad condition. At least in the hills, Italy's forests appear to be in decent shape and not tree plantations. The UK has a similar population density, but IMO appears to be far less natural — far more of the landscape is farmed, and the remaining forest is mostly tree plantations. New England has a higher population density than the Midwest, but much more of its original landscape is left intact. And a spot like the Central Valley has little natural left, less so than a European landscape that's not entirely farmed.
Italy has a wolf population left for what it's worth; California has none.
Perhaps, but that's not the same as having better natural scenery.
Also, how unnatural an area is depends on the land use — just because there are villages and buildings doesn't necessarily mean nature is in that bad condition. At least in the hills, Italy's forests appear to be in decent shape and not tree plantations. The UK has a similar population density, but IMO appears to be far less natural — far more of the landscape is farmed, and the remaining forest is mostly tree plantations. New England has a higher population density than the Midwest, but much more of its original landscape is left intact. And a spot like the Central Valley has little natural left, less so than a European landscape that's not entirely farmed.
Italy has a wolf population left for what it's worth; California has none.
Everything that I could say about this subject can be pretty well explained in these maps.
I haven't been to the Scottish Highlands yet, but I will be in the next couple of days. From what I know now, I expect it will be less impacted than Italian nature.
Doesn't that just mean that California has better nature then? If this was a discussion about cities and someone said "what has better cities, France or Montana", nobody would say that you have to be simpathetic to Montana because it hasn't been inhabited for as long.
Well, you basically said that europeans (all of them I suppose) have a lower interest in nature than Americans because their continent is more densely populated and has fewer natural space left compared to the entire territory of the United States. That's what you said, right ?
I answer that the current population of the European continent should be held responsible for the lack of natural space there is left on the continent it was born.
Well, I don't feel responsible for was done in the last 5,000 years. I do care to preserve it though. There are plenty of people in Europe who recycle, reuse, save nature, water, etc. It's not specific to the USA.
Actually i even believe the ecological movements are probably stronger here because we have less space and realize the importance of it. When I was in Canada I studied a course about waste management and learnt that the main solution in Canada is landfilling because incineration is considered dangerous. Landfilling is considered a luxury in Europe. There isn't as much space than in Canada. I'm not convinced it is a better solution than incineration, even if incineration is not great either.
Also, people don't rely as much on cars and gas in Europe. Density has advantages.
Also, I remember hosting some americans years ago at my place, and I remember they always forgot to turn off the lights after using the bathroom, so that the light was always on until I switched it off. Should I base my opinion on all Americans regarding energy consumption from that episode ? i don't believe so.
Are you aware that this thread is about natural scenery?
I wonder how the results would be if we dropped the word "natural" and just compared "scenery". Italy would blow CA out of the water. The OP just keeps going on and on about "natural" because he knows CA can never beat Italy in beautiful scenery. Probably no state in the US can match Italy. But keep in mind this is an American forum, and Americans are totally biased about the US. Most haven't even been out of the country so you can understand.
Well, you basically said that europeans (all of them I suppose) have a lower interest in nature than Americans because their continent is more densely populated and has fewer natural space left compared to the entire territory of the United States. That's what you said, right ?
I answer that the current population of the European continent should be held responsible for the lack of natural space there is left on the continent it was born.
Well, I don't feel responsible for was done in the last 5,000 years. I do care to preserve it though. There are plenty of people in Europe who recycle, reuse, save nature, water, etc. It's not specific to the USA.
Actually i even believe the ecological movements are probably stronger here because we have less space and realize the importance of it. When I was in Canada I studied a course about waste management and learnt that the main solution in Canada is landfilling because incineration is considered dangerous. Landfilling is considered a luxury in Europe. There isn't as much space than in Canada. I'm not convinced it is a better solution than incineration, even if incineration is not great either.
Also, people don't rely as much on cars and gas in Europe. Density has advantages.
Also, I remember hosting some americans years ago at my place, and I remember they always forgot to turn off the lights after using the bathroom, so that the light was always on until I switched it off. Should I base my opinion on all Americans regarding energy consumption from that episode ? i don't believe so.
To add to that, most European cities have developed an extensive public transportation system which reduces car usage, most countries are also looking more and more towards renewable energies. Energy consumption per capita is also far lower on our side of the pond (although it's still outrageously high in the Benelux and Nordic countries), national parks also make a higher percentage of country area is also higher in most Western European countries (Italy, France, Denmark, UK ) despite them being denser
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
