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.
^There was an equally foolish proposal for Florida to split into North and South. I would be stuck in South FL...if that happened, I would move to North FL because I couldn't stand living in a state named after a region that has destroyed 95% of its natural areas. The South Florida mentality is embarrassing. The political views I agree with, but the areas just seems so hedonistic. I much prefer the small towns of Central Florida, even if they are populated by crazy right-wingers. Better climate, too.
I agree with everything you wrote. It seems like South FL tries to get rid of anything green it sees.
Plus, the mentality doing here of always trying to one-up one each other and constantly trying to act tough gets annoying after a while.
Yeah, okay. You're right. Mexico is a first world country. No need to take any extra precautions. You can go anywhere you like any time of day or night and not have to worry about it.
I agree with everything you wrote. It seems like South FL tries to get rid of anything green it sees.
Ugh, yeah it pisses me off the see how fake most neighborhoods in South FL are...ugly manicured lawns and tasteless architecture. I compare Central and North FL to the Indians and South FL to the white man - the difference between living with the land vs destroying it.
Ugh, yeah it pisses me off the see how fake most neighborhoods in South FL are...ugly manicured lawns and tasteless architecture. I compare Central and North FL to the Indians and South FL to the white man - the difference between living with the land vs destroying it.
Does burning the land sound environmentally-friendly?
Land managers still do it today to compensate for the lack of wildfires caused by lightning strikes. It stimulates new growth, so it's not surprising that the Indians would do it. Also reduces the risk of a major wildlife that could threaten their village. Fire is perhaps the most misunderstood natural phenomenon in any ecosystem.
Land managers still do it today to compensate for the lack of wildfires caused by lightning strikes. It stimulates new growth, so it's not surprising that the Indians would do it. Also reduces the risk of a major wildlife that could threaten their village. Fire is perhaps the most misunderstood natural phenomenon in any ecosystem.
We're not talking about controlled burns here. Fire was used to modify the land.
The notion that they lived in harmony with nature and didn't have an ecological footprint is simply unfounded.
It's truly impossible for any group of people to have no ecological footprint. If you want to survive, you're going to have some influence on the plants or animals of that area, without question. Though when compared to Western civilization, they barely made a mark. It really is a trade-off between advancement and sustainability.
It's truly impossible for any group of people to have no ecological footprint. If you want to survive, you're going to have some influence on the plants or animals of that area, without question. Though when compared to Western civilization, they barely made a mark. It really is a trade-off between advancement and sustainability.
Environmentalism is a very Western way of thinking. Other peoples of the world don't necessarily have the same view. We tend to want to nurture the earth. The attitude is very different outside the West.
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.