It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: rapunzel222
I think one of my points is that we shud try to keep the balance when we build and design things, so as to give back to plants, animals etc, and not just think of ourselves and our pets. This will make us happier too, as we will feel more connected to the earth and nature even in our cities or suburbs.
originally posted by: wissy
a reply to: rapunzel222
sure as soon as 98% of population dies from war, the remaining 500 000 rich will rule the earth and will live like you envision.
The green cities would have massive wildlife areas running thru them following the course of rivers to link up w wilderness parks outside the cities. These would be semi fenced to stop big predators getting in the cities but allow birds and small animals to come and go.
originally posted by: LucidWarrior
a reply to: rapunzel222
The green cities would have massive wildlife areas running thru them following the course of rivers to link up w wilderness parks outside the cities. These would be semi fenced to stop big predators getting in the cities but allow birds and small animals to come and go.
Yeah, you know what would happen if we did that? All the small animals would take refuge inside the city, where there would be no predators to check their growth, allowing their population to swell grossly. Meanwhile, outside the city, all the predators are starving, thanks to their food sources being gone.
Not the best idea, imo.
but I would allow the predators inside and just have people defend themselves with stun sticks if an animal gets too close and eventually the predators would realize humans aren't food (although a few of them should be)