You must log in or # to comment.
Land that has no buildings on it is not necessarily in a natural state… there are grades to “undeveloped land” with some having much more ecological value than others. If I look at the side of the road by the local interstate yes there is technically a “forest” but it’s mostly like loblolly pine plantation with the trees densely packed to each other to maximize the amount that can be cut and invasive privet growing in what little space remains between them. All those leaves trunks and stems in close proximity choke out the sun reaching the ground (preventing forbs, legumes and grasses that need that sun from growing and making food for the rest of the foodchain) and puts impassable woody thickets between the pine trunks that block most anything from moving though the area unless they can fly or climb above it.
Looks wild enough to the uninformed but ecologically useless to the majority of animals adapted to what was once open and parklike easily navigable longleaf pine savanna with insanely diverse groundcover supporting many animal diets and providing shelter.
You from the South? That’s what I see a lot lol
Exactly lol you called it
The same people talk about whole countries as “developing”
Undeveloped = not yet pillaged and exploited for profit.
Came here to say that. It’s worthless until it’s cut down, dug up, or siphoned up and sold for profit.
That’s capitalism.
To the Capitalist, a forest only has value after it has been destroyed.
Can’t have vaccines, or trans people, because it’s not natural. But we can pave over wetlands and strip mine mountains
There’s a lot of developed forests.
It could be former industrial or agricultural land.
So unrestored nature.
Yeah, do NOT plant stuff you intend to eat in your yard without testing the soil first, people. The stuff we put on crops and that we dig out of the ground is shockingly toxic and persistent. Sunflowers are a great way to remediate the soil, although you may need multiple years of planting and disposal.
The root of why Europeans could claim the land in the Americas: it wasn’t developed, thus it wasn’t used, thus it wasn’t owned by anyone else. No matter all the hunter gatherers that were making a living out of the land. No matter even the earth works that could be found indicating use. There were no buildings, thus it was up for grabs.
So many false statements in one paragraph, even on a post that is presumably questioning the narrative.
In Australia, the Europeans were too primitive to see how the land was developed, which is why they were able to lie about it being terra nullis.
You see, when the first European “explorers” came here, they wrote about how the land was like a garden estate. Rolling fields of grass with scattered trees. The perfect environment to go on a stroll in, and the animals loved it too. This kind of environment is what nobles back in England hire full time gardeners to curate, even now that we have lawnmowers!
And they thought this environment had just randomly come to be.
Cause they were ignorant primitives!
The First Australians terraformed the environment into this using a technology even more powerful than lawnmowers: cold fire. They knew (and still know) how to create fires that burn up the scrub while leaving the trees unharmed. Using cold fire, they created thriving habitats for yummy animals like kangaroos, with lots of food plants all over the place.
Before colonisation, Indigenous Australians only had to work a few hours a day. They created farms integrated with nature, indistinguishable from nature to the untrained eye. European savages just couldn’t see them.
Tbf, putting buildings up signalling use didn’t suddenly cause conquerors of any geographic to suddenly respect that the land was already in use. See: Roman Imperial Expansionism, Mongol Empire, numerous Chinese dynasties, the Aztecs, the Nazis, the British Empire, the East India Companies, the Zulu, Mali (well Mansa Musa basically destabilized gold wherever he went).
cough Israel
Yeah, the state of Israel is doing the same thing today, but still, my point was about history of “buildings on land = respect for development” is nonsensical in how early geopolitics worked. I’ll admit pointing to the Nazis, while they clearly showed the same disregard of buildings meaning development so don’t invade, did not predate European colonialism in the Americas.
What if it’s an empty residential lot fenced in, in a high cost of living city, where property prices keep increasing and these owners rather sit on the land because it will make them more money than developing it?
Then it’s the plot to Yakuza 0.
Another based reason why I need to play the series???
If you want an entry point, I really enjoyed Like A Dragon. Lets you test out the vibe without needing a lot of background on the actual story of Yakuza.
Some of us pay good money to keep it that way
I find the English term developed pretty weird in that regard. in German we use the word “bebaut” which literally means you slap a building on a patch of land.
Uncivilized land.
It needs civility.
I’ve yet to visit a city more civil than a forest.
Don’t tell me to be civil you jerk. /s
It’s unrealised profit.
- temporarily nature
Where meme?
