"To suggest that wanting to live in nature is to want to destroy it is a bit extreme."
Well no, they don't want to, but they do it anyway - in the aggregate. Look, a single person living in a forest isn't damaging it; it's when many people want to do so, and actually do it, and the infrastructure required to live such a low-density lifestyle. The equilibrium is that almost all inhabitable land had people scattered all across it, along with a few high density cities for those who rather live close to people than have lots of room. But even those want to go to resorts in 'nature' on the weekends, so they still disturb and on the larger scale destroy natural habitats.
If you really care about nature, you go live in a city, and you stay away from nature as much as possible (with the exception of some reserves that could be designated 'nature recreation' areas; I'm not saying nobody should ever be in a forest).
Of course from the individual choice point of view it's more complicated; prisoners dilemma and all. My point is - if you live in a forest, you don't like nature (or at least, you're not doing your best to protect it); you like living in nature, which is different. And it's fine, I understand - but don't pretend you're protecting natural areas by living in them because you're the only one on your 10 acres. You're contributing to the destruction of habitats, biodiversity and most other measures of 'health of natural systems'.
Well no, they don't want to, but they do it anyway - in the aggregate. Look, a single person living in a forest isn't damaging it; it's when many people want to do so, and actually do it, and the infrastructure required to live such a low-density lifestyle. The equilibrium is that almost all inhabitable land had people scattered all across it, along with a few high density cities for those who rather live close to people than have lots of room. But even those want to go to resorts in 'nature' on the weekends, so they still disturb and on the larger scale destroy natural habitats.
If you really care about nature, you go live in a city, and you stay away from nature as much as possible (with the exception of some reserves that could be designated 'nature recreation' areas; I'm not saying nobody should ever be in a forest).
Of course from the individual choice point of view it's more complicated; prisoners dilemma and all. My point is - if you live in a forest, you don't like nature (or at least, you're not doing your best to protect it); you like living in nature, which is different. And it's fine, I understand - but don't pretend you're protecting natural areas by living in them because you're the only one on your 10 acres. You're contributing to the destruction of habitats, biodiversity and most other measures of 'health of natural systems'.