I don't own the last Hawaiian island, but I'm thankful someone who does hasn't developed it.
If they did and then "undeveloped" it, that wouldn't much help. Right? The last island will have been destroyed for future generations to study and enjoy.
Not being Canadian, I have no clue what the context is. This might be the last of a unique piece of nature, or it could be the first acre of an endless desert. That context changes the meaning quite a bit, doesn't it?
I'm not Italian, but I'd be upset if Italians bulldozed Pompeii.
It's a world heritage site! Some things belong to everyone and are worth preserving.
I'll gladly "undevelop" and take compensation to move if a temple was discovered under my house.
So your comment has no meaning. I sure will "undevelop" my land, and since the law would force me, we can see that society as a whole had voted that I should, in certain cases.
It is simply not your business to tell disadvantaged people how they should exercise their rights. They have agency and can decide for themselves. If this means, some of the nature has to be sacrificed, that’s their business, not yours to decide.
If you care so much, undevelop your own land and restore the nature and the balance. Plant forests over your parking lots and golf courses, erase suburbia and embrace minimalist living. That is so simple.
My property value is dependent on what happens to the neighborhood around me. It's literally my business. That makes the rest of your comment just ridiculous.
It is unfortunate that you did not account for possible development in the neighborhood when you got your property and it is your problem, but not your business. Also it is fun that your protection of nature in the end is just protection of privilege.
I didn't say that. You did. Take responsibility for your own thoughts. Improve your reading comprehension. I'm not so smart as to be impossible to interpret. What does it say about you if you are gaining understanding that is missing from my comments? It says you're a zealot and a liar and more interested in conflict than understanding. Go back. Read again. Read with interest. Otherwise this conversation is truly not your business. Is it?
If the island is privately owned then hard to see how "future generations" will be able to study and enjoy it. Maybe, but probably not, eh? That's the point of it being privately owned. Now if the State of Hawaii were to assert eminent domain, acquire it at fair market value, and then turn it into public park lands as designated wilderness, well that might work for your intent, I think.
The island is owned by the natives. And it's still a tragedy to the entire world if they decide to put skyscrapers on it. It's the last bit of untouched wilderness in a unique ecosystem.
This story doesn't make a case for not telling people what to do. It makes a case for not trusting natives to protect the wilderness.
Or maybe not. I don't have context. I am asking a question.
If they did and then "undeveloped" it, that wouldn't much help. Right? The last island will have been destroyed for future generations to study and enjoy.
Not being Canadian, I have no clue what the context is. This might be the last of a unique piece of nature, or it could be the first acre of an endless desert. That context changes the meaning quite a bit, doesn't it?
I'm not Italian, but I'd be upset if Italians bulldozed Pompeii.
It's a world heritage site! Some things belong to everyone and are worth preserving.
I'll gladly "undevelop" and take compensation to move if a temple was discovered under my house.
So your comment has no meaning. I sure will "undevelop" my land, and since the law would force me, we can see that society as a whole had voted that I should, in certain cases.