News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Children who play outside more likely to protect nature a... by arketyp on Sunday March 19, 2017 @03:48AM (#13905867)
Yes. I would guess, because of this, city dwellers are more susceptible to the idea of anthropogenic effects, while people in rural areas in contrast are used to witnessing a more resilient character in nature.
Re:Children who play outside more likely to protect nature a... by sudojudo on Sunday March 19, 2017 @05:53AM (#13906167)
Rural anecdote from the northwest:

The stream I played in as a kid is now polluted by a feed lot. Cattle are everywhere. Invasive weeds are also everywhere. Native insects are dying off, while their replacements decimate forests, one mountain at a time, heading north. The rivers and streams are full of plastic and algal bloom. Finding a tree that's more than fifty years old is neat. There was a giant fish die-off in the rivers last year. Everyone wants a few acres of their own, but they also want water and sewer, in a nice neighborhood, not too far from town. Subdivisions even trump cattle, the only thing that will beat those out is a natural resource that can be exploited. There are a dozen other environmental issues I could extrapolate on, that are happening just outside my back door, and I live in BFE.

Good times in rural America, nature is really holding up.

This whole city vs. country argument is silly. It's not another species out here; some people care about the environment and some don't, just like anywhere. Will rural populations stay behind the curve on some issues? Of course, but they're still people, like you.