It’s not the affordable housing advocates that are putting up houses at the edge of the wilderness that is disproportionately affecting wildlife. That’s the upper middle and the upper class that’s doing that.

Generally speaking, affordable housing advocates incidentally advocate for more efficient land use, because that’s one part of the strategy to build cheap places for people to live.

Sprawl affects wildlife. Density, particularly infill density, generally only impacts land already being used for human habitation anyways.

You're human, and part of the problem. Let's not pretend you don't benefit from that destruction (unless you are living in the wilderness).

Are you saying that the act of building affordable housing impacts wildlife/that affordable housing is built in locations disruptive to wildlife?

Funny how this is always the argument against affordable housing, and never the large detached single family dwellings in the far exurbs. Makes you wonder if the concerns are sincere…

Not having children at allor at least less of them is a better way to protect the environment and housing though. If we continue to grow our population as we are we're going to run out of natural resources and space to live sooner or later.

It'll cause some immediate societal issues like an unbalanced population pyramid just like the boomers did. But it'll be better in the long run.

The best way to address it is to restrict immigration, so that the demand isn't there in the first place.

For example the USA could end its refugee intake program (which Biden has increased by 50,000/year to 62,500) - which alone will bring in a Wyoming's worth of people over the next 9 years.

Secondly to limit immigration only to other highly developed countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev... And to persecute and physically prevent all unauthorised arrivals.

Thanks to inflation and skyrocketing tuition, etc, things are different for this generation. This isn't perpetually blaming each past generation; it's specifically blaming the boomer generation. Our "poisons" are home ownership being out of reach for a significant chunk of the population (therefore tossing money away instead of building wealth like previous generations), and our environment being destroyed with the help of our geriatric politicians. Let me just "reframe" that!

[0]: https://news.yahoo.com/average-cost-college-jumped-incredibl...

[1]: https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house...

Agreed. No one's arguing you didn't get a shit deal. At least I hope no one is arguing that.

But that doesn't mean the previous generation got a better deal. When my Dad bought our first home the interest rate was over 10%. And how did he pay for college ? He had to fight in a war and then work at the military morgue. He never recovered from this.

I am not trying to win an argument here. It's human nature to focus one's own problems and assume others have it better. For the record, my dad would definitely preferred to have been born into your generation, as I would. Again that's not a counterargument but should at least help lessen some of the bitterness from these discussions.

Also not everyone had the luck to be growing up in rich western countries. My "boomer" parents grew up under communism, you know what they had at my age? Absolutely nothing. Definitely no wealth building to speak of, no amazing opportunities, good job existed if the government granted you any.....compared with them, my generation has it extremely good.

And then you go on the internet and read how the post WW2 generation fucked everyone over - like....in US, sure. In the former Soviet block? Not so much.