1. They last a long time has zero significance because the content is outdated in a year or less.

2. You don't need studies to know the difference between a natural habitat and cultivated land. And that the former is non-renewable.

It looks like this comment is coming from one of those pulp-farming ambassadors spreading misinformation/whataboutism. This happens every time when a case for online publishing with direct payments to authors is put forward. Ha!

1. This isn't a fast moving web framework, the underlying mathematics are forever. But maybe the code implementation gets outdated after a couple of years.

2. You need something to base your opinion on though, preferably peer-reviewed scientific studies.

You read way too much into my comment.

You need a peer-reviewed research to know the difference between natural habitat and cultivated land?

I refer to my original comment, not the one where you moved the goal posts. Environmental impact is of course much more than just the difference between cultivated land and natural habitat, almost everything we as humans do has an impact on the natural habitat.

a first-edition copy of this book would still be a worthwhile read.