terminal_city

> On the contrary, dense populations allow for the efficient distribution of goods and services. There may be an aesthetic argument in favor of small town living but there isn’t an environmental one.

I would suggest it is not as cut and dry as you suggest, and is heavily dependent on where the population centres are. For the majority of towns and towns folk, there is a deeper connection to the surrounding environment and what it provides. Rural populations get much of what sustains them from the nearby surroundings, be it through gardens, hunting and fishing, local agriculture etc. You would be hard presses to find big city populations that do the same in anywhere near the same percentage.

I lived in a small, northern town for 20 year, and currently live in the heart of downtown of a major city. The difference could not be more contrasting.

To point out the obvious, referencing a 15 year old article about Tasmania (and an irrelevant google search) that describes historic practices on that Island does not strengthen your position, or add to discussions about forestry practices in British Columbia.

>even where standards exist and are enforced to require replanting - this has practically resulted in dense monoculture plantations not sustainable forest habitat.

This comment is not accurate with current industry practices, or frankly practices in the BC forest industry over last 30 years. The comment suggests that cut blocks are not re-planted? While this was the practice in up to the late '60s, things have changed. There was a massive investment (and resultant industry) focused on silviculture. Historic cut blocks were planted, and subsequently managed (brushed, thinned, fill planted) up to the the mid 90s. I would suggest that the historic backlog was significantly reduced by 1990. Today, it is at an equilibrium, with periodic deficits resulting from fire or the massive pine beetle infestation in the province.

Cut blocks are not planted with a single species, but with a mix of species. Trees are grown from seeds taken from the same area and elevation as the areas harvested.

I am not in the forest industry, however I paid for school and my student loans by planting trees (1988-1993). I am an engineer and earlier in my career I was heavily involved in habitat (aquatic and riparian) rehabilitation resulting from past forestry practices. They were horrific. The industry has adapted and continues to adapt. It ain't perfect, but to base an opinion on one side of a long standing heated debate -- as presented in the article -- is uninformed.

As with most thing, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Nonsense. The kid works 4 days a week for good pay for the jobs performed. He admits to banking 650 a month, with only 250 in non-work related expenses. He works three months, he can quit, and have enough cash on hand to support at least 6 months of job search... and then the dole will kick in.

The catch? He actually has to want to do it.

How is this like serfdom?