The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

I am thinking that in order to preserve lots of biodiversity, we should only allow humans to own land in specific areas. I am also wondering if there should be a maximum amount of landmass each individual can own, or if there should be a progressive land-tax which increases the more land you own. This is a bit tricky, since not all landmass is equally fertile and so on. I am thinking that the land-tax somehow must be correlated to the market value of the land. Or maybe it could be correlated to the amount of sunlight hitting a piece of land.

We already do that - nature preserves are huge. The main problem is keeping people from going in and poaching/farming/logging/otherwise screwing up those areas. It's largely not enforced, especially in the most crucial areas.

I don't think this really matters anymore, by 2100 we will have an out of control greenhouse effect due to the political actions that the USA is taking right now.
We might get some biodiversity but it will all go to shit anyway. So why bother?

Pessimism that strong is a bit much. If you really stop bothering, and the USA gets its act basically together, then you're the problem. And it's not particularly unlikely that we will.

It's basically what scientists have been saying, and right now with the majority telling these scientists that they are pessimists and the US not getting their act together in the future, in fact planning to cancel their signature under the paris climate accords, it is a future that is likely.
So I wonder who the problem is? :)

That was a bit too compressed for me to know what you're talking about.