Here’s a paragraph from a Special Report in The Economist titled Biodiversity. The bottom line is that wealthier regions sometimes do a better job of protecting and sustaining biodiversity.
“that is thanks to the developments covered in this special report – shifting public attitudes to other species, increasing appreciation of natural environments, legislation to stop the killing of endangered species, programs to eradicate invasive species, more and bigger protected areas for wildlife, subsidies to restore degraded habitat, better sanitation, better regulation of pesticides, decreasing levels of conflict and increasingly effective states implementing conservationist legislation. All of these become more prevalent as countries get richer.” The Economist, September 14, 2013, Special Report, Biodiversity, Averting the Sixth Extinction, p.15:
Does upgrading become more prevalent as a county gets richer? Welcome new developments? Continue to work on Haw River and Jordan Lake cleanup? Keep Kudzu out? Control Sevin dust and Coyotes?
What development and prosperity did the first settlers have in mind when they came here around 1751? Apparently the Catawba Indians were friendly towards the colonists and later served side by side with them fighting the British in our Revolutionary War. How did it turn out for the Catawba?
It’s easy to prove anti-development perspectives as long as one forgets that there’s probably not a single person contributing to this debate who would be here were it not for a long series of developers.