&gt; : I have lived in the &quot;woods&quot; my entire life, so I have no dog in this fight. Do we seriously support shitty logic like the OP mentions? Anecdatae is not data.<p>If you&#x27;ve lived in the woods, you have no anecdata to support your conclusion either. However, there have been a raft of papers and other material related to governance in the past 15 years that describe the benefits of urban living and how to make it better. Further, the historical reality is that seeing Nature as better in the West is a strictly post-1800 phenomenon, being based out of the Romantic philosophical movement ( <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.williamcronon.net&#x2F;writing&#x2F;Trouble_with_Wilderness_Main.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.williamcronon.net&#x2F;writing&#x2F;Trouble_with_Wilderness...</a> ). Historically, nature was untamed; the proper place for man was in the cities.<p>Look: we have <i>n</i> billion people on this planet. Do you want them all up in the woods, paving it over, adding gas stations, walmarts, and so forth - polluting it with french fries, used condoms, and the detrius of modern society? Or would it be better for us to build a sustainable world only in the cities, and leave the woods to go walking in for refreshment and experience? I choose the second.