"I suspect your definition of a lousy place to build infrastructure in might overlap with my definition of a relatively good place to live."

Which is quite close to the standard NIMBY attitude: "I want good grid, cheap electricity and other infrastructure, but not in my backyard. Either someone else's, or somewhere where no one lives at all."

Can't you see the fundamental problem with that attitude? We mostly live in densely populated regions. We do need roads, rail and power plants to sustain our way of living, you too.

▲

rafram 25 days ago | parent [-]

Of course we need infrastructure. It’s annoying when a project that seems like a net good is held up due to environmental concerns, but this planet is very beautiful and I’d like to be able to continue to enjoy it.

	▲	inglor_cz 25 days ago \| parent [-]
		In practice, everything is tradeoff. Your house, and mine, and everyone else's here stands in some place which was once a beautiful natural spot. But few people would support tearing their own homes down in order to restore that beauty. A technical civilization of 8 billion people cannot exist without doing at least some damage to the environment, but most of the time, outright bans on further development are demanded instead of some reasonable mitigation. Maybe you really deeply care about the environment. Most of the NIMBYs I met don't. When it comes to infrastructure, housing etc., the environmental concerns are quite often just a legal tool, and the real motivation of the people who wield them is more along the "I have mine, I don't care about yours, just sod off".