[flagged]

I agree. Despite the housing shortage, no more houses should ever be built. If you're late to the party and don't like getting wet in the rain, I dunno, find a cave or something.

Human experience is a part of conservation. Without a house, these trees would get clear cut once they are big enough to be worth anything. With a house, the homeowner will want to keep them.

It's true, you should only live on top of people.

(I'd say it would be sweet to plant 2x as many trees as are cut! Especially if one has the expertise to pull that off in a meaningful way... lotta big companies ran into trouble trying to do similar in carbon credit scheme contexts.)

Also if the land's protected then you're right. In California, from Muir Woods to Big Sur, more segments would be countless mansions instead of redwoods w/o hard-fought battles & generous philanthropy. But not sure we're given enough data to sideeye Christian (post author and UX extraordinaire).

Humans destroy to create shelter; this can be done responsibly, meeting the Earth & Maslow's needs.

Do not tell people what to do with their land