Antidevelopment arguments across disciplines converged on the cost of disregarding natural processes.

Evidence

The arguments against wetland, hillside, and floodplain development came from people in a variety of fields, including geography, ecology, civil engineering, geology, hydrology, and landscape architecture. Their critiques had much in common. In each case, the argument against development depended on a new understanding of the costs of disregarding natural processes. If we continued to build insensitively, the critics argued, we would lose a number of gifts of nature, from clear streams to valuable wildlife habitat; we also would increase the likelihood of losses from “natural” disasters, especially floods and landslides. We needed instead to “design with nature.” — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 640

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Federal studies proved suburbanization doubled to quadrupled storm runoff by 1970 — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 803; Market designers and anti-TARP critics converged on shared anti-government assumptions. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 862; Denying dependence on nature sustains non-sustainable resource use. — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 104 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Market designers and anti-TARP critics converged on shared anti-government assumptions. #exemplifies (0.78) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 862
• Denying dependence on nature sustains non-sustainable resource use. #exemplifies (0.72) — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 104
• Thought must recover its origin as an organ of nature against instrumentalization #exemplifies (0.70) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 1465