Categories
other thoughts

The inverse relationship of beauty and population

[Today’s run: 2.5 miles]

My wife took a trip last year on the Al-Can highway. She says it is beautiful.  The people are very sparse there.

For awhile my family and I lived in the mountains in Colorado.  Colorado has a healthy population but the people mostly live in a corridor along the front of the mountains, not the most beautiful places.

So it makes one wonder what the relationship is between population and beauty.  It seems to be an inverse relationship.

Someone might explain it by saying that the people despoil the beauty; that having the population causes a place to no longer be beautiful.  Maybe there is something to that.  But I don’t think it is a complete explanation.

In my experience, the beautiful places are also difficult places to live.  I get to thinking that the problem is really the conception of beauty.  High mountains are beautiful.  Deserts are beautiful.  Wide open plains are beautiful.  Sea shores are beautiful.  All of those places are awe-inspiring, and dangerous.  They are not really the best for healthy living.

 

 

One reply on “The inverse relationship of beauty and population”

Too many people or poor zoning can ruin a spot. Few people and strip malls is uglier than many people and walkable quaint shops.

Seattle and Portland are both lovely spots and have plenty of people. Madison, too (not as big and no rivers or volcanic mountains to be seen). Vancouver, BC – Ottawa… (Canada is prettier in general than the US.)

San Francisco is lovely (some parts are (far) better than others).

From the perspective of ground level (“see level”) I have to say that colder climates are better in general. Less industrious folks tend to be where it is easier to live and can be trashy in appearance and behavior.

Comments are closed.