Railyards... what do you want done to them?

[monotonehell]

And by "small portion" you mean the entire area between the terraces and the end of ACC jurisdiction, no?

No.

[Shuz]

Anthropocentrism! All parklands are used by birds and opossums, trees and shrubs. We should value that these things exist, not just because it's lovely to have birds fly past your head as you walk to school in the morning, or watch the parrots pick at the grass on your way home from uni, but simply because they exist. This mantra that all space must be used by humans for something to enrich us further seems... rather unfair to everything else, really.

Don't we have a zoo for these things?

[cleverick]

Well, monotonehell, you have to keep in mind that the metro area has recently been extended and now stretches from Elizabeth practically to Willunga. I think the 'parklands' are a small portion of this!
As for Shuz... we have a zoo for our own enjoyment, it's not for the animals at all. You are just perpetuating the idea that something only has value if it is valuable to humans. I appreciate that such open space in the middle of a city ought not to be 'wasted', but I see waste differently from you.

[Shuz]

Well seeing as we are the dominant species of this planet, of course our value as humans is greater than anything else because that is what has kept us alive for the last 2 million years, and will continue to keep us alive for the next 2 million years and beyond. Its how we measure the purpose of things.

Therefore, the purpose of our environment has to be beneficial to humans, and if its not then its wasteful, if not obsolete.

[cleverick]

Far greater philosophers than I have argued for and against this thesis.

I tend to disagree. I like to think things have intrinsic value which does not depend on me experiencing it to exist.

[Mants]

Including the horse paddocks in the north east? Then there's the unused fields of the south west (aka the Royal Showgrounds overflow car park)

not every square metre of parkland can be used for a recreational purpose, it's just not feasible.

[AtD]

Including the horse paddocks in the north east? Then there's the unused fields of the south west (aka the Royal Showgrounds overflow car park)

not every square metre of parkland can be used for a recreational purpose, it's just not feasible.

Exactly. This is why the railyards don't need to be converted to parklands.

[cleverick]

But recreation isn't the only use of parklands! Animals use it to live, and I'm sure the relatively good quality of our city's air has something to do with a band of open space around it. Destroy all those trees and you end up with a poorer city.

[AtD]

But recreation isn't the only use of parklands! Animals use it to live, and I'm sure the relatively good quality of our city's air has something to do with a band of open space around it. Destroy all those trees and you end up with a poorer city.

OK, how about we build on the parklands if we demolish a hundred times the area of suburban sprawl for national park?

[cleverick]

I might support that. But I think we can have our cake and eat it too by making certain places, like Glenelg, Adelaide, North Adelaide, Noarlunga and the Port denser. Much denser. The rest can be farm land, then you keep the park lands essentially as people's back yard, and everybody wins!