This is a false dichotomy; in reality, impact on the natural landscape does not decline with housing density.
Suburbs are not little log cabins surrounded by wilderness. They are big houses with big yards, garages, roads, schools, shopping malls, parking lots, etc. At even lower densities, in many rural areas houses are surrounded by farmland, which is also a substantial alteration of the natural landscape.
In addition, energy has to come from somewhere, and energy development also impacts the land through mining, drilling, refining, transporting, and using the energy sources. Even solar and wind have impacts on land use and must scale with demand. So it's incorrect to disregard energy use, because it will impact the land somewhere.
> Phrased differently, it's easier for native organisms to survive if humans are spread out, than if we bulldoze their habitat and build highrises.
This is just 100% wrong. The habitat gets bulldozed (or plowed under) in any case when humans move in and start developing.
Suburbs are not little log cabins surrounded by wilderness. They are big houses with big yards, garages, roads, schools, shopping malls, parking lots, etc. At even lower densities, in many rural areas houses are surrounded by farmland, which is also a substantial alteration of the natural landscape.
In addition, energy has to come from somewhere, and energy development also impacts the land through mining, drilling, refining, transporting, and using the energy sources. Even solar and wind have impacts on land use and must scale with demand. So it's incorrect to disregard energy use, because it will impact the land somewhere.
> Phrased differently, it's easier for native organisms to survive if humans are spread out, than if we bulldoze their habitat and build highrises.
This is just 100% wrong. The habitat gets bulldozed (or plowed under) in any case when humans move in and start developing.