“Manmade” landscapes are far more appealing than natural “unspoiled” landscapes 

Whenever I  turn on the Windows laptop I am currently using, I am presented with a landscape scene – usually one with no human interference or only the tiniest hint that humans have ever been around – maybe a log cabin in the distance. I find this kind of scenery rather boring, but that’s just me I suppose.  With every new picture I am prompted to hit either a “like” or dislike” button – and whenever I hit the “dislike” they promise to send me something more to my liking.  But no matter how many times I “dislike” the “raw nature” scenes, they keep sending me more of the same..!   Whoever – or whatever – chooses these pictures clearly likes “unspoiled nature”, and seemingly cannot understand that SOME PEOPLE actually prefer human-enhanced scenery, which to my mind is far more interesting than pure nature.  Here are a few examples. 

Would the Italian Lakes look more beautiful in their natural state, without romantic lakeside villas and carefully-tended gardens?

Would a Santorini sunset look better without the buildings..?

Would Holland be as attractive in its “natural state” without its canals and windmills..?

What would England be like in its “natural state” without charming villages surrounded by patchwork fields..?

 

Beautifying the landscape

An important objective of OasisCities is to save the countryside from awful sprawl housing developments, endless “road improvements” and tacky retail parks, etc.  OA-Cities will “densify” human settlements whilst beautifying the landscape since at least 50% of their site area will consist of exquisite parkland, pretty lakes and calming rustic woodland.   As the above pictures illustrate – “nature”, when sympathetically enhanced by the hand of man, is more attractive, more romantic, and (IMO) more spiritually uplifting than the over-rated “unspoiled” version.