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

Whenever I turn on my Windows laptop, 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.  With every new picture I am prompted to either “like” or dislike” it, and if I signal “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 might actually prefer human-enhanced scenery, which to my mind is far more inspiring than pure untamed nature. 

Here are a few examples to illustrate my point…  

Would Italian Lakes look more beautiful in their natural state, without romantic lakeside villas, ornamental trees and gardens?

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

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

What England look more attractive in its “natural state” without charming villages surrounded by patchwork fields..?

 

Beautifying the landscape

An important objective of Oasis-Cities is to save the countryside from awful sprawl housing developments, endless “road improvements” and tacky retail parks, etc.  OA-Cities will “densify” human settlements AND enhance the landscape, as at least 50% of their sites 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.