There's something about this I read on Slate Star Codex that I found entertaining and insightful. It's easy to forget that we needed to be in a fertile place in the past, and for the most part we don't need to now, except for emotional reasons.
"Most people are happier when they’re in at least some Nature, whether this means a grand national park or just a leafy suburb with lots of chirping birds. The average person would consider a concrete lot full of Brutalist apartments a little soul-crushing. This probably comes from an evolutionary heuristic in favor of fertile areas and against barren ones; the closest chimpanzee-parseable equivalent to a concrete lot would be a desert or lava flow, where food and shelter are scarce. But nowadays we can order takeout, and the Brutalist apartment buildings provide all the shelter we need. This is probably another obsolete evolutionary relic, but it’s a very persistent one."
I find the idea of “except for emotional reasons,” as if they are not Facts and Needs like any either, to be a good representation of the pretenses mentioned in my original comment.
I'd think it'd be well to also note, aside a evolutionary analysis based on the past, in the present, plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen.
We also need plants to eat. We don't need direct access to the plants to eat them, nor do we need direct access to plants to benefit from carbon dioxide to oxygen conversion. I'm not aware of where the plants I eat come from, most of the time. I'm not saying I don't need plants, I just don't necessarily need to live among them, but I like being able to see plants frequently. I have no desire to have my own garden though, I would rather appreciate nature in a public place where everyone can enjoy them, such as parks and along streets.
