Current Events > Do you think the world is overpopulated?

(+) Yeah! (+)

DarkDoc posted...

I meant data at city level. ie London has more deaths than Exeter or whatever.

But if you're going on a national level, the top two (by traffic-related death rate) are India and China. Hmm. Brazil, USA, Nigeria and Indonesia all very high...

I'd have to look into that. I can think of a couple of specific examples (Phoenix AZ and Toronto have much higher traffic incidents than Amsterdam) but I'll see if I can find some per city breakdowns, particularly within the same countries.

But it's the exception rather than the rule...

That's the problem, it shouldn't be the exception.

Yeah, sounds simple. Lights, a bridge or tunnel come to mind. Maybe they didn't put one of those in because it's all about how many people would use it? Or simply cost.

There are lights, they just suck. The issue is they didn't integrate non drivers from the start, we were added on afterwards.

Or just, blindly building an ever increasing number of new homes isn't wise because it doesn't solve the problem of overpopulation.

Also, what you're describing about "private investors" isn't a problem related to whether there are sufficient properties or not, because it doesn't change the number. Logic being one family will live in one home no matter who owns it.

Ignoring AirBnB which is a major factor in the shortage of homes in some areas, it pushes the prices of homes up and pushes poorer people further from the jobs they're working, which means they now need to travel further and potentially without public transport, depending how good transport is further from the town centres. These jobs still need to be worked.

But then, who's going to pay for it? Builders are on tight margins. It's all about profit per square metre. They can't suddenly find an extra 800 million just to build something they can't sell.

If there was enough money to build all these extra schools and hospitals, you'd probably have grounds to say we weren't overpopulated. But there simply isn't. ie if you can't afford to build, then don't build.

Considering how the country's finances have been mismanaged for at least the last 14 years, linking the economy to overpopulation isn't a particularly compelling argument. It is a great example of how the free market can't actually fix these sorts of problems, but this wasn't the argument you were making. This is precisely where the state needs to step in.

These sorts of amenities are an investment that we can't not make. We can't just not educate our children, we can't leave our people out to dry without access to healthcare. It's not that we can't afford to do it right now, we're actively choosing to spend our money elsewhere.

We should. Or then again, another way to think about it is that I'm not a manager or a shareholder in the railways. I don't care if they make a profit or not, and it's not my job to fix them. If the rail companies want to fuck themselves over, then they can go ahead.

You are a stakeholder though. Ignoring the economic benefits from functioning transit systems, all of those people who would take the trains rather than driving means that your driving experience would be better.

Yes and No for me.

Combine of Asia and Africa has almost 80% of total population. U.S., Canada, Australia, Russia, and some countries are not dangerous for have overpopulation woes.

reincarnator07 posted...

Traffic is a science, there are proven ways to make traffic better and safer.

Oh come on, you don't get to hide behind science. There's absolutely nothing scientific about saying "the whole of the country of Wales is now 20mph". That just makes real scientists look bad.

reincarnator07 posted...

We have some food places in retail parks further outside town, but other than that it's the opposite here. If it's in town centre, there generally won't be any parking, although there's probably bike racks nearby.

I just looked it up. McDonald's has more than 1,450 restaurants across the UK. 938 of these are drive through, ie 65%. A further proportion will be out of town. A further proportion are motorway service stations.

I can think of a handful of city centre branches that have closed in the last 5-10 years (Manchester and Liverpool among them).

reincarnator07 posted...

The ideal is that people should be within either walking distance of basic amenities or at least have access to viable non car methods of transport to make the journey.

But then, given that the number of schools is finite, and that the number of good schools is small, you end up with everybody wanting to live in the same place. ie not possible. You can't please all the people all the time, and even though you don't want to, you have to tell some people "sorry, you can't live here, try somewhere shit instead".

reincarnator07 posted...

I'm all for those with disabilities getting jobs and I think it's a great sign when employers are willing to work around disabilities, it shows they actually care about their workers. However, there simply aren't enough of those jobs

Exactly. Or equivalently, as I said before, there are too many people.

reincarnator07 posted...

On top of that there are some people who are literally unable to work normal jobs due to the severity of their disabilities.

Yes, there are some. But I simply refuse to believe that there are 8 million people who are so severely disabled that there is nothing they could possibly do. That's simply nonsense, regardless of what the internet tells you.

reincarnator07 posted...

That was an interesting read and I think it does raise a really good point for trains: They're only as useful as what you can access with them. Far too often in North America specifically are the stations built in the middle of nowhere, requiring at least a bus to get anywhere if not outright needing a car trip at each end.

True. This sounds like your field rather than mine, but most likely for reasons of practicality and/or cost.

Definitely the case in the USA, but if you look at somewhere like Chester or Runcorn, the train station is pretty far outside thr town centre. And obviously the same can be said for most airports, to the point where you wonder why the hell Reus airport even has Barcelona in its name (it's over 100 km away).

reincarnator07 posted...

If the trains aren't connected to anything and they're inconvenient to the point that few people take them, I think you'll probably be right in saying that planes would be more eco friendly. I also like that it pointed out that electric trains (and vehicles in general) are only as eco friendly as the power used to run them.

Yeah, that's the elephant in the room.

As for whether "she spends far more than the average and is not entirely representative"...

Just for fun, I collected a few numbers.
26 billion in sales for Amazon UK. Compare with:
10.9 billion for M&S
10.1 billion for JD Sports
6.5 billion for Boots
5 billion for B&M
5 billion for Next
1.8 billion for WH Smith
1.5 billion fur Dunelm
1.5 billion for Greggs
1.4 billion for Pets at Home
0.9 billion for Smyths
0.9 billion for Topshop
0.7 billion for Zara
0.1 billion for HMV

So I was being tongue-in-cheek when I said Amazon made more than the entire highstreet combined. But actually I wasn't far off!

DarkDoc posted...

Oh come on, you don't get to hide behind science. There's absolutely nothing scientific about saying "the whole of the country of Wales is now 20mph". That just makes real scientists look bad.

Good job that wouldn't be my example of saying traffic is a science then isn't it? That's also not an accurate description of what Wales is doing, they're making it the default speed limit on restricted roads AKA built up areas. These are the exact places where you don't want people tearing down the roads. Now, I'd rather see these limits set through architecture rather than legislation as the science says that speed limit signs aren't all that effective at actually reducing speeds, but trying at all to make things safer for non-car users is a good start.

I just looked it up. McDonald's has more than 1,450 restaurants across the UK. 938 of these are drive through, ie 65%. A further proportion will be out of town. A further proportion are motorway service stations.

I can think of a handful of city centre branches that have closed in the last 5-10 years (Manchester and Liverpool among them).

I can think of 5 off the top of my head. 2 of them are drive throughs in retail parks that are difficult to access without cars in the first place, another 2 are drive throughs off of some major roads in and out of town that are much easier to access on food and the final one is on foot only in the town centre.

But then, given that the number of schools is finite, and that the number of good schools is small, you end up with everybody wanting to live in the same place. ie not possible. You can't please all the people all the time, and even though you don't want to, you have to tell some people "sorry, you can't live here, try somewhere shit instead".

The number is finite, but not fixed. You can build new schools and you can improve lacking schools. Will there be some schools clearly ahead of the pack? Yes, almost certainly. However, the goal should be to get the "lower" tier schools up to a good standard too.

Exactly. Or equivalently, as I said before, there are too many people.

Yes, there are some. But I simply refuse to believe that there are 8 million people who are so severely disabled that there is nothing they could possibly do. That's simply nonsense, regardless of what the internet tells you.

Officially I think there are something like 3m brits on long term disability and the number is increasing, quicker for men than women. You are the one claiming 8m. It is concerning and as a nation we should indeed look at how many of those we can help back to work. One thing that would help would be improving our healthcare considering many of these are as a result of health issues that people weren't born with. We definitely need to improve our mental healthcare facilities as well as the culture towards those facing mental health issues.

True. This sounds like your field rather than mine, but most likely for reasons of practicality and/or cost.

Definitely the case in the USA, but if you look at somewhere like Chester or Runcorn, the train station is pretty far outside thr town centre. And obviously the same can be said for most airports, to the point where you wonder why the hell Reus airport even has Barcelona in its name (it's over 100 km away).

Yeah, I'd say I have an unhealthy obsession with public transport!

Airports at least have practical reasons as to why they can't be in the middle of a city we're ignoring London City... but there's absolutely no reason for a train station to be anywhere but in the middle of population centres. It's some of the most valuable land in any town, especially if it's also a station where people transfer like Birmingham New St or Reading. In Europe, this land is used for shops, services, venues and public transit links. In far too much of North America, this land is used for parking, which effectively generates zero income.

Strangely, a lot of American airports at least understand this concept. I really liked Atlanta airport, it was easy to get around and there were tons of good shops and eateries. They're let down by the state of American public transport, but it's a good start.

reincarnator07 posted...

I keep bringing up planning because almost all of the things you're attributing to overpopulation are explained and exacerbated by poor planning

Like, one way to look at it is the very concept of a town centre is flawed and outdated. We used to have things close together because it was easier to walk to them all. It's been that way for thousands of years. But the reason vehicles were invented is so that distances don't matter. This opens up the possibility of not having a town centre, which is the reason for all congestion.

So now you can have your cinema in one place, your newsagent somewhere else, your clothes shop somewhere else, your nightclub somewhere else. And in the most modern version of it, your Amazon warehouse (which we've established very much DOES compare to a town centre, and does bring massive revenue to a council and to everyone else) can be absolutely anywhere you want. ie place it out of the way so it doesn't inconvenience anybody.

In doing so, it makes all land equally valuable, ie you don't have an oversubscribed downtown where a terraced house costs 6 million.

Did I just solve one of the world's biggest problems? What do the academics think of that?

reincarnator07 posted...

I'd have to look into that. I can think of a couple of specific examples (Phoenix AZ and Toronto have much higher traffic incidents than Amsterdam) but I'll see if I can find some per city breakdowns, particularly within the same countries.

Yeah, laws and culture obviously play a part, so it would be better to compare cities in the same country.

reincarnator07 posted...

Ignoring AirBnB which is a major factor in the shortage of homes in some areas, it pushes the prices of homes up and pushes poorer people further from the jobs they're working, which means they now need to travel further and potentially without public transport, depending how good transport is further from the town centres. These jobs still need to be worked.

Meaning cafes and nightclubs? With a more even distribution of workplaces (ie offices and shops) you actually wouldn't need as many cafes in the first place. But as nightclubs, offices and shops are all going extinct, it probably doesn't matter anyway.

reincarnator07 posted...

Considering how the country's finances have been mismanaged for at least the last 14 years, linking the economy to overpopulation isn't a particularly compelling argument.

That's an oddly specific number?

reincarnator07 posted...

These sorts of amenities are an investment that we can't not make. We can't just not educate our children, we can't leave our people out to dry without access to healthcare. It's not that we can't afford to do it right now, we're actively choosing to spend our money elsewhere.

It really is the case (really really) that you can't spend what you haven't got. It's why so many people are in so much debt. Also why Sudan isn't known for it's infrastructure or public services. As Michael Jackson said, "if you can't feed a baby, then don't have a baby".

Would you prefer to cut spending on roads? Healthcare? Education? Defence? Welfare? The police? Or would you prefer they put taxes up? I don't have any respect for people that can't pick one.

reincarnator07 posted...

You are a stakeholder though. Ignoring the economic benefits from functioning transit systems, all of those people who would take the trains rather than driving means that your driving experience would be better.

To be honest, my driving experience is good enough. That's why I live where I live. My only use for a train is having it as a backup system, and for non-driving friends from London to visit me. But if I'm honest, it wouldn't matter if the trains went bust. They're selling something I don't care for, in a way I don't care for, just like Nintendo and Paramount and Starbucks and Wasabi. They could all go under with no consequence.

reincarnator07 posted...

Now, I'd rather see these limits set through architecture rather than legislation as the science says that speed limit signs aren't all that effective at actually reducing speeds

Exactly. I was in Wales at the weekend and there's a road that's a mile and a half, dead straight, going down a steep hill, great visibility. And here there were, 3 cars all coasting downhill at 18mph with our brakes on. I dunno what it does to the air quality in the area for all the pedestrians having to breathe in all the extra carcinogenic brake dust and exhaust fumes.

DarkDoc posted...

Like, one way to look at it is the very concept of a town centre is flawed and outdated. We used to have things close together because it was easier to walk to them all. It's been that way for thousands of years. But the reason vehicles were invented is so that distances don't matter. This opens up the possibility of not having a town centre, which is the reason for all congestion.

So now you can have your cinema in one place, your newsagent somewhere else, your clothes shop somewhere else, your nightclub somewhere else. And in the most modern version of it, your Amazon warehouse (which we've established very much DOES compare to a town centre, and does bring massive revenue to a council and to everyone else) can be absolutely anywhere you want. ie place it out of the way so it doesn't inconvenience anybody.

In doing so, it makes all land equally valuable, ie you don't have an oversubscribed downtown where a terraced house costs 6 million.

Did I just solve one of the world's biggest problems? What do the academics think of that?

Only problem is that this simply isn't working. Ignoring environmental issues for a sec, surburban sprawl is unsustainable on a financial level. The land doesn't generate enough revenue to sustain itself. This isn't just an opinion, this is a fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

The reason for congestion is cars. Spreading everything out makes the congestion worse due to all the extra distance you now have to drive. There is no viable solution to congestion that doesn't involve reducing the number of car trips that have to be made. It also doesn't make land equally valuable, you still have more and less expensive areas to live. People don't stop wanting to do stuff.

Finally, forcing people to drive everywhere adds a substantial financial burden that hits poorer people harder, as well as anyone who is unable to drive for any reason. There's a direct correlation between access to good public transport and economic activity and mobility

Meaning cafes and nightclubs? With a more even distribution of workplaces (ie offices and shops) you actually wouldn't need as many cafes in the first place. But as nightclubs, offices and shops are all going extinct, it probably doesn't matter anyway.

Pretty much any jobs in city centres. Those, food places, shops, malls and all the supporting staff.

That's an oddly specific number?

That's when the Tories took power.

It really is the case (really really) that you can't spend what you haven't got. It's why so many people are in so much debt. Also why Sudan isn't known for it's infrastructure or public services. As Michael Jackson said, "if you can't feed a baby, then don't have a baby".

Would you prefer to cut spending on roads? Healthcare? Education? Defence? Welfare? The police? Or would you prefer they put taxes up? I don't have any respect for people that can't pick one.

Increase taxes on the 1% and corporations and simplify tax laws to close loopholes. That said, government spending isn't like personal spending, especially when you control your own currency. On top of that, car dependency is a part of the reason for lacking funds.

To be honest, my driving experience is good enough. That's why I live where I live. My only use for a train is having it as a backup system, and for non-driving friends from London to visit me. But if I'm honest, it wouldn't matter if the trains went bust. They're selling something I don't care for, in a way I don't care for, just like Nintendo and Paramount and Starbucks and Wasabi. They could all go under with no consequence.

The consequence would be more people having to drive, making traffic worse. As I've previously said, as a driver this does affect you.

Exactly. I was in Wales at the weekend and there's a road that's a mile and a half, dead straight, going down a steep hill, great visibility. And here there were, 3 cars all coasting downhill at 18mph with our brakes on. I dunno what it does to the air quality in the area for all the pedestrians having to breathe in all the extra carcinogenic brake dust and exhaust fumes.

Sounds like the speed limit has overperformed at making it safer for pedestrians.

In terms of some cities yes absolutely. However there's absolutely enough space and resources, food and otherwise, for every person on the planet. It all just needs to be better distributed.

With current agricultural science and space it's estimated that up to 20 billion people could be fed adequately.

UnicornRaline posted...

In terms of some cities yes absolutely. However there's absolutely enough space and resources, food and otherwise, for every person on the planet. It all just needs to be better distributed.

With current agricultural science and space it's estimated that up to 20 billion people could be fed adequately.

Again to be fair to the other side of the argument, it's not so much that there's enough space and potential resources to adequately sustain 20 billion people (if not a lot more), it's that there's already not enough resources to sustain the current population at their current rate of consumption.

In other words it's not just a distribution problem (although there's certainly some of that, also). It's not that 8 billion people are too many, no matter what... it's that 8 billion people when the average person is this level of wasteful is too many. Heck if you cut human population in half it'd still be unsustainable in the long run, it'd just take a while longer; what people call "the modern standard of living" should more properly be called "the modern standard of dying and taking the whole planet out with us". It's not just bad... it's a disaster.

And to be fair to ourselves it's not just individuals who are at fault, or rather our collective contribution (although there are certainly a lot of things we could do different, better), primarily it's actually nations and corporations on a large, global scale that are the main problem.

reincarnator07 posted...

I can think of 5 off the top of my head. 2 of them are drive throughs in retail parks that are difficult to access without cars in the first place, another 2 are drive throughs off of some major roads in and out of town that are much easier to access on food and the final one is on foot only in the town centre.

The numbers are definitely trending that way. I just googled a current report claiming a 41% increase in drive throughs in the UK between 2015 and 2020. I'd say it's accelerated since then. Even places that don't need a drive through (eg Starbucks) are seeing huge increases.

It's just the way the country is these days. Like, 20 years ago, I was surprised to see drive through banks and pharmacies in the USA, but those are coming here now too. If you're not seeing that then it's just confirmation bias from a non-driver.

reincarnator07 posted...

The number is finite, but not fixed. You can build new schools and you can improve lacking schools.

Not without the money you can't. Getting back on topic, money and overpopulation are intrinsically linked.

But the point being that everybody wants to live within a short distance of all the amenities. Simple fact is you can't. The situation would probably improve if the amenities were evenly distributed throughout an area.

reincarnator07 posted...

You are the one claiming 8m.

You're pointing at official figures saying 1 million people are "unemployed". I'm pointing at official figures saying 9 million people of working age don't have a job. The difference is 8 million.

So if you think that 1 in 5 of the population is a vegetable, all I can tell you is you're wrong.

reincarnator07 posted...

Yeah, I'd say I have an unhealthy obsession with public transport!

Airports at least have practical reasons as to why they can't be in the middle of a city we're ignoring London City... but there's absolutely no reason for a train station to be anywhere but in the middle of population centres.

It's a good aspiration, but in practice things don't evolve like that. Maybe for historical reasons, ie a line was built before a town and doesn't pass near it. Maybe for geographical reasons (ie it's too hilly).

reincarnator07 posted...

In far too much of North America, this land is used for parking, which effectively generates zero income..

Parking is seen as a transport facility. But there are other differences (most American cities aren't very big, so there are less people. Plus more of their car parks are underground so don't have a footprint.

Also, shops/restaurants with easy parking probably generate more income than those without. I literally can't imagine ever doing my weekly/monthly shop at a place that doesn't have a car park. Those places will go bust pretty quick.

reincarnator07 posted...

Strangely, a lot of American airports at least understand this concept. I really liked Atlanta airport, it was easy to get around and there were tons of good shops and eateries. They're let down by the state of American public transport, but it's a good start.

In contrast, Manchester airport is actually terrible, for the same reasons. The transport links are pretty decent (ie train and bus), but on a recent trip I had to pay three parking charges (totalling I think 20), literally before my car had stopped moving. Then you have a building layout that's been badly designed on purpose, and crappy overpriced food, and the only reason people use it is because they have to.

reincarnator07 posted...

Only problem is that this simply isn't working. Ignoring environmental issues for a sec, surburban sprawl is unsustainable on a financial level. The land doesn't generate enough revenue to sustain itself. This isn't just an opinion, this is a fact

Is that the same one you posted before?

The thing is, people are gonna spend what they're gonna spend. The same amount of revenue will always be generated, it will just be generated in different areas. This idea is to shave something off those spikes, which will be added elsewhere.

DarkDoc posted...

The numbers are definitely trending that way. I just googled a current report claiming a 41% increase in drive throughs in the UK between 2015 and 2020. I'd say it's accelerated since then. Even places that don't need a drive through (eg Starbucks) are seeing huge increases.

It's just the way the country is these days. Like, 20 years ago, I was surprised to see drive through banks and pharmacies in the USA, but those are coming here now too. If you're not seeing that then it's just confirmation bias from a non-driver.

I don't question that the UK is plunging further into car dependency, only that it's a desirable outcome.

Not without the money you can't. Getting back on topic, money and overpopulation are intrinsically linked.

But the point being that everybody wants to live within a short distance of all the amenities. Simple fact is you can't. The situation would probably improve if the amenities were evenly distributed throughout an area.

Yes, that's the whole point of walkable neighbourhoods. If you can just pop to a store down the road rather than drive for several miles, that's a positive for everyone involved. If your kids can simply walk to school or take a bus rather than having to rely on being driven across town, that's good.

Overpopulation and money aren't intrinsically linked at all. You can have places like London that have strong economies and are... crowded. You can have rural areas that are desolate but certainly nowhere near overpopulated. The opposite of these can also be true.

You're pointing at official figures saying 1 million people are "unemployed". I'm pointing at official figures saying 9 million people of working age don't have a job. The difference is 8 million.

So if you think that 1 in 5 of the population is a vegetable, all I can tell you is you're wrong.

Where the hell did I claim any of that? I even gave a number of 3m on long term disability, although it appears that you simply ignored the rest of my words. At no point did I claim that 8-9m people are vegetables who are incapable of working.

Since you seem to be more sure on the numbers, please provide an actual breakdown of these people not in work. Let's get some data on them.

It's a good aspiration, but in practice things don't evolve like that. Maybe for historical reasons, ie a line was built before a town and doesn't pass near it. Maybe for geographical reasons (ie it's too hilly).

Stations weren't randomly built, they were built at destinations. For the more historical ones, the area around the stations were valuable to outside investors since they were easy to access. We saw this specifically in the USA, where the land near railways was given away to whoever built said railways.

Parking is seen as a transport facility. But there are other differences (most American cities aren't very big, so there are less people. Plus more of their car parks are underground so don't have a footprint.

Also, shops/restaurants with easy parking probably generate more income than those without. I literally can't imagine ever doing my weekly/monthly shop at a place that doesn't have a car park. Those places will go bust pretty quick.

It's infrastructure for cars, just like roads really. Problem is that infrastructure doesn't generate income. Obviously you're gonna need a certain amount of infrastructure, but car specific infrastructure takes up silly amounts of land for the amount of people it serves.

You'd also be surprised at how irrelevant parking can be as opposed to access for the majority of businesses. I'll give you an example from my town. A friend of mine was the general manager for a chain restaurant which had 2 locations in my town. One was located off a major road and had a sizeable parking lot, the other was located in town centre and was effectively impossible to drive to. The nearby shopping centre did have a car park but it costs a fortune and you were still about 10 mins away. It was, however, way easier to get to by bus. It also consistently outperformed the other location. People don't care about driving there, they care about getting there easily no matter what.

Obviously some businesses will fare a bit differently, but they're the exception. I wouldn't exactly expect a B&Q to pop up in the town centre.

In contrast, Manchester airport is actually terrible, for the same reasons. The transport links are pretty decent (ie train and bus), but on a recent trip I had to pay three parking charges (totalling I think 20), literally before my car had stopped moving. Then you have a building layout that's been badly designed on purpose, and crappy overpriced food, and the only reason people use it is because they have to.

Never flown from there so I can't comment. The stores for poor people at airports are pretty much universally gonna be expensive due to a captive audience. No way around that outside of regulation really

Is that the same one you posted before?

The thing is, people are gonna spend what they're gonna spend. The same amount of revenue will always be generated, it will just be generated in different areas. This idea is to shave something off those spikes, which will be added elsewhere.

Revenue in this context is for the state, not businesses. Ignoring the fact that council tax and business rates aren't equal, spreading the same number of people out further and further means you have more infrastructure to maintain on the same budget.

So many walls of text so little time.

reincarnator07 posted...

The reason for congestion is cars. Spreading everything out makes the congestion worse due to all the extra distance you now have to drive.

It's easier to drive a longer distance if there are no other cars going the same way as you. Again, if I ran the transport department, I'd give everybody 3 months to learn, and then sack anybody who didn't have a driving license, because a driver would know this.

reincarnator07 posted...

It also doesn't make land equally valuable, you still have more and less expensive areas to live. People don't stop wanting to do stuff.

But everybody is different, so they don't all want to do the same stuff.

I can't decide if it's a really good idea or a really bad idea to have both football and cricket at Old Trafford. They're not played at the same time, so you only have to build one set of infrastructure and it covers both...

reincarnator07 posted...

Finally, forcing people to drive everywhere adds a substantial financial burden that hits poorer people harder,

Just make fuel cheaper.

Like, driving is already cheaper than the train if there are 2 people or more.

reincarnator07 posted...

Pretty much any jobs in city centres. Those, food places, shops, malls and all the supporting staff.

I read an article a couple of days ago saying that since the pandemic, the average commuting distance has tripled from 10 miles to 30 miles. They didn't mention where, so I'm assuming USA.

It would seem people are happy to travel a longer distance.

reincarnator07 posted...

That's when the Tories took power.

Oh, so you're simply anti-Tory. Got you.

reincarnator07 posted...

Increase taxes on the 1% and corporations and simplify tax laws to close loopholes.

Weak answer. Somebody else has to pay, just not you? That's the classic dodge from people who can't make difficult decisions.

reincarnator07 posted...

The consequence would be more people having to drive, making traffic worse. As I've previously said, as a driver this does affect you.

I live in a rural area. I work in another rural area. Hardly anybody else lives or works in these areas, and there's nothing major in between. Perhaps twice a year there's a freak occurrence where everything is jammed because somebody jumped off a bridge or something, but on the whole I'm very satisfied.

DarkDoc posted...

Weak answer. Somebody else has to pay, just not you? That's the classic dodge from people who can't make difficult decisions.

lmao, fuck off. middle class people are paying 20-25% in income tax while billionaires pay 8-10% or LESS. all the way down to 0%, because of tax loopholes that the IRS can't cover because they don't recieve enough tax revenue from tax dodging millionaires.

DarkDoc posted...

It's easier to drive a longer distance if there are no other cars going the same way as you. Again, if I ran the transport department, I'd give everybody 3 months to learn, and then sack anybody who didn't have a driving license, because a driver would know this.

If everyone has to drive longer distances, there's more likely to be more cars going the same way as you. If people can walk or take other non car methods of transport, there's less likely to be cars going the same way as you because there are less cars on the road to begin with.

But everybody is different, so they don't all want to do the same stuff.

I can't decide if it's a really good idea or a really bad idea to have both football and cricket at Old Trafford. They're not played at the same time, so you only have to build one set of infrastructure and it covers both...

People generally need the same amenities no matter where you live. Luxuries can vary from person to person, just like they do in walkable towns today.

Just make fuel cheaper.

Like, driving is already cheaper than the train if there are 2 people or more.

How do you make fuel cheaper?

Trains in the UK are unusually expensive and a poor point of comparison. It is a great demonstration of the idea that people aren't inherently drivers or train users, they'll choose the cheapest method of transport. It would be more feasible as well as more beneficial to bring down the cost of trains than it would be to reduce fuel costs.

I read an article a couple of days ago saying that since the pandemic, the average commuting distance has tripled from 10 miles to 30 miles. They didn't mention where, so I'm assuming USA.

It would seem people are happy to travel a longer distance.

Happy, or have no choice? The working class doesn't exactly have tons of power...

Oh, so you're simply anti-Tory. Got you.

Do you believe the Tories have been making good use of public funds?

Weak answer. Somebody else has to pay, just not you? That's the classic dodge from people who can't make difficult decisions.

We have hard evidence that these people are paying a lower effective tax rate than those who earn less. The whole system is set up in such a way that they can get out of paying their taxes. I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask them to do what poorer people are already doing. If I was in power, I wouldn't even start by raising rates or making a new bracket, I'd just close loopholes.

I live in a rural area. I work in another rural area. Hardly anybody else lives or works in these areas, and there's nothing major in between. Perhaps twice a year there's a freak occurrence where everything is jammed because somebody jumped off a bridge or something, but on the whole I'm very satisfied.

I live in what would be considered a suburb and work in a business park on a different side of my town. I can take 2 different bus routes in case of an issue with one of them, but I could also drive, or cycle using dedicated cycle infrastructure for most of the way. There's pretty much every manner of business along the way. We don't get giant gridlocks like you've described.

reincarnator07 posted...

Sounds like the speed limit has overperformed at making it safer for pedestrians.

And overperformed at wiping out revenues for a lot of local businesses, because people are choosing not to go shopping or take a holiday in Wales.

Over the longer term, it will also overperform at giving people breathing difficulties. Because cars are not built for driving 20mph and putting that as the default speed limit for an entire country is just fucking dumb.

UnicornRaline posted...

With current agricultural science and space it's estimated that up to 20 billion people could be fed adequately.

How convenient that it's a nice round number. Almost as if it was complete bullshit that somebody just made up.

reincarnator07 posted...

I don't question that the UK is plunging further into car dependency, only that it's a desirable outcome.

But ask yourself why McDonald's and all these other successful companies are changing the fundamentals of their business in this way. It's almost as if it's better or something. Like, McDonald's are experts at "generating revenue", they know what they're doing.

reincarnator07 posted...

If you can just pop to a store down the road rather than drive for several miles, that's a positive for everyone involved. If your kids can simply walk to school or take a bus rather than having to rely on being driven across town, that's good.

Yes. It's good.

I just think you're having real trouble understanding the word can't. As in "not everybody can live close to everything"

reincarnator07 posted...

Since you seem to be more sure on the numbers, please provide an actual breakdown of these people not in work. Let's get some data on them.

I'm no expert. I just know how to Google something. And I know to bear in mind that "unemployment" has been hijacked and no longer means "people who are not employed". Google has been suggesting stories to me on a daily basis this week, from several different newspapers. It even cropped up on the Gamefaqs Poll Of The Day, lol.

Breakdown is that 9.2 million people of working age in the UK are unemployed, but if you exclude lots of people, you get to make yourself look good by claiming "1.2 million unemployed."

Just like they're using LED TVs coming down in price to show that inflation is low.

reincarnator07 posted...

Stations weren't randomly built, they were built at destinations.

Or, a line was built connecting 2 places, and it went in a straight line, therefore not every station in-between is actually in a town centre.

reincarnator07 posted...

It's infrastructure for cars, just like roads really. Problem is that infrastructure doesn't generate income. Obviously you're gonna need a certain amount of infrastructure, but car specific infrastructure takes up silly amounts of land for the amount of people it serves.

It generates money for the business (eg cinema car park - people aren't just going there and parking their car for no reason). It sometimes generates additional revenue by literally charging people to park (some national trust places, which are otherwise inaccessible, charge money to park when the attraction itself is free).

reincarnator07 posted...

I'll give you an example from my town. A friend of mine was the general manager for a chain restaurant which had 2 locations in my town.

Yeah, it depends on the specific business. Nightclubs or something it probably doesn't matter because people are gonna be taking a taxi (ie a car) anyway if they've had a drink.

reincarnator07 posted...

Never flown from there so I can't comment. The stores for poor people at airports are pretty much universally gonna be expensive due to a captive audience. No way around that outside of regulation really

And to some extent train stations too. British Rail have this knack of charging the highest possible price for the lowest quality sandwich.

thronedfire2 posted...

something something tax loopholes

Jealousy aside, it's like I said: I respect people who stand up and make a choice, even if it's an unpopular one. I cannot respect anybody who says "I want it all and I want it now".

reincarnator07 posted...

If everyone has to drive longer distances, there's more likely to be more cars going the same way as you.

As I said, a driver would know this.

A non-driver is simply unqualified to hold a position where they get to make decisions about the roads.

reincarnator07 posted...

People generally need the same amenities no matter where you live.

Young children don't need a pub. People in their 20s don't need a school. People in their 30s don't need a retirement home. People in their 40s don't need a skatepark. People in their 80s don't need a bowling alley. Nevermind all the different preferences people have. Everybody spends money on different things. That's the way it's supposed to be.

reincarnator07 posted...

How do you make fuel cheaper?.

Plenty of other countries do it. Look at USA. I'll let you figure it out.

Bear in mind also that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING in the room with you right now was delivered on the road, so reducing fuel costs actually makes food and everything else cheaper as well.

Discriminating against drivers like they're the bogeyman means you're actually fucking over the entire population.

reincarnator07 posted...

Happy, or have no choice? The working class doesn't exactly have tons of power...

Well, they're choosing it. Either they're choosing a different job further away, or they're choosing to stay in the the same job they had before the pandemic, and choosing to live further away.

DarkDoc posted...

And overperformed at wiping out revenues for a lot of local businesses, because people are choosing not to go shopping or take a holiday in Wales.

Over the longer term, it will also overperform at giving people breathing difficulties. Because cars are not built for driving 20mph and putting that as the default speed limit for an entire country is just fucking dumb.

Rather than just feelings, let's start getting some data here. Can you show with some actual data that a 20mph speed limit on restricted roads, not the whole country can be linked with tourists not visiting Wales and having a negative environmental impact?

How convenient that it's a nice round number. Almost as if it was complete bullshit that somebody just made up.

The exact number varies depending on how you're defining "enough", most of the studies I've seen have said we make enough today for approx 10-12b people. The issue is waste and inefficiency. Just as an example, do you know how much is thrown away because it doesn't "look" right?

But ask yourself why McDonald's and all these other successful companies are changing the fundamentals of their business in this way. It's almost as if it's better or something. Like, McDonald's are experts at "generating revenue", they know what they're doing.

Because they personally make more profit. How are you still struggling to understand the difference between profits for businesses and revenue for the state? What can I do to help you understand this basic concept, because there's no point in continuing this if you cannot understand this.

Yes. It's good.

I just think you're having real trouble understanding the word can't. As in "not everybody can live close to everything"

I understand the word, I just don't think it's applicable here. We decide what is constructed where. If an area is lacking amenities, it's because we have chosen to build it without those amenities, it's not because we are unable to build them.

I'm no expert. I just know how to Google something. And I know to bear in mind that "unemployment" has been hijacked and no longer means "people who are not employed". Google has been suggesting stories to me on a daily basis this week, from several different newspapers. It even cropped up on the Gamefaqs Poll Of The Day, lol.

Breakdown is that 9.2 million people of working age in the UK are unemployed, but if you exclude lots of people, you get to make yourself look good by claiming "1.2 million unemployed."

Yes, this is why I'd like you to provide a breakdown of this statistic. The 1.36m unemployed specifically includes those who have been looking for 4+ weeks and are available to start within 2 weeks. I totally agree that that figure ignores a lot of other people who normal people would consider unemployed, which is problematic on its own. However, the 9.2m you're quoting includes a lot of people that a reasonable person wouldn't say must be employed.

I'm confident any breakdown I provided will be twisted, so I'd like you to provide the breakdown on this 9.2m figure.

Or, a line was built connecting 2 places, and it went in a straight line, therefore not every station in-between is actually in a town centre.

You just wouldn't bother building a station at that point

It generates money for the business (eg cinema car park - people aren't just going there and parking their car for no reason). It sometimes generates additional revenue by literally charging people to park (some national trust places, which are otherwise inaccessible, charge money to park when the attraction itself is free).

I addressed this earlier.

DarkDoc posted...

Yeah, it depends on the specific business. Nightclubs or something it probably doesn't matter because people are gonna be taking a taxi (ie a car) anyway if they've had a drink.

This is a restaurant, not a nightclub.

Jealousy aside, it's like I said: I respect people who stand up and make a choice, even if it's an unpopular one. I cannot respect anybody who says "I want it all and I want it now".

Imagine simping for the 1%. Why do you seem to believe in regressive taxes?

As I said, a driver would know this.

A non-driver is simply unqualified to hold a position where they get to make decisions about the roads.

The ability to navigate the roads is different from the ability to design them.

Young children don't need a pub. People in their 20s don't need a school. People in their 30s don't need a retirement home. People in their 40s don't need a skatepark. People in their 80s don't need a bowling alley. Nevermind all the different preferences people have. Everybody spends money on different things. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Where do you live where things are so monolithic? Where I live, there's a healthy mix of pretty much everyone.

Plenty of other countries do it. Look at USA. I'll let you figure it out.

Bear in mind also that ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING in the room with you right now was delivered on the road, so reducing fuel costs actually makes food and everything else cheaper as well.

Discriminating against drivers like they're the bogeyman means you're actually fucking over the entire population.

Oh, so you don't have an answer here, alright. The USA subsidises the fossil fuel industry, which in turn bribes the shit out of American politicians to maintain said subsidies. I don't really want more corruption, especially when it fuels (heh) an industry that is directly fucking us all over with climate change.

If discriminating against drivers is bad (fair) then how is it any better to discriminate against everyone who doesn't drive? Why not instead work on a solution that works for everyone, which is what walkable cities are.

Well, they're choosing it. Either they're choosing a different job further away, or they're choosing to stay in the the same job they had before the pandemic, and choosing to live further away.

If those are the only choices, is it really a choice? It's the same as choosing between 2 subpar politicians because there literally isn't a good politician to support.

Smallville posted...

by, people, obv.

Well of course. Some people try to say we have enough space to stack people like cords of wood.

But they are missing other important bottlenecks, like drinkable water, healthy food, livable pollution and waste etc.

Notti posted...

Well of course. Some people try to say we have enough space to stack people like cords of wood.

But they are missing other important bottlenecks, like drinkable water, healthy food, livable pollution and waste etc.

oh you are adamant that it is? Many people disagree though, maybe most. Why do you think though that most people disagree, any idea?

Smallville posted...

oh you are adamant that it is? Many people disagree though, maybe most. Why do you think though that most people disagree, any idea?

I'd say the fact we have to farm food shows we are overpopulated. Once upon a time we could get by doing hunting and gathering. We all did that nowadays we'd be wiping species of the face of the earth quickly.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I'd say the fact we have to farm food shows we are overpopulated. Once upon a time we could get by doing hunting and gathering. We all did that nowadays we'd be wiping species of the face of the earth quickly.

i kinda agree. Maybe most people though would not agree.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I'd say the fact we have to farm food shows we are overpopulated. Once upon a time we could get by doing hunting and gathering. We all did that nowadays we'd be wiping species of the face of the earth quickly.

You've got it backwards. We only grew this large because of agriculture (and medicine, but that's later). Specifically, human civilisation was only able to exist because a bunch of workers were able to focus on endeavours other than immediate survival.

reincarnator07 posted...

You've got it backwards. We only grew this large because of agriculture (and medicine, but that's later). Specifically, human civilisation was only able to exist because a bunch of workers were able to focus on endeavours other than immediate survival.

I stand by my point. If we went back to what's natural with hunting and gathering we would wipe shit off this planet. And to me that's a sign there are too many of us. We get by because we learned unnatural methods of creating food.

Some areas are more congested than others, but the world as a whole is not

reincarnator07 posted...

You've got it backwards. We only grew this large because of agriculture (and medicine, but that's later). Specifically, human civilisation was only able to exist because a bunch of workers were able to focus on endeavours other than immediate survival.

Yeah I completely agree with this. Most people though don't mention this

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I stand by my point. If we went back to what's natural with hunting and gathering we would wipe shit off this planet. And to me that's a sign there are too many of us. We get by because we learned unnatural methods of creating food.

As natural beings, anything we do by definition is also natural.

Also, what unnatural methods? We aren't the only animals to farm things. We aren't even the only animals where significant portions of the population are able to focus on tasks other than gathering. There are other animals that build structures, farm, delegate specific tasks to groups within a community and even use tools to increase their efficiency.

Our intelligence is our greatest advantage, why on earth would we ignore that to focus on things we aren't the best at?

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I'd say the fact we have to farm food shows we are overpopulated. Once upon a time we could get by doing hunting and gathering. We all did that nowadays we'd be wiping species of the face of the earth quickly.

We hunted many species to extinction prior to agriculture.

Yes and globally we are incredibly wasteful as well.

reincarnator07 posted...

As natural beings, anything we do by definition is also natural.

Also, what unnatural methods? We aren't the only animals to farm things. We aren't even the only animals where significant portions of the population are able to focus on tasks other than gathering. There are other animals that build structures, farm, delegate specific tasks to groups within a community and even use tools to increase their efficiency.

Our intelligence is our greatest advantage, why on earth would we ignore that to focus on things we aren't the best at?

Yes but are other animals capable of creating mass extinction of other species like us?

Have you seen these overcrowded pens or whatever of cattle or other animals vegans like to cry about? Wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't so damn many of us.

And we can argue semantics of what's natural but we definitely ain't living the same way we did way way back in the day

I used to joke we had to be aliens or parasites cause can't really think of other animals that by choice are so destructive to their own environment/ecosystem.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

Yes but are other animals capable of creating mass extinction of other species like us?

Have you seen these overcrowded pens or whatever of cattle or other animals vegans like to cry about? Wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't so damn many of us.

And we can argue semantics of what's natural but we definitely ain't living the same way we did way way back in the day

I used to joke we had to be aliens or parasites cause can't really think of other animals that by choice are so destructive to their own environment/ecosystem.

Define "mass" extinction here, although I appreciate this comes across as disingenuous.

Certainly there aren't other species that have caused global warming, but there are endless examples of animals disrupting ecosystems and throwing them out of whack upon being introduced to an area. We've not given up our place as the dominant species, but we are far from the only species to hold that title.

Yup, plenty of animals have overrun other habits and become considered overpopulated. And human beings extremely far surpass what is considered overpopulation for other animals so...

reincarnator07 posted...

Define "mass" extinction here, although I appreciate this comes across as disingenuous.

Certainly there aren't other species that have caused global warming, but there are endless examples of animals disrupting ecosystems and throwing them out of whack upon being introduced to an area. We've not given up our place as the dominant species, but we are far from the only species to hold that title.

Aren't we usually the ones to introduce them to a new area?

Either way no one has yet to addacetly fefute my claim about humans needing to mass farm their food.

No. Why would anyone think it was? We have more then enough resources to sustain us. The issue is capitalism not number of people.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

Aren't we usually the ones to introduce them to a new area?

Either way no one has yet to addacetly fefute my claim about humans needing to mass farm their food.

These days, yes, but evolution has taken care of that plenty of times in history.

I've not refuted your claim because with respect, it doesn't really mean anything. There are other animals that farm their food and other animals still that delegate the gathering of resources to parts of a community rather than having every man out for themselves. Agriculture was a method that has allowed our species to thrive.

reincarnator07 posted...

These days, yes, but evolution has taken care of that plenty of times in history.

I've not refuted your claim because with respect, it doesn't really mean anything. There are other animals that farm their food and other animals still that delegate the gathering of resources to parts of a community rather than having every man out for themselves. Agriculture was a method that has allowed our species to thrive.

What animal exactly farms food like we do. I mean clearing out land planting and growing our own veggies keeping animals penned up forcing them to breed etc.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

What animal exactly farms food like we do. I mean clearing out land planting and growing our own veggies keeping animals penned up forcing them to breed etc.

https://www.treehugger.com/animals-that-know-how-to-farm-4869292

reincarnator07 posted...

https://www.treehugger.com/animals-that-know-how-to-farm-4869292

So mostly small things that really aren't going to have massive influence on the world.

We would have to stop doing a lot of things to not have a negative impact on the world. And you said it yourself (or someone did) humans are animals so everything we do is natural. So with that in mind and we are actively ruining the world I'd say we are overpopulated. It's more than farming. Is shit like deforestation too. And that's one thing I do detest. Especially especially when they just toss the trees to thr side cause they aren't good for much they where just in thr way of whatever they are doing

Some parts, yes. Some areas, no.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

So mostly small things that really aren't going to have massive influence on the world.

We would have to stop doing a lot of things to not have a negative impact on the world. And you said it yourself (or someone did) humans are animals so everything we do is natural. So with that in mind and we are actively ruining the world I'd say we are overpopulated. It's more than farming. Is shit like deforestation too. And that's one thing I do detest. Especially especially when they just toss the trees to thr side cause they aren't good for much they where just in thr way of whatever they are doing

You asked for animals that farm, not animals that have a massive influence on the world.

It's difficult for other animals to exert the same influence we do because we're already the dominant species. If when humans vanished, another species would rise to take our place in time. There are countless animals that will destroy their own habitats if they aren't stopped from doing so by an outside force, which is usually predators and that humans conveniently lack.

reincarnator07 posted...

You asked for animals that farm, not animals that have a massive influence on the world.

It's difficult for other animals to exert the same influence we do because we're already the dominant species. If when humans vanished, another species would rise to take our place in time. There are countless animals that will destroy their own habitats if they aren't stopped from doing so by an outside force, which is usually predators and that humans conveniently lack.

That was my question and thanks for answering with a source. But my point was humans do things that are destroying thr world that wouldn't be so much a problem if our population was vastly smaller.

Also while being a omnivore I get the vegans plight on how we treat a lot of farmed animals. We wouldn't feel the need to do all that if we didn't have so many mouths to feed. Ya know I'm talking like the really cramped conditions and just how they are treated in general.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

That was my question and thanks for answering with a source. But my point was humans do things that are destroying thr world that wouldn't be so much a problem if our population was vastly smaller.

I don't dispute that humans are destructive, only that it's a uniquely human trait. In particular, our intelligence literally allows us to avert many of these issues if only we have the will, so I do think it's insane how actively self destructive we can be at times. However, I have no doubt that other animals would be similarly destructive if they were as dominant on Earth as we are.

Obviously this doesn't mean we should just sit down and accept this. We must strive to do better since it's us that will suffer if we don't. From a purely pragmatic point of view and disregarding everything that isn't human, we should be looking out for ourselves. That means not destroying our habitat.

Also while being a omnivore I get the vegans plight on how we treat a lot of farmed animals. We wouldn't feel the need to do all that if we didn't have so many mouths to feed. Ya know I'm talking like the really cramped conditions and just how they are treated in general.

I disagree, I think it would be inevitable because it's more food for less effort. If we had to dedicate more time and resources to providing food, I think you'd actually see things get worse for the animals, albeit on a smaller scale.

reincarnator07 posted...

I don't dispute that humans are destructive, only that it's a uniquely human trait. In particular, our intelligence literally allows us to avert many of these issues if only we have the will, so I do think it's insane how actively self destructive we can be at times. However, I have no doubt that other animals would be similarly destructive if they were as dominant on Earth as we are.

Obviously this doesn't mean we should just sit down and accept this. We must strive to do better since it's us that will suffer if we don't. From a purely pragmatic point of view and disregarding everything that isn't human, we should be looking out for ourselves. That means not destroying our habitat.

I disagree, I think it would be inevitable because it's more food for less effort. If we had to dedicate more time and resources to providing food, I think you'd actually see things get worse for the animals, albeit on a smaller scale.

Ok inthink we ate at the point of saying agree to disagree cause otherwise we are gonna go in circles.