|
|
 Originally Posted by poop
The problem here is a) you tried to argue we are running out of forest, to which I pointed out we have significantly more forests than we had 40 years ago.
Well this itself is a problem. If we have more forest than 40 years ago, then presumably that's pine forest that replaced oak forest. I mean, maybe it doesn't matter, a tree is a tree, right? But our ancient forests are pretty much gone. That's not something to celebrate.
c) no-one ever said the only option for building houses is to tear down a forest. It was just an example I gave that you wet your pants over as if you suddenly turned into some tree-hugger hippie.
I never suggested it was the only option either. In fact I was quite clearly talking about fields and moorland too. You just felt the need for whatever reason to focus on trees, just like you're only focus is housing and not the umpteen other reasons why homelessness happens.
Yeah but every new development of (say) 100 houses doesn't need all those things for itself does it.
You're making my point for me here. You're adding 100 houses and just saying "the current infrastructure can handle it". Your thinking here is exactly why quality of life slowly decreases as population density increases. Because we don't think 100 houses need a hospital. But then when we make 10 new developments of that size, we say than ten times and there's still no new hospital. Or water treatment facility. Or whatever. Eventually when it's obvious there's a problem, maybe they build a new hospital, but it's reactionary and is an attempt to fix a problem that shouldn't have arisen in the first place, if only people didn't think exactly like you just did.
They're not limited by space, that's a myth. Goddamn, for someone who doesn't read the Daily Mail, you seem drawn to the same types of arguments. "No more immigrants! We're full!" Lol.
We're not talking about migration here so don't try to take it in that direction.
Of course space is limited. It's not infinite. And space for development is even more limited.
The solution to this would be to have fewer people in your country, not to make the ones already there homeless.
What, do you think homelessness is a "solution" that someone dreamed up? It's not a strategy of how to deal with increasing population density, nobody wilfully creates the conditions for homelessness to thrive. It's a consequence of social pressures and bad governance.
Fewer people would be great but that's obviously not a policy we should actively pursue. The solution to homelessness is to ensure there are viable options other than sleeping on the streets. Basic shelters with access to health and social welfare services are a good start. And if that's not possible, then at least assign an appropriate area where tents can be erected, and manage the area responsibly.
I don't know what Exmoor is, but sounds like your a closet nimby.
Really? It's a moor by the river Exe, the clue is in the name. You've heard of the city Exeter, right? And it's not my back yard. Nice try.
And yes, I get it, you're also going to need more hospitals and roads and water treatment plants. So you build them too.
You make it sound so easy. My point in this discussion, which you seem to be pretending isn't my point so you can argue with me, is that in practise, as population increases, services rarely keep pace. We do build new hospitals, but not enough of them. We do build more water treatment plants, but not enough of them. And this is why population density is a problem for governments, not just in the UK but anywhere in the world. You think just saying shit overcomes these challenges? If that were the case, then we wouldn't be talking about why cities with higher population density are generally worse places to live than those with lower population density.
Just like you built more before when London expanded.
You mean "as" London expanded? It rarely happens "before". Maybe when Milton Keynes was built they actually planned it properly, but usually hospitals get built when it's clear the current hospitals can no longer manage, they don't get built before then by someone with the foresight to say "let's fix this before it's a problem. That's just human nature. Sometimes you do get someone competent in power, someone who is capable of managing these challenges, but usually that's not the case. Usually it's a bunch of joker councillors who are more interested in identity politics than social matters.
|
Reply With Quote
alert: Fishi may be getting the boot from his own party in the next few days. Vote on the "The Supreme Court is wrong and Rwanda is actually a safe country to send asylum seekers to" bill on Tues. - if it fails, bye bye Fishi.
