-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
Immigration
- Thread starter Harv
- Start date
Tim
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Air / Blue Fire
I'll have a go at answering for Fredward. Locally speaking (Cambridge) I would say our population is on the edge. Not because we don't build anything above 3 stories (although that is the case) but because the infer-structure (mainly transport) can barely cope.
There are plenty of other places throughout the UK that are similar, most of them city's that were never intended to be as big as they have become. My local station is a good example of unexpected growth which was built out of town to allow the city to grow, but it grew so much it's ended up becoming boxed in anyway and requiring a bus trip to get the rest of the way into town.
Of course there are other places around the country that have brown field sites that can be developed on. The trouble is do people want to live in these areas? If someone's made the trouble to come to Britain they've probably come to a certain city. You can try an urban renewal to get people to move but these have had mixed success over the years.
Finally it's worth noting that we're a tiny island compared to other country's yet one of the mostly densely populated. 51st if Wikipedia is to be believed with most of the country's above us (Japan for example) being the ones with real population issues/cramped city living.
There are plenty of other places throughout the UK that are similar, most of them city's that were never intended to be as big as they have become. My local station is a good example of unexpected growth which was built out of town to allow the city to grow, but it grew so much it's ended up becoming boxed in anyway and requiring a bus trip to get the rest of the way into town.
Of course there are other places around the country that have brown field sites that can be developed on. The trouble is do people want to live in these areas? If someone's made the trouble to come to Britain they've probably come to a certain city. You can try an urban renewal to get people to move but these have had mixed success over the years.
Finally it's worth noting that we're a tiny island compared to other country's yet one of the mostly densely populated. 51st if Wikipedia is to be believed with most of the country's above us (Japan for example) being the ones with real population issues/cramped city living.
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
A key attribute to nature, is space. It is widely prevalent across all species, that groups of specific animals, or even individuals, will create war for space - to the death if necessary.
Inner city areas are rife with over crowding, and crime, different communities become more insular, and technology makes it even harder now to develop meaningful personal relationships with your direct communities.
Is this Country over crowded? Of course it is! This doesn't require thesis or degrees to recognise. It is ok saying we have a bit of this or that land free, but er, what about the entire infrastructure required to keep that? Agriculture? Energy sourcing?
In size terms, I always call us the caravan park of Europe - the irony that so many travel to Britain through a Country/Countries vastly bigger than ours with I believe a still smaller population always makes me wonder, why?
I'm quite socialist in many respects, certainly not a capitalist, so some may be surprised I have this view - but let me assure you, whilst I remain a bit of a moderate lefty, I do still place a hefty value upon common sense. After witnessing the change in our cities in only 3 decades, it is clear, we just cannot cope with much higher levels of populous. It simply doesn't work, and I base this purely upon it's self evidence as I always do when available.
Inner city areas are rife with over crowding, and crime, different communities become more insular, and technology makes it even harder now to develop meaningful personal relationships with your direct communities.
Is this Country over crowded? Of course it is! This doesn't require thesis or degrees to recognise. It is ok saying we have a bit of this or that land free, but er, what about the entire infrastructure required to keep that? Agriculture? Energy sourcing?
In size terms, I always call us the caravan park of Europe - the irony that so many travel to Britain through a Country/Countries vastly bigger than ours with I believe a still smaller population always makes me wonder, why?
I'm quite socialist in many respects, certainly not a capitalist, so some may be surprised I have this view - but let me assure you, whilst I remain a bit of a moderate lefty, I do still place a hefty value upon common sense. After witnessing the change in our cities in only 3 decades, it is clear, we just cannot cope with much higher levels of populous. It simply doesn't work, and I base this purely upon it's self evidence as I always do when available.
Sam
TS Member
There's vast swathes of brown-field land that is currently derelict. Our city centre's buildings are generally nowhere near as high as they are in American cities.
In many smaller towns that are struggling, there is plenty of room for more people. We still have a vast amount of land that won't and can't be built on, such as our national parks.
I wish people would just be honest and say 'I don't like immigration and I don't want them here' rather than 'but there's no room!' Because their demonstrably is plenty of room. Britain has only the 51st highest population density in the world, behind the Netherlands, India, Israel and Japan.
In many smaller towns that are struggling, there is plenty of room for more people. We still have a vast amount of land that won't and can't be built on, such as our national parks.
I wish people would just be honest and say 'I don't like immigration and I don't want them here' rather than 'but there's no room!' Because their demonstrably is plenty of room. Britain has only the 51st highest population density in the world, behind the Netherlands, India, Israel and Japan.
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
Sam, you are basing your assertions though on one simple fact - density of population.
Yet you are also ignoring vast swathes of variables. Energy production, Agricultural facility, Infrastructure designed for mass populous, GDP per capita and thus ability to sustain, animal and cultural instinctive behaviours very obviously still prevalent in societies - as is to be expected.
You cannot simply present over population as being a fallacy of poorly formed subjective opinion, in a hard line research minded objective empirical fashion, when you haven't collated or presented the counter argument in any detail.
Over population, is most certainly a subjective point unless measured as mentioned, empirically, taking on board all potentials and considerations. A very exaggerated example would be that it is for one country, a person per mile, for another, one per square meter.
I won't come out and say, I don't like immigration, because that is simply not true - indeed, I enjoy sharing of cultures and their customs when all respectfully live side by side, without trying to destroy or belittle another. There are hard liners, from many cultures, for whom this does not apply - they simply should be forbidden from being part of normal society in my opinion, they are antiquated hate mongers.
Also the point about villages or small towns needing immigrants, the fact is, that a centralised government is London/South centric. Whilst generally the sustenance of the conspiracy theorist, it is most certainly the case that is gets more and more difficult to live away from large towns and cities. This has naff all to do with immigration, and is completely driven by attitudes of high level government and big business.
Also, just because other countries have higher density, doesn't make that right or beneficial, or appropriate for us. There is a great difference between change and progress. Championing even greater density I do not believe represents progress - and the latest round of food nonsense, shows what happens when you centralise everything, and move away from communities and self sufficiency. Again nothing to do with immigration, and all increasing it tends to result in, is yet higher density, secularised issues within towns and cities.
Yet you are also ignoring vast swathes of variables. Energy production, Agricultural facility, Infrastructure designed for mass populous, GDP per capita and thus ability to sustain, animal and cultural instinctive behaviours very obviously still prevalent in societies - as is to be expected.
You cannot simply present over population as being a fallacy of poorly formed subjective opinion, in a hard line research minded objective empirical fashion, when you haven't collated or presented the counter argument in any detail.
Over population, is most certainly a subjective point unless measured as mentioned, empirically, taking on board all potentials and considerations. A very exaggerated example would be that it is for one country, a person per mile, for another, one per square meter.
I won't come out and say, I don't like immigration, because that is simply not true - indeed, I enjoy sharing of cultures and their customs when all respectfully live side by side, without trying to destroy or belittle another. There are hard liners, from many cultures, for whom this does not apply - they simply should be forbidden from being part of normal society in my opinion, they are antiquated hate mongers.
Also the point about villages or small towns needing immigrants, the fact is, that a centralised government is London/South centric. Whilst generally the sustenance of the conspiracy theorist, it is most certainly the case that is gets more and more difficult to live away from large towns and cities. This has naff all to do with immigration, and is completely driven by attitudes of high level government and big business.
Also, just because other countries have higher density, doesn't make that right or beneficial, or appropriate for us. There is a great difference between change and progress. Championing even greater density I do not believe represents progress - and the latest round of food nonsense, shows what happens when you centralise everything, and move away from communities and self sufficiency. Again nothing to do with immigration, and all increasing it tends to result in, is yet higher density, secularised issues within towns and cities.
Tim
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Air / Blue Fire
Basically my answer is the same as TheMan's (and the one I gave before, most of my points are still valid). If it was simply a case of needing more houses then there'd be no problem at all.
As for not liking Immigrants you forget where I live, we've got people from just about every part of the world here and all the better for it
You're assuming we're not. The planet in general is filling up. Medicine has got better meaning more children make it to adulthood. As a result families don't need to have as many children, but many do (Not so much in Europe as our habits have changed as Medicine improved but elsewhere habits haven’t adapted yet).
Not that I'm in favour of the Chinese system for legally only allowing 1 child. That’s a bit of a barbaric and extreme solution.
As for not liking Immigrants you forget where I live, we've got people from just about every part of the world here and all the better for it
Blaze said:
You're assuming we're not. The planet in general is filling up. Medicine has got better meaning more children make it to adulthood. As a result families don't need to have as many children, but many do (Not so much in Europe as our habits have changed as Medicine improved but elsewhere habits haven’t adapted yet).
Not that I'm in favour of the Chinese system for legally only allowing 1 child. That’s a bit of a barbaric and extreme solution.
Plastic Person
TS Member
Adam said:
This one's just daft though. Feeling spite towards a system that allows it means that you should be annoyed with the free market and the forces that approve such a thing, not an excuse to vilify a foreign individual or their community, as has been known.
Alastair
TS Team
- Favourite Ride
- Rise of the Resistance
Tim said:
The China situation is often exaggerated beyond belief though. It's not as simple as "one child per family," there's numerous rules and clauses that effectually mean only a third of the population is subject to it, and even after that there's allowances. It's not barbaric IMO, if you live in an urban area - there has to be some method of preventing overcrowding and (despite spurious rumour) it's hardly like they're culling newborns is it?
Alastair
TS Team
- Favourite Ride
- Rise of the Resistance
Blaze said:
It's not advocated by the government though, in fact it's illegal, as is gender selected abortion. The one child policy as a concept is logical and I think the fact that it's China that implemented it has rose tinted some people's perceptions of that.