england is 6th most densely populated place on earth.
this is scary, the quality if life is going to be reduced dramatically as the population of england increases. its like being sardines in a tin.
''For the first time, Migration Watch have broken down the UK's population growth by each of the individual four home nations.
It reveals that England far outstrips the other three as a magnet for immigrants, shooting the country up the world's population density chart. A total of 6.6million people in England today were born outside the UK, 13 per cent of its population. There are 326,000 foreign-born migrants in Scotland, six per cent of their population.
And the figures for Wales and Northern Ireland are even lower at 150,000 and 100,000 respectively.
Far bigger countries are much less crowded than England because they have so much more land.
Though it boasts 1.2billion inhabitants, sprawling India still only has 373 people living for each sq km.
And the ratio for the sprawling United States is just 32 per sq km, despite its 310million population coming in six times the size of England's. The tiny Chinese island of Macao is the world's most crowded place, with a mind-boggling 20,910 folk per sq km.
Bangladesh is the fullest proper-sized country, with 1,033 per sq km.
China, which has the world's biggest population of 1.3billion, has a ratio of 140 per sq km.''
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/3946304/England-is-busier-than-China.html
edit:
leading architect Lord Rogers said that britain could turn into an LA style sprawl. the idea of that is just to monstrous to contemplate.
englands future:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24009470-la-style-sprawl-threatens-green-belt.do
''For the first time, Migration Watch have broken down the UK's population growth by each of the individual four home nations.
It reveals that England far outstrips the other three as a magnet for immigrants, shooting the country up the world's population density chart. A total of 6.6million people in England today were born outside the UK, 13 per cent of its population. There are 326,000 foreign-born migrants in Scotland, six per cent of their population.
And the figures for Wales and Northern Ireland are even lower at 150,000 and 100,000 respectively.
Far bigger countries are much less crowded than England because they have so much more land.
Though it boasts 1.2billion inhabitants, sprawling India still only has 373 people living for each sq km.
And the ratio for the sprawling United States is just 32 per sq km, despite its 310million population coming in six times the size of England's. The tiny Chinese island of Macao is the world's most crowded place, with a mind-boggling 20,910 folk per sq km.
Bangladesh is the fullest proper-sized country, with 1,033 per sq km.
China, which has the world's biggest population of 1.3billion, has a ratio of 140 per sq km.''
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/3946304/England-is-busier-than-China.html
edit:
leading architect Lord Rogers said that britain could turn into an LA style sprawl. the idea of that is just to monstrous to contemplate.
englands future:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24009470-la-style-sprawl-threatens-green-belt.do
(edited 12 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by lulubel
Far bigger countries are much less crowded than England because they have so much more land.
There's no flies on you is there
Original post by Elwyn
There's no flies on you is there
what?
That a lot of immigrants from far countries choose to travel all the way to jolly ol' Engerland, passing through many safe countries in doing so, suggests that we're somewhat of an immigration magnet.
Does anyone know why this is? (srs question, although I'm expecting a lot of the answers to be "BENEFITS!", which to some degree I'd agree with. Only some degree though. Half a degree, if you will).
Fact of the day:
Apparently you can fit the entire population of the world within Texas, and each person would have 1000sq feet of space.
Or so I'm told
Does anyone know why this is? (srs question, although I'm expecting a lot of the answers to be "BENEFITS!", which to some degree I'd agree with. Only some degree though. Half a degree, if you will).
Fact of the day:
Apparently you can fit the entire population of the world within Texas, and each person would have 1000sq feet of space.
Or so I'm told
Original post by Elwyn
There's no flies on you is there
Begins with a "w" and rhymes with "fin"
Elwyn's comment just made me laugh 
Other than that...well, we can be shocked and everything, what about making some decisions and not having kids? Google VEHMT. It's something like that, I always get the letters the wrong way round.
I always like those maps, they're very pretty.
Other than that...well, we can be shocked and everything, what about making some decisions and not having kids? Google VEHMT. It's something like that, I always get the letters the wrong way round.
I always like those maps, they're very pretty.
Simple really.
Jobs.
Jobs.
Original post by Drunk Punx
Fact of the day:
Apparently you can fit the entire population of the world within Texas, and each person would have 1000sq feet of space.
Or so I'm told
Fact of the day:
Apparently you can fit the entire population of the world within Texas, and each person would have 1000sq feet of space.
Or so I'm told
That definitely cannot be true!
Original post by Drunk Punx
That a lot of immigrants from far countries choose to travel all the way to jolly ol' Engerland, passing through many safe countries in doing so, suggests that we're somewhat of an immigration magnet.
Does anyone know why this is? (srs question, although I'm expecting a lot of the answers to be "BENEFITS!", which to some degree I'd agree with. Only some degree though. Half a degree, if you will).
Fact of the day:
Apparently you can fit the entire population of the world within Texas, and each person would have 1000sq feet of space.
Or so I'm told
Does anyone know why this is? (srs question, although I'm expecting a lot of the answers to be "BENEFITS!", which to some degree I'd agree with. Only some degree though. Half a degree, if you will).
Fact of the day:
Apparently you can fit the entire population of the world within Texas, and each person would have 1000sq feet of space.
Or so I'm told
well unfortunately a lot of people do come because of the benefits. the welfare state is a beacon to the worlds scroungers it seems to the detriment of those in genuine need. the house of lords committee report found that not all immigrants come to work. some have different attitudes to others.
"The overall fiscal impact of immigration is likely to be small, though this masks significant variations across different immigrant groups."
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem
Original post by Drunk Punx
Begins with a "w" and rhymes with "fin"
i still do not get what he was implying.
And yet even in my rapidly growing town it takes me no more than 5-10 minutes to get into the countryside. Outside of London, the West Midlands, Tyneside, Leeds-Bradford and Manchester-Liverpool that's pretty much the norm.
From and ecological point of view, development and urbanisation isn't inherently good or bad, it depends on the location of the urbanisation and the build and planning quality - a sardine-tin development where you just pile in dozens of crappy houses with tiny patio gardens is bad for the environment, but a a development with lots of green spaces, large gardens and trees can actually improve diversity on a local scale. IMO we could easily have 120m people in the UK if we went vertical and mandated all new developments to be tall flats and skyscrapers rather than wasteful, sprawling suburbia, and made efficiencies in farming and adopted hydroponics and whatnot. Even at the moment, England is only about 10% urban, no more than Germany or Poland. Furthermore, even at the moment our towns and cities are some of the greenest in the world with trees peppered all over the place. I see all sorts of birds on my way to work, suggesting that there is a fairly complex ecosystem in the suburbia of my town. The planting of trees in urban areas blurs the fringe between the rural and urban and also creates habitat for woodland species like songbirds and squirrels who would otherwise have less space due to agricultural deforestation.
From and ecological point of view, development and urbanisation isn't inherently good or bad, it depends on the location of the urbanisation and the build and planning quality - a sardine-tin development where you just pile in dozens of crappy houses with tiny patio gardens is bad for the environment, but a a development with lots of green spaces, large gardens and trees can actually improve diversity on a local scale. IMO we could easily have 120m people in the UK if we went vertical and mandated all new developments to be tall flats and skyscrapers rather than wasteful, sprawling suburbia, and made efficiencies in farming and adopted hydroponics and whatnot. Even at the moment, England is only about 10% urban, no more than Germany or Poland. Furthermore, even at the moment our towns and cities are some of the greenest in the world with trees peppered all over the place. I see all sorts of birds on my way to work, suggesting that there is a fairly complex ecosystem in the suburbia of my town. The planting of trees in urban areas blurs the fringe between the rural and urban and also creates habitat for woodland species like songbirds and squirrels who would otherwise have less space due to agricultural deforestation.
there are 2 million unemployed. open borders with 2 million unemployed is madness. it would be sane policy if britain was building new factories every week but its more like factories are closing every week. i think this issue is has become almost become like a belief system for some and they are unable to see sense. its like all rationality and logic are just discarded for emotive feel good platitudes.
Original post by lulubel
well unfortunately a lot of people do come because of the benefits. the welfare state is a beacon to the worlds scroungers it seems to the detriment of those in genuine need. the house of lords committee report found that not all immigrants come to work. some have different attitudes to others.
"The overall fiscal impact of immigration is likely to be small, though this masks significant variations across different immigrant groups."
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem
"The overall fiscal impact of immigration is likely to be small, though this masks significant variations across different immigrant groups."
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem
Migrantwatch?
Thesun?
Great sources of information you have.
Original post by Drunk Punx
That a lot of immigrants from far countries choose to travel all the way to jolly ol' Engerland, passing through many safe countries in doing so, suggests that we're somewhat of an immigration magnet.
Does anyone know why this is? (srs question, although I'm expecting a lot of the answers to be "BENEFITS!", which to some degree I'd agree with. Only some degree though. Half a degree, if you will).
Fact of the day:
Apparently you can fit the entire population of the world within Texas, and each person would have 1000sq feet of space.
Or so I'm told
Does anyone know why this is? (srs question, although I'm expecting a lot of the answers to be "BENEFITS!", which to some degree I'd agree with. Only some degree though. Half a degree, if you will).
Fact of the day:
Apparently you can fit the entire population of the world within Texas, and each person would have 1000sq feet of space.
Or so I'm told
You can fit 7 billion people in Texas with 1000 square feet of space? Wouldn't be much of a life would it?
Original post by Aphotic Cosmos
And yet even in my rapidly growing town it takes me no more than 5-10 minutes to get into the countryside. Outside of London, the West Midlands, Tyneside, Leeds-Bradford and Manchester-Liverpool that's pretty much the norm.
From and ecological point of view, development and urbanisation isn't inherently good or bad, it depends on the location of the urbanisation and the build and planning quality - a sardine-tin development where you just pile in dozens of crappy houses with tiny patio gardens is bad for the environment, but a a development with lots of green spaces, large gardens and trees can actually improve diversity on a local scale. IMO we could easily have 120m people in the UK if we went vertical and mandated all new developments to be tall flats and skyscrapers rather than wasteful, sprawling suburbia, and made efficiencies in farming and adopted hydroponics and whatnot. Even at the moment, England is only about 10% urban, no more than Germany or Poland. Furthermore, even at the moment our towns and cities are some of the greenest in the world with trees peppered all over the place. I see all sorts of birds on my way to work, suggesting that there is a fairly complex ecosystem in the suburbia of my town. The planting of trees in urban areas blurs the fringe between the rural and urban and also creates habitat for woodland species like songbirds and squirrels who would otherwise have less space due to agricultural deforestation.
From and ecological point of view, development and urbanisation isn't inherently good or bad, it depends on the location of the urbanisation and the build and planning quality - a sardine-tin development where you just pile in dozens of crappy houses with tiny patio gardens is bad for the environment, but a a development with lots of green spaces, large gardens and trees can actually improve diversity on a local scale. IMO we could easily have 120m people in the UK if we went vertical and mandated all new developments to be tall flats and skyscrapers rather than wasteful, sprawling suburbia, and made efficiencies in farming and adopted hydroponics and whatnot. Even at the moment, England is only about 10% urban, no more than Germany or Poland. Furthermore, even at the moment our towns and cities are some of the greenest in the world with trees peppered all over the place. I see all sorts of birds on my way to work, suggesting that there is a fairly complex ecosystem in the suburbia of my town. The planting of trees in urban areas blurs the fringe between the rural and urban and also creates habitat for woodland species like songbirds and squirrels who would otherwise have less space due to agricultural deforestation.
the problem is you are talking about the best case scenario if everything was planned perfectly. unfortunately that is not going to happen. the eminent architect Lord Rogers said the other day that the relaxation of the planning laws will lead to a LA style ghettoisation and sprawl in the south east.
also, this population crisis is going to be exponential look at how the populations of the developing world have just exploded in the past 50 years i think people are being a bit too naive if they think that these people coming over are going to change their habits so much. britain is heading for 70 million by 2025 that will just keep on going up and up to a 100 million and beyond. the situation is a disaster the country should be preparing for transition to a smaller population as it de industrialises not for an increase.
Original post by hamburgerandbeans
That definitely cannot be true!
Someone pointed it out to me on here before.
268581 mi² (area of Texas, according to Wikipedia) = 7487608550400 ft²
Population is at just past 7bn, right?
7487608550400 divided by 7000000000 = somewhere around 1k (cba to find a calculator).
It's correct, anyway. Find a calculator and try it out.
Original post by Leavemyarcelona
You can fit 7 billion people in Texas with 1000 square feet of space? Wouldn't be much of a life would it?
Are you ****ting me? How much space does the average bottom floor of a house contain? I guarantee you it's less than 1k square feet of space.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Aphotic Cosmos
And yet even in my rapidly growing town it takes me no more than 5-10 minutes to get into the countryside. Outside of London, the West Midlands, Tyneside, Leeds-Bradford and Manchester-Liverpool that's pretty much the norm.
From and ecological point of view, development and urbanisation isn't inherently good or bad, it depends on the location of the urbanisation and the build and planning quality - a sardine-tin development where you just pile in dozens of crappy houses with tiny patio gardens is bad for the environment, but a a development with lots of green spaces, large gardens and trees can actually improve diversity on a local scale. IMO we could easily have 120m people in the UK if we went vertical and mandated all new developments to be tall flats and skyscrapers rather than wasteful, sprawling suburbia, and made efficiencies in farming and adopted hydroponics and whatnot. Even at the moment, England is only about 10% urban, no more than Germany or Poland. Furthermore, even at the moment our towns and cities are some of the greenest in the world with trees peppered all over the place. I see all sorts of birds on my way to work, suggesting that there is a fairly complex ecosystem in the suburbia of my town. The planting of trees in urban areas blurs the fringe between the rural and urban and also creates habitat for woodland species like songbirds and squirrels who would otherwise have less space due to agricultural deforestation.
From and ecological point of view, development and urbanisation isn't inherently good or bad, it depends on the location of the urbanisation and the build and planning quality - a sardine-tin development where you just pile in dozens of crappy houses with tiny patio gardens is bad for the environment, but a a development with lots of green spaces, large gardens and trees can actually improve diversity on a local scale. IMO we could easily have 120m people in the UK if we went vertical and mandated all new developments to be tall flats and skyscrapers rather than wasteful, sprawling suburbia, and made efficiencies in farming and adopted hydroponics and whatnot. Even at the moment, England is only about 10% urban, no more than Germany or Poland. Furthermore, even at the moment our towns and cities are some of the greenest in the world with trees peppered all over the place. I see all sorts of birds on my way to work, suggesting that there is a fairly complex ecosystem in the suburbia of my town. The planting of trees in urban areas blurs the fringe between the rural and urban and also creates habitat for woodland species like songbirds and squirrels who would otherwise have less space due to agricultural deforestation.
Yeah, erm, the Soviet Union tried that approach.
Looks nice (!)
Also, you're from Kent. I travel to Folkestone infrequently and they don't have any immigration, whatsoever; so I'll take your 'advice' with a pinch of salt.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Besakt
Migrantwatch?
Thesun?
Great sources of information you have.
Thesun?
Great sources of information you have.
the sun just covered the migration watch data which itself was collected from the united nations.
sir andrew greenspan of migration watch is beyond reproach.
Original post by lulubel
sir andrew greenspan of migration watch is beyond reproach.
sir andrew greenspan of migration watch is beyond reproach.
lol
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- 50,000 women in Gaza are pregnant.
- A levels exam
- What culture shocks have you experienced studying in or visiting the UK?
- As physics question- density
- Finance at strathclyde University
- Why are you concerned about migration?
- Is Nottingham rough?
- choosing subjects, gcse
- How old is the average A level student?
- Is the University of Manchester good?
- law - Lnat essay - space exploration
- Lnat essay review - Space exploration
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- Im considering studying at St Andrews but it has super long terms?? What is it like??
- Can someone help me with My 12 marks history essay?
- What are students in Portsmouth like?
- EPQ feedback
- AQA A Level Geography Paper 2 (7037/2) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Anyone applying to Earth Science/Geology?
- A-level Geography Study Group 2023-2024
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
