Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

UK: Massive Population Increase watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    So many posts glorifying in the possibility of dark satanic mills and the destruction of this green and pleasant land. So much talk about "power" and wealth. Has the whole population turned rotten?
    I'm not a part of the British population nor do I live in the UK.

    Have fun fading into irrelevance I guess.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    You know who's retarded? You.

    I compared cities, not countries.

    To add on that, do you know the size of Chinese cities? It's 10-20 million, or even more. I'm talking about 1 million plus cities for the UK.
    Excuse me while I cry in the corner. That was mean :'(

    And you don't think the size of a country should determine the size of a city?! OK go ahead and be a smart ass.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Excuse me while I cry in the corner. That was mean :'(

    And you don't think the size of a country should determine the size of a city?! OK go ahead and be a smart ass.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And you don't think asking for a million plus city is not the same as asking for (by build-up areas) 44 million (Guangdong), 28 million (Shanghai), 20 million (Beijing), 12 million (Shantou), or 10 million (Tianjin)?

    Let me spell this out for you:
    1 million = 1000000 people
    44 million = 44000000 people
    The latter is 44 times bigger than the former.

    Without a population, you won't be able to get relevance, wealth, or power of any kind. Living standard? Sorry, but without the economy you won't have a good living standard. The UK has good infrastructure, and with a good number of cities, it can prospect a lot further. Only tiny city states who become tax haven (Monaco) or sell heaven (Vatican) can accumulate wealth and influence without a population - but mind you, Monaco actually is the most densely populated country on Earth, with Vatican City being at No 3.

    What is happening now is that, essentially the UK only has one city by global standard. And this city, London, in fact contributes 22% to overall British economy. And I'm not even asking for another London (8 million+); I'm only talking about more Birminghams.

    And if you think a bigger population will definitely lead to a horrible living standard, then are you now saying Macau (No 1 most densely populated in terms of sovereign states and dependent territories), Singapore (No 3), Hong Kong (No 4), or most of the Caribbean holiday isles which are among Top 20 most densely populated in the world, are dumps?

    TSR, UKIP supporters, and Daily Mail readers have the idea that the UK is over populated, when in fact, it's merely No 51 in the world, behind many places with higher or same level of living standard, such as Japan, South Korea, and all the aforementioned territories.

    Stop being so ignorant. Look at the rest of the world.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    And you don't think asking for a million plus city is not the same as asking for (by build-up areas) 44 million (Guangdong), 28 million (Shanghai), 20 million (Beijing), 12 million (Shantou), or 10 million (Tianjin)?

    Let me spell this out for you:
    1 million = 1000000 people
    44 million = 44000000 people
    The latter is 44 times bigger than the former.

    Without a population, you won't be able to get relevance, wealth, or power of any kind. Living standard? Sorry, but without the economy you won't have a good living standard. The UK has good infrastructure, and with a good number of cities, it can prospect a lot further. Only tiny city states who become tax haven (Monaco) or sell heaven (Vatican) can accumulate wealth and influence without a population - but mind you, Monaco actually is the most densely populated country on Earth, with Vatican City being at No 3.

    What is happening now is that, essentially the UK only has one city by global standard. And this city, London, in fact contributes 22% to overall British economy. And I'm not even asking for another London (8 million+); I'm only talking about more Birminghams.

    And if you think a bigger population will definitely lead to a horrible living standard, then are you now saying Macau (No 1 most densely populated in terms of sovereign states and dependent territories), Singapore (No 3), Hong Kong (No 4), or most of the Caribbean holiday isles which are among Top 20 most densely populated in the world, are dumps?

    TSR, UKIP supporters, and Daily Mail readers have the idea that the UK is over populated, when in fact, it's merely No 51 in the world, behind many places with higher or same level of living standard, such as Japan, South Korea, and all the aforementioned territories.

    Stop being so ignorant. Look at the rest of the world.
    Care to explain how we became the most powerful and richest nation in history without a large population?

    Care to explain the sustainability of your viewpoint?

    Care to explain why you think GDP is more important than GDP per capita as you have inferred that


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    .... the devastating stagnation seen in Italy and Japan.

    In any case, population will not increase indefinitely. The population will plateau around 2100, and then start falling. And the internet will increasingly cause reason and democratic values to penetrate into the inferior cultures, along with a desire for greater modernity and accountability.

    30 years ago people thought Asia's population would explode and keep climbing indefinitely. In fact, ....

    Africa and the Middle East might need a bit more time, but they too will evolve. Malthus said a few centuries ago that by the 19th century food supplies would run out.
    The Japanese are doing very well in terms of GDP per head of working population.

    "Inferior cultures" are often only inferior in economy and military power, if you also consider art and culture then it is only seriously tribal and economically challenged areas that have "inferior cultures".

    The Chinese 1 child policy saved it from 2 billion people. The population of South Asia has exploded.

    Everyone knows that the Malthusian limit is affected by technology. The big problems with the UK's population is that it is destroying our beautiful countryside and playing Russian roulette with the Malthusian limit for the UK.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I'm not a part of the British population nor do I live in the UK.

    Have fun fading into irrelevance I guess.
    Who on earth wants to be relevant to you? This thread is about saving the poor, battered countryside of the UK.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Without a population, you won't be able to get relevance, wealth, or power of any kind.
    This is the real danger of excessive urbanisation, people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Less than 10% of land in the UK is urbanised, almost none of it to high density. In fact almost none of it is even urbanised to medium density - on the continent it is quite usual for people to live in apartment blocks even in the suburbs or small market towns, despite much lower total population density there. Britain does have a real land shortage but it is artificial and the result of government intervention.

    The UK has three challenges that I can see, none of which are insurmountable although effort toward addressing them intelligently is not currently great:

    1. We have a very restrictive planning system and associated environmental building limitations. It is possible to turn Britain into a museum containing whatever was here in the 1950s or to have a booming population and dynamic economy but not both. Currently we are refusing to make a choice and the result is spiraling prices of land which will eventually throttle both immigration and the economy but not before making life worse for the native population too. I would choose to dramatically loosen the planning system, but people who do not support that need to be explicit that they also oppose immigration. Too many people claim to support both the planning system and immigration which is contradictory.

    2. We need to make sure the people coming are going to positively contribute to the economy. We already know that peoples' future earnings can be predicted from quite an early age, and we don't know how to consistently raise the earnings of those we predict will do badly, so the safe approach is to only let people immigrate who we expect to do well. The government has made some encouraging steps in this regard by imposing a salary threshold for immigration, but I think this is too restrictive. We don't just want to exclude everyone who will do badly, we also want to actively seek out people who will do well. In other words, we should be thinking like a business searching for the best employees.

    With big data methods we should be able to screen immigration applicants and pick all the future ABCs. The problem is that when Labour is in power they have an incentive to import a lot of DEs because that is Labour's voter base. This risks the creation by immigration of a huge and permanent underclass as has already happened in the US and France and is happening in Germany. The system therefore needs to be constructed, and justified, such as to make this too publicly visible and politically costly.

    3. Ideally we should not let in very large numbers of people who do not accept the legitimacy of our constitution. This risks serious damage to social cohesion and, in the long term, civil war. While muslims are the biggest such group right now, they're not the only historical such group nor the only one possible. Nazis, Marxists and various Christian sects have also filled this role. There should be a political test for immigration, which is that the expected voting intentions and habits (no intention to vote is a bad indicator) of immigrants should not significantly diverge from that of the existing population. This also helps remove immigration as a demographic weapon for politicians to use for their own benefit rather than that of the country.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Care to explain how we became the most powerful and richest nation in history without a large population?

    Care to explain the sustainability of your viewpoint?

    Care to explain why you think GDP is more important than GDP per capita as you have inferred that


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    lmfao How 'small' of a population has the British Empire got? Or do you think all of UK's wealth and power came only from the British Isles (not even counting Ireland)?

    Sustainability is about striking a balance, not having as small as an economy as possible.

    I think GDP is more important than GDP per capita? Since when has Monaco, Vatican, HK, Singapore, or Japan got a lower GDP per capita compared to the UK?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    This is the real danger of excessive urbanisation, people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
    Do you have anything more than slogans? Maybe figures? Arguments?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Do you have anything more than slogans? Maybe figures? Arguments?
    As I said in my last post, figures are not what it is about although I have given plenty in previous posts. The British countryside is beautiful and must be preserved from the likes of yourself. Concepts like beauty, peace, calm, space, bounteous wildlife seem to be unknown to you. In fact you seem to consider that you are "holy" because you urge the destruction of these things - sadly the opposite is true.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    As I said in my last post, figures are not what it is about although I have given plenty in previous posts. The British countryside is beautiful and must be preserved from the likes of yourself. Concepts like beauty, peace, calm, space, bounteous wildlife seem to be unknown to you. In fact you seem to consider that you are "holy" because you urge the destruction of these things - sadly the opposite is true.
    So British countryside must be preserved by...limited the size of cities?

    They can certainly co-exist as long as not all cities are as big as London is.

    When it comes to something like this, knowledge and figures are very important, but I don't suppose you can understand. Perhaps we should also get rid of the NHS and drugs in general so the population can drop further.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    So British countryside must be preserved by...limited the size of cities?

    They can certainly co-exist as long as not all cities are as big as London is.

    When it comes to something like this, knowledge and figures are very important, but I don't suppose you can understand. Perhaps we should also get rid of the NHS and drugs in general so the population can drop further.
    Look back over my previous posts, I have given plenty of data. The difference between you and I is that I care about the environment whereas you like to pose as a moral highgrounder.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Look back over my previous posts, I have given plenty of data. The difference between you and I is that I care about the environment whereas you like to pose as a moral highgrounder.
    If you do have relevant ones to aid your argument here, you should post it as a response to me, not just keep insisting that you have them. I don't have that much time for you.

    Also, as a Green Party member, a Greenpeace member, and an Oxfam climateer I clearly have no time for the environment at all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    If you do have relevant ones to aid your argument here, you should post it as a response to me, not just keep insisting that you have them. I don't have that much time for you.

    Also, as a Green Party member, a Greenpeace member, and an Oxfam climateer I clearly have no time for the environment at all.
    You obviously have time for lots of "causes" but when you look at a landscape destroyed by a new housing estate or a hill cut in two by a new road you are unmoved. When you walk in the South East you cannot see the trees dying back from the tips of their branches or darkened by the dust and gas. When you stand in the country the perpetual hum of traffic has no effect on you.

    Instead you bully others with the idea of filling the country with people so that some bizarre idea of "wealth" and "relevance" is satisfied. You don't understand, the mechanistic demand for the "figures" suggests no understanding at all.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.