Anders Brevik had a point...

[Scouse]

You're going to be that obtuse?

I thought it was a good perception of human nature to be honest. Not obtuse, but relatively observant.

Not that I agree with that assessment - or yours. But overpopulation is a whole different story

 

[DaGaffer]

I thought it was a good perception of human nature to be honest. Not obtuse, but relatively observant.

Not that I agree with that assessment - or yours. But overpopulation is a whole different story

And also utterly irrelevant. Human nature has nothing to do with it, its an economic argument. It doesn't really matter whether you disagree with it, its a simple fact that seven billion of us can't all occupy the same real estate, so even if there was some kind of levelling of social and economic inequality, you simply can't have a model where everyone can live where they like. Personal statements like "well I like living here" are irrelevant, especially as the UK (and all of Northern Europe) is one of those "prime" pieces of real estate I'm talking about; temperate climate, fertile land, infrastructure and low risk of disease. We can't all live in those kind of environments; its a simple physical fact.

 

[Himse]

There is some derp in this thread.

 

[Scouse]

We can't all live in those kind of environments; its a simple physical fact.

Not for one second can I seriously entertain the idea that we'd all want to.

Have you considered that, everything else being equal, people might like where they are?

 

[DaGaffer]

Not for one second can I seriously entertain the idea that we'd all want to.

Have you considered that, everything else being equal, people might like where they are?

No. Because all the evidence points to the contrary. Because, as I keep pointing out, everything else isn't equal. Of course everyone doesn't want to move to more desirable/economically active areas, but its self-evident that a lot more people want to than the infrastructure allows. At a macro level half of Asia and Africa are trying to get into Europe and North America, at a micro-level there's local population concentration going on all over the place (the move the south-east in the UK, the move from the centre to the coasts in the US, the move from the south to north in Italy, the move from east of the Urals to Moscow/St.Petersburg in Russia etc. etc.) which shows that when unfettered movement is allowed, everyone swamps the hotspots. Its already happening, and you think unfettered movement globally wouldn't accelerate that?

 

[Scouse]

We're talking at cross purposes Gaff.

This discussion was brought up by Moriath who said:

I'm not saying that as things stand at the moment we in the west wouldnt get millions of people from india / africa etc coming in and making conditions worse for us with overcrowding etc. I am saying in a perfect world everyones living standards would be the same and we should be free to live in the places we want to rather than where will accept us

So, it's a discussion of principle, not of actuality. As I said "all things being equal"...

So:

Because all the evidence points to the contrary.

I won't say that's disingenuous - but it's incorrect because we cannot have evidence for anything that doesn't exist.

Yes, with economic issues then there's a driver for people to move. Without them, however? Not so much - free and unfettered travel is an attainable (and desirable) goal.


On your other points about movement even in the UK - that's an economic driver. But even so - if people want to eventually live in effective megacities - swamping the hotspots as you say - then why not? There are many economic and environmental benefits to having large numbers of us living in close quarters.

 

[DaGaffer]

We're talking at cross purposes Gaff.

This discussion was brought up by Moriath who said:


So, it's a discussion of principle, not of actuality. As I said "all things being equal"...

To which I pointed out "all things can't be equal" because even if there's a degree of economic equality, there can't be geographic equality. Can't. Simple as.

So:

I won't say that's disingenuous - but it's incorrect because we cannot have evidence for anything that doesn't exist.

Yes, with economic issues then there's a driver for people to move. Without them, however? Not so much - free and unfettered travel is an attainable (and desirable) goal.

Yes we do. The concentration of population that's going on in the developed world isn't only being driven by economics; its being driven by other factors as well; the economic benefit of moving to the South-East from the North (if you're already in work), isn't actually that great (net) for the average person, and yet people are still doing it, for "lifestyle" reasons, breadth of opportunity reasons, or simply because its the cool thing to do. Its certainly why employers in the States can't attract workers to red states but have no problem getting them to go to California (despite the place being bankrupt) or Oregon or Washington State, even though they're getting the same money. Its a quality of life decision; all other things being equal, more people are going to like living in Northern California than Oklahoma. They just are, which is why you're seeing population decline in the midwest.

On your other points about movement even in the UK - that's an economic driver. But even so - if people want to eventually live in effective megacities - swamping the hotspots as you say - then why not? There are many economic and environmental benefits to having large numbers of us living in close quarters.

Yes, and that's what's happening, but even within those megacities, take it down to the granular level and there's still geographic scarcity. Malibu has a beach, the Valley doesn't. Geographic scarcity. I can live with a view of the Wicklow mountains, but I'll pay a premium for it. Geographic scarcity. How hard is that to understand?

 

[Scouse]

Yes, and that's what's happening, but even within those megacities, take it down to the granular level and there's still geographic scarcity. Malibu has a beach, the Valley doesn't. Geographic scarcity. I can live with a view of the Wicklow mountains, but I'll pay a premium for it. Geographic scarcity. How hard is that to understand?

Of course it's not hard to understand. But why do you think that prohibition of free movement is a good thing when geographic scarcity is a limiting mechanism in itself?

people are still doing it, for "lifestyle" reasons, breadth of opportunity reasons, or simply because its the cool thing to do. Its certainly why employers in the States can't attract workers to red states but have no problem getting them to go to California (despite the place being bankrupt) or Oregon or Washington State, even though they're getting the same money. Its a quality of life decision; all other things being equal, more people are going to like living in Northern California than Oklahoma. They just are, which is why you're seeing population decline in the midwest.

Yes. All true.

So what? is what I'm saying to that. Where's the problem there? Why try to limit people's freedom of movement?


Everyone ends up living in melting-pot megacities in California and Washington, the rest of the country becomes a (relative) wilderness.

Great!

 

[DaGaffer]

Of course it's not hard to understand. But why do you think that prohibition of free movement is a good thing when geographic scarcity is a limiting mechanism in itself?

Yes. All true.

So what? is what I'm saying to that. Where's the problem there? Why try to limit people's freedom of movement?

Everyone ends up living in melting-pot megacities in California and Washington, the rest of the country becomes a (relative) wilderness.

Great!

Oh ffs. This is the conversation I feel like I'm having. And you're Loretta.

 

[Scouse]

Oh ffs. This is the conversation I feel like I'm having. And you're Loretta.

Don't you oppress me

You may feel like that - but it's not like it can't happen. There's no "lack of womb" to prevent it...

 

[DaGaffer]

Don't you oppress me

You may feel like that - but it's not like it can't happen. There's no "lack of womb" to prevent it...

No, there's a lack of woom.

 

[Scouse]

No, there's a lack of woom.

Chuckle

However, there's stacks of room. Loads of it.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

No, there's a lack of woom.

Woomie isn't here