I don't know why "ideal" is in quotation marks in "the model for an 'ideal' residence". I did not say that everyone should want to live in a single-family, detached residence. If people want to live in apartments or whatever, fine with me.
What I said is that "everyone who wants to" should be able to live in a single-family, detached residence. That requires fewer people.
It is, of course, easy to "compare" two living situations by referring only to the negatives of one and the positives of the other. So let's try that the other way around. Would you rather live in in tiny apartment where the neighbor's rap "music" blares through your bedroom at all hours of the night and you wake every morning to trudge through the stale urine in the building's doorway on your way to an overcrowded and diseased-infested hour-long bus ride with no available seating or in a 3500-square-foot house with a swimming pool and a hot tub and lush gardens front and back on a small court where neighbors routinely have each other over for BBQs and birthday parties?
The ideal situation is the one in which people can choose the living situation which suits them. So-called "well-planned use of urban space" is all about subordinating what the residents want to what the planners think is good for them.
Fortress America
Re: Fortress America
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Fortress America
It is very interesting. According to wikipedia (may not be 100% accurate, but probably close enough for this debate) the planet (I am sure we can all agree it is overpopulated) has 118 people per square mile. The UK has 659, the US has 83 and Australia has 7.
Two important points have already been raised - a lot of the land is uninhabitable (I have flown over Australia a few times and always love seeing the immense desert that makes up most of Oz) and there are national parks that make up a lot of the area and should, rightly, be preserved. The UK only has one truly inhospitable place that cannot support life - Scotland. (Ok - only joking - well, I wasn't going to say Wales
). We're already screwed in that we can't grow enough food to support ourselves due to a lack of land.
But both your countries are vast. You could fit the entire UK into Texas almost three times. Not to provoke anger - but surely there is room for more??
Two important points have already been raised - a lot of the land is uninhabitable (I have flown over Australia a few times and always love seeing the immense desert that makes up most of Oz) and there are national parks that make up a lot of the area and should, rightly, be preserved. The UK only has one truly inhospitable place that cannot support life - Scotland. (Ok - only joking - well, I wasn't going to say Wales
). We're already screwed in that we can't grow enough food to support ourselves due to a lack of land.But both your countries are vast. You could fit the entire UK into Texas almost three times. Not to provoke anger - but surely there is room for more??
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Fortress America
Fair comment. I just can't help feeling that this is how wars can start, when the have-nots rise against the haves. Of course, the have-nots, by definition, have-not long range missiles ...loCAtek wrote:Granted, but why make more?
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Fortress America
That might be a comprehensible reason but as far as I can recall historically that is a very rare impetus to war. To the best of my knowledge it is societies of equal or even greater wealth which attack others just for the fun of killing and stealing.
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato
Re: Fortress America
WHAT BROUGHT THAT ON?Jarlaxle wrote:Get started then, Bosco: kill yourself.
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Fortress America
He was tuned to the all-Bosco channel?
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato