I don’t care about the global population. I care about how busy my neighbourhood is. I would prefer it to be less crowded and expensive. So fewer than the current number. Improvements would be a linear function.
Like, that’s kinda a typical NIMBY way to think. You’re saying “I don’t care about other people, what about my life?”, essentially.
If you ask for fewer people than now, everyone else could say “you go first”. Right? It only happens if somebody dies, and you’re failing on empathy a bit again if you don’t recognise that.
I don’t control the governments of other countries and cities. Every person is entitled to self determination. Your attitude is typical Western colonialist hubris.
I think it’s fair to say my quality of life has declined as my city has increased in population size. We might disagree about the solutions but I don’t think it’s fair to argue that I should never care about the quality of life of people already living in my city. Even just on a pragmatic level, that’s not a vote winner. I also think it’s fundamentally anti-human.
I don’t control the governments of other countries and cities.
Presumably you’re in a country with cities. What does that have to do with anything?
Like, the only thing I can think is a “the Irish should stop breeding” argument, which would be pretty ironic if you’re trying to paint me as the colonialist.
We might disagree about the solutions but I don’t think it’s fair to argue that I should never care about the quality of life of people already living in my city.
Great. That includes all of them, even ones that couldn’t afford a larger space, right? And all the ones that do still want to live in your city? That would imply it’s going to be just as big and just as dense.
Even if you redistribute the space available, you just put everyone in medium-sized spaces instead of a mix of big and small, and the total density is the same. We don’t have a magic genie that builds low-density but sufficiently interconnected cities for free; it’s not done because there’s not enough labour and wealth to do it.
I don’t care about the global population. I care about how busy my neighbourhood is. I would prefer it to be less crowded and expensive. So fewer than the current number. Improvements would be a linear function.
Like, that’s kinda a typical NIMBY way to think. You’re saying “I don’t care about other people, what about my life?”, essentially.
If you ask for fewer people than now, everyone else could say “you go first”. Right? It only happens if somebody dies, and you’re failing on empathy a bit again if you don’t recognise that.
I don’t control the governments of other countries and cities. Every person is entitled to self determination. Your attitude is typical Western colonialist hubris.
I think it’s fair to say my quality of life has declined as my city has increased in population size. We might disagree about the solutions but I don’t think it’s fair to argue that I should never care about the quality of life of people already living in my city. Even just on a pragmatic level, that’s not a vote winner. I also think it’s fundamentally anti-human.
Presumably you’re in a country with cities. What does that have to do with anything?
Like, the only thing I can think is a “the Irish should stop breeding” argument, which would be pretty ironic if you’re trying to paint me as the colonialist.
Great. That includes all of them, even ones that couldn’t afford a larger space, right? And all the ones that do still want to live in your city? That would imply it’s going to be just as big and just as dense.
Even if you redistribute the space available, you just put everyone in medium-sized spaces instead of a mix of big and small, and the total density is the same. We don’t have a magic genie that builds low-density but sufficiently interconnected cities for free; it’s not done because there’s not enough labour and wealth to do it.