Overpopulated areas and how to solve the issue

[Deks]

Right ... so on a regular basis I hear people and the government complaining how numerous large cities like London are overcrowded.
Apart from the fact I keep finding ads for roomshare, flatshare and whatnot (not just for London) there seems to be a consensus of people saying cities or certain countries are overcrowded and a lot of it is attributed to illegal immigrants or migrants in general.

What really doesn't compute to me is the following:
The amount of space in virtually any country is VAST and cities (when you look at them from the birds perspective)are quite TINY.
Even my home country Croatia has only a small portion of it 'settled' and people claim the capital (Zagreb) is overcrowded (1.6 million ... very similar to Manhattan island population).


Ther amount of land occupied by cities is actually infentesimately small on a global scale.

Why don't governments EXPAND cities in all directions?
Why don't they expand public transport, making it faster, more efficient and better connected?

I mean, this is a relatively simple soluion to most of the 'overpopulation' issues.
Especially when we take a look at something else.
6,5 billion may be a large number for human population ... then again, on a global scale, we are smaller than an ant.
To think we are consuming vast amount of resources to begin with sounds fishy to me at best ... at least when you think on a global scale and just how vast the planet is size wise alone.

Heck ... I can definitely imagine that the main problem with expanding cities, improving public transport overall and everything else comes down to the dreaded/idiotic aspect of 'cost' and 'money' ... which is actually a recurring theme for over 90% of issues we are experiencing at the moment.

What I don't understand is that when a logical solution is staring right in front of you, why are people so bent on doing things the old way and not changing things actually for the better?

The dense pockets of population in specific areas cannot be justified as 'overpopulation' when most of the inland areas outside cities for example remain virtually empty and unsettled.
Why not expand cities in all those directions and bring technology to all areas of the world?

Ah yes ... we'd actually be doing something to improve our lives.
I forgot ... the governments don't care about that.

 

[Hermiod]

It's all because the space a human occupies is more than just that taken up by his or her own mass.

As I said on another thread earlier today, in any given area of land, that land must be able to support the local population. That means room to grow food, materials to build houses etc.

Right now, a significant portion of Earth's human population live in areas largely unsuitable for human occupation, incapable of supporting even basic needs like drinking water, even in relatively rich countries like the United States. Food has to be imported from elsewhere.

London is an unusual case simply because Britain is massively overpopulated relative to other similarly populous nations in Europe. The population of France, for instance, is very similar but France is significantly larger than Britain.

The problem with expanding public transport is that it still has to run every day. People still need to get around while it's being expanded.

 

[Rocketman]

Why don't governments EXPAND cities in all directions?
Why don't they expand public transport, making it faster, more efficient and better connected?

The cost-effectiveness of public transport is largely dependent on population density; no-one is going to build a subway station in an area with three or four farms in a twelve mile radius. For public transport to be effective, cities need to be dense. You can have urban sprawl, or effective public transport, but not both.

Heck ... I can definitely imagine that the main problem with expanding cities, improving public transport overall and everything else comes down to the dreaded/idiotic aspect of 'cost' and 'money' ... which is actually a recurring theme for over 90% of issues we are experiencing at the moment.

Why are these aspects idiotic?

Ah yes ... we'd actually be doing something to improve our lives.

And we'd realise our wishes to

• Live a ten minutes' walk away from work, schools and other amenities
• Live in a spacious country house near lush forests, well away from the noise and pollution of the city

are pretty contradictory.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be, Deks.

Every person needs a set amount of land to support their needs. Basically, we cannot expand cities outward without sacrificing farmland.

Major cities are crowded because there are parts of the world where it is impractical or unaffordable to own a vehicle. If those areas are likewise not served well by comprehensive public transportation, then living close to work is a necessity.

You can't magically put down more roads and paths, either. To add lanes, you have to demolish existing buildings in many cases--which only moves crowding elsewhere. Building upward instead of outward has worked in places like Seoul.

Basically, there are strong advantages to living in an area with high population density. It also has downsides. Your suggestions don't really mitigate the problem--they just trade off high population density for the difficulties of a more spread out population.

There's a reason the US Midwest is not well-developed, for instance. Rural areas simply don't appeal as much to businesses. People go where the jobs are, and jobs go where the people are. It's a feedback loop and it drives population density upward. You can certainly find ways to reduce population density, but you're going to suffer in other ways because of it. There is no "free lunch."

 

[Rocketman]

That being said, with broadband and fiber-optic connections forming an increasingly finer-veined network across the developed world, the barriers to effective telecommuting are dwindling.

 

[Deks]

The cost-effectiveness of public transport is largely dependent on population density; no-one is going to build a subway station in an area with three or four farms in a twelve mile radius. For public transport to be effective, cities need to be dense. You can have urban sprawl, or effective public transport, but not both.

See my first point about expanding the cities into/close around those areas and populating them.
I don't see why you wouldn't be able to grow food for example in cities and use state of the art technology to aid in food production not to mention improve on existing public transport by making it faster for example.
There were talks about replacing commonly used trains with the extremely fast ones for example, and while some of the transition was done, larger % of the public transport still relies on outdated and slow technology.

Why are these aspects idiotic?

Simple ... money is holding us back technologically and socially.
Numerous technologies for example never made it into practical use because switching to more efficient ways of doing things (such as new fuel sources) would lead to numerous corporations losing money.
Take a look at the healthcare system in US for example.
If you don't have the money to pay for health insurance, you will be stuck with insane bills you will never be able to pay if you do end up with a medical issue ... essentially coming down to the premise that only people with money gain access to certain things ... also applies to food/shelter/health/technology and just about anything else.
I personally find that sort of system repulsive because it's unfair and doesn't even include EVERYONE who are under the system in question.

And we'd realise our wishes to

• Live a ten minutes' walk away from work, schools and other amenities
• Live in a spacious country house near lush forests, well away from the noise and pollution of the city

are pretty contradictory.

Your statement that EVERYONE wants the same things as YOU is far fetched to be frank and unrealistic.
It's the same as claiming that 'everyone' wants a house near the oceans or coastal regions in general.
Since we are creatures who adapt the environment to suit our needs and have been doing it throughout the ages then why not put all the technology at our disposal into that?
Turn inhospitable areas into hospitable ones, and make them well connected.

People already spend a large portion of the time to travel to work ... even if they are in Zone 1 of London (just making an example).
So if the public transport was upgraded so it takes a same portion of time for a person to travel from the center to outer regions of the city ... distances would not be the issue.

But we are returning to the problem of upgrading our present technology to 21st century standards for one thing (something society has NOT done really) and again, for capitalist society that would mean spending money which is apparently non-viable solution either.

Eliminate money from society and find a different way to distribute the resources of the planet ... which are even with our present population, not to mention with aid of technology vast.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Eliminate money from society and find a different way to distribute the resources of the planet ... which are even with our present population, not to mention with aid of technology vast.

Dude... the only person being far-fetched and unrealistic here is you. Sorry.

 

[nevermore]

Eliminate money from society and find a different way to distribute the resources of the planet ... which are even with our present population, not to mention with aid of technology vast.

Now, there's a viable solution!

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Get to work setting up that egalitarian, moneyless technate, Deks! We're an impatient lot.

 

[Deks]

Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be, Deks.

Every person needs a set amount of land to support their needs. Basically, we cannot expand cities outward without sacrificing farmland.

Major cities are crowded because there are parts of the world where it is impractical or unaffordable to own a vehicle. If those areas are likewise not served well by comprehensive public transportation, then living close to work is a necessity.

You can't magically put down more roads and paths, either. To add lanes, you have to demolish existing buildings in many cases--which only moves crowding elsewhere. Building upward instead of outward has worked in places like Seoul.

Basically, there are strong advantages to living in an area with high population density. It also has downsides. Your suggestions don't really mitigate the problem--they just trade off high population density for the difficulties of a more spread out population.

There's a reason the US Midwest is not well-developed, for instance. Rural areas simply don't appeal as much to businesses. People go where the jobs are, and jobs go where the people are. It's a feedback loop and it drives population density upward. You can certainly find ways to reduce population density, but you're going to suffer in other ways because of it. There is no "free lunch."

Well, why not expand cities around farmland in that case?
And besides, wouldn't traditional farming become obsolete with aid of technology?

I can understand that rural areas don't appeal much to businesses ... but wouldn't it be better to expand cities into those regions, bring technology there, populate it, make things accessible in a shorter amount of time (which should create sufficient interest in my opinion) ... spur construction and CREATE new businesses and jobs.
I understand I am oversimplifying things, though I do not see as to why would it not be worth a shot.

Eliminate money from society and find a different way to distribute the resources of the planet ... which are even with our present population, not to mention with aid of technology vast.

Dude... the only person being far-fetched and unrealistic here is you. Sorry.

Now that's unnecessary.
I don't see the elimination of money as unrealistic.
Perhaps hard to achieve due to people being indoctrinated to think that society cannot function in any different way, but I definitely disagree on it being 'impossible'.

Also ... I disagree on the premise that humans require large portions of space.
What, 1 2x bedroom apartment (of decent size) is not enough for a couple or 2 people?
Or maybe even one house with a garden? Just how large does a house have to be in a city?
Why the heck would you need large amounts of space which you will likely never use to begin with?

Get to work setting up that egalitarian, moneyless technate, Deks! We're an impatient lot.

Right ... as if I have all the answers.
I am only asking question which seem to have logical solutions, yet they are unworkable largely due to 'money' (yet again).

We should stop progress altogether since it costs money to fund research ... and besides, we developed sufficient technology for everything and we don't have ANY problems in the world ... correct?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

 

[Deks]

Intriguing response.
I could do the same when looking at how the present system works and just how much problems we have on a global scale ... not to mention the usage of 'money' in many responses as an excuse to justify human '(in)ability' to solve it's own problems.

But fair enough ... moving away from the 'moneyless' aspect ... how could we solve present issues with the system we have at our disposal?

 

[RandyS]

I don't see the elimination of money as unrealistic.
Perhaps hard to achieve due to people being indoctrinated to think that society cannot function in any different way, but I definitely disagree on it being 'impossible'.

So do I. Unfortunately, you and I are in the minority here. Eliminating money would solve 99% of the world's problems, but it would create others. For one thing, people would be hamstrung as to how to operate without it. Of course we could all go on the barter system, but that wouldn't work either since it simply another form of paying for services.

Bottom line: eliminating money would require EVERYBODY to become altruistic, and while that would be simple enough for some, most of the world simply doesn't think that way.

It's even possible that, given human nature, eliminating money could lead to a war of some kind.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

A world of scarcity requires exchange. You exchange what you have for what you want/need. Money is a medium of exchange, so you don't have to worry about having something to trade directly with anyone. If they have something you want, you give them money. They take that money and get what they want. And on it goes. It's more efficient than barter.

Money is not going anywhere. Resources are limited. They must be rationed by price.

Land is a resource. Proximity to one's workplace has a value to people. Proximity to other services--food, transportation, etc.--is also valuable to people.

Any changes you want to impose would have to be based on those principles: if you are going to take away a benefit people have, you must replace it with a corresponding benefit of equal or greater value. If you want to reduce population density, you either make it exorbitantly expensive to live in a high-density area, to the point that the benefits are lost, or you work on making sparser populations more attractive, which means providing better services and job opportunities.

 

[nevermore]

I'm kind of at a loss as to what the difference is between this "proposal" to "expand cities" and you know, suburbs, other than improving public transportation options. I mean, you're basically describing Washington DC and the surrounding suburbs, all of which are connected by public transport. Shit, you're basically describing the entire 95 corridor from DC to New York, if you count Acela as high-speed rail. It's basically one enormous sprawled out city, and it's not a good thing at all, at least from an environmental standpoint.

I'm also confused as to why we would want to decrease population density, when increased density conserves resources, and continue to sprawl out MORE, which will increase resource consumption regardless of whether you toss a mag-lev train for commuters into the mix.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^ Yeah, I've heard quite a bit in recent years that we should expect the death of urban sprawl, and especially suburbia, as commuting becomes untenably expensive due to rising energy prices and increasing scarcity.

 

[Deks]

I'm kind of at a loss as to what the difference is between this "proposal" to "expand cities" and you know, suburbs, other than improving public transportation options. I mean, you're basically describing Washington DC and the surrounding suburbs, all of which are connected by public transport. Shit, you're basically describing the entire 95 corridor from DC to New York, if you count Acela as high-speed rail. It's basically one enormous sprawled out city, and it's not a good thing at all, at least from an environmental standpoint.

I'm also confused as to why we would want to decrease population density, when increased density conserves resources, and continue to sprawl out MORE, which will increase resource consumption regardless of whether you toss a mag-lev train for commuters into the mix.

I was referring more to the prospect in constructing new buildings in suburban areas such as offices, new businesses, apartment complexes ... essentially industrializing the region and make it as dense as it is in the center plus expanding the public transport to those areas and modernizing the system in question thus eliminating the aspect of 'suburban' altogether.
I'm not really suggesting decreasing population, more to the point creating space in the existing city so it can support it's population if it's 'overpopulated' as some people claim and opening up new opportunities.

I've also read that suburban areas are going to die out eventually due to rising energy prices, scarcity and more expensive commuting.
But then, what will happen to those areas once they 'die out'?

There was also an article for example stating that US main power grid is operating on a century old premise ... effectively being a relic considering the times we are living in and the technology available to improve everything.
One of the other examples that the world is not really utilizing 21st century technology or standards to begin with further supporting the aspect that if things go on as they do now, very little if anything will change.
Also ... we are producing synthetic materials, food and a lot of other things with the help of technology that doesn't rely on exhausting 'scarce resources' of the planet ... or is using them on a much smaller scale.
I wonder what would happen if all tech would be modernized to real 21st century standards on a global scale.
We have numerous technological aspects that could/should cut the 'costs' significantly in terms of manufacturing not to mention be far cheaper for the consumer and yet are never implemented, or are implemented on a rare basis but are sold at premium prices regardless.

Capitalism is based on scarcity of resources to begin with.
Resources that are far from being properly distributed globally.

Funny enough ... in our (capitalist) society, if you HAVE money to do something, suddenly resource scarcity is NOT the problem.
If you can afford it, you can have it ... it comes down to that, and we all know that the government for example or even numerous rich people have invested money in a variety of aspects that are just a plain waste of resources.

Why are resources in question, if they are in scarcity to begin with, being thrown around so easily for practically useless aspects when money is involved?

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

Right ... so on a regular basis I hear people and the government complaining how numerous large cities like London are overcrowded.
Apart from the fact I keep finding ads for roomshare, flatshare and whatnot (not just for London) there seems to be a consensus of people saying cities or certain countries are overcrowded and a lot of it is attributed to illegal immigrants or migrants in general.

What really doesn't compute to me is the following:
The amount of space in virtually any country is VAST and cities (when you look at them from the birds perspective)are quite TINY.
Even my home country Croatia has only a small portion of it 'settled' and people claim the capital (Zagreb) is overcrowded (1.6 million ... very similar to Manhattan island population).


Ther amount of land occupied by cities is actually infentesimately small on a global scale.

Why don't governments EXPAND cities in all directions?
Why don't they expand public transport, making it faster, more efficient and better connected?

I mean, this is a relatively simple soluion to most of the 'overpopulation' issues.
Especially when we take a look at something else.
6,5 billion may be a large number for human population ... then again, on a global scale, we are smaller than an ant.
To think we are consuming vast amount of resources to begin with sounds fishy to me at best ... at least when you think on a global scale and just how vast the planet is size wise alone.

Heck ... I can definitely imagine that the main problem with expanding cities, improving public transport overall and everything else comes down to the dreaded/idiotic aspect of 'cost' and 'money' ... which is actually a recurring theme for over 90% of issues we are experiencing at the moment.

What I don't understand is that when a logical solution is staring right in front of you, why are people so bent on doing things the old way and not changing things actually for the better?

The dense pockets of population in specific areas cannot be justified as 'overpopulation' when most of the inland areas outside cities for example remain virtually empty and unsettled.
Why not expand cities in all those directions and bring technology to all areas of the world?

Ah yes ... we'd actually be doing something to improve our lives.
I forgot ... the governments don't care about that.

I really hate it how people forget that there are animals who have homes on this planet as well.

People just need to piss off with having so many kids. Two kids should be fine but no, people have to go and have 8-16 kids and try to get on TV. There are people in my building who have 5-6 kids. What the hell for? Have two kids, they'll keep each other occupied. There really is no need to have more kids.

Animals are losing their homes because of stupid people.

 

[JuanBolio]

The most effective solution for overpopulation would be neutron bombs, IMO.

 

[nevermore]

I'm kind of at a loss as to what the difference is between this "proposal" to "expand cities" and you know, suburbs, other than improving public transportation options. I mean, you're basically describing Washington DC and the surrounding suburbs, all of which are connected by public transport. Shit, you're basically describing the entire 95 corridor from DC to New York, if you count Acela as high-speed rail. It's basically one enormous sprawled out city, and it's not a good thing at all, at least from an environmental standpoint.

I'm also confused as to why we would want to decrease population density, when increased density conserves resources, and continue to sprawl out MORE, which will increase resource consumption regardless of whether you toss a mag-lev train for commuters into the mix.

I was referring more to the prospect in constructing new buildings in suburban areas such as offices, new businesses, apartment complexes ... essentially industrializing the region and make it as dense as it is in the center plus expanding the public transport to those areas and modernizing the system in question thus eliminating the aspect of 'suburban' altogether.

This is already policy in many areas. It's called "Smart Growth".

I'm not really suggesting decreasing population, more to the point creating space in the existing city so it can support it's population if it's 'overpopulated' as some people claim and opening up new opportunities.

Cities aren't overpopulated in the sense that there's not enough places for people to live, work, etc. Even your OP cites racist bullshit about how its the immigrants' faults. I'd say it's a dog whistle for anti-immigrant/minority sentiment if anything.

I've also read that suburban areas are going to die out eventually due to rising energy prices, scarcity and more expensive commuting.
But then, what will happen to those areas once they 'die out'?

They'll be redeveloped for different uses or razed and returned to nature or cultivation as appropriate and possible.

There was also an article for example stating that US main power grid is operating on a century old premise ... effectively being a relic considering the times we are living in and the technology available to improve everything.
One of the other examples that the world is not really utilizing 21st century technology or standards to begin with further supporting the aspect that if things go on as they do now, very little if anything will change.

I agree, but I don't think expanding cities is the best option. Increasing capacity of existing infrastructure in the cities and their inner suburbs is a good idea, but we certainly don't need to be spreading out more.

Also ... we are producing synthetic materials, food and a lot of other things with the help of technology that doesn't rely on exhausting 'scarce resources' of the planet ... or is using them on a much smaller scale.

All of those things have environmental impacts and use resources. Modern factory farming techniques, for example are extremely damaging in that they use massive amounts of clear cutting, pesticides, herbicides and create great mountains of waste.

I wonder what would happen if all tech would be modernized to real 21st century standards on a global scale.
We have numerous technological aspects that could/should cut the 'costs' significantly in terms of manufacturing not to mention be far cheaper for the consumer and yet are never implemented, or are implemented on a rare basis but are sold at premium prices regardless.

Examples?

Capitalism is based on scarcity of resources to begin with.
Resources that are far from being properly distributed globally.

Funny enough ... in our (capitalist) society, if you HAVE money to do something, suddenly resource scarcity is NOT the problem.

If you can afford it, you can have it ... it comes down to that, and we all know that the government for example or even numerous rich people have invested money in a variety of aspects that are just a plain waste of resources.

How does expanding cities in the developed world address the problem of uneven resource distribution?

Why are resources in question, if they are in scarcity to begin with, being thrown around so easily for practically useless aspects when money is involved?

Resources aren't especially scarce, with the exception of water and arable land in certain parts of the world. What they are, is finite and damageable. Higher population density and use of existing infrastructure reduces the amount of those resources used for transportation, construction, extension of utilities, public spending for delivery of services, etc. It reduces damage as it allows a greater portion of the land to remain unused and to therefore do its job ecologically.