I was unsure if you were trying to insult me or not 'Kirk's Tights' (see the content in brackets) but the reason on why I considered that possibility was because of the 'stupid people' bit that prompted questions.
In any event, I was suggesting making a far better use of areas that we already inhabit to take care of the 'over-population' problem.
As I said ... the issue is how some people tend to think that certain cities cannot support their present populations which is why I suggested modernization of technology (very crucial), creation of new jobs, structures and also industrializing suburban areas (or effectively areas that humans already inhabit) connecting them with the city in a far better way and make them as developed as a city.
I don't see the problem in those aspects ... but I also agree that going beyond 2 kids as you yourself stated is pointless and that there should be more sensibility in terms of how many kids each family has.
However, I was mostly referring to the 'overpopulation' that is occurring from existing pool of people coming to cities that are apparently 'filled to capacity' and not the newborns.
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 only cited the racist stupidity in the OP about how it's immigrants faults to further emphasize the stupidity of the entire claim.
Which begs the question if certain economies like the ones here in UK rely on immigrants to help it out, why spout such xenophobic nonsense?
Then again, that's almost the same as asking why do people complain about anything.
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.
Well that's what I was aiming more in the latest posts ... to utilize already settled areas for example in a much better capacity.
But 'expansion' can be perceived in other ways, though was mostly thinking on not going beyond existing suburban areas.
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.
Agreed, then shouldn't the government or we as a society be responsible to utilize the waste in question for recycling purposes if possible?
I think that numerous theories and small scale practical applications were demonstrated, but never implemented on a larger scale.
The best example would be in IT.
If you take a look at what Nvidia has been doing for the past several years ... they've effectively been recycling their existing technology by simply shrinking down the manuf. process and overclocking the cards, then mess up the naming scheme in order to fool people into thinking they are getting something great, when in fact they are not and sell the tech at premium prices.
Intel did the same thing with the Core2Duo cpu's and Montevina chipset ... effectively recycling old tech on a smaller manuf. process, creating a lower power requirement for P series cpu's, while the speeds remained practically identical to the previous T series and resulted in not so much of a drastic decline in temp. emissions (while the upgrades on manuf. websites from one cpu to the other ranges in hundreds of $ for only few hundred Mhz speed) while still slapping large prices on the products in question.
SSD's are another example.
They are actually a perfect candidate to replace the HDD technology as we know it since they offer no moving parts that can easily be damaged like in a HDD (which we've been using for a LONG time now, effectively reducing the internal tech to improve the speeds/efficiency/space) but still haven't replaced them altogether primarily due to space on them being limited for now and premium prices on SSD's that have a low storage capacity.
Intel made a new SSD on a 32nm manuf. process recently of 256GB size, and despite their claim that it's price as a result is by around 30% (or slightly more) cheaper, it continues to remain a pricey component.
Numerous laptop or desktop high end cpu's NEVER come down in price actually.
How does expanding cities in the developed world address the problem of uneven resource distribution?
I was addressing a different problem not directly connected to expanding or improving existing infrastructure of cities.
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.
True ... then again, the lack of speedy technological progression, not to mention it's complete non-existence in certain parts of the world didn't/don't make things easier either.
I agree that higher population increases demands for resources, but at the same time, our tech is far from being on par when it comes to the early 21st century to begin with, so that plays a large role as well in us needing to borrow more from natural resources instead of less.
