Europe submits voluntarily

[4321lynx]

What astounnds me in this and other threads in this allegedly atheist/agnostic Forum is the way all these atheists are defending, and bending over backwards to defend, the most intolerant major religion in the world, a religion that does not even bother to hide its intolerance but proudly displays it in the pronouncements of its leaders.

And these atheists/agnostics here defend the "right" of mass migration of the members of this cult, under cover of being "refugees, into allegedly Xtian countries, (countries which claim to be or to have been Xtian).

Is the atheism of the members of this Forum merely an antagonism to Xtianity in all its "flavours" ?

Has nobody else noticed this trend here?

What is so "holy" about this religion and its barbaric treatment of women and girls, of "blasphemers", of atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, transgenderers, all holy subjects here as long as the subject does not include Muslim attitudes to them.

Somebody please enlighten me, and please spare me anecdotes of the many liberal Muslims you know, or the many your wife, your son's wife, your next-door neighbour, etc etc knows or is related to. Reminds me of the old "some of my good friends are Jews" saying of years ago.

Islam is a stinking pile of shit.

That does not in any way make it reasonable or just to deny migration to people who are at risk in their home countries, just because they happen to be Muslims.

Nobody is migrating to Europe in order to convert the continent to Islam - that's a complete fantasy. Refugees are humans first; if they also happen to be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or any other followers of stupid superstitious crap, that's a matter for robust debate, not a reason to let them die needlessly.

Muslims are not Islam. Christians are not Christianity. As an atheist, I could not care less what fucking stupid shit anyone chooses to believe, as long as he doesn't attempt to impose it on me. A religious person simply moving into my neighbourhood is not a religious impost on my life. And identifying as 'Christian' or 'Muslim' does not make a person a fanatical extremist - most self proclaimed Muslims and Christians are not interested in trying to force others to follow their beliefs (particularly in Europe, where talking about religion is considered slightly rude, and talking to a stranger about religion is a major social faux pas).

British Muslims, like British Christians, are difficult to identify - the only difference (for the vast majority) is that the Christians don't bother going to church on Sunday, while the Muslims don't bother going to mosque on Friday. Europe is, and will remain, secular. It is not under threat from any religion. It may be under threat from tabloid hysteria, but not from religion.

And these politically endangered Muslims cannot find refuge in the allegedly liberal other Muslim countries because such countries, Lebanon and Jordan perhaps excepted, do not exist, or are not willing to take them? Why?

And they demand that their minority rights to Early Middle Ages behaviour, dress, food and alcohol superstitions, female "cicumcision" tribal fetish, receive respect, and indeed honor and priority in the countries where they settle?

 

[bilby]

Islam is a stinking pile of shit.

That does not in any way make it reasonable or just to deny migration to people who are at risk in their home countries, just because they happen to be Muslims.

Nobody is migrating to Europe in order to convert the continent to Islam - that's a complete fantasy. Refugees are humans first; if they also happen to be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or any other followers of stupid superstitious crap, that's a matter for robust debate, not a reason to let them die needlessly.

Muslims are not Islam. Christians are not Christianity. As an atheist, I could not care less what fucking stupid shit anyone chooses to believe, as long as he doesn't attempt to impose it on me. A religious person simply moving into my neighbourhood is not a religious impost on my life. And identifying as 'Christian' or 'Muslim' does not make a person a fanatical extremist - most self proclaimed Muslims and Christians are not interested in trying to force others to follow their beliefs (particularly in Europe, where talking about religion is considered slightly rude, and talking to a stranger about religion is a major social faux pas).

British Muslims, like British Christians, are difficult to identify - the only difference (for the vast majority) is that the Christians don't bother going to church on Sunday, while the Muslims don't bother going to mosque on Friday. Europe is, and will remain, secular. It is not under threat from any religion. It may be under threat from tabloid hysteria, but not from religion.

And these politically endangered Muslims cannot find refuge in the allegedly liberal other Muslim countries because such countries, Lebanon and Jordan perhaps excepted, do not exist, or are not willing to take them? Why?

Are you telling me what I believe here? Why?

Who is alleging that other Muslim countries are liberal? It's not me. By definition, a Muslim country is not liberal; a liberal country cannot be correctly described as 'Muslim' or 'Christian' or any other religion. A theocracy is always going to be something of a shit-hole, and is unlikely to have the resources or the will to help large numbers of refugees. And the refugees are trying to escape from that stupid shit - it was Muslims that were killing them at home, and they have more sense than to seek asylum with lunatics of the same stripe as those they just fled.

And they demand that their minority rights to Early Middle Ages behaviour, dress, food and alcohol superstitions, female "cicumcision" tribal fetish, receive respect, and indeed honor and priority in the countries where they settle?

Some do. Most do not. Those that do can be, should be, and usually are told to fuck off. Except where local adherence to similarly medieval practices would make hypocrites of their hosts. I certainly have no respect for any of that shit - but I try to avoid making the gross error of thinking that all refugees who identify as Muslims are making such demands; Indeed, the majority of people making those demands turn out to be second and third generation - not migrants, but children and grandchildren of migrants - whose demands are rooted in an backlash against the endemic racism they encounter.

People who watch their parents and grandparents try to assimilate, only to be rejected, abused and insulted. And then the people who rejected, abused and insulted them see them turn to their one point of identity - their medieval superstitions - and act all surprised.

 

[angelo]

What astounnds me in this and other threads in this allegedly atheist/agnostic Forum is the way all these atheists are defending, and bending over backwards to defend, the most intolerant major religion in the world, a religion that does not even bother to hide its intolerance but proudly displays it in the pronouncements of its leaders.

And these atheists/agnostics here defend the "right" of mass migration of the members of this cult, under cover of being "refugees, into allegedly Xtian countries, (countries which claim to be or to have been Xtian).

Is the atheism of the members of this Forum merely an antagonism to Xtianity in all its "flavours" ?

Has nobody else noticed this trend here?

What is so "holy" about this religion and its barbaric treatment of women and girls, of "blasphemers", of atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, transgenderers, all holy subjects here as long as the subject does not include Muslim attitudes to them.

Somebody please enlighten me, and please spare me anecdotes of the many liberal Muslims you know, or the many your wife, your son's wife, your next-door neighbour, etc etc knows or is related to. Reminds me of the old "some of my good friends are Jews" saying of years ago.

It's absolutely double standards. Read Bilby's reply to my post. It would be an absolute outrage if it was xtianity instead of Islam flooding Europe!

 

[DrZoidberg]

What astounnds me in this and other threads in this allegedly atheist/agnostic Forum is the way all these atheists are defending, and bending over backwards to defend, the most intolerant major religion in the world, a religion that does not even bother to hide its intolerance but proudly displays it in the pronouncements of its leaders.

And these atheists/agnostics here defend the "right" of mass migration of the members of this cult, under cover of being "refugees, into allegedly Xtian countries, (countries which claim to be or to have been Xtian).

Is the atheism of the members of this Forum merely an antagonism to Xtianity in all its "flavours" ?

Has nobody else noticed this trend here?

What is so "holy" about this religion and its barbaric treatment of women and girls, of "blasphemers", of atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, transgenderers, all holy subjects here as long as the subject does not include Muslim attitudes to them.

Somebody please enlighten me, and please spare me anecdotes of the many liberal Muslims you know, or the many your wife, your son's wife, your next-door neighbour, etc etc knows or is related to. Reminds me of the old "some of my good friends are Jews" saying of years ago.

Hmmm... Islam isn't monolithic. Ethnic tensions play a role. Saudi Arabia hasn't taken in a single refugee. Not one. Well.. unless you count Idi Amin. About half of Lebanon's current population is Syrian refugees.

The first commandment of Christianity was originally a commandment to be intolerant. It's the most important rule for all Abrahamic religions. If theology matters, they should all be the same. What that tells us is that there's something else going on.

Religion is strongly influenced by the country they live in. A Muslim living in a fascist country will be more intolerant. A conservative country, more conservative. A more liberal country, more liberal. The intolerance of Muslims tells us more about the state of the Middle-East than it does of Islam.

In theory it's a good idea if we only gave refuge to atheist refugees. In theory. The problem is that atheist Muslims often keep calling themselves Muslims. They often see it more as an identity than a question of belief. It's more about ethnicity than religion. So it just becomes racist. It's hard.

I'm no Muslim apologist. I'd be happy if it was wiped out. But it isn't. And there's a big war going on in Muslim lands. They need our help. And it's not just them. We're helping ourselves. The more Syrians have jobs when peace returns, the quicker Syria will re-stabalize. With today's global economy, that means everybody will get richer quicker.

 

[bilby]

What astounnds me in this and other threads in this allegedly atheist/agnostic Forum is the way all these atheists are defending, and bending over backwards to defend, the most intolerant major religion in the world, a religion that does not even bother to hide its intolerance but proudly displays it in the pronouncements of its leaders.

And these atheists/agnostics here defend the "right" of mass migration of the members of this cult, under cover of being "refugees, into allegedly Xtian countries, (countries which claim to be or to have been Xtian).

Is the atheism of the members of this Forum merely an antagonism to Xtianity in all its "flavours" ?

Has nobody else noticed this trend here?

What is so "holy" about this religion and its barbaric treatment of women and girls, of "blasphemers", of atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, transgenderers, all holy subjects here as long as the subject does not include Muslim attitudes to them.

Somebody please enlighten me, and please spare me anecdotes of the many liberal Muslims you know, or the many your wife, your son's wife, your next-door neighbour, etc etc knows or is related to. Reminds me of the old "some of my good friends are Jews" saying of years ago.

It's absolutely double standards. Read Bilby's reply to my post. It would be an absolute outrage if it was xtianity instead of Islam flooding Europe!

Why not read bilby's reply to 4321lynx's own post, in which I detail my actual position in response to him? Don't you think that that might be a slightly better guide to my position than is my reaction to some totally other stupid shit that you posted? And which reply, to which of your posts are you even referring to?

You are just not very good at this 'thinking' or 'understanding' thing, are you? Perhaps you should leave it to those who are at least vaguely competent. Certainly that would be better than making a fool of yourself trying to interpret my responses as a 'double standard', immediately below a post where I set out EXACTLY what I actually think. You do know that evidence is better than hypothesis, right? Your guess about what I might think is of exactly zero value in an environment where I have just spelled out what I think in some detail. But if you are still unsure, feel free to ask me, rather than guessing - that way you will be less likely to appear completely foolish.

 

[barbos]

British Muslims, like British Christians, are difficult to identify - the only difference (for the vast majority) is that the Christians don't bother going to church on Sunday, while the Muslims don't bother going to mosque on Friday. Europe is, and will remain, secular. It is not under threat from any religion. It may be under threat from tabloid hysteria, but not from religion.

This is patently false. British Muslims as a group are vastly more into their shitty religion than British Christians into their shitty religion.
Study after study shows that British Muslims rank miserably on topics like gay rights, women rights, freedom of the speech, support of terrorism, etc.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What astounnds me in this and other threads in this allegedly atheist/agnostic Forum is the way all these atheists are defending, and bending over backwards to defend, the most intolerant major religion in the world, a religion that does not even bother to hide its intolerance but proudly displays it in the pronouncements of its leaders.

And these atheists/agnostics here defend the "right" of mass migration of the members of this cult, under cover of being "refugees, into allegedly Xtian countries, (countries which claim to be or to have been Xtian).

Is the atheism of the members of this Forum merely an antagonism to Xtianity in all its "flavours" ?

Has nobody else noticed this trend here?

What is so "holy" about this religion and its barbaric treatment of women and girls, of "blasphemers", of atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, transgenderers, all holy subjects here as long as the subject does not include Muslim attitudes to them.

Somebody please enlighten me, and please spare me anecdotes of the many liberal Muslims you know, or the many your wife, your son's wife, your next-door neighbour, etc etc knows or is related to. Reminds me of the old "some of my good friends are Jews" saying of years ago.

Hmmm... Islam isn't monolithic. Ethnic tensions play a role. Saudi Arabia hasn't taken in a single refugee. Not one. Well.. unless you count Idi Amin. About half of Lebanon's current population is Syrian refugees.

The first commandment of Christianity was originally a commandment to be intolerant. It's the most important rule for all Abrahamic religions. If theology matters, they should all be the same. What that tells us is that there's something else going on.

Religion is strongly influenced by the country they live in. A Muslim living in a fascist country will be more intolerant. A conservative country, more conservative. A more liberal country, more liberal. The intolerance of Muslims tells us more about the state of the Middle-East than it does of Islam.

In theory it's a good idea if we only gave refuge to atheist refugees. In theory. The problem is that atheist Muslims often keep calling themselves Muslims. They often see it more as an identity than a question of belief. It's more about ethnicity than religion. So it just becomes racist. It's hard.

I'm no Muslim apologist. I'd be happy if it was wiped out. But it isn't. And there's a big war going on in Muslim lands. They need our help. And it's not just them. We're helping ourselves. The more Syrians have jobs when peace returns, the quicker Syria will re-stabalize. With today's global economy, that means everybody will get richer quicker.

An underlying problem is Britain itself is about 2 million houses short so where do we put the net 200,000 to 300,000 per year coming in from all countries? Some local authorities won't even consider putting someone on a housing list until they have lived there for 5 years.

On person I know was on the housing list for 14 years before getting a flat about 15 years ago before the housing crisis.

Of course Syria needs to be resolved but the US didn't cooperate with the Russian brokered peace talks.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hmmm... Islam isn't monolithic. Ethnic tensions play a role. Saudi Arabia hasn't taken in a single refugee. Not one. Well.. unless you count Idi Amin. About half of Lebanon's current population is Syrian refugees.

The first commandment of Christianity was originally a commandment to be intolerant. It's the most important rule for all Abrahamic religions. If theology matters, they should all be the same. What that tells us is that there's something else going on.

Religion is strongly influenced by the country they live in. A Muslim living in a fascist country will be more intolerant. A conservative country, more conservative. A more liberal country, more liberal. The intolerance of Muslims tells us more about the state of the Middle-East than it does of Islam.

In theory it's a good idea if we only gave refuge to atheist refugees. In theory. The problem is that atheist Muslims often keep calling themselves Muslims. They often see it more as an identity than a question of belief. It's more about ethnicity than religion. So it just becomes racist. It's hard.

I'm no Muslim apologist. I'd be happy if it was wiped out. But it isn't. And there's a big war going on in Muslim lands. They need our help. And it's not just them. We're helping ourselves. The more Syrians have jobs when peace returns, the quicker Syria will re-stabalize. With today's global economy, that means everybody will get richer quicker.

An underlying problem is Britain itself is about 2 million houses short so where do we put the net 200,000 to 300,000 per year coming in from all countries? Some local authorities won't even consider putting someone on a housing list until they have lived there for 5 years.

On person I know was on the housing list for 14 years before getting a flat about 15 years ago before the housing crisis.

Of course Syria needs to be resolved but the US didn't cooperate with the Russian brokered peace talks.

Hmm.... that's not the fault of the Syrians.

Brits need to learn to live in flats. They have an absurd attachment to semi-detatched houses. What a colossal waste of expensive real estate. In central London there's plenty of these quaint little houses. It's one of the world's most expensive real estate. If people were guided by economic realities greater London would be all flats.

That's like saying you can't share the ice-cream because you already ate it. Ok, fine. It was your ice-cream. But you'll still come across as a dick.

 

[whichphilosophy]

An underlying problem is Britain itself is about 2 million houses short so where do we put the net 200,000 to 300,000 per year coming in from all countries? Some local authorities won't even consider putting someone on a housing list until they have lived there for 5 years.

On person I know was on the housing list for 14 years before getting a flat about 15 years ago before the housing crisis.

Of course Syria needs to be resolved but the US didn't cooperate with the Russian brokered peace talks.

Hmm.... that's not the fault of the Syrians.

Brits need to learn to live in flats. They have an absurd attachment to semi-detatched houses. What a colossal waste of expensive real estate. In central London there's plenty of these quaint little houses. It's one of the world's most expensive real estate. If people were guided by economic realities greater London would be all flats.

That's like saying you can't share the ice-cream because you already ate it. Ok, fine. It was your ice-cream. But you'll still come across as a dick.

Actually most large houses are now divided flats or room rental. Even then only lucky Brits (all races) live in flats or houses nowadays, the rest live in single sometimes shared rooms. They do more so than before. One single Muslim Lady lives in a small room with 4 small children.

I've seen a couple of places. The rooms are so small they have to sleep standing up. I agree more flats should be built.

The government should be building safe properly supervised flats upwards to fit more people where each administration since or before Blair onwards has only built about 1/3 of what is needed for the UK.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hmm.... that's not the fault of the Syrians.

Brits need to learn to live in flats. They have an absurd attachment to semi-detatched houses. What a colossal waste of expensive real estate. In central London there's plenty of these quaint little houses. It's one of the world's most expensive real estate. If people were guided by economic realities greater London would be all flats.

That's like saying you can't share the ice-cream because you already ate it. Ok, fine. It was your ice-cream. But you'll still come across as a dick.

Actually most large houses are now divided flats or room rental. Even then only lucky Brits (all races) live in flats or houses nowadays, the rest live in single sometimes shared rooms. They do more so than before. One single Muslim Lady lives in a small room with 4 small children.

I've seen a couple of places. The rooms are so small they have to sleep standing up. I agree more flats should be built.

The government should be building safe properly supervised flats upwards to fit more people where each administration since or before Blair onwards has only built about 1/3 of what is needed for the UK.

But those houses weren't large to begin with. They need to tear them down and then build proper high rises. Manhattan and Shanghai has comparable real estate values. Both of those are almost entirely high rises.

With the added bonus of getting plumbing that finally works and fast Internet. You'll get the money back in no time.

Stockholm and Copenhagen is similar. Both cities are overcrowded and both cities have laws preventing tall buildings to be built. Just making a bad situation worse. Copenhagen is built on a swamp. But Stockholm is all granite. It makes no sense.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Actually most large houses are now divided flats or room rental. Even then only lucky Brits (all races) live in flats or houses nowadays, the rest live in single sometimes shared rooms. They do more so than before. One single Muslim Lady lives in a small room with 4 small children.

I've seen a couple of places. The rooms are so small they have to sleep standing up. I agree more flats should be built.

The government should be building safe properly supervised flats upwards to fit more people where each administration since or before Blair onwards has only built about 1/3 of what is needed for the UK.

But those houses weren't large to begin with. They need to tear them down and then build proper high rises. Manhattan and Shanghai has comparable real estate values. Both of those are almost entirely high rises.

With the added bonus of getting plumbing that finally works and fast Internet. You'll get the money back in no time.

Stockholm and Copenhagen is similar. Both cities are overcrowded and both cities have laws preventing tall buildings to be built. Just making a bad situation worse. Copenhagen is built on a swamp. But Stockholmc is all granite. It makes no sense.

The fault is that the governments have promised all these developments but instead built in a piecemeal manner here and there and not enough affordable housing.

Those who are poor or on low incomes get subsidies to pay towards high price mouse holes.

Another issue is poor management of construction where there are real safety issues due to inadequate fire safe materials.

If the UK ends up with a surplus of 300,000 houses then for sure we can give more refugees nice places to live in.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But those houses weren't large to begin with. They need to tear them down and then build proper high rises. Manhattan and Shanghai has comparable real estate values. Both of those are almost entirely high rises.

With the added bonus of getting plumbing that finally works and fast Internet. You'll get the money back in no time.

Stockholm and Copenhagen is similar. Both cities are overcrowded and both cities have laws preventing tall buildings to be built. Just making a bad situation worse. Copenhagen is built on a swamp. But Stockholmc is all granite. It makes no sense.

The fault is that the governments have promised all these developments but instead built in a piecemeal manner here and there and not enough affordable housing.

Those who are poor or on low incomes get subsidies to pay towards high price mouse holes.

Another issue is poor management of construction where there are real safety issues due to inadequate fire safe materials.

If the UK ends up with a surplus of 300,000 houses then for sure we can give more refugees nice places to live in.

I don't think that's it at all. The government just needs to get the fuck out of the way of construction companies. Regulate less.

The London Docklands is exactly that. Worked great. They just need to do more of that.

And it's not like there's much to be nostalgic over. The Luftwaffe helped to fix that problem. There's vanishingly little that's pretty Victorian stuff. It's mostly dreary post-war architecture. The brownest, blandest and most boring of architectural styles in history. Kill it with fire!

On the fire safety. As I understood it the Grenfell Tower disaster was mostly due to bad maintenance. As they replaced boilers, cladding and such they didn't care about fire safety. The original design was fine. They also failed in clearing corridors from crap. A big function of corridors it to be fire corridors. Which they can't be if they're filled with crap.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The fault is that the governments have promised all these developments but instead built in a piecemeal manner here and there and not enough affordable housing.

Those who are poor or on low incomes get subsidies to pay towards high price mouse holes.

Another issue is poor management of construction where there are real safety issues due to inadequate fire safe materials.

If the UK ends up with a surplus of 300,000 houses then for sure we can give more refugees nice places to live in.

I don't think that's it at all. The government just needs to get the fuck out of the way of construction companies. Regulate less.

The London Docklands is exactly that. Worked great. They just need to do more of that.

And it's not like there's much to be nostalgic over. The Luftwaffe helped to fix that problem. There's vanishingly little that's pretty Victorian stuff. It's mostly dreary post-war architecture. The brownest, blandest and most boring of architectural styles in history. Kill it with fire!

The regulation I refer to is safety. In fact a recent fire (Grenville) is an example of poor management over quality control where the insulation was not fire proof, plus there were no side fire escapes.

The London Docklands started in thhe 1970s but in recent years starting with Thatcher, built masses of offices and insufficient residential blocks.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think that's it at all. The government just needs to get the fuck out of the way of construction companies. Regulate less.

The London Docklands is exactly that. Worked great. They just need to do more of that.

And it's not like there's much to be nostalgic over. The Luftwaffe helped to fix that problem. There's vanishingly little that's pretty Victorian stuff. It's mostly dreary post-war architecture. The brownest, blandest and most boring of architectural styles in history. Kill it with fire!

The regulation I refer to is safety. In fact a recent fire (Grenville) is an example of poor management over quality control where the insulation was not fire proof, plus there were no side fire escapes.

The London Docklands started in thhe 1970s but in recent years starting with Thatcher, built masses of offices and insufficient residential blocks.

The original design of Grenfell Towers was fine. It was the cheap and shoddy 2012 renovation that made it unsafe.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The regulation I refer to is safety. In fact a recent fire (Grenville) is an example of poor management over quality control where the insulation was not fire proof, plus there were no side fire escapes.

The London Docklands started in thhe 1970s but in recent years starting with Thatcher, built masses of offices and insufficient residential blocks.

The original design of Grenfell Towers was fine. It was the cheap and shoddy 2012 renovation that made it unsafe.

Correction. The term I should use is fire RESISTANT not fire proof.However doors and fire resistant materials can withstand extreme temperature for a period of time.

The original design lacked sprinklers and side exits. These were not added in during reonvation.

What I think happened is:

The Client (Housing Authority) didn't check the materials and the factoyr test certificates to ensure they complied to British Safety/Eu Safety Standards and its own listed requirements as given in the contract of material supply and installation.

This could have been through a Third Party Inspectorate/Certifying authority similar to Lloyds preferable that is to using its own so as to avoid taking short cuts etc.

When quality or Safety is poor, Corruption is another avenue to explore.
Instances of corruption exist where Ineptitude is clearly there regardless of corruption.



I worked for contractors and client companies for a number of years so I tend to look at these things.

 

[angelo]

All of the above mentioned cities are over crowded now already. How long will it be before it reaches saturation point like say, Mogadishu. In other words, can building new apartments to house more and more people in any one city just go on to infinity, or will there be a day of reckoning? How far can a city like london keep expanding without concern for the future?

 

[DrZoidberg]

All of the above mentioned cities are over crowded now already. How long will it be before it reaches saturation point like say, Mogadishu. In other words, can building new apartments to house more and more people in any one city just go on to infinity, or will there be a day of reckoning? How far can a city like London keep expanding without concern for the future?

I don't think you understand what cities are for, or why they exist. There's no upper limit to how big a city can be. It's actually good to get as much people in as little area as possible. It has loads of synergistic environmental benefits. As well as synergistic economic benefits. There's a reason cities are magnets for people. As long as infrastructure keeps up. Which shouldn't be a problem. Because the more people, the cheaper maintenance will be, per person. Because of economic synergistic effects people who live in cities have a much easier job of making money. So not only is maintenance cheaper (per person) but also easier to finance (per person). The bigger the better.

The problem of Mogadishu isn't the high population. Neither the density. It's only 2 500 000 people, smack bang in sub-Sahara's most abundant farming land. The problem of Mogadishu is civil wars, unstable governments, poverty, piracy and so on and so forth.

Another problem large cities is often lack of planning. You've got to adjust the infrastructure to fit the population. Private initiatives just won't cut it. It needs plenty of government organisation and planning. Sydney is a good example of what happens when the government doesn't plan enough. There you have an extremely badly designed city. Well... it's not been designed at all. It just sort of happened. Istanbul suffers from that the various councils get paid depending on how many people have registered that they live there. The problem is that Turks, out of loyalty to their families back home, then register in that village. So Istanbul is disastrously underfunded. It's infrastructure is adapted to about half of it's current population. But that's just down to stupid design. Rio de Janeiro just don't have the funds. It's population are too poor, even though they live at the most lucrative spot for them.

The world is full of extremely well designed dense super cities. Tokyo, Shanghai, New York, Amsterdam Hong Kong, Seoul and so on. If they fix the roads Nairobi is another good one. These are just off the top of my head.

Nah, if we want a prosperous future we need to swell our cities. It's the simplest way to cut greenhouse emissions while simultaneously maximising economic growth. It's win-win. Living in the country is extremely wasteful of resources. And a luxury we're having less of an ability to afford.

 

[barbos]

All of the above mentioned cities are over crowded now already. How long will it be before it reaches saturation point like say, Mogadishu. In other words, can building new apartments to house more and more people in any one city just go on to infinity, or will there be a day of reckoning? How far can a city like london keep expanding without concern for the future?

Not to infinity, merely to 1 billion people per Great Britain.

 

[TSwizzle]

British Muslims, like British Christians, are difficult to identify - the only difference (for the vast majority) is that the Christians don't bother going to church on Sunday, while the Muslims don't bother going to mosque on Friday. Europe is, and will remain, secular. It is not under threat from any religion. It may be under threat from tabloid hysteria, but not from religion.

This is patently false. British Muslims as a group are vastly more into their shitty religion than British Christians into their shitty religion.
Study after study shows that British Muslims rank miserably on topics like gay rights, women rights, freedom of the speech, support of terrorism, etc.

If European muslims are not attending mosques, who are new mosques being built for ? Why build a mosque, why not build a block of flats ? Bonkers.

 

[repoman]

All of the above mentioned cities are over crowded now already. How long will it be before it reaches saturation point like say, Mogadishu. In other words, can building new apartments to house more and more people in any one city just go on to infinity, or will there be a day of reckoning? How far can a city like London keep expanding without concern for the future?

I don't think you understand what cities are for, or why they exist. There's no upper limit to how big a city can be. It's actually good to get as much people in as little area as possible. It has loads of synergistic environmental benefits. As well as synergistic economic benefits. There's a reason cities are magnets for people. As long as infrastructure keeps up. Which shouldn't be a problem. Because the more people, the cheaper maintenance will be, per person. Because of economic synergistic effects people who live in cities have a much easier job of making money. So not only is maintenance cheaper (per person) but also easier to finance (per person). The bigger the better.

The problem of Mogadishu isn't the high population. Neither the density. It's only 2 500 000 people, smack bang in sub-Sahara's most abundant farming land. The problem of Mogadishu is civil wars, unstable governments, poverty, piracy and so on and so forth.

Another problem large cities is often lack of planning. You've got to adjust the infrastructure to fit the population. Private initiatives just won't cut it. It needs plenty of government organisation and planning. Sydney is a good example of what happens when the government doesn't plan enough. There you have an extremely badly designed city. Well... it's not been designed at all. It just sort of happened. Istanbul suffers from that the various councils get paid depending on how many people have registered that they live there. The problem is that Turks, out of loyalty to their families back home, then register in that village. So Istanbul is disastrously underfunded. It's infrastructure is adapted to about half of it's current population. But that's just down to stupid design. Rio de Janeiro just don't have the funds. It's population are too poor, even though they live at the most lucrative spot for them.

The world is full of extremely well designed dense super cities. Tokyo, Shanghai, New York, Amsterdam Hong Kong, Seoul and so on. If they fix the roads Nairobi is another good one. These are just off the top of my head.

Nah, if we want a prosperous future we need to swell our cities. It's the simplest way to cut greenhouse emissions while simultaneously maximising economic growth. It's win-win. Living in the country is extremely wasteful of resources. And a luxury we're having less of an ability to afford.

Oh man, when global warming and resource depletion (including fossil fuels needed to ship food to cities) really hits cities will look like Soylent Green.