sta100

Quite, this is why some are happy with leasehold with the right agent because we don't have to do anything. I find houses to be a burden.

Yes, I completely understand that point of view given the madness of house prices. Tiny houses have an appeal to a lot of people.

We had a proposal for one at the end of my road and managed to get it blocked. They pop up in which there's a high level of BTL's because they don't oppose the planning.

Where there is an end terrace people have converted the garage in the rear garden to a bungalow and sold it off. Rarer cases they've managed to do it with alleway entrance.

First instinct was 1.5m so close enough

Welcome to Britain, where have you been living? I looked at the OP's post and thought nothing out of the ordinary there. These things are everywhere, even in people's back gardens.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/135698831#/?channel=RES_BUY https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/138545972#/?channel=RES_BUY

I'm going to disagree with you. Build cost for something that size must be at least 60-70k these days.

More difficult for you to paint them as eugenic and promoting genocide, because that would mean your own choice to support those who came up with this overcrowding narrative with your vote is eugenic and supports genocide. Much easier to project sinister intentions onto others, who are merely interested in scientific progress and knowledge gathering. Who write books containing knowledge that benefits of humanity, instead of books which contain propaganda. You criticise this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Many-People-Earth-Support/dp/0393038629 And vote for this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/OverCrowded-Britain-Immigration-Crisis-Exposed/dp/0954012410 You have supported politicians who want to shut off borders and play god with who gets to go where under the premise of overcrowding. That's what your vote did, regardless of the reason you made it. Of course you'll have a rationale for it which absolves you of personal responsibility when you turned a blind eye to it as everyone does in these situations. Actions speak much louder than words.

I see so the cacophony of nonsense spouted by the political class was indecipherable, but it's decipherable when the same political class spouts "nonsense" about sustainability that this is about eugenics/genocide. And incidentally it wasn't just the MP's it was the media and the public who kept going on about overcrowding. This is nothing to do with immigration, you keep bringing that up. It's about genocide, according to you. Interesting that you're still not concerned that the same people still talking about overcrowded Britain aren't about to massacre a lot of people.

No, you haven't answered the question. It's a simple one. Given that you're convinced this sort of thing leads to genocide, how did you miss/ignore it?

You've come on here to point out questions such as "how many people can the earth support" are unethical and are convinced they lead to genocide But you've completely discounted the fact that many of the brexiteers and supportive media were calling Britain overcrowded prior to brexit, or appear to have ignored it completely, which is a bit strange given that you appear to have such a strong opinion on it. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11962373/Can-overcrowded-Britain-really-cope-with-millions-more-people.html It's a bit of an odd position given that you're making so many noises about genocide here. Aren't you concerned that there's a sinister genocide plot behind all the talk of overcrowded Britain from all the brexiteers?

I'm just curious as to why you would kick up such a fuss about a scientist asking a question such as "how many people can the earth support" as if the intent is to create genocide. But support a vote in which one of the prominent spearheads claims that Britain is overcrowded. I'm not sure how you can discount the intent of the leave movement when it leveraged this idea that Britain is overcrowded to win votes and didn't condemn it. Is this not the sort of thing that you are objecting to strongly?

So the question "how many people can the earth support" is sinister, and the sort of thing that leads to genocides. But when Farage prior to brexit asks on question time "is britain overcrowded", "do you think I'm wrong?", how come you're happy to vote brexit instead of making the same argument you're making here? This is more your type of book I guess? https://www.amazon.co.uk/OverCrowded-Britain-Immigration-Crisis-Exposed/dp/0954012410 I didn't support stripping EU citizens of their freedom in Britain due to "overcrowding" so there's no reason to think so. Remind me how many people Britain can support again?

I see. There's no possibility that seeking an answer may lead to useful things such more efficient production of food and use of land. It can only be sinister in intent. I see you haven't spent your time presenting any research on ethics surrounding scientific questions or concrete example to support your view just repeating yourself "bad bad bad". As I say you add nothing. You also conveniently ignored my question of what genocides have happened on the basis of this research over the last century?

You have a very limited knowledge of science, many significant discoveries have come from asking the 'wrong' question Your analogy is a joke, "how many people can the earth support" is not comparable to "how many cattle can you pack into a shipping container before they suffocate". One is a multidisciplinary academic question which feeds into other scientific research, where there is no control over the scenario which may not happen in centuries to a millenium, if at all. The other is a limited scope profit making driven question where the scenario can easily can be controlled and achieved in an hour. You keep saying this is unethical but the question has been asked for over a century and what exactly has happened? The long term plan is to reach the 1960s upper bound of a trillion people so that someone in a few millenia can profit, and there's a concerted global effort to achieve this? There's a global concerted effort to nuke or not nuke the planet according to how many people there are on it? Brexit happened because freedom of movement was encouraging population growth? Bizzare conspiracy territory. It seems you gain a lot of your information from social media. Compare your posts on here which add nothing to someone who has an interest in science who read the book below.

It's an odd narrative that generations are supposed to leave their own kids better off as firstly, progress is not normally made in a straight line, and secondly the planet has become more crowded and changed a lot geopolitically in the last few decades. Those born around 1900 were worse off in some ways than their parents as they were more likely to die in a war and I'm sure there's many more examples over the course of human history.

It's not really a contract that's been around that long, at the beginning of last century it was common for 5 year olds to work in a factory. If you want anyone to blame then successive governments who have focused on short term goals for re-election over long term prosperity are the problem.

Social media wasn't around when the book on this based on peer reviewed articles was written in 1995. Here's a follow up article in 2017 which contains that proof https://doi.org/10.3197/jps.2017.2.1.37 Not much else to say about your bias and level of knowledge is there Unless of course you've read and critiqued it, in which case feel free to post that here instead of all this pseudoexpertbabble. Your turn to demonstrate your self proclaimed scientific credentials.

Scientists are subject bias which is why there is a peer review process for publications. The peer review process is subject to bias which is why it's been subject to scrutiny and extensively evolved over time. Is it perfect? No. However, given what you've just stated, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the scientific peer review process produces conclusions which are more biased than your own individual non peer-reviewed ones, which appear to be rather ill informed and paranoid to say the least. Good luck with that.

It wouldn't be scientific, apparently only conducting repeatable experiments is science. You can't say, come to a conclusion that humans aren't mortal without conducting your own experiment to kill at least a few.

Great, point us to your paper on this. Oh I forgot, publishing influential papers that land you a spot in the history books is much too mundane for an intellectual giant such as yourself. Why bother when you can write two sentences on a forum.

You're actually not too far off the mark here with both these questions. Social status definitely has a role to play in people's behaviour and if everyone else in your social/career circle is borrowing to buy overpriced houses then you are obliged to do so. Very few want to live frugally because it's not possible to do that and keep up with people who aren't. Social media has increased this pressure by people presenting themselves with a one dimensional view of their lives where the fruits of their borrowed money has bought them success and happiness. It's a bit like the trend for bodybuilders who hop on steroids like it's nothing now it's become normalised. Why bother to put the hard work in when you're not going to be as big as someone who injects themselves with something toxic and gets all the attention. Unfortunately this toxic poison doesn't just affect those who are willing to ingest it, it has serious repercussions on those who won't touch it too.

Yeah deluded musings. Coming from someone who can't distinguish between pseudoscience and science, between science and eugenics, and who's claims he's concerned there's a sinister plot to control the population, when he already voted for a control mechanism called brexit. Of course controlling peoples ability to move around this planet and decide where they procreate is fine - because he agrees with it. Those studies on immigration, perfectly legitimate, nothing political about the way facts were presented during brexit. It was all done for the greater good unlike all this science which feeds into other science on how to minimise the number of people who die of malnourishment. Don't worry about that kind of thing, those sorts of people can't live here, so lets just stoop to the gutter and claim it's all about eugenics. Can't have those pesky people increasing the population of this Country though. Those extra few billion can live elsewhere can't they, because A.Steve has looked at his tea leaves and decided who is or isn't worthy of getting a share in planetary resources based on some arbitrary boundaries drawn a map, and looked at them again and decided that any attempt to work out the consequences of population growth is something to be opposed.

The population has grown by at least 3 billion since scientists began seriously concerning themselves with how much human life Earth can sustain. Nobody in Western Countries has been culling on the basis of this, so I don't know why people think anyone is going to start. It's frankly an odd position someone took earlier that people having less kids is a result of some kind of behind the scenes control scheme rather than there just being too many people to manage resources using the same economic structures that were applicable when the population was much smaller.