Rupert_Baehr Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 ... Life would be so stressful, probably crime ridden, filthy and a complete misery for the human race, if we all lived shoulder to shoulder in brick boxes in an urban concrete enviroment. That sounds like a description of life in any run-down city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 So long as the government has enough to give out in benefit to stop people starving. ah the old build an airport stop people starving argument:hihi: epic fail:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Lets just bulldoze Hounslow... it's a dump, so an airport would be a welcomed sight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdy Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Back in the 70's, the third London Airport was going to be on the Maplin Sands, east of Southend. Millions were spent then. What a waste! Boris Island is just another big hole to pour our cash into. I always thought the airports were private enterprises. So it would be a big hole for investors to pour THEIR cash into whilst providing hundredes of thousands of jobs and probably saving London as the major European hub. With regard to some mythical ecological disaster. The place is nothing more than a stop off place for migratory geese. Having watched the BBC Earthflight series, they highlighted the flights of migratory geese and other birds from Africa to Northern Europe. When one patch of wetland disappeared the birds simply altered their flight path to take in another, pretty much like we would if we came upon a roadworks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 ah the old build an airport stop people starving argument:hihi: epic fail:D Your misrepresenting my argument = EPIC FAIL You seem to be suggesting that if we only stopped building and doing things the environment would be great and we could all live in some utopian paradise. In which case, what's going to put food on the table? My arguement has sound foundations in both history and macroeconomics. You say: What is the point in having a life if you have to exist on a vast industrial estate. Theres much more to life than money! My point being it's also difficult to have a life when you have no food to eat because you don't have a job and the government can no longer afford to support you. Infrastructure spending in the past has solved this problem, the Hoover Dam for instance put many thousands of people to work and gave them money to buy food to feed their starving families during the great depression. What's your alternative? Euthanasia for the unemployed? I'm amazed how many crazy people just don't get it. We as a country are s@~ewed unless we can find some sort of economic growth. And I still haven't seen any evidence that the Thames gateway, previously home to gas works, salt factories and oh yes industrial machinery like the Thames barrier is such an important envronmental area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvp82 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Do we really need another airport? Yes because London Heathrow is at bursting point running at somewhere like 99% capacity and as far as the major international airlines are concerned Heathrow / London is the airport / city they want to fly into. As for Boris Island, it will never happen, well not in my lifetime anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Your misrepresenting my argument = EPIC FAIL You seem to be suggesting that if we only stopped building and doing things the environment would be great and we could all live in some utopian paradise. In which case, what's going to put food on the table? My arguement has sound foundations in both history and macroeconomics. You say: My point being it's also difficult to have a life when you have no food to eat because you don't have a job and the government can no longer afford to support you. Infrastructure spending in the past has solved this problem, the Hoover Dam for instance put many thousands of people to work and gave them money to buy food to feed their starving families during the great depression. What's your alternative? Euthanasia for the unemployed? I'm amazed how many crazy people just don't get it. We as a country are s@~ewed unless we can find some sort of economic growth. And I still haven't seen any evidence that the Thames gateway, previously home to gas works, salt factories and oh yes industrial machinery like the Thames barrier is misrepresenting what again? the best way to get food on the table is to grow it in the environment we live in-not build an airport so we can ship it from people starving in other countries. The system of neverending growth is unsustainable to anyone with half a brain. There was an article in the metro from some economists the other day about this-thankfully some of them are starting to get it! Essentially I guess I am just looking longer term than you are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Yes because London Heathrow is at bursting point running at somewhere like 99% capacity and as far as the major international airlines are concerned Heathrow / London is the airport / city they want to fly into. As for Boris Island, it will never happen, well not in my lifetime anyway. I've got a "World of Wonder Book" from 1971 and there's a brilliant two page spread on "London's Third Airport" to be built on an island in the estuary. I'll snap it later and upload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldprune Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The system of neverending growth is unsustainable to anyone with half a brain. Ah that would explain why you see it but folks with a complete brain can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 misrepresenting what again? the best way to get food on the table is to grow it in the environment we live in-not build an airport so we can ship it from people starving in other countries. The system of neverending growth is unsustainable to anyone with half a brain. There was an article in the metro from some economists the other day about this-thankfully some of them are starting to get it! Essentially I guess I am just looking longer term than you are! The Metro LMAO what a credible source of info. The fact that you think we even have the land to, or the climate to grow the food we consume betrays your mental incapacity. Were it that you were looking at all! Certainly no further than the back of your eyelids. If you had read my post carefully you'd have realised I had even predicted your response. Subsistence farming requires something like an acre of fertile land per person. Those countries which rely on this approach are the ones where people consistently die of starvation. Evidence from the once productive Zimbabwe only goes to prove the point. On the issue of sustainability I agree, but to do it in the way you are suggesting would mean significantly thinning our population density. Are you prepared to live by the courage of your convictions and be the first to volunteer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.