Population density of the UK: 260 pop./sq km
Population density of the US: 34 pop./sq km

My general points I stand by but:

That's quite a compelling argument. Having now read the article properly (;P) I am less critical of the couple. I hadn't realised it was right up against an eco village. I still think they should have tried for permission in advance. Given it is next to the eco village, and given the distinct regulation for Wales, then they probably would have got permission. And as I understand it, it is in the appeals process now. Which means they may well end up being allowed to keep it.



[eta] I am equally annoyed by 'nimbyism' too. If you think your area is special, organise as residents and apply for protected status. if you can make a case for it and it gets through, good on ya. And if the patch of land that stretches out behind your garden and onto the next block is home to rare wildlife or protected species, then it needs protecting. But the fact that three new houses will spoil the view from your living room is not material to planning consent. Nor is the fact that you consider your area to be just right as it is a reason to stop new homes being built. It can't all be shunted onto the poorer, built up areas of town.

I live in a tiny village which is slowly joining up with surrounding connurbations. I have no problem with that. Some parts of it, where the older buildings are, or at the edge on one side where it leads into farmland, are protected. The rest isn't, there's just a general assumption that building materials will be in keeping with the area. Many of my neighbours object to each new spurt of housing. They want it all to stay as it is. It can't. We need houses. Other people should be able to come and live here. There is a balance to be struck between protecting our heritage and environment and facilitating development and innovation.

you go to hell and you die

I started out disagreeing with your point of view, Dana, and then rethought it as you made your argument. While in this particular case I suspect there may be local personalities or agendas that make the decision inappropriate (given the location of the eco-village right next door), I agree that green space, endangered species, and sensitive ecosystems must be protected for future generations. It's our responsibility. While there's a great deal of open space in North America, there are also ecosystems here that are incredibly fragile. Unfortunately, big corporations and developers have been allowed to destroy them with impunity for the most part.

People do need a place to live; that being said, if we don't act as a community with a long-term view to respect for and protection of our surroundings, we'll destroy what can't be replaced and our entire society will eventually collapse (possibly the lesser of the two evils, but not much of a legacy for our children). Britain, being so much smaller geographically, is confronted with the issue more immediately than we think we are here, but it applies to everyone.

I have to say, Dana - I have very seldom met anyone who presents an argument as cogently as you. Even when I don't agree I learn something and have to respect your point of view.

Two different examples here in Arlington.

My friend lives in an old farmhouse in Arlington. It's been modernized and is a very nice house. About a decade ago, the county widened the cul de sac in front of his house, bringing it close to his front porch steps. Years later, his front porch steps were crumbling. They needed to be replaced. He wanted to replace them with a covered front porch that would have steps that would come down to within a foot or so of the curb. The county forbid it. Too close to the road. But his house predated the road. He's an attorney, and he was motivated, so he fought them and won. He built his new front porch, and it fits perfectly with the house and the neighborhood and looks very tasteful, and the front steps work fine. The government was a hindrance in his example. They did absolutely no good.

Second example is that a developer came in to the street one block from me and tore down 3 old small adjacent houses and built 4 giant McMansions in their place. The old houses were 1.5 stories. The new houses were 4 stories. He did this at a time when it was in the news a lot that McMansions were being crammed in to neighborhoods and really ruining the character of them. And he built them taller than the land was zoned for. He had to know what he was doing. After they had been framed, everyone in the neighborhood was like WTF? Complaints were made. The county came out and measured them and informed him that they were too high, and he chopped off parts of the roofs to make them come into some semblance of compliance. They look like hell. The roof lines are all wrong, and of course they are too big for the land they are sitting on. The developer didn't give a shit. He was in compliance now. The thing that amazed me is that people bought them. And they weren't cheap. So the County in this example tried to fix the problem, but they were not effective. They were a nuisance to the developer, which pleases me, but that was about it.

Proving once again, that you cannot legislate morality and ethics.

How do you think they got, "So Rich".

We legislate morality and ethics all the time. Some of the morality and ethics are questionable or negative, as in the case of corporations like Haliburton being given free rein to wreck environments and lives ... :mad:

We try to legislate morality and ethics, but morality and ethics are dynamic and situational and that leads to the age old problem of the letter versus the spirit of the law and the never ending quest for loopholes in order to circumvent the law. Sometimes the loophole allows one to do what is morally right despite what the law requires and sometimes it allows the opposite.

When people manipulate the laws with a view to what is best for themselves it is usually the death knell of morality and ethics.

Thankyou Ortho, that's a lovely thing to say.

I think my time as a local councillor and doing a higher degree have both really helped me build a more effective communication style. That might be why i don't get into as many board fights as I used to :P

Nah, it just made you jaded and bitter. Maybe a little complacent too. :lol2:

Age has more to do with it. In particular, how a prefrontal cortex grows. With age, we think less with our emotions (those lower level functions that children use). And more from a brain lobe less influenced by emotion. It is the process of becoming an adult. Or more adult.

That paragraph includes a perfect example. You were called old. The emotional would feel insulted. You were called older. And the underlying science says why that is good. An adult who is still more of a child would be insulted. An adult thinking logically saw what was only posted in that paragraph.

hmmm... I think I've become meaner with age. I attribute this to the increasing audacity as well as sheer numbers of the idiots we now must all deal with on a daily basis. I believe science wants to study whatever it is that passes for my prefrontal cortex these days. For all the good THAT will do anyone.

I visualize Dana as one day becoming like one of those Buddhist monks who just float around in the mountains of Tibet - only she'll be floating around the Cellar!

I hope not, things floating around in the cellar means a burst pipe or backed up sewer. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif

Learn how to use a prefrontal cortex from the World Wrestling Federation. Head butting.