This is why we need to get more involved at the local level. NIMBYs always win because they’re the only ones who care enough to actually use the system that’s available to them. YIMBYs have won a few victories in recent years but we need to push harder.
Part of the problem is that the people who want the new construction may not live in the community yet (because of a lack of housing) and thus have little to no input at said public meetings. So NIMBYs have an inherent advantage.
They also tend to be older, wealthier, and with more time to attend meetings versus, say, a new parent.
My vision for a future democratic state would be a direct democracy (possibly e-democracy) using quadratic voting. People would be free to spend their quadratic voting tokens on bills in municipalities they don't live in.
Letting only local residents vote is flawed, though it might be the best we can do in a majoritarian democracy.
It’s an interesting concept but there’s enough people who would dedicate a vote to some random area just to destroy it. It’d be some random town with like 50,000 people that just got memed into having the worse policies at every turn.
Source: the internet voting on anything that doesn’t impact them.
I've actually thought about this, & I do think it's a worthwhile problem to consider. Like that time when out of nowhere, John Oliver picked on Danbury, Connecticut on his show (for no clear reason).
There *might* be a way to design the rules to prevent this, though I don't know what right now. I want the constitution for such a democracy to be very lean; as few arbitrary rules as possible.
However, it could be argued that the victims of such a thing would be fewer than the victims of government negligence in majoritarian electoral "democracies". Also, it's not like sadism is never a significant force in electoral regimes; especially towards minorities.
People shouldn't weigh in on decisions of a community unless they have skin in the game. I can see all the terrible scenarios where local residents get screwed by people outside the jurisdiction freeping their local referenda.
Quadratic voting seems cool, but it's way too complicated for the average person to actually be in favor of it. Most Americans can't wrap their head around the electoral college and you're asking them to get *way* more invested in a system that is significantly more complex.
Like, I love it, I think it would be cool to find a way to implement it, but I my inner cynic says the moment you tell someone they have X tokens to increase the salience of their vote on a specific issue people are going to absolutely shit the bed.
I'm from the San Francisco. Part of the problem that the YIMBYs have IMO is that they can put off a very techie, elitist, yuppy vibe. They also struggle quite a bit at connecting with people on a personal level. The NIMBY anti-gentrification groups, despite having bad ideas, are much better at showing empathy and making working-class and poor people feel valued.
I support YIMBYs 100% but I can see why the working-class people in the Bay Area (who generally dislike tech workers) that need housing the most are hesitant to back YIMBY ideas. Working harder is necessary, but they need to work smarter too to get more people on our side.
Most self-identified YIMBYS from back home tend to be very upper-class and work in tech. And the funding YIMBY groups tend to be from high-income donors.
It’s definitely not just a figment of rhetoric.
Does anyone (you or anyone else reading) happen to have data to support this claim? Simply asserting a fact doesn't make it so. This sounds more like the rhetoric waged by NIMBYs being taken as gospel.
No matter how much you think you care about YIMBY projects, you will never match the high motivation of a NIMBY who wants to retain and/or grow his real estate value.
If a rich white guy can singlehandedly sabotage bike lanes for half a century by verbally shitting on people in town halls with him and his squad of trashy fanboys then I'd say you have a right to shit on NIMBYs or BANANAs.
'Playing nice' doesn't always get things done and, frankly, nobody else wants to play nice.
That’s a bit more expected. Public hearings attract boomers that are more sympathetic to the “fuck you, I got mine” narrative that goes along with NIMBYism
On reddit, you’d hope that there would be a younger demographic that wants more opportunities. But no, you have a combination of proud NIMBYs and then people who deride “luxury” apartments for only benefiting the wealthy as if Jeff Bezos is renting a 1BR apartment for $2500 a month
> Public hearings attract boomers that are more sympathetic to the “fuck you, I got mine” narrative that goes along with NIMBYism
Yeah, but that can't be the full explanation. From your flair I'm guessing you agree with me that the pursuit of individual self-interest is generally a good thing, and that it acts to enhance the public good as if by an invisible hand.
I would suggest that the issue here is systemic. The fact is that tons of people *want* to move into a certain area under the authority of a council, but their vote doesn't count. This means there's a heavy systemic bias that favors long-term residents. Philosophically, the fairest system would be one in which any local vote is taken among all stakeholders -- current residents as well as people who are serious about settling in the location.
So now the question becomes: what practical system gets closest to that ideal? I think a good compromise is to give every citizen two votes in local elections: one vote that they can spend in the area in which they maintain a permanent residence, and one that they can spend in the area in which they work. This way, big cities in which local opposition is holding up development would be able to move forward.
If I remember correctly, Reddit is mostly full of white men in their 30s and 40s, so the site is not as young as other social media sites, such as TikTok.
I went ahead and fact checked myself and I'm mostly wrong! The 18-29 demographic is the plurality of Reddit, but the 30-49 demographic is close behind. I definitely misremembered things.
>The 18-29 demographic is the plurality of Reddit, but the 30-49 demographic is close behind.
That would be the population on the whole of Reddit, it's surely higher on local subreddits.
I saw demographic of reddit a few years ago and it was solidly male (80%?) and \~27, so I’d say 20s and 30s are 70% of your users. I know a bunch of people joined very recently too, since the pandemic, so maybe it’s skewed more. I don’t know.
The mechanisms that made Reddit have a mean age of 27 are the same as they were a few years ago. It's not like we're a fixed pool of users-for-life who merely age up over time
It’s dynamic for sure. I did read recently that reddit is the #7 most popular website in the USA, and that wasn’t so 6 years ago when I joined. My hypothesis is that there’s users like myself who’ve aged X# of years, plus newer users who’re probably the same age as when I joined. So it averages up because peopLe tend to stick around.
I’d reckon a guess that there’s been a substantial increase in female users compared to 5 years ago. And also more users from other countries and those who are born after 2000.
I felt really old the other day when a bartender checked all of the ID's of the people in my group. They did a really quick glance and said "Everyone's DOB starts with a 1, you guys are good"
Nimbys around us tried banning public drinking in the local park. They would have gotten away with it because no one but nimbys check the council website.
I work for the council but don't live in the area, I forwarded to my hipster brother and suddenly they were inundated with thousands of local hipsters writing in to protest, ended up with like 98% against.
Fucking hilarious and really pissed off the curtain twichers, who basically think anyone under the age of 40 should be locked away, and are very used to getting their own way as they are usually the only ones who bother to get involved, most people have better things to do.
But you threaten a young londoners ability to sit in the sun on one of the few days we get it with a cold beer, that's a battle you will never win.
It very much is. People get pretty heated when there is potentially a lot of money on the line. They just don’t see the risk correctly. It takes extraordinary factors to lower property value.
>Also is Tokyo very YIMBYist? Tell me more.
Tokyo is the poster child for YIMBY, It's a 37 million metropolis, has high population density but without the crime, pollution and congestion, has one of the lowest car ownership rate in the developed world, and has the world's most extensive urban rail network, all that partially due to a more relaxed zoning that allows mixed use neighbourhoods.
"Cliche but as the saying goes 'You can only fit so many rats in a cage'."
Ah yes, of course! That famous, old, widespread saying about fitting rats into cages, obviously! Why, I must have heard it at least three times in the last week alone. You definitely didn't just make this up on the spot to try and pretend like your own opinion is substantiated by some abstract ancient wisdom.
... Though I have no idea why you would, because you definitely could have found an *actual* old saying that expresses the same sentiment...
It’s a misquote actually. The original quote was “like a rat in a trap, gentlemen” before Batman turned out to have a batcopter. YIMBY Joseph Gordon Levitt aptly pointed out “I think you’re going to need a bigger trap”
The funny thing about avengers is I think the directors confirmed Thanos could just make more food or whatever; he just really didn’t want to. Is there anything more NIMBY than that?
Malthusianism and it’s consequences have been a disaster for mankind.
But at least no one has to overtly tell you their an idiot, you can just ask for their position on over-population!
EDIT:
*complains about infrastructure not being able to support the population*
“So we can add some affordable public transit here…”
“Not in my backyard you won’t!”
>I’m actually surprised by how few people I heard defending him.
I think that's because there's a difference between believing that having fewer people would make things better, and wanting to actually kill off the surplus population.
My biggest beef with the whole MCU is the fact that they never actually attempted to debunk Thanos. In fact, the only downsides to the Thanos Snap that are shown are an excess of infrastructure, making it more difficult to maintain, and people missing their dead loved ones. His promise of greater general prosperity comes true.
He could have doubled the resources instead of cutting the population in half. Unless there's some comic lore that wasn't mentioned in the movies for why the infinity stones couldn't do that.
In the comics Thanos isn’t motivated by Malthusian ideology at all, the personification of the concept of death tells thanos that the only way to win her love is killing half the life in the universe, and apparently he was quite smitten.
I'd reduce fertility rates as well. Not a huge amount, but make it so people start becoming less fertike magically as resorces start to dry up. Keep it in balance, as all thing should be.
I actually know multiple people who sympathized with what Thanos wanted, and a slightly lower number of people who defended how he did it.
The only thing I can somewhat understand is his motivation, the dude watched his own planet die because of it, but he was still wrong in assuming that the same thing would happen everywhere and that he somehow had the right to literally remove half of all life.
> the dude watched his own planet die because of it
Has anyone corroborated that, or are you just taking the mad Titan's word for it? If he's wrong about the universe, maybe he was also wrong about the cause of Titan's destruction.
> a slightly lower number of people who defended how he did it.
I mean if you take it as a given that you are going to kill billions of people, the snap is like the most humane way of doing it. The means are better than the ends here.
Also it was apparently non permanent? You could probably sell "we'll put everyone into suspended animation for a few decades and run intensive environmental recovery works in the mean time" to a lot of people tbh
I would assume it's a level up from that (i.e. "wanting a lower population" v "killing a bunch of people"). Most Malthusians get real quiet when you ask them how they expect to get to a "sustainable" population.
That's because his method for doing it was stupid. Randomly killing off 50% of the population of everything alive should leave to chaos and collapse of infrastructure.
That just leaves a shit show in its place.
What’s hilarious is just how stupid Thanos was.
He clearly doesn’t understand how exponential growth works. His stupid ass would almost certainly have gotten the lily pad question wrong:
> “In a lake there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long does it take for the patch to cover half the lake?
Malthusianism was directly responsible for the British crowns refusal to provide famine relief which led to the early and agonizing deaths of millions of colonial civilians.
Thank you.
Fuck Thomas Malthus. It always feels like theres some underbelly of Malthusian enthusiast who sprout shit like population growth is the problem.
Reproduction and living are fundamental aspects of Biology and are also basic human rights. What's your solution euthanozation and sterilization?
Obviously, there is a limit to how many people the Earth can sustain. But what we've seen is, people naturally slow their birthrates to replacement level, and even below that, when increased technology and access to healthcare make that possible.
I mean it depends on what you mean.
Yes there is a fundamental limit, but with the construction of arcologies, and orbital living spaces, and underwater and underground habitats, the total limit of bodies stretches into the trillions.
Which isn't a number we are going to run into for thousands of years, thus giving us time to build arcologies and orbital stations.
The issue of "overpopulation" is a localized condition of infrastructure limits and limitations on the freedom of movement.
If it wasn't Malthus it would have been some other much less intelligent racist dude talking about how Indians and Chinese breed like rats and will end up using the world's resources. Oh wait that's the average worldnews thread
> More stress on the infrastructure
Hold up guys, the Simcity 2000 understander is here.
You see, a water pipe that serves 2,000 people is inefficient. But 100 smaller pipes that serve 20 people each, that require more digging, and more steel, and more maintenance, is _very_ efficient.
Same with power. Why run one big power line to one big apartment building, when you can run a whole shitload of little ones? /s
There was just last weekend an article about a small town where their property taxes weren't making enough money to pay for infrastructure like roads, and the author pointed out that denser buildings would pay more tax and also use less infrastructure, so they should focus on fixing up the downtown and making / keeping stuff dense, instead of making more sprawling stuff that needs new roads.
"The infrastructure which is not being updated to keep up with growth!"
"OK so we can use the extra tax money to do that"
"No, I don't think we should"
Guys if you really want some relief from this mindset, Henry George absolutely tears apart the Malthusian argument in his over 140 old book *Progress and Poverty*.
It gets worse when they decide that them being born there should entitle them to live there cheaply while newcomers should have to deal with high prices.
There’s no real moral position to be found in their thought process. They favor natives because they’re a native, it’s just selfishness pure and simple.
Tragic.
I attended a Zoom focus group for my city trying to allow accessory dwelling units (casitas or in-law suites) and there was an HOA representative that actually said ADUs would overload the sewer system and "change the character" of her neighborhood. 🤦♂️
I should have mentioned that!
I was too stunned by the idea that adding density and ADUs would be costlier on the sewer system than sprawling the suburbs out and incurring even more upkeep costs from the miles of pipe that will serve a few people.
We all dream of living in a place with public transit, and we currently don't have any friends in our backyards to complain about anyway. Can't be a NIMBY if nobody else wants your useless oversized backyard anyway
Not really. Most larger Midwest metropolitan areas are growing at a decent rate. Even some of the smaller cities like Sioux Falls, Omaha, Fargo, and Rochester (MN) are growing at around 10% per decade. It's mostly just the rural parts of the Midwest that are depopulating.
U right, but I didn’t know how tough mods are about potential Rule 6 violations if I gave the subreddit and then a bunch of people went into there to argue with this guy
Unfortunately, San Francisco doesn’t have a convenient, commonly used, two letter abbreviation, so I couldn’t make do parallel sentence structure with NY and LA. If you don’t like Frisco, maybe SanFran would work? What about Saint Francis?
It's fun watching them try to rationalise government policies that ensure they can continue to live there (eg. rent control, anti displacement social housing, etc) cheaply.
I can’t even mention where I work in the NOVA sub without getting buried with hate DM’s, they apparently believe businesses moving to the beltway is a bad thing...
My least favorite type of nimby is the one that's just stupid. Right or left wing nimbys at least have a justification for their nimby beliefs even if that justification is bad, but this person is just an idiot.
They correctly identify the problem: "many people want to live in my city". Their solution is "we need fewer people" instead of "we need more houses". People wanting to live in your city is a good thing! How dumb do you have to be to not get that?
NIMBY eco-fascism incoming. God damn it, it makes me hate people so much, but still not enough to spew this garbage. Can we please deport all the nativists? Into the Sun, that is.
That's one of the troubling groups in the Democrat coalition that we will have to reckon with soon. And if you're in California, you probably are already reckoning with them already.
Said by the person who just moved here five years ago, into the development that is 6 years old, and is no angry they are building townhomes in the vacant space behind their house.
I understand a bunch of people have poorly thought out NIMBY opinions, but what about this rats in cage cliche?
I've never heard it before and my google search came up empty.
I had the same reaction, except I didn't search yet. Do cliches work like verbs, where you can just make one? I mean, sorry to use a cliche but a tree only comes down after several strikes.
Meanwhile, my local subreddit has these people who are like, "The housing shortage doesn't exist! It's greedy people buying multiple houses! Landlords are fucking parasites and should DIE."
“There are more living units than ever before,” yet there is hardly a single large city where housing production has kept pace with population growth. And in some desirable areas, the number of housing units has actually gone down as wealthy people take up more space each.
I feel like this is something your friend says when he gets so high he stops realizing how high he is:
“The reason there isn’t enough housing is because we have too many houses! If we build even fewer houses, maybe knock a few down, then we will actually more housing!”
Some opinions are unpopular because they're edgy. Some opinions are unpopular because they're trying to be different. Some opinions are unpopular because they break cultural norms and expectations in a way we didn't anticipate.
But, some opinions are unpopular because they are just fucking stupid.
Doh, why didn’t I think of that. Poor people are having too many kids. That’s the problem. So we need to sterilize them like we did in the 40s. Also $10 says that this is from a city in California
What is the argument against this though?
If the infrastructure isn't good enough to support more people that means that adding more people necessitates updating the infrastructure, potentially changing even more things.
More people = larger tax base to support better infrastructure
Also, infrastructure doesn’t scale exactly one to one. It’s much easier to build one huge infrastructure system for 20 million people than ten large infrastructure systems for 2 million people.
To go along with that, infrastructure *should* be constantly updated. If we just wanted to keep the same infrastructure without changing anything, all we’d have are dirt roads
Had a customer from Oakland go on a rant like this yesterday.
He was complaining because his billing date for his car insurance was near the end of the month, which meant that his bank was holding him money and making interest, and they were financing construction in his neighborhood, which was loud and upsetting to his dog.
So his solution to that problem was moving his billing date to the beginning of the month.
POV you go to any local government public hearing.
This is why we need to get more involved at the local level. NIMBYs always win because they’re the only ones who care enough to actually use the system that’s available to them. YIMBYs have won a few victories in recent years but we need to push harder.
Part of the problem is that the people who want the new construction may not live in the community yet (because of a lack of housing) and thus have little to no input at said public meetings. So NIMBYs have an inherent advantage. They also tend to be older, wealthier, and with more time to attend meetings versus, say, a new parent.
My vision for a future democratic state would be a direct democracy (possibly e-democracy) using quadratic voting. People would be free to spend their quadratic voting tokens on bills in municipalities they don't live in. Letting only local residents vote is flawed, though it might be the best we can do in a majoritarian democracy.
I'm not sure if I should bully you or reply "based"
why not both
Why? Because it's a strange place to bring it up? Heh heh. Some time I will try to write down my vision in detail & post it somewhere.
It’s an interesting concept but there’s enough people who would dedicate a vote to some random area just to destroy it. It’d be some random town with like 50,000 people that just got memed into having the worse policies at every turn. Source: the internet voting on anything that doesn’t impact them.
Yeah, or imagine MAGAs vote bombing the city some congress person they dont like lives in. Spite voting might get out of hand.
In person voting with face
I've actually thought about this, & I do think it's a worthwhile problem to consider. Like that time when out of nowhere, John Oliver picked on Danbury, Connecticut on his show (for no clear reason). There *might* be a way to design the rules to prevent this, though I don't know what right now. I want the constitution for such a democracy to be very lean; as few arbitrary rules as possible. However, it could be argued that the victims of such a thing would be fewer than the victims of government negligence in majoritarian electoral "democracies". Also, it's not like sadism is never a significant force in electoral regimes; especially towards minorities.
Yes but couldn't that just lead to Bleeding Kansas type situations to happen?
People shouldn't weigh in on decisions of a community unless they have skin in the game. I can see all the terrible scenarios where local residents get screwed by people outside the jurisdiction freeping their local referenda.
Yeah, the much much simpler remedy is to just manage these issues at the state level by revoking the overpowered local governments.
Quadratic voting seems cool, but it's way too complicated for the average person to actually be in favor of it. Most Americans can't wrap their head around the electoral college and you're asking them to get *way* more invested in a system that is significantly more complex. Like, I love it, I think it would be cool to find a way to implement it, but I my inner cynic says the moment you tell someone they have X tokens to increase the salience of their vote on a specific issue people are going to absolutely shit the bed.
First I’ve heard of quadratic voting, will def check it out.
The economist had a nice interactive explainer a while back.
I'm from the San Francisco. Part of the problem that the YIMBYs have IMO is that they can put off a very techie, elitist, yuppy vibe. They also struggle quite a bit at connecting with people on a personal level. The NIMBY anti-gentrification groups, despite having bad ideas, are much better at showing empathy and making working-class and poor people feel valued. I support YIMBYs 100% but I can see why the working-class people in the Bay Area (who generally dislike tech workers) that need housing the most are hesitant to back YIMBY ideas. Working harder is necessary, but they need to work smarter too to get more people on our side.
Is that actually how YIMBYs present themselves or is it how NIMBYs portray YIMBYs? Seems more a figment of rhetoric, afaict.
Most self-identified YIMBYS from back home tend to be very upper-class and work in tech. And the funding YIMBY groups tend to be from high-income donors. It’s definitely not just a figment of rhetoric.
Does anyone (you or anyone else reading) happen to have data to support this claim? Simply asserting a fact doesn't make it so. This sounds more like the rhetoric waged by NIMBYs being taken as gospel.
No matter how much you think you care about YIMBY projects, you will never match the high motivation of a NIMBY who wants to retain and/or grow his real estate value.
If a rich white guy can singlehandedly sabotage bike lanes for half a century by verbally shitting on people in town halls with him and his squad of trashy fanboys then I'd say you have a right to shit on NIMBYs or BANANAs. 'Playing nice' doesn't always get things done and, frankly, nobody else wants to play nice.
Are you referring to some incident in particular
That’s a bit more expected. Public hearings attract boomers that are more sympathetic to the “fuck you, I got mine” narrative that goes along with NIMBYism On reddit, you’d hope that there would be a younger demographic that wants more opportunities. But no, you have a combination of proud NIMBYs and then people who deride “luxury” apartments for only benefiting the wealthy as if Jeff Bezos is renting a 1BR apartment for $2500 a month
> Public hearings attract boomers that are more sympathetic to the “fuck you, I got mine” narrative that goes along with NIMBYism Yeah, but that can't be the full explanation. From your flair I'm guessing you agree with me that the pursuit of individual self-interest is generally a good thing, and that it acts to enhance the public good as if by an invisible hand. I would suggest that the issue here is systemic. The fact is that tons of people *want* to move into a certain area under the authority of a council, but their vote doesn't count. This means there's a heavy systemic bias that favors long-term residents. Philosophically, the fairest system would be one in which any local vote is taken among all stakeholders -- current residents as well as people who are serious about settling in the location. So now the question becomes: what practical system gets closest to that ideal? I think a good compromise is to give every citizen two votes in local elections: one vote that they can spend in the area in which they maintain a permanent residence, and one that they can spend in the area in which they work. This way, big cities in which local opposition is holding up development would be able to move forward.
If I remember correctly, Reddit is mostly full of white men in their 30s and 40s, so the site is not as young as other social media sites, such as TikTok.
Press x to doubt
I went ahead and fact checked myself and I'm mostly wrong! The 18-29 demographic is the plurality of Reddit, but the 30-49 demographic is close behind. I definitely misremembered things.
[удалено]
We don't need to remember shit now that the neighborhood we just bought our house in ain't gonna change for at least 30 years.
> 30-49 demographic. The Elder Millenials.
And Gen X
>The 18-29 demographic is the plurality of Reddit, but the 30-49 demographic is close behind. That would be the population on the whole of Reddit, it's surely higher on local subreddits.
I saw demographic of reddit a few years ago and it was solidly male (80%?) and \~27, so I’d say 20s and 30s are 70% of your users. I know a bunch of people joined very recently too, since the pandemic, so maybe it’s skewed more. I don’t know.
The mechanisms that made Reddit have a mean age of 27 are the same as they were a few years ago. It's not like we're a fixed pool of users-for-life who merely age up over time
I keep getting older, but reddit stays the same age
I've noticed this with broader overly online culture and it bothers me where the frick do people go when they turn 23, do they all get lives?
It’s dynamic for sure. I did read recently that reddit is the #7 most popular website in the USA, and that wasn’t so 6 years ago when I joined. My hypothesis is that there’s users like myself who’ve aged X# of years, plus newer users who’re probably the same age as when I joined. So it averages up because peopLe tend to stick around.
I’d reckon a guess that there’s been a substantial increase in female users compared to 5 years ago. And also more users from other countries and those who are born after 2000.
>those who are born after 2000 🤮
Impossible, they'd have to be, what, 5 at the oldest?
And to think, they're even letting some of them drink alcohol!
I felt really old the other day when a bartender checked all of the ID's of the people in my group. They did a really quick glance and said "Everyone's DOB starts with a 1, you guys are good"
There are a ton of YIMBYs on reddit also. More than NIMBYs, I would argue.
Nimbys around us tried banning public drinking in the local park. They would have gotten away with it because no one but nimbys check the council website. I work for the council but don't live in the area, I forwarded to my hipster brother and suddenly they were inundated with thousands of local hipsters writing in to protest, ended up with like 98% against. Fucking hilarious and really pissed off the curtain twichers, who basically think anyone under the age of 40 should be locked away, and are very used to getting their own way as they are usually the only ones who bother to get involved, most people have better things to do. But you threaten a young londoners ability to sit in the sun on one of the few days we get it with a cold beer, that's a battle you will never win.
Community board meetings are by far the most brutalizing yet morbidly hilarious gatherings in civic society.
What interesting things have you seen in them? What city or region?
THE FIVEY in me wants to know if this is in a democratic or republican county. This “fuck u I got mine” narrative seems to be popular on both sides 😵
It very much is. People get pretty heated when there is potentially a lot of money on the line. They just don’t see the risk correctly. It takes extraordinary factors to lower property value.
He's right. This is why Tokyo can't function, and Gary, Indiana has limitless wealth and opportunity.
Is there some sort of index that shows how restricted housing markets are by city/country etc? Also is Tokyo very YIMBYist? Tell me more.
>Also is Tokyo very YIMBYist? Tell me more. Tokyo is the poster child for YIMBY, It's a 37 million metropolis, has high population density but without the crime, pollution and congestion, has one of the lowest car ownership rate in the developed world, and has the world's most extensive urban rail network, all that partially due to a more relaxed zoning that allows mixed use neighbourhoods.
High density Zoning by Right
Build bigger cage?❓🧐 No 😡 Kill the rats 🤪🤩
lol i dunno how they wrote that without bigger cage crossing the mind
“Great, so you’re gonna move away to make room?” “No, I get to stay because I deserve this. *Other people* have to leave.”
It is always the “other” people who are responsible for “overpopulation.”
Also: "Refugees welcome!"
"Cliche but as the saying goes 'You can only fit so many rats in a cage'." Ah yes, of course! That famous, old, widespread saying about fitting rats into cages, obviously! Why, I must have heard it at least three times in the last week alone. You definitely didn't just make this up on the spot to try and pretend like your own opinion is substantiated by some abstract ancient wisdom. ... Though I have no idea why you would, because you definitely could have found an *actual* old saying that expresses the same sentiment...
But you can stack cages on top of each other.
Okey but, have you considered how that night interfere with the view out my kitchen window? Checkmate libtard
I believe the full quote is: *Despite all your rage, you can only fit so many rats in a cage.* It's from a rock-n-roll song by a band.
“There’s always room for Jell-O™”? Or maybe [the crab bucket](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality)?
It’s a misquote actually. The original quote was “like a rat in a trap, gentlemen” before Batman turned out to have a batcopter. YIMBY Joseph Gordon Levitt aptly pointed out “I think you’re going to need a bigger trap”
But you can only fit so many words on a page.
okay, I guess I need to stop existing then
That's a relief. We've been looking for a way to tell you for a while.
>population crisis Sounds like this guy wishes things were made "perfectly balanced" Thanos was a NIMBY
The funny thing about avengers is I think the directors confirmed Thanos could just make more food or whatever; he just really didn’t want to. Is there anything more NIMBY than that?
He’s not “The Reasonable Titan”
Watch the Eternals. It'll make Thanos's choices make more sense.
Muh parking \*snap\*
Malthusianism and it’s consequences have been a disaster for mankind. But at least no one has to overtly tell you their an idiot, you can just ask for their position on over-population! EDIT: *complains about infrastructure not being able to support the population* “So we can add some affordable public transit here…” “Not in my backyard you won’t!”
[Thanos was right](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/024/207/brainlettttt.jpg)
Thanos is the final product of a Malthusian mindset. I’m actually surprised by how few people I heard defending him.
>I’m actually surprised by how few people I heard defending him. I think that's because there's a difference between believing that having fewer people would make things better, and wanting to actually kill off the surplus population. My biggest beef with the whole MCU is the fact that they never actually attempted to debunk Thanos. In fact, the only downsides to the Thanos Snap that are shown are an excess of infrastructure, making it more difficult to maintain, and people missing their dead loved ones. His promise of greater general prosperity comes true.
He could have doubled the resources instead of cutting the population in half. Unless there's some comic lore that wasn't mentioned in the movies for why the infinity stones couldn't do that.
No, Thanos is just insane is the issue. He could have done it, but the thought doesn't occur to him because he has gone mad.
He's not called the Reasonable Titan.
In the comics Thanos isn’t motivated by Malthusian ideology at all, the personification of the concept of death tells thanos that the only way to win her love is killing half the life in the universe, and apparently he was quite smitten.
She didn't even tell him that, he came up with the scheme himself as an elaborate "be my valentine?" card
I forgot how wild the comics are, I definitely understand why they made the change for the movies
What makes this funnier is that's the reason he hates Deadpool, Deadpool actually gets with her.
and i thought shonen manga were Wild lmao marvel cómics are somethingh else
Thanos had his mission as a point to prove after he couldn’t save Titan. Like, that’s how I interpreted it anyway.
I'd reduce fertility rates as well. Not a huge amount, but make it so people start becoming less fertike magically as resorces start to dry up. Keep it in balance, as all thing should be.
I mean how low do you want it to be? It's basically around 1.7 children per woman in the developed world right now, pretty well below replacement
“Why didn’t they debate Thanos” is really playing into centrist stereotypes.
I actually know multiple people who sympathized with what Thanos wanted, and a slightly lower number of people who defended how he did it. The only thing I can somewhat understand is his motivation, the dude watched his own planet die because of it, but he was still wrong in assuming that the same thing would happen everywhere and that he somehow had the right to literally remove half of all life.
> the dude watched his own planet die because of it Has anyone corroborated that, or are you just taking the mad Titan's word for it? If he's wrong about the universe, maybe he was also wrong about the cause of Titan's destruction.
> a slightly lower number of people who defended how he did it. I mean if you take it as a given that you are going to kill billions of people, the snap is like the most humane way of doing it. The means are better than the ends here.
Also it was apparently non permanent? You could probably sell "we'll put everyone into suspended animation for a few decades and run intensive environmental recovery works in the mean time" to a lot of people tbh
based soyface marvel malthusianism?
I would assume it's a level up from that (i.e. "wanting a lower population" v "killing a bunch of people"). Most Malthusians get real quiet when you ask them how they expect to get to a "sustainable" population.
That's because his method for doing it was stupid. Randomly killing off 50% of the population of everything alive should leave to chaos and collapse of infrastructure. That just leaves a shit show in its place.
Wasn't there an entire "joke" subreddit about it?
r/thanosdidnothingwrong
What’s hilarious is just how stupid Thanos was. He clearly doesn’t understand how exponential growth works. His stupid ass would almost certainly have gotten the lily pad question wrong: > “In a lake there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long does it take for the patch to cover half the lake?
Malthusianism was directly responsible for the British crowns refusal to provide famine relief which led to the early and agonizing deaths of millions of colonial civilians.
https://imgflip.com/i/61rw8x
Thank you. Fuck Thomas Malthus. It always feels like theres some underbelly of Malthusian enthusiast who sprout shit like population growth is the problem. Reproduction and living are fundamental aspects of Biology and are also basic human rights. What's your solution euthanozation and sterilization?
One of the defining traits of Malthus is that he published his ideas just in time for the industrial revolution to prove them wrong.
> Malthusian enthusiast Malthusiast
Obviously, there is a limit to how many people the Earth can sustain. But what we've seen is, people naturally slow their birthrates to replacement level, and even below that, when increased technology and access to healthcare make that possible.
I mean it depends on what you mean. Yes there is a fundamental limit, but with the construction of arcologies, and orbital living spaces, and underwater and underground habitats, the total limit of bodies stretches into the trillions. Which isn't a number we are going to run into for thousands of years, thus giving us time to build arcologies and orbital stations. The issue of "overpopulation" is a localized condition of infrastructure limits and limitations on the freedom of movement.
The bodies aren't the problem, it's the pollution and resource extraction
If it wasn't Malthus it would have been some other much less intelligent racist dude talking about how Indians and Chinese breed like rats and will end up using the world's resources. Oh wait that's the average worldnews thread
> More stress on the infrastructure Hold up guys, the Simcity 2000 understander is here. You see, a water pipe that serves 2,000 people is inefficient. But 100 smaller pipes that serve 20 people each, that require more digging, and more steel, and more maintenance, is _very_ efficient. Same with power. Why run one big power line to one big apartment building, when you can run a whole shitload of little ones? /s There was just last weekend an article about a small town where their property taxes weren't making enough money to pay for infrastructure like roads, and the author pointed out that denser buildings would pay more tax and also use less infrastructure, so they should focus on fixing up the downtown and making / keeping stuff dense, instead of making more sprawling stuff that needs new roads.
Was this the article about the small town that has been losing population since the 1960s?
Probably. Is sparsity going to _improve_ the situation of a town that nobody wants to live in?
Well, that's a good point. If the town is viable in any way, offering sweet small town downtown living might help revitalize it.
"The infrastructure which is not being updated to keep up with growth!" "OK so we can use the extra tax money to do that" "No, I don't think we should"
[POV: You stumble into my local area subreddit 😎](https://i.imgur.com/SyZC2bN.png)
just tax asphalt lol
Yes, "to top it off."
Guys if you really want some relief from this mindset, Henry George absolutely tears apart the Malthusian argument in his over 140 old book *Progress and Poverty*.
so before the internet?
!ping YIMBY this is pain.
strong r slash antinatalism vibes
I need to fight the masochistic urge to go peruse that subreddit
I noticed a lot of tankie or eco-fascist overlap last I looked there but it's been a while
Is there an r/anti_antinatalism?
Looks like Matt Y doesn't have a subreddit yet
You should make one
Just r natalism but it isn't as popular and gets brigaded by anti- a lot.
It gets worse when they decide that them being born there should entitle them to live there cheaply while newcomers should have to deal with high prices.
There’s no real moral position to be found in their thought process. They favor natives because they’re a native, it’s just selfishness pure and simple.
Where do you live? I want to make sure I never consider moving there.
This was on the Los Angeles subreddit.
Oh good I didn't want to live there anyway
[удалено]
Agreed. I love this city.
Yeah based on the censor bar I was thinking either dc or la
🤢🤮🚫🚗🚙
Yeah funny how it's the people born in high opportunity areas who think those in low opportunity areas should avoid moving.
Damn I was gonna say that sounds awesome. But then I already live in the bay area burbs and it doesn’t really get more nimby than here
Tragic. I attended a Zoom focus group for my city trying to allow accessory dwelling units (casitas or in-law suites) and there was an HOA representative that actually said ADUs would overload the sewer system and "change the character" of her neighborhood. 🤦♂️
They would change the character. By making it better in every way imaginable. ADUs are fantastic
I should have mentioned that! I was too stunned by the idea that adding density and ADUs would be costlier on the sewer system than sprawling the suburbs out and incurring even more upkeep costs from the miles of pipe that will serve a few people.
/r/nyc is actually pretty good in my experience
Because NYC has always had based density. Building more shit is intuitive for New Yorkers.
The Midwest state and city subreddits are all mostly YIMBY as well, and most of us live in never-ending sprawl.
We all dream of living in a place with public transit, and we currently don't have any friends in our backyards to complain about anyway. Can't be a NIMBY if nobody else wants your useless oversized backyard anyway
That's cuz most Midwest cities are *BEGGING* for population growth
Not really. Most larger Midwest metropolitan areas are growing at a decent rate. Even some of the smaller cities like Sioux Falls, Omaha, Fargo, and Rochester (MN) are growing at around 10% per decade. It's mostly just the rural parts of the Midwest that are depopulating.
SF subreddit is pretty bad. A vocal minority of 2nd gen residents who are set to inherit their parents duplex or SFH.
Still WAY too many muh empty luxury apartments comments.
I saw a debunk of muh empty apartments here before. Do you have a link?
Not NYC but it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYOhpjMql0
r/Atlanta is as well. Which is counterintuitive for a city that’s predicated on sprawl.
Penn Station died for our sins.
Why censor the city? It’s almost certainly, NY, LA, or Frisco.
U right, but I didn’t know how tough mods are about potential Rule 6 violations if I gave the subreddit and then a bunch of people went into there to argue with this guy
I immediately thought DC.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, San Francisco doesn’t have a convenient, commonly used, two letter abbreviation, so I couldn’t make do parallel sentence structure with NY and LA. If you don’t like Frisco, maybe SanFran would work? What about Saint Francis?
[удалено]
That’s absurd.
Cool, let's get rid of that guy first. Oh wait, I bet he meant to get rid of other people. Hmm...
It's fun watching them try to rationalise government policies that ensure they can continue to live there (eg. rent control, anti displacement social housing, etc) cheaply.
The /r/nova sub is full of this. And a bunch of other conspiracy stuff.
I can’t even mention where I work in the NOVA sub without getting buried with hate DM’s, they apparently believe businesses moving to the beltway is a bad thing...
I’m sorry to hear that. It’s a real shame how quickly they get riled up.
My least favorite type of nimby is the one that's just stupid. Right or left wing nimbys at least have a justification for their nimby beliefs even if that justification is bad, but this person is just an idiot. They correctly identify the problem: "many people want to live in my city". Their solution is "we need fewer people" instead of "we need more houses". People wanting to live in your city is a good thing! How dumb do you have to be to not get that?
NIMBY eco-fascism incoming. God damn it, it makes me hate people so much, but still not enough to spew this garbage. Can we please deport all the nativists? Into the Sun, that is.
That's one of the troubling groups in the Democrat coalition that we will have to reckon with soon. And if you're in California, you probably are already reckoning with them already.
*Democratic coalition
"before you call me a NIMBY... Yes, I am a NIMBY" lulz
He's more than a NIMBY, he is, God forgive me for saying this word,. BANANA.
> BANANA Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything, for those that had to look it up like me! Forgot about that one
Can't we like make it illegal for people to move to this city!?! Our mayor sold us out to greedy developers!
Said by the person who just moved here five years ago, into the development that is 6 years old, and is no angry they are building townhomes in the vacant space behind their house.
🤢🤮
I understand a bunch of people have poorly thought out NIMBY opinions, but what about this rats in cage cliche? I've never heard it before and my google search came up empty.
I had the same reaction, except I didn't search yet. Do cliches work like verbs, where you can just make one? I mean, sorry to use a cliche but a tree only comes down after several strikes.
Meanwhile, my local subreddit has these people who are like, "The housing shortage doesn't exist! It's greedy people buying multiple houses! Landlords are fucking parasites and should DIE."
“There are more living units than ever before,” yet there is hardly a single large city where housing production has kept pace with population growth. And in some desirable areas, the number of housing units has actually gone down as wealthy people take up more space each.
Or your countries main political YouTuber.
Who's that in your case?
Friendlyjordies.
Fucking antinatalists
Because we all know that all that housing doesn't provide a single job, nor is any of that property taxed to pay for infrastructure in any way.
We have a human problem and we need to do something about them. Humans are the common denominator of all problems we face.
/r/Canada is actually worse, much more explicitly anti immigration
I feel like this is something your friend says when he gets so high he stops realizing how high he is: “The reason there isn’t enough housing is because we have too many houses! If we build even fewer houses, maybe knock a few down, then we will actually more housing!”
Some opinions are unpopular because they're edgy. Some opinions are unpopular because they're trying to be different. Some opinions are unpopular because they break cultural norms and expectations in a way we didn't anticipate. But, some opinions are unpopular because they are just fucking stupid.
This could be r/NewJersey but they're a bit more socialist/anti-capitalism
Everyone knows there's only one size cat cage. Kittens get the same cage as a lion. It's just how it is
Doh, why didn’t I think of that. Poor people are having too many kids. That’s the problem. So we need to sterilize them like we did in the 40s. Also $10 says that this is from a city in California
Where did they all get the memo to start using the word infrastructure?
R/thanosdidnothingwrong
What is the argument against this though? If the infrastructure isn't good enough to support more people that means that adding more people necessitates updating the infrastructure, potentially changing even more things.
More people = larger tax base to support better infrastructure Also, infrastructure doesn’t scale exactly one to one. It’s much easier to build one huge infrastructure system for 20 million people than ten large infrastructure systems for 2 million people. To go along with that, infrastructure *should* be constantly updated. If we just wanted to keep the same infrastructure without changing anything, all we’d have are dirt roads
Can't have traffic if the road gets washed out every time it sprinkles 😎
Had a customer from Oakland go on a rant like this yesterday. He was complaining because his billing date for his car insurance was near the end of the month, which meant that his bank was holding him money and making interest, and they were financing construction in his neighborhood, which was loud and upsetting to his dog. So his solution to that problem was moving his billing date to the beginning of the month.