Y-e-e-e-s... things like habitats with unlivable year round climates or geology you can't get a pram up might mess up some comparisons.
How about we compare - ooh I don't know... another island perhaps? :) Let's say... Jersey for example :) 2016 people per square mile. Or Bermuda - 3477.
Oh those poor dear fellow "Brits" *squish squish* :) the things they have to put up with to avoid paying their taxes.

Y-e-e-e-s... things like habitats with unlivable year round climates or geology you can't get a pram up might mess up some comparisons.
How about we compare - ooh I don't know... another island perhaps? :) Let's say... Jersey for example :) 2016 people per square mile. Or Bermuda - 3477.
Oh those poor dear fellow "Brits" *squish squish* :) the things they have to put up with to avoid paying their taxes.

Hong Kong 17,024 people per square mile:)

Nigel Farage also had his nerves to claim that he couldn't get to a speech to his followers. He blaimed trafic congestion for the reason and thats because the immigrants have filled the roads!

Y-e-e-e-s... things like habitats with unlivable year round climates or geology you can't get a pram up might mess up some comparisons.
How about we compare - ooh I don't know... another island perhaps? :) Let's say... Jersey for example :) 2016 people per square mile. Or Bermuda - 3477.
Oh those poor dear fellow "Brits" *squish squish* :) the things they have to put up with to avoid paying their taxes.

Hong Kong 17,024 people per square mile:)

Manhattan 66,940 people per square mile.

Hong Kong 17,024 people per square mile:) = 298 x Sweden's
Manhattan 66,940 people per square mile. = 1175 x Sweden's
UK it's 650 persons per square mile. = 11 x Sweden's

Hong Kong 17,024 people per square mile:) = 298 x Sweden's
Manhattan 66,940 people per square mile. = 1175 x Sweden's
UK it's 650 persons per square mile. = 11 x Sweden's

Jann, would you be happy to accept an increase in population density in
Sweden comparable to those quoted above....just think of the implications.

Hong Kong 17,024 people per square mile:) = 298 x Sweden's
Manhattan 66,940 people per square mile. = 1175 x Sweden's
UK it's 650 persons per square mile. = 11 x Sweden's

Jann, would you be happy to accept an increase in population density in
Sweden comparable to those quoted above....just think of the implications.

The implications would be immense if a country would be a city and nothing else.
Like Hong Kong.
But both Britain and Sweden has room enough.
However the opportunity to get a job and somewhere to live are scarce.
And that goes for every country on the World.

Hong Kong 17,024 people per square mile:) = 298 x Sweden's
Manhattan 66,940 people per square mile. = 1175 x Sweden's
UK it's 650 persons per square mile. = 11 x Sweden's

Jann, would you be happy to accept an increase in population density in
Sweden comparable to those quoted above....just think of the implications.

The implications would be immense if a country would be a city and nothing else.
Like Hong Kong.
But both Britain and Sweden has room enough.
However the opportunity to get a job and somewhere to live are scarce.
And that goes for every country on the World.

I entirely agree with that. So to stop the countryside becoming a vast city
you have to have limits to the permissible growth of your population. If the
UK spread out it's population so that every square mile of the land held
650 people the UK would have the appearance of a camp site. This therefore
should be a good indication as to whether or not you are exceeding a level
of population commensurate to that of the size of land available to
absorb them comfortably. In the UK, to absorb the level of the population,
at 650 persons per square mile, yet not to allow the country to look like
a massive camp site, we have to condense the population together. To this
end we have created urban living areas, such as the GLC, who's population
density has risen to 13,000 persons per square mile....5000 persons per
square kilometre. People are now naturally concerned by this high density
level within the UK.

The Limits to Growth, authors: Donelia & Dennis Meadows 1972. Have a read
of this book, I have for I had to as part of my engineering degree. The book
covers the topic of limits to growth with respect to both computers and populations.
I can tell you Jann, in the UK we have exceeded these limits.

Hong Kong 17,024 people per square mile:) = 298 x Sweden's
Manhattan 66,940 people per square mile. = 1175 x Sweden's
UK it's 650 persons per square mile. = 11 x Sweden's

Jann, would you be happy to accept an increase in population density in
Sweden comparable to those quoted above....just think of the implications.

The implications would be immense if a country would be a city and nothing else.
Like Hong Kong.
But both Britain and Sweden has room enough.
However the opportunity to get a job and somewhere to live are scarce.
And that goes for every country on the World.

I entirely agree with that. So to stop the countryside becoming a vast city
you have to have limits to the permissible growth of your population. If the
UK spread out it's population so that every square mile of the land held
650 people the UK would have the appearance of a camp site. This therefore
should be a good indication as to whether or not you are exceeding a level
of population commensurate to that of the size of land available to
absorb them comfortably. In the UK, to absorb the level of the population,
at 650 persons per square mile, yet not to allow the country to look like
a massive camp site, we have to condense the population together. To this
end we have created urban living areas, such as the GLC, who's population
density has risen to 13,000 persons per square mile....5000 persons per
square kilometre. People are now naturally concerned by this high density
level within the UK.

The Limits to Growth, authors: Donelia & Dennis Meadows 1972. Have a read
of this book, I have for I had to as part of my engineering degree. The book
covers the topic of limits to growth with respect to both computers and populations.
I can tell you Jann, in the UK we have exceeded these limits.

The whole planet is overcrowded and exceeds limits by 50%.
Soon it will take two planets to support the population.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day/
Why should both Britain and Sweden deny space and opertunities for others?

There is a decrease in population growth iirc...

The whole planet is overcrowded and exceeds limits by 50%.
Soon it will take two planets to support the population.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day/
Why should both Britain and Sweden deny space and opertunities for others?

The whole planet is overcrowded and exceeds limits by 50%.
Soon it will take two planets to support the population.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day/
Why should both Britain and Sweden deny space and opertunities for others?

Since we're discussing space and not opportunities we can therefore disregard
the latter.

How about if we hang around for a long time hence wait for the population
density in Sweden to match that of the UK. Here you would under go an increase
in population density from 57 to 650 per square mile. That now equates to
a population increase in Sweden from 9.5 million persons to over 100 million.
Jann, would you be happy with a level of population that high (100 million)?

The whole planet is overcrowded and exceeds limits by 50%.
Soon it will take two planets to support the population.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day/
Why should both Britain and Sweden deny space and for others?

Since we're discussing space and not opportunities we can therefore disregard
the latter.

How about if we hang around for a long time hence wait for the population
density in Sweden to match that of the UK. Here you would under go an increase
in population density from 57 to 650 per square mile. That now equates to
a population increase in Sweden from 9.5 million persons to over 100 million.
Jann, would you be happy with a level of population that high (100 million)?

If Sweden can support 100 million peoples, why not?
It's not a space problem. It's purely an economic problem.
And many believes that immigrants are coming from poor countries to exploit benefits in our wellfare systems. That is not simply true.

The whole planet is overcrowded and exceeds limits by 50%.
Soon it will take two planets to support the population.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day/
Why should both Britain and Sweden deny space and for others?

Since we're discussing space and not opportunities we can therefore disregard
the latter.
How about if we hang around for a long time hence wait for the population
density in Sweden to match that of the UK. Here you would under go an increase
in population density from 57 to 650 per square mile. That now equates to
a population increase in Sweden from 9.5 million persons to over 100 million.
Jann, would you be happy with a level of population that high (100 million)?

If Sweden can support 100 million peoples, why not?
It's not a space problem. It's purely an economic problem.
And many believes that immigrants are coming from poor countries to exploit benefits in our wellfare systems. That is not simply true.

Well, it would be an interesting exercise to see how well Sweden can deal
with an increase in population from 9.5 to 100 million people then....I wait.

LOL!
Don't hold your breath.
There are not so many wealthy people as 90 million in the World who can afford to live in Sweden.
Housing 1000 € a month, Food 200 € a month.
Job opportunities none.
About 50% in tax if you get a job...

LOL!
Don't hold your breath.
There are not so many wealthy people as 90 million in the World who can afford to live in Sweden.
Housing 1000 € a month, Food 200 € a month.
Job opportunities none.
About 50% in tax if you get a job...

So you agree Sweden needs more poor people to balance the demographics, therefore all these immigrants looking for a better life should head your way, as you obviously have plenty of money to support them.

Whenever a debate gets topical & action is required, how many have heard this old quote?
"Talk is cheap!"
Well, talk is not that cheap anymore...
You a good talker? Then join the coalition!
...the taxpayers don't mind!