Posted on 01/04/2015 5:30:01 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The proponents of currently fashionable planning doctrines favouring density promulgate a variety of baseless assertions to support their beliefs. These doctrines, which they group under the label of Smart Growth, claim, among other things, that from a health and sustainability perspective, the need to increase population densities is imperative.
With regard to health these high-density advocates have seized upon the obesity epidemic as a reason to advocate squeezing the population into high-density. This is based on a supposition that living in higher densities promotes greater physical activity and thus lower levels of obesity. They quote studies that show associations between suburban living and higher weight with its adverse health implications. But the weight differences found are minor in the region of 1 to 3 pounds. Nor do the studies show it is suburban living that has caused this.
The suburbs, after all, have been with us for 70 years and reached its mature development over 40 years ago. Obesity, on the other hand, is a much more recent phenomenon and is primarily due to people eating too much fattening food.
Less discussed, however, are other facets to human health and it is important to consider the results of research on the association with high-density living of mental illness, childrens health, respiratory disease, heart attacks, cancer and human happiness.
A significant health issue relates to the scourge of Mental Illness. There is convincing evidence showing adverse mental health consequences from increasing density.
(Excerpt) Read more at newgeography.com ...
Fifty years ago America wanted to avoid becoming China and India, and we all knew the effects of being overcrowded on humans and lab rats.
What Americans didn’t realize was what the Democrats had done with JFK’s 1965 Immigration Act, today the left and whackos (libertarians?) tell us how the wonders of science can squeeze us all into Texas, and still keep us fed and watered, and surviving well enough to produce for business and government, while living in our boxes.
Most of those “proponents” don’t live in tiny apartments, though.
Not for me. I’ll be leaving My Little Acreage feet first!
They are either cynical liars or stone cold nuts.
While they, our betters, live on gigantic estates.
Ted Turner, IIRC, owns tens of thousands of acres.
μολὼν λαβέ, b*tch.
But I would say obesity is just as much a problem in the city. It's a function of the massive amounts of food available for us to eat and the culture of eating out several times a week - be it Applebees, Outback or Chipotles. In the city, you tend to eat out even more.
When I was last in Manhattan, I bought a couple hot dogs from a street vendor on my way to dinner! Hey, I was hungry and I still had seven blocks to go.
It could just as easily be said that generous food subsidy for the poor via EBT, SNAP and WIC have led to this epidemic of obesity. Maybe cutting the subsidy would work better than herding us all into concrete shoeboxes stacked to the sky? Probably, but that doesn’t increase control over the masses, it decreases it. So, it won’t happen.
Depressing. Looks like the Soviet bloc!
NYC=human sewer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.