This shitshow is Trump's America, and a result of his lack of leadership. You and he seem to think he's only the president of Republican led areas.
Cities were run by the same party under Obama, did we have this slow burn civil war simmering then? No, we did not.
Q) What changed? A) Trump's in charge.

Cities are almost exclusively led by Democratic mayors. Cities have high crime rates because they have high population density. Per capita crime rates aren't that different from rural areas.

Republican led areas have much higher poverty rates and way fewer services. By your logic, republican leadership leads to high poverty and an MIA government except at tax time (actually, it does historically and by design).

Edit: Downvote for the blatant lies in the description. Democrats have not promoted violence they've constantly denounced it, and are blaming Trump for the dissolving union, the division, hatred, and violence he promotes including the murder of protesters and unarmed black men.

It’s very important to note that drawing direct parallels between countries when it comes to crime is very murky, as these difference could be due to differences in laws, the way the criminal justice system is set up, how policing is done, how crimes are reported, and much more.

Quoting this: Harold Pollack, co-director of the University of Chicago's Crime Lab, called Zimring and Hawkins's book "an excellent source." In a 2015 phone interview, he pointed to a number of more recent studies that fit the pattern it identified.

"There's no question the United States faces a number of distinctive social policy challenges, some of which affect the crime rate. But many other OECD countries face their own distinctive problems that affect their crime rate," he told me. Western Europe, for example, has a major problem with drug use. Canadian cities have "very high" rates of property crime like car theft. And yet, the US still stands out on murders.

"I think that Americans have this view of Western Europe, or Toronto for that matter, which is very stereotypical and doesn't take into account the challenges that many of peer industrial democracy problems face," he points out. "There's a lot of drug sale, a lot of ethnic stratification and conflict, there's a lot of just general crime."

Crime rates in Canada aren't that much lower than the USA, there are just fewer violent crimes, like homicides.

In addition to this, a major factor might be considered in regards to Canada. Population and population density. Canada is lower than the USA across the board, 36.71 million to 325.7 million and density of 3.9 people per km to almost 90 people per mile (last census data).

I don't support the NRA, btw. I think they are idiots. I do support logical gun laws. I don't care for fake news.

I also think I was civil in my response to your original comment. I have tried to remain that way even though one could classify your response to mine as hostile and provocatory.

Let's be extremely optimistic and figure that these things work in a 25 meter radius, with 100% kill rate to any mosquito inside that zone for 30 seconds+. That's plenty to put in or near a house and drastically reduce the mosquito population in (and a little bit around) that area. But just a short distance away, the mosquito population will be completely unaffected.

Animals that prey on mosquitoes will find a small dead zone and move on.

Lets say they worked extremely well, and we decided to cover an entire city with a grid of these things. Maybe New York (800 km^2). Would the local ecosystem be affected? Sure. Some species of birds, bats, etc. would move upstate -- but overall there would probably be way less impact on the ecosystem than simply having a gigantic city there in general.

It would probably be better to set them up covering small villages in area with high risk of malaria, in which case any affects on ecosystems would be very small and contained. But on the other hand, first world people like New Yorkers with high population density and more $$$ to burn might be plenty happy to chip in (tax dollars?) for these things if they never got any mosquito bites again. And that would probably help the economy of scale kick in and make it much cheaper to set them up in places that would really benefit...

I would say that Stalin, the Kin Jong's, Various African Tribal Genocides, and Pol Pot might disagree with your account of wholesale slaughter being reserved for the 'white' Europeans and their descendants. That is just to name a few. Also, what is a 'white' European? I mean the southern Europeans have quite a bit of Moorish blood in them, do they still count as 'white'?

All sarcasm aside, your argument is extremely flawed. Conquerors tend to lay waste to the societies they conquer, not always in terms of total lives lost, but in terms of cultural death. The reason why 'white' people are vilified for this lately is because for the past several hundred years they have been the ones expanding and taking over the regions you speak of. This is not exclusive to a skin color or originating locale, it is absolutely a core of our human nature.

I gave some examples earlier of non-European conquerors, but they are fairly recent. If we look in history at other groups, we find the same meme. The Steppe Horse Tribes were BRUTAL to cities and countries that did not capitulate. Look up "Measuring against the linchpin". That saying came from the fact that if you resisted Mongol rule, they would slaughter every male taller than the linchpin of a wagon wheel. The Aztecs and Mayans ruled southern American empires through great brutality, including human sacrifice for 'religious' purposes. Recent discoveries even indicate that it was considered a good omen if the sacrifices were crying in pain before they were to die. Remains recently found showed "All shared one feature: serious cavities, abscesses or bone infections painful enough to make them cry."

Slavery originated as early as human recorded history, if not sooner. Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations. Mass slavery requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Although slavery in some form or another existed in most European countries, it wasn't until after contact with the Arabic African slave traders that it soared in the 15th and 16th centuries.

tl;dr

You are referring to recent history to make an example while completely ignoring THOUSANDS of years of similar history. All humanity is flawed, narrowing it down to a singular group with cherry picked data is not going to persuade anyone with a brain.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'geography cities' to 'geography, cities, Paris, New York, population density, europe, america, history' - edited by eric3579

Desal can be awesome ... for islands with a high percentage of revenues coming from tourism (lots of Caribbean examples), or for City-States that have high population density and lots of money-making industry (Singapore).

California is *huge*, with lots of revenue coming from agriculture. Not enough tourism per square mile to pass the costs on to visitors, like with Caribbean islands, and not really enough population / commercial density to make it an ideal solution for those uses either.


...On the other hand, economy of scale can't start kicking in until you get some early adopters. By throwing some money at this now, California might be making a smart investment towards having better and cheaper desal options that could fill a higher percentage of their water needs in the future.

electoral college is fine. It's gerrymandering and "winner take all" that fuck it up. The founders are right about direct democracy not being good in situations like this.

Eliminate those two things and the electoral college is fine and it would eliminate swing states as well.

Popular vote would totally fuck over any area that doesn't have a high population density. I'd be fine with tweaking the voter-to-electoral vote proportions though and get rid of the "electors" That would be reasonable.

It may need tweaks and refinements, but the overall concept is still valid.

Sweet Bastard Zombie Jesus!
This guy claims that global warming is happening because the core is hotter that it used to be, not because of anything people did or the atmosphere at all, then he goes on to contradict himself by saying this bit of cranial rectosis inspired insanity....

Climate Myth VS What the Science Says
"the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site."

30 March 2012 (Source)
Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.

What a brain dead tool, followed only by others of his ilk.

@ant This happens pretty frequently. It works when the market is big enough (demand) to support both of them.

Taking it back to the video - a very crowded beach could support two vendors right next to each other.

This is why retailers love good population density.

1) Northern Europe is the closest comparison income wise to the US besides Japan which is culturally very different. I don't think it's unreasonable to aggregate these countries in comparing. There isn't going to be a perfect example, but Russia is very far from it.

Your argument about the death penalty is a null point because what you're proposing is impractical and thus not worth debating.

2) & 3) Greenland has a GDP per capita of 22K and is a highly idiosyncratic example given its population density. I think that's pretty much self evident. If Greenland is your best example I think I've proven my point.

I have no doubt that greater surveillance and enforcement will reduce crime rates. I'm not disputing that. Technology will naturally improve this through the likes of ever improving facial recognition. But I don't think a UK style CCTV policing system would be affordable given that the US is less densely populated in cities. As for enforcement, I don't think there's been a lack of money thrown in that direction. The issue, as this video points out, is more that if it was targeted at violent rather than drug offenders the overall benefit to society would be greater. There I would not disagree.

4)

Germany and the Netherlands are other examples where it has worked:

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/11/14/some-european-prisons-are-shrinking-and-closing-what-can-america-learn

What you're proposing (visa vi death penalty) is something no democratic country has accepted (or will, I think). What I propose is at least accepted by to a large extent by many European developed countries. The US may shift eventually if it is recognised the current policies have been consistently failing.

5)

Yes there are many reasons why Venezuela is not a fair example. I think you make my point. Surveillance and enforcement are both necessary to reduce crime. Of course if you pick countries distinctly lacking in them then it supports your case.

But I'm arguing about which would be better given the baseline of current US policy. I think you would agree that both surveillance and enforcement are of a much higher standard in the US, with largely meritocratic and corruption free police forces. If that's the case then other developed countries, with roughly similar incomes and therefore tax revenues to afford comparable police force standards are a good reference. Venezuela is not.

From reading some of the comments, it would appear that many people still do not understand basic math.

Over population is a problem. It is real and it will self correct one way or another. Science can't save us (short of moving us all to a digital existence), and we will hit critical population density long before we achieve the kind of technological sophistication to allow us to colonise other planets (singularity notwithstanding).

Basically, there are three possible outcomes:
1. We voluntarily stop having so many kids and we certainly stop celebrating ridiculously huge families like those fucking morons on "18 and counting" or whatever the fuck it's called. This is the best case scenario, and IMHO, the most unlikely

2. Wide scale population control. One child policies, etc. unpleasant but still less unpleasant than...

3. We do nothing and the problem corrects itself. And when I say corrects itself, I mean global hunger on a scale not seen since the last ice age; massive pandemics or just plain ol' killing the fuck out of each other.

This is isn't some airy fairy, mother Gaia, hippy nonsense, it's simple math.

On the plus side, we'll almost certainly have made the planet nigh uninhabitable for ourselves by then anyway.

It was centered near Westwood, which is where their studio is at. So it probably felt like something big was happening to them at the time. With it being that close to LA, a lot of people would have felt it due to the population density... which is probably why they've not yet shut up about it.

I'm in OC, probably less than 50 miles away and didn't feel a thing.

OMFG!!!Wow... I guess I have to answer that.
Why do you continue to refer to the utopian free market that you admit never existed, you can't possibly know how it would turn out since you have nothing to reference, so please stop acting like you "know" how it would be, that's simply making your politics a religion, with no need to explain and no basis for your argument but supposition.
If only more people would vote FOR a candidate instead of out of fear of the "other" candidate, my political "regulation" would work great. I can't control others, only try to explain my position and hope they agree.
I am quite happy where I am, but I also know other places are not as nice. I feel it's mostly due to overpopulation/high population density, but that's another subject altogether.
I'm sorry your experience with police is so one sided...I do wish it were not so. I think blaming them for an accident during a car chase may be a little unfair, not knowing the details I'll reserve judgment. I would hope you were properly compensated if it's as you suggest. My experiences have been both unpleasant and helpful, but I could understand the position of the one's that were unhelpful, even if I disagreed completely. My wish is that others would understand that, on average, having police is far better than not (even when they end up not always helping YOU), without needing personal NEED for the police to understand...I'm including you in that wish.
You would lose that bet...I'm a landlord.
I'm disabled and don't take a dime in public assistance, but pay my fair share for having roads and water systems (and then some) because it's a good thing to have them for everyone. I could find ways to pay less taxes, or fight for them with my vote...I just see that as shirking a duty owed to one's fellow citizens, so I don't. No man is an island.
So, no $35 real security exists that you'll show us? Can't imagine why that would be. No evidence, no existence.
By your logic, taxes are voluntary, you can choose not to live in the US and you don't get thrown in jail for not paying them. (most HOA's have a clause where they can take your home if you don't pay).
Again, you claim you don't care about my thoughts, but you continue to prove you do by responding.....you do see that, right? I don't claim to not care about your position, I try to not simply ignore those I disagree with as that tends to end intellectual evolution on both sides. Sometimes it's a futile effort.....
Again, because I don't want to disband the government doesn't mean I (or others) LIKE it, but we do have control, we simply need to assert it in thoughtful ways, not react out of fear of the possible future. That's my viewpoint anyway.

That's the big question. Population density, unemployment, culture... there are any number of things to consider here. The only thing that's clear from the statistics is that strict gun control laws do not seem to have any meaningful impact on violent crime, just as banning drugs and alcohol didn't have any meaningful impact on their existence.

^You're right. But I still have a hard time believing his claim. Population density not being a major factor of violence seems to go against every grain on my body for some reason lol.

I would have to seek out this documentary and watch it ASAP, it's driving me nuts!