Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

#71

Post by taneq »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #8

I'm always confused by these kind of pictures. The 'developed' spaces have apartment towers and dense construction - many more people appear to live there per acre. If land is at such a premium (and the towers seem to indicate this) then how on earth does the shack-dweller afford so much land (relatively) for their very-much-lower density housing? Sure maybe 20 people live in a shack, I understand that, but in the sa…

> If land is at such a premium (and the towers seem to indicate this) then how on earth does the shack-dweller afford so much land (relatively) for their very-much-lower density housing?

The land that the shacks are built on is much cheaper because the surrounding land is covered in shacks.

Re: Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

#72

Post by WalterBright »

zzt wrote: post #61
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t sound like the “ideal situation”, it sounds like a dystopian nightmare. One that will literally never, ever happen, but that doesn’t stop people from trying, no matter how many hundreds of millions suffer and die in the process. Edit: I’ll also point out the irony that nothing has impoverished and starved as many people as your vision of utopia, and nothing has pulled as many people OUT of abject poverty…

On the contrary, as we gradually grow further toward work being almost entirely automated, capitalism as we know it will wither and die. There is no market if machines do all the work. It may take centuries but in the end, the only equitable answer is full communism, managed by a benevolent artificial intelligence.

> It may take centuries but in the end, the only equitable answer is full communism, managed by a benevolent artificial intelligence.

Sounds like hell to me.

(I read a scifi story about this long ago. A man dies, and wakes up in a place where his every whim is instantly granted. After a while, he gets frustrated and tells the person in charge that paradise isn't what he expected. The person tells him he's not in paradise, he's in hell.)

Re: Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

#73

Post by ac29 »

stevenwoo wrote: post #47
whataboutism wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't familiar with this neighborhood, it is incredibly pedestrian friendly, not only can you walk to all of those stores, it is located next to a Caltrain station.

We have to give credit to the foresight of whoever planned this out, allowed it or luck, I remember about 20 years ago, there was a mall with a Sears and Montgomery Wards where the Safeway/3-4 story condos/apartments/restaurants are now and that Whole Foods was not there, though it seems as if San Antonio Road has had one lane or more blocked over that time continuously as buildings have been torn down/going up.

Interestingly, that area was home to not just one mall, but three: http://web.archive.org/web/20080112061658/http://members.aol...

I've been around long enough to remember the Old Mill, and San Antonio Shopping Center in its prime (if it had one), but Mayfield Mall was already HP when I was young.

Re: Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

#74

Post by Turing_Machine »

v_lisivka wrote: post #64
Turing_Machine wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antifa isn't any more "anti-fascist" than the People's Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is a "democratic republic", or than old-school Pravda contained truth. They are violent communists. P.S. there haven't been any real fascists for, like, 70 years. So, mission accomplished then?

Wikipedia: Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Putin? Dictatorial power: yes, suppression of opposition: yes, forcible regimentation of society and of the economy: yes, radical ultranationali…

I have not noticed any "antifa" "protests" in Moscow, have you?

Wikipedia is a poor source for such definitions, by the way. It reflects the political agenda of the last person to edit the page.

In fact, fascism (and national socialism in general) are heresies of socialism. Fascists are only "on the right" if you're Stalin. Fascism and communism have far more commonalities than they have differences.

For example, Mussolini was a high official in the Italian Socialist party until he broke with the "international" socialists during WWI, and switched to his own brand of "national" socialism.

Neither type of socialism has much in common with the classical liberalism that has historically been the guiding philosophy of the United States.

In practice, "fascist" today appears to simply mean "someone who isn't a communist".

Re: Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

#75

Post by rolleiflex »

taneq wrote: post #71
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #8

I'm always confused by these kind of pictures. The 'developed' spaces have apartment towers and dense construction - many more people appear to live there per acre. If land is at such a premium (and the towers seem to indicate this) then how on earth does the shack-dweller afford so much land (relatively) for their very-much-lower density housing? Sure maybe 20 people live in a shack, I understand that, but in the sa…

> If land is at such a premium (and the towers seem to indicate this) then how on earth does the shack-dweller afford so much land (relatively) for their very-much-lower density housing? The land that the shacks are built on is much cheaper because the surrounding land is covered in shacks.

It is also usually not owned by the owners of the shacks, and is government property through land trusts. This makes for one hell of a nightmare to unbundle when government occasionally offers land amnesty where you can buy the land your shack sits on, because the borders of ‘your parcel’ is effectively undefined.

Source: an acquaintance is going through something functionally similar in Turkey, though the material conditions are much different (its a modern apartment, not shacks, and it’s because of a mis-issued land grant, not just building on gov’t land like these shacks I assume are)

Re: Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

#76

Post by [deleted] »

Sophistifunk wrote: post #69
zzt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These photos are powerful, and say a lot about inequality in just a handful of scenes. The ideal situation would be for everyone to live in functionally identical dwellings that provide their every need. Somewhat like the world described by E. M. Forster in The Machine Stops, except without the dystopian aspect of fully enclosed spaces and unmaintained infrastructure. Until we reach that pinnacle of human existence,…

> functionally identical dwellings that provide their every need. Somewhat like the world described by E. M. Forster in The Machine Stops, except without the dystopian aspect The idea that we should all live in functionally identical dwellings is in itself dystopian.

[deleted]

Re: Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

#78

Post by didgeoridoo »

zzt wrote: post #63
DoreenMichele wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideal situation would be for everyone to live in functionally identical dwellings that provide their every need. Perhaps you can explain to me how my different needs can be met by being forced to live in a unit that is functionally identical to all others. Because I absolutely don't see it.

The function of the unit is to meet your needs. This function is identical for all units. The collective of units provides an equitable living solution for all humans.

I think what you’re describing is called “post-scarcity utopia”. It’s hardly an interesting point of view to say that this would be desirable. Pursuit of it, however, has killed more people than war in the 20th century.

Re: Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

#79

Post by crote »

harshulpandav wrote: post #3

This exists probably in all countries. I also don't quite get the message out of these pictures. Or if it is even a matter which needs to be solved. If it is, redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO.

Does it, though? I can tell you that the contrast in, say, The Netherlands is a lot smaller.

Take a look at Bilthoven [0], one of the the most extreme examples I know of. The (roughly) north side is obviously richer, but the contrast is an awful lot smaller than the examples from the BBC.

Now let's look at a somewhat average city, Utrecht. [1] Can you tell me which parts the ultra-rich live? How about now? [2] Amsterdam is pretty much the same story, just like Rotterdam, Den Haag, etc. Sure, there are of course rich and poor people, but there are no slums, let alone slums right next to mansions!

About the message: poor people are living in small, filthy, dilapidated houses right next to the immaculate mansions of the rich. Perhaps the rich could contribute a little towards the living conditions of the poor who helped them to gain their wealth?

[0]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.1278844,5.1932405,3071m/data=... [1]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0981346,5.1310086,3074m/data=... [2]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0999022,5.1106661,2583m/data=...

Re: Aerial photos reveal the stark divide between rich and poor

#80

Post by metiscus »

zzt wrote: post #55
DoreenMichele wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assure you, my needs are not the same as yours. With 7 billion people, one-size-fits-all simply doesn't.

I did not claim that the needs of everyone are identical, only that they should be met without favouring one individual over another.

So along the lines of from each according to his ability to each according to his need then?
Post reply on HN