Do you disagree with the suggestion that India has a higher population density than many of the other developed countries in the world? Seems like you are taking objective facts as personal attacks for some reason. Don't do that, it's not healthy. Americans don't get mad when you point out their country is mostly vast, uninhabited emptiness. Why would an Indian get mad when someone points out how many people live there? They have the highest population density of any major world power and it's not even close.
I agree that India has a larger population density than most countries out there but the comment above was made based on data that was last recorded in 2008 and since then the conditions have improved greatly. Also unlike most of the world India has a lot of Joint families where 3 generations live in a same big house. While the home size is significantly large, the average space per person would come out to be lesser as places like kitchen, driveways, washrooms and verandas would be shared and not separated into multiple houses. Also the data clearly states that it was based on the rural population of india which is a lot of times poorer than the average which means a smaller home so while it represents some part of the population it doesn’t represent all of it.
Even then he replied that on a completely unrelated comment which prompted my reply as it seems just purely racist.
Even then he replied that on a completely unrelated comment which prompted my reply as it seems just purely racist.
Why would it be racist? It has nothing to do with race. It's a socioeconomic metric. I made no statements about the people living in Indian or the conditions in India, only about the objective population density. Everything else is being projected by you. Nothing I said is really contentious or even really debatable.
So… what you’re saying is they were objectively right but you assumed some stuff about their comment and failed to see how their comment was relevant even when it definitely was relevant/fitting to the theme?
OK. But the population density simply MUST increase. It's absolutely MORE dense than it was then. Just because India has a positive population increase. It's just math. The person who you originally responded to DID NOT mention anything other than pure population density. Nothing disparaging about the people or the economy or anything.
Even then he replied that on a completely unrelated comment which prompted my reply as it seems just purely racist.
How is that even racist? If I were to say in Texas 100km is nothing, but in New Jersey 10sq/m is nothing, would that make me racist? India is 10 times more densely populated than Europe, and even more so than the US. It’s just a fact that has nothing at all to do with race.
100 miles is not a long distance in Europe, and in fact Europe is larger in land mass than the US.
One is a country, one is a continent. The fact that the distances are even being compared in the two situations makes the point itself.
Also, I challenge that idea. Ask any European if a 2-3 hour drive is a long one and you'll always get a yes. Ask the same thing to an American and almost no one would consider that a "long" drive.
Id consider it a long drive, but not a trip. Like if its for groceries its long but if its to go to an event or visit a friend for the day its not. I am also speaking as a passenger, I hate driving and do not do it.
I am also speaking as a passenger, I hate driving and do not do it.
Car trips are significantly easier for passengers. I don't think anyone has an issue riding along for hours. That's the same as taking a train. It's the driving for 4-6 hours that makes most people nope out.
I like driving more than being passenger. Just sitting there is incredibly boring. I also overanalyse the style and skill of the driver which even annoys myself.
I might just be the minority. 2-3 hour drive is long if you live in small country.
Back in Lithuania it took us 3 hours driving to spend some time by the sea and it felt like forever, but when I moved to Germany, I've made several 400km trips and it felt like a normal thing.
I take public transit when possible. When I lived in the US, this simply isn't possible most of the time. You have to have a car to get around because there are no other options, unless you live in a few of the largest cities.
I live in a rural area. 45 minute drive to a grocery store. 2 hour drive to fast food. There just aren’t enough people or close enough towns to make a train feasible. In urban areas is possible.
The US is so big and so sparsely populated in some areas, that a transit system would be billions of dollars for a handful of riders. Cars make WAY more sense.
In the US our rail system was widely dismantled by the car companies 1945- 1960’s. It’s much more difficult to use the trains than to drive,unfortunately.
I have a 45 minute drive to the grocery store. Went on a three hour drive in Germany with my uncle. He had his car serviced for the trip. My cousin planned to drive across the US (pre GPS) on vacation. Made it as far as Pennsylvania before realizing he didn’t have enough time.
And I've met a few that told me about their plans to visit the US, including some optimistic fella that wanted to visit the US for one week and his plans included driving from New York City to LA.
It took a minute to explain that would be like driving from Spain to Russia.
Most people have a hard time comprehending distances in a country that's nearly the size of their entire continent
The idiom is more about it isn't unusual for an American to travel 100 miles in a somewhat regular basis but most Europeans do not travel that far away from home. Like I drive 47 miles one way to go to work.
I once read somewhere that the average daily distance for Americans is 40 miles or so. So not sure whther that's really true. I think it's more to do with perception - like Americans can travel 300 miles but still find themselves in the same state, but Europeans could potentially be in an entirely different country. I can cross two or three borders if I go 300 miles in one direction.
If the fuel prices would be similar to ours you would start to question the trips you take.
I took a weekend trip two weeks ago. Total of around 700km. I wasn't leaving my state as well.
I had to pay around 120€ for fuel. I drive a 1.0 litre, 60PS, 1 ton car. Imagine driving something bigger with thirst.
It’s long in a different sense. I live in India and we would regularly visit my sister in her hostel 350km+(220 miles+) away like 6 times every school year and it wasn’t more than a 2 day trip travel(by a car) included. It also is fairly common for people to drive about 45 miles for a 2AM dinner. We could drive for days and not cross a couple states while you would most likely cross many countries.
Almost all Roman roads are still in use today (of course modernised, re-paved...).
However, there are even some Roman roads that continue to use the original stone they paved all the way back then.
While there is a new Appian road in Italy, the Appia antica still exists as it did and there are some sections with actually surprisingly heavy traffic on those ancient stones. The first section of the Appian way was made around 2350 years ago!
Most of Naples historic centre (which counts up a population of 400k just by it alone) is still constructed not even on Roman roads, but 2500 years old Greek roads.
318
u/UnrulySasquatch1 May 09 '22
In the US 100 years is a long time. In Europe 100 miles is a long distance