-1

High cost of living = high value
High land area = low value

High living causes higher "value," yes. Higher area does not have an affect on value, it's the contents of the area that affect value. NYC is huge and has a high value. Other areas don't have similar contents, and their value is thusly much less. Comparing the US and the UK as a whole is ridiculous. The US being [very] roughly 36 times the size of the UK, it has a lot more [relatively] little developed areas which have lower value. Hence national average value will be less.

Votes + Comments
u r dumb///////
0

tuh, both places are way too cold.. and have many uninhabited places

fixed :icon_wink:
We could probably inhabit any area we want. Even Mars or the Moon, if it was remotely affordable.

0

I think the 'remotely affordable' value might be usefully plugged into the 'Canada/Russia' equation as well. Less of a problem than Mars or Luna, less even than Antarctica (where we do have some inhabitants), but still difficult to provide supplies and difficult for the settlers (yeah, you read that correctly) to provide for themselves. Doing either (shipping in supplies or doing whatever needs to be done to get viable cropland) would quickly raise the price of living in such areas.

I would submit that such areas are 'unihabitable' under the conditions of time and finance. Not that they absolutely cannot be inhabited, but that it's a generally losing proposition, so why bother?

0

Currently, there's little reason to bother, but with our current trends of population and food supply, those places will become handy at some point in the not-too-distant future I'd guess.

0

Okay, population I can see, but obviously haven't been keeping up with the Food Supply issue. I thought we'd been doing better at yield-per-acre; is this not true? Or are we dealing with another FDR-style scenario regarding food?

0

Food supply's not a problem yet that I know of, but it's bound to happen. As we increase population, we have to increase the area dedicated to living space and cities, which in turn minimizes the area used in crop production. Not to mention, the crops have to increase to be able to supply the population growth as well. And with organic foodstuffs becoming a fad, there's also a bit of space that's not having the same productivity growth.

0

Hmm.. perhaps it would be easier to just kill millions of people when the population gets to large? lol..

0

Hmm.. perhaps it would be easier to just kill millions of people when the population gets to large? lol..

While you obviously meant that as a joke, the existance of a system to weed out portions of the population who do not contribute to society have been considered through various fictional pieces. Were it to become a problem such systems might actually be implemented. As seen in China, attempts to curb population growth by limiting our reproduction do not always work.

0

Well, when humans have populated almost every inch of this planet.. what will we do? Obviously we will first look to somehow populating the massive oceans (hah like jar-jar's city) or space. Colonization of space will be very difficult though, and we may fail. Then what? Food will become a major problem, and pollution, and disease.. etc. There won't be much left to limit our growth as we will have destroyed much of nature and the planet. So, I'm sure some restrictions similar to China's may be implemented.. Or perhaps there will be some massive war..

Either way, humans are an infestation to this planet... we are destroying it very quickly, and it would be wise to find other places to live. (B/c we all know that we cannot stop our destructive ways:twisted:)

0

We need more wars. If we ahd another world war or something then all the worlds population problems would be solved.

0

We need more wars. If we ahd another world war or something then all the worlds population problems would be solved.

Glad you're such an expert at sarcasm. For the benefit of others, please accompany sarcasm with an emoticon to emphasize the effect. :icon_wink:

0

It was such a ridiculous statement that I assumed it could only be sarcastic. If I was mistaken, well, then it was a ridiculous statement and should be ridiculed, but I'm too tired :P

0

Oh yeah, back on topic. I have to pick what i have to do next year (have to drop one of my A levels) . Its a toss up between dropping Chemistry or Biology. Maybe i should start a poll :)

0

Lucky.............
Not as bad as some i've heard of
People cant hack college so quit to become drugies etc
you really should bennet make the poll

0

I'm going to major in either chemistry (inorganic) or quantum physics. Probably quantum physics. Money is a big thing though. After this year is over, my junior year, I'll be in the top ten in my class of a little over 350. The only real extra-curricular I'll have at the time of graduation is 3 years of track, 2 of cross country, 2 of swimming, 2 of model U.N., 2 of Mock Trial, and anything else I might decide to be a part of. My parents are divorced and I live with my mom who gets somewhere between 20 to 32 a year (I don't know exactly).

Considering all that what do you think my chances of getting into a good college/getting scholarships based on performance or need will be? Which colleges does it look like I might be able to get into? I live in Ohio if that counts for anything.

0

Definitely consider in-state public schools, as they'll be a lot cheaper and aren't always all that bad. And you'll probably qualify for deferred interest loans, so you can pay them back after you're out of school. I didn't really have any extracurriculars, but supposedly they're good to have and it looks like you've got plenty. Scholarships will probably depend a lot on how well you write essays. I didn't try for any though, so don't know how hard it is.

0

I'm going to major in either chemistry (inorganic) or quantum physics. Probably quantum physics. Money is a big thing though. After this year is over, my junior year, I'll be in the top ten in my class of a little over 350. The only real extra-curricular I'll have at the time of graduation is 3 years of track, 2 of cross country, 2 of swimming, 2 of model U.N., 2 of Mock Trial, and anything else I might decide to be a part of. My parents are divorced and I live with my mom who gets somewhere between 20 to 32 a year (I don't know exactly).

Considering all that what do you think my chances of getting into a good college/getting scholarships based on performance or need will be? Which colleges does it look like I might be able to get into? I live in Ohio if that counts for anything.

Well, I think you have pretty good chances.. Colleges really love the 'well-rounded' students. The more extra-curricular and top-level classes you take in hs, the better your chances.

Personally, I am ranked 12th/550 students in my class.. I have 50+ hours of dual credit, I've played football, varsity basketball, been on NHS, spanish club, FBLA, young republicans, helped out at 'meals on wheels', etc.. My SAT scores actually weren't that great (I think 2100 something, 700 on math level 2 sat), but truthfully most colleges don't pay much attention to standarized tests. Also, I've taken many AP exams and such.. You seem smart, just make sure you stay on track senior year and get your applications in on time.. I was accepted into duke, rice, UT, and Notre dame (denied from MIT).

0

As infarction said, it would definitely be cheaper at a state school.. Also, most state colleges will accept all your dual credit.. The state schools will probably offer you scholarships right when you apply for admittance (I didn't fill out any scholarships either). However, it would be wise to apply for as many scholarships as possible.. I was too lazy to do so, and I will pay much for this mistake..

Feel free to pm me or ask me any questions about college admittance, b/c I just went through all that this year, and I'm glad to be done! lol

0

Ohio State is supposed to be the best public school in Ohio (and they have a kickass football team). I was thinking about going there. I already qualify for a full scholarship and Bowling Green State University, but I think it's kind of a mediocre school from what I've heard. I'm going to apply to West Point, but if I get accepted I won't go. I used to want to go to West Point, but now I hope I get turned down so I won't ever look back and say, "I could have done it."

0

Why West Point? I don't know if many other states do this, but in Texas if you are in the top 10% at your high school then you are automatically accepted into all the state public schools. You may not get the major you want, but you are guaranteed admission.

0

In Washington, the larger public schools use an admissions index based on SAT scores and GPA to evaluate automatic admission. Don't know about smaller schools. Of course, if you get admitted to as school but it doesn't have a good program that fits your interest, then there's little reason to go there over a better program elsewhere.

1

gpa and SAT scores? But all high schools don't go by the same scales.. some may not even rank their students.. What SAT score do you have to get in Washington?

Votes + Comments
hmm. On Second Thought. No point in holding grudges. Here is some nice positive rep
This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.