If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Tadej Brezina on March 12, 2009, 4:10 am
Rod Speed wrote:
> Tadej Brezina wrote
>> Strabo wrote
>>> Enough Already wrote
>
>>>> A number of articles on the economic situation claim that "natural
>>>> population growth" justifies and/or will absorb surplus housing
>>>> starts in the current market. In general, housing starts, i.e. new
>>>> homes on untouched land, are mostly about population growth, with
>>>> the expectation that it will never end.
>
>>> Obviously that has ended.
>
>>>> But, there is nothing "natural" about annual world population growth
>>>> of 75,000,000, with U.S. population growth at 3,000,000 per year. If any
other large animal grew its numbers like
>>>> Man, we'd call it a
>>>> plague and send in the troops.
>
>>> Really? You send in the troops when chimps and monkeys reach the end of
their periodic population expansions and
>>> contractions?
>
>>>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a FINITE planet is
UNnatural and should never be encouraged just
>>>> to create construction jobs.
>
>>> No such thing as endless growth.
>
>>> Aren't you happy with the effect of modern warfare? Over 100 million killed
in the last century. War and abortions
>>> are methods of population control.
>
>>> Be clear. How many more do you want killed and what is your preferred method?
>
>> There are other "methods" like famine and illness too.
>> But is it a matter of preference or just likeliness what kind of
>> mechanism regulates the population once it hits some treshold?
>
> Havent needed any of those in the modern first world.
Yes, but the world is not a first world as a whole and those "methods"
may become known to the first world again, if some borders of carrying
capacity get stretched over.
> Every single one
> isnt even self replacing on population if you take out immigration now.
Love that sentence, or why the repeating ad nauseam?
Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>
--
(PC TUW-FBVV)
|
|
Posted by Rod Speed on March 12, 2009, 4:35 am
Tadej Brezina wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Tadej Brezina wrote
>>> Strabo wrote
>>>> Enough Already wrote
>>>>> A number of articles on the economic situation claim that "natural
>>>>> population growth" justifies and/or will absorb surplus housing
>>>>> starts in the current market. In general, housing starts, i.e. new
>>>>> homes on untouched land, are mostly about population growth, with
>>>>> the expectation that it will never end.
>>>> Obviously that has ended.
>>>>> But, there is nothing "natural" about annual world population growth of
75,000,000, with U.S. population growth at
>>>>> 3,000,000 per year.
>>>>> If any other large animal grew its numbers like Man, we'd call it
>>>>> a plague and send in the troops.
>>>> Really? You send in the troops when chimps and monkeys reach the end of
their periodic population expansions and
>>>> contractions?
>>>>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a FINITE planet is
UNnatural and should never be encouraged
>>>>> just to create construction jobs.
>>>> No such thing as endless growth.
>>>> Aren't you happy with the effect of modern warfare? Over 100 million
killed in the last century. War and abortions
>>>> are methods of population control.
>>>> Be clear. How many more do you want killed and what is your preferred
method?
>>> There are other "methods" like famine and illness too.
>>> But is it a matter of preference or just likeliness what kind of
>>> mechanism regulates the population once it hits some treshold?
>> Havent needed any of those in the modern first world.
> Yes, but the world is not a first world as a whole
Yes, but the same thing may spread to the rest of the world.
> and those "methods" may become known to the first world again, if some borders
of carrying capacity get stretched
> over.
Nope, we wont even see another world war, essentially nukes have eliminated that
possibility now.
>> Every single one isnt even self replacing on population if you take out
immigration now.
> Love that sentence, or why the repeating ad nauseam?
Some are so stupid that repetition is all that works.
|
|
Posted by Dioclese on March 10, 2009, 7:16 am
>A number of articles on the economic situation claim that "natural
> population growth" justifies and/or will absorb surplus housing starts
> in the current market. In general, housing starts, i.e. new homes on
> untouched land, are mostly about population growth, with the
> expectation that it will never end.
Yes, the economic system in general (for economic growth) relies on an
ever-increasing population. That's a built-in tenet.
Not everyone can afford a new home, consider revision.
The current U.S. supply of existing, uninhabited homes is adequate for the
entire year's of expected population increase. More than one person
typically inhabits a home, consider revision.
> But, there is nothing "natural" about annual world population growth
> of 75,000,000, with U.S. population growth at 3,000,000 per year. If
> any other large animal grew its numbers like Man, we'd call it a
> plague and send in the troops.
1% increase per year in U.S. population or 20% per generation. "Large"
animals increase in population directly related to food supply and
predators.
> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a FINITE planet is
> UNnatural and should never be encouraged just to create construction
> jobs.
All things are finite, period. Investors react to an increase in housing
demand by building more houses. That's after the fact of population
increase, not before. You got it twisted 180 degrees in your presumptions.
People innately (naturally) procreate at a rate usually beyond the death
rate. The planet (earth) is finite in usable space and natural resources.
There's nothing unnatural about any animal species over-populating, and,
dying off as a result for one reason or the other. Irrational, yes.
Unnatural, no.
> E.A.
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
I see your point regarding the economic system. However, I see no alternate
solution provided.
Is there a need to be a productive member in a non-comsumptive society?
Actually, that's a misnomer. Society is not an economic component of the
economy cycle, consumers are. 2 different words having different meanings.
--
Dave
Another fallacy, the home.
Its primary purpose WAS to provide shelter, and allow the dweller to proceed
a life within it by their own choices. The first a need, the second a
right.
Somewhere along the way, its become primary purpose as a financial security
instead.
|
|
Posted by Rod Speed on March 10, 2009, 2:49 pm
Dioclese wrote
>> A number of articles on the economic situation claim that "natural
>> population growth" justifies and/or will absorb surplus housing
>> starts in the current market. In general, housing starts, i.e. new
>> homes on untouched land, are mostly about population growth, with the
expectation that it will never end.
> Yes, the economic system in general (for economic growth) relies on an
ever-increasing population. That's a built-in
> tenet.
Have fun explaining how come countrys like Japan work without an increasing
population.
> Not everyone can afford a new home, consider revision.
> The current U.S. supply of existing, uninhabited homes is adequate for the
entire year's of expected population
> increase. More than one person typically inhabits a home, consider revision.
>> But, there is nothing "natural" about annual world population growth
>> of 75,000,000, with U.S. population growth at 3,000,000 per year. If any
other large animal grew its numbers like
>> Man, we'd call it a
>> plague and send in the troops.
> 1% increase per year in U.S. population or 20% per generation. "Large" animals
increase in population directly related
> to food
> supply and predators.
Humans dont work like that.
>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a FINITE planet is
UNnatural and should never be encouraged just
>> to create construction jobs.
> All things are finite, period.
The universe aint.
> Investors react to an increase in housing demand by building more houses.
That's after the fact of population
> increase, not before. You got it twisted 180 degrees in your presumptions.
> People innately (naturally) procreate at a rate usually beyond the death rate.
It hasnt been like that in the modern first world for a long time now if you
take out imigration.
> The planet (earth) is finite in usable space and natural resources.
In practice we're nowhere near being limited by either.
> There's nothing unnatural about any animal species over-populating, and, dying
off as a result for one reason or the
> other. Irrational, yes. Unnatural, no.
And humans havent operated like that for millennia now.
>> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>> Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
> I see your point regarding the economic system. However, I see no alternate
solution provided.
There isnt one.
> Is there a need to be a productive member in a non-comsumptive society?
> Actually, that's a misnomer. Society is not an economic component of the
economy cycle, consumers are. 2 different
> words having different meanings.
|
|
Posted by on March 10, 2009, 3:15 pm
> Dioclese wrote
> >> A number of articles on the economic situation claim that "natural
> >> population growth" justifies and/or will absorb surplus housing
> >> starts in the current market. In general, housing starts, i.e. new
> >> homes on untouched land, are mostly about population growth, with the =
expectation that it will never end.
> > Yes, the economic system in general (for economic growth) relies on an =
ever-increasing population. =A0That's a built-in
> > tenet.
> Have fun explaining how come countrys like Japan work without an increasi=
ng population.
> > Not everyone can afford a new home, consider revision.
> > The current U.S. supply of existing, uninhabited homes is adequate for =
the entire year's of expected population
> > increase. =A0More than one person typically inhabits a home, consider r=
evision.
> >> But, there is nothing "natural" about annual world population growth
> >> of 75,000,000, with U.S. population growth at 3,000,000 per year. If a=
ny other large animal grew its numbers like
> >> Man, we'd call it a
> >> plague and send in the troops.
> > 1% increase per year in U.S. population or 20% per generation. "Large" =
animals increase in population directly related
> > to food
> > supply and predators.
> Humans dont work like that.
> >> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a FINITE planet is=
UNnatural and should never be encouraged just
> >> to create construction jobs.
> > All things are finite, period.
> The universe aint.
> > Investors react to an increase in housing demand by building more house=
s. =A0That's after the fact of population
> > increase, not before. =A0You got it twisted 180 degrees in your presump=
tions.
> > People innately (naturally) procreate at a rate usually beyond the deat=
h rate.
> It hasnt been like that in the modern first world for a long time now if =
you take out imigration.
> > The planet (earth) is finite in usable space and natural resources.
> In practice we're nowhere near being limited by either.
> > There's nothing unnatural about any animal species over-populating, and=
, dying off as a result for one reason or the
> > other. =A0Irrational, yes. Unnatural, no.
> And humans havent operated like that for millennia now.
> >>http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> >> Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
> > I see your point regarding the economic system. =A0However, I see no al=
ternate solution provided.
> There isnt one.
> > Is there a need to be a productive member in a non-comsumptive society?
> > Actually, that's a misnomer. =A0Society is not an economic component of=
the economy cycle, consumers are. =A02 different
> > words having different meanings.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed. Land depletion is an urban myth. You could put every
residential property in the US in a single medium sized state and
still have left over land. The percentage of land that is "developed"
is tiny. There's not really any such thing as other resource
depletion either. Just because we move something from an ore to a
landfill does not deplete it. And practically the biggest quantity of
anything we have is water so it's not like there is a shortage of that
either.
The only thing we really are reducing is stored energy, aka crude
oil. We need to extend our development of other forms of energy
resources. With sufficient energy we can handle everything else.
|
Page 9 of 14 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition | March 29, 2008, 12:25 pm |
| Population growth keeps emptying the glass | October 26, 2007, 9:21 pm |
| October housing starts fall by half; San Diego, Riverside counties drive statewide construction slump | November 30, 2006, 1:26 am |
| apartment house 80 familes --natural gas heating | December 14, 2007, 10:11 am |
| Heating Source for Pool: Propane or Natural Gas | May 1, 2009, 11:11 pm |
| ? Is CureLight Clear Natural Stone Repair Kit any good? | June 25, 2007, 4:58 pm |
| Exporting all various kinds of natural stone Granite Marble tops such as prefabricated Kitchen Countertop , | December 2, 2007, 5:03 am |
| New Land Listing Site | March 24, 2008, 7:28 pm |
| Grading Land to Drain Water Away from Basement | August 13, 2006, 8:20 am |
| Quality Homes for families, investment for rental. House and Land Packages | October 23, 2008, 6:36 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap