Housing starts and "natural population growth" (aka land depletion)

Page 3 of 4  
Rod Speed wrote:

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.

Love that sentence, or why the repeating ad nauseam? Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wδchst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reiίt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tadej Brezina wrote

Yes, but the same thing may spread to the rest of the world.

Nope, we wont even see another world war, essentially nukes have eliminated that possibility now.

Some are so stupid that repetition is all that works.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

1% increase per year in U.S. population or 20% per generation. "Large" animals increase in population directly related to food supply and predators.

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.

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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dioclese wrote

Have fun explaining how come countrys like Japan work without an increasing population.

Humans dont work like that.

The universe aint.

It hasnt been like that in the modern first world for a long time now if you take out imigration.

In practice we're nowhere near being limited by either.

And humans havent operated like that for millennia now.

There isnt one.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote

And we can always move to nukes if that becomes a problem.

Nope, we have what we need now if they become necessary.
The only thing we really do need currently is nukes that cant be used to produce nuke weapons.

And there is plenty of energy with fission. We can even use hydrogen from nukes as a transport fuel if we ever need to and eliminate the vast bulk of the CO2 production from energy if we need to do that too.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Gee, do I have to? I think most of the readers understand how a mostly export market works.

I can see why you would refute that. It allows the illusion you hold to exist.

For our limited minds, the universe is infinite. But, the subject is the earth anyway. Nice distraction.

Again, we're talking about the earth. Not some partial scope of it. If you want to digress, fine. Count me out.

True, usable space, a matter that people deny in such an observation, choose to ignore.
I won't even touch natural resources comment, given the education on a wide gamet of sources has provided to date.

Humans generally appear to operate with their minds day to day. In the bigger time picture in terms of decades, they operate innately and emmotionally modified somewhat with their minds. In the end observation, irrational, but natural regardless.

Precisely. The original post is tearing at an economic system with no alternate and viable solution to replace it with.

--
Dave

Another fallacy, the home.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dioclese wrote

Corse you do when you made that claim.

Pity about your claim.

It isnt an illusion, its a fact. Have fun listing the last time that human population was related to predators.

Its so close to unlimited that it doesnt matter.

Nope.
Pathetic excuse for bullshit.

It remains to be seen if the same thing that produced that result right thruout the modern first world wont eventually apply to the entire earth.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

You're lying, again. The absolute vast bulk of the space is usable for habitation.
And if most were living at the same population density as HongKong or New York, you need fuck all space for that anyway.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
All we ever do with all except energy resources is move them from one place to another. We dont even significantly lower the density of the resources either.
And if we ever do end up with a problem with energy resources, we can always use nukes instead of fossil fuels.

Irrelevant to what happens over the long haul.

Meaningless waffle.

And we dont need one.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11 mar, 15:52, "Dioclese" <NONE> wrote:

if humans had grown at 0,65% a year since year 0 AD, we would have a person per square yard already, on the solid surface of the earth.
calculus: 320 millions * (1,006524)^2008= 1,5 (10^14) sq. meters
The prove that Malthus had reason in his theory is that we are not that many people in this planet. For it is not difficult that in many places population had been growing at 0,65% a year. At present, planet population had been growing for 200 years at 0,97% Leopoldo
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Geode wrote:

They didnt.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue about anything at all, ever.

Its actually the proof that Malthus never did have a clue.

Not for anything even remotely resembling 2K years tho.

And NOT ONE modern first world country is even self replacing on population if you take out immigration and the largest country in the entire world isnt growing at that rate either.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Over population is a terrible problem!! It is the very basis for all our environmental problems and is even affecting human behavior and health. It heads the human race towards doom,. But what is so amazing is that no writer can make money writing about it. It is not in the newspapers or magazines, not on TV. It is a taboo subject, anethama. It offends the Catholics and the Creationists, Muslim terrorists and anti-abortionists. It seems that no one wants to offend them and stir up controversy.
In "Destiny and Civilization," I describe how this biological process develops. Different animals go through different processes when they grow too numerous in a limited area. Our problem is that like some of them, behavior has been showing signs of deteriorating. Stress and hostility build up. We have the West, Islam, Marxist China and India all competing for the remaining resources. The struggle from them can only get more brutal.
What will happen is that either there is a population crash up ahead, probably within the next forty years,or we adopt a new ideological system, one which has among its clearly stated goals, to limit population increase, promote recycling and eliminating waste.
charles http://atheistic-science.com
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
charles wrote:

Have fun explaining the environmental problems in Japan which isnt even self replacing on population now.

Have fun explaining Japan which isnt even self replacing on population now.

Nope, the human race is doing fine.

Plenty do just that, most obviously those 'working' for Greenpiss etc etc etc.

You need to get out more.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

Who cares ?

Have fun explaining Greenpiss and hordes of Green partys all over the world.

No you dont. You just pig ignorantly rave on, just like you do above in spades.

Humans do it differently. ALL modern first world countrys arent even self replacing on population if you take out immigration. That includes many catholic ones like Italy.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

Have fun explaining how come we havent seen another world war or even another local war in western europe for 50 years and havent seen one in North America for a hell of a lot longer than that.

Nope, they all just buy them from countrys that have them like Australia now.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

Fools have been predicting that ever since Malthus started doing that.
Hasnt EVER happened.

That number is straight from your arse. We can tell from the smell.

Soorree, fresh out of magic wands to wave to achieve those 'goals' with population particularly in the third world.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Soylent Green?

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

starts
is
No, it's just that most people in the thread think that the world is a stagnant place and right now is the best possible situation but that everything will get worse from here. Guess what. The only constant is that things will change. Change is inevitable. 50 years ago no one ever how we would get here. But guess what, it happened. Maybe the biggest difference between and most other people here is that I have the people are resourceful, I believe that change can be for the better, and I am very optimistic about the human race. Things are good.
--
Fine, but do you apply that to cities? As in "city growth of the past
50-100 years is good?"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George Conklin wrote:

Yes, hordes prefer modern citys to what we had 100 years ago.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

on
growth
If
planet
construction
amazing
stir
process
of
can
ahead,
self-
I think city growth is fine. The more people who move to cities, the fewer people out here. That's good.
I fundamentally don't understand cities. I've lived in them, I've visited them. I've left them. I don't see the attraction to them. Same for suburbs. But I guess other people do and I'm glad for them. I've been told that it is all about "culture" and "shopping" and that you can get anything you want at any time you want. Good for some, but I don't crave a corned beef sandwich at 3 AM. I choose to live in the place where the people from the city come for vacation. So why not just live here? It works for me. But I'm also glad it doesn't work for everyone because then it wouldn't be as nice here. So there ya go.
--
Ok, I don\'t need a sandwich at 3 AM either.



Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

yes. it would be a good solution to overpopulation. Leopoldo
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am watching at this moment at the population of Easter island growing an growing in an island of a about 15 miles. They started by killing all the land birds of the island that were flightless. Later they exterminated all the marine birds that were nesting on the island. They started to chop down trees to make room for agriculture. Then when the excess population was becoming impossible, they began to quarrel and to kill each other. Then, to avoid civil wars, they started the industry of building statues bigger and bigger each year. This way, they got the young population busy carving the statues, and carrying them to coast. With this entertainment the retarded the time of reproducing of the young people. The trouble with the statues is they needed to cut trees to make rails and paths to carry the statues to the shore. They had also to chop down some trees to make ropes with the fibers of their bark. Then after a century and a half, the stopped carving statues. There were no more tree to chop on the island. the, during the night, people from a clan pulled down the statues of the rival clans. And little by little they were tumbling down all the statues and ended in a terrible and constant warfare, that nearly annihilated most of the population. This proves that human mind are not rational on collective issues. And that something as visible as very tall trees can be tumbled down with a stone chopper till there is not any more left on the island.
This proves, that population does not stop ion their own, but by the way of little catastrophes. I am very pessimistic about the collective mind of humans is rational.
Leopoldo Leopoldo
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Geode wrote:

That utterly mangles what actually happened.

It 'proves' nothing of the sort.
Have fun explaining why no other small island that size got that result.

Your problem.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Geode wrote:

Because a dutch ship showed up and decimated the population with european diseases. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2589097.htm

Because they had brought rats with them and those reached plague proportions very quickly and they ate the seeds of those trees. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2589097.htm

All it actually proves is that tiny islands can be very vulnerable ecologically.

Your problem. Have a look at what the west has achieved sometime.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.