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

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.

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.

Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a FINITE planet is UNnatural and should never be encouraged just to create construction jobs.

E.A.

formatting link
Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?

Reply to
Enough Already
Loading thread data ...

Why haven't you yet pulled the noose ??

Reply to
Scott M. Kozel

It isnt just about population growth, plenty just upgrade their houses.

Yes, the population growth in the US is entirely due to immigration now.

Wrong.

Wrong.

It isnt.

Corse you can.

Reply to
Rod Speed

such is the grand conservative Ponzi scheme.

Reply to
hal

birth control. Easy.

Reply to
hal

The problem is that so many people don't believe that the Earth is finite. They think that it is infinite, just as many once thought that the forests on land and the fishes in the sea were infinite. Some people can not distinguish between "really huge" and "infinite".

Reply to
f.barnes

Obviously that has ended.

Really? You send in the troops when chimps and monkeys reach the end of their periodic population expansions and contractions?

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?

Can one be a consumer in a productive society?

Reply to
Strabo

Yeah. You'd think that those who care so much would be quick to exit.

But that's a hypocrisy of liberal/progressives. Moralists and do-gooders. They want to use government to tell others what to do while they continue to do as they please.

Reply to
Strabo

They actually have enough of a clue to have noticed that even tho the population numbers have increased very dramatically, we ALL live a hell of a lot better than they did a couple of centurys ago and millennia ago in spades.

Like hell they do.

And some cant even work out whats actually happening either.

Reply to
Rod Speed

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. . .

--

Reply to
(David P.)

Public policy is about _everyone_! . .

--

Reply to
(David P.)

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.

Reply to
Dioclese

He wants to pull YOUR noose.

Reply to
george conklin

Wont be happening again now that nukes have ensured that we wont see another world war.

Wrong, as always. Not one modern first world country is even self replacing on population now if you take out imigration.

Reply to
Rod Speed

Wont be happening again now that nukes have ensured that we wont see another world war.

Wrong, as always. Not one modern first world country is even self replacing on population now if you take out immigration. . .

--

Reply to
(David P.)

Dioclese wrote

expectation that it will never end.

ever-increasing population. That's a built-in

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

entire year's of expected population

other large animal grew its numbers like

increase in population directly related

Humans dont work like that.

UNnatural and should never be encouraged just

The universe aint.

That's after the fact of population

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.

off as a result for one reason or the

And humans havent operated like that for millennia now.

solution provided.

There isnt one.

economy cycle, consumers are. 2 different

Reply to
Rod Speed

expectation that it will never end.

ever-increasing population. =A0That's a built-in

ng population.

the entire year's of expected population

ny other large animal grew its numbers like

animals increase in population directly related

UNnatural and should never be encouraged just

s. =A0That's after the fact of population

you take out imigration.

, dying off as a result for one reason or the

ternate solution provided.

the economy cycle, consumers are. =A02 different

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.

Reply to
jamesgangnc

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote

take out imigration.

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.

Reply to
Rod Speed

bwa-ha-ha-ha... You really believe this?

Reply to
PeterD

He needs to be the first partaker of what he is proposing ...

He needs to pull HIS noose.

Reply to
Scott M. Kozel

HomeOwnersHub website 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.