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?
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".
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?
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.
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.
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. . .
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.
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.
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.
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.