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
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.
I see your point regarding the economic system. However, I see no alternate
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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%
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
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.
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
Fine, but do you apply that to cities? As in "city growth of the past
50-100 years is good?"
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
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.
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.