Housing starts and "natural population growth" (aka land depletion)
Enough Already
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.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> 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.
Why haven't you yet pulled the noose ??
Rod Speed
> 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.
It isnt just about population growth, plenty just upgrade their houses.
> 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.
Yes, the population growth in the US is entirely due to immigration now.
> If any other large animal grew its numbers like Man,
> we'd call it a plague and send in the troops.
Wrong.
> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a FINITE planet is UNnatural
Wrong.
> and should never be encouraged just to create construction jobs.
It isnt.
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
Corse you can.
Strabo
> 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?
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>
> Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
>
Can one be a consumer in a productive society?
h...@nospam.com
<enough_...@lycos.com> 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.
>
>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.
such is the grand conservative Ponzi scheme.
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>Be clear. How many more do you want killed and what is your
>preferred method?
birth control. Easy.
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.
f.barnes
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".
Rod Speed
> On Mar 9, 8:22 pm, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>>
>> 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 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.
> They think that it is infinite,
Like hell they do.
> 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".
And some cant even work out whats actually happening either.
(David P.)
> f.barnes wrote:
> > Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> 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 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.
>
> > They think that it is infinite,
>
> Like hell they do.
>
> > just as many once thought that the forests on land
> >and the fishes in the sea were infinite. Some people
>
> 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.
.
.
--
(David P.)
Dioclese
news:9b607c17-f370-4c30...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>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.
george conklin
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gp4jnr$vap$1...@news.motzarella.org...
He wants to pull YOUR noose.
Rod Speed
Wont be happening again now that nukes have ensured that we wont see another world war.
> War and abortions are methods of population control.
Wrong, as always. Not one modern first world country is even self replacing on population now if you take out
imigration.
(David P.)
> Enough Already wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a
> >> FINITE planet is UNnatural and should never be
> >> encouraged just to create construction jobs.
>
> Over 100 million killed in the last century.
Wont be happening again now that nukes have ensured
that we wont see another world war.
> War and abortions are methods of population control.
Wrong, as always. Not one modern first world country
is even self replacing on population now if you take out
immigration.
.
.
--
Rod Speed
> Enough Already <enough_...@lycos.com> 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.
james...@gmail.com
> Dioclese wrote
>
> > Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote
>
> - 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.
Rod Speed
>> There isnt one.
> 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.
And we can always move to nukes if that becomes a problem.
> We need to extend our development of other forms of energy resources.
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.
> With sufficient energy we can handle everything else.
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.
PeterD
<imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>> Enough Already wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a
>> >> FINITE planet is UNnatural and should never be
>> >> encouraged just to create construction jobs.
>>
>> Aren't you happy with the effect of modern warfare?
>> Over 100 million killed in the last century.
>
>Wont be happening again now that nukes have ensured
>that we wont see another world war.
>
bwa-ha-ha-ha... You really believe this?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Enough Already <enough_...@lycos.com> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Why haven't you yet pulled the noose ??
>
> He wants to pull YOUR noose.
He needs to be the first partaker of what he is proposing ...
He needs to pull HIS noose.
sam
> David P. <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>> Enough Already wrote:
>>>>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence)
>>>>> on a FINITE planet is UNnatural and should never
>>>>> be encouraged just to create construction jobs.
>>> Aren't you happy with the effect of modern warfare?
>>> Over 100 million killed in the last century.
>> Wont be happening again now that nukes have
>> ensured that we wont see another world war.
> bwa-ha-ha-ha...
Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
> You really believe this?
Yep. You watch.
Strabo
Disease will be the weapon of choice.
An 1918 influenza strain was recently genetically 'mated'
with bird flu. Should be a real good killer.
sam
> sam wrote
>> PeterD wrote
>>> David P. <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>>>> Enough Already wrote:
>>>>>>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence)
>>>>>>> on a FINITE planet is UNnatural and should never
>>>>>>> be encouraged just to create construction jobs.
>>>>> Aren't you happy with the effect of modern warfare?
>>>>> Over 100 million killed in the last century.
>>>> Wont be happening again now that nukes have
>>>> ensured that we wont see another world war.
>>> bwa-ha-ha-ha...
>> Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
>>> You really believe this?
>> Yep. You watch.
> Disease will be the weapon of choice.
Nope, its too hard to control.
> An 1918 influenza strain was recently genetically 'mated' with bird flu. Should be a real good killer.
Too hard to control.
Tadej Brezina
> 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.
>
> It isnt just about population growth, plenty just upgrade their houses.
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, the population growth in the US is entirely due to immigration now.
>
>> If any other large animal grew its numbers like Man,
>> we'd call it a plague and send in the troops.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a FINITE planet is UNnatural
>
> Wrong.
Could you give us an example?
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)
Tadej Brezina
> 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?
PeterD
Rational? What is rational about thinking that having nukes will
prevent WW-III? Your thought process went out the door when there
became more than four nuclear powers. And non-nuclear powers won't let
that deter them since they know that the nuclear powers won't quickly
respond with nukes. You need to study history a bit more, learn a bit
more about your fellow man, then make informed judgments, not snap
responses based on ill-logic.
>
>> You really believe this?
>
>Yep. You watch.
>
Watching...
Dioclese
news:71nr1uF...@mid.individual.net...
> Dioclese wrote
>> Enough Already <enough_...@lycos.com> 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.
>
Gee, do I have to?
I think most of the readers understand how a mostly export market works.
>> 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.
>
I can see why you would refute that. It allows the illusion you hold to
exist.
>>> 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.
>
For our limited minds, the universe is infinite. But, the subject is the
earth anyway. Nice distraction.
>> 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.
>
Again, we're talking about the earth. Not some partial scope of it. If you
want to digress, fine. Count me out.
>> The planet (earth) is finite in usable space and natural resources.
>
> In practice we're nowhere near being limited by either.
>
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.
>> 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.
>
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.
>>> 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.
>
Precisely. The original post is tearing at an economic system with no
alternate and viable solution to replace it with.
>> 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.
>
>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed 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.
>> It isnt just about population growth, plenty just upgrade their houses.
>>> 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.
>> Yes, the population growth in the US is entirely due to immigration now.
>>> If any other large animal grew its numbers like Man,
>>> we'd call it a plague and send in the troops.
>> Wrong.
>>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a FINITE planet is UNnatural
>> Wrong.
> Could you give us an example?
There is no endless growth of anything, not even population in the first world if you take out immigration.
Rod Speed
> 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. Every single one
isnt even self replacing on population if you take out immigration now.
Even china got a clue too.
sam
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:24:38 +1100, "sam" <s...@lf.com> wrote:
>
>> PeterD wrote
>>> David P. <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Enough Already wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence)
>>>>>>> on a FINITE planet is UNnatural and should never
>>>>>>> be encouraged just to create construction jobs.
>>
>>>>> Aren't you happy with the effect of modern warfare?
>>>>> Over 100 million killed in the last century.
>>
>>>> Wont be happening again now that nukes have
>>>> ensured that we wont see another world war.
>>
>>> bwa-ha-ha-ha...
>>
>> Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
> Rational? What is rational about thinking that having nukes will prevent WW-III?
Even someone as stupid as you should have notice the time since
WW2 ended compared with the time between WW1 and WW2.
> Your thought process went out the door when
> there became more than four nuclear powers.
Nope, that ensure that they wont be involved in another world war.
> And non-nuclear powers won't let that deter them since they
> know that the nuclear powers won't quickly respond with nukes.
Doesnt matter whether its quickly or not, no one would be stupid enough to try what Japan
tried last time again when they can be nuked back to the stone age if they were that stupid.
> You need to study history a bit more, learn a bit more about your fellow
> man, then make informed judgments, not snap responses based on ill-logic.
You wouldnt know what a real snap response was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
And thats what yours was anyway.
>>> You really believe this?
>> Yep. You watch.
> Watching...
We wont even see war between India and Pakistan again either, you watch.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> 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.
> Gee, do I have to?
Corse you do when you made that claim.
> I think most of the readers understand how a mostly export market works.
Pity about your claim.
>>> 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.
> I can see why you would refute that. It allows the illusion you hold to exist.
It isnt an illusion, its a fact. Have fun listing the last
time that human population was related to 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.
>> The universe aint.
> For our limited minds, the universe is infinite.
Its so close to unlimited that it doesnt matter.
> But, the subject is the earth anyway.
Nope.
> Nice distraction.
Pathetic excuse for bullshit.
>>> 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 immigration.
> Again, we're talking about the earth. Not some partial scope of it.
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.
> If you want to digress, fine. Count me out.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> The planet (earth) is finite in usable space and natural resources.
>> In practice we're nowhere near being limited by either.
> True, usable space, a matter that people deny in such an observation, choose to ignore.
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.
> I won't even touch natural resources comment, given the education on a wide gamet of sources has provided to date.
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.
>>> 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.
> Humans generally appear to operate with their minds day to day.
Irrelevant to what happens over the long haul.
> 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.
Meaningless waffle.
>>>> 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.
> Precisely. The original post is tearing at an economic system with no alternate and viable solution to replace it
> with.
And we dont need one.
PeterD
>PeterD wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:24:38 +1100, "sam" <s...@lf.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PeterD wrote
>>>> David P. <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Enough Already wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence)
>>>>>>>> on a FINITE planet is UNnatural and should never
>>>>>>>> be encouraged just to create construction jobs.
>>>
>>>>>> Aren't you happy with the effect of modern warfare?
>>>>>> Over 100 million killed in the last century.
>>>
>>>>> Wont be happening again now that nukes have
>>>>> ensured that we wont see another world war.
>>>
>>>> bwa-ha-ha-ha...
>>>
>>> Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
>
>> Rational? What is rational about thinking that having nukes will prevent WW-III?
>
>Even someone as stupid as you should have notice the time since
>WW2 ended compared with the time between WW1 and WW2.
Huh? What's that got to do with it?
>
>> Your thought process went out the door when
>> there became more than four nuclear powers.
>
>Nope, that ensure that they wont be involved in another world war.
>
>> And non-nuclear powers won't let that deter them since they
>> know that the nuclear powers won't quickly respond with nukes.
>
>Doesnt matter whether its quickly or not, no one would be stupid enough to try what Japan
>tried last time again when they can be nuked back to the stone age if they were that stupid.
>
>> You need to study history a bit more, learn a bit more about your fellow
>> man, then make informed judgments, not snap responses based on ill-logic.
>
>You wouldnt know what a real snap response was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
<bg> Ok, if you say so, it must be true...
sam
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:56:52 +1100, "sam" <s...@lf.com> wrote:
>
>> PeterD wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:24:38 +1100, "sam" <s...@lf.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PeterD wrote
>>>>> David P. <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>>>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Enough Already wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence)
>>>>>>>>> on a FINITE planet is UNnatural and should never
>>>>>>>>> be encouraged just to create construction jobs.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Aren't you happy with the effect of modern warfare?
>>>>>>> Over 100 million killed in the last century.
>>>>
>>>>>> Wont be happening again now that nukes have
>>>>>> ensured that we wont see another world war.
>>>>
>>>>> bwa-ha-ha-ha...
>>>>
>>>> Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
>>
>>> Rational? What is rational about thinking that having nukes will
>>> prevent WW-III?
>>
>> Even someone as stupid as you should have notice the time since
>> WW2 ended compared with the time between WW1 and WW2.
> Huh? What's that got to do with it?
Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.
>>> Your thought process went out the door when
>>> there became more than four nuclear powers.
>>
>> Nope, that ensure that they wont be involved in another world war.
>>
>>> And non-nuclear powers won't let that deter them since they
>>> know that the nuclear powers won't quickly respond with nukes.
>>
>> Doesnt matter whether its quickly or not, no one would be stupid
>> enough to try what Japan tried last time again when they can be
>> nuked back to the stone age if they were that stupid.
>>
>>> You need to study history a bit more, learn a bit more about your
>>> fellow
>>> man, then make informed judgments, not snap responses based on
>>> ill-logic.
>>
>> You wouldnt know what a real snap response was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
> <bg> Ok, if you say so, it must be true...
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>> And thats what yours was anyway.
PeterD
>PeterD wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:56:52 +1100, "sam" <s...@lf.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PeterD wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:24:38 +1100, "sam" <s...@lf.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> PeterD wrote
>>>>>> David P. <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Enough Already wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence)
>>>>>>>>>> on a FINITE planet is UNnatural and should never
>>>>>>>>>> be encouraged just to create construction jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aren't you happy with the effect of modern warfare?
>>>>>>>> Over 100 million killed in the last century.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wont be happening again now that nukes have
>>>>>>> ensured that we wont see another world war.
>>>>>
>>>>>> bwa-ha-ha-ha...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
>>>
>>>> Rational? What is rational about thinking that having nukes will
>>>> prevent WW-III?
>>>
>>> Even someone as stupid as you should have notice the time since
>>> WW2 ended compared with the time between WW1 and WW2.
>
>> Huh? What's that got to do with it?
>
>Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.
>
OK, explain it to us in simple terms... Where is your data that
correlates the likelyhood of a WW to the span of time between them? Or
perhaps there is a world rule on it? Or a natural law?
sam
Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
> Where is your data that correlates the likelyhood of a WW to the span of time
> between them? Or perhaps there is a world rule on it? Or a natural law?
Even you can't actually be THAT stupid.
Tadej Brezina
You seem to be right. That no material thing can grow endlessly is a no
brainer for the material world. I'm not an astronomer, but they still
seem to argue, how the universe is going to expand further.
Nevertheless the intelligence thing might also be restricted to finite
borders, as e.g. people can't become endlessly intelligent and their
number is also finite, hence the result is finite.
regards
Tadej Brezina
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?
Rod Speed
>>>> Obviously that has ended.
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.
(David P.)
Sez who??
.
.
--
PeterD
Pretend I am, now explain it or STFU.
charles
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> UNnatural and should never be encouraged just to create construction
> jobs.
>
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>
> Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
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
Pat
Every system is self limiting. Let me repeat, every system is self
limiting. So why would one believe that population is different. It
will self limit. It might take a while and there might be problems
here and there until equilibrium is found, but in the end it will self-
limit.
As for now, there is plenty of room left in the world and more than
enough space to grow food. Where I live, lots more land it taken OUT
of production than put into production, but we still seem to grow more
and more food year in and year out.
Energy use will remain in equilibrium forever. It has to. There is
no choice. If oil goes higher, then more substitutes will come onto
the market. There is nothing magical about oil -- it is just the
thing that replaced whale-oil when that became too expensive. Whale
oil replaced something else. Something will eventually replace
petroleum. If you think about it, we will NEVER run out of oil.
Never. Never. Someday it will get too expensive to extract the last
little bit and the substitutes will take over and the remaining oil
will stay in the ground just like the remaining whales stayed in the
ocean.
What will replace oil? Who knows. We aren't to the point of finding
out, yet. There's still plenty of it.
If you people want something to worry about, worry about the Sun. It
will eventually burn out and then we will all be in trouble. That's
about the only certainty.
sam
Go and fuck yourself, again.
Rod Speed
> On Mar 9, 10:22 pm, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>>
>> Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
> Over population is a terrible problem!! It is
> the very basis for all our environmental problems
Have fun explaining the environmental problems in
Japan which isnt even self replacing on population now.
> and is even affecting human behavior and health.
Have fun explaining Japan which isnt even self replacing on population now.
> It heads the human race towards doom,.
Nope, the human race is doing fine.
> But what is so amazing is that no writer can make money writing about it.
Plenty do just that, most obviously those 'working' for Greenpiss etc etc etc.
> It is not in the newspapers or magazines, not on TV.
You need to get out more.
> It is a taboo subject, anethama.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
> It offends the Catholics and the Creationists,
> Muslim terrorists and anti-abortionists.
Who cares ?
> It seems that no one wants to offend them and stir up controversy.
Have fun explaining Greenpiss and hordes of Green partys all over the world.
> In "Destiny and Civilization," I describe how this biological process develops.
No you dont. You just pig ignorantly rave on, just like you do above in spades.
> Different animals go through different processes
> when they grow too numerous in a limited area.
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.
> Our problem is that like some of them, behavior has been showing signs of deteriorating.
Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.
> Stress and hostility build up.
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.
> We have the West, Islam, Marxist China and
> India all competing for the remaining resources.
Nope, they all just buy them from countrys that have them like Australia now.
> The struggle from them can only get more brutal.
Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.
> What will happen is that either there is a population crash up ahead,
Fools have been predicting that ever since Malthus started doing that.
Hasnt EVER happened.
> probably within the next forty years,
That number is straight from your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> or we adopt a new ideological system, one which has among its clearly stated
> goals, to limit population increase, promote recycling and eliminating waste.
Soorree, fresh out of magic wands to wave to achieve those 'goals' with population particularly in the third world.
f.barnes
Soylent Green?
>
> If you people want something to worry about, worry about the Sun. It
> will eventually burn out and then we will all be in trouble. That's
> about the only certainty.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PeterD
I like it when someone speaks well, thinks well, and is clear. Hey,
you are clear, if nothing else.
sam
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Pat
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.
DanB (Previously DB)
> Energy use will remain in equilibrium forever. It has to. There is
> no choice. If oil goes higher, then more substitutes will come onto
> the market. There is nothing magical about oil -- it is just the
> thing that replaced whale-oil when that became too expensive. Whale
> oil replaced something else. Something will eventually replace
> petroleum....
Another guy that has never run the numbers.......
George Conklin
"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:96cadb63-7a73-46b3...@t7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
---
Fine, but do you apply that to cities? As in "city growth of the past
50-100 years is good?"
Pat
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.
Pat
What? In case you didn't notice, oil will run out (actually, it'll
just get too expensive to extract what's left). It will happen. That
is a given. It doesn't matter if all cars get 10 mpg or 100 mpg, it
will happen. Improved mileage and such will impact when it will run
out, not "if" it will run out.
It some point it will become obsolete when it get's too expensive.
That's the definition of "too expensive", when people stop using it.
They will. It'll happen. There will be substitutions -- probably bio-
diesel at first and things like that. Then in 100 years people will
forget all about oil.
The world changes. Deal with it. In all likelihood, it'll be a
better place when the oil runs out. Mankind will adjust.
Rod Speed
Yes, hordes prefer modern citys to what we had 100 years ago.
DanB (Previously DB)
> On Mar 12, 10:06 pm, "DanB (Previously DB)" <a...@some.net> wrote:
>> Pat wrote:
>>> Energy use will remain in equilibrium forever. It has to. There is
>>> no choice. If oil goes higher, then more substitutes will come onto
>>> the market. There is nothing magical about oil -- it is just the
>>> thing that replaced whale-oil when that became too expensive. Whale
>>> oil replaced something else. Something will eventually replace
>>> petroleum....
>> Another guy that has never run the numbers.......
>
> What? In case you didn't notice, oil will run out (actually, it'll
> just get too expensive to extract what's left). It will happen.
Duh!
> They will. It'll happen. There will be substitutions -- probably bio-
> diesel at first and things like that. Then in 100 years people will
> forget all about oil.
There is where you have gone astray. All the bio in the world today is
some *net* of a half a quad/year. The world demands 175 quads/year.
The coming declines in conventional are likely to push some 5-8 quads/year.
There is no next cheap source of liquid fuels.
> The world changes. Deal with it. In all likelihood, it'll be a
> better place when the oil runs out. Mankind will adjust.
Such an optimist. Too bad you don't have numbers to support your
expectations.
james...@gmail.com
That's where your thinking is limited. It doesn't have to be a liquid
fuel. We're already almost there with practical electric cars. And
mass transit solutions using electricity is already common all over
the world.
And that not even considering that it's no big deal to turn
electricity into another fuel. Split the hydrogen out of water and
use it in your car.
DanB (Previously DB)
http://lakeweb.com/money/Hirsch.pdf
Not and keep this standard of living.
> And that not even considering that it's no big deal to turn
> electricity into another fuel. Split the hydrogen out of water and
> use it in your car.
You have no grasp of the numbers. Hydrogen is a bad joke.
Rod Speed
> Pat wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 10:06 pm, "DanB (Previously DB)" <a...@some.net> wrote:
>>> Pat wrote:
>>>> Energy use will remain in equilibrium forever. It has to. There
>>>> is no choice. If oil goes higher, then more substitutes will come
>>>> onto the market. There is nothing magical about oil -- it is just
>>>> the thing that replaced whale-oil when that became too expensive. Whale oil replaced something else. Something
>>>> will eventually
>>>> replace petroleum....
>
>>> Another guy that has never run the numbers.......
>>
>> What? In case you didn't notice, oil will run out (actually, it'll
>> just get too expensive to extract what's left). It will happen.
>
> Duh!
>
>> They will. It'll happen. There will be substitutions -- probably
>> bio- diesel at first and things like that. Then in 100 years people
>> will forget all about oil.
> There is where you have gone astray.
Nope.
> All the bio in the world today is some *net* of a half a quad/year.
That number is straight from your arse. We can tell from the smell.
No reason that 175 quads of bio diesel NETT cant be produced if we want to.
> The world demands 175 quads/year.
> The coming declines in conventional are likely to push some 5-8 quads/year.
That number is straight from your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> There is no next cheap source of liquid fuels.
Wrong. Nukes can do that fine.
>> The world changes. Deal with it. In all likelihood, it'll be a
>> better place when the oil runs out. Mankind will adjust.
> Such an optimist. Too bad you don't have numbers to support your expectations.
You in spades.
George Conklin
---
Ok, I don't need a sandwich at 3 AM either.
PeterD
That was clear from your first post... But we like you anyway.
sam
You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
PeterD
Hee-he-he-he... Ok, if you say so.
sam
PeterD
Geode
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:71nr1uF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Dioclese wrote
> >> Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> 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.
>
> >> ever-increasing population. That's a built-in tenet.
>
> > Have fun explaining how come countrys like Japan work without an
> > increasing population.
>
> Gee, do I have to?
> I think most of the readers understand how a mostly export market works.
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> >> animals increase in population directly related to food
> >> supply and predators.
>
> > Humans dont work like that.
>
> I can see why you would refute that. It allows the illusion you hold to
> exist.
>
> >>> Endless growth of any kind (except intelligence) on a FINITE planet is
> >>> UNnatural and should never be encouraged just to create construction
> >>> jobs.
>
>
> > The universe aint.
>
> For our limited minds, the universe is infinite. But, the subject is the
> earth anyway. Nice distraction.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Again, we're talking about the earth. Not some partial scope of it. If you
> want to digress, fine. Count me out.
>
> >> The planet (earth) is finite in usable space and natural resources.
>
> > In practice we're nowhere near being limited by either.
>
> 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.
>
> >> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> >>>http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>
> >>> Can one really be a productive member of a consumptive society?
>
> >> alternate solution provided.
>
> > There isnt one.
>
> Precisely. The original post is tearing at an economic system with no
> alternate and viable solution to replace it with.
>
> >> 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.
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
Geode
I think the next thermonuvlear war would explode from Iran and
outwards.
Those Muslim nations had been growing at a demencial pace, well over
2,5% over tha past 50 years. They are living in very arid climates,
and growing up faster than sudamericans and africans.
This is themonuclear clock bomb ticking.
Leopoldo
Geode
> On Mar 12, 12:01 pm, charles <charlesbro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Every system is self limiting. Let me repeat, every system is self
> limiting. So why would one believe that population is different. It
> will self limit. It might take a while and there might be problems
> here and there until equilibrium is found, but in the end it will self-
> limit.
Of course, growth is limited. We will keep growing till everything is
exploding in pieces, or collapsing. Perhaps we need a good plague, or
a thermonuclear war to stop the demented growth.
> As for now, there is plenty of room left in the world and more than
> enough space to grow food. Where I live, lots more land it taken OUT
> of production than put into production, but we still seem to grow more
> and more food year in and year out.
In some place there is more room and water to grow food. But in many
other places there are plenty of land but no water to grow food. Just
take a look at the world map. You need to learn a little geography.
In the US school do not teach much geography.
>
> Energy use will remain in equilibrium forever. It has to. There is
> no choice. If oil goes higher, then more substitutes will come onto
> the market.
we would not lack energy for the next millennium, but not at the rate
we are spending now. If the rate of consumption goes down to 1/1000
rate that our present consumption there would be not any trouble to
have some candles, and we would have some wind mills to produce
electricity, and some dams also. What if instead of 6.7 billion
people we were just 6.7 million only? It would be much easier, isn't
it?
Leopoldo
Geode
yes. it would be a good solution to overpopulation.
Leopoldo
Geode
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
Geode
I heard a mathematician commenting that if Americans were to use green
fuels to run their cars, at present rate o consumption, they will need
all the agricultural lands of the US.
Leopoldo
Geode
you need a lot of energy to split the water and take the hydrogen.
We would not have so much energy for such futility as running our
personal cars to go from our homes to our job sites.
Leopoldo
Rod Speed
They didnt.
> 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
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue about anything at all, ever.
> The prove that Malthus had reason in his theory
> is that we are not that many people in this planet.
Its actually the proof that Malthus never did have a clue.
> For it is not difficult that in many places population had been growing at 0,65% a year.
Not for anything even remotely resembling 2K years tho.
> At present, planet population had been growing for 200 years at 0,97%
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.
Rod Speed
Not a chance. Isreal would nuke them back the stone age before they got a chance to do that.
> Those Muslim nations had been growing at a demencial pace, well
> over 2,5% over tha past 50 years. They are living in very arid climates,
A hell of a lot of them arent. Have a look at Indonesia sometime.
Which just happens to be by far the biggest muslim country in the entire world.
> and growing up faster than sudamericans and africans.
> This is themonuclear clock bomb ticking.
Nope, you watch.
Rod Speed
He's a pig ignorant fool. Have a look at Brazil sometime.
Rod Speed
That utterly mangles what actually happened.
> This proves, that population does not stop ion
> their own, but by the way of little catastrophes.
It 'proves' nothing of the sort.
Have fun explaining why no other small island that size got that result.
> I am very pessimistic about the collective mind of humans is rational.
Your problem.
Rod Speed
> Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote
>> charles <charlesbro...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Every system is self limiting. Let me repeat, every system is self
>> limiting. So why would one believe that population is different. It will
>> self limit. It might take a while and there might be problems here
>> and there until equilibrium is found, but in the end it will self- limit.
> Of course, growth is limited. We will keep growing
> till everything is exploding in pieces, or collapsing.
In fact what actually happened is that NOT ONE modern first world
country is even self replacing on population if you take out immigration.
No exploding in pieces or collapsing either.
> Perhaps we need a good plague, or a thermonuclear war to stop the demented growth.
Clearly the first world doesnt need anything like that. JUST industrialization.
>> As for now, there is plenty of room left in the world and more
>> than enough space to grow food. Where I live, lots more land
>> it taken OUT of production than put into production, but we
>> still seem to grow more and more food year in and year out.
> In some place there is more room and water to grow food. But in
> many other places there are plenty of land but no water to grow food.
> Just take a look at the world map. You need to learn a little geography.
> In the US school do not teach much geography.
>> Energy use will remain in equilibrium forever. It has
>> to. There is no choice. If oil goes higher, then more
>> substitutes will come onto the market.
> we would not lack energy for the next millennium,
> but not at the rate we are spending now.
Wrong, as always. The only thing we have any problem with is
transport fuels and that is trivially fixable by changing to nukes and
heating out houses with the power from them instead of wasting natural
gas on heating houses and use that as a transport fuel for our cars.
> If the rate of consumption goes down to 1/1000 rate that our present
> consumption there would be not any trouble to have some candles,
Completely pointless going that route.
> and we would have some wind mills to produce electricity, and some dams also.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use nukes and heat our houses as well.
> What if instead of 6.7 billion people we were just 6.7 million only?
Not even possible.
> It would be much easier, isn't it?
Nope, what would be needed to get to that would be nothing like much easier.
Corse you are always welcome to hang yourself any time you like.
Rod Speed
Because a dutch ship showed up and decimated the population with european diseases.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2589097.htm
> There were no more tree to chop on the island.
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
> 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.
All it actually proves is that tiny islands can be very vulnerable ecologically.
> I am very pessimistic about the collective mind of humans is rational.
Your problem. Have a look at what the west has achieved sometime.
Robert Olin
growth with it's one child policy and they are dead serious about it. It
sounds harsh but they will probably avert millions of horrible deaths by
famine.
One hundred million couples with a third child add one hundred million
additional people to the planet and they all need recourses and space. I
really get irritated at some self proclaimed environmentalist with 3 or 4
kids trying to limit my property rights. The president should get on a
bully pulpit and talk about responsible family size. With that said - I
don't see it ending well. It is inevitable that we will become as crowded
as India with slums to match. Also - big business loves cheap abundant
labor.
--
Robert Olin
Bob's Water & Septic LLC
jo...@whidbey.net
http://soilsandseptic.com/bobs.html
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7emslrF...@mid.individual.net...
Rod Speed
> It is interesting that only China is making a serious attempt to limit
> growth with it's one child policy and they are dead serious about it.
It is indeed.
> It sounds harsh but they will probably avert millions of horrible deaths by famine.
That isnt going to happen. We dont see famine anymore except where
the country has degenerated into the most obscene levels of civil war
and civil chaos or is dinosauring away like with North Korea.
> One hundred million couples with a third child add one hundred million
> additional people to the planet and they all need recourses and space.
That isnt a problem in the first world which isnt even self
replacing now on population if you take out immigration.
> I really get irritated at some self proclaimed environmentalist with 3 or 4 kids trying to limit my property rights.
That all averages out fine in the first world now.
> The president should get on a bully pulpit and talk about responsible family size.
No need, we've fixed the problem without that in the modern first world.
> With that said - I don't see it ending well.
It clearly did with the first world and china. It remains to be seen
if places like India and the third world will ever come to their senses.
> It is inevitable that we will become as crowded as India with slums to match.
Not in the first world.
> Also - big business loves cheap abundant labor.
Not anymore. They have enough of a clue to get that sort of thing done in china now,
where the labor is vastly cheaper than it can ever be in the first world anymore.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
George Conklin
"Robert Olin" <jo...@whidbey.net> wrote in message
news:YqqdnfsXl5YwdDjX...@whidbeytel.com...
> It is interesting that only China is making a serious attempt to limit
> growth with it's one child policy and they are dead serious about it. It
> sounds harsh but they will probably avert millions of horrible deaths by
> famine.
>
> One hundred million couples with a third child add one hundred million
> additional people to the planet and they all need recourses and space. I
> really get irritated at some self proclaimed environmentalist with 3 or 4
> kids trying to limit my property rights. The president should get on a
> bully pulpit and talk about responsible family size. With that said - I
> don't see it ending well. It is inevitable that we will become as crowded
> as India with slums to match. Also - big business loves cheap abundant
> labor.
The TFRs in the USA are exactly at replacment levels.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Robert Olin wrote
>>> It is interesting that only China is making a serious attempt to limit growth with it's one child policy and they
>>> are dead serious about it.
>> It is indeed.
>>> It sounds harsh but they will probably avert millions of horrible deaths by famine.
>> That isnt going to happen. We dont see famine anymore except where the country has degenerated into the most obscene
>> levels of civil war and civil chaos or is dinosauring away like with North Korea.
> We have not seen any famine yet.
And we wont either, you watch.
> You keep telling this again and again.
Because its true.
We dont see famine anymore except where the country
has degenerated into the most obscene levels of civil war
and civil chaos or is dinosauring away like with North Korea.
> Well, we have watched a few famines, but they were disguised as civil wars,
They werent 'disguised' as civil wars, they were CAUSED by civil wars.
> because as soon as a food crisis start, it produces a civil war.
How odd that NOT ONE civil war in western europe was caused that way.
How odd that the famines we did see in India and China
last century didnt produce even a single civil war there.
> The civil wars explode the moment a food crisis began to show their horns.
Pure fantasy. That wasnt what produced the english civil war.
Or the spanish civil war either.
> So, this generates a lot confusion.
Only for fools like you.
> Who came first the egg or the hen?
We've seen plenty of civil wars that had nothing to do with a food crisis
and plenty of food crises that had nothing to do with civil war either.
> I have the suspicion that a relative scarcity of food degenerates into a civil war,
How odd that you cant list even a single example in modern times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars
> or an international one.
It isnt even possible to have an international civil war.
> But, so far, we have escaped to many food crisis, because we are
> expending a lot of energy (a lot of oil) in producing and transporting food.
Nope, mostly because we industrialised agriculture and did a hell of a lot
of very effective plant breeding, often called the green revolution etc.
> We have even also giving food to North Korea, our sworn enemy.
And they were stupid enough to try to claim for a long time that they didnt have a famine.
> We have been helping with capital and investments to China, for it is a lot better to have China on our side.
They havent had famine for quite a while now. The last
time it was due to that fool Mao fucking around with food
production and that didnt produce a civil war then either.
> We have done this, in spite that Chine is still a communist country.
Not anymore in any more than name.
> We have been helping also to Viet Nam another communist country.
And they havent had a famine in a hell of a long time now and had a civil war too.
> Europe and US is importing cheap goods from Vietnam, to help the country to be more or less decent. To have it on the
> good side of the divide.
Nope, because they buy cheap goods regardless of where they come from.
> Even Europe has invested in Cuba sin the sixties to help this country to a certain point. Cuban needs badly some
> foreign money.
They've never had a famine and have had a few civil wars.
> But the troubles I foresee with overcrowding are not so visible at this moment, but in a few countries.
How odd that the most overcrowded, HongKong,
hasnt ever had a famine, or a civil war either.
> I am simple foreseeing them in a near future.
But dont have a shred of evidence to support your claims.
> A future, in which the oil would begin to be scarce. The
> crisis would explode first in the most vulnerable nations.
Nope, there wont be any crisis. The 'most vulnerable nations'
dont even use that much oil and those that do in those will just
have to deal with the higher price of oil just like everyone else does.
As the price of oil increases, that will make oil from coal more viable
and shale oil etc and the only downside will be the higher price.
And even when all the coal and shale oil etc is gone too,
we can just use hydrogen from nukes as a transport fuel.
The sky aint falling, Chicken Little.
>>> One hundred million couples with a third child add one hundred million additional people to the planet and they all
>>> need recourses and space.
>>
>> That isnt a problem in the first world which isnt even self
>> replacing now on population if you take out immigration.
>>
>>> I really get irritated at some self proclaimed environmentalist
>>> with 3 or 4 kids trying to limit my property rights.
>>
>> That all averages out fine in the first world now.
>>
>>> The president should get on a bully pulpit and talk about
>>> responsible family size.
>>
>> No need, we've fixed the problem without that in the modern first
>> world.
>>> With that said - I don't see it ending well.
>>
>> It clearly did with the first world and china. It remains to be seen
>> if places like India and the third world will ever come to their
>> senses.
>>> It is inevitable that we will become as crowded as India with slums
>>> to match.
>>
>> Not in the first world.
>>
>>> Also - big business loves cheap abundant labor.
>>
>> Not anymore. They have enough of a clue to get that sort of thing
>> done in china now, where the labor is vastly cheaper than it can
>> ever be in the first world anymore.
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Geodewrote: