5 ms·

When the ecosystem is saturated with humans, as it currently is under our current lifestyles, the increasing speed of land price increase is simply a microcosm,

When the ecosystem is saturated with humans, as it currently is under our current lifestyles, the increasing speed of land price increase is simply a microcosm, a symptom, of the planet saying that it's unaffordable for further humans to exist. The answer is not to figure out how we can pack YET MORE of us into every visible empty space. But I suspect it will take some time and dramatics for that fairly existential realisation to bed in. The real estate market in Japan is evidence that land value stagnation goes hand-in-hand with population stagnation. Imagine suddenly doubling Japan's population over the next 30-40 years - you think those Tokyo apartments would keep getting cheaper??

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
We are absolutely nowhere close to running out of empty space for people to live. Population growth has slowed greatly and we most likely never will. We are running out of space that has a sufficient population density to sustain a viable economy for people who aren't farmers and where you are still legally allowed to build housing. The solution to that is simple, you just need to allow housing to be built.
- crtified 4y ago
  The world-average ecological footprint in 2016 was 2.75 global hectares per person, a deficit of 1.1 hectares per person, or 40%. Unsustainability isn't some vague future concept or possibility. It's already here. The ecological inertia of the entire homo sapiens species is already too great to be behaviourally overcome within the timeframes necessary to avert significantly disruptive climate change. The growth trend cannot continue at it's recent historical rates.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    What a complete non sequitur. Our lifestyles aren't unsustainable because of too much urban housing. If anything, it's the exact opposite. Suburban sprawl and car centric development extending into unpopulated areas is unsustainable. Densifying already populated areas is much more sustainable.
    - crtified 4y ago
      I accept the point you're trying to make, but we'd be remiss to think it were the only (or even dominant) factor in the overall equation.
danaris 4y ago
"The planet is overpopulated" is ecofascist propaganda—and, these days, at least aligns very nicely with the interests of the very wealthy. There is plenty of room, and plenty of resources, for the people we have, and the people we are likely to have by the time we peak. The problem is not the amount; it's the allocation. So every time you think "this is only a problem because we have too many people," instead of "this is only a problem because there are a few people hoarding all the land/money/resources," you're moving away from being able to effectively solve the problem, because you're not correctly identifying the cause.
- crtified 4y ago
  Japan imports a great deal of it's energy and food supplies. If reliant solely upon it's own ecological means, the human population it could support would be far less. Does that make Japan a proportional hoarder of the global ecology's food and energy resources, by virtue of it's high population? Or does your concept of proportionality only apply at the individual scale?
- midoridensha 4y ago
  I disagree: There IS plenty of room and resources (more than enough really) if people can figure out how to live ecologically, in efficient high-density cities. However, if they all want to live like suburban Americans with giant gas-guzzling SUVs and highways and McMansions, all powered by fossil fuel, there's nowhere near enough resources for 8 billion people to live like that.
  - danaris 4y ago
    I mean, you're right, but that's a strawman. No one, to my knowledge, has ever seriously suggested that the standard of living we should be aiming for for everyone on earth is "early 2000s immature American low-end millionaire". It's painfully obvious that the reason you even mention giant gas-guzzling SUVs and McMansions is because those things are self-evidently terrible even in small amounts. McMansions are naked examples of conspicuous consumption, and the classic "giant gas-guzzling SUV" is a Hummer H3, which is also very clearly something that people buy because they want to make a statement (usually one about their manliness and/or hatred of "the libs"), not because they genuinely feel that it's the best car for a particular job. Now, there are genuine discussions to be had about just what level of consumption is sustainable for a population of 8-10 billion people, but they don't look anything like what you're offering here.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago

We are absolutely nowhere close to running out of empty space for people to live. Population growth has slowed greatly and we most likely never will. We are running out of space that has a sufficient population density to sustain a viable economy for people who aren't farmers and where you are still legally allowed to build housing. The solution to that is simple, you just need to allow housing to be built.

crtified 4y ago
The world-average ecological footprint in 2016 was 2.75 global hectares per person, a deficit of 1.1 hectares per person, or 40%. Unsustainability isn't some vague future concept or possibility. It's already here. The ecological inertia of the entire homo sapiens species is already too great to be behaviourally overcome within the timeframes necessary to avert significantly disruptive climate change. The growth trend cannot continue at it's recent historical rates.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  What a complete non sequitur. Our lifestyles aren't unsustainable because of too much urban housing. If anything, it's the exact opposite. Suburban sprawl and car centric development extending into unpopulated areas is unsustainable. Densifying already populated areas is much more sustainable.
  - crtified 4y ago
    I accept the point you're trying to make, but we'd be remiss to think it were the only (or even dominant) factor in the overall equation.

danaris 4y ago

"The planet is overpopulated" is ecofascist propaganda—and, these days, at least aligns very nicely with the interests of the very wealthy. There is plenty of room, and plenty of resources, for the people we have, and the people we are likely to have by the time we peak. The problem is not the amount; it's the allocation. So every time you think "this is only a problem because we have too many people," instead of "this is only a problem because there are a few people hoarding all the land/money/resources," you're moving away from being able to effectively solve the problem, because you're not correctly identifying the cause.

crtified 4y ago
Japan imports a great deal of it's energy and food supplies. If reliant solely upon it's own ecological means, the human population it could support would be far less. Does that make Japan a proportional hoarder of the global ecology's food and energy resources, by virtue of it's high population? Or does your concept of proportionality only apply at the individual scale?
midoridensha 4y ago
I disagree: There IS plenty of room and resources (more than enough really) if people can figure out how to live ecologically, in efficient high-density cities. However, if they all want to live like suburban Americans with giant gas-guzzling SUVs and highways and McMansions, all powered by fossil fuel, there's nowhere near enough resources for 8 billion people to live like that.
- danaris 4y ago
  I mean, you're right, but that's a strawman. No one, to my knowledge, has ever seriously suggested that the standard of living we should be aiming for for everyone on earth is "early 2000s immature American low-end millionaire". It's painfully obvious that the reason you even mention giant gas-guzzling SUVs and McMansions is because those things are self-evidently terrible even in small amounts. McMansions are naked examples of conspicuous consumption, and the classic "giant gas-guzzling SUV" is a Hummer H3, which is also very clearly something that people buy because they want to make a statement (usually one about their manliness and/or hatred of "the libs"), not because they genuinely feel that it's the best car for a particular job. Now, there are genuine discussions to be had about just what level of consumption is sustainable for a population of 8-10 billion people, but they don't look anything like what you're offering here.